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
Nobody? Really? You don’t think the right-wing Springer press (just to name the most glaring example) that is ideologically allied with ultranationalists in Israel had a problem with those? That they wouldn’t have cried foul even if the protests where utterly devoid of any radicals? That they wouldn’t have tried to censor even your imagined peaceful protests?
Yeah, sure. Protests with 10 thousand people in which maybe a few dozen were stopped by the police and a handful of banners were confiscated as questionable were totally not peaceful and unproblematic. And they are also not well documented in the media but imaginary.
If you refuse reality, that’s a really bad basis for trying to argue.
Oh, these evil violent Protester with dangerous strollers
You’re not getting what I am saying, I agree there were plenty of peaceful protests. What I am saying is even those were, as you said, often stopped by the police and heavily scrutinized by the right-wing press.
What I am saying is protests were held to an impossible standard – something you are doing as well – and there are no protests imaginable that would not have been targeted by Bild et al., yet you pretend they were and would have been fine with such protests.