you’ve laid out a long list of assumptions about my positions instead of dealing with the stark strategic reality of the region.


You state that Iran's funding must be removed entirely via international sanctions, and that if you cut the funding, you 'reduce the degree to which people you are oppressing... can resist.' Look at what you are admitting here. You are explicitly defining Hamas and Hezbollah's actions massacres of civilians, suicide bombings, and firing tens of thousands of indiscriminate rockets at cities as 'resistance.' This completely exposes the flaw in your argument. The West Bank settlements are a deeply contentious political issue with plenty of internal Israeli debate and criticism. But to imply that a border dispute in Judea and Samaria is what drives a fundamentalist jihadist group in Gaza or Lebanon to launch a war of annihilation is completely false. Hamas and Hezbollah do not fight for a two-state solution or a frozen settlement line; their stated goal is the complete eradication of the Jewish state. Furthermore, relying on 'international sanctions' to stop Iran is a proven failure. Iran has been heavily sanctioned for decades, yet they still managed to fund a multi-billion-dollar regional terror network. Expecting Israel to outsource its survival to international committees while missiles are actively raining down on its citizens is not a viable security strategy.

You claim Israel’s responses are disproportionate. Let’s define what 'proportionality' actually means in international law. It does not mean an equal body count. It does not mean that if one side is bad at killing civilians because the other side invested billions in bomb shelters and Iron Dome, the victim has to pause and let more of its citizens die to make the numbers look 'fair.' Proportionality in warfare means that the military force used must be proportional to the military objective which is the permanent elimination of the threat. When an enemy embeds its entire military infrastructure inside civilian apartment buildings, hospitals, and schools, the tragic reality of urban warfare is that eliminating that threat requires massive force. If your definition of 'proportionate' means Israel must leave the terror infrastructure intact to avoid civilian casualties, you are giving a permanent immunity shield to any terrorist who hides behind a child. No sovereign nation on earth would accept those terms.

You label Israel's strikes across the region as 'acts of aggression.' This is an incredible inversion of reality. Israel is a small country surrounded by an Iranian-led 'ring of fire' consisting of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and radical militias in Syria and Iraq. Over the past two years, all of these groups have been launched into a coordinated, multi-front war against Israel. When Israel strikes long-range assets in Iran, Syria, or anywhere else, it is not launching a war of expansion. It is striking the head of the snake that is feeding the proxies on its borders. Calling a defensive strike against an active launchpad 'aggression' is like blaming a person for punching back after being surrounded by five attackers.

You conclude by saying Israel is a small country with a glaring problem regarding its neighbors. We know exactly how small we are. That is precisely why we cannot afford to lose a single war. If Canada or Mexico explicitly dedicated themselves to the total erasure of the United States and launched thousands of rockets at American cities, the U.S. would completely flatten those threats within weeks, and no one would lecture them about 'restraint.'
I never said the IDF or the Israeli government is above criticism. There are fierce, daily debates inside Israel about our borders, our leadership, and our future. But there is a massive difference between criticizing a government's domestic policies and demanding that a state apologize for refusing to let its enemies butcher its population. Rather than sidestepping the humanity of Palestinians, I am acknowledging a harsh truth: Hamas and Hezbollah are the ones who weaponize Palestinian lives by using them as human shields to enforce a permanent state of war. Israel's military actions aren't born out of a desire to 'oppress' they are born out of the absolute necessity to ensure that when our children go to sleep, they don't wake up to air raid sirens or terrorists breaching their windows

why is this an argument? just because you use big words doesnt make your thinking valid lmao. Israel has done everything it possibly can to instigate war and knows america has to do its bidding (more than likely its a show and they are both in on it) Plans get drawn up for a ceasefire, Israel attacks. Its demolished gaza , Netanyahu is a literal war criminal wanted by the ICC . Genocide in gaza, repeatedly broken ceasefires perpetuating the war, White phosphorus used on civilians, Blocking journalists, blocking aid, operation cast thy bread, nakba 1 , nakba 2, tons of online proof of war crimes. yet somehow this spastic goon thinks he can justify all these actions by typing out paragraphs and technicalities. Youre literally a moron m8.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what happens when someone completely runs out of arguments. You didn't address a single point I made about international law or defensive strategy; you just threw a tantrum, mixed in some conspiracy theories about America, and rattled off a checklist of internet buzzwords.
Let's look at your historical confusion. You bring up 'Operation Cast Thy Bread' a psychological warfare operation from 1948 and try to paste it onto a modern conflict involving high-tech Iranian proxy armies. You scream about 'broken ceasefires,' completely ignoring that Hamas broke the peace on October 7th, and Hezbollah violated a UN-mandated ceasefire every single day since 2006 by pointing 150,000 rockets at our cities.
You are upset because I use paragraphs and structure. Those 'technicalities' are called facts, history, and international law. I understand it’s frustrating to watch your emotional narrative fall apart against real-world logic, but crying about 'big words' and throwing insults doesn't make you right. It just shows you lost the debate

you are so completely out of touch with reality i dont have time to sit here and argue with you. just know you are a complete moron.

He just accused me being completely out of touch🤦

Israel looked content with the status quo ante of peace with gaza and hezbollah and Iran. Even with Israelis voting in the right wing candidate several times, Netanyahu made no attempts at proactive war. Israel could have bombed Iran or done another operation Cast Lead at any time. They didn't.

It was Hamas who invaded Israel in a surprise attack and indiscriminately killed anyone they could. All of Israel's militancy since then is a fruit born of that root. Israel didn't instigate the war, now those who attacked them and those who made it possible are trying to fight a PR war when they lost on the battlefield

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 3 2026 08:21am

side stepping alot of that (the above responses and i did draft a longer response but did not post it as it was way too messy) all i would say is:

You say: Proportionality in warfare means that the military force used must be proportional to the military objective which is the permanent elimination of the threat.
I would say: While threat elimination is the central goal, the protection (or non targeting of) civilian life is/should be, a constraint/influence how force is applied.

The reality is that Hamas was severely degraded as a military force within months of Oct 7th, yet Israel still continued to bomb Gaza for a further 2 years, after the primary objective was achieved. This is the issue that many of us have.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 3 2026 08:50am

You are conflating two entirely different concepts: a military constraint versus a military objective, while fundamentally misunderstanding what it means to neutralize a threat.
First, international law absolutely recognizes civilian protection as a constraint (the principle of distinction and avoiding excessive collateral damage relative to the military advantage). But it does not state that if an enemy hides behind civilians, you must stop fighting them and leave them in power. That would give any terrorist group a permanent license to attack with total immunity.
Second, your claim that the 'primary objective was achieved within months' because Hamas was 'severely degraded' is completely divorced from military reality. A 'degraded' terrorist organization that still holds hostages, refuses to surrender, controls underground fortresses, and retains the command structure to rearm is not a defeated threat. If the Allies in WWII had stopped fighting Nazi Germany the moment the Luftwaffe was 'severely degraded' in 1944, the regime would have simply rebuilt, rearmed, and continued the war.
'Degraded' is not 'neutralized.' Leaving an armed, genocidal dictatorship in control of a border territory with the explicit promise that they will repeat October 7th again and again is not an option for any sovereign nation. The objective is the total dismantling of their military and governing capability so they can never threaten our children again. Stopping halfway isn't humanitarian; it’s just subsidizing the next war.

this is a gross oversimplification.

no one with half a brain would argue that Israel was bound by international law to stop the war entirely the moment Gaza city was destroyed. The issue they have is with actual specific things. Like using people in food lines as target practice. Like restricting the food that is coming into the territory purposely. Like targeting journalists. Like using drones in refugee camps and spraying tents with bullets.

Israeli propoganda has been using this strawman for a long time. you're arguing blue haired idiots with a 60 IQ that no one takes seriously. Its not that you're still engaged in war, its HOW you're still engaged in war. your actions make you barbaric, not your path. the same goes in Lebanon, sure you have an arguable case to be made that a security threat is there that you must neutralize. That doesnt excuse the use of white phosphorus.

but this has always been the case for Israel. they never argue the actual things the do, they strawman and deflect to a more broad conversation no one is really that interested in about if they have a right to exist. you're legitimizing the arguments of the most radical free palestine morons just so you can argue with them and not people with credible arguments that you can't counter. if forced to you'll just say its all a lie and likely antisemitism while invoking some nonsense blood libel trope.

That is assuming the war started on oct 7 . and you saying there was no reason leading up too oct 7 for a action to occur.. There was no peaceful protest being shot up by Israeli's..There was no attempts of negotiations by Hamas that was ignored by Israel and the U.S before oct 7? You can force someone to do action and then point the finger at them claiming look they started it" we just defending ourselves ..Like they did in Ukrain..

Just saying when you state it all started on oct 7 you are full of sht