> you cannot logically support both LGBT rights and Palestine.

You can support LGBTQ rights AND support Palestinian children not being killed by Israel.

yeah I agree, I think you misread the comment

OK, I see.

I suppose my next question would be why we are somehow stoic on the Uyghur issue.

But I would guess that the reason is that the US sends support to Israel while actively cutting ties (or going to war economically) with China.

Exactly, yeah. What's happening there is awful and very sad, but there's almost nothing I can do about it, whereas our government provides billions in weapons to Israel

... and trillions in trade to China. US could cut trade ties with China.

This seems to apply to many conflicts, e.g. Sudan. The US could intervene. Now you might say "US tried something similar and that was not exactly a good experience", but the US certainly can intervene. Or, in Lebanon the US, and all countries in the UN security council promised to intervene (and disarm Hezbollah), but just don't do it.

Not intervening is different than actively supporting. We have given ~ a hundred billion and are about to give tens of billions more in no strings attached military aid. We used our UN Veto dozens of times to prevent calling for a ceasefire

Should we intervene for the Uyghurs? Maybe! But this one seems way more obvious

If that were truly the reason there are protests there wouldn't be any support in Europe, when in reality the movements there are far bigger than in the US.

I mean, sorry, but the black flags and open hostility towards Jews shows what at least a large percentage of the movement is really about. Especially in Europe.

The rest of the movement is the same as leftist movements, imho. It's also not about supporting Palestinians it's about fighting the power, ie. attempting to have political impact by "campaigning" for something SO immoral, unacceptable and unrealistic that there is bound to be a fight. It's about the fight, NOT about a solution. And by campaigning I don't mean campaigning in the sense of political campaigning, or even the vitriol spouting semi-threatening Trump is doing, but being so in the way, sabotaging people's lives, that normal people pretty much have to react with violence (because that's the point of blocking, for example, the Golden Gate bridge: to threaten people's livelihoods, and get a strong reaction that way).

It's not about saving tax dollars ... Yes, there's 1% fringe rightists in there. But seriously? It's not about that.

> It's not about saving tax dollars ... Yes, there's 1% fringe rightists in there. But seriously? It's not about that.

That's missing the point about money. Buying the murder weapon is not in the same category as all the inactions that may go into knowing a murder will happen and not ultimately stopping it.

you are like a third right-

First, no its not about tax dollars, you're right. It's about the US actively participating. Its something we have the power to easily stop doing. If what's happening in Palestine is comparable to the Uyghurs you're conceding that there are human rights problems.

As for antisemitism is Europe, I can't say. You might be right there. But in the US, most of it as far as I can tell is being horrified at pictures and videos of what's happening and feeling responsible. A lot of people hate what happened in the global war on terror and this is very comparable. I won't say that there is Nobody in it for antisemitic reasons here but I think that's a terrible awful reason, I disavow any antisemitism, and i believe that the vast majority of US people in the movement aren't.

The fight vs solution thing, I'm a little baffled by. Yeah the point of blocking the golden gate bridge is to show that things aren't stable in the status quo, that's how protests work. But it sounds like you're saying that getting a reaction is the entire goal and that's uncharitable and untrue

> It's about the US actively participating. Its something we have the power to easily stop doing.

The same goes for the Syrian massacres. US was very clearly providing support for one side of the conflict.

No protests.

Central Africa. Same.

No protests.

Nigeria. Same.

No protests.

Or how about a HUGE ongoing us involvement resulting in lots of dead? Ukraine.

No protests. (and, no, Minimal Thinking Girl protesting by herself doesn't count)

Lebanon. Yemen. Kashmir. Hungary. Finland ... the list goes on and on. What makes this case of support different? We all know what makes it different ...

The difference is extremely clear: Israel is viewed as a key US ally. We give them more foreign aid than any other nation. We got to bat for them very frequently, and almost all of our UN Vetos have been used preventing things from being said to them. The two countries are very connected. When Nigeria eg. does something, we don't rush to approve more weapons immediately.

The closest equivalent imo is South Africa, which the US government was similarly close with and people were Very Mad in almost the exact same way.

& Finally, I truly do not understand the viewpoint that we should give aid to Israel and not Ukraine. I can see the arguments for both or neither or for just Ukraine but this one's baffling. They are currently being invaded by a much bigger power. They are required to use the weapons they get purely defensively.

No offence, there's 2 big differences:

1) they're Jewish

2) they actually defend themselves

Armenia and Lebanon have the same problem in the UN, but it only lasts weeks, and then they fail to defend themselves, and the muslim voting block in the UN is happy when they're militarily defeated, and they just don't care about themselves: not about human rights violations by muslims against anyone else. Not even about disgusting human rights violations by muslims against muslims. Look how much effort people put into getting attention for Sudan, and it's just not getting anywhere, and it won't.

There's basically no analogies between any of those conflicts, let alone with the situation in Palestine specifically.

Finland

What on earth are you talking about?

30,000 Uyghur women and children weren’t indiscriminately bombed to death via advanced drones, nor were hundreds of innocent civilians massacred at hospitals in China and buried in mass graves. It’s happening in Palestine as we type.

Instead over 1 million of them are sent to concentration camps, abused and killed to harvest their organs. It's genocide eitherway. The issue isn't covered is really the difference here.

A million killed to harvest their organs? You sure about that? Or was that a rhetorical thing.

Can't find a reliable source right now but the report was from U.N's Gay McDougall

A million people chopped up for organs would presumably leave some significant evidence.

Beware that reasoning. We only knew about the holocaust very late into the war and there were denials just as you claim right now.

And indeed, when the Nazi's were losing they tried quite hard to hide the evidence, however it was so total and immutable in many cases that it could not be hidden, mostly because the allied powers controlled their lands and had free access to their previously governed population..

Without such access proof rarely escapes and when it does the total brutality is considered impossible; this is exactly what happened during world war 2.