Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Winters's avatar

Appalling article. Peter says he is seeking "not to excuse violence against civilians" but only after paragraphs and paragraphs of justifications, comparing Palestinian violence to the Ukrainian conflict as well as historical examples. Violence against innocent civilians is always wrong. It was wrong when the Irish did it, it was wrong when hypothetical Ukrainians do it, and it's wrong when Palestinians do it. In Peter's rush to defend the murder of Jews, he fails to address the fact that two of the murderers were in fact members of ISIS. I look forward to Peter's next article in which he shows a causation between ISIS's violence and the violence of the oppressive Israeli state. There seems to be no limit to the amount of victim blaming occurring here.

If Palestinians feel so hopeless and powerless that they are compelled to slaughter innocent people, perhaps instead they should get their government to finally make peace with Israel after all of these years. Abbas has failed to make peace with every single Israeli PM for the past several decades, maybe someone new could actually get something done? If Palestine truly "see no other way to answer the violence inflicted on them" (another disgusting defense of Jew murder), then that is a problem on Palestine's end, no one else's.

I do enjoy the references to international law, though, like the claim that Israel's occupation is against international or about "Palestinian efforts to hold Israel accountable under international law." You know what's against international law, Peter? Murdering civilians! Funny how you didn't mention that anywhere.

Expand full comment
Anonymous's avatar

Peter says that "Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, like Russia’s invasions of Ukraine, still constitutes a clear violation of international law." He then shares a series of links that fail to back up his claim. The link to the UN, for example, directs to a news report about a ruling concerning Israel's settlements. Another is to a ruling about the West Bank security barrier.

Question: is Peter not very intelligent, or does he merely believe his audience is unable to tell the difference between a settlement and an occupation?

Expand full comment
28 more comments...

No posts