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.
The US quashed a ceasefire vote in the UN, so that the carnage can continue. It is monstrous evil. The US is now providing bunker buster bombs as well, which are being used. We see the videos and photos today of that.
Gaza shares a border with Egypt; Egypt keeps that border closed.
> It is monstrous evil.
I agree, Israel is doing horrible things. That doesn't excuse the hypocrisy of the Arab states that are using the suffering of the Palestinians as a political tool against Israel. There's plenty of blame to go around.
They believe that Israel would like to drive out the refugees and seize their land, essentially putting an end to Palestinians in Israel. They believe that's what happened when Israel was founded and subsequently - there are still refugee camps, and a priority of Palestinians is the 'right of return' to their former lands - and with recent Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and specifically with Israeli actions in the West Bank since Oct 7.
Essentially, they think refugees will never be allowed back.
That doesn't mean they care, but without that issue resolved, they won't accept refugees. Also, probably they don't want to take on care and feeding of millions, and to simultaneously relieve Israel, their enemy, of that burden.
By way of contrast: Poland took over 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees, despite the fact that most probably won't go back to Ukraine, and that depopulating eastern Ukraine helps Russia.
I don't think they care nearly as much as they say they do. I think Hamas doubts it too; one reason for the attack was to stop Arab reconciliation with Israel that may have left Palestinians in the cold.
The idea that they would care seems like a bit of prejudice - Americans and Europeans don't care about every refugee either, no matter where they're from or what they've done, especially these days.
My point is that using this argument for the Palestinian issue is intellectually dishonest.
> That doesn't mean they care, but without that issue resolved, they won't accept refugees.
I find this dubious. Under any reasonable humanitarian perspective, a Gazan would benefit by immigrating to most other countries.
The Arab nations around Israel (with the sort of exception of Jordan) can't even bother allowing 3rd generation Palestinian descendants to naturalize. In some, such as Lebanon, this not only precludes political rights, but results in all sorts of benefit losses relative to what others born and raised in the country would receive.
That's a pretty strong sign of "not caring" from a humanitarian perspective.
You also declare that Israel is the enemy of Muslim nations, which it is not, unless forced by hostilities explicitly declared by the other side.
If you mean 'enemy in warfare' then no, they aren't fighting a war directly. But by any other definition of enemy .... In addition, there's Iran (Persian, not Arab).
If they aren't enemies, what do you call them? Allies? Friendly neighbors?
Israel as a state was created solely by following agreements proposed by external parties (UK and UN in particular), and even then mostly on lands that were legitimately bought or were not legally owned by anyone (aside from possibly Ottoman empire in bulk) mostly for the reason of being badlands. It then had aggressive war foisted upon it within 48 hours of creation, which it has then won. Any territorial gains for Israel since then have only happened as a result of defensive wars, and a whole bunch of those territories were given back, including the Sinai peninsula. Gaza strip would also have been given back, except Egypt flatly refused to have anything to do with it (I wonder why).
Israel doesn't have any a priori hostility to Muslim nation-states (or any others, for that matter). You can freely practice Islam (or any other religion, including none at all (with some stupid caveats if you are actually a Jew - not a restriction, but practical incoveniences)) inside of Israel, Arabic is the second official state language.
So, unless a nation-state goes forward and declares, by their own volition, that they want to kill Jews and obliterate Israel, or undertakes practical hostile actions - it's not an enemy of Israel, and Israel would indeed gladly be a friendly neighbour (be it in the literal sense, or planetary), trading, cultural, tourist, scientific and any other kind of partner. At worst, I dare say, a disinterested observer - though it is hard to imagine, given the extroverted and warmly Levantine character.
In any case, if Arab states are (understandably) refusing Palestinian refugees due to concerns of political stability, why not just say so, instead of blaming solely Israel?
The population was small, up to about 5% of the region during the Ottomans (after heavy losses due to multiple Black Plague outbreaks), but the reason that specific area was chosen (as opposed to alternatives) was because there was already a community of Jews there.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of the area was uninhabited swamps until the 1940s and huge numbers of people died from malaria every year before resettling Jews completely changed the local terrain.
Look up details about the the late 1880s and the distinctions marking the difference between the Old Yishuv and New Yishuv.
Political aspirations of the Old Yishuv were pretty low due to the fact that they were broke as shit and depended on handouts from abroad, whereas New Yishuv resettlers came with money and dreams.
The biggest problem I find with the collective understanding people have of the conflict is that people largely think nothing of note happened before 1900 but the prior history determines a ton of why later decisions were made that people attribute to the start of conflict.
Ultimately, the security needs of Israel need to be balanced against the rights of the Palestinians, and as it stands, the Palestinians have no negotiating power, so they get nothing. If politicians around the world made it clear you cannot be 'the only democracy in the middle east' while having millions of people subject to military law, I expect the Palestinians would have enough negotiating room to force some kind of reasonable settlement.
History is complicated, yes, but it is how we got into this situation and everybody's idea of a solution is based on their preferred version of history.
> Are Palestinians citizens of Israel, or is it a foreign country
> that Israeli settlers are invading
League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.
Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.
I was thinking the other day, why doesn't Israel offer the west bank to Jordan?
I think that by permitting, providing security and infrastructure for, and aiding settlement activity, Israel demonstrates a lack of interest in actually passing off occupation. Because of the settlements already there today, it would be already very difficult to maintain the rights and security of Israeli citizens who live in the west bank without the military occupation.
So while I think your argument about Ottoman law is mostly sophistic (why is Ottoman law in 'force'? Because Israel has not allowed self-determination) I think it's really hard to argue that Israel has demonstrated any commitment to ending the occupation: rather, the settlement program makes the occupation a permanent necessity, even if the Israelis elected a government that had ending the occupation as a number one issue on the agenda.
> I was thinking the other day, why doesn't Israel offer the west bank to Jordan?
> I think that by permitting, providing security and infrastructure for, and aiding settlement activity, Israel demonstrates a lack of interest in actually passing off occupation. Because of the settlements already there today, it would be already very difficult to maintain the rights and security of Israeli citizens who live in the west bank without the military occupation.
> So while I think your argument about Ottoman law is mostly sophistic (why is Ottoman law in 'force'? Because Israel has not allowed self-determination) I think it's really hard to argue that Israel has demonstrated any commitment to ending the occupation: rather, the settlement program makes the occupation a permanent necessity, even if the Israelis elected a government that had ending the occupation as a number one issue on the agenda.
You need to understand that these organizations are for the benefit of a future state called Palestine, not for the benefit of the people who would live in that state. The people - and their suffering - are a means to an end to establish that state. I know that is very difficult for Westerners to comprehend, as Western states are _for_ the citizens.
I think this is really wrongheaded on a couple of counts. Because Israel as a state 'for the jews' is an ethnostate, it must keep a jewish demographic majority. So long as that is the case, there is no way for Palestinians to have rights without having their own state.
Second, that suffering is directly caused by Israel. You can't blame the political projects of the Palestinians for the actions of the IDF.
Thirdly, what form of self-determination would actually be acceptable to Israel? Would it include the banning of settlement activity, and the settlers having to live under Palestinian law? Would it include palestinian's right to border control? Or a military? The reason why people call Gaza a prison is because the Palestinians had absolutely no ability to leave, import, or export, because it did not have control over its own borders. That is obviously just as intolerable as an explicit military occupation.
> Because Israel as a state 'for the jews' is an ethnostate, it must keep a jewish demographic majority. So long as that is the case, there is no way for Palestinians to have rights without having their own state.
> Second, that suffering is directly caused by Israel. You can't blame the political projects of the Palestinians for the actions of the IDF.
> Thirdly, what form of self-determination would actually be acceptable to Israel? Would it include the banning of settlement activity, and the settlers having to live under Palestinian law? Would it include palestinian's right to border control? Or a military?
> The reason why people call Gaza a prison is because the Palestinians had absolutely no ability to leave, import, or export, because it did not have control over its own borders. That is obviously just as intolerable as an explicit military occupation.
Yes, but the kind of blockade that Israel employs around Gaza would be considered an act of war by essentially every state on earth.
I think this idea you have that Palestinians are oppressed by basically everybody except Israel is totally insane, and comes across as strategic blindness rather than honest conviction. If you just go to Hebron, you have to be pretty deluded not to see oppression, even if you're unwilling to think through the fact that Israel having defacto power in the West Bank entails that the rights of Palestinians are being denied by Israel, and it's immaterial whether that's by commission or omission, even if you're going to ignore any of the many ways in which the Palestinians rights are regularly infringed by Israeli security forces.
> You cannot be “the only democracy in the Middle East” and use the excuse that the other countries are making you be authoritarian despots.
If you can find a body to administer the West Bank, I'd love to hear your suggestion. The obvious bodies who have been tasked with developing this authority, such as the PA, have proven themselves time and time again of being incapable of such.
You have to go back to the 4th century, and earlier, for Judaism to have a significant presence in Palestine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palesti...
Note: The original European Zionist Jews called their own project settler colonialism back then, and they were opposed by Orthodox Jews, at the time.
You'll also note that League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renews (for the most part) every three years or so.
The demographic numbers I cited came straight from that wikipedia article, and they do not agree with your "nearly-empty" claim.
I don't know where you are getting this from, it isn't true. The League of Nations Palestine Mandate [0] granted the UK "full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate" (Article 1). You will not find any limitation preventing them from making permanent laws within it.
The UK imposed its own legal system on the Mandate, as Article 1 allowed. It ended up mostly abolishing Ottoman law, although it retained it in certain areas (especially family law, inheritance, religious affairs and real estate). The laws it imposed were not necessarily those of the metropolitan UK – the criminal code was largely copied from colonial India. The starting point of Israeli law is Israel's decision at the time of independence to continue the British Mandate's legal system, until such time as the Knesset decided to alter things. It wasn't until 1977, for example, that Israel completely replaced the British-imposed penal code with its own. Palestinian law has the same fundamental starting point, although with the added complexity of being overlaid with Egyptian and Jordanian legislation (in Gaza and the West Bank, respectively), and then a mixture of Israeli and Palestinian legislation laid on top of that.
As far as I’m aware, the reason why the UK retained Ottoman real estate law in Mandatory Palestine was pragmatic rather than due to any international obligation that they do so-all the existing land titles were based on Ottoman law, changing them to a different system of real estate law would have involved a lot of work for little practical benefit, so the British decided to leave the existing Ottoman system in place. But, if they’d felt strongly enough about it, they could have done otherwise
Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I find this hard to believe because the majority of the area was not uninhabited swamps back during the time of the Roman Empire, so why would it have become uninhabited swamps at some point between then and the 1940s? Of course terrain does change over time, but I've never heard of the Levant turning into swamps in post-Roman times.
https://www.amazon.com/Zionism-Creation-Society-Studies-Hist...
For a couple of hundred years prior there were tens of thousands of Jews in the region, including at one point 30,000 counted just in Safed by the end of the 16th century.
Also keep in mind that in 1800 populations were an order of magnitude smaller than they are now.
Citation needed. Nearly 2M people called Palestine their home in the 1940s, the majority Muslim.
We also know that the Palestinian villages bulldozed by the Israeli European Jewish settler colonialists over the last 75 years had existed for many hundreds of years-- many of the parks in Israel are built on top of the ruins of these destroyed Palestinian villages, to hide these crimes from the world. We know that the Palestinian olive orchards bulldozed by the Israelis were filled with trees that were hundreds of years old. Gaza itself, was a prosperous ancient city that once stood upon a crossroads of trade. Besides the 10s of thousands of civilians majority women and children murdered by Israel (war crimes) in this latest massacre of the many massacres by the Israelis, the Israelis are destroying all the buildings and civilian infrastructure in Gaza (war crimes), there may be no more Gaza when the Israelis are finished.
Short version, you are spreading falsehoods in defense of genocidal behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palesti...
Just because Hitler blew his brains out, doesn't mean everything was hunky dory fine again. There were pogroms against people who had survived the concentration camps, Stalin was now in charge of the majority of nations where Jews had lived, local authorities that had collaborated with the Nazis were still in charge in many places...
I do think simply calling Israel a colonial state is insufficient. The Jewish people didn't have a place they could return to like the British or the French, and the contemporary events obviously created an extremely dire situation. I'm not sure that makes what was done to the native Muslim population in Palestine okay, and there were certainly elements of a colonial project on display that continue to this day (notably, the formation of Jewish settlements in the west bank in violation of international law). The zionist movement also pre-dates the rise of the Nazis. That they were vindicated doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a colonial project.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38576719
Zionism is and was a European project. Here is a challenge for you, name a single Mizrahi in a position of power in Israel; it is all Europeans.
This appeared repeatedly as important news, sadly mostly due to wars and terrorism.
Jerusalem relevance alone for multiple religions with its holy sites made it important topic for many.
As an example, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are among the top 10 countries in terms of Twitter users.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number-of-active-...
I grew up in the 1980s and recall intense flareups on this subject matter for as long as I can remember. The arrival of the Web and social media simply amplified them.
It's not like the collective West (aside from USA) offered safe haven to Jews. We kinda just threw them into that corner of the world.
The important issue here is the obviously shrinking pseudo-state of Palestine. The 1947 borders of Palestine have shifted dramatically in Israel's favor, but Israel continues to send settlers to the West Bank.
---------
Hamas was wrong to attack Israel. But Israel is wrong to continue expanding its borders.
Around 1AD, the greatest concentration of Jewish people was Alexandria, Egypt, where they made up 1/3 the population, not Jerusalem. The actual history of the Middle East defies simplistic narratives.
Earlier today, I was listening to an interview with a child of early Zionists (he grew up on a Kibbutz in Israel, but now resides in the US, escaping the [his words], "Fascist turn" in Israel) who said that Israelis (referring to the European Ashkenazi Jewish Zionist settlers) were very happy to have the Mizrahi come. They referred to the Mizrahi as, "Jews at Arab wages." Israeli Ashkenazi Zionists were and are very racist; where it would be odd, but arguably correct to call them a brand of white supremacists.
Only about a thousand jewish refugees were let into the United States.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/nyregion/oswego-jewish-re...
Zionism is a very complex topic, and some elements seem quite murky.
But I certainly agree with your final point. Ignoring the religious angle, in terms of political dynamics this seems to be a fairly straightforward case of extremist nationalism.
I mean, the explicit goal post WW1 was to cut up the Ottoman Empire (which inevitably would divide the Muslim world, as the Ottomans were the major Muslim empire). The Jewish/Zionist cause is a useful means to that end. No better way to cut-up that region by offering it to Israel / a different religious group who had publicly lobbied for a place there.
I'd more rather blame 1917 / WW1 politics for this than the Jewish people per se. Cutting up and humiliating the Central Powers post-defeat was just one of the World War 1 issues.
Its Britain who signed it after all, and we all know what Britain wanted post WW1. (And one can argue that Britain treated the former-Ottomans with more respect than some other Central Powers...)
----------
I can imagine a parallel universe where Britain would cut up the Ottoman Empire differently without creating a Jewish land / start of Israel in years following WW1. But in most concievable alternative-histories I can think of, the four central powers / empires would be dissolved and otherwise cut up into tiny pieces and scattered into the winds in a humiliating defeat.
You don't see how being part of a large, well-regarded Muslim Empire (a true Caliphate) has an effect on the psyche of the largely Muslim Palestinians? Or why they'd be against Western-rule in the post-Ottoman world of 1918+?
I'm certainly not calling the Ottomans saints. But the Ottomans were stewards of the Muslim world for those centuries.
---------
If Britain realized how much trouble all of this Middle Eastern crap would be after the dissolution of the Ottomans, I'm sure they would have rewritten the terms of the Treaty of Sèvres.
Truth is since the Babylonian captivity in the 5th century BCE the area was not ruled by any indigenous people but held by interloping empire after empire, none of which were shy about relocating peoples into and out of that tiny piece of land.
Are you comparing that to being part of an empire for the preceding 400 years?
It also left Gaza in 2005, forcibly extracting settlers, and left no military presence. In Gaza, in every real sense, Israel contracted its borders.
Who controls the water, electricity and internet in Gaza?
Who controls the borders of Gaza?
Who has military ships control sea waters of Gaza?
Who randomly sends missiles, air strikes and “mows the grass” in Gaza?
Israel.
As for the Berlin wall, I only used it for dramatic effect, to convey how serious the blockade is. Also why did you put “blockade” in quotes? Are you under the impression that Israel is not imposing a “blockade” on Gaza?
But you got me. You are better at debating than me. Congratulations.
Actually, I don't know what the status of the Golan Heights is. I suppose it's Syrian territory, occupied by Israel. But I know that the State of Israel has never claimed the Gaza Strip. TTBOMK it was Egyptian territory in 1948, and its present occupants are mainly refugees from the Nakhba and their descendants - i.e. they are mainly the original occupants of the territory of the present State of Israel.
I suppose the Gaza Strip must still be technically Egypt; but it's quite clear that Egypt doesn't want responsibility for 2 million impoverished Palestinians, many of whom are aligned with the Moslem Brotherhood, a group that arose in Egypt that has always opposed the Egyptian government.
I don’t know why you are so fixated on how Israel defines their own borders. They very much control much more areas then what is formally considered within Israeli borders.
Here is a map of West Bank settlements in 2020 [1] These have de-facto expanded since then even before October 7th, particularly in East Jerusalem which is fully controlled by Israel. Pay special attention to the blue area of the map,area C, which is fully controlled by Israel, home to almost 500,000 Israel settlers who vote in Israeli elections, adhere to Israeli laws, pay with Israeli Shekels, etc. Israel is under international oblegation to cede this area to Palestine, but instead have been moving more settlers into it at accelerating pace.
Also look at where the border infrastructure are in this map, this is fences, walls, checkpoints, etc. It is not on the West Bank borders like you would expect if Israeli borders hadn’t expanded, but instead almost completely within it, and in some cases very deep within it (see e.g. South of Ramallah, North of Salfit, and around Bethlehem) also notice how East Jerusalem is completely cut off from the rest of the West Bank with border infrastructure, almost as if East Jerusalem has been completely annexed by Israel.
In this map you also see they plan to build a lot more boarder infrastructure very deep inside the West Bank. The only way to interpret that is that they are moving the boarder even further and annexing even more land. Even if they claim these settlements and these areas aren’t part of Israel, they very much are.
1: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/West_Ban...
Yes, the Arab states started wars to conquer the holy land from the Jews, and lost. Do you really think that if they had won anybody would be talking about how the Jewish state is shrinking? Losing territory in a war that they started in order to gain territory is somehow controversial?
> Israel continues to send settlers to the West Bank.
Israel has never sent a single citizen to settle the West Bank. People have moved to the West Bank of their own accord, which by the way is legal and encouraged under the legal frameworks applicable to the area (Ottoman law actually, because everything since had been mandate or occupation). But the state has not and does not move people.
I am against all violence and murder of civilians, but per international law, Hamas resistance fighters[1] had every right to attack Israel, the occupying power, but not civilians. And, as more comes out, there are more questions about who is responsible for the majority of the civilian casualties in the Hamas resistance fighter's attack. E.g., hundreds of the 1400 originally reported Israeli victims of the Hamas attacks have now been identified as Palestinian Hamas resistance fighters "burned beyond all recognition" [by Israeli forces]. And, the majority of Hamas targets were military. Whereas nearly 100% of the Israeli targets in the current massacre are civilians (including literally babies in incubators); the majority of the murdered have been women and children.
And, per international law, Israel, as occupying power, does not have a "right to defend itself" against the occupied Palestinians.
The International Criminal Court was investigating Israel for past crimes against humanity, but the Chief Prosecutor was replaced with one more friendly to the Zionists (no doubt under US pressure). Past Israeli activities and especially the current massacre is textbook genocide per international law, and while Israel refuses to sign onto the the ICC, Palestine has (which provides jurisdiction), but even if it hadn't, universal jurisdiction for crimes against humanity such as the genocide being perpetrated by Israel allow for the prosecution of Israel's crimes. Israeli leaders (and hopefully soldiers) will eventually be brought to justice (as well as those who facilitated the genocide like Joe Biden, Anthony Blinken, Ursula von der Leyen, Nearly all Democratic members of congress and all Republican members of congress and many many more).
[1]There is also a lot of confusing Hamas the political wing with Hamas the militant resistance fighters. These are distinct, and there is good evidence that the political wing of Hamas was unaware the attacks were going to happen until after they had occurred. Think of it as Sinn Féin political wing of IRA vs. IRA resistance fighters, fighting the English colonizers, in Ireland. The political wing Hamas, is the democratically elected government of Gaza.
>accepting Palestinian refugees?
If I am a parent in Gaza, I would not care about “home”. I just want my kid to have a future.
Given Israel's misleading and lying stances as other nations inspect the conditions of the conflict, and their regarding of Palestinians as less than human, I am not convinced they are interested or even capable of providing other cultures a better quality of life. Apparently invading other lands and engaging in colonialism is cool in 2023.
There also a similar weird gulf between the shouts about 'genocide' and the refusal to allow any to escape. Someone who truly believes that should always allow for refugees. I guess most people making these claims don't really believe them and except Israel to maintain reasonable-enough treatment.
This has little to do with the actual point, though.
Because otherwise it invalidates their opinion? So, are you ready to sacrifice yourself in the streets for Mr. Biden / Mr. Trump / Mr. Macron / Ms. LePen / etc etc, or to rehome the "victims" of their policies?
It provides some signal as to how “deeply” one (or a group) feels.
>So, are you ready to sacrifice yourself in the streets for Mr. Biden / Mr. Trump / Mr. Macron / Ms. LePen / etc etc, or to rehome the "victims" of their policies?
No, I do not deeply feel regarding this topic.
Because refusing diplomatic and business relationships, repeatedly condemning Israeli actions in the largest international forums they have access to, demonstrating in the streets of their countries, jeopardizing relationships with the richest countries in the world because of this topic, etc etc, are not sufficient signals...?
You can certainly criticize ambiguities in certain environments (e.g. Saudi rulers), but overall I don't think one can seriously challenge the depth of feeling on the matter when it's shared by literally billions of people. Maybe one doesn't get exposed to all that because most of these people are poor, living in poor countries that are largely ignored by the Western mainstream, but they are definitely there.
Regardless of that point, it's not their responsibility to facilitate Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Ironically, the USA IS SPENDING BILLIONS on the war in Ukraine with nothing for the Palestinians.
Yes, most Americans knew the conflict existed previous to this past October, but few who weren't Jewish or Muslim and/or Arab (I think most Arab Christians are generally/vaguely pro-Palestinian, but not sure) would have had strong opinions about it or been able to tell you much. I don't think the issue has ever featured this heavily in the US news cycle since oil embargoes in the 70s, and the issue is a lot more contentious now due to a few different factors.
Right now, unless someone consumes zero news media and has very curated social media feeds, I don't see how they could avoid understanding this has all been a major geopolitical event that is continuing to unfold.
That’s simply incorrect. Extensive news coverage of the flareups I referred to led to the subject matter becoming a common topic of conversation and public interest. Heck, I remember there being conversations and debates about it among kids in my school’s cafeteria, and that was in a part of the US where at the time way less than 1% of the population was Jewish or Muslim.
It has been a relatively prominent issue in Ireland, and especially Northern Ireland for some time. You can find plenty of images over the years of republican murals with Palestinian flags on them (e.g. 10 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/189yeg/o... ), or conversely unionist bonfires with palestinean flags on it: (e.g. last year https://nitter.dafriser.be/M_AndersonSF/status/1542523209311... )
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.
This is an important clause here. It means that they do not believe that pro-Israel views are prioritised but __if__ any it is the case that there are prioritised views are pro-Palestinian views.
Now, you could argue that this is a bad faith rhetorical device but it is not “explicitly stating that they believe pro-Palestinian views are prioritised”.
Of course pro-Israel views can be prioritized and still be in the minority.
Politically, we know the bias of the Western ruling class is aggressively pro-Israel. This indisputable knowledge that means the most likely platform bias is pro-Israel.
I don’t think what you’ve mentioned is indisputable or really backed by facts.
> They're explicitly stating that they believe pro-palestinian views are prioritized.
I'm also saying that they are prioritised, here is a sentence from my previous comment:
> As a result, certain views are prioritised
The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.
I'm not sure what you are opposing. I wrote that majority of the world is against Israel's occupation. And it's not only West Bank, this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg
> The October 7th attack was carried out against civilians in their homes living on land that is internationally recognized as Israel by an overwhelming majority of countries.
Pro Palestine doesn't mean pro Hamas or pro terrorist. Here is another general assembly vote, from 26th October where majority of the world voted differently than Israel, and in favor of Palestine:
The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel.
Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?
I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947.
> The majority voted for a truce, which greatly favors Hamas at the expense of Israel.
I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties. There are accusations of Israel committing war crimes. Recently, an independent investigation into the killing of a Reuters journalist suggested that it was a deliberate attack by the IDF on civilians, constituting a war crime. They told Palestinians to go south to be safe and then they bombed them there. Responding to atrocities from 7th of October with further atrocities is not justifiable. The strategy to eradicate Hamas might be counterproductive, potentially leading to the creation of more militants than are eliminated, due to the civilian casualties caused.
> Hostages are still being held in Gaza, and a truce agreement was sustained for as long as Hamas were willing to free 10 hostages per day of truce. Hamas stopped short with 137 hostages still remaining in Gaza. Why on Earth would Israel agree?
No one is advocating for a cessation of the fight against Hamas, but there has been a loss of world support due to the methods employed. Even the US, as indicated by Blinken either today or yesterday, has stated that there are insufficient efforts being made to protect civilian lives and that Israel is saying one thing but the reality and numbers coming from Gaza says something different.
> No one is advocating for a cessation of the fight against Hamas
We’ve seen people do just that. Not only that, but also open expressions of support for Hamas and its actions.
I also don’t think it’s possible for Israel to stop attacks until all the people kidnapped by Hamas are returned, rescued, or confirmed dead. Hamas isn’t returning them, because forcing Israel into continued war is its most effective weapon in the war for international sympathy.
The part about eradicating Hamas is clearly pure propaganda though. Doing that would require killing their leaders who sit comfortably in Turkey, Lebanon and Qatar.
> I define Palestine borders same as UN resolution from 1947.
> I believe that the need for a truce vote would be less pressing if Israel reduced civilian and child casualties.
The point under discussion above is the fact that the Arabs rejected the borders of this proposed Arab state. So they started a war and the borders were changed. That's the risk they took and lost. It is disingenuous to claim that Israelis stole Arab land at this point - the Arabs tried to steal land and lost.
In an ideal world what you’re saying would be true. Hamas could be eradicated without civilian casualties. No children would get hurt.
But you’re not proposing an alternative — and part of the reason is that Hamas has made it explicitly hard to do so.
Is the verdict that any territory that is sufficiently populated can’t be retaliated against?
> this is map showing all the lands occupied by Israel with timeline https://i.stack.imgur.com/0xM5P.jpg
1. The geographical area of Palestine, also often called The Holy Land among other names, that was not inhabited by Jews.
2. The area that the UN Partition Plan designated for an Arab state.
3. The areas that the Palestinian Authority has both civil and military control over.
The problem with the first definition is obvious: It displays a geographical area with a racial modifier. That would be like showing a map of France with all the areas where French people live highlighted, then assuming that 100% of the remaining areas are "Immigrant Land". In reality, the far majority of the land was not settled by Jews nor Arabs in time frame of this map - it was so empty that the Ottomans created laws specifically to increase both Arab and Jewish settlement in the area, they didn't care so long as the taxes were paid.
The UN Partition Plan was not perfect, but it for the most part proposed an Arab state in the areas that were Arab majority, and a Jewish state in the areas with a Jewish majority. The Arabs rejected this plan in an attempt to conquer more land - so complaining that the borders changed from these borders is disingenuous. The Arabs started a war (well, more than one) with the specific intent of changing these borders.
The map in 1946 is false, since all of it was British, zero of it was Arab or Jewish.
The UN plan never happened.
The 1967 map pretends like there was a country "Palestine" when there never has been.
And the 2010 map is just straight up fiction.
The majority of the global ruling class is for Israel's occupation of Palestine.
History is incomprehensible if we ignore class conflict.
The aforementioned organization in no way represents “the majority of the world” or “the rest of the world”; it makes a joke out of the values of freedom and human rights.
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, and the fact that the apps are not available in some markets.
As a result, certain views are prioritised as a byproduct of the fact that all modern social media apps have an algorithm that shows you more of what you already agree with, in order to maximise ad profits.