[c933103]

Originally Posted by OH&S

Now I see what you’re arguing but it makes your original analogy with China even more ridiculous. Your argument would hold more water if Gaza and the West Bank were much further away from each other such that the two territories and their peoples weren’t linked to each other.

But Gaza and the West Bank are as close as 35 – 70 km from each other.
They are both separated by the same entity.
They are both oppressed by the same entity.
Despite the current schism between the governments, they both ultimately seek to unify with each other. (And in fact, they were under the same authority before the 2007 conflict)
They both want their capital city to be the same thing, East Jerusalem (minus the ones that want to wipe out the entirety of Israel; they want all of Jerusalem).
They are recognized as being part of the same sovereign state by the UN.

For all intents and purposes, they are the same people and treat each other as such. Saying that they have different ruling parties and thus should keep to their own affairs is ridiculous.

So of course its their affair if Israel commits atrocities in the most important (and holiest) location of their desired capital city against people who they consider their own; especially with the Palestinian Authority being toothless to stop Israel.

But I’m not expecting you to agree on this.

As you doesn't seems to agree with two state solution, the alternative is to see Israel as just as much a competitor for the sovereignty of the land as Hamas or Palestinian Authority, and can be classified as a civil war on the land. With such thinking it is reasonable to say any power in the area have their stake in gaining control of any points in any territories, but such mindset would lead to legitimization of Israel settlement in West Bank which I don't like.

So instead I have three questions:

1. Would it have been preferable for you if instead of Hamas, it was instead some entity in the West Bank that attacked Israel?
2. If Israel is allowed to defend itself from terrorists, are Palestinians ultimately allowed defend themselves when Israel commits atrocities against them, whether that be through terrorism or any means necessary?
3. What exactly are Palestinians supposed to do if Israel commits atrocities against them considering they are living in an apartheid state where they are second class citizens?

- If they some entity representing the West Bank want to actually start a war against Israel over the matter, I would say it isn't unfair since last time Israel pushed into West Bank was after they lose some wars to Israel.
- I find it difficult to classify terrorism, especially terrorism against civilian, as act of defend
- Are you talking about Arabic people living in Israel, or Palestinian, being second class citizens?