By Henri Astier BBC News
Israel has suggested that the long-term aim of its military campaign in Gaza is to sever all links with the territory.
Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said that once Hamas had been defeated, Israel would end its “responsibility for life in the Gaza Strip”.
Before the conflict, Israel supplied Gaza with most of its energy needs and monitored imports into the territory.
…
Okay but you have to understand that by doing so you are decidedly and actively shifting the discourse to favour the Israelis, right?
Not if the discussion moves towards the Israeli talking points of the Palestinians are animals who need to be exterminated.
Atticles exposing that outlook are definitely allowed, comments advocating it are not.
No my point is that in an asymmetrical situation like this actions banning speaking out over “both sides” really only favours one side.
Like if we have an issue with a large group of homophobes who have systemic power calling for the death of gay people, and in return those gay people making similar statements about those homopohbes because the homophobes want them dead, then by giving those two opinions equal value and banning them both you are intrinsically favouring the homophobes as they both hold the power and are morally in the wrong.