Of course you won't become subject to the 'Whack-a-Woke' articles for a reply like this one. It's well thought through and passionately argued - and is an excellent reply in every single way.
The power imbalance is very evident - and the reasons for that imbalance are tied up with all the difficult political machinations of other nations and the complicated history- but a power imbalance in and of itself doesn't give moral weight to an argument on either side. The person in the position of least power is not automatically oppressed and therefore not automatically 'the good guy'.
Take for example, the power imbalance between parents and children. We don't look at this and presume parents are oppressing their children at every turn. Many of the things they do and insist upon may seem unfair to the child, but objectively make sense. When considering the complexity of situations like this we must study the behaviour of each individual actor and factor in the complexity of the power imbalance before we decide where to place our energies. The mistake of blindly supporting the underdog is a mistake made frequently by those on the left.
I'm not suggesting that Israel and Palestine have a parent/child relationship - that's a stupid argument to make. I would say that the 1988 and 2017 Hamas charters are problematic. I also think Hamas has some views that are incomptabile with those formed in a liberal democracy, particularly pertaining to women. Having said that, I don't think Netanyahu's position is helping much either, riling up the Israeli right is something that a lot of Israelis and more liberal jewish people around the world don't endorse.
As always it's a matter of perspective and that comes with its own subjective feelings and interpretetations. The banning flag colours came after the Six Day War for example, but you have glossed over the former. Any nation invaded by three of its neighbours is likely to have a kneejerk reaction to something that would've been considered an existential threat a few months earlier. That doesn't make the surpression of the flag colours morally correct, but it does put it into a wider context.
The situation now cannot be divorced from anything that has happened up to this point from the Balfour declaration onwards. It's all part of the same issue. So whilst your argument is compelling, I think it's fundamentally flawed - we aren't dealing with a snapshot in time, we're dealing with a 70 year long set of unique situations all of which run together to create the mess we have now.
Northern Ireland is a very good parallel example of how terrible the British exported terrible foreign policy to the rest of the world. The idea of Irish home rule and the Balfour declaration would cause chaos, as would the India Partition. We have to live with the consequences of the poor decison making of previous generations for ages. We should learn from their mistakes and maybe we can get an Israel/Palestine accord in line with the Good Friday agreement. That took a very very long time to agree and is already slightly in danger. I am always hopeful - but in the meantime, anything that prevents conflict and moves both populations towards the ideological centre ground and compromise is where I think the energy should be placed.
Moderation should prevail - nothing about social media encourages moderation, objectivity or solution focussed thinking. It feeds the very problem it attempts to solve. Far and away the best thing for young people on either side of this debate is to go and speak to young people on the other side - and listen to what they have to say. Talking is the only solution to discord in a civilised society.
That's why I think your comment was awesome. You and I are now modelling exactly the sort of conversations people should be having. :o)
