Because one side creates the situation and is the sole party with the power to end it, and the other side is in an utterly desperate situation stripped of other realistic means of fighting back, and it's unreasonable to hold the oppressed and the oppressor to the same standard because that inherently favours the oppressor.
And because it's wildly hypocritical when most of us live in countries that actively supports the oppressor and takes no step to stop it.
That doesn't mean it's not awful, and a war crime, but the blame lies on Israel for each and every death on both sides as long as they maintain their apartheid regime and their illegal occupation.
I called Israel a bully, and you know that full well.
And the far larger numbers of poor scared murdered children they've left behind makes me unwilling to blame anyone but the occupier and the perpetrator of apartheid who has created the situation in the first place.
In other words, if you blame anyone but Israel for what happens in this conflict, you're part of perpetuating the situation causing this.
At the same time it's unreasonable to believe this won't be the consequence eventually when you impose apartheid and carry out war crimes for decades.
As long as Israel maintains its illegal occupation and maintains it's apartheid, and continue their own war crimes (including settlements - annexing occupied land is a war crime as well) it's sheer hypocrisy to focus on the Palestinians desperate response, the same way it was when some focused on ANCs bombings of civilians rather than on the systematic oppression that created the situation in the first place.
Blaming the victim for punching the bully back is indirectly defending the bully, who in this case has a far higher death toll on their conscience.
Conflating religion and national belonging like this is pure and vile xenophobia. Thinking all Muslim countries supports Palestine is also staggeringly ignorant.
When you're cornered with no options, do you lay down and give up, or do you lash out indiscriminately without worrying how it will look or stop to rationally assess whether it will help?
You can't take away people's other options and then blame them when their reactions gets increasingly extreme, because doing so inherently favours the oppressors.
Mandela insisted to the end that turning violent was instrumental to actually getting attention. He went on to say this about how ineffectual their non-violent struggle was:
“The hard facts were that 50 years of non-violence had brought the African people nothing but more and more repressive legislation, and fewer and fewer rights.” --Mandela
They were largely ignored internationally while they were peaceful.
I trust his assessment of it over yours any day.
Put another way: How long do you think most people believe the anti-Apartheid struggle went on?
I'd be willing to bet most people have no idea about the decades of resistance to increasingly repressive laws that preceded the escalation. Even those vaguely aware that Mandela's arrest happened in 1963, after the start of the sabotage operations.
They didn't get much international support until the 1970's, and that support was still fringe until the 1980's, as violence had been ramping up for two decades.
ANC bombed civilians and their attacks were celebrated by many. The IRA did, and were celebrated by many. ETA did, and were celebrated by many. It is common, and suggesting it's unique to Palestinians is pure racism.
EDIT: Ah, looked at one of your other comments that were equally awful. Block incoming.
Mandela disagreed with you, and maintained to the end that it was essential in mobilizing support. They got little attention until they ramped up.
The engaged in non-violent resistance against increasingly oppressive laws for decades with no support or attention, and achieving nothing. In fact Apartheid was put in place during, not before, that non-violent resistance, that was how little it achieved. The sanctions first started after ANC and others raised the stakes and violence started rattling the regime into escalation that caught attention.
However, whether or not it was effective is irrelevant to the argument I made, which is that unless you provide a better solution, you're not in a position to judge how they fight back.
When they say "can't be blocked" I presume they mean "can't be blocked with the block function in X/Twitter". They also say it can't be liked or retweeted.
So far ads have been treated as sort-of regular posts that are just shown according to the ad rules rather than because they belong in the timeline under normal criteria, and you could like, retweet and block them just like any other post.
So this is basically them treating ads as a fully separate thing rather than just a different post type.
Though the article suggests they'll still try to make them look mostly like posts, except without showing a handle etc. though, which is extra scummy
ANC carried out terror bombings intentionally targeting civilians too after first trying non-violent protests, then trying sabotage, then targeting military, and not getting results. And they were called terrorists as well despite certainly doing far less harm than the regime they fought, and ignoring that while civilian, the majority of their victims were voters who had an active role in continuing to vote in the regimes engaged in the oppression.
The only way to stop being labeled terrorist is to win the conflict, like the ANC.
This is not a criticism of the ANC, btw.. On a personal level I think some of their actions were deplorable, but I also think that it is fundamentally not up to any of us to judge the armed resistance of the oppressed unless we are actively fighting that oppression in better, more effective ways.
In other words: Personally, I think that anyone who is not personally at a minimum engaged in efforts to end Israeli oppression that is likely to right now be achieving more than armed Palestinian resistance has no moral standing to judge their actions.
The foxes here are so well fed and chill most of the time that the cats have lost almost respect for them... They're still a bit cautious (which is good, because there certainly are incidents of foxes killing cats) but overall it's pretty peaceful.
Especially when it's hot and nobody wants to run around.
I think chances are we are at a stage where most would-be smokers would just opt for vaping, given that while it sounds like he wants some restrictions on that as well, it doesn't like that'd be subjected to the year over year age increase?
Your hyperbole was so idiotic that I took 10 seconds to pipe the contents to "wc" to highlight just how lazy you were before you misrepresented what you reply to, yes. That it was such a chore for you to read 600 words before making up a strawman to reply to does indeed say more than you did with words.
Because one side creates the situation and is the sole party with the power to end it, and the other side is in an utterly desperate situation stripped of other realistic means of fighting back, and it's unreasonable to hold the oppressed and the oppressor to the same standard because that inherently favours the oppressor.
And because it's wildly hypocritical when most of us live in countries that actively supports the oppressor and takes no step to stop it.
That doesn't mean it's not awful, and a war crime, but the blame lies on Israel for each and every death on both sides as long as they maintain their apartheid regime and their illegal occupation.