Sure. They can. The issues are separate. And two things can be discretely discussed, or protested, simultaneously.
Murder of civilians
Renouncing Hamas
But I notice a common behavior among Israeli genocide defenders. When they speak of the conflict, the time between 1947 and 2023 is not to be mentioned, and suddenly 1 and 2 merge into a single issue, they focus on 2 as if their life depends on it. Any mention of 1, just play the antisemitism card.
They have to do that, play dumb, because 1 is not defensible on its own, but if I merge it with 2 I don’t have to have hard thoughts. People just disagree because they hate Jews. Otherwise they’d stand by and let the Jews mass murder Muslims, right? If anyone mentions 1, I’ll just mention 2 and ignore their words.
Anyway, It’s a transparent and cowardly psychological defense mechanism. Sad to see that many are incapable of seeing Israel (and its allies) for the genocide sponsors that they are.
Is the US allied with Hamas and sending billions in weapons to Hamas? No one is sympathetic to Hamas and it is not a mainstream position to be sympathetic to Hamas.
It’s the second half of your claim you’d have to support with evidence. Of course we help fund them, but it’s not so clear that they “benefit Hamas”".
If you read something like this article here, you’d note that of the 19 alleged ties to Hamas (of 34,000 workers btw) none have been found to be supported by evidence. Some of them are still going, and maybe they will show some kind of connection, but A) the time to believe that is when evidence is provided, not when the claim is made and B) I don’t really think cutting funding for an agency that does legitimate help to people currently starving and dying is justified just because 0.05% of employees have ties to Hamas. Would you be Ok condemning and demanding we cut funding to the IDF if we found 0.05% of their personnel had ties to radical Zionist movements calling for the eradication of Palestinians? Something tells me you wouldn’t.
They should be protesting Hamas then right… RIIGGHTTT???
Sure. They can. The issues are separate. And two things can be discretely discussed, or protested, simultaneously.
But I notice a common behavior among Israeli genocide defenders. When they speak of the conflict, the time between 1947 and 2023 is not to be mentioned, and suddenly 1 and 2 merge into a single issue, they focus on 2 as if their life depends on it. Any mention of 1, just play the antisemitism card.
They have to do that, play dumb, because 1 is not defensible on its own, but if I merge it with 2 I don’t have to have hard thoughts. People just disagree because they hate Jews. Otherwise they’d stand by and let the Jews mass murder Muslims, right? If anyone mentions 1, I’ll just mention 2 and ignore their words.
Anyway, It’s a transparent and cowardly psychological defense mechanism. Sad to see that many are incapable of seeing Israel (and its allies) for the genocide sponsors that they are.
Is the US allied with Hamas and sending billions in weapons to Hamas? No one is sympathetic to Hamas and it is not a mainstream position to be sympathetic to Hamas.
Actually… The US and many other western nations send hundreds of millions of dollars to UNRWA, which Hamas is definitely benefiting from.
A claim like that requires evidence to be believed.
Source: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN12316
It’s the second half of your claim you’d have to support with evidence. Of course we help fund them, but it’s not so clear that they “benefit Hamas”".
If you read something like this article here, you’d note that of the 19 alleged ties to Hamas (of 34,000 workers btw) none have been found to be supported by evidence. Some of them are still going, and maybe they will show some kind of connection, but A) the time to believe that is when evidence is provided, not when the claim is made and B) I don’t really think cutting funding for an agency that does legitimate help to people currently starving and dying is justified just because 0.05% of employees have ties to Hamas. Would you be Ok condemning and demanding we cut funding to the IDF if we found 0.05% of their personnel had ties to radical Zionist movements calling for the eradication of Palestinians? Something tells me you wouldn’t.
That wasn’t the part that requires evidence, but you knew that and are simply being obtuse.
I’ll be more clear: what source do you have to support the idea of the UNRWA funding Hamas?
Added requirement: the source must not trace back to Israeli or American intelligence/defense agencies.
But what about cancer? Surely they must mention their stance on cancer too, or their whole protest is meaningless!
Strangely enough I have no control over who they protest.