Probably because the west supports the genocidal country, and the U.S. is directly funding the genocide (in the 10s of billions, I believe). So, theoretically, if there is enough dissent from western civilians, the west could exert enough political and economic pressure on Israel to stop the genocide and end the apartheid (since Israel is so dependent on the west).
I admit, I’m a bit ignorant of the most of the other genocides listed above, but I don’t think the U.S. directly supported the genocidal groups to the same degree, and I think those genocides would’ve needed direct military action to end. In the case of Xinjiang, I don’t think the U.S. could do anything about that without causing great harm to itself.
The US was literally refuelling Saudi Aircraft mid-air so they could continue to bomb Yemen. I don’t think there was ever such a level of Involvement from any western country in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
300 000 - 400 000 deaths, btw. Probably an order of magnitude worse than the whole Israel conflict, in merely a decade.
How do you explain such an enormous level of difference in how much people care, if it’s not about the Jews?
@Syntha only if the Jewish people happen to be living in Israel. Western news media is way more interested in Israel than it is in almost any of the other countries I mentioned.
I think this is partly to do with the US because it seems to loom especially largely in their political consciousness.
People care more about things they know than things they never heard of. Someone posted a very informative documentary about West Papua over in worldwithoutus recently and it was interesting to see how many youtube comments on it were from people who had previously had no idea what was happening there! And now they know, they do care.
@burchalka no, they don’t, but although it didn’t get airtime, the US for example expressed opposition to it and leveled economic sanctions against Ethiopia for it.
I don’t think it’s difficult to understand that people feel moved by atrocities that are closer to them. The UK directly helped create present day Israel and the colonisation of Palestinian land. Our current government also supports Israel in their attack on Gaza, meaning our taxes are being used to fund weapons and aid the genocide that’s happening right now. Of course people are protesting here.
Does it mean people don’t care about Tigray? Or course not, but we have less direct influence over what’s happening there.
I don’t think that things are black and white here. But I have to agree a little.
Israel did become a nationalistic autocracy and has deeply corrupt leadership. Still, not doing anything when they were attacked on the scale Hamas recently did, would be just stupid.
The problem is that they should have kept the civilian casualties to minimum. Ideally under the amount of Israelis that died tho deflate grudges over time and show some degree of good will.
Then again Hamas has never shown such incentive. And differentiating between Palestine civilians and Hamas collaborators or members is not an easy binary task.
The problem is that they should have kept the civilian casualties to minimum
If they’re not trying to keep civilian casualties at a minimum, then why are so few Gazans dead considering the amount of ordinance at play?
We know why so few Israelis are dead, considering comparable amounts of firepower, but Gaza does not have the Iron Dome.
I’d their bombing was indiscriminate, surely they’d have killed more people, yeah? Do you think they’re just really inept, or do you think perhaps they might actually be trying not to kill civilians, and that’s just hard given the geography of the theater?
I absolutely agree that they can (looking only at military capability) wipe the floor with Palestine with indiscriminate bombardment in a few days.
But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic.
Military ability isn’t everything, geopolitics and market dependance exist. if they actually did that immediately, the response from international community wouldn’t be as mild as it’s now. So they actually can’t.
What I am saying is that there’s a full gradient of effort when it comes to avoiding or encouraging civilian casualties (and not giving a damn about them is in the middle).
The voices of Israeli ruling politicians before and after the start of this year’s conflict doesn’t exactly inspire a confidence that enough is being done to prevent them. Some used strategies even increase them unnecessarily with doubtful military gains.
Or perhaps people should consider that Hamas is using casualties among Palestinians to win the war against Israel. Because right now it seems like it is working pretty well.
Additionally, Gaza has 5855 people per square kilometre.
I don’t know if people even realise this.
So bombing the shit out of the place is ok? Deaths are ok?
These people are in a pressure cooker, so increase the pressure, push them south and bomb the evac routes, don’t let fuel into hospitals or enough food in to Gaza.
Hamas are assholes, but when you start to justify civilian deaths, you’re no longer the good guy, yourself. They killed x, so we kill y.
This is looking increasingly like an annexation (especially of the north). Hamas aren’t in the West Bank, it’s run by Fatah, but Israel still rules it with an iron fist and keeps popping up more settlements. Moral actions under international law isn’t something that concerns them.
Where did I say that? I am not for Israel bombing Gaza. But the way how people argument for Gaza and the way the seem to ignore the problems connected to Hamas and Palestine in general is dangerous, in my opinion.
Hamas aren’t just “assholes”. This kind of rhetoric is horrific.
But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic
The word “enough” is not found anywhere in my posts, because I think they could, an should, do more.
“It isn’t genocide” and “civilian casualties are a tragic feature of every war” are not blanket support of the status quo.
I believe Israel believes they have done everything possible. They are undeniably going above and beyond to act with restraint. I still believe they could do more, especially by putting up a military hard point in the south for aid. I think this would be costly, and dangerous, but is both morally correct and something that would help pave the way for instilling peace after this war.
Youcve counted and compared the deaths of Israelis to Palestinians, plus considered the Palestinian children locked up with no rights or appeals etc. for at least 3 generations?
“I think Israel is doing exactly the opposite of ignoring the mindless murdering of their innocent families.”
For you, it indeed sounds like a tit-for-tat kill-for- kill system. If we were doing that, which we aren’t and shouldn’t be, then there’d need to be a lot more dead Israelis to balance the playing field. Obviously you can see why that is a horrendous idea.
Well, if we’re going to the numbers, do remind me, how many Israeli civilians have died due to IDF using them as human shields? And what does that very low number tell you?
This is one of the many reasons why it’s completely pointless to play the numbers game in this war.
So if terrorist government A kills civilians, it’s okay for murderous government B to take revenge by killing more civilians? Why does it matter where these people live, the only thing that matters is to stop killing them, depriving them of their freedoms and rights and hey, maybe even try to give them a happy life?
You mean you ignore the atrocities, apartheid and land theft that built up to this? The palestinians just naturally and gave up their homes and rights for a few generations?
So what’s beautiful about this is that even if I were to agree with you about whether or not Israel is an apartheid state, and if there is theft of land or not - and make no mistake those things are serious and evil when true - then they are still very far from genocide, I believe the intent of that comment by “mindless murdering”, which is the clear open objective and stance of Hamas.
You can’t commit apartheid outside of your country. That’s not what “apartheid” means. Arabs in Israel have full citizenship and proportionate representation in government.
How the hell can we ignore the mindless murdering of innocent families. This is not war it is the genocide that has been planned for a long time
deleted by creator
Tigray, West Papua, Oromia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Western Sahara, Ituri, Xinjiang…
But that does not mean we should be silent on this latest. Really, we should be letting our representatives know we protest all of these things.
But people don’t protest these things. Most do not give a fuck. They are very invested though, when Jews are involved.
Probably because the west supports the genocidal country, and the U.S. is directly funding the genocide (in the 10s of billions, I believe). So, theoretically, if there is enough dissent from western civilians, the west could exert enough political and economic pressure on Israel to stop the genocide and end the apartheid (since Israel is so dependent on the west).
I admit, I’m a bit ignorant of the most of the other genocides listed above, but I don’t think the U.S. directly supported the genocidal groups to the same degree, and I think those genocides would’ve needed direct military action to end. In the case of Xinjiang, I don’t think the U.S. could do anything about that without causing great harm to itself.
The US was literally refuelling Saudi Aircraft mid-air so they could continue to bomb Yemen. I don’t think there was ever such a level of Involvement from any western country in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
300 000 - 400 000 deaths, btw. Probably an order of magnitude worse than the whole Israel conflict, in merely a decade.
How do you explain such an enormous level of difference in how much people care, if it’s not about the Jews?
@Syntha only if the Jewish people happen to be living in Israel. Western news media is way more interested in Israel than it is in almost any of the other countries I mentioned.
I think this is partly to do with the US because it seems to loom especially largely in their political consciousness.
People care more about things they know than things they never heard of. Someone posted a very informative documentary about West Papua over in worldwithoutus recently and it was interesting to see how many youtube comments on it were from people who had previously had no idea what was happening there! And now they know, they do care.
And continuous violence/genocide in Tigray region of Ethiopia. No one mass-protests those in NY, London or Berlin…
@burchalka no, they don’t, but although it didn’t get airtime, the US for example expressed opposition to it and leveled economic sanctions against Ethiopia for it.
Ethiopia isn’t a major “Ally” like Israel is.
I don’t think it’s difficult to understand that people feel moved by atrocities that are closer to them. The UK directly helped create present day Israel and the colonisation of Palestinian land. Our current government also supports Israel in their attack on Gaza, meaning our taxes are being used to fund weapons and aid the genocide that’s happening right now. Of course people are protesting here.
Does it mean people don’t care about Tigray? Or course not, but we have less direct influence over what’s happening there.
I don’t think that things are black and white here. But I have to agree a little.
Israel did become a nationalistic autocracy and has deeply corrupt leadership. Still, not doing anything when they were attacked on the scale Hamas recently did, would be just stupid.
The problem is that they should have kept the civilian casualties to minimum. Ideally under the amount of Israelis that died tho deflate grudges over time and show some degree of good will.
Then again Hamas has never shown such incentive. And differentiating between Palestine civilians and Hamas collaborators or members is not an easy binary task.
If they’re not trying to keep civilian casualties at a minimum, then why are so few Gazans dead considering the amount of ordinance at play?
We know why so few Israelis are dead, considering comparable amounts of firepower, but Gaza does not have the Iron Dome.
I’d their bombing was indiscriminate, surely they’d have killed more people, yeah? Do you think they’re just really inept, or do you think perhaps they might actually be trying not to kill civilians, and that’s just hard given the geography of the theater?
I absolutely agree that they can (looking only at military capability) wipe the floor with Palestine with indiscriminate bombardment in a few days.
But saying that not using that ability means they do enough to avoid civilian casualties is a pretty big jump in logic.
Military ability isn’t everything, geopolitics and market dependance exist. if they actually did that immediately, the response from international community wouldn’t be as mild as it’s now. So they actually can’t.
What I am saying is that there’s a full gradient of effort when it comes to avoiding or encouraging civilian casualties (and not giving a damn about them is in the middle).
The voices of Israeli ruling politicians before and after the start of this year’s conflict doesn’t exactly inspire a confidence that enough is being done to prevent them. Some used strategies even increase them unnecessarily with doubtful military gains.
Or perhaps people should consider that Hamas is using casualties among Palestinians to win the war against Israel. Because right now it seems like it is working pretty well.
Additionally, Gaza has 5855 people per square kilometre. I don’t know if people even realise this.
So bombing the shit out of the place is ok? Deaths are ok?
These people are in a pressure cooker, so increase the pressure, push them south and bomb the evac routes, don’t let fuel into hospitals or enough food in to Gaza.
Hamas are assholes, but when you start to justify civilian deaths, you’re no longer the good guy, yourself. They killed x, so we kill y.
This is looking increasingly like an annexation (especially of the north). Hamas aren’t in the West Bank, it’s run by Fatah, but Israel still rules it with an iron fist and keeps popping up more settlements. Moral actions under international law isn’t something that concerns them.
Where did I say that? I am not for Israel bombing Gaza. But the way how people argument for Gaza and the way the seem to ignore the problems connected to Hamas and Palestine in general is dangerous, in my opinion.
Hamas aren’t just “assholes”. This kind of rhetoric is horrific.
Are you aware of this history?
https://lemm.ee/comment/5396325
Israel is responsible for what Hamas became… You kill a one guy, and they replace with worse…
The word “enough” is not found anywhere in my posts, because I think they could, an should, do more.
“It isn’t genocide” and “civilian casualties are a tragic feature of every war” are not blanket support of the status quo.
I believe Israel believes they have done everything possible. They are undeniably going above and beyond to act with restraint. I still believe they could do more, especially by putting up a military hard point in the south for aid. I think this would be costly, and dangerous, but is both morally correct and something that would help pave the way for instilling peace after this war.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Is the Big Brother watching you? Are you being forced to say that war is peace and that peace is war? Blink twice if you need rescuing.
I think Israel is doing exactly the opposite of ignoring the mindless murdering of their innocent families.
Youcve counted and compared the deaths of Israelis to Palestinians, plus considered the Palestinian children locked up with no rights or appeals etc. for at least 3 generations?
Is this about numbers?
“I think Israel is doing exactly the opposite of ignoring the mindless murdering of their innocent families.”
For you, it indeed sounds like a tit-for-tat kill-for- kill system. If we were doing that, which we aren’t and shouldn’t be, then there’d need to be a lot more dead Israelis to balance the playing field. Obviously you can see why that is a horrendous idea.
Well, if we’re going to the numbers, do remind me, how many Israeli civilians have died due to IDF using them as human shields? And what does that very low number tell you?
This is one of the many reasons why it’s completely pointless to play the numbers game in this war.
Dude, I’m agreeing. You’re the one who’s making it out to be some sort of tit for tat kill for kill for scenario.
Well let’s agree to wtf is this discussion anyway then
So if terrorist government A kills civilians, it’s okay for murderous government B to take revenge by killing more civilians? Why does it matter where these people live, the only thing that matters is to stop killing them, depriving them of their freedoms and rights and hey, maybe even try to give them a happy life?
Government B’s primary goal is not to kill civilians. A’s is. This is not a numbers game, it matters why and in what context things are done.
Ends do not justify means. Killing civilians, especially children, is abhorrent.
Yes war is indeed bad. That’s why Israel tried to avoid war.
What’s your opinion on why Israel is so bad at actually achieving genocide?
I mean take a look at this shit. Does this look like failing to you?
Yes
Removed by mod
You mean Hamas attack on Israeli citizens right? Just to clarify
You mean you ignore the atrocities, apartheid and land theft that built up to this? The palestinians just naturally and gave up their homes and rights for a few generations?
So what’s beautiful about this is that even if I were to agree with you about whether or not Israel is an apartheid state, and if there is theft of land or not - and make no mistake those things are serious and evil when true - then they are still very far from genocide, I believe the intent of that comment by “mindless murdering”, which is the clear open objective and stance of Hamas.
No it’s not. There are actual pogroms going on in the West Bank right now.
You can’t commit apartheid outside of your country. That’s not what “apartheid” means. Arabs in Israel have full citizenship and proportionate representation in government.