Defending Israel’s security is considered a ‘reason of state’ in the country, where there is practically no public criticism of Netanyahu’s government. Meanwhile, statements in favor of Palestinian human rights are censored

Defending Israel’s security is considered a ‘reason of state’ in the country, where there is practically no public criticism of Netanyahu’s government. Meanwhile, statements in favor of Palestinian human rights are censored

  • gian English
    1•7 months ago

    Foreword: I had my ideas about all this (and I will keep them for myself) and while I not completly agree with you, it’s fine we had different opinions, I have no desire to make you change yours.

    But I want to ask something, you say :

    And of course Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians even if the democratically elected negotiators are terrorists. Israel’s first parliaments were full of former terrorists. There is no better way to turn terrorists into ex-terrorists than to negotiate with them.

    I fail to understand how Israel could negotiate with the Palestinian when the elected Palestinian negotiators are terrorists that have written in their constitution (the Hamas Charter) that they need to destroy Israel (or zionist states in the new revision).

    I mean, we could negotiate but we should both do it with good faith, if one of us has as objective to destroy the other, how we could negotiate and be sure the result will be respected by both sides ?