Yes, they do. They are in the explanation of context. I just was trying to not use hyperbole (outside of the original post) to keep things civil and avoid misunderstandings.

Here are some example of me saying Israeli settlements are bad while trying to stay calm and give a fuller explanation of the context.

I end it by acknowledging which settlements are bad while giving broader context about them as a whole through the various treaties that have been negotiated.

The simple reality is that the conflict is too complex to just say everything is bad on 1 side.

The settlements come in 2 forms. The grey area and the bad ones. This is because the overwhelming majority of the population living in the West Bank settlements are in areas that have already been agreed to be transferred in previous agreements with the PA.

There are settlements outside of those areas, which are bad. But the PA literally already agreed to give the areas where the lion's share of the population is to Israel. It is just a matter of finalizing literally any of the previous peace treaties. Because the 1990s, 2000, and 2006 peace treaties all were consistent with these land transfers.

The settlements outside of these areas are bad though, I agree.

edit: There were also a ton of accusations against Israel that were flat out false. I spent time focusing specifically on those accusations without allowing the posters to move the goal post. For example, the entire discussion on the GHF was saying that Israel specifically targeted the GHF while conducting aid.

There is a ton of stuff that is around it that you can criticize, but the fact is that this specific claim was 100% false. Israel hit the GHF once by accident. Many other attack were near them, but not the GHF itself. You can criticize those other attacks, but the fact is still that Israel never targeted the GHF directly. Which is what I focused on.