3 ms·

And you are cleary using a false argument. GP said that the conflict werent started by israel while your argument is about who started the kinetic war. A confl

And you are cleary using a false argument. GP said that the conflict werent started by israel while your argument is about who started the kinetic war. A conflict in these cases started before the first shot was fired, hence your take is just wrong.

aguaviva 2y ago
Right, I was talking about kinetic engagements. Which are pretty much all that matter when one makes the mistake of stepping into these silly "who started it?" debates. As for who started the whole "conflict" in Palestine, metaphysically speaking -- we all know the answer to that question.
- fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
  The only forward is to agree both/all sides are to blame (and they are) and go from there. Anything else is just silly.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Can't agree with you in terms of the conflict's deep origins (pre-1947). However it seems we do strongly agree in terms of shared blame for the conflict's continuance at nearly every stage since then. And that's really all that should matter, at this juncture. In that vein, it seems we should also agree that there's no need for implications that it was Israel's neighbors who "really" started the 3 major wars in its post-independence history in which it explicitly (as in the whole Cabinet sitting down together and saying, "Okay, let's do this") initiated large-scale operations in the absence of any credible immediate threat to itself.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
In the 1967 war, Israel claimed that it's attack was preemptive, but it actually seems most likely that Egypt was not going to attack Israel. The Israelis had massive military superiority over the Arab armies in 1967, and they knew it (at least, the Israeli leadership knew it). They expected the war to be a fast, lopsided victory, which is what it turned out to be.

3 ms·

And you are cleary using a false argument. GP said that the conflict werent started by israel while your argument is about who started the kinetic war. A confl

by fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago

aguaviva 2y ago
Right, I was talking about kinetic engagements. Which are pretty much all that matter when one makes the mistake of stepping into these silly "who started it?" debates. As for who started the whole "conflict" in Palestine, metaphysically speaking -- we all know the answer to that question.
- fdslfkjdslkffd 2y ago
  The only forward is to agree both/all sides are to blame (and they are) and go from there. Anything else is just silly.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Can't agree with you in terms of the conflict's deep origins (pre-1947). However it seems we do strongly agree in terms of shared blame for the conflict's continuance at nearly every stage since then. And that's really all that should matter, at this juncture. In that vein, it seems we should also agree that there's no need for implications that it was Israel's neighbors who "really" started the 3 major wars in its post-independence history in which it explicitly (as in the whole Cabinet sitting down together and saying, "Okay, let's do this") initiated large-scale operations in the absence of any credible immediate threat to itself.
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
In the 1967 war, Israel claimed that it's attack was preemptive, but it actually seems most likely that Egypt was not going to attack Israel. The Israelis had massive military superiority over the Arab armies in 1967, and they knew it (at least, the Israeli leadership knew it). They expected the war to be a fast, lopsided victory, which is what it turned out to be.