when were we arguing? This is the first time we've talked in this thread.

Maybe try to be less personally offended given I have no idea who you are, and consider my question a reflection of the current atmosphere.

Do you support attacks on jewish/zionist communities in the US? If attacks on Israelis are ok, why not these attacks?

For the most part, the IRA did not intentionally target civilians or strive to maximize civilian casualties. Hamas does, and in doing so effectively legitimizes attacks on Jewish communities elsewhere. If Israeli civilians are valid targets, why not American Jews? Especially ones in "Zionist" communities. We've already seen this start to happen here in the US.

They're Jewish and they're also brown people.

I've stated earlier than Hamas is not the IRA and that these two organizations are not morally comparable.

In any case, white people constantly suppress and murder other white people and I thought ssu flushed this point out pretty well.

EDIT: We've also seen quite a bit of backlash in the US with 26 antisemetic attacks since May 10th in response to Gaza. If israelis are valid targets why not American Jews?

Generally Accepted: Israel has a right to defend itself
Generally Accepted: Britain has a right to defend itself
Generally Accepted: Israel has a right to defend itself [with almost no restrictions][against brown people].
Generally not Accepted: Britain has a right to defend itself [with almost no restrictions][against white people]. — Baden

Have you ever been to Israel? If you have then you'd know that most Israelis aren't white. Palestinians and Israelis are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

Israelis are POC. And they're indigenous.

You think the Palestinian conflict is only about Israel and Hamas? — ssu

We can bring in Fatah, we can bring in Al-Aqsa martyrs brigade, we can bring in Black September, we can bring in whoever you like. I only mention Hamas as they are the main players in Gaza right now. Of course Israel would rather have Fatah in charge but Fatah are no angels, either to the Israelis or the Palestinians who they've been known to embezzle billions from.

But anyway, it's a perpetual war and those in power in Israel totally fine with it. Why seek peace when this off and on -conflict isn't threatening the state? — ssu

I agree, and I'm pessimistic about the current Israeli leadership's interest in genuine peace. I'm also doubtful of Hamas' interest in peace. A low intensity war serves political purposes for both sides, still I don't draw moral equivalency between a democratic state and a terrorist group. I've stated many times that I'm not binding myself to a position where I need to justify everything Israel does - I'll attempt to make sense of some of it, but I'm not up to the task of defending everything.

Fundamentally though we need to be forward-looking if we ever hope to make peace as opposed to looking back. When one group of people pits blame on entirely one side it's extremely counterproductive and it just makes that side defensive. I believe many young people have an interest in peace and I hope to see this pay dividends in later years assuming the violence doesn't escalate and hatred doesn't enter peoples' hearts through repeated calls to past injustices and demonization of the enemy. We can help accomplish this through dialogues and communication but this is difficult because Hamas will arrest Palestinians for engaging with Israelis, still there is hope.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion?

I'm not asking whether morality can be justified without religion. I'm asking whence the idea that it can or should be. Is this just rebellion against religion, or is there something else to it? — baker

You can certainly conceive of different moral systems, and you can follow systems like utilitarianism which will likely be in tune with common moral intuitions some 90% of the time. The interest comes when these two schools differ, and the older I get the more I've come to believe that there are such things as absolute moral prohibitions that one must follow even if it leads to greater destruction than otherwise or one's own certain death. For instance, a community cannot surrender their old or their children to appease an evil enemy even if the enemy threatens more retribution otherwise. If evil is going to occur, "let them kill you, but do not cross the line" (this is an old rabbinic saying.)

Part of what grounds our dignity as human beings is moral duty/moral responsibility. When your encourage others to be docile to protect the greater whole we strip people of that moral responsibility, which in turn dehumanizes us. People are not numbers to be calculated.

Why would they? — ssu

Ok, so you're telling me that the IRA did not go out of its way to maximize civilian casualties. Something tells me that if they did, the British public would see them quite a bit differently and peace would have been a bit more of an obstacle. The ways in which terror attacks are carried out are deeply relevant both morally and for public perception: A strike on an empty bar on a Sunday morning where the enemy gathers is quite different from one against a crowded night club on a Saturday night where young people gather. The IRA does not strike me as morally comparable to Hamas with both the methods and general hatred coming from Hamas running much deeper. To the best of my understanding, the IRA did not try to maximize civilian casualties or recruit child suicide bombers (in all fairness this one even caused backlash among normal Palestinian civilians.) The IRA also did not seek to destroy the UK or define their vision in uncompromising dogmatic religious language. Take a look at the Hamas charter:

https://fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm

Yet the conflict in Ireland, not just in Northern Ireland but the whole history from the Irish revolt and the IRA, to Irish Independence and then "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland is quite comparable to the Palestinian conflict, if we separate from this the wars that Israel has fought with it's neighbors. — ssu

Unfortunately we can't make this separation otherwise the history and moral judgments that we draw just don't make sense. If we don't consider the wars then it just looks like Israel just grabbed the land out of nowhere.

We need to consider the circumstances under which the land was taken. The conflict cannot be viewed in isolation, it must be viewed as part of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, and even in this conflict things aren't black-and-white. Egypt also helps with the blockade against Gaza because they don't support Hamas either. Others just conveniently ignore the fact the if the Arab countries wanted they could relieve the pressure, but they don't. If your own people aren't stepping into help when they could that is definitely its own issue. Jews have always accepted other Jews into Israel even when doing so was a serious difficulty.

That's the difference between SOPs. — ssu

Sure we can talk about SOPs and this would be useful discussion to have. I'd suspect the USSR would have been much, much more than brutal than Israel here. I'm certain the Nazis would have been much more brutal as well. I'd suspect the Israeli response would be roughly in line with the US on an issue like this and we can try to draw some numbers. If the US is averaging 2k/year civilians dead in the war on terror then Israel is doing even better, on average and that number includes militants. In these discussions it can be difficult to determine what exactly qualifies as a "humane" number. You drew an example from the Lebanon conflict earlier, but Lebanon was an actual war as opposed to dealing with the Palestinians.

It would still be an extremely useful bit of information to know how IDF SOPs compare with those of the US and UK in low intensity conflicts.

And usually they are quite cynical about both sides. — ssu

I'm gonna have to keep it brief today because I have been inundated with responses and I just can't get to everything. In any case, I'm fine with this general position. I certainly agree that Israel should take steps to make its operational procedures more humanitarian, but I refuse a moral equivalence between the standard operating procedures of the IDF and those of Hamas and other terrorist groups.

The Lebanon example could maybe make sense if IDF soldiers had been attacked from there before and had the place was walled off or restricted as a no-go area. Otherwise the practice seems wrong to me.

You can compare to other armed forces that operate in an low-intensity environment. I think the British Armed Forces in Northern Ireland are the best example of taking another strategy. Even today Police Stations in Northern Ireland are like miniature military fortresses. — ssu

I don't know if these conflicts are comparable. I haven't studied the IRA conflict in detail, but have IRA members ever ran through London stabbing other people indiscriminately until they were eventually shot? Have they ever disguised bombs as balloons and flown them towards Elementary schools? Do hundreds of them throw loads of rocks at random British civilians for no reason other than that they are British? How about random drive-by shootings on civilians? How about recruiting and brainwashing Irish children to blow themselves up at a restaurant? Now imagine growing up your entire life hearing about these things committed against your ethnic group. Every year it was something different. Who would have thought a few dozen stabbing sprees would follow suicide bombings in bars?!

What is so confusing? All I was saying was that we should not frame the conflict like X. Some posters do frame things as X. I do not. I don't know what about this is so confusing for you, but by all means jump into bed with those who condone the genocide of LGBTQ in Palestine.

You can play your little "gotcha" games with me that no one else understands, I don't care, but maybe keep in mind that there's another poster here who categorically refuses to condemn Hamas for the repression and murder of LGBTQ Palestinians, or for anything for that matter.

So when I accuse someone of viewing the world in black-and-white terms it's because I know this person's posting history and it's not without just cause.

You're not furthering the conversation and I'm not going to respond until you lay out, clearly, exactly what you're saying.

What are you talking about? I said 180 frames reality like this and he doesn't even try to hide it.

Huh, so Israel. — StreetlightX

I strongly reject all framings like this, and I'm aware that there are Israelis - like there are Arabs - who take this framing of the conflict. It's not right to just blame one side, you'll see this framing everywhere from people of all nationalities.

The Nazis loved to describe themselves as victims and frame reality as an intractable struggle between groups you would fit right in.

You're a waste of time, 180. You exist for no other reason than to foment conflict and pit brother against brother. That's your ideology - constant war.

Of the 219 people who have been killed in Gaza, at least 63 are children, according to its health ministry. Of the 10 people killed in Israel, two children are among the dead, the country's medical service says.

A few things to consider that aren't highly publicized:

-Hamas kills its own civilians when its own rockets misfire or someone aims poorly. I know of at least 8 Palestinian children killed this way. In a sample of 850 Hamas rocket launches, 200 ended up over Gaza so now that Hamas has launched over 3000 rockets we're looking at likely over 700 of Hamas' own missiles dropping over Gaza. These will be reported as Israel, of course.

-Hamas has been known to force its own people to stay in buildings and other places that are going to be bombed.

-Hamas will intentionally build underground tunnels near schools, hospitals, and office buildings so that when Israel strikes it will be impossible not to inflict collateral damage. Hamas will also directly fire weapons from these places which is a war crime. Storing weapons in schools and hospitals also violates the laws of war.

-Hamas in its casualty reports does not distinguish between militants and civilians, so of the 140 or so adults dead they could all be militants but Hamas would not reveal those details.

I'd be interested to know how Israel's response would compare to the US and UK on something like this. If it can be demonstrated that Israel's response is considerably worse or out of line then I would reconsider my position. I'm always open for a discussion about which armaments/weaponry is being used, but what's not open for discussion is whether Israel can retaliate - which, like any other country, it has the right to when under attack. Without the iron dome Israel would likely have 10x its current casualties.

On the contrary. You might not want to face it, but it’s extremely pertinent. — Xtrix

You fail to understand the difference between the intentional murder of innocents, say, putting a knife through a stranger's back because of his ethnicity on one hand, and the targeting of military targets and infrastructure. Until you understand this difference it's all gonna be the same to you.

Like media and residential buildings. Israel says it, so it must be true. — Xtrix

The precautions and the steps taken before bombing are all very well documented.

You’re simply deluded. — Xtrix

There maybe there were some; I don't follow every strike and if a war crime did occur we can prosecute those in charge. Every indiscriminate missile that Hamas fires into a residential area for no other purpose than to kill random Jews living in their homes is a war crime. Where are the telephone calls that Hamas makes? How about leaflets?

But both were created by Israel and the US policy, respectively. — Xtrix

Hamas definitely wasn't created by Israel, the organization is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Was the organization a reaction to Israel? Yes, but reactions aren't causes. Hitler may have came to power as a reaction against the Allied forces and the treaty of Versailles, but those things didn't cause Hitler.

I’m talking about the present. In the PRESENT, Palestinians in Gaza are living in a hellhole. It just so happens they’ve also been living that way for decades, thanks to Israel. — Xtrix

Again wrong, and you're again ignorant of the reality on the ground. Israel is not the one embezzling funds intended for the Palestinian people or spending them on intricate underground tunnels. To say that this is entirely an Israeli problem simplifies to the conflict to child-like complexity and is not reflective of reality.

It doesn't change the fact that there are victims, even if these victims circumstances are also caused by victims themselves, as is the case with Jews in WWII. — Manuel

Yes, there are real victims on both sides. What do you mean "even if these victims' circumstances were also caused by the victims themselves?" I agree that there were Jewish leaders who acted atrociously and as collaborators so I'm fine attributing blame to some individual Jews in leadership positions. I don't think I'd go much further than that however.

The victim/blame thing just leads to more cycles of violence and extremes. — schopenhauer1

Absolutely, and when people frame the conflict in this way it just perpetuates the violence. Additionally, throughout history perpetrators very frequently if not always brand themselves as victims.

Also, I notice an odd thing that happens in these type of debates where one side (in this case the Palestinians) are seen as a "collective" with no free agency and the other side (in this case the Israelis) are free agents, but choose the wrong thing. — schopenhauer1

100%. We must reject this type of error/framing of the conflict.

The point is a simple one: if you wish the Hamas leaders dead, you should wish Bibi dead. Both are responsible for killing innocent people. — Xtrix

Killing innocent people is not what is pertinent here. Was FDR a war criminal for bombing Germany and Japan and killing innocents? Israel actually takes extensive precautions to limit casualties and only targets military infrastructure, while Hamas indiscriminately fires at residential areas. How do you not see the difference here? Hamas will force people to stay in places that are going to bombed.

Israel takes 3 steps before it bombs a place:
1) Phone calls.
2) Drops leaflets
3) Will drop a fake bomb called a 'shaker' that makes noise.

I deny war crimes. They have footage of Israelis telling Palestinians that their place is going to be bombed and the Palestinians deciding (or being forced) to stay regardless. Any nation has the fundamental right to defend itself from attacks and to target those who have been targeting it.

No, it isn't. Hamas is a result of decades of living in a hellhole, not the cause. The cause is the Israeli government. There would be no Hamas without Israel's horrendous treatment of Palestinians, just as there would be no ISIS without the US's terrorist campaign in Iraq. — Xtrix

Even if I were to agree with your view, it would imply that, e.g. the Nazi party and all of their crimes were the fault of the allies after WWI because the treaty of versailles was harsh and cruel towards Germany. This position of blaming everything that Hamas does on Israel also robs the Palestinians of agency and moral responsibility. Actions are ultimately taken by individuals and groups in the present and these actions are not determined entirely via past events unless you just want to strip people of free will. Even if you do this are Israel's actions initially uncaused? Look into how Israel gained control of Gaza and the WB.

Aggressors are those who usually take territories.

I don't put so much emphasis on the moral rectitude or the moral justifications for wars. Those typically are just propaganda. And many warmongers talk about justice and to correct the wrongs of the past. The debate about if "a nation is morally just to take military action" is just one question. What kind of military strategy and tactics it uses is another topic, and so is what it's end objectives with the action are. All those are three different questions and even if to opt for a military solution can be understandable/acceptable, the strategy and tactics or the objectives can be quite unacceptable.

In fact, when the Arab neighbors attack the young state of Israel, nobody of them was at all interested in creating an independent Palestine, but to take as much of the former British mandate for themselves as possible. This lead to the fact that they were highly uncoordinated. Jordan annexed the West Bank and even if the annexation was granted by the UK, USA and Iraq, the Arab League for example only accepted that Jordan could annex the territory "until the Palestine case is fully solved in the interests of its inhabitants." Then of course this was annexed later by Israel in the Six Day war. — ssu

If I were to take a step back and view Israel as just another state I could say that Israel is using Gaza and the WB as a bargaining chips. It has shown a willingness to make concessions: It has withdrawn from Gaza and about 40% of the WB and over the other 60% it claims to just govern Israelis and not Palestinians. It has not annexed either of these territories. It continues the blockade with Gaza along with Egypt because of the fear of allowing Hamas unrestricted access to weapons, but Israel doesn't have settlements or troops there. I have no idea who has a rightful claim over the WB though - Jordan? Boundaries shift so often in the middle east that it's hard to make these kind of strong claim over who deserves what. Arab and Jewish communities have been living together for thousands of years in the WB.

I don't understand why so many westerners care so much about Israel and seemingly hold it to the highest moral benchmark. The US took land from Spain and Mexico through warfare, how often do you hear calls to return that land? It's really difficult for me even as someone who grew up in this culture to say who rightfully owns what in the middle east just given its history.

Sure, I'll give you one simple and immediate one: accept a ceasefire. — Xtrix

Agreed. I'm against any further aggression from here as long as Hamas stops as well.

In that case, we should consider Bibi an enemy of humanity and should "like" him dead, too. — Xtrix

Would you wish Joe Biden dead if he were to do something similar? If there's a democratic way to get Bibi out I'd be for it assuming we could replace him with someone a little more moderate.

The Palestinains are not only far weaker militarily, but have been living in a hellhole for decades due to right-wing Israeli policy, with numerous violations of international law. There is no parity here. — Xtrix

It's both the Israeli government and Hamas. And the PA who line their pockets. The Arab world is responsible as well; in 1948 when 850,000 Jews were kicked out of Arab countries Israel allowed them in. None of the Arab countries have helped their fellow Arabs who fled or were expelled. What do you think happens to UN or humanitarian aid intended for the Palestinian people? It goes to Hamas. Hamas embezzles these funds. What about infrastructure projects? Hamas has done plenty of those - underground tunnels which are used to store and transport weapons. Not much else.

If Israel wants to stop this, they can. They have the power to help the Palestinian people overthrow the sadistic Hamas regime and live dignified lives. — Xtrix

I've turned pessimistic towards the current Israeli government at this point after further research. I don't think either sides' governments are interested in peace presently, but if the people can come together and somehow demand new leadership we'd be in a much better position going forward. I'm sure Israel could help - and it does help - it's just no easy task but I appreciate the optimism.

I believe Israel as insurance for Jews as a safe place, regardless of all its policies, means many Jews will defend it to their last breath because that insurance is more important to them than anything else. I consider that morally clear and a consistent position (and I suspect Eli Wiesel thought like this until very late in his life) - just admit to the crimes and then say BUT it's necessary because the security of Israel and therefore the safety of Jews everywhere is paramount. What I don't like is people defending Israel by pretending it's not a terrible Apartheid state, pretending it's a victim and pretending there are no war crimes. — Benkei

First sentence - Yes, Israel is extremely important to the Jewish people and the country will defend itself to its last breath.

Second sentence - I agree as well and I don't deny Israeli crimes, although I think we may disagree on the scope of these crimes. Benny Morris is an Israeli historian who writes on this subject who has never shied away from the more brutal details of the wars. We can talk about war crimes on both sides, but rehashing this constantly isn't going to lead us anywhere good in the peace process. We should be forward-looking.

Third sentence - I deny that Israeli is an apartheid state. Israel in the past has definitely been a victim that has faced annihilation on several occasions and that continues to influence the Israeli mindset, as it should (seriously, if your people were almost annihilated on several occasions in the past 80 years would that not change you?) Additionally, Israeli citizens are frequently killed which is considered by Jews everywhere as Israel being attacked. So, Israeli citizen killed = Israel victimized. You are not in a position to tell the Israelis that their suffering is very small/negligible or that when a crazed Hamas killer runs through the streets stabbing people that it's "their fault" for "driving him to this." And then what's even more insane is that there are people who refuse to condemn that *cough 180proof* because how dare you criticize a victim! It is only David using his lowly slingshot to try to hit bloodthirsty Goliath.

I understand that this victim mindset can be counter-productive, but you can't exactly blame the Israeli Jews for it. You can try to work with it, and it's less present among the younger generation, but it's a cultural trauma that you can't just yell at the Jews or Israelis for having. And I 100% agree that Israel has committed atrocities in the past so I agree with you there that we should be condemning those who deny any Israeli war crimes and try to paint Israel as a perfect angel. We may disagree on the scope however.

Russia was also an agressor in WW2. It started wars. And yes, was once attacked with it's pants down, but did have plans to attack Germany (assuming that Germany would be weakened by fighting the Western allies, namely Britain then).

Russia annexed a lot of territories from many countries during and after WW2. Some that it kept after agreeing to slice East Europe and the Baltics (and Finland) with Nazi Germany. So yes, not an innocent victim with only peaceful objectives in mind. Far from it.

German and Soviet troops having a nice time after another successful historical division of Poland in 1939. Brothers in arms then. — ssu

Yes, Russia was an aggressor in WWII - my example was only in regard to the Eastern front fighting against the Germans. I completely agree with your assessment of Russia here. I was only referring to Russia in terms of their Eastern front war against the Nazis. In that context I would not describe them as the aggressor even though they went on the offensive.

That is a great picture by the way, where do you find these? And colorized.

Since Bitconnect doesn't understand that Israel starting a war ("Pre-empting", as they say) and annexing territory in 1967 from three of it's neighbors makes it an agressor, this debate won't go anywhere. — ssu

Aside from the territories, do you consider Israel the aggressor in the '67 war? I don't mean the one who took the offensive, I mean the one who is in the wrong. I was always taught that these territories naturally fell under Israel's control as the war played out. It's also a difficult issue because, e.g. what's Jordan's "rightful" claim to the West Bank? Commentators never question this because implicitly the Arabs are just considered the rightful owners, but Jordan annexed it in 1950 in the aftermath of the '48 war over international disapproval? Since when has the West Bank been rightfully Jordans'? I don't even think Jordan had an interest in the territory until '47-'48 where it was used as a launching point for attacks on Israel.

1. The fact there is no peace, can be laid fully at the feet of the Israeli government as its even greedier than the land it already stole in 1967;
2. Israel has been in breach of international law since 1948, the same legal regime it bases its own rights on (you can't have your cake and eat it);
3. As long as right-wing political zionism is effectively in control of policy, it's a policy of de facto ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people as their presence is slowly eroded through evictions in East Jerusalem and through settler colonisation (and let's not get started on the Apartheid rule in Israel proper itself, which is another atrocity);
4. Israel therefore deserves no help or respect from the international community until such time as it enters into good faith negotiations with the people its oppressing;
5. Considering Israel's obvious bad faith approach to any form of peace, I conclude that every Israeli tragedy is of its own making and every tragedy befalling the Palestinians is wreaked upon them by the Israelis. — Benkei

1. Which Israeli government? Netanyahu? Olmert? Sharon? Who are you blaming exactly?
2. So what happens then if we want to go back to '48 borders? What happens to buildings built post-1948 land? Contracts? You want to just move everyone again? Who's going to do this move? Who's going to pay for it? Is the UN going to raise money for it? How much will they compensate the home and business owners?
3. I would like to know exactly how you define 'right wing political zionism.'
4. -
5. I can't tell if you're only talking about Netanyahu or other Israeli PMs as well. Regardless, in attributing every Palestinian tragedy to the Israelis you discount the Palestinians' own agency. Even in dire circumstances, even if Gaza was the Warsaw ghetto and the Palestinian ruling party was the Judenrat moral responsibility would still exist and they'd still be responsible for their actions and policies.

I literally brought this topic up like 2 pages ago and he accused me of spreading lies and refused to condemn hamas.

just so you know you're talking with an actual genocide apologist who refuses to condemn the genocide of Palestinian LGBTQ by Hamas among other crimes & suppression of the Palestinian people.

In the asymmetrical distribution of power which Israel levearges at every point as an opressive, aggressor force, it is indeed entirely responsible for everything that happens to it. — StreetlightX

Even in the Warsaw ghetto the Judenrat would have been responsible had they turned on their own LGBTQ population. Being a victim doesn't absolve one of responsibility, and it never has.

It would not have been the Nazi's fault either in the theoretical event that the Nazis did nothing to encourage the practice.

You have a very strange view of blame. If your boss is mean to you at work and you go home and kick your dog is it your boss' fault? Even if he was really, really mean to you? Hamas created itself.

When you begin to understand self-responsibility and responsibility in general it'll all become so much clearer. Why can't I say that nothing Israel does is their fault because Hamas was pushing them to do it? It's like agency doesn't exist in your world or it only exists for Israel. Nobody else has it.

For everything that's happening? Including Hamas persecuting LGBTQ? That is Israel's fault? When Hamas executes its own civilians for gay sex that is Israel's doing? That is what you are telling me?

You're impressing me today: Just today you've both condemned the Soviet Union and you've condemned Hamas for their treatment of LGBTQ -- and done so strongly -- which was more than 180 was able to do. :party:

I'm on the same page with you here; the Hamas leadership deserves to rot in the ground and Israel's been working towards this goal.

I like your current position - that both sides suck - much more than your previous strategy of only criticizing one side through your writing. Presumably, you can now criticize both more evenly. Huge improvement.

See these are the conversations you don't want to have. You're shutting down conversation here. Now who's the quiet one? You call me the one who's ignoring suffering, I can turn it right back on you and it's super easy.

You're just annoyed because you think I'm being insincere when in reality my sincerity is completely irrelevant. Does the problem exist or not? That's all you gotta ask.

Speaking of genocide apology, since Hamas openly executes and persecutes LGBTQ wouldn't this qualify as genocide for you? And that by that I mean Hamas towards its own Palestinian LGBTQ population. There was an article from news week not too long ago about the hellish life of LGBTQ in Gaza.

Lets start having conversations that you don't want to have.

that was the conversation that ssu and I were having before you decided to jump in and criticize me for not talking about a different subject.

Streetlight, all we're talking about WW2 here. This is the scope of the conversation - nothing past it. That is all ssu and I were talking about - "who is the aggressor in X war?" It doesn't matter what happens in the years after.

On a sidenote it is somewhat reassuring to see you condemning the Soviet Union.

The military campaign into Germany wasn't an act of aggression, because they withdrew and no Russian ever claimed east Germany was Russian.

The imposition of rule through client states was complex. Quite a few countries joined the block willingly. Whatever crime there was, wasn't a crime of aggression. — Benkei

The reason that the military campaign into Germany wasn't an act of aggression was because the Germans were the ones who initiated aggression and the Soviets were responding to that. Even if the USSR claimed East Germany for itself it wouldn't have changed the fact that the Germans were the aggressors in WWII.

Israel doesn't claim Gaza or WB as being Israel proper even if they do maintain military superiority and preparedness.

I'm not asking about whether Soviet control of East Berlin was good; I'm asking whether we can conclude that the Soviets were the aggressors in WW2 because they came to control part of Berlin/Germany.... and that answer is no.

When you annex territory, you simply can't deny being an aggressor. — ssu

Was the Soviet Union the aggressor after the pushing back the Germans on the Eastern front? Poland fell under their control. So did Berlin. Do we describe the USSR as the aggressor in this war?