Chill. I don’t disagree with you that the current tensions are heavily impacted by the conflict with Israel, but I’m just supplying additional context that relations have also been bad for decades, for reasons not directly related to that. There’s nothing “disingenuous” to providing historical context, and just because tensions currently are related to something else doesn’t mean that history is irrelevant or that supplying context is “disingenuous.” You don’t get to just declare things to be “independent of history,” that’s not how anything works. If Iran was neutral on Israel, the bad blood would not just disappear overnight.
I’m on your side here, I’m just trying to be accurate about things.
Isn’t that a point for what I’m saying? I assume that the US did not accept, which doesn’t make sense if the US was purely antagonistic because of Israel.
Chill. I don’t disagree with you that the current tensions are heavily impacted by the conflict with Israel, but I’m just supplying additional context that relations have also been bad for decades, for reasons not directly related to that. There’s nothing “disingenuous” to providing historical context, and just because tensions currently are related to something else doesn’t mean that history is irrelevant or that supplying context is “disingenuous.” You don’t get to just declare things to be “independent of history,” that’s not how anything works. If Iran was neutral on Israel, the bad blood would not just disappear overnight.
I’m on your side here, I’m just trying to be accurate about things.
Iran has offered to end its side of the bad blood with the “official western agreed solution” to Palestine.
Isn’t that a point for what I’m saying? I assume that the US did not accept, which doesn’t make sense if the US was purely antagonistic because of Israel.