Took me a long time to see it. In high school I obviously supported Palestine and thought Israel was a settler colony (all of it, not just Gaza). Then I realized: wait why do I even care? I’m from 3,000 miles away in Bangladesh. In Bangladesh, people don’t even care about Bangladeshis being held in near-slavery conditions in Qatar. (More Bangladeshi workers have died in the Middle East since 2010 than Palestinians killed in the conflict with Israel since 1947.) They don’t care about the Rohingya. They don’t care what Saudi is doing in Yemen. They’re very friendly with China and don’t care about Uighurs. But everyone has an opinion on how Israel is oppressing Palestine.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=evangelical+support+for+israel+sit...
> Pew Research surveys find that similar shares of Christians (29%) and Jews (31%) say the U.S. is not supportive enough of Israel. Among white evangelical Protestants, nearly half (46%) say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/h...
I agree with the assessment but perhaps if it was phased as:
"Yes, because they believe that they need to be on the side of Israel for their anticipated apocalypse."
Or something like that. Unfortunately "people of faith" tend to take any sort of criticism of the mechanics of their faith as a personal attack. Pity.
An unavoidable consequence of any belief system which assigns significant personal reward upon faith, because criticism of faith places their personal reward into question. More unfortunate is how secular institutions are unintentionally rewarding people of faith for having a thin skin by so eagerly accepting it as a signal to quash criticism. I'd argue that nothing "tramples curiosity" quite so much as the systemic disappearance of criticism in the public square.
If you would please stop creating accounts to break HN's guidelines with, we'd be grateful.
We don't moderate HN comments because of the views they express; we moderate for comment quality and adherence to the site guidelines. In the vast majority of cases where we moderate a comment, it's not because of the view it expresses, but because it expressed it in a way that's destructive of the culture we want here (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). You can call that censorship if you like, but I don't think it's what the word classically means. In most cases there are other commenters expressing the same view thoughtfully and substantively, and those comments don't get moderated at all. I think we can say after 10+ years of working with this strategy that it definitely isn't "the shortest way to the bottom" - quite the opposite.
Arab countries also use Israel to highlight the disingenuousness of America's supposed concern for human rights. Ironically not having it as an ally might make military interventions in the Arab world easier.
So there can be many reasons. Why do you choose the one that, once somehow transferred 5500 km from Bangladesh to Palestine (not sure how much they have in common), puts the Palestinians' struggle in the worst possible light?
26.26% Europe
4.64% Americas
10.75% Asia
14.3% Africa
So no, “most Israelis“ don’t come from Arab countries.
edit: Looking at your history "Peace is not possible on occupied land or in an apartheid state." seems like anything I can tell you wont matter because you have already drank the koolaid
As for your edit, that’s an ad hominem.
from the article: "About 44.9% percent of Israel's Jewish population identify as either Mizrahi or Sephardi, 44.2% identify as Ashkenazi, about 3% as Beta Israel and 7.9% as mixed or other"
This is from 2013, and there has been a lot more mixing since then.
Your exact comment:
> ” Most Israelis come from Arab countries(because they were expelled)”
I posted proof, im not goal posting, and you are missing the entire point of what I originally said. Mizrahim/sepharidim are jews from arab/meditaranean/african countries.. they are more than 50% the population of jews in Israel. I am not arguing with any more. Your previous comments describe how you feel already.
Like he said, this is far from the worst conflict going on right now and it receives a disproportionate amount of interest.
I don't care about the conflict in china or in Yemen or in syria. Because I'm a coherent person, I also don't care about what's happening in israel.
So beyond a general sense of "these things suck and I emphasize, but I don't have time to think about it", there is really not much else you should do beyond that if your not actually going to do anything about it other than read some media, feel some emotions and have opinions about something you have remote to zero experience in and zero power or desire to actually do anything about it.
And after that one, you have the other 100'000 small and large travesties to process.
By letting them decide what you care about, you've delegated your decision-making.
I think that's fucked up.
Also everything the other commenter said is right.
One solution, a well-established one, is to focus on universal human rights. The rising tide will lift all boats.
Also, caring does not necessarily mean action. I do have limited time, but I've heard the above used as an excuse for most of my life, and used to subscribe to it. I've learned that while people are talking about whether and how and should you care, you can just do something. It's that easy.
For example, for your typical US citizen, decrying the plight of the Uyghurs is fine in principle. But if one goes and weights things relative to the above criteria -- though admittedly there's no clean way to do so -- I'd argue that China's Uyghur genocide would not even make the top 100 of things that deserve to be morally prioritized (again, by your typical US citizen).
And forgive me if I read to far into what you wrote past what you intended; it just struck me as possibly flattening a bit too much.
It can be in two kinds:
a) they are DOING something bad: attacking, occupying, oppressing, blocking, so we need to stop them, kick them out, liberate from their oppression, break their block, etc.
b) they ARE (Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc., or a nation, or a group), and they are bad because (list of historical or invented reasons), so we need to kill or enslave them or force assimilation of them.
For example, recent Russian-Ukrainian war, from Russian side:
* Ukrainians are bad, because they are Nazi. Reasons: Ukraine is Nazi country because it is independent Nation, which is bad for Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Thus: kill Ukrainians, close Ukrainian schools, magazines, sites, TV and radio stations, force Ukrainians to abandon Ukrainian culture.
* Ukrainian are oppressing Ukrainians, speaking in Russish. Reasons: nobody will speak in dumb Ukrainian language at their own will, when they can use Great and Mighty Russish Tongue (Великий и Могучий Русский Язык), so, obviously, Ukrainians are forcing Ukrainians to speak in Ukrainian language, AKA «forceful ukrainization»/«насильственная украинизация» (and Ukrainian language is dumb, obviously, because it causes laugh, when a Russish hear it). Thus: invade Eastern Ukraine to protect Russissh-speaking Ukrainians from forceful ukrainization (direct speech: «защитить русско-язычных жителей Юго-Востока Украины от насильственной украинизации»).
From Ukrainian side:
* Russians are invading Ukraine. Reasons: they want to destroy Ukrainian nation and make it part of Russian Empire/Soviet Union/Russian Federation. Thus: Ukraine must stop invasion.
I'm assuming you're a Muslim, in which case you should care because of [1][2]
After all these Palestinians are humans like you and me, and despite the flaw of being muslim, could be triggering empathy in most of us.
But interestingly I really care more about Israeli reproducing Nazis patterns than Palestinians being at the other end.
And we talk a lot about China, but they're not jews, just atheists, so they're much better for muslim leaderships than Israel.
I’d also argue that tax paying Americans are obligated to care. Our money is funding Israel’s crimes and we are morally culpable if we don’t resist or try to change policy.
Ps There is one think I do which I know is directly connected to this. I boycot Israeli food products, mostly grown on occupied lands. The inpact is close to nil but it’s the most I can do at the moment.
You're not a coward; you're human. Here's what I tell myself: There are people who sacrificed far more for freedom than whatever I risk - anger, rejection by some, even my job and reputation. However, I only have one job and one reputation, and I'm not sacrificing them for nothing.
And regardless, taking a dramatic stand rarely accomplishes anything. Listening to others, being curious and open about their positions, and then responding thoughtfully accomplishes much more with much less risk.
> I am no antisemitist, on the contrary, some of my favorite people are jewish.
FWIW, this is a classic line of prejudiced people: 'I'm not anti-X; some of my best friends are X.' There was even a public service commercial in the 1980s that used almost that exact line. Whatever your thoughts, I wouldn't say it. It sounds defensive, for one thing. Say something affirmative - e.g., 'Israelis have a right to peace and justice, as do Palestinians.'
If you are prejudiced (I have no idea; I'm not drawing a conclusion based on one sentence in an online post; and I am certainly nobody's judge), it's ok. We all are to various degrees - the point for me is to be aware that I am human too, that I have this human potential and to be aware of it and notice it, and also to be aware that I also have the human potential for much greater things, and I have a responsibility to embrace that and change my perspective.
On the other hand, this is just a trope that needs to die. It's a non sequitur and is in fact an example of kafkatrap:
A lot of people are critical of Israel's policies, including many Israelis. There is absolutely no problem with that.
E.g. "It's not bad if i admire [ blacks / whites / asians / aryans / han chinese]?
Sounds very plausible instead. The original cancel culture is exactly that used to silence critics of Israel- the accusation of antisemitism has been used for decades to terminate careers. People have learned very well to keep their mouths shut.
Let me tell you how this sounds to me as a Jewish person, it sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory that is alluding that "we" are somehow pulling some invisible strings to get people fired for being justly critical of Israel. I could be paranoid but honestly I've earned the right to be paranoid.
I would fight for anyone's right to criticize Israel. I would also fight for the discussion to be based on facts and for Israel not to be singled out for "preferential" treatment. There is no problem being critical of Israel. Antisemitism is a big problem. If you don't feel like you can draw this line just study the question before commenting. It's really not that hard.
Let me give you a specific example. If you say Israel is intentionally trying to inflict damage on Gaza in order to deter Hamas and the population from re-engaging Israel in the future and that's a questionable tactic. I would say this is reasonable criticism (at least should be discussed). If you say Israel should not be evicting Arabs from their homes at the moment from disputed territories even if they are legally entitled to, or you want to debate said legality. Fair game IMO. However if you say look how many Palestinians died vs. Israelis in the latest round of violence and use it as a measure of morality that is problematic. In war each side tries to minimize damage to their side and inflict as much damage on the other side. People saying this are either incredibly naive or are twisting the (sad) reality to fit some agenda IMO. I don't think what I am saying here is that you can only have a voice if you agree with me. You can even choose to disagree with me on the question of war and proportionality. But you better come to this discussion with some good supporting arguments. There is certainly a lot of history and a lot of room for debate about this.
In fact I think anti-Semitism is a very real problem. Historically and now. It also hurts the legitimate arguments against Zionism because invariably real anti-Semites show up and become the focal point.
John Lennon sang:
"Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace"
Nobody has banned John Lennon from the radio last time I checked.
Until a position is backed up with some rational arguments it's sort of just your opinion. Why should we care? If you are going public with a certain position and advocating for action the burden of proof is on you. Especially if there are consequences. There's plenty of nonsense going around that doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny. But you can "hold" any of those positions wrt/ Israel or any other topic.
I have no idea why you are quoting John Lennon. It has nothing to do with the topic.
Let's say we have this debate and you convince me, and I agree with you, that the Balfour Declaration was "wrong"(?) because it's not "right" to say people X should take location Y as their country while the locals are not consulted with. Not sure that really gets us anywhere. Lots of countries "exist" without Britain bothering to have declared that they should be countries and lots of countries exist because Britain and France arbitrarily made them so. Saudi Arabia pretty much owns its existence to similar circumstances, the British war on the Ottoman empire. But sure it is part of the long and relevant history of the region.
You can also say the UN should not have passed resolution 181. Again, not sure where that's gonna lead us.
If anyone is still reading this thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration for reference.
If you have issues with the Balfour Declaration presumably those should be taken up with Britain?
Anyhow, at the end of the day, I think you're saying that despite the long and documented history of the Jewish people to the land of Israel the fact that the Jewish people were a minority in the area for a lengthy amount of time means that they have no right to that area at all. My counter would be that pretty much any country anywhere in the world doesn't actually satisfy your requirements and that if anything the Jewish people have a stronger "right" to that land than most other people living in other countries. And then you'll disagree. And we'll agree to disagree. And the question of how to resolve the situation today remains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balfour_Declarati...
That other countries have also engaged in colonialism, doesn’t mean we have to support it, especially modern day colonialism.
We won’t agree on a solution or even the problem, but my point in this particular case is you can be against Israel as a geopolitical entity and not be anti-Semitic.
Israel's oppression of the Palestinians is decades older than all the conflicts you mention, which is why they probably don't get as much airtime comparatively.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Not just "you are (idiotic|infantile|...)", but also "that is (idiotic|infantile|...)" is ruled out as name-calling here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you want to understand why we have such rules, the key thing to consider is that the quality of your contribution has not only do with your perspective (e.g. "The reasoning is objectively infantile"), but also that of the reader—or rather the distribution of readers that your comment is probably going to land with. If you (or anyone) are interested, I wrote a long, in-depth explanation a while ago for a commenter in a similar situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27161365. The in-depth portions are here:
However, you said "maybe something to [GP's] analysis on a global scale" and also " The situation is by all accounts very, very bad."
From an Israeli perspective, this is the thing that bothers me. The situation re: Israel/Palestine is bad, but it's also nuanced and complicated and has very few paths forward, even to people very motivated to solve the problems. (Even if I had any political power, I really don't know what I would do at this stage.)
And yet, the way the situation is talked about on a global scale makes it seem: 1) way worse than it really is, 2) loses a lot of nuance and makes Israel look way worse than it really is, 3) makes the issue appear far more important compared to other problems happening in the world.
And the reason for the above is because of GP's analysis (or at least, that's what it seems like to me): a lot of countries have a huge interest in making the situation the one that people focus on. It's easier for many Muslim countries to make their citizens focus on a bad situation in Palestine (ignoring their own complicity in it), and thereby distract them from far, far worse situations happening literally every day.
There's a rather more insidious strain of state supported Islamophobia and Israeli racial supremacy hiding in almost every trumped up accusation of anti-semitism.
It comes routinely from institutions who purport to speak for Jews.
For example, there's an institution named "stop antisemitism" who recently tried to offer money to dox a writer from The Onion for a joke that could in no way be construed as anti-semitic in any way, shape or form: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/the-onion-stop-antisemitism/
These people did not make a mistake. They weren't being incautious or overly zealous. They are simply racists.
Since we've warned you many times before (going back years actually) and you've continued to break this rule, I've banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. The rules are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
No, this isn't because of any of the topics you've been posting about, and certainly not the current one. We actually don't care which political (or ideological, or whatever) side you're on. It's because your account has repeatedly and consistently been breaking HN's rules despite our many requests to you to stop. Not cool.
It is maybe true that there's been a little shift with the collapse of the soviet union and the split in the Arab world. I would still say that Israel gets more negative coverage in comparison to other world events and even within the specific conflict.
Just a recent example, at some point during the Covid crisis Israel was extensively criticized for not treating Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza equitably with regard to vaccine distribution. Nobody even mentions that Israeli Palestinians are treated equitably in this regard. Nuances are lost. Recently when Israel did agree to provide Palestinians with vaccines the Palestinians rejected them: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-covid-... EDIT: And forgot to add my point, that this did not receive as wide of a coverage.
Lack of "censorship" also has a body count. What about all the Covid conspiracy theories? Should we give those guys a free stage on social media? Incitement to commit real violence is also common in social platforms. To give an example from the "other" side some mobs that gathered to attack Israeli Arabs during the last conflicts organized on social media. Would you be critical if those voices were suppressed?
I can be really critical of Israel for many things. But I'm really not buying that the balance is set the wrong way. Keep in mind a lot of us are consuming the kind of news that amplifies our world views anyways. Which brings me back to how do we measure this in a controlled way?
There is absolutely no question that Israel has more support in the West. The US doesn't give billions a year in military support to the Palestinians or Arabs - except Egypt, when signed a treaty not to attack Israel. The head of the Palestinians doesn't give speeches to join sessions of Congress. Yes, Israel gets criticized (as does everyone), and they do a lot of shit; it's laughable to portray Israel as a victim - and an old rhetorical tactic to claim victimhood when you do something wrong and take heat for it.
At any rate, the aid the US gives to Israel has isn't the subject at hand so I'm not sure why you're raising it. We're talking about media coverage and world (not just the US) opinion. When the media does report it totally lacks any context (honestly that applies to the all coverage, whether you may view it as positive to Israel or negative). You can't simply show a rocket hitting a building or a bomb hitting a building or people getting hurt (which they are) without context. Sure, the military aid is context, the history of the region is context, the suicide bombings of the early 2000's are context, the deportation of people from their homes are context, the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza is context, the Hamas taking over Gaza by force is context, how they use their $ aid is context, the connection of the Jewish people to Israel is context. With no context (or rather with no study of the details) this is just emotional mumbo jumbo. And sure, some things are clearly wrong even out of context, and some things are clearly right, but for the most part that determination can't be made from some 140 character tweet. No context results in shallow discussions.
I stand by my opinion that Israel is portrayed more negatively and generally not enough context is given, relative to other world events, and within the specifics of the conflict. You haven't really answered my question of how you measure this, and so without measurement you are entitled to your opinion (and your use of rhetoric) and I'm entitled to mine?
Israel is not (yet) a victim here. Are the Palestinians a victim? Perhaps. Israel isn't solely to blame for that. Is Israel doing some things I don't like? Absolutely. Are Palestinians doings things I don't like? Absolutely. Is the way out of this mess to shift the blame around? I don't know about that one. This shifting of the blame is just another angle of the conflict and something the sides (sure, both sides) are doing because they don't actually want a resolution.
This story we're discussing, which isn't really any sort of objective reporting (to say the least) really supports my point IMO. I definitely support the right of all sides to be heard though, and here we have one side being heard.
I don't know why you think that was the topic, but U.S. monetary aid (and voluminous other support) is hard factual evidence of opinion in the U.S.
> When the media does report it totally lacks any context ...
That's not my experience. The media I read, such as the NY Times, generally (I perceive - subjectively, sans data) provides context when it supports Israel, and omits it when it's critical of Israel. In fact, I think it's the NY Times' biggest flaw by far.
> here we have one side being heard
Israel's side isn't heard in American news media? Seriously? That's laughable. Look at the NY Times op-ed page, any day (or any day there is something in the news about Israel). And Murdoch publications Fox and the WSJ also support Israel. What major opinion source does not?
This seems to be a fairly decent article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%...
No conclusion.
This is interesting: https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2012/02/03/ame...
"A random check carried out this week showed that there is one citation on Google News for every 50,000 Chinese or Indians, 20,000 Bangladeshis, 8,000 Pakistanis, 5,000 Russians, 3,400 Egyptians (in the midst of horrific soccer riots) or 1200 Syrians (although the regime in Damascus is doing its best to improve its rankings by steadily decreasing the number of living Syrians). But it takes only 300 Israelis for each Google News item on Israel, clear proof that the country is being singled out for disproportionate coverage."
EDIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/ho...
Well, you keep moving the goalposts. I'm sticking with those goalposts, which are the leading news sources in the most important country by far in regard to Israel.
> This seems to be a fairly decent article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/ ...
Seriously? Wikipedia? What basis is there for saying it's decent? But the NYT and WSJ aren't worth your time?
> "... it takes only 300 Israelis for each Google News item on Israel, clear proof that the country is being singled out for disproportionate coverage."
Singled out implies intent, which there's no evidence of. Are Americans highly interested in Israel and not interested in much of the world? That's not news, nor does it show any bias for or against Israel.
If that happened, then Palestinians would outnumber Jews and could dominate the country democratically. I can understand the potential for discrimination.
That's why the two state solution is often considered the only just solution: Both groups each have a country in which they are the majority.
The Israeli right rejects the two state solution, and clearly they reject being a minority, so that only leaves oppression of Palestinians (which is awful and unjust, to avoid any doubt).
> the progressive country they pretend to be
Israel hasn't pretended to be progressive in awhile. Netanyahu and some of his predecessors made no pretenses about it.
This is only a problem because they want a religious ethnostate, not a secular democracy.
Apartheid south africa wanted the same thing.
Actually I'm fairly sure it could have happened at some point if it hadn't been loudly rejected by Arabs.
It's the PA who always refused to discuss peace, you should check your facts.
This would have been somewhat reasonable if it hadn't been for the fact that Jews have been driven out from neighboring countries in larger number than Arabs from Israel.
You're excluding the middle a lot in these comments, suggesting that the only two valid perspectives on this conflict are "Israel must be an exclusionary ethnostate" and "Hamas is a legitimate actor". It's possible to disagree with both of those statements. People who stick up for Hamas are dumb. Ethnostates are immoral.
Following this logic you may also believe families are immoral.
If Nazi Germany could turn into regular Germany, one of the most progressive nations on Earth, so can anyone else.
It didn’t, really; it was destroyed, and the destroyers erected states of their own design on its ruins.
Israel hasn’t picked fights with the right people for it to end up the way Nazi Germany did if it loses.
That's an idea with a very bad history and no political legitimacy: What grounds does a general have to tell their neighbors what to do? Nobody voted for them. What stops the general from arbitrarily wielding that power?
Why vest that power in the military? A civilian institution could make the decision, such as a court interpreting a constitution.
Maybe in your fantasies, but not in advanced democracies. Nobody would follow those orders; there's no evidence of it ever happening, in centuries. Technically, the people of Washington DC have the power to overthrow the government if they all rush the seats of power at the same time, but really they don't.
> In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews, via descent from the ancient Israelites, are the chosen people, i.e. selected to be in a covenant with God.
> This view, however, does not always preclude a belief that God has a relationship with other peoples—rather, Judaism held that God had entered into a covenant with all humankind, and that Jews and non-Jews alike have a relationship with God. Biblical references as well as rabbinic literature support this view: Moses refers to the "God of the spirits of all flesh",[4] and the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) also identifies prophets outside the community of Israel. Based on these statements, some rabbis theorized that, in the words of Nethanel ibn Fayyumi, a Yemenite Jewish theologian of the 12th century, "God permitted to every people something he forbade to others...[and] God sends a prophet to every people according to their own language."(Levine, 1907/1966)
> The Mishnah continues, and states that anyone who kills or saves a single human, not Jewish, life, has done the same (save or kill) to an entire world. The Tosefta, an important supplement to the Mishnah,[5] also states: "Righteous people of all nations have a share in the world to come" (Sanhedrin 105a).
Which part of this is about racial supremacy?
He said progressive. Progressive doesn't mean "not evil", it means progressive. Can you name a single Muslim-majority country that allows gay marriage?
I think that's a false dichotomy. The question is not if a country is a Muslim-majority country or a Christian-majority country, but if it's secular enough or not.
Or do you mean citizens in Palestine? Why would Israel make the Palestinians in Gaza full citizens when That’s separate territory from Israel?
1) most of Palestine and Palestinians are not in Gaza, bug in the West Bank
2) if Palestine is separate territory from Israel, why Israel builds its roads and cities on it?
And the funny part is, the reason Israel control parts of the West Bank is because they were attacked in 3 wars (1948, 1967, 1972) and won.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Pla...
Looks like for all of these questions the answer is "duh, yes for sure" - except for the last one. I wonder...
If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
I'm from Algeria so I could go on all day long and even complain about the Arabs of FLN who stripped my grand parents from their lands.
But instead, I'd rather complain about how silly a lot of people are, eating pallywood propaganda without a single doubt, I mean, it's not like this article was showing the posts in question at all, the mere partial description they made of it are tailored to correspond the propaganda, really is there someone to believe that using the word "resist" online is enough to get an Israeli arrest?
> I will not succumb to the “peaceful solution,”
Yeah, maybe they were arrested for incitation because of the part that was before the "resist" line pointed by this article. So that's some nice takkia right there, all this to get some good points, and y'all fall for it like school kids, that's so cute!
German students are taught about the Holocaust for the same reason.
But what you might be referring to is this bizarre self-flagellation that has grown in popularity which focuses exclusively on the errors and ignores any of the good things about America.
My personal opinion is it’s because the people doing it want to remake America - throw away the old and create a “more just” society (obviously following their politics).
If you can use this self-criticism to destroy the foundation of America (through association) you can get rid of those pesky ideals preventing you from transforming society. Things like individual freedom, personal responsibility, inalienable rights, judging the individuals by their own actions and not the sins of their ancestors, etc.
As an American Jew, what experience do you have of the troubles that face Israelis or Palestinians?
I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been absorbed by social justice movements in the USA and people apply it to the BLM movement. It just does not fit the same narrative no badly how much Americans and Europeans want it to, but it is terribly convenient to pretend and act as though it is.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=evangelical+support+for+israel+sit...
Please be specific about the laws, actions, and outcomes that resulted in the crime.
to steelman the assertion, will you pick one of the targets you are referring to and tell us what Israel says about the reason for the target? also, can you discover if Israel warned the people in the building they targeted about the action and gave them time to evacuate?
i understand if you don't want to steelman the assertion, so i'll try to do that for you if you can pick just one action you are referring to.
> friend of mine talked to me about how she could barely see her family in Palestine and that I could get a free trip and citizenship with no connection to the land because I was Jewish.
are you referring to the "Law of Return" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return)?
if so, are you suggesting that this law amounts to "war crimes that happen in clear view"?
why can your friend "barely" see her family? is it that she can't afford a trip but Jews get to go for free paid by the Israeli government?
there's an Arab party in the Israeli government _as_we_speak_.