[Cyph0n]

> In short, it's complicated.

No, it is not. The US has the power to sanction entire states & cut them out from the global banking system overnight. Look at what Cuba has suffered for daring to oppose the US.

> but Israel has a 700B GDP economy now

That would mean shit if the country is sanctioned and its leaders declared persona non grata. South Africa was similarly quite powerful, but when you’re reliant on Western backing and integration, existing as a pariah state is not a sustainable position to be in.

[lovich]

Yea, but that’s not a single phone call from the president. I know we’re getting closer and closer to an Imperial Executive every year but we definitely weren’t there under Biden.

[Cyph0n]

Let’s just agree to disagree, although we will never know for sure given that Biden is a self-avowed Zionist who chose the path of unconditional support.

[lovich]

I will not agree to disagree.

If you believe that " ... Biden could've ended that conflict with a phone call ... " as the original poster I replied to said, then please explain to me the mechanics of who exactly he would call, and how that phone call would end this conflict.

I am asking that because I am appalled at how often people discussing this conflict act like fucking wars between different organizations can just be solved with a snap of someone's fingers.

If you cannot engage with the complexities of reality, then you shouldn't be surprised that problems aren't solved as quickly, easily, and simply as you feel they should be.

This is a region that has been in constant warfare for longer than the US has existed as a nation between people where(and I hate to use this term because its normally a whataboutism) both sides have refused peace and appear ready to fight until their opponents or themselves are eradicated. No fucking third party putting sanctions on one group or the other is going to cause their fighting to end or we would have already seen the end of the Ukrainian/Russian war.

As an addendum to the above, when you say "agree to disagree" but then add your opinion at the end with

> ... although we will never know for sure given that Biden is a self-avowed Zionist who chose the path of unconditional support.

You are commenting in bad faith.

[Cyph0n]

I engage in online discussions for one of two reasons:

1. To present a viewpoint to readers through debating with one or more people. Crucially, in this scenario, I am not interested in winning over my interlocutor(s).

2. To convince someone I personally know and/or who is clearly amenable to changing their viewpoint on the topic.

(1) doesn’t apply here because we are deep into a reply chain that virtually no one else is reading.

(2) doesn’t apply because I do not know you. I also have a very strong position on the topic of Palestine and am not interested in engaging one on one with someone who is far off from my position.

That is why I decided to pull out of the discussion. Have a good one.

[lovich]

I do the same, but I’m not going to agree with you. Fine if the conversation stops here because you’re pulling out, but I was not willing to concede.