Defiant Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubled down on opposition to Palestinian statehood, deepening the divide with Israel’s closest international allies, as cracks in his wartime “unity” government became increasingly evident.
Anger with Netanyahu is also increasingly visible on the streets, even though there is broad public support for the war. On Saturday, protesters gathered in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Caesarea and Kfar Saba, some calling for bolder action to secure the release of hostages, and others demanding the prime minister step down.
One in Jerusalem held a placard that read: “Mothers’ cry: we will not sacrifice our children in the war to save the rightwing.”
The existence of people willing to protest peacefully doesn’t make the violence of Hamas no longer exist. Especially when the peaceful protests turn a blind eye to the violence of Hamas. You can’t claim it’s a peaceful movement while there’s a violent movement happening concurrent to it.
And are you really claiming Israel didn’t have good reason to be nervous about Palestinians crossing the border into Israel after what happened on October 7? What happened on that day proved that building a fence and blockading Gaza were justified. We’ve seen what Hamas does when given the opportunity to enter into Israel, so why are you still upset that a peaceful movement that would have allowed Hamas to enter Israel in among them wasn’t allowed to proceed? Are you really so in denial about what happened on October 7, what Hamas did, that you can’t retire the talking points you’re used to repeating for the last five years? Hamas proved that Israel was correct to defend it’s border with force.
I’m not really sure what point you’re arguing. I think you might be reading things into my observation that aren’t there.
My point was that it’s unfortunate that non-violence civil disobedience appears to have been found to be highly infective under the conditions within Gaza at least circa 2018-19.
I think it’s weird when someone says “Oct. 7 is proof that Israel was right to ______.” Because while much is up for debate, I think the one thing we can agree is that Oct. 7 showed the overall security arrangement was a failure.
One can argue for any security strategy they like, but I don’t think anyone should point to Oct. 7 to justify any policy that led up to Oct. 7.
Removed by mod