Chris in London said:
Not the point I was making.
I didn't suggest the palestinians were guilty of whataboutery (though they may be), I didn't mention the palestinians at all. What I said is that the Israeli's were not the only ones who were (read Horsham's post for the context). It seems to me unfair to single out the Israelis specifically for whataboutery when it is something that so many others - for instance both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland - indulge in.
The rags commit fouls during football matches but it is scarcely fair to criticise them for that alone because everybody else does it too.
Your point is absurd as well as being mostly wrong. Most countries are not occupiers and all occupations ought to be condemned. It doesn't matter whether it's the British Empire, the Nazis or Israel. All occupations should be condemned. One occupation should not be used to excuse another.
However, in this case it is just wrong anyway. This is not about right and wrongs on both sides therefore (somehow) negating one another - rather than doing the sensible thing and condemning all wrongs. The fact is, in the case of occupation, there is ONLY one side. Palestinians CAN condemn Israel for their occupation because Palestinians have NEVER occupied Israelis whereas Israel has occupied Palestinian land for closing in on FIFTY YEARS. However, I also believe in looking at the balance of right and wrongs. The fact there have been rights and wrongs on both sides is indisputable of course, but the balance of rights and wrongs is heavily skewed in one direction. Israel has committed far wrongs than Palestinians. Whilst there have been Israeli victims there have been many more Palestinian victims even when you illogically disregard the fact that the Palestinians are occupied - which is a nonsense in and of itself, and is an attempt to remove reality from the equation.
The nonsense you are spouting is dangerous. It is the sort of thing that denies the Palestinians justice. Too many people think it's complicated and get confused by the fact that there are victims on both sides and so don't know who's in the right and what needs to change to actually make things better. Too many people think it's about peace and that one side simply needs to stop and the cycle of violence will end. This is wrong. It is not about peace. If it was about peace there would be peace. It's about getting the Palestinians what they need to live their own lives in their own lands. You simply cannot do that if you refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinians have rights to something they do not have. The Palestinians are the ones with the more legitimate grievances. Who deserve freedom from occupation - as the Israelis already have. Deserve to live in a land run by them with control of their own borders, skies, waters, roads and drinking water - as the Israelis already have. Where they can lead ordinary lives not blighted by security checks and road blocks imposed by an occupying army - as the Israelis already have. Their children should be reading books and playing games. They shouldn't be throwing rocks at Israeli tanks in their villages nor be a target for Israeli soldiers to readjust their gun sights. This is not to dismiss all Israeli grievances, such as the rocket attacks, but simply to say in order to solve the problem it must be acknowledged that the Palestinians have many more and they need to be remedied. Saying there are right and wrongs on both sides is a useless dangerous cliché that will get you nowhere.
