[caminante]

Your argument isn't principled because starting in the 20th century is arbitrary. Why not go back in time to the 15-1600s when the Ottoman Empire went "colonial" on Jews?

We don't have a time machine.

In the present, Israel could go full pacifist, and Hezbollah doesn't go away.

[komali2]

> Your argument isn't principled because starting in the 20th century is arbitrary.

No it isn't, we were alive in the 20th century, it's recent and we are fully capable of, and responsible for, handling fallout from decisions made during it. Your argument justifies any imperialism. "Last year Israel occupied more Palestinian territory - it's the same as ancient history, demanding they give it back is like demanding Greece re-establishes the sovereignty of Athens."

> In the present, Israel could go full pacifist, and Hezbollah doesn't go away.

Pretty speculative. An Israel that gives back sovereignty and autonomy as well as stolen land back to Palestine (and now Lebanon), releases prisoners, and regime changes out the ethnosupremacist government takes basically all the wind out of the sails of groups resisting it as the evil it currently is.

Actually negotiating and following through is something current Israel can't swallow because it's deeply racist against the people with whom it's meant to be negotiating.

[caminante]

> we were alive in the 20th century...

"we"? Your point's either literal (false) or figurative (arbitrary).

Why would you say something so misleading? You'd be 100 years old for the pre-Israel British-colonial period or almost 80 for the instantiation of Israel. It seems you're unclear when Israel showed up as colonialists.

> Your argument justifies any imperialism.

Fallacy: Israel's actions and Hezbollah's actions can both be bad.

> Pretty speculative.

No, you made my point! LOL!

Now, observe your list of conditions needed (return land, release prisoners, regime change). Isn't it ironic that you laid out a bunch of actions that are far more aggressive than what I proposed? You're basically saying that a more extreme compromise is needed than what I proposed!

> it's deeply racist against the people with whom it's meant to be negotiating.

Let's accept this is true (which is terrible). The flaw is that you're blindly dismissing Hezbollah/Hamas as moderates and their stated goals to eradicate Israelis. You can't leave them out of the picture and to do so is arbitrary.

[komali2]

> (return land, release prisoners, regime change).

Is your proposal to "just stop doing war?" There's a reason it's happening - Israel has engaged in imperialism and genocide, and there are people alive today from whom Israel and its settlers have taken land. There's still a lot of Palestinians who can't return to their homes. Of the three entities, Israel is the one with the most (literal) ground it needs to give back to "even the scales."

Undoubtedly Hezbollah and Hamas have antisemitic members that are very interested in killing Jewish people, just as there's clear evidence for the same in the IDF, however of the two, only one has engaged in actualized genocide (the IDF), so the dissolution of the State that promoted this is a moral good. It doesn't require "the eradication of Israelis" as you say, and again, Hamas only exists because of Israel, whereas the elimination of Hamas obviously is doing nothing to stop Israel's genocide against the Palestinians (and it's clear interest in expanding this genocide and imperialism against anyone it can describe as "Arab").

You seem to be accusing me of being arbitrary because you're claiming Hezbollah/Hamas is equal to Israel in terms of evil behavior, when that isn't true: Israel is the far more evil entity, and the goal of Hezbollah and Hamas to resist and dissolve the Israeli state - there's a reason Hamas revised their charter to remove all the obviously anti-semitic stuff and focus instead on resistance ethno-supremacy movement that underlies every aspect of Israel's existence as a State.

Why not simply make all of Israel ruled by the PA? Can you make an argument against that that isn't Islamophobic? Because the reality is that Hamas and Hezbollah are moderates when compared to the actions of Israel over the past few decades, and in any case the PA was absolutely moderate and liberal compared to Israel.

[caminante]

You're not being objective or historically accurate in your take.

Don't believe me?

I encourage you to put this in an LLM and ask if you're being fair.

E.g., calling an Iran backed Shia militant group "moderate" compared to Israel is hyperbolical.

[komali2]

> I encourage you to put this in an LLM and ask if you're being fair.

Or, I could engage in a conversation with a human, like you. LLMs only tell you what you want to hear. This is disappointing that you suggested this to me, it leads me to believe you're doing this, which means your beliefs aren't backed by evidence, they're just things you thought of and then had an LLM validate.

> Don't believe me?

Nope. I am correct, objective, and historically accurate, and you're failing to demonstrate otherwise.

> E.g., calling an Iran backed Shia militant group "moderate" compared to Israel is hyperbolical.

You're just throwing around scare terms now. Nothing about "Iran" or "Shia" makes me think they're inherently more evil than "Israel." It smells like Islamophobia to me to suggest otherwise.

Here is a list of Israeli war crimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_war_crimes

Israel is continually committing war crimes, every day, including today. Every Israeli strike against Iran civilians constitutes an war of aggression and violates the UN charter and is a war crime. It has engaged in collective punishment of Palestinians, blockade, denial of water and destruction of wells, forced relocation, has admitted to using white phosphorous (including in residential areas and against Unifil peacekeepers), attacked schools, refugee camps, churches, mosques, and civilians seeking food, and has shot and killed children.

Now convince me that the IDF as a radical ethno-supremacist militant group led by a terrorist country is less evil than "an Iran backed Shia militant group."

[caminante]

I challenge you to find a third party, credible news source that calls Hezbollah "moderate" as you framed them.

Until then, you really can't defend your fundamental claims. I suspect you're intentionally avoiding uncomfortable truths about your core beliefs.

>is less evil than "an Iran backed Shia militant group.

See. Examples like this demonstrate you can't keep your thoughts consistent. Is it a scare term or as you just acknowledged, a proxy terrorist group funded by a foreign entity?