Wow, I just got and used a whetstone for the first time yesterday!

I’ll tell you what I did, with the understanding that I’m less knowledgeable than others in this post, but can probably better relate to your situation.

I’d also be happy to hear feedback from others.

I bought a dual King whetstone of 1000/6000 grit for a basic German knife that lost its edge after a few months of daily use. The 6000 side is probably overkill (King is made for Japanese knifes, which do require 6000 grit. 2000-4000 would do for a German knife), but the whetstone was at the correct balance of price, apparent quality and known brand.

I mainly used these two videos as guides:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkzG4giI8To

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tahaaHxhbsA

Using a marker to see if I’m holding the knife at the correct angle helped, thought I mostly used it to get my bearings. I didn’t bother with the whole 10, 8, 6 etc. stropping process, rather went a few times on each side, and tested it until the knife was able to cut through paper easily. Overall, I’d say it took me less than 10 passes on each side.

The main issue for me was forcing myself to hold the knife correctly and move my other hand to apply pressure at the right point (I was able to do it correctly, it just took a bit of work). I also had a hard time keeping the angle of the knife constant.

The whole process start to finish took me about half an hour, I’d say about 5-10 minutes were due to me being a noob.

When inspecting the edge, I noticed it was convex, which makes sense as the angle wasn’t uniform. From what I understand, this might actually be better than a straight V edge (the most common type), so… yay for me, I guess?

After finishing the knife easily passed the paper test, and cutting through a tomato was more a matter of placing the knife on top of the tomato and sliding it back and forth, allowing the edge to drop down and slice it. The knife is at least as sharp as when it was new, if not sharper. There is one spot where I think the edge isn’t as good, but I only noticed it because I was looking for issues and it isn’t noticeable with regular use. Overall I’m very happy with the results.

Every day until the Pandemic.

Cool, good for you (seriously). Do you honestly think they’ll say they’re against the freedom of the individual, or is it that you think they’re against it? Not saying you’re right or wrong, just asking if you’re describing what you think they’ll say, their own beliefs or the beliefs/consequences of their party. It’s an important distinction, especially when trying to engage in dialogue with them.

I’m just looking at what I’ve spent the past several months witnessing via news reporting and video clips.

Maybe I don’t follow enough news outside of Israel, but I do read quite a bit and there wasn’t anything about Zionism. Could you maybe link to one or two sources?

I’m not debating what the dictionary says about it.

I’m actually not debating at all, right now I’m trying to understand you, and I’m having some difficulties. My best guess is, you seem to have issues against the Israeli army and government (me too, btw), and somehow decided that’s Zionism. Zionism is more than a century old, and there are plenty of people who call themselves Zionists, yet don’t support all the IDF and the Israeli government did during the past few months (you’re talking to one right now, and Biden is another example). Do you think these people are wrong in what their opinions are? That they’re lying? That they’re not using the correct word, even though that’s the same usage as in the dictionary?

I don’t think they say this much anymore since all Republican policies are explicitly about restricting the will of their fellow citizens.

Thant’s not really the point, though it does kinda feed into a general issue with the way both out countries (assuming you’re from the US) are divided - When was the last time you had an actual talk with a republican in order to understand what he/she thinks?

I never used it this way or considered it this way until the past few months. 🤔 Now you’d have a hard time convincing me that it’s not what it means.

Err… that’s just the definition of the word? You can look it up on any dictionary.

We could talk about the current government, it’s policy or the opinion of Israelis but saying the entire concept of Zionism equals support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza is not only factually wrong, it collapses the Israel-Palestine issue into a winner-take-all situation, where both sides are encouraged to beat each other in the hopes one of them will give up before both are dead.

I’m from Israel, and no one is using “Zionism” in the second meaning.

Zionism is, by definition, support for Israel as a Jewish state.

There are those who say “real Zionism” is supporting settlements in Gaza and the west bank, but there are also those who say “real Zionism” is an Israeli state existing alongside a Palestinian state. That’s like a US democrat saying a “true patriot” would support supplying a social safety net for the well-being of all citizens, while a US republican would say a “true patriot” would support a small government that doesn’t restrict the will of all citizens.

Personally, I feel that referring to Zionism in general as support for Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza started as a (partially successful) tactic to de-legitimize the existence of Israel. Not saying everyone who uses the term incorrectly is an antisemitic or whatever, but that’s basically where it came from.

To help the people caught in the middle, from both sides, one has to understand the interests of the Israeli government and Hamas. I think the last actions Biden did have the best chance of stopping the war.

Hamas’s interests are a full retreat of Israeli forces and keeping as many hostages. They don’t really care what happens to the general population. The “political” leaders in Qatar also have an interest of staying there. They are also OK with keeping the war going since as time goes by the public opinion turns more and more against Israel. The latter part can be dealt with by not letting Hamas of the hook for what’s going on in Gaza (if you want to say “But no one is saying they’re not to blame!” - yes, but most aren’t stating clearly the ARE to blame. In practical terms, that’s about the same). Also, pressure can be put on Qatar so they can put pressure on the political leadership, as Biden has reportedly done.

The Israeli government is a bit more complex, as it’s a coalition with three “legs” - Netanyahu/Likud, that mainly want to stay in power and nothing else (the war is good for them, since they don’t have to answer for their part in how it started), the far right that want to take over Gaza (and therefor welcome international sanctions, as it “proves” that the whole world hates Israel and therefore the only solution is to disregard what the world thinks), and the ultra orthodox parties that want to keep certain privileges for their voters.

The international arrest warrants, while not desirable on Netanyahu’s part, actually increase his power. He spins them as warrants against “the entire country”. And in fact, right after they were issued Likud rose in the polls.

So what can be done regarding the Israeli government? Well, Netanyahu is playing all sides against the middle, telling everyone different things while trying to change the situation, no matter what the situation actually is, as little as possible (since any change can result in him losing power). Biden, by stating the offer currently on the table came from Israel tore the mask from Netanyahu’s double speak and makes it harder for him to keep the current situation.

Small children (under 6-7) are exempt from Jewish law. Making breast milk kosher isn’t exactly neccsery, but it makes things much easier (how to keep it, making sure it won’t get mixed with other foods by mistake, what happened if it does etc.) The neat part is that breast milk isn’t considered milk accordingly to Jewish law, so it can be drunk with/right after/before eating meat (otherwise forbidden). This means a person can, and I know at least one who actually did, add breast milk to their coffee after eating meat.

Err… Yes?

I mean, if the cops can’t actually come into your city, having them waiting outside the city limits with signs saying “if you’ll come out we’ll arrest you!” probably isn’t the best course of action for you.

No, what I’m saying is:

a. The immediate goal shouldn’t be to punish Netanyahu for war crimes, rather solve (at least improve) the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

b. Arrest warrants against Netanyahu will not help improve the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, if anything they’ll make the situation worse (There are already calls from far-right members of Knesset to stop all humanitarian aid to Gaza as a response).

Therefor, this is uplifting news for anyone who hates Netanyahu/Israel more than they want to help Palestinians.

Right, so it’s not “smart”, it’s just, you know, what he should have done regardless.

Preferably even before asking for warrants against Netanyahu and Galant. That way it won’t look like the warrants against Hamas leaders are to justify the warrants against Netanyahu and Galant, like the person I replied to seems to imply.

No, this is not uplifting for anyone (except maybe people who hate Netanyahu and/or Israel and don’t really care about Palestinians).

Right now there is some humanitarian aid going into Gaza, despite objections from the far-far-right Israeli coalition parties. The excuse Netanyahu used to get their (semi-)cooperation is by saying “Well, this is the bare minimum so Israel won’t get hit by sanctions”. The warrants, if granted, will create motivation for Netanyahu to give in and reduce humanitarian aid (he cares much more about personal sanctions than sanctions against the country).

Also, Netanyahu will use the warrants and Israel’s isolation to strengthen his own position in the government, fortify his position and lower the chances for his government to implode.

If that’s the reason behind the arrest warrens for Hamas, doesn’t it make the ICC’s chief request in bad faith? Like “I really want to issue warrants only for Netanyahu, but I know this will be unfair, so I’ll issue warrants for both sides, so I’ll seem balanced”?

“Conservatives” is a misnomer here. “Conservative” isn’t right and “Progressive” isn’t left.

Conservatives are those who want as little change as possible so as to “not rock the boat” and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Progressives are those who want to try out new policies.

From what I gather, a large portion of today’s Republicans aren’t actually conservatives rather regressive. That’s almost literally what “make America great again” means. That’s also the meaning of, for example, the Roe v. Wade overruling - going back to an earlier state.

Also, in the long run the human condition generally changes for the better (Or at least that’s what we perceive as our values and habits are usually aligned with what we have now and not what we had before). As the status quo changes, the things conservatives (and progressives) value change accordingly.

Saying “Conservatives were the people who defended King George.” as if that has anything to do with conservative today is like someone saying “Progressives on the 18th century were for women’s suffrage, they have no business talking about equality”.

Dude, thinking that Israeli Hasbara would sit quietly waiting for someone to say “hey, I wonder if there are any Israelis in the crowd, let’s hear what they have to say”, and then writing a 1,700 word reply on a small platform such as Lemmy is puzzling at best.

Calling it, even as a backhanded compliment, “developed” is mind boggling.

Thanks for the reply and sorry it took me a few days to answer. Also sorry if my reply seems disjointed. We broadened the scope from just the Israeli protests for a hostage deal to, really, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it was hard to give the correct background while keeping it relatively short and trying to account for my own bias, so the reply was written in parts. Hopefully I was able to draw a coherent, if simplified, picture.

First of all, you got the gist of what I’m saying. There are a few things I’d say were a bit off, but most of it isn’t worth going point-by-point. I also agree with many things you said, and you’ve actually described the stance of the Israeli left as well as I could at one point (and now you have to keep reading if you want to know where…).

You’re absolutely correct saying the two camps I’ve described are not left-right. Notice I didn’t say “left”, rather “left-leaning”.

The left-right axis in Israel is best described as the answer to “Do you think Israel should aspire towards a 2 state solution with the Palestinians?” Or, how it’s usually framed, “Are the Palestinians a partner for peace?”. If this seems like a trivial question, please keep in mind this is really a mirror of the Palestinian “Is Israel a partner for peace?”, which is a highly contested question among Palestinians.

It’s also correct to say that in the last year there’s been an increase in Israeli aggression toward Palestinians (This is a view shared by a lot of Israelis, in light of the extremist government). However, in the long run, both sides are basically equally to blame(there’s A LOT of historical context I’m not going to go into. Just as a starting point, you can look up the Oslo accords in the 90s, the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, the 2007 Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip and the blockade that followed). If the protests are against specific actions taken by the Israeli government in the last year, I’m all for it. That said, I got the distinct feeling that the protesters aren’t protesting against the treatment of Palestinians during the last year, but for a Palestinian state, in which case the protests should be directed against Hamas and Israel both. I understand why people would want to protest against Israel, but I don’t understand how one can protest against Israel and not against Hamas using the same metrics.

Hamas has been planning the Oct. 7th attack for at least a year, and invested in infrastructures to support terrorist acts for many years prior (underground tunnels, some of them leading to Israeli settlements, and some used to hide militants, weapons and hostages. After Israel’s invasion to Gaza, Hamas leadership said they have no obligation to protect Gazan civilians), so saying the Oct. 7th attack is related to Israeli aggression in the last year might have merit (talking purely about causal relationship, not justification), but there is enough reason to believe that the attack would have happened either way. Furthermore, if Hamas gets a “free pass” since their actions were a result of Israeli transgression, why does Israel not get a “free pass” as their actions are a result of Hamas aggression? This approach, where every side’s violence is justified using previous violence committed by the other side, is called a cycle of violence, and is one of the main lenses through which the Israeli left is looking at the broad confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians (we call it “the cycle of bloodshed”). I can talk about Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets as of 2004, and before that there were suicide bombings going all the way back to Hamas’s foundation, and other terror attacks going back before the Israeli control over the west bank and Gaza (that is, before what you refer to as “aparthide”). I’m saying this not to try and convince you that “the Palestinians started it!”, but to explain why “They started it!” is not a call for peace, but a call for more violence.

The former paragraph also relates to the third point (Why Oct. 7th happened), but if to address that point directly - saying “October 7th happened because of a shocking waste of resources and lapse in security from Israel” is like saying "The Gazan casualties are due to Hamas investing their resources into attacking Israel instead of caring for their civilians’'. That’s blaming the victim on top of contributing to the cycle of violence (Also, and this is really a side note, as of now there are about 35,000 Gazan casualties in total. estimates are that about 2/3 of them were uninvolved in fighting).

“The second point is much more difficult, because it’s not clear what-so-ever that the Israeli government is interested in defeating or making irrelevant Hamas through political means. Israel effectively kaibashed every political approach to peace (before Oct 7th). It just doesn’t seem like they are operating in good faith.” Welcome to the Israeli left. Feel free to grab a cup of coffee and chat with the many guests we have here from the moderate centre. You came just in time for our lecture on “How Netanyahu and the far-left propped Hamas to shoot down any option for a diplomatic solution”. The highlights include Smotrich, the current Israeli minister of finance, stating that “Hamas is an asset and Fatah is a burden”, and Netanyahu saying “Those who want to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state should support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of money [from Qatar] to Hamas”.

Regarding Israel being a “bad ally” to the US - I agree, and so do the Israeli left and large portions (most?) of the centrists. The way we phrase it is that the current government is creating a rift between Israel and the US and abandoning the values that are shared among both countries. For us, this is a moral issue (we kinda like those shared values), but also a practical one should the US withhold the support it gives us. Don’t know what Israeli news sources you’re following, but it was much talked about in the last weeks at least. BTW, the Israeli far-right, that de-facto controls the coalition, is very unconcerned about this due to, IMO, self delusion. But this also seems too narrow a reason to protest. If the US were to withdraw all political and financial support from Israel, and Israel would continue acting the same, would most protesters be content? And how does this explain protests in countries that don’t provide Israel with support?

To finish, I’d like to address the use of “apartheid” when talking about Israel. A Palestinian call fall into one of 3 categories - Those who have Israeli citizenship, those who live in the west bank and those who live in Gaza. They each live under a different legal infrastructure.

Israel has about two million Arab citizens (I’m saying “Arab” to include Palestinians, and other Arab groups like Durze as well as “ethnically” Palestinians who don’t identify as such nationally) who have the same rights as any Jewish person (small asterix - Arabs in west Jerusalem aren’t citizens, though are offered citizenship and have most of the same rights including, for example, voting in the local elections). There is institutional racism that’s more akin to the way black people are (“are”, not “were”) treated in some parts of the US. The Arabs in the (annexed) Golan heights also have full citizenship. As of 2006, Hamas is the sole sovereign in Gaza and there are no Jewish people living there, so “apartheid” doesn’t apply. We’re left with the Arabs in the west bank, who mostly do live under a discriminatory rule system (Yet still have their own government and law system). However, the distinction isn’t race, rather citizenship. For example, some Israeli Arabs moved into Palestinian settlements in the west bank (due to lower cost of living), and they still retain the same rights they had when living in Israel-proper. The Israeli left refers to the Palestinians without an Israeli citizenship as “living under occupation” and to the Israeli control of the disputed territories (excluding the Golan heights) is referred to as “the occupation” (we naturally view this as morally wrong). This, to me, seems much more correct than “apartheid”, especially considering that “apartheid” is used to specifically refer to the system in South Africa, and even the west bank is far from it. If anything, apartheid  a-la South Africa is what the far-right in Israel has in mind (for both Israeli Arabs and Arabs living under occupation), and that’s one of the reasons the distinction between “occupation” and “apartheid” is important in practice - if the far-left will have their way (which seems implausible, yet not absolutely out of the question), those who say Palestinians live under apartheid now will have a hard time explaining, or even understanding, exactly how the situation changed for the worse.

Hi, Israeli here.

I’ll start off by saying this turned out to be a VERY long post. I did my best to condense the absolutely necessary parts, and I still feel I’ve left a lot of important stuff out. Anyway, hopefully anyone who’s interested in the situation and reads this will be able to gain some insight.

The thing is, you guys are looking at the situation in Israel from your perspective without understanding the factors at play. To actually understand the situation among Jewish Israelis (who I’ll refer to as “Israelis” for simplicity’s sake) requires a thorough explanation about Israeli culture, politics and some history.

Saying “I don’t see any signs against genocide, that must mean all Israelis are pro-genocide” forces your perspective on the situation, like saying (in very broad terms) “I didn’t see any signs that talk about ‘all life matters’ in the BLM protests, that must mean they only value black lives”, so imaging that, but instead of an American saying it, it’s some dude in Thailand who has very little understanding of the racial situation on the US.

So, let’s go:

Right now, the country is pretty divided among supporters of the current government and those opposed to it. While the government has a 53% majority in the parliament, it really never had more than 50% supporters among the population (Firstly, some left wing parties didn’t get enough votes to get into parliament. Also, right after the elections the Likud government adopted a plan proposed by the religious far-right party that would, in essence, transform Israel into a Hungry-like hybrid regime which made many liberal Likud supporters oppose the government). The opposition grew stronger after Oct. 7th, though the government still has the support of (mainly) the far right, the ultra-orthodox religious parties and the Israeli version of Trump supporters who mainly want to “own the libs”. There are weekly polls that check how many people support the current government and Netanyahu is using every trick in the book to increase support among the public because his coalition is extremely fragile.

However, regarding the war in Gaza, there is a consensus that’s shared among a very large majority of the population from both sides:

1. The Israeli hostages must be returned. I cannot overstate how important this is. Firstly, Israel is a tiny country, quite communal and most Israelis have large families. The hostages aren’t “citizens”, “people” or even “fellow Jews”. They’re “The niece of my dentist”, “My ex’s uncle”, “The daughter of friends of my colleague” etc. Nearly Every Israeli knows someone who knows someone who’s been kidnapped. Secondly, one of the founding ethos of Israel is to have a safe place for Jews that’s free of persecution no matter what. The Oct. 7th massacre is seen not only as a tragedy, but as the state not performing one of its core functions to some extent. Lastly, redemption of prisoners is a major commandment in the Jewish faith. This is the main point on all virtually ALL Israelis can agree upon (Let me stress that again - the agreement isn’t that the hostages “should” be returned, but that they MUST be returned. That’s important for later).

2. Hamas must be destroyed. If they’re allowed to exist, this will happen again (There is, however, disagreement on how best can Israel vanquish Hamas).

These two objectives are seen among many (not sure if most) as contradictory - Hamas is using the hostages to force an Israeli retreat from Gaza, and the only way they will release all of the hostages is if that secures their rule in Gaza. This is also important to remember for later.

3. What Israel is doing in Gaza is somewhere between unfortunate and tragic, but it’s absolutely not genocide, rather a result of Hamas integrating itself into civilian infrastructure and hiding behind civilians (again, this is the mainstream opinion, not something agreed by ALL Israelis).

I, personally, subscribe to the first two points, do not believe they are contradictory and while I believe the IDF isn’t nearly as cautious about harming civilians in Gaza as it should be and that not allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza is immoral, both things do not constitute genocide.

Those numbed three points are in the Israeli consensus, but we have one more crucial piece of context before I get to the demonstrations - There are two groups of Israelis who do not believe the 1st and 2nd points are contradictory. Each belongs to opposing ends of the political spectrum - in the right there are those who think military pressure is the only way to, somehow, secure the release of the hostages. The other group is left  leaning, and it believes that withdrawing from Gaza for the release of the hostages and building a civilian opposition against Hamas Will solve the issue in the long run. They also believe the current government doesn’t really want to get rid of Hamas, rather they want to make sure Hamas will remain the only Palestinian ruler in the strip, so the government has an excuse to continue the current treatment of Palestinians (both as individuals and as a people). The first group thrives on extremism and sowing division (and if this reminds you of a certain US political party and a US politician in particular, you are absolutely on the money), and the second group is trying to build on a consensus, and make room for liberal right leaning people in order to gain influence (the opposition is actually composed of two liberal right wing parties).

Oh, wait, just one other thing - There’s a joke that goes: A Jewish man is stranded on an island for 20 years. He is finally rescued, and the rescuers see the life he built for himself. Among all the things they see, there are two synagogues. They ask the man “you were on this Island alone. Why do you need two synagogues for?” The man looks lovingly at the first synagogue and says “Well, this is the synagogue where I prayed every day for someone to come and rescue me, and this” he says while looking disdainfully at the second synagogue “is the synagogue where I wouldn’t be caught dead in”. Point is, Jews and Israeli Jews in particular, love to argue and have disagreements. Think The Life of Brian’s The People’s Front of Judea and Judean People’s Front. So when I say “there are two groups”, it’s more like “there are about 1,000 groups that can be broadly divided in two camps”.

You’d think this leads to a society that’s fractured on many levels so that it can’t really operate, but Israelis are also very good at putting differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal.

So, finally, about the protests - as you may have guessed, the people who are protesting belong to the second camp. And yes, many of them think what’s happening in Gaza is wrong. But remember the whole “putting our differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal” and the “The hostages must be returned”? That’s the strategy in a nutshell. The protesters are trying to use the single most agreed upon goal, and build a consensus for a deal from there. That’s the reason you won’t see anything about Gazans in the protests. Going outside the consensus gives the far right more ammunition to paint the protesters as traitors and to rally the moderate right against them. The push for a deal NOW (the main rally cry) will cease virtually all IDF operations in Gaza anyway, so in some of the protesters’ minds (mine included), protesting against the IDF while correct in a vacuum actually goes against that very cause. Now, I don’t really know US history that well, but think what would happen if the Vietnam anti-war movement made room for more conservatives on the grounds that the war is harming the US. Maybe Nixon’s “law and order” campaign would have failed and he’d have lost the elections. I might be talking out of my ass here, but even if I’m wrong I hope this at least gives a better understanding about the strategy used by the protesters in Israel - they’re saying “You don’t have to join us because you’re a hippie peacenik. You have to join us because that’s what’s best for our country”.

I’d like to stress that the protesters are NOT hiding their opinions. They just want to make as much room for other supporters. Some people are willing to protest for a cease-fire if that means getting the hostages back, but would not be willing to protest alongside a sign that says “The IDF is killing innocent people”.

So that was about the situation in Israel. If you came this far, I hope you found the read worth your time. Now I’d like to ask for a bit more of your time in return.

I have a question for the people who are protesting against Israel to stop the “genocide” unconditionally (or those who are in support of said protests), but are not protesting against Hamas to release the hostages unconditionally (or those who see no need for these protests) - I assume you don’t agree with Hamas’s actions on Oct. 7th, but obviously you don’t believe these actions justify what Israel is doing in harming innocent people (BTW, most Israelis would agree. If you don’t understand how this can be, refer to the 3rd point stated previously).

I’d like to ask why does this logic not work the other way around? If what Israel is doing is reprehensible regardless of anything Hamas has done previously and should be opposed, then surely what Hamas has done is also reprehensible regardless of what Israel has done previously and should be opposed. Is it just a matter of numbers, so there’s a “minimum casualty” that justifies protests, and below that the victims are SOL?

Not saying that’s the case, but that’s what I was able to come up with. Maybe I’m missing some context.

And before you say that’s just whataboutism - I don’t think it is. Both things are a part of the same situation, so I think this is more a case of a cop seeing two cars driving on the road at night and stopping only one of them (where the driver happens to be black).

I think we’re on two different wavelengths.

Put stuff in: Stand next to closed car with no free hands, could use automatically opening doors.

Take stuff out: Open car. Pick up stuff out of the car. Stand next to open car with no free hands, could use automatically closing doors.

Because taking stuff out is like putting stuff in, only in the reverse order.

Maybe that’s my bias, but that seems to be a very… specific way of sorting sides. Mind if I rephrase that?

• Pro Israeli side, which includes people who care that the hostages be saved. Some also want a 2 state solutions implemented.
• Pro Israeli control of Palestinians side: people that believe any Palestinian autonomy will result in a repeat of the Oct. 7th massacre, partly because of the, well, Oct. 7th massacre.
• Pro Palestinian side, which includes people who believe Israel should be destroyed and Jews killed, as well as people who maybe don’t want want Jews killed but care that Israel is defeated and/or Palestinians are not bombed.

I’d say both phrasings are about equally accurate and objective.

First, Ask the colleague why she feels her way is better.

If she says something like “it just is”, reply that while you’re open to other ways to do things, you have a way that currently works for you, and would need a reason to switch your workflows.

If she gives an actual answer, consider it. Maybe it is better than what you’re use to. maybe it’s possible to incorporate both ways to have the best of both worlds. Assuming you still think you way is better, say something along the lines of (I’m basing this on something I said to a co-worker in order not to be too abstract): “I get that doing it your way [is simpler and requires less troubleshooting], but it can also [give wrong results if a thing changes and we forget to correct for it]. My way [corrects for it automatically]. For me, eliminating the risk of [forgetting to manually correct] is worth the need to [do some troubleshooting]. Maybe that’s because you have [better memory] and I’m better at [technical stuff], so we each have a way that works for us, but will not work for the other. I appreciate that you took the time and explained your way of thinking, and I hope you understand why my way is better for me”.

After that, if she still insists, tell her you clearly aren’t able to come to an agreement among yourselves, so maybe it’s better you both talk to the charge nurse if manager or whatever.

The wrong assumption you’re making is that Israel is blowing up hospitals.

You’re probably thinking about the blast in Al-Ahli Hospital in October, that was ruled by both the US and most news agencies as a failed Islamic Jihad launch.