Palestinian citizens of Israel have a wider set of rights than Palestinians in the occupied territories. They have the ability to vote in Israeli elections and serve in the Knesset, but they face limited opportunities to own land and build homes, along with evictions, differences in immigration policy, and implicit restrictions on social service access. Palestinian citizens face major challenges to get residential home permits approved due to zoning restrictions that limit expansion, and often risk demolition by building without them. Additionally, they’ve been the subject of evictions that human rights groups say are aimed at clearing the way for more Jewish-majority neighborhoods. The 1950 Law of Return also enables any Jewish person to move to Israel and become a citizen, while Palestinians do not have this right even if their families were previously displaced from land now within Israel’s borders.
So whatever merits Alessan’s arguments guided you towards, you decided against them solely because of the opinions of non Israelis with no personal stake in the issue? What does their opinion have to do with anything? I mean, I’m going to side eye any agreement I have with conservatives, but I’m not necessarily going to reverse my opinion solely on that count (which some conservatives claim to do about liberal views, actually…).
Ah, yes. How could I forget that Israeli Arabs aren’t allowed to vote, must practice the state-sanctioned religion or be executed, and the military shoots them if they try to flee their homes?
Wait, wait, I’m being told that none of that is true, and is in fact how Hamas treats its own citizens. Sorry for the mistake.
Aha, I didn’t know that. That brings it closer to home for me. But I’m still not sure how their attitudes changed the facts for you. Or did you feel the whole question is emotionally based rather than based on objective facts?
Both. Some of the things cited were objective things the Israelis and IDF said and did. Other things were the attitudes displayed towards Palestinian civilians.
I don’t discount emotions, like some, because for one thing, I am not a robot.
To the contrary; we seem to be the only ones who believe the Palestinian people deserve to be protected, which is what Israel is doing by seeking to liberate them from the Hamas regime that clearly shows no interest in whether they live or die.
I am very saddened to hear you say that. Obviously I don’t think that’s true at all. I think Palestinian lives are just as worth protecting as anyone else’s. I also think that if Palestinian lives are going to stop being wasted on this conflict, then first Hamas needs to be removed and then the Palestinian people need to be given a real path to a better life (which means a state, economic opportunity, etc).
I’ve been accused of supporting a lot of heinous things by a lot of ignorant people, and that has been extremely trying. Like you, I am not a robot either.
You are someone I respect, and I do not count you among their ranks. If you have taken such a different view of my words than I had intended, then perhaps it is time for me to step away from this topic.
Your (and others) first instinct with the ambulance bombing and “refugee camp”* bunker buster was to make arguments for why it was justified, rather than first condemn. That was the view I got.
I know, you’ve condemned settler attacks on the West Bank Palestinians, but you’ve shown very little concern for Gazan civilians, only an abstract concept of “get rid of Hamas is the best protection” - which yes, it is necessary. But not killing Palestinians is the best protection for them, actually.
I just want to re-iterate - what Hamas did was abhorrent. Bit Israel’s response has been poor. I don’t doubt some of that is ass-covering by Bibi and crew, and I don’t deny some is justified. The boots-on-the-ground part is just fine by me.
But some of it is war crime, and that part, we should all condemn out of hand. Not justify, or be legalistic about. Bombing a city of civilians is a war crime. Shooting an ambulance with wounded in it is a war crime. Condemn first, then explain if you must.
