Yeah that’s fair, but it does add a degree of ambiguity to the situation which isn’t necessary and lessens the Palestinian plight - maybe not to those interested and who dig deeper but to the casual disinterested westerner probably. A hundred comments on twitter referring to a conflict probably won’t illicit the same response as 100 comments referring an oppressive regime breaching human rights and enforcing an apartheid state.
Malala again, by avoiding who has committed the violence is obscuring the narrative - not deliberately i am sure but still, its vague.
(AS a child (child doing a lot of work here - well into my teens at least!) in a pre-internet world, without having any particular ‘interest’ in Israel/Palestine, if you would have asked me i would have probably said most of the trouble came from palestinian terrorists attacking israel due to something to do with some land. Thats because the whole narrative was/is always hamas fired rockets, hamas did this etc etc and then when you hear of violence in jerusalem, or tel-aviv and the headline is broad like “ten children die in jerusalem” then your thoughts go back to headlines about terrorists etc and assumptions of made. Israel are always painted as defending and to me at least, that is dangerous framing.)
Just thinking out loud mainly here.
I think more broadly with the Greta tweet (and to be clear i have no issue with her!) is just that she is saying she’s not against Israel or Palestinian but is against oppression from anyone. Perhaps a Palestinian would find that odd - ‘i am not against your oppressor but am against oppression’ Again, i think perhaps Palestinians want people to stand up for them a bit more.