You're making a different argument then the person I am responding to.
The person I am responding to only said: "Hardly a democracy when it occupies Palestine, and Palestinians can't vote in Israeli elections." [Presumably they meant citizens of Palestine here, since Israeli citizens living in Israel who are ethically palestinian can vote]
Simply put, that is an unreasonable criticism as Israel is simply following international law. Other countries do the same. If they did not do this they likely would recieve criticism. People who don't like it should encourage the international community to change international law.
That doesn't mean that every possible criticism of Israel is unreasonable (in fact there are many reasonable criticisms you could make), only that the one i was replying to is unreasonable.
The rest of your post is irrelavent because its talking about arguments that neither I nor the person I was responding to made. That said, i think the way you are quoting is misleading, but that is neither here nor there.
You're right, I am making a bigger argument. That's because pbiggar's point about voting is impossible to understand without it. It's a symptom, and you are trying to discuss it while pretending the disease i.e a system of apartheid, as defined by international law, is "irrelevant". And this system isn't just a feature of the occupation. It is foundational to the state itself, a reality even zionists are forced to admit. As a Jerusalem Post op-ed concedes, "No honest Israeli citizen can claim that the Palestinian citizens of Israel live as equal citizens in the State of Israel."[0]
Your apologia that Israel is "simply following international law" is perverse. Everybody knows that Israel has never in its entire history, since its inception, ever given a fuck about international law, which makes your apologia extra comical. Furthermore, you are elevating a single procedural rule above one of the gravest prohibitions in the entire legal order, the crime against humanity of apartheid. The rule you cite is not a shield against this crime, it's a tool used to facilitate it. By forbidding political integration, the system enforces the very demographic separation required to maintain an apartheid state. Your claim that "other countries do the same" is a baseless false equivalence that ignores the unique permanence and stated demographic goals of the Israeli apartheid system. And your deflection that we should "change international law" is an unserious diversion. The international community doesn't need to change the laws, it needs to hold these genocidal zionists accountable for violating the most fundamental ones that already exist. Your entire response is a performance of pedantry to avoid acknowledging a criminal reality which, for almost a century, has been inflicting hell upon the natives whose land zionists have been brutally colonizing with absolute impunity - culminating in the predictable conclusion of Genocide[1][2][3][4][5].
You are defending the apartheid system by pointing to a single, well-oiled gear, while deliberately ignoring that the entire machine is designed to make a mockery of international law.
You're making a different argument then the person I am responding to.
The person I am responding to only said: "Hardly a democracy when it occupies Palestine, and Palestinians can't vote in Israeli elections." [Presumably they meant citizens of Palestine here, since Israeli citizens living in Israel who are ethically palestinian can vote]
Simply put, that is an unreasonable criticism as Israel is simply following international law. Other countries do the same. If they did not do this they likely would recieve criticism. People who don't like it should encourage the international community to change international law.
That doesn't mean that every possible criticism of Israel is unreasonable (in fact there are many reasonable criticisms you could make), only that the one i was replying to is unreasonable.
The rest of your post is irrelavent because its talking about arguments that neither I nor the person I was responding to made. That said, i think the way you are quoting is misleading, but that is neither here nor there.