I very patiently and politely tried steer the conversation beyond the counterproductive space of your singlemindedly trying to prove yourself right.
There, I’ve added one more comment, so it is no longer necessary that the last one is on a sour note.
I feel like it presents leftists as being as smug and snobbish as reactionaries.
You’re an insufferable child, completely irresponsible and locked in narrow loops of self importance.
The discussion now completely lacks any chance of becoming constructive.
You can take your animosity elsewhere.
You know what you wrote. Stop being obstinate.
I stand by my characterizations, regarding the allegations you repeated, as well as regarding issues more personal.
The truth is we don’t know what happened, and you find it hard to accept a world with uncertainty and nuance.
You find it hard to accept that there is not always a clear path to proving yourself right and proving someone else wrong.
Respecting the October 7 attacks, limited details are reliably known.
It is known that both Hamas and Israeli combatants perpetrated attacks, and it is known that many people were killed, including many Israelis.
It is known that Hamas taking hostages was planned as a important component of the mission, and that it was successful.
The claims of sexual assault have now been almost completely dismissed, many as completely lacking credibility, others as not supported adequately by evidence. Israel’s dishonest and obstructive conduct has obscured the truth, probably irredeemably.
Even generously accepting some of the evidence offered for sexual assault, it would remain unknown whether such acts were spontaneous choices by individuals, or ordered by higher tiers of command.
Furthermore, it is unknown how many of the Israelis who were killed died as a consequence of Israeli fire.
Regardless of your sense of intention, I feel it is right that you were called out for acting as mouthpiece of Israel and Zionism.
Intention is not normally considered a necessary condition for the characterization as a straw man.
Regardless of the specific term, any misrepresentation or misinterpretation is equally counterproductive regardless of intention.
Instead of defending your intention, perhaps try reflecting on whether you made any mistakes.
Moreover, the one who offers an argument is the one whose intended meaning is relevant in discussing the argument. When someone claims you have attacked a straw man, it is best to reengage with your own intention of genuinely understanding the intention of the argument you attacked. Instead, you have dug in your heels, only interested in finding a way to prove yourself right, and to prove someone else wrong.
What is it you want to prove for yourself?
You seem to be searching for some straightforward and unambiguous proof that you are right, whereas I consider it completely right that you were called out for acting as a mouthpiece of Israel and Zionism.
It would be best for you to let go of your need for the world to be explained in terms that are black and while.
At least one thing really is simple, though. If you want not to be called a mouthpiece of Israel, then you should stop acting as one.
Something is either debunked, or it isn’t. That’s simply not a complex issue.
The actual events, and ascertaining them reliably, obviously are very complicated.
The simplest way to address your question is still relatively simple, but less simple than you pretend.
The question you insist is simple conflates two different things. One is the fact of fatalities occurring during conflict, and the other is the Israeli narrative as parroted uncritically.
One is accepted fact, which no one contests, and one is debunked propaganda.
You should be adequately thoughtful and sincere to acknowledge the distinction.
Because if you did, you’d have to decide whether to go with… I wonder which it is.
You should stop wondering, and start acknowledging that you have constructed a rather absurd false dichotomy.
It says a lot about you that I addressed your question directly and appropriately, several times now in succession, yet you still act too dense to understand.
Simple question.
There’s your problem. You’re trying to discuss complex political issues with massively absurd oversimplifications.
I answered your question. If you don’t accept the answer, that’s on you.
Your “gotcha” questioning isn’t the own you think.
You blundered, by uncritically parroting Israeli propaganda used to justify Israel’s atrocities.
Instead you should learn about the serious problems with the Israeli narrative. and then reevaluate your own perspective. Until then, your discussing the subject is not productive.
To people not dwelling in a rabbit hole of Zionist propaganda, my characterization is not misleading.
If someone says a Tale of Two Cities is fiction, are they lying because Old Bailey and the Bastille are real?
Hasbara is Israeli propaganda.
No one claims that no one was killed, only that Israel’s account of events is deeply inaccurate. Arguing against the claim that no one was killed is, in the most charitable case, misconstruing the controversy.
For example, we do know that many of the Israeli deaths were directly attributable to fire from Israeli gunships.
Continuing as you do, either you are poorly informed, or deliberately dishonest.
No one claims, to my knowledge not one person ever, that the massive death toll for Hamas’s surprise attack “didn’t happen”.
Please stop attacking such an absurd straw man.
It is essential to acknowledge, however, that Israel’s account of events is not credible.
You’re batting one thousand.
Dumb and dumberer.
What is my mistake?
The irony I see is that you inadvertently demonstrate the pointlessness of attempting a discussion with a Zionist.
Nothing comes of it except deflections, obfuscations, and lies.
No war but class war!
Gazans perpetrating a surprise attack on Israel is, despite the irony, unsurprising.
Further, Netanyahu has benefited from it personally and politically.
Netanyahu arranging or ordering the attacks would require a conspiracy, for which there is absolutely not one shred of evidence. The likelihood is vanishingly small.
If you think my explanation is “incoherent ramblings”, then you are not a serious person capable of discussing constructively.
The uncomplicated theme across my earlier comments has been that you discuss dishonestly, which becomes increasingly evident as discussion progresses.
I tried to address your misconceptions about straw man arguments, but when they were laid plain you deflected to insults.