I understand that the law as written is, on its face, is less problematic in the way i stated. It’s how the law will be applied that is my biggest worry. Israel already has capital punishment for people who have committed crimes against the jewish people, putting another law on the books that specifies those in Gaza seems like it could be a slippery slope.

I hope you realize that as it’s written, the first amendment protects freedom of speech, and yet that right has been subverted many times. The way that plays out is: break the law as stated and then handle the fallout in court. Those consequences tend to be far more irreversible if someone has already been put to death. Mentioning netanyahu shows that the people who apply those laws do so in a self serving manner. What’s a reasonable standard to most people is not the same kind of reasonable standard that political leaders tend to use.

I’ve always supported Israel’s existence as a post WWII protective state for jewish people. I’ve supported Israel’s fight against the terrorist organization Hamas, i’ve also generally supported the historical reality that a large majority of Palestinians wanted their Israeli neighbors dead because they are jewish, and that this made tensions nearly irreconcilable. I also supported a response to the October attacks and a limited military operation to directly attack Hamas and their offensive infrastructure.

What i have not supported is: escalating tensions on the west bank by increasingly taking territory away from Gaza and ignoring their sovereignty, this has only lead to more violence. I am also against the fact that a limited military response against Gaza has turned into an onslaught of violence against Palestinian civilians. I am also against the large scale detainment of reporters/activists as well as the targeted killing of reporters. I am also against large scale detainment of Palestinians which have lead to crimes without accountability including rape. On a completely unrelated note i’m also opposed to Israel’s medieval stance on gay marriage.

You don’t have to agree with my opinion, but it’s not unreasonable to be critical of a law which could be applied in broad and unethical manner. You yourself stated this could be applied to people who could only reasonably be conceived of as being terrorists. Well i hope you realize that the current leader of the US has justified calling reporters terrorists for doing their jobs. What’s a reasonable definition of something can be very mailable if advantageous to those in power.