[W:348]Terror Tunnels ?

[CJ 2.0]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

I have condemned both suicide bombings against civilians and have referred to the rocket attacks as indiscriminate attacks and crimes. You have read enough of my posts here to know that already so your decision to invert my position so as to try to sully me is imo proof of a dishonest approach to debate. Unless of course you can show posts where I support those actions. My position is constant and clear. I support their right to resist legitimately not illegitimately ( massively well documented here)

Well let's see.

"Of course they are resisting. I might differ to their view but it's not my place to tell Palestinians what they can and cannot deem as being " occupied Palestinian territory ". They never signed the 4th Geneva Convention "

So (1) They are "resisting" by targeting civilians, (2) even though they view all of Israel as being "occupied Palestinian territories" it is "not your place" to tell them that trying to conquer Israel isn't a legitimate goal to use force or terrorism to achieve and (3) they "didn't sign the Geneva conventions" so the rules of what they are allowed to do don't apply.

And you of course have no problems completely not engaging in the hundreds of war crimes the "Palestinian factions" have engaged in this week. Cause every single one of those rockets is a war crime. Par for the course where you don't engage with the actual goals of Palestinian "resistance".

What you have done is to bizarrely twist my position , of not thinking I have the right to decide for the Palestinians what is occupied territory and what is not, into a support for terrorism/terrorist attacks

No, I have accurately depicted your position, stripped of the false equivocation and rhetoric of the pro-Palestinian narrative.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Second straw man deployment ........they're coming in thick and fast now............ " Israel’s existence counts as “aggression” and Israeli efforts to defend their people are illegitimate."

"it's not my place to tell Palestinians what they can and cannot deem as being " occupied Palestinian territory ". They never signed the 4th Geneva Convention"

"as for who are the " aggressors " ................as I stated earlier , the Zionist immigrants from Europe were the initial aggressors due to their wish to oust the locals in order to carve out their own state on the territory"

So again, stripped of the moral preening and distorted veneer of the pro-Palestinian propaganda line, Israel's existence is the aggression (both since Jews seeking their own country in their homeland was "aggression" and who are you to tell the Palestinians what they view as "occupied Palestinian territory") and the Palestinian "resistance" is justified and who are you to tell them what to do.

The occupation in '67 was completely 100% justified because of Arab attempts to destroy Israel. You pretend they weren't because Israel's existence was "the original aggression" which necessarily means that the Jews didn't have a right to defend their population. You can't have it both ways.

Israel , like the Palestinians ( though you would never guess it here ) has the right to defend its people. And just like the Palestinians there are legitimate means of defence and illegitimate means

Yes and a legal blockade on a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction is legitimate (and you oppose it). Deploying countermeasures when tens of thousands of rioters and militant terrorists try to storm a border is legitimate (and you oppose it). Sending in undercover troops to target Hamas folks building infiltration tunnels is legitimate (and you oppose it). Funny how you think Israel has a "right to defend its people" while opposing the exercise of that right at all times and in all circumstances while saying that there are " illegitimate means" of the Palestinians "right to defend themselves" but yet never have anything to say when every one of the means they use and strategies they adopt are illegitimate (and the goals of the organizations pursuing them are illegitimate as well).

And look. We know it's because the message has been triangulated but the underlying views are not. Might as well drop the facade.

There is no support for terrorism, it's just your initial straw man as shown above. I support the legitimate acts of resistance that you people wish to twist into terrorism. Again for obvious reasons

And what are those? Rockets at civilians? You justify them in your next post (which we will get to in a minute)? Drawing out troops by committing acts of terrorism and then targeting the troops when civilians targets are sufficiently hardened? Rejecting offers of virtually all of the WB and all of Gaza to launch wars against Israel's civilian population?

You support terrorist organizations by pretending they are engaged in "legitimate resistance" even though their means are not legitimate and their aims are not legitimate. This entire thread has been one long pean to the injustice of calling Hamas terrorists or condemning what they do as terrorism.

Additionally, now that we have established that the initial aggressor in the conflict was the Zionist movement itself ( I see no attempts to challenge it ) you are getting more and more desperate imo

Oh, we have, have we? Must be nice to live in a world where you can just say you have established things and then at the same time not actually have to be constrained with what you "established".

And finally , it is obvious that you are trying to elicit an emotional response with the ridiculous accusations and the rhetoric you are using . Ain't gonna happen . So you are just going to have to deal with the frustrations some other way

[/quote]

Not trying to elicit anything. Other than the truth of what is really going on here.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

The latest rockets from Gaza are the result of Israeli killings of hundreds of Palestinian protesters in likely murder circumstances. And the Israeli commando raid into Khan Younis that killed a Hamas commander. ( and an Israeli one ), I really do get your position. You , as Jews , are perfectly fine to invade Palestinian territories and kill Palestinians but they are not , presumably because they are Arabs and not Jews

Thanks for this.

So the latest round of continuous Palestinian war crimes is the result of the Israelis killing scores of terrorists and other rioters who spent weeks trying to breach the border with Israel for the purpose of "returning" (i.e., conquering Israel). So again, the Palestinians undertake an illegitimate exercise for an illegitimate purpose using illegitimate means, and when the Israelis defend themselves that justifies another round of Palestinian war crimes, using illegitimate means to achieve illegitimate aims.

And you get to blame the Jews for being the target of war crimes.

As for the " record " I don't think you will be referring to it, in a bid to back up your ridiculous claims aimed , solely , at trying to discredit the messenger , any time soon. Still waiting :roll:

You may want to recall the First Law of Holes...

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

So the latest round of continuous Palestinian war crimes is the result of the Israelis killing scores of terrorists and other rioters who spent weeks trying to breach the border with Israel

Don't forget the key point he's been making - Israel will always be the aggressor because Israel exists.

I don't think you'll find anywhere else on these boards a more clear case of one side of a discussion holding the moral high ground over the opposite.
And it's not just the clear disparities in morality but also in the logic used to grant a basis for your claims and why you're holding them.

 

[CJ 2.0]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Don't forget the key point he's been making - Israel will always be the aggressor because Israel exists.

I don't think you'll find anywhere else on these boards a more clear case of one side of a discussion holding the moral high ground over the opposite.
And it's not just the clear disparities in morality but also in the logic used to grant a basis for your claims and why you're holding them.

100%.

It really is too bad the Palestinains and their supporters are not actually interested in making peace with Israel. Things would be so much easier to resolve if the other side didn't just want to win at all cost and was fine wallowing in depraved misery until they do.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

100%.

It really is too bad the Palestinains and their supporters are not actually interested in making peace with Israel. Things would be so much easier to resolve if the other side didn't just want to win at all cost and was fine wallowing in depraved misery until they do.

And they never will.

 

[NO1]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Take your pick , the case is that poor it doesn't matter

As I said, your couldn't back up any of your BS, so you are trying this poor tactic even though anyone can go back and see your poor arguments being crashed. So pathetic.

 

[NO1]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Actually it is you that has tried ( and failed ) to distort the truth along with also failing in your bid to back up your claims. Speculation and fiction don't stand up too well in debates imo

:lamo :lamo :lamo

A quick reminder:
I asked you to back up your poor arguments -

...
indeed hilarious. Your poor attempt to distort the truth was pretty funny (Royal Philharmonic Orchestra and the things about the inicident took place at the Egyptian border ).
Now can you backup all that nonsense which coming out from your keyboard?

And this is your response. You dodged because you couldn't back up your BS:

I will just let people make their own minds up about just how believable your claims are regarding that footage and would urge them to actually watch the video and bear in mind the questions I brought up about it

Now, stop lying, that's a poor tactic. You failed and you continue to fail.
So you needed to lie in order to support your argument, why do think is that?

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

:lamo :lamo :lamo

A quick reminder:
I asked you to back up your poor arguments -



And this is your response. You dodged because you couldn't back up your BS:


Now, stop lying, that's a poor tactic. You failed and you continue to fail.
So you needed to lie in order to support your argument, why do think is that?

In case you don't know the onus is on the one making the claim

You showed footage allegedly showing a failed attack on civilians in an Israeli town and I asked a few questions of it that you and anyone else that viewed it won't be able to answer

Prove they were Hamas combatants

Prove the footage was taken outside an Israeli town

Show where ANY attack takes place apart from the missile attack at the end which has nothing to do with the figures themselves

Point out in the footage where the figures attempt to move towards the buildings at the top of the screen , they don't

You can't , you made the claim , you have failed to back it. Move on

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

As I said, your couldn't back up any of your BS, so you are trying this poor tactic even though anyone can go back and see your poor arguments being crashed. So pathetic.

:roll:

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Don't forget the key point he's been making - Israel will always be the aggressor because Israel exists.

Straw man 293 lol

I said the Zionist movement were the initial aggressors in the Israel/Arab conflict because they were European immigrants that had an ideology that sought to oust the Arabs so as to create a Jewish state on the territory

That's just a statement of fact

I don't think you'll find anywhere else on these boards a more clear case of one side of a discussion holding the moral high ground over the opposite.

Yep because it's really moral to arrive somewhere and kick a people out of their homes isn't it ? :roll:

Were the first nation Americans the aggressors against the European immigrants that founded the modern day USA ?

The Aztecs were the aggressors against the Spanish following your logic I suppose ?

Please deal with the facts and stop trying to make the immoral moral whilst waxing lyrical about having the " moral high ground " , it's ridiculous tbh

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Well let's see.

So (1) They are "resisting" by targeting civilians, (2) even though they view all of Israel as being "occupied Palestinian territories" it is "not your place" to tell them that trying to conquer Israel isn't a legitimate goal to use force or terrorism to achieve and (3) they "didn't sign the Geneva conventions" so the rules of what they are allowed to do don't apply.

Yep ,let's

your points

1 They are resisting by virtue of the fact that they are occupied and/or besieged . You do accept the fact that they are actually under occupation and/or siege ? And as such they have a right to resist them ?

2 Correct , I don't think it's my place to tell the Palestinians what is or what should be classed as Occupied Palestinian Territory because I don't see them as the initiators of the Arab/Israeli conflict. And while Hamas people have made different/contradictory statements ( as have Likud ) concerning what they believe to be the territory for the future Palestinian state it is wrong imo to say that ALL of them believe one thing

Because they are occupied /besieged and denied the right to self determination they have the right to use force but not terrorism to end both. Israel has the same right to defend itself and its people from that force. What is deemed " legitimate " wrt the territory that makes up the state of Israel is a personal choice for each person to make by themselves . I don't agree with the claims of the 1948 borders and have traditionally supported the 67 borders , that's changed as the facts on the ground have changed

3 Hamas has not signed up to the Geneva Convention but IIRC the PA tried to. Regardless , Hamas is still imo held to the provisions of the GC but much less so than Israel purely because they did sign up to the provisions but blatantly disregard them anyway. Which is worse , to agree to be bound by something but violate it or not to have agreed to it and violate it ?

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Again, when you choose to defend the aggressors by going back to Israel's very establishment you're merely saying "my position is openly immoral".

It's you that is " defending the aggressors " as pointed numerous times already

Neither does it say " my position is immoral " , it says my position is factually correct

The question is if the occupation is justified or not, and not what you believe the intention of Israel is in occupying the territory. When asked that question one must reply - yes, it is most certainly justified and should continue to exist unless a more fitting solution is found, hopefully in the sense of a conclusive peace deal.
The reason why you keep diverting towards the existence of the settlements is because you cannot argue against that justification. It's like saying "my position is openly ignorant".

You gave the justification for occupation as defending Israeli citizens and I exploded it by pointing out that if that were the case you wouldn't put 700,000 of them into the territory of the people you claim they are in danger from

That doesn't say "my position is openly ignorant" , it says my position is logically sound

Last part of your comment is merely the usual diversions to hijack the discussion towards other places. Called "moving the goalpost", you do it a lot, pretty much whenever losing a discussion like this one. Israel attacks "forces fighting ISIS"? No, Israel attacks forces fighting Israel. Any further insertion is propaganda nonsense seeking to exploit the dynamics between the different terror groups so to promote conspiracy theories in the service of antisemites and terrorists.

Who brought ISIS into the discussion ? I will answer for you because you appear to have a problem answering stuff put to you........... You did so.............

So you are actually exposing your own projection here. If it's a diversion to mention Isis , it's your diversion then. If it's " moving the goalposts " , it's your moving of them. If it's a " sign of losing " , it's a sign that you're losing then

So obvious

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Yes and a legal blockade on a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction is legitimate (and you oppose it).

It is a collective punishment and as such a war crime

So , the constant rocket attacks from Gaza are war crimes and every Gazan that is punished/affected by the siege/blockade that has not taken part in the conflict is the victim of an Israeli war crime too

Are there rockets every day ? No

Is there a collective punishment of Gazans everyday ? Yes

So tell me , who are carrying out the most war crimes here , even without taking into account IDF military actions ?

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Deploying countermeasures when tens of thousands of rioters and militant terrorists try to storm a border is legitimate (and you oppose it).

" Countermeasures " lol you mean shooting people dead that pose no imminent threat to the lives of those shooting them

Defending your border is legitimate , murdering those people by the wrongful use of lethal force isn't. So I am right to oppose it

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Sending in undercover troops to target Hamas folks building infiltration tunnels is legitimate (and you oppose it).

Who said I opposed it , post number etc ?

I think attacks on combatants are legitimate , whether that's Israeli combatants attacking Hamas combatants or the other way around

Straw man 294 lol

Remember it's you that holds that the attacking of soldiers is illegitimate but , crucially , only if it is Palestinians attacking IDF soldiers. Israeli attacks on Palestinian combatants are , in your view legitimate

Do I really need to comment about the outrageous double standard/hypocrisy going on there ?

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

It's you that is " defending the aggressors " as pointed numerous times already

Neither does it say " my position is immoral " , it says my position is factually correct

The aggressors are the Palestinians and Israel is the defending party, and claiming that Israel's existence makes it an aggressor in modern times regardless of what happens is indeed like saying "my position is openly immoral" - you embrace the moral high ground status of your opposition and the devil's advocate position quite openly and awarely.

You gave the justification for occupation as defending Israeli citizens and I exploded it by pointing out that if that were the case you wouldn't put 700,000 of them into the territory of the people you claim they are in danger from

That doesn't say "my position is openly ignorant" , it says my position is logically sound

Yes that is your argument which is why it's like saying "my position is openly ignorant" - you use a logically flawed assertion.

"Because settlements exist it means the occupation does not provide security" - Absolutely false and illogical.

Who brought ISIS into the discussion ? I will answer for you because you appear to have a problem answering stuff put to you........... You did so.............

So you are actually exposing your own projection here. If it's a diversion to mention Isis , it's your diversion then. If it's " moving the goalposts " , it's your moving of them. If it's a " sign of losing " , it's a sign that you're losing then

So obvious

A diversion is bringing up another subject. I didn't invite you to discuss ridiculous conspiracy theories regarding ISIS, I gave an example relevant to discussion of a terror group like Hamas.

This is the sixth time you choose to run away from the most important part of my comments, that it's irrelevant to promote part of the violence used by terror groups as legitimate when the nature of the group, its members and its supporters and the actions that should be taken against them do not change by a bit.
Your inability to face reality in constantly avoiding that truth, which is like saying "my position is both openly ignorant and immoral", is very embarrassing for you.

Why do you run away from reality?

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

" Countermeasures " lol you mean shooting people dead that pose no imminent threat to the lives of those shooting them

Defending your border is legitimate , murdering those people by the wrongful use of lethal force isn't. So I am right to oppose it

You're wrong to oppose it and call the defense of the border "murders".
These people who were mostly terrorists that were shot were trying to breach a border, there's every reason to use force to make them stop otherwise civilians' lives will be in danger as two days ago another Palestinian managed to cross the border and invade into Israeli territory reaching the outskirts of an Israeli town and setting a greenhouse on fire.

When you're saying that you think "defending the border is leigitimate" and then continue to spread lies against the act of defending the border, it shows you're contradicting your claims regarding your own views so to promote the terrorists' attempted invasion.

A moral position is to support the defending of the border, not to falsely describe the act of shooting a person attempting to invade a country as illegitimate (certainly not when most of them are known terrorists), that is being openly immoral and supporting an act of invasion.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

It is a collective punishment and as such a war crime

So , the constant rocket attacks from Gaza are war crimes and every Gazan that is punished/affected by the siege/blockade that has not taken part in the conflict is the victim of an Israeli war crime too

Are there rockets every day ? No

Is there a collective punishment of Gazans everyday ? Yes

So tell me , who are carrying out the most war crimes here , even without taking into account IDF military actions ?

Blockading a territory governed by terrorists (and generally by a faction you're at war with) is a legitimate act of warfare.
Calling it a "warcrime" and "collective punishment" is an act of support of the aggressors(Palestinian terror groups) and a denial of the right to self-defense of their victims (Israeli citizens), so it's basically saying "I'm openly being immoral".

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Straw man 293 lol

I said the Zionist movement were the initial aggressors in the Israel/Arab conflict because they were European immigrants that had an ideology that sought to oust the Arabs so as to create a Jewish state on the territory

That's just a statement of fact

And how is that different from what I said? It's not and that's just a silly attempt to rewrite your own words by just saying them again.

You're saying that Israel will always be the aggressor because you're saying (repulsively) that Israel coming to exist was an act of aggression that the real aggressors are in your mind defending against.

Seems like you cannot face your own positions without seeing their immorality. Then perhaps you should change them.

Yep because it's really moral to arrive somewhere and kick a people out of their homes isn't it ? :roll:

Were the first nation Americans the aggressors against the European immigrants that founded the modern day USA ?

The Aztecs were the aggressors against the Spanish following your logic I suppose ?

Please deal with the facts and stop trying to make the immoral moral whilst waxing lyrical about having the " moral high ground " , it's ridiculous tbh

It's moral to defend your people from terrorists, it's not moral to support aggressors and oppose the existence of a country.

And as I said it's not just the moral disparities that are clear (to you as well, as your recognition of the moral superiority of your opposition is documented throughout this thread) it is also the clear disparities in the logical basis provided that are horribly visible.

The Jewish people are an indigenous people to the land of Israel - what you're doing is creating a different discussion. Called 'moving the goalpost', which you do every time your arguments get destroyed. (Which is literally every time)

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Who said I opposed it , post number etc ?

I think attacks on combatants are legitimate , whether that's Israeli combatants attacking Hamas combatants or the other way around

Straw man 294 lol

Remember it's you that holds that the attacking of soldiers is illegitimate but , crucially , only if it is Palestinians attacking IDF soldiers. Israeli attacks on Palestinian combatants are , in your view legitimate

Do I really need to comment about the outrageous double standard/hypocrisy going on there ?

You're making an habit of lying about your very own words although they are well documented here, then claiming "strawman" (when none of that can be seen here). It's patheitc.

The assertion you've made earlier is that Israel's legitimate raid within Gaza meant to collect intelligence against terrorists is reasoning the rocket fire.
You gave reasons to acts of terror and attempted murder of civilians (that this time the 460 acts of terror launched at Israeli citizens got 1 civilian killed - who was a Palestinian worker from the WB), and that reason was an action you now say is legitimate. That's just too ridiculous it's surreal.

The only possible conclusion is that you are unable to face the immorality of your own views.

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

You're making an habit of lying about your very own words although they are well documented here, then claiming "strawman" (when none of that can be seen here). It's patheitc.

The assertion you've made earlier is that Israel's legitimate raid within Gaza meant to collect intelligence against terrorists is reasoning the rocket fire.
You gave reasons to acts of terror and attempted murder of civilians (that this time the 460 acts of terror launched at Israeli citizens got 1 civilian killed - who was a Palestinian worker from the WB), and that reason was an action you now say is legitimate. That's just too ridiculous it's surreal.

The only possible conclusion is that you are unable to face the immorality of your own views.

All the straw men we have seen deployed have been by CJ2.0 and yourself so that just confirms where the dishonesty is and it ain't with me. Your constant use of projection is hilarious

So let's take the example in the above and seeing as you have put yourself in the firing line

Go back and show the post and words of mine that say I " oppose " combatants targeting and attacking other combatants. That's his claim and now has become your claim

So , run along now and find the words to back your claim. Waiting

I've never claimed that the rocket fire from Gaza is a legitimate form of resistance which is what the odd babbling ends up saying in the above

So , when you are running along trying to find out where it was I said that targeted attacks by combatants on combatants are illegitimate you can akso look for and post where I state that the rockets are a legitimate form of resistance.

Additionally you can also use the exercise to back up another of your straw men , the one that says I claimed the tunnels into Israel are for " defence "

If you cannot provide the above it becomes absolutely clear which side and posters are being dishonest and if they claim the other side is dishonest , as you have here , then the charge of projection against you is clearly upheld

Waiting in vain but waiting nonetheless , the ball is definitely in your court but will you have the courage to play it ?

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

All the straw men we have seen deployed have been by CJ2.0 and yourself so that just confirms where the dishonesty is and it ain't with me. Your constant use of projection is hilarious

So let's take the example in the above and seeing as you have put yourself in the firing line

Go back and show the post and words of mine that say I " oppose " combatants targeting and attacking other combatants. That's his claim and now has become your claim

So , run along now and find the words to back your claim. Waiting

I've never claimed that the rocket fire from Gaza is a legitimate form of resistance which is what the odd babbling ends up saying in the above

So , when you are running along trying to find out where it was I said that targeted attacks by combatants on combatants are illegitimate you can akso look for and post where I state that the rockets are a legitimate form of resistance.

Additionally you can also use the exercise to back up another of your straw men , the one that says I claimed the tunnels into Israel are for " defence "

If you cannot provide the above it becomes absolutely clear which side and posters are being dishonest and if they claim the other side is dishonest , as you have here , then the charge of projection against you is clearly upheld

Waiting in vain but waiting nonetheless , the ball is definitely in your court but will you have the courage to play it ?

First of all we're past the stage of proving that you're being dishonest here.
See post #267 in this thread, what's written in bold - I've asked you to reply to the main point I have made here for 6 times now and 6 times you have decided to dodge dishonestly, last time you actually cut off that part of my comment and replied on the rest which is quite pathetic and embarrassing, you literally admit that you can't handle reality it's absurd.

Secondly I already based my claim that you're crying 'strawman' when there is none.
Regardless as to your current attempt at lying and dishonesty, see post #247 of yours where you claimed:

The latest rockets from Gaza are the result of Israeli killings of hundreds of Palestinian protesters in likely murder circumstances. And the Israeli commando raid into Khan Younis that killed a Hamas commander. ( and an Israeli one ), I really do get your position. You , as Jews , are perfectly fine to invade Palestinian territories and kill Palestinians but they are not , presumably because they are Arabs and not Jews

Unsurprisingly enough, you're saying here exactly what you're being confronted for.
You're reasoning terror attacks (rocket launching) with Israel's legitimate raids in Gaza territory, and adding to that an attack on CJ claiming that he is fine with such raids which you describe as "invasions of Palestinian territory and killing Palestinians" because they are not Jews. (A projection as I called at the time)

I'll repeat what I said; You're making an habit of lying about your very own words although they are well documented here, then claiming "strawman" (when none of that can be seen here). It's patheitc.

The only possible conclusion is that you are unable to face the immorality of your own views.

 

[oneworld2]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

The aggressors are the Palestinians and Israel is the defending party, and claiming that Israel's existence makes it an aggressor in modern times regardless of what happens is indeed like saying "my position is openly immoral" - you embrace the moral high ground status of your opposition and the devil's advocate position quite openly and awarely.

Nope, the aggressors are those that came from Europe in the late 18th to early 19 century with a wish/ideology that sought to evict the truly indigenous people ( you are not indigenous ) from the territory and claim it for themselves. That's the starting point of the conflict and that is the starting point for understanding the conflict. The history since has been a tale of varying degrees of resistance to that initial aggression up to and including modern times

I don't play Devils Advocate I offer up perspectives that challenge/undermine the dominant Israeli narratives and I also don't accept that the people I debate with here are " morally superior " in fact I see the complete opposite in so many cases

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: Terror Tunnels ?

Nope, the aggressors are those that came from Europe in the late 18th to early 19 century with a wish/ideology that sought to evict the truly indigenous people ( you are not indigenous ) from the territory and claim it for themselves. That's the starting point of the conflict and that is the starting point for understanding the conflict. The history since has been a tale of varying degrees of resistance to that initial aggression up to and including modern times

I don't play Devils Advocate I offer up perspectives that challenge/undermine the dominant Israeli narratives and I also don't accept that the people I debate with here are " morally superior " in fact I see the complete opposite in so many cases

They came back to their ancestors homeland and joined the local Jewish community, and yes they are the indigenous people.
Claiming that Israel will always be the aggressor because Israel exists is merely you admitting to your immorality and choosing to be openly immoral. (As I already called several times now)
As such you do accept that your opposition is morally superior.