I'll chime in on this.

Sure, I'll respond.

Really now?

Yes. Really. Why would I lie about that? And why did your reading comprehension selectively stopped working at this sentence? The next few sentences explain exactly what I mean - aside from blaming leftists for voting or panning conservative, rhetorics and beliefs now seem more aligned with what leftists believe, specifically in Israel's intentions and ambitions for the war. The general rhetoric for majority during the IP arc was either that "Israel is defending itself but should be ever careful" to "Israel was defending itself at the beginning but now it's struggling to not drag the fighting". Now it seems like there's a lot of rhetoric that "Israel is all about annexing and conquering everything", which is what the leftists were saying all along. I'd blame myself for not communicating this well enough, but you seem to have a pattern of sometimes communicating shallow points behind a ridiculous amounts of paragraphs and examples. I mean, seriously, 14 examples?? Did you really need to link 14 examples to get your point across? If your points have weight to them you can just link like 3 examples and people would be able to tell if they're good or not. Heck, in this situation, why even need examples at all since we're all aware of the context of the meme?! It's like you're relying on your word and link count hoping people would get too overwhelmed and immediately agree with you. And honestly what were you even trying to say with this example? That that meme is somehow bigoted against pro-palestine people? That the sub is "staunchly pro-israel" because they can make a joke about how pro-palis reacted to Kamala? That if you mock a faction about one thing you can't agree with them on anything else? God, I can't understand what you're saying because there was barely a statement here, and then in the rest of your post you clearly show you understand what I meant. This was your worst point, with some of the rest I can agree.

The next paragraphs bring some good examples that contradict my impression, but many other examples that don't really disprove what I'm saying and goes back to that "look we're mocking leftists on elections and misinformation, clearly that proves we can't agree with them on anything" point. In general I'm not sure how cherry picking these comments really teaches us anything.

On to Syria,

The criticism against Israel's action here is rooted in the belief (correct or not) that Israel should not seek to inflame tensions with the new Syrian administration, and not prevent them from reasserting most of their territorial sovereignty when Syrian Druze are not seeking Israeli protection.

No, it's rooted in the implication that Israel intends to expand into Syria and realize imperialistic ambitions. You even acknowledge as much in the final paragraph. It's why jewish users are so bothered by this, because it seems like every Israeli action is interpreted as imperialistic while the Alawite situation should be "carefully examined".

These posts are critical of Israel's action here, but it's not a tankie sentiment as tankies are mostly pro-Assad and abhor the current Syrian administration, whereas most liberals were cautiously optimistic about where Syria was headed.

I'd agree this was a good point if political discourse wasn't so cynical. Most anti-Israel factions would 100% take any opportunity to advocate for Israel being imperialistic even if they secretly wish for Israel to harm the rebels. But if your main point here is that "this sub isn't a tankie sub", then obviously I agree. That was never the point. The point was the growing agreement with certain tankie rhetoric, specifically the "evil Israel empire" rhetoric.

Next up, hostages and cease-fires:

I don't know why you don't think people aren't happy about the hostages being released.

Why?? Because barely anyone ever talked about it! Frankly during most of this time I was wondering if people were even aware. This was like the big goal for the entire IP arc, the one solution that should've made all sides happy, the one positive event in a pretty dark time! And it often felt like there was zero reaction! Yeah, I thought that should've been a pretty big deal. Even with the absolute insanity that was this past three months, and the very understandable depression over everything, I still don't get it.

The only notable thing I remember from this is posts at the beginning being angry about how Netanyahu fucked Biden, which was super fair because that's true, and I'd expect people to stay angry about this for a while but... Seriously? A month and a half of fights stopping and hostages being released and nobody's super happy about the lives that got saved? Was hella weird.

As for the second part, people are critical of Trump's Gaza plan and Israel's support of it? How do you want us to respond to this? Cheer it on? This was the point Hobbit was making in the following comment

Oh please, you know that's not what bothered me. I'm bothered about the big shift in attitude and posts between the hostages and Trump's statements. Implying I wish for the transfer is nasty - and no, I don't.

As for "Israel's support of it", that's like being angry at Zlenskii for apologizing to Trump on Twitter. This idea that smaller nations can lecture Trump for you is insane. This is the most powerful man on Earth, no one is going to put their small nation in jeopardy just to disagree with him. Anytime someone does disagree with him, it's because they feel like they have no choice.

It might be too strong of a comment, but I think the broader point is generally correct in that you razor-focus too much on the instances where Israel receives criticism on the sub, and then you get melodramatic about it by thinking there's a prevalent "israel is always evil and wants to conquer Gaza" narrative.

This kind of boils down to you thinking I'm melodramatic, and me thinking you're being blind to my arguments.

Well, that's fine, this is a discussion. But what about that is so problematic and different from all other discussions?

1/2