Is the left for or against the violence of the settlers? Is the left being criticised for not acting against the settlers? Where's the problem with democratic integrity.
The wording could be construed as confusing. What the author is saying is: "'Therefore, people from both sides must break the cycle voluntarily. The right wing must act against the destruction of olive trees, the violence in Hebron and the violence in dispersing demonstrations of Arabs or anti-fence activists.
{Right-wing, violence against others is wrong.} The left wing must act against the violence and degradation of the settlers and their supporters.
{Left-wing, violence is wrong, even against settlers.} They must also help to create a climate in which crucial decisions facing us are made with democratic integrity.'"
The message: violence is wrong. It doesn't matter who the victim is.
Seems like the left better just shut up so the violence and the settlement will end of itself :sarcasm:. But it contradicts the advice to 'act against the violence of the settlers'.
Again, I
guess this could be confusing. "'The same applies to the argument that the occupation has increased violence in Israeli society. If that were true, the settlers, who support the occupation, would have been expected to be the greatest violent offenders in Israel.
{The supporters of the Occupation would be more violent because they are trying to keep the status quo.} However, that is not the case. Therefore it is more reasonable to assume that it was the exaggerated liberal permissiveness that created, or at least enabled, the violence.
{But, it was not so because it was the other group who became more violent.} In fact, it is possible that the overall permissive and lenient approach contributed to the violation of law and violence among the settlers as well.'
{The real problem is that the liberal permissiveness that let the settlers do what they wanted and let the occupied do what they wanted.}"
Does that help?