Yes, but families are split along the borders and checkpoints that have been drawn up by Israel. As long as the territories are occupied, Israel, as the occupier, is responsible for basic human rights and needs in the occupied area. Especially when they stop trade going in, like the attack on ships headed for Gaza.
> 1) anti Arab racism motivates the belief that "we can't expect Palestinians to behave any better" (hey, maybe we can't, but if you don't want me to accuse you of anti-Semitism, come out and say it)
Look, the jews were right to use terrorist tactics in the Warsaw ghettoes, and I can understand why Palestinians (also Semites, by the way) resort to such tactics in the current conflict. ANC wasn't peaceful in South-Africa, and it can be argued that non-violence wouldn't have been able to, on its own, create the civil rights reforms we've seen in the US.
> 2) anti Jewish racism motivates the belief that "still, that doesn't justify the way those people are reacting", even though we see plenty of other "peoples" around the world defending themselves.
This is a little bit like saying the Nazis were worse, so why should we criticise how the British behaved in the Boer wars.
Israel is arguably a functioning, rich state with a strong military. It has the power to approach the situation differently than putting minors in indefinite detention for throwing rocks, for example.
Israel is no failed state - the main reason we think of the holocaust as terrible, isn't (in my mind) just the death toll and suffering, but the systematic nature of it. This isn't millions killed in ravaging civil war, but calculated atrocities.
Just because I want a peaceful resolution to the situation concerning Israel, doesn't mean I won't (or haven't) spoken out against Turkey or Iraq on the situation with the Kurds - to give another example. Or that I don't condemn the US for their many dirty wars.
> Only in the case of Israel is there so much bitterness by outsiders toward one side, the less violent side, the side that is actually a civilized democracy and obeys rule of law.
"The less violent side"?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/15/world/middleea...
30 (mostly civilan) deaths to each Israeli? Yes, this is what you expect when you attack a mostly civilian population with trained soldiers armed with modern weapons.
I can accept that some people will argue that this is a "necessary" or "justified" response. But "less violent"? That is harder to accept. If this is "less violent" what would a "stronger" response look like?
