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:
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.