FYI, voicing support for terrorists undermines sympathy for a cause. (Legitimacy of violence is an old, controversial and unresolvable question. The politics of coalition building are less obscure.)
Plenty of people supported the ANC, while the ANC was considered a terrorist organization, still Apartheid South Africa ended and the ANC is now in government.
Plenty of people supported the IRA, but still Northern Irish Catholics got civil rights and a political avenue for Irish reunification. Shin Féin even holds a plurality in Northern Ireland’s assembly and is increasing in popularity in the Republic of Ireland.
Plenty of people supported violent resistance of the Civil Rights movement (including Martin Luther King). Though the Civil Rights movement never ventured into terrorism, other black liberation groups certainly did, this did not undermine the cause of black liberation. And if we go even further back in history, support for John Brown—a terrorist and a full blown insurrectionist—did not undermine any sympathy for the abolitionist movement.
Terrorism is not an ideal, it’s a tactic. One the zionists and america uses, but when they do it’s ok?
I labeled hamas a “people” because they are not a nation state - not even close.
Sure. But citing comments like yours is how you get an Israel aid package passed by the Congress. (I didn’t lobby on it, but I did on Ukraine, and showing that there are people who support horrible means for their end is a good way to deplete marginal support for that end.)
I guess I just don’t understand - why it’s ok to criticize “one side’s” tactic and not the other when one of the sides is killing by the thousands, while claiming to be “mowing the lawn.”
You probably don’t.
> why it’s ok to criticize “one side’s” tactic
One of the best assets for people trying to bring down a hammer on Israel are its right-wing politicians explicitly calling for bombing civilians and annexing Gaza. You generally want extremists on the other side to voice support for unpopular things.
I don’t.