Asklemmy

You yourself mentioned "fundamental truths", not me. It's not lies to call you out on it.

You don't know why I ask for them, you've failed to provide a single one. This is likely due to you knowing they're political in nature.

You know my point. Seeing the border kibbutz as armed jailors (and thus combatants) is ludicrous. While arms were certainly present, and local security forces certainly returned fire, a heavily armed, fortified camp would have provided heavy resistance. Instead, the attack swept through them quickly, killing many in their shelters. There is significant video evidence of this.

There you go again with "inarguable fact". No fact is inarguable, that's not how facts work. Proper intellectual rigor allows the challenging of even the most deeply-held belief, otherwise Einsteinian gravity would have never overtaken Newtonian gravity. In your case, you even misapply it, taking a very natural human reaction against security threats to an illogical conclusion that if those security threats escalate to a certain severity, then the Israelis will lose somehow. This makes no sense.

More cute deflections out of you. But no, again, your materialist philosophy does not actually provide for a concrete path to victory. Your long studies on the psychology of settlers is missing a whole bunch of psychology if all you can focus on is material security. Hate, for instance, is an emotion that can be taught generation to generation, and can motivate independently of material conditions.

Do you think 20somethings cannot be trained to be good soldiers? Do you think the IDF is smaller than 400k? Be clear. And no, you did not mentioned specific examples, except to repeat this claim that they "fall apart" in ground combat. That is not a specific example.

Has there been a widespread invasion into Lebanon that faltered? Or are you arguing they are too scared and weak to even try?

In the 1948 war, Israel had no air force. The Arab countries did. They still lost.

Quoting wastes space. I can recall our previous discussion, if you can't it's not hard to scroll back a little. Their goal of ethnic cleansing.

There's still no path to victory described here. Israel does not have the world against them, because genocide just isn't that big a deal across the world. You know India still trades with Israel, and has its navy active in the Red Sea area? Israel's credit rating is still in the A range, it's not being knocked down "every few months". I don't think you should be accusing me of being locked in a box of propaganda when your statements are this exaggerated and untrue.

So, you think Major Generals can frequently be found at checkpoints then...?

Routinely lose to the guerillas where? Using bombardment to prepare for an assault is nothing new, that's pretty standard going back centuries. Losing the ground assault is notable though. Guerillas popping back up is just guerillas fighting a guerilla campaign, I assume you understand how that's supposed to operate, and how it isn't reflecting the IDF being defeated in a pitched battle.

More nitpicking details. Being crushed does not have to mean no longer present. The point remains that the ANC would have never accomplished their goals without international pressure. Had the international community not cared about Apartheid, it would have continued despite ANC resistance, into the foreseeable future.

Actually you did, right here:

otherwise you will be correctly recognized as someone that plays with fairy tales and seems to even believe them!

You could have easily checked this, but I guess you're not putting much effort in.

You brought up materialism several paragraphs up, around 3 posts ago. You seem to want to give credit for expanding freedom movements solely to violent combatants, while saying nonviolent methods are ineffective. This is simplistic. You are ignoring other factors present.

I see, you cannot remember well. Sorry, but if I quote everything too, for your convenience since you are reluctant to reread I suppose, then these replies will simply get longer and longer as yours have. You're now up to two full size comments, all because you are wasting space quoting me when I can fully remember what I said. You don't have to. I won't start.

We were discussing whether American nonviolent protest was a significant factor in ending the war. I said yes, you said no.

Most of the rest of that looks like trolling and more nitpicking pointless details like me saying "hamas" instead of "Palestinian resistance". I suppose your rigid mind might actually lack the flexibility to bridge the two, though. You also seem to blame me for confusion when you cannot remember or reread and thus need me to provide quotes for your convenience.

No, not everyone engages in propaganda. It is possible to analyze factual events without applying value judgements, which are a necessary component of propaganda. We are engaged in a propagandistic discussion, certainly, that's unavoidable I think, but it is not some unavoidable thing.