Comment by jdross

Hamas has been an assset for the Israeli right because it helps prevent a two state solution. The goal is really to weaken the Palestinian Authority. In recent years most of Hamas' crimes were against Palestinians and nobody cared. Forcing this dichotomy today is certainly a strategy but I don't think that was really a strategy pre-Oct 7th. I.e. I don't recall ever Israel trying to justify settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank as being a response to Hamas- wouldn't make any sense.

In some perverse way, the objection to the two state solution forces the one state solution, which is likely the only solution that would ever work. Jews and Arabs living side by side in the same country as equal citizens. Hamas isn't interested in that solution either.

Let's take a very clear, narrow lens on the issue. Let's also separate Palestinian civilians from those exerting power unto them in Gaza. I say this because any other way is a can of worms.

How did Hamas come into power? What are its goals? What have they promised to do to accomplish those objectives?

Their goals are of malicious intent, and they have demonstrated that they're willing to do anything to accomplish them.

About innocent Palestinians, I understand their fears (at least I hope I do). But, _as of this moment_, focusing the narrative on them and Israel is just a cunning way to further drive a wedge between them, and muddle the waters.

Dichotomy promotes the narratives of all belligerents.

You're making a good point about the symbiotic relationship with the Israeli right. This reminds me of a recent interesting discussion on the Skeptics StackExchange: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56315/did-netan...

[flagged]

[flagged]

Take that logic further. Israel's enemies outnumber it by 10x or more and are more than ruthless enough to sacrifice as many as necessary*. There's no way ever that Israel could avoid having the other side having more casualties. The same would apply to every minority.

If your suggested law of war isn't 'majority or ruthless minority, get to do everything they want because they have more causalties', than you need an alternative. The alternative is the current laws of war, which allow for strikes with collateral damage (what Israel says it's doing), but not for terrorist attacks aimed at civilians.

* Suicide bombers, Iranian mullahs sending kids with 'plastic keys to heaven' to dismantle minefields, or current refusal of Hamas to allow civilians to use its tunnels as shelters. We could fill the page with examples really.

** Funny, I don't recall opposition to America's post 9/11 response based on counts. Almost as if the same rules don't apply.

There has never been a war in history where one side stops because they killed enough people. War ends when the enemy surrenders.

The Japanese killed a few dozen civilians in Pearl Harbor. America killed 10,000x as many during their bombings of Japan. Had they not surrendered, they likely would have killed an order of magnitude more. The only alternative would have been for the US to completely blockade Japan indefinitely to prevent them from rebuilding their military. Actually, they wouldn't be able to do that either because that would make Japan an "open air prison."

[flagged]

[flagged]

> When has Likud ordered massacres of civilians?

Considering that they killed 15K+ civilians in various ways in just a couple of weeks , and bombed two thirds of the buildings in north gaza including hospitals, refugee camps, they were certainly not trying very hard not to kill them. So practically, this doesn't make a big difference.

It seems the order were "bomb anything that may have a hamas member nearby, and don't bother about any civilian nearby (even israelis hostages).

I suspect you ignore the history of terrorism by Irgun and the bombing of the King David Hotel, which house the British military command. Menachem Begin was a key player in that attack & was extremely proud of it. Who are the modern day parties following in those footsteps? Why Likud, & Begin was a co-founder of that very party— now led by Netanyahu.

Ariel Sharon was a member of Likud until 2005, and Israeli PM 2001-2006. An official enquiry found him responsible for the massacre of thousands of civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Here is a long list of Israeli politicians and military officers who have declared their intent to massacre civilians:

- Israeli Prime Minister (!!) Benjamin Netanyahu: "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember." [1]

- IDF spokesman Daniel Hagari: "we're focused on what causes maximum damage" [2]

- Israeli defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "I have ordered a complete siege on Gaza: no electricity, no food, no fuel, no water. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly." [3]

- Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir: “As long as Hamas does not release the hostages in its hands - the only thing that needs to enter Gaza are hundreds of tons of explosives from the air force, not an ounce of humanitarian aid” [4]

- IDF Reservist Major General Giora Eiland: “The State of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in" and "Creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieve the goal." [5]

- Israeli President Isaac Herzog: "It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true." and "Of course there are many, many innocent Palestinians who don’t agree to this — but unfortunately in their homes, there are missiles shooting at us, at my children." [6]

- IDF Reservist Ezra Yachin: "Be triumphant and finish them off and don’t leave anyone behind. Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers and children. These animals can no longer live." and "Every Jew with a weapon should go out and kill them. If you have an Arab neighbour, don’t wait, go to his home and shoot him." [7]

- IDF Reservist Major General Giora Eiland: "The international community is warning us against a severe humanitarian disaster and severe epidemics. We must not shy away from this. After all, severe epidemics in the south of Gaza will bring victory closer" and "there’s no reason why the Hamas generals in southern Gaza wouldn’t surrender when they have no fuel, no water, and when plagues will reach them and the danger to the lives of their family members will increase" [8]

- Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "Hezbollah is close to making a grave mistake. The ones who will pay the price are first of all the citizens of Lebanon. What we do in Gaza we know how to do in Beirut" [9]

- Israeli Minister for Agriculture and former head of Shin Bet Avi Dichter: "We are now actually rolling out the Gaza Nakba" [10]

- Likud Knesset member Galit Distel-Atbaryan: "Invest this energy in one thing; Erasing all of Gaza from the face of the earth." and "A vengeful and cruel IDF is needed here. Anything less is immoral." [11]

- Israeli Energy Minister Israel Katz: "Humanitarian aid to Gaza? No electrical switch will be turned on, no water pump will be opened and no fuel truck will enter until the Israeli abductees are returned home" [12]

- IDF Lt. Col. Richard Hecht, in response to Wolf Blitzer asking if the IDF knew there were civilians in Jabalya refugee camp before they bombed it: "This is the tragedy of war, Wolf — as you know, we've been saying for days, move south." [13]

[1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netany...

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/10/right-now-it-i...

[3] https://twitter.com/marwasf/status/1711392643908071789

[4] https://x.com/davidrkadler/status/1714362716565979534

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/15/opinion/israel-united-sta...

[6] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israel-gaza-isaac-herzog_n_65...

[7] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-vete...

[8] https://twitter.com/hahauenstein/status/1726326606782984506

[9] https://twitter.com/alihashem_tv/status/1723369208191287738

[10] https://twitter.com/hahauenstein/status/1723441134221869453

[11] https://twitter.com/GalitDistel/status/1719689095230730656

[12] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/energy-minister...

[13] https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/171941227835150748...

Scale is the most important factor when talking about the harm done. A dead person is dead, regardless of if it was murder or manslaughter.

Criminal punishments are more about the social consequences than about the crime itself. If someone gets X years in prison for crime A and another person gets 2X years for crime B, it doesn't mean that crime B was twice as bad. It only means that after taking a large number of factors into account, it made sense to give twice as long sentence for crime B.

> If Israel could remove Hamas without injuring any non-combatants I think they would.

Surely you jest. How is this attack supposed to remove Hamas? It seems designed to strengthen Hamas, just as Israel has been supporting Hamas since their formation.

The existence of Hamas prevents a united Palestinian people while simultaneously giving Israel the excuse to reject a 2-state solution. If Hamas didn't exist, Israel would have to create a Hamas from scratch.

Try to argue and "make a peaceful treaty" with a ruling party of terrorists (greatly supported by the population btw), who want to completely obliterate Israel, launch rockets from their own houses near their own children, which has been factually proven countless amount of times. Same goes to Russia, DPRK, Iran, these are narrow minded non-negotiable despotic countries, they want only their way, regardless of casualties (including their own), international laws, etc.

[flagged]

They did in fact mention what Hamas did - when they said civilian deaths caused by Likud are an order of magnitude higher. Perhaps they think civilian deaths are intrinsically bad, and don’t feel the need to calculate that one beheading is worth 5 children dead for lack of medical care, or whatever the official rate is?

Also, a reminder that Putin and Hamas were also democratically elected, and I don’t see why that has any relevance to whether their actions should be condemned or not.

You are literally responding to one. Would you rather everyone reading here took that comment's advice or yours?

This also presumes that any Muslim will be pro-Palestine and any Jewish person would be pro-Israel, a pretty strong statement given that entire communities within Israel are staunchly opposed to their ongoing actions against Hamas, which increasingly seem to be actually against Palestinian people, whom themselves also have a wide and diverse set of opinions about Hamas.

The war is shockingly unpopular on both sides of itself and seemingly the only people who are in favor of Israel's current plan of action is the Israeli government and the people who, for PR reasons, refuse to criticize Israel since Israel has done such an excellent job propagandizing people into thinking being anti-Israel in any way is synonymous with being anti-Semetic.

[flagged]

I think your interpretation is wrong.

OP stated: "If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views".

They're explicitly stating that they believe pro-palestinian views are prioritized.

The majority of the world is against Israel's occupation of Palestine, a stance that is reflected in numerous UN General Assembly votes. Holding a pro-Israel position in this context represents a very US centric view, which is not similarly echoed in the rest of the world.

> I think they are saying that the composition of users of these apps skews one way rather than the other due to pre existing stances

I think the notion that the vast chunk of Twitter or TikTok had a pre existing stance on Israel/Palestine before Oct 7 is kind of silly, imo? Before this I could scroll Twitter without seeing anything about Israel or Palestine for... idk. Weeks, months at a time. I'll maybe see one thing on Palestine being oppressed, usually about West Bank settlements, from the one or two people who happen to be Palestinian. Now I literally cannot avoid it whenever I open either app.

I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7.

It's one of very very few issues where America and most of the west have stood firmly in support of violence and oppression for decades, even on issues like settlements where the US formally acknowledges the illegality and takes no action.

Of course people care primarily about the actions of their own democratically elected government, that's the whole point. There's no need to protest when people agree with their government.

Every injustice is homomorphic to the Israel-Palestine crisis. Ergo, people will use their opinion about the crisis as a proxy for their own politics.

In much of the west[0], you're pro-Israel because fuck Nazis - NEVER AGAIN. In America, you're pro-Israel if you're Republican, pro-Palestine if you're Democrat, or pro-Israel if you're Democrat. If you're anti-colonial, you're pro-Palestine. In Ireland, you're pro-Palestine because fuck England, or you're pro-Israel because fuck Irish nationalism. If you're Muslim, you're pro-Palestine because Zionism is an existential threat to you[1]. If you're an Islamofascist you're very pro-Palestine, if you're a Christofascist you're very pro-Israel. They're just labels you stick on yourself to signal virtue.

This is, of course, terrible for actually discussing the Israel-Palestine conflict, because anything you say about it gets a bunch of mutually contradictory political positions tacked onto it. It's especially difficult to delivering nuanced takes like "Israel and Palestine both have a lot to answer for and we'd be way closer to an actual peace agreement if every politician in both countries dropped dead tomorrow[2]", because I just stepped on like five different rhetorical landmines with that one sentence.

The homomorphism is also bijective: those political labels you're being slapped with get colored with the side of the conflict they're associated with. The most obvious example being Nazi Germany, whose war crimes and crimes against humanity are viewed through the pro-Israel lens. We talk a lot of the 6 million dead Jews but not so much of Hitler's political opponents, Soviet PoWs, black people, gay people, the Roma[3], Jehovah's Witnesses[4], Freemasons, ethnic Poles, Slovenis, and Slavs, and the mentally ill[5]. That's another 11 million victims that we just... don't even think of as victims of the Holocaust. That's how much we link everything to this one crisis.

[0] Japan inclusive

[1] Or at least this was the case in the 1970s

[2] Ok, maybe this doesn't sound nuanced to you. That's the standard of debate here... :/

[3] In America we still use "gypsy", which is terribly offensive in Europe

[4] Which itself has inspired a meme among JWs that lying to protect the faith is A-OK, which is really strange.

[5] This includes autistic kids, who were sent off to Hans Asperger - YES WE NAMED THE DIAGNOSIS AFTER A NAZI WAR CRIMINAL BECAUSE WE LEARNED NOTHING

Right now, there is nowhere else in the world where so many civilians are being killed. Nothing else even comes close. 20k deaths in just two months is a massive death toll for such a short conflict. For comparison, it's more than the civilian death toll in the nearly 2-year-old war in Ukraine.

The other thing is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for decades, and many people have formed strong opinions on it. The United States is deeply involved in the conflict, as it is Israel's major international backer. There are both Palestinian and Jewish diasporas all around the world that care deeply about the issue. There are many reasons why this conflict captures so many people's attention.

> equally abohorrent

Comparing it to the Ukraine's invasion and we can see this is so much more "invasive". There's a literal wall around 2M ppl with little agency, while most of them are refugees from the other side of the wall.

To methis is one of the most abohorrent conflicts in earth in this day and age. Given South Africa is no longer segregated, and Rwanda reconciled.

I'd be interested to hear what's equally abhorrent in your view.

Are there actually many equally abhorrent issues right now? I can think of like, 2, and they're both involving the exact same actors.

Doctors were forced at gunpoint to leave premature babies to rot at Al Nasr hospital. And you're surprised that the world is horrified?!

Journalists and healthcare staff and schools have been targeted at a shocking rate. Civil infrastructure and historic churches blown up without the thinnest veil of a reason. More UN staff killed than any 'conflict' in history. Human rights groups and genocide experts are calling this genocide, ethnic cleansing, and worse.

And this wasn't done by some poor, decimated, tin pot dictatorship. This was done by a nuclear power, and it was supported by England and American politicians against the express wishes of a large majority of their populations.

There's no gain; none. No conceivable good can come from this. Believing that such acts will end Hamas/terror is profoundly delusional.

I don't know if this is really the right word being non native but this seems like whataboutism. Sorry if it is a too loaded term, but it does seem to fit. The fact that there are many other injustice does not make it less of it.

You've specifically isolated yourself from people who would talk about the issue, so you're not in a position to determine whether or not people have been talking about it. In my social circles, the conversation about injustice in Palestine is over a decade old.

[flagged]

If you watch some of the content in question you’ll see that it actually is often in-depth analysis of history done by younger people. I’ve seen many clips discussing Nakba and the right of return for instance.

This explains my gripe with most of the messaging on socials (I came across at least) . You see accounts who never cared to post anything of this conflict suddenly being outraged and reposting stuff. It’s not that they should not care, but it’s a “outrage of the week” sort of thing, and as you say, often with nothing of the careful history and understanding.

For sure it’s a tragedy.

I think you're overlooking the fact that it's located in an area that has religious significance for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, which most other conflicts don't. Hundreds of millions of people believe in the idea of a supreme deity who takes a close personal interest in this specific part of the world.

[flagged]

> There are ethnic conflicts worldwide that often have more bloodshed, many occurring simultaneously right now, but this gets all the rhetoric and attention.

That's funny, because you sound like the kind of person who says the same about every conflict.

Rape and torture were not featured [1] in the recent propaganda movie Israel screened to select people in the West, so there's no reason to believe such footage exists.

1. https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1729487180630786219

I'm confused when you say that its acceptable to display injured or dead bodies, and yet its violating TOS to display murder or torture. The photo of a murder vs a photo of a bombed body is not something I understand to be distinctly different nor something that would be able to be detected by the algorithm.

[Small addition: I've actually seen videos of (alleged) hamas torture, particularly the torture and killing of a specific woman, from Oct 7, not taken down from TOS. I just was under the impression, because there are literally more Palestinian dead people, there will be more photos of dead Palestinians.]

[Edited to add, since I'm apparently posting too fast: no, I really do mean there were censored videos of that naked woman in the back of a hamas truck from Oct 7! And that one video of an Israeli woman who lives close enough to the bombing that she can hear it in the context that it gives her peace to know the bombing is happening!]

[flagged]

Even when dug out at some point, following a long and painful agony people crushed under collapsed buildings almost always die. Particularly in Gaza where medical supplies are now non-existent.

Lots of innocents are dying; there is IMO absolutely no amount of reasoning that can justify it, under any circumstances. It's just wrong. It must stop, period.

As of right now there are likely hundreds or thousands of Palestinians trapped under the rubble of their houses slowly suffocating or dying of dehydration. A process that takes days or weeks.

Would you rather get tortured to death horrifically or have your closest 200 relatives crushed to death in the rubble of everything they own? If we're comparing experiences, this might be a more typical choice.

Can you show us some first-hand sources of what exactly did happen in 10/7? If not suitable for TikTok (though gore and violence upon Palestinians are readily visible), there must be available somewhere on PeerTube or blockchain platforms.

My deepest condolences. Words fail.

Hello there, a Palestinian from the west bank here speaking, let me tell you something, our resistance has nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish state, if my brother stole my house and killed my children i will fight him just the same, and you would too and everyone else (I assume). jewish, muslim, christian, vegan.. doesn't matter.

Now Hamas does play on the string of religion to get to people, and so does Israel (isn't it the promised land after all?).. but the main goal is to free the people from the oppressive occupation!

and when we chant "From the river to the sea" we don't mean to kill anyone! if we can be free and live together, but have dignity and human rights, so be it!

and like Bassem Youssef said, let's imagine a world where Hamas doesn't exist, and let's call it for example the west bank. how do you justify what's happening there and the settlements expansion?

> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country)

What is the truth of that? I've seen Israeli advocates make that claim and many repeat it. I've also seen an explainer in legitimate source (maybe the NY Times?) say that it means both Palestinians and Jews should be free. Does anyone have some actual, authoritative information? Something from before October 7th might be good.

> saying Israel shouldn't defend itself against Hamas attacks

Who has said that?

> Supporting Hamas ... is anti-semitic

> https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

Then the Times of Israel is on the record with articles accusing Netanyahu of being anti-semitic. I don't think those things you list are anti-semitic - they just happen to be politically bad for Jews right now. There is a difference (an important one) between policies-bad-for-a-group and being motivated by an unreasonable hatred of a group.

> But chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country)

You mean what's in the Lukud 1977 charter which was reiterated by Netanyahu recently after 10/7?

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront...

To claim that Israels use of this phrase (which explicitly calls for the removal/elimination of Palestinians) is ok while the Palestinian one is not is hypocritical.

> chants like "from the river to the sea" (meaning destroying Jewish country)

When I hear that chant I don't assume that it means 'destroying Jewish country' but rather that the Palestinian nation (i.e. people) should be free between the Jordan and Mediterranean. There is no contradiction in the hypothetical chant "Palestine and Israel shall be free from the river to the sea" if we are talking about nations and not states.

The problem is that neither Israelis nor Palestinians can be free in a state that practices apartheid against them (be that an Israeli or Palestinian state). So you could interpret "Palestine shall be free from the river to the sea" as a call to end apartheid in Israel. Which brings us to the crux of this issue - Israel's determination to remain an ethno-religious apartheid state. The founding of a state where only a certain type of person can be a full citizen is the original sin here in my opinion.

Paul Graham posted some figure of children deaths in Gaza since (after) October 7 and a bunch of tech twitter incl. some founders and VCs called him an antisemite. His only commentary on the figures was "grim". I think it's entirely fair for him to say those things out of empathy due to having children who are around the same age as many of these children in Gaza.

> perhaps because there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism.

That is the #1 tactic used to build smearing campaigns against people critic of Israel. The difference between being a racist and expressing disgust for what Israel has done in decades to the people of Gaza and the West Bank is so huge that either people using the word "antisemite" in that context are deeply ignorant, or they simply have an agenda. To my knowledge, most journalists and/or politicians aren't that ignorant.

  > there has always been a powerful campaign to equate any criticism of Israel to antisemitism.

Anti-Israeli views are anti-Semitic views when criticizing Israel and Israel only, for actions that are done by dozens of states over the course of decades.

If the people spouting anti-Israel sentiment spouted the same sentiment for the same actions done a dozen times over by other nations, then they would not be anti-Semitic. In fact, I would agree with the vast majority of them. But when they ignore the 300,000 killed in Syria, or the 600,000 killed in Ethiopia, or the situations in Yemen, Mail, Turkey, or even Gaza when Hamas murders hundreds of Palestinians, or in Syria where the regime kills thousands of Palestinians, then it is clear that they are not stewards of "human rights" or "civilians" or even "values". Rather, they are abusing these ideas to promote an anti-Semitic agenda. These people actually need dead Palestinians to further their agenda.

One could say the same for "the other part": being pro-Palestinians doesn't mean being pro-Hamas, but that's also a convenient excuse used by people who are actually pro-Hamas.

The problem happens when nobody is given the benefit of the doubt about being in group 1.

It's obviously true that calling out or implying anti semitism where it doesnt exist doesnt automatically make the accuser an racist.

But it usually does.

They are, while doing this, implicitly or explicitly endorsing Bibi's "exterminate the palestinians" Amalek trope, Ben Gvir hanging a portrait of Baruch Goldstein on his wall (shot up a mosque, considered to be a hero by ~10% of Israelis) and Isaac Herzog calling race-mixing a "tragedy".

(i dont think it's too controversial to suggest that those 3 people essentially represent Israel)

This practice of calling all and sundry racist in defense of a state founded upon an ideology of racial purity is, of course, probably mostly racist projection.

Indeed, it's hard to be a dedicated anti-racist these days without being accused of being an anti semite at some point.

It's only convenient when we refuse to expand our counter-narrative. I call that lazy.

We could continue to bundle every criticism of Israel together, or we could confront each criticism directly.

[flagged]

Suppose they are both true, what does this imply? That it's fair to suspect people of racism because someone else hypothetically uses an excuse?

These "dangers" exist because Israel intentionally blurs the difference between the Jewish people and Israel so that it can cry antisemitism when there is opposition. Maybe they could just stop playing the antisemitism card, or alternatively stop comitting a horrific genocide, occupation, apartheid, and other crimes. If Israel commits acts that deserve criticism then maybe instead of the rest of the world worrying about whether criticism encourages antisemitism Israel can just improve their behavior.

I would be surprised if clever people were actually confused about that. Only a rich person like PG can afford to say the emperor has no clothes.

Some people are confused sure, but honestly it is quite obvious that a lot of time when people say "Zionists" they actually just mean "Jews".

Looking at comments online, i'd argue that around 90%+ when someone uses the word "Zionism" they are just bigots.

If you genuinely want to criticize israel, just critique the country and its actions, the same you would do for any other country, no need to start talking about "Zionists" etc.

There's no confusion, had Israel or the US busted into civilian homes and raped and murdered women and children, live streaming it - Would you be fine with people marching down the streets the next day in middle eastern countries with Israeli or American flags saying the same thing?

> Funny how so many otherwise clever people get confused about this.

Nobody gets confused about what is what:

https://twitter.com/StopAntisemites/

No one is immune to all propaganda, even the most clever people.

It’s more complicated than that.

Criticizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank is not antisemitic. But suggesting that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic as it implies ethnic cleansing.

Both are arguably criticisms of the Israeli government.

[dead]

[flagged]

Nah. The term Semitic was coined to refer to a class of languages, not people. The term anti-Semite was used by anti-Semites such as Heinrich von Treitschke and the Antisemetic League to describe their anti-Jew stance. This is the word as it means today.

The modern attempt to make it refer to Arabs and other Semitic-language speakers is itself an anti-Semitic attempt to rob the term of meaning. Nice try, though.

That is your interpretation. Doesn’t mean it is true. Jewish organizations have joined the large pro-Palestinian marches in Toronto for example. It was a protest against the war and occupation, not about the religion.

It’s like saying that Israel marches are islamophobic. Saying it doesn’t make it true.

And yes, sometimes it does happen that there are antisemitic people that join those groups. But if they aren’t the organizers and are quickly excluded, we shouldn’t dismiss the whole movement. Some of us do not agree with the scale of the operations against civilians in Gaza, that is a valid view point.

The pro Israel side calls for the destruction of Palestine and genocide of it's people regularly.

https://twitter.com/Lowkey0nline/status/1711865833121521939

Dismantling the Israeli ethnostate is not the same thing as destruction or genocide of people living in Israel. I've seen many cases where the former is wilfully misinterpreted as the latter.

This is the problem with a nation that is so closely tied with a religion.

I don't believe the people out there who are angry at Israelis and non-Israeli Jews have a problem with the Torah, or keeping Shabbat, or menorahs, etc. They are angry at the actions of the Israeli state and military, and making the assumption that all Jews support them.

This is a very interesting point of view, I was not aware of this.

Is there any reliable data on how Muslim Israeli citizens view their own situation e.g. freedom of speech and political participation?

Do you blame north koreans for starving because they didn't do something about the kim family?

Also, in parts of the US, elections are rigged (via gerrymandering) so that minorities get to control legislatures.

This is similar to how Israel prevents many muslims in the territories it governs from voting to make sure that it remains a jewish state.

I'm not sure the design of these platforms exposes one to researchers, but the absense of a better method doesn't reinforce conclusions based on a defective method.

Not expecting tik tok to be a representation of the Gen Z population and to expect the normal should be a 50/50 distribution in addition to think that the groups are mutual exclusive. i.e if you have posted content that "suppport" either side that means you do not support the opposite. Its perfectly fine to be horrified both of civilians killed in a terrorist attack and civilians being bombed.

> That’s not the same as being pro- or anti-Israeli.

That’s the relevant question: are you pro- or anti-Israel in their actions against Palestine? I doubt that a poll exists that just asks, “Are you pro- or anti-Israel?”.

Perhaps some polls ask about the military action and polls that ask about the settlements in the West Bank or maybe polls that ask about the general treatment of Palestinians, but to say that a poll about the military action doesn’t measure any form of pro- or anti-Israel sentiments is a bit odd.

> In fact, less Israelis support the war than any of the American groups you mentioned. Only 29% support the war, with 49% against.

I take it the Reuters article you linked to is your source for this. Still, that article talks explicitly about polling the opinion on a ground invasion, which is even more specific than “military action.”

> aggressor

You mean NATO with its orders of magnitude power encroaching East despite their empty promises in 90s?

[flagged]

If you are saying that American Jewish people now support the Israeli government, that is not what I've seen. But I lack a poll or other evidence - do you have one?

„ The phrase was also used by the Israeli ruling Likud party as part of their 1977 election manifesto which stated "Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." This slogan was repeated by Menachem Begin.“

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

Vetted after zillions of comments?