It's whataboutism because the statement also included that Israel is a terrorist state. By giving a list of attacks on Israel as a rebuttal, you are saying Israel is not a terrorist state because it's been attacked by Hamas. Do you see how silly that sounds? Since Hamas is a terrorist group for all of its viscousness, Israel must be as well, because the viciousness of Israel is more than 10 times that of Hamas.
>the way Israel is currently/always being portrayed
Israeli soldiers, politicians, and many civilians are portraying themselves this way. Soldiers post videos sniping a child in the head calling it a "legendary video", politicians say Palestinians should starve, civilians block aid trucks.
Do you resent the way they are portrayed or do you mean you resent what a lot of Israelis are doing?
>Israel wouldn't attack Gaza if the terrorists who run that place didn't have a constitutional ambition to destroy Israel.
Really? The > 750,000 Palestinians pushed out of their homes in 1948, when "Israelis" showed up for the first time, backed up by guns, were Hamas? News to me.
What is "the Jewish legalistic idea"? It's not a monolith. What makes a salafi a salafi has nothing to do with legalistic ideas.
>majority of other traditions in Islam lean towards Tafsir
This also doesn't make sense to me, as tafsir is exegesis of Quran. Salafis and all muslims care about tafsir.
The core differences between different groups of muslims, loosely in order of priority, is which sources to take from after the demise of Prophet Mohammed, and then how to interpret any sources (incl. Quran) (literally (salafis), logically (shia), etc.).
There are different tafsirs of Quran as well, and can have very stark differences. However loopholes are completely disallowed by all muslims.
>2. Non-Jews have equal rights
>I think what you're asking is: why is it OK to have the "right of return"...[because] Jews have been persecuted throughout history wherever they lived
Contradiction: this law does not discriminate against citizens, it discriminates among people who want to become citizens using that specific law. In the US you can get an investor visa, does that discriminate against poor people? Or if you're Indian the wait times for green cards are very long, does that discriminate against Indians? No...
King David bombing: yeah, that wasn't the state of Israel who did it. It also wasn't Israel starting a war, it was an ongoing conflict with the Brits.
Though this is anyway unrelated as the implied context was with the Muslim world.
> It does. That's a clear indication of the preference of one kind of citizen vs another.
Like literally every other country in the world. The children of British citizens, even if born abroad, get citizenship. You can buy citizenship in New Zealand. Every country has its own unique immigration policies, and the ones in Israel are absolutely legal and normal by international standards.
Additionally, a Palestinian state would be much worse for minorities if judging by literally every other Muslim country in the world. So I don't think this argument is very valid if what you're advocating is replacing something that you don't deem good by something that you deem worse.
Wanna talk about second class citizens? Jews already had second-class citizens status in the Arab world before 1948, but after 1948 they were expelled, lost even more rights, got their property nationalized etc.
> The moment European migrants started stealing land with EU guns, they started a war.
Factually not true. (1) Jews purchased the lands (even though Jewish residents weren't allowed to own land there during the Ottoman days, again, this is what REAL second-class citizens look like), (2) Jews were under American and British arms embargo, they had to smuggle weapons from wherever they could get it, it's not like it was a European push, (3) the Jews in Europe were referred to as "brown" by the locals, in fact they fled persecution there because they didn't belong, (4) as I mentioned above, 850,000 of them were actually living in the region and got kicked out of neighboring Muslim countries, (5) many Jews were already living in that exact area, (6) it literally says so in the bible (which Islam is derived from) that this was the land of the Jews, so implying that they don't belong there (like you did) is a bit dishonest. You can say that the fact that Jews are from there doesn't matter, but not that they are just some European migrants.
The myth that Israel does not do apartheid in Israel proper has to be answered.
First of all, one cannot excuse apartheid by drawing arbitrary borders and declare some of them as apartheid-free zones, while doing apartheid in others. That is not how apartheid works. But even if it did, Israel proper still has dozens of discriminatory laws[1] with a few more in the works. And even with out those, there are in practice dozens of exclusionary policies which displaces and denies Palestinians (as well as Bedouin) access to land and homes, including but nut limited to those displaced by the Nakba. Your parent actually spends a lot of words (way to many words in fact) only to say they agree with this policy of denying Palestinians the right to the land which was stolen from them. There is no way to describe this denial of access to their own land but with Apartheid.
The first item in the link you shared is revocation of citizenship/residency for people who were paid to commit a terrorist act in Israel. What's discriminatory about that?
Second law is about non kosher food in hospitals during Passover. A law that affects everyone, including secular Jews (majority in Israel). Doesn't discriminate against anyone. It's like saying that supermarkets being closed in Europe on Sundays (Church day) is discriminatory.
I can go one by one and comment on this list, but the first two are already ridiculous.
What's also not shown there: the rights of Jews and Christians in the Muslim world (and Palestine in particular) which are much worse. Not to mention the rights of gays, and other communities that are protected in Israel. Mind you, this is not whataboutism, as the people compiling these lists are often closely tied to the Muslim world, and Palestinian rule is the alternative that's suggested by Palestinian supporters.
In Islam, jinns are described as being made of smokeless fire. They have societies, schools, marriages, etc. They can be good, bad, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, whatever. They're parallel to us, "physically" speaking. Of course they can be contacted as well, but don't try that at home.
