You are right, “proposal” was overstating it, and a strawman.

Let’s see here:

It’s just pretty obvious that you don’t make a real effort to prevent a state completing it’s genocide before you stop supplying them with arms.

Up to now what you put forward twice was a purity test.

I thought the test was tantamount to a specific proposal: to stop the arms supply - but apparently you say it’s not, and you want to play the definition game now, or just a frustrated “no you”.

So far my position has been that the US should be doing more to apply pressure to Israel.

Maybe that’s your underlying motivation, which I agree with.

How do you disagree with that WITHOUT taking the stance that any other action would lead to a worse outcome?

I didn’t disagree with doing more.

And I didn’t say that any other action will lead to a worse outcome.

You keep on performing the same fallacy and ascribing me motivations I don’t have.

I disagreed with the non-proposal of stopping the arms right now as a minimum first step.

Again, what is this hypothetical cutting of the nose?

It’s clearly the minimum action you mentioned in the litmus test.

If you say that doing anything more than what the US is currently doing

At this point I’m not sure we understand language the same way.

I’m out.