> Only one side is being armed and funded by our tax dollars
I mean, yeah, I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other. Specifically, the side that I consider to be fundamentally in the right in the conflict.
Whichever side I am talking about is not relevant to the point. What's relevant to the actual point I am trying to make, is that I don't think that one side being better armed and funded serves as a reasonable indicator of which side is right/wrong in a given conflict.
> I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other.
Most Americans would prefer that we fund neither.
And this isn’t 2012, majority of Americans today do not see Israeli’s, who steal, spy on and try to get Americans killed through wars they start as the “good guys”.
> I'd say, based on the latest election result, this isn't true.
The Israeli-Palestine conflict is far from the #1 priority of things US voters consider when voting in presidential elections.
Also, winning by one of the narrowest margins in US election history, and with less than 50% of the popular vote is hardly a decisive mandate to give Israel a blank check. [1]
Only one side is being armed and funded by our tax dollars, and that’s good enough reason to protest.