'We find this rhetorical tactic antithetical to Jewish values, which teach us to repair the world, question authority, and champion the oppressed over the oppressor.'
It is perfectly reasonable to be against 2 warring parties and their wanton attacks on civilian targets, especially when criticizing one side for their indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets which far outweigh the other and who show little to no regard or hesitancy in doing so while simultaneously possessing superior capabilities in avoiding such consequential strikes.
While religious disputes may be at the heart of the conflict itself, facing criticism and outrage for killing innocent civilians isn’t a matter of religious criticism or bigotry.
It’s about that land, which has a number of religious sites on it and ownership was granted by God. It is impossible to separate this dispute from religion.
No, you’re mistaken. It wouldn’t matter if it had no religious sites on it, anymore than it didn’t matter that North and South America didn’t have any religious sites on it that would have meant anything to the Europeans who colonized it.
This sounds a lot like “the civil war was about states’ rights” but I’ll bite. If the blindingly obvious religious lines are wrong and this is about that land… why?
Defending the confederacy is an incredibly unkind way to frame someone’s position, so thanks for that.
Why? It’s simple. Israel wants the land. Palestinians are currently occupying the land. Hence, Israel wants to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians so they can occupy and use the land. Individual Israelis may view it in religious terms, and things may be framed that way for messaging purposes, but the cause of the conflict is a very material desire for more land and more resources.
It is perfectly reasonable to be against 2 warring parties and their wanton attacks on civilian targets, especially when criticizing one side for their indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets which far outweigh the other and who show little to no regard or hesitancy in doing so while simultaneously possessing superior capabilities in avoiding such consequential strikes.
While religious disputes may be at the heart of the conflict itself, facing criticism and outrage for killing innocent civilians isn’t a matter of religious criticism or bigotry.
fyi, ‘wanton’
Crispy with sweet and sour sauce.
Death eggroll
We must soup for peace
Lol, stupid AutoCorrect. Although I was tempted to leave it, there’s a time for humor, and this isn’t it. 
The dispute isn’t religious in nature. It’s about land.
It’s about that land, which has a number of religious sites on it and ownership was granted by God. It is impossible to separate this dispute from religion.
No, you’re mistaken. It wouldn’t matter if it had no religious sites on it, anymore than it didn’t matter that North and South America didn’t have any religious sites on it that would have meant anything to the Europeans who colonized it.
This conflict is material in nature.
This sounds a lot like “the civil war was about states’ rights” but I’ll bite. If the blindingly obvious religious lines are wrong and this is about that land… why?
Defending the confederacy is an incredibly unkind way to frame someone’s position, so thanks for that.
Why? It’s simple. Israel wants the land. Palestinians are currently occupying the land. Hence, Israel wants to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians so they can occupy and use the land. Individual Israelis may view it in religious terms, and things may be framed that way for messaging purposes, but the cause of the conflict is a very material desire for more land and more resources.