For the record, I don't really support these strikes, but neither am I terribly passionate in opposing them for reasons I've stated.
You should be more passionate in opposing them because this shit is the closest we've ever been to WW3 and Israel only seems interested in further escalation.
I wouldn't be too surprised if the US and Israel were doing a little of such, though the contributions would hardly be significant.
wp:International Railroad for Queer Refugees doesn't seem to be getting much support from Israel.
Gee, I wonder why that is. It couldn't be that Israel doesn't give a shit about equal rights, being a fascist ethnostate themselves, surely. This isn't a "both sides" situation, Israel is clearly the aggressor, and no good can possibly come from this.
Such places might have stuff and people of interest, but yeah, they've been saying that a lot about their targets in Gaza.
It's interesting that your instinct is to assume some level of good faith on Israel's part. Perhaps you should examine that?
and if Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al narrowed their attacks to just soldiers, cops, many of the politicians, and settlers, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.
The standard of violence is set by the oppressor. It's a clear double standard that you speak charitably about Israel's attacks on civilians immediately before dismissing others for theirs. Not to mention the massive difference in scale.
I think responding to the question with "Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights" is the best way he could have phrased it. I know the preferred way for those on the left is "no state has a right to exist," but that's not a sentiment that's going to resonate with liberals, and many would see it as "scary radical wants to burn it all down."
His answer is a clever way of proposing a one-state solution without freaking people out.