There’s value to a discussion without reaching agreement. I’m actually not trying to convince you, rather to understand you and help you understand me. Which is why I appreciate your reply.

Looking at the situation in Israel by race is wrong to the extent that I actually feel a bit racist. Israel is made of Jews mainly from eastern European and Middle eastern ethnicity. The ones who support the occupation and are generally more right wing are from the middle east (Ben Gvir, the head of the most right wing party in the Israeli parliament was born to Iraqi parents), but the best indicator if someone is pro-peace or pro-war is, surprise surprise, religion.

Realistically, if you make up a list of aggression, it’ll be a long road ending with “does the fact that Jews came to their historic homeland in mandatory Palestine in the goal of having their own state there even though other people were living in that area constitute an act of aggression”. I’d be interested to hear your opinion on that one, but I’m not sure that really matters. The fact is that Israel exists, and the only way it’s going anywhere is if the Arab states will do to it what you’re accusing Israel of doing to them. It’s also worth mentioning that the Jews didn’t chose mandatory Palestine because they like the weather or the view, but because that is where the Jewish people came to be, and they themselves were banished from the area by a colonial power. While this happened hundreds of years ago, at the very least I think it means that the Jews have more “right” to Israel than, say any ex-colonial state (US, Canada, Argentina, Australia etc.).

But lets take for example the closest Palestinians ever came to their own state and Israel came to living in peace - the Oslo accords. They were met with murderous acts on both sides (including the assassination of Israel’s prime minister by a Jewish terrorist), and of course every side viewed the other one as the aggressor and the accords fell apart for the most part. You can’t really put the finger on either side. The blame should go to the extremists on both sides for believing they have a right to the entire area and willing to commit murder in order to try and get it.

I understand what you’re saying about Hezbollah and Hamas, but if your family was kidnapped and tortured by someone, you wouldn’t call them “annoying little terrorists”. That said, you are correct in saying they are weaker than Israel. Which brings me to an important point - let’s say we have two sides engaged in a blood feud, but one side has access to firearms while the other only has knives. Would you say the side with the firearms is the aggressor, or would you say they happen to have a better way of attacking the other side?

Israel, as the stronger side, has a moral duty to restrain themselves and consider the way their actions affect Palestinian civilians. But that doesn’t mean Hamas are excused from any moral consideration, and at the very least have a duty not to target civilians specifically.

I can’t really know what Iran is going to have or what their plan is, but for someone who often states Israel is a cancerous regime that should not exist while also being religious extremists, it’s not unreasonable of Israel to be afraid of a nuclear Iran.