Zaphar didn't make any argument, they only implied one. They said that the previous poster was wrong about everything, and then brought up the previous 2-3000 years of history as some vague justification for that with no actual argument.
I responded to the most plausible interpretation of what the 2-3000 years of history could have to do with the previous poster being wrong about Israel occupying the lands of the Palestinian people.
And again, as to the claim: I'm basically saying that the 2-3000 years of history don't, in fact, justify the occupation - so just forgetting about them and focusing on what is actually happening today (a population is being kept in an occupied pseudo-state that they aren't allowed to leave) is enough to understand the whole situation, and who is in the right and who is in the wrong. So the 2-3000 years of history are irrelevant, because they don't overturn the easily visible conclusion you would draw.
Of course, in every conflict, the history is interesting and enlightening in some ways. But, unless the history changes the light in which you view the current conflict, it's irrelevant to the question of "who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed?".
> Zaphar didn't make any argument, they only implied one
I agree! Yet you said:
> That was in response to the argument that I believe the GP was making
so I was confused. But now you've clarified:
> I responded to the most plausible interpretation of what the 2-3000 years of history could have to do
You guessed the argument, responded to it. Fair enough. Now I understand.
I appreciate your explanation. I don't think I agree with your analysis or conclusions, but I am grateful you have explained to me your thought process and haven't used personal attacks on me, so I feel this thread of the discussion was constructive. I can't say the same for anyone else participating in this thread.
I responded to the most plausible interpretation of what the 2-3000 years of history could have to do with the previous poster being wrong about Israel occupying the lands of the Palestinian people.
And again, as to the claim: I'm basically saying that the 2-3000 years of history don't, in fact, justify the occupation - so just forgetting about them and focusing on what is actually happening today (a population is being kept in an occupied pseudo-state that they aren't allowed to leave) is enough to understand the whole situation, and who is in the right and who is in the wrong. So the 2-3000 years of history are irrelevant, because they don't overturn the easily visible conclusion you would draw.
Of course, in every conflict, the history is interesting and enlightening in some ways. But, unless the history changes the light in which you view the current conflict, it's irrelevant to the question of "who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed?".