I think when westerners like myself notice the disparity in response amongst western progressives between the Palestinian and Iranian situations, they're talking more from a social lens than the geopolitical one.

A lot of my peers have been incredibly active on social media the last couple years supporting Palestinians. They've been mostly completely silent on Iran, the imbalance is notable.

I think western leftists complain about Palestine a lot because the west is attacking Palestine and they want their government to stop that. While the situation in Iran is very sad, it also has nothing to do with my government and there would be nothing to be achieved by protesting, unless I think they need even stricter sanctions.

Further, the american government across several administrations imposed sanctions which led to premature death of Iranians, worsening conditions. It instigated the Iran/Iraq war carnage. It also bombed Iran contributing to civilian casualties. Even if it were to stage “regime change” in Iran, give the american government’s track record in Afghanistan and Iraq, the resulting government would likely inflict even more hardship upon the people of Iran. This is why some on “the left” view the united states as the primary contradiction.

It’s not just the US based liberals. Al Jazeera doesn’t have a single mention on the number or people in Iran that were killed but they do have an article about all the Palestinians killed since over a year.

Al Jazeera is probably a little skeptical of numbers sourced from anonymous tip offs that are clearly being used as a pretext for military action.

WMD evidence published in western newspapers arrived in our newspapers in exactly the same way.

By contrast, the numbers provided by the "Hamas run Gaza health ministry" turned out to be accurate despite the extreme skepticism professed by the western media.

Really turned to be accurate?

It's amazed that western progressive movment embress Al Jazeera which in controlled by violent regime of Qatar.

Again, what am I supposed to do about it? If one lives in one of most western countries, one’s government has sanctioned Iran to the gills.

Even the government can do little more, except engage in war.

Compare this to Palestine, where direct action and protest is much more tangibly impactful.

European governments could expel Iranian ambassadors as a start.

"More than 36,500 Iranians were killed by security forces during the January 8-9 crackdown on nationwide protests, making it the deadliest two-day protest massacre in history,"

Too bad that this is also a first time in history, following massacre of protesters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae...

I guess there is still remaining trade volume that could be further reduced by sanctions. While it is a tenth of what is typically traded with other countries in the region, I would say it is still 1000 times higher than the trade with North Korea. Having said that, the example shows that cruel dictators can still survive in isolation (particularly if the rest of the world still continues to be split on basic human rights)

> European governments could expel Iranian ambassadors as a start

why should they, those ambassadors represent millions of Iranians who showed in support of their country on Monday, Jan 12

From your profile:

> Proudly banned, rate limited multiple times, and hundreds of downvotes for exposing CIA/Mossad disinformation operations

You need to seek help. The murder of thousands of Iranian civilians by the government isn’t disinformation you fucking ghoul.

> The murder of thousands of Iranian civilians by the government isn’t disinformation you fucking ghoul.

453 out of 535 US politicians + its president and VP are on AIPAC and affiliated groups payroll... and 2/3 of mainstream media outlets are jew owned or controlled - That buys a lot disinformation on Iran

> Again, what am I supposed to do about it?

Encourage your government to invade/incite regime change I guess...?

I have never been able to work out where the line lies between intervention and colonialism tbh.

Well, they already did that and fucked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

Encourage my government to invade Iran?

But only Iran?

Shouldn't we attempt regime change in, for example, the US?

It would be great if you could hand us the list of the evil countries that we should invade.

> hand us the list of the evil countries that we should invade.

All the ones not currently complying with the will of the greatest nation on earth. Obviously

It's for their own good!

In all seriousness. Perhaps you missed the tone of my previous comment? There is nothing you can do past a certain point other than either embrace the colonial attitude or let the country do its thing. There are no more levers to pull.

Getting past the point that this is a discussion of something meaningless in the first place (posting as social activism), why might left leaning people talk more about an issue they might tangibly have impact on over one they can have no impact on?

They are not equivalent topics!

I don't know maybe European government can stop doing billions worth $ business with Iranian regime over last 3 decades.

I think the biggest difference is simple the fact that Israel has much closer ties with the US. The foreign policy of the USA has been the carrot and stick model for a long time and it seems Israel always gets the carrot on the back of national security. Iran, we have little to no relations with so there isn't anything the USA can to do excise power without serious military action

The Soviet Union used to routinely criticize dissident Nobel Peace Prize winner Andrei Sakharov for having nothing to say about American atrocities.

"I don't know anything about them, I don't care about them, what I talk about are Soviet atrocities." he replied.

I wonder how many of the people arguing that "more leftists should be out protesting Iran" agree with the Soviet Union's criticism of its dissident?

My guess would be zero.

The Soviet Union was famous for engaging in whataboutism; they covered-up the true toll of Stalin’s purges (along with the human cost of their policies), and constantly oppressed Eastern Europe for almost 50 years. They are/were not a good example of anything.

Yes, whether it's the soviets using it to attack soviet dissidents or zionists using it to attack left wing critics, whataboutism is bad.

I think the difference here would be that it doesn't appear to be an attempt to downplay Palestine. Whataboutism involves both a claim of inconsistency and associated criticism but not all claims of inconsistency and associated criticism constitute whataboutism.

Oh no that's precisely all it is.

It isnt even the first time zionists have done this im the last two months they were trying to whatabout over sudan also.

if there is a suspected genocide going on there which has nothing to do with your government you are expected to protest it and shut up about the genocide your government does support.

Sakharov actually owned it. He straight up was like "I don't care about them" He never claimed to be the champion of the Americans.

On the other hand, the Left seems to claim to be the main representative of women and gay rights for example, everywhere. You can't build your entire brand on "solidarity with the oppressed" and then ghost the moment you don't have the same specific advantage you want for your agenda.

Sakharov wasn't a hypocrite. That's the difference.

Expressing solidarity with the victims of genocide whom your government helped kill isnt a branding exercise.

Not unless you're a cynical, murderous psychopath.

It's an expression of basic human decency.

That's using a jurisdictional defense to protect a universal claim.

If the Left's platform was explicitly "We are an anti-imperialist check on Western power" then your argument would hold. But the actual platform is usually "Women's Rights and Gay Rights are Universal Human Rights"

You cannot claim such universal moral authority when it's convenient ("Justice everywhere!") and then retreat to the safety of a particularist stance ("I only care about what my tax dollars fund!") when it's difficult.

If your "basic human decency" only activates when the aggressor is your own government, then you aren't actually standing in solidarity with the oppressed. You are implicitly arguing that a victim's value depends entirely on the nationality of their killer.

> retreat [..] when it's difficult

Focusing on more tractable causes makes sense (fwiw I think there are more tractable causes than both of those geopolitical conflicts: millions and millions die annually from preventable global health ailments)

it's about preaching to the choir. I think it's an atrocity what happened to those Iranian supporters. But what's the point in posting about it? Everyone else thinks it's an atrocity. We have no power to change things in Iran.

One other point -- I think the left has effectively shifted the conversation on Israel very quickly. I think immediately following Oct 7 atrocities, public support was overwhelmingly with Israel. By raising awareness of the situation, it has now become more slanted towards "peace in Palestine." I see no reason a similar type of shift couldn't occur on any issue if a coordinated effort to discuss it and raise awareness existed.

And by doing so, it would likely cause change and or discussion by those in power.

> it would likely cause change and or discussion by those in power.

The reason this is an absurd comparison is because on the Palestine issues, it’s a desire to stop using / selling weapons into a conflict and on the Iran issue “causing change” would be starting another war in the Middle East.

This is lame excuse. For one you are calling for demolishion on nation on other hand you are not even embress the Iranian people who suffers under violent regime. That's the progression movment hyporcey

> By raising awareness of the situation, it has now become more slanted towards "peace in Palestine."

"the situation" changed from "more than a thousand Israelis murdered by Hamas" to the total destruction of Gaza, the death of tens of thousands and worse.

It's not exactly surprising that there was a shift in where public support is directed.

Sorry I think the GP's point is correct. I feel the same about how we hear very little about modern-day slavery, but lots about much more minor workplace issues in the west. I'm not saying don't discuss modern workplace issues, and don't battle for even better working conditions -- but the silence is deafening. If American children were working 12-16 hour days in sweatshops, it would be nonstop in the news.

By not speaking out, it lessens the moral standing of those making a huge ruckus over certain issues, but remaining silent on arguably far more serious ones.

The power to cause change in democracy rests mostly in influence over decision makers who hold the power and money. The ability to get the news and media and celebrities talking about an issue is what gives protestors and those shouting on the left power to change things. Ultimately politicians and the elites want to be "in the right" to hold onto their power and money.

As an example, suppose 80% of the population was suddenly in an uprising about atrocities in Iran, and the next major election hinged on this subject. If some political party takes the right actions, they win the presidency house and senate. Do you think nothing would happen? Trump has literally said he wants to annex Greenland -- anything is possible if leaders feel they have political mandate.

Sitting in comfortable silence or talking about relatively easier issues just allows the more complex issues to go unsolved.

Again, nothing against pushing for peace for people in Palestine, but claiming that we should just ignore things in Iran reduces the legitimacy of the cause.

The pro-peace activist in WWII, who knew of concentration camps, but never mentioned it, and even told others not to discuss it. They claimed there was no point, nothing could be done. But the legacy wasn't the pro-peace activism, it was denial of the glaring situation they ignored.

This has never been about (western) morals which is why the masked violent crowds don't care about Russia, or China, or Saudia Arabia or Iran. This is about taking down the west because the west is evil. They also don't care about crimes against humanity perpetrated by Palestinians: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/0282/2025/en/

This crowd is also not calling for "peace in Palestine". That would be something everyone would obviously get behind and could lead to a constructive discussion about how we get there. They are supporting violence against Israeli civilians and calling for the destruction of Israel and the murder of its populace.

It also has nothing to do with "US aid to Israel" since we see the exact same behavior in other western countries that do not aid Israel at all. For Americans to question how their aid money is used (e.g. why is it going to Egypt) or who the US does business with (e.g. why with Saudi Arabia or Qatar) is perfectly legit but it's obviously not what's going on here.

This is a wild take. You think the arab spring, Syrian revolution, Libyan revolution, Iraq war, interventions in Somalia and Sudan etc.. we're all CIA operations at the behest of Israel? Seriously?

I agree with @epsters perspective - while it may not have been done at the behest of Israel, it is increasingly becoming clear that most of these so-called "revolutions" exploited the naivety of the youth and incited them through planned (CIA? MI6? Mossad?) social media campaigns on platform all controlled by the west. Throw in a violent, committed group into the mix of these naive young idiots when they are protesting, to deliberately target and provoke the police or the army, and you have the recipe to start a civil war in any country and potentially destabilise it. The aim (from what is apparent in Ukraine, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal etc.) seems to be to replace experienced politicians with inexperienced politicians who can then be easily influenced and manipulated (over a period of time) to completely flip government policies to match the interest of the foreign powers behind the incitement.

I mentioned many conflicts and many countries so this is very broad to cover in one comment but i will try, briefly. I have heard many theories given over the years to justify these interventions - democracy, capitalism, liberalism, oil, minerals, gas-pipelines, gas-fields, neoconservatism, neoliberalism, neo-colonialism, fighting terror, WMDs, fighting rogue states, checking expansionism, oil contractors, defense contractors, petrodollar, maintaining global reserve system, global security, stability, American national security, European security, national security of Gulf allies, shipping lanes and trade routes and finally Israeli national security. How many of those goals were achieved? What did America get out of the Iraq War? Was Libyan intervention a net win for France ? Or Europe? My question is after 20 years, how much of those theories still hold up. Don't get me wrong, many of those things mentioned were indeed motivations and played a part in many of the cases. But ultimately most of these theories crumble in the face of 20 years of evidence. Except the Israel Theory. Reading Israel's national security strategy (outlined in documents like the "Clean break" report and the "Yinon Plan") Suddenly all the seeming 'naive' and 'futile' actions of the west , all the failed intervations, human catastrophes, blowbacks and disasters; suddenly they all make sense.

I am not saying all the people, protestors/fighters, parties, involved were mossad/cia agents or all of them arose out of covert action. I am saying that is what shaped them, and ultimately determined their outcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...

I think you're completely right, and the fact that most people don't realize this makes me think that even most 'smart' people are pretty stupid when they have to think outside of what the media tells them.

I don't think they're stupid and i don't fault them. I made extraordinary claims and it took me 20 years of seeing extraordinary evidence to face reality.

Completely crazy. Not only had the war in Iraq hurt Israeli security, rather than improving it, Israel opposed the war knowing that it would be damaging rather than beneficial. What you have is not "the Israel Theory", what you have is a conspiracy theory.

Netanyahu came before Congress in 2002 to strongly urge the invasion of Iraq. What universe are you living in?

Ariel Sharon was the prime minister of Israel in 2002. Netanyahu was a civilian. You seem to be unable to tell these two very different people apart. I suggest going easy on the green stuff.

Current prime minister, former and future prime minister, that's an irrelevant distinction here. Clearly the Israelis thought the Iraq war was in their interest, which is the original claim here, and is clearly evidenced by Israeli attempts to lobby in favor of the invasion.

This is demonstrably false. Ariel Sharon lobbied against the invasion.

Netanyahu’s role is extremely relevant. There’s a big difference between a civilian’s personal opinion and official state policy.

Your original claim is false. End of story.

>Israel opposed the war knowing that it would be damaging rather than beneficial

Here's a video of Benjamin Netanyahu doing the opposite of opposing the Iraq war in front of Congress in 2002.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVPauUOVrmk

>Not only had the war in Iraq hurt Israeli security, rather than improving it

I am aware there was internal debate in Israel on relative benefits of taking out Iraq's conventional military capability, its economic potential, remnants of its WMD program and breaking apart Iraq's territorial integrity versus the risk of Iraq falling under Iran's influence. Evidently Netanyahu's faction prevailed in the debate. Though both sides would have preferred taking out Iran first before going after Iraq.

>what you have is a conspiracy theory.

You can call it whatever you want. The true test of a theory is if it fits the evidence and its ability to predict events. Do you have a better theory of why Americans and Europeans repeat the same failed policies over and over in the middle-east?

Here's my prediction on Iran : I don't know what Trump will do ,if he will ultimately accede to Israel's wishes, but if a 'civil war' breaks out or If Trump or any future American regime decides to invade Iraq. It will conservatively lead to a decade of war, one million deaths, millions of refugees (from Iran, Iraq). If the Islamic Republic collapses I am doubtful on whether Iran will survive as an integral nation. But Israel will get what it wants. which will be - taking out Iran's nuclear program, breaking Iran apart and Israel becoming the regional uncontested power (until Turkey or Egypt emerges but thats the next round). Israel will likely formally annex more of Syria, and Southern Lebanon as well or create a buffer zone rump state. Palestinians will never see sovereignty. They will be ethnically cleansed or live in a glorified bantustan. Iraq may not survive in its current form. It will be a bloody, expensive mess for everybody else. Likely American lives will be lost. I struggle to see how a regime change would be achieved without US boots on the ground. The Iranian people will be all but certainly worse of. Just like the people of Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, etc.

Like I said to the other person here, Netanyahu was acting in a private capacity as a civilian, not a representative or office holder of the government of Israel. It amazes me how you conspiracy nutters can't tell the difference.

You don't have a "theory". You worked backwards from your conclusion that "Israel = bad" and created an entirely false narrative that only sounds plausible in your own deluded head. Furthermore, you have absolutely no proof, obviously, for your conspiratorial ravings, so the most charitable description of your thoughts on the matter would be a "conjecture" not a "theory".

And I'm sorry but I don't care about your predictions.

> You worked backwards from your conclusion that "Israel = bad"

I did work backwards. from the evidence. I didn't start with "Israel is responsible for everything". In fact i used to dismiss that theory as "low iq" and believe "that it's complicated". It is complicated, but not as complicated as i used to think.

Saying Netanyahu was "just a civillian" and had no political influence in the Bush admin, in Israel or the Israel Lobby is particularly comical he is the current primeminister and longest running leader of Israel. That period was just a brief interlude when he was not serving in a formal capacity. His vision of the middle-east is exactly what the middle-east is today.

edit : I partially take back 'Libya' - i think the Libya affair is less influenced by the Israeli interests. But still, even though Gadaffi had given up his WMD program and become a friend of US and Europe, he was still a foe of Israel. So he still never could become a friend of the west. Funny how that works isn't it. Almost Like Europe and the US can't have a relationship independent of Israel's interests.

Your brain is fried. To think one tiny country is controlling and directing all world events is just laughable.

>To think one tiny country is controlling and directing all world events is just laughable.

No. i think one tiny country directs American foreign policy in the MENA region, and Europe by-and-large follows its lead. You haven't countered the substance of my claims. You frankly seem low-information on the matter.

> What did America get out of the Iraq War? Was Libyan intervention a net win for France ? Or Europe? My question is after 20 years, how much of those theories still hold up. Don't get me wrong, many of those things mentioned were indeed motivations and played a part in many of the cases. But ultimately most of these theories crumble in the face of 20 years of evidence. Except the Israel Theory

This is pretty poor reasoning, just FYI.

We don't need a centralized "theory" for why western powers have interfered in the Middle East for so long. There's no conspiracy or orchestration, what you're referring to are a handful of related but ultimately separate sagas involving a litany of countries, ethnic groups, and geopolitical motivations. To suggest there's a singular theory or plan is just silly.

This is Qanon level thinking, I'll be honest.

What "imbalance"? It is disingenuous to equate the two political situations as the same:

1. Palestine is a settler-colony of Israel, where the Israeli-right currently in power is conducting a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza ( https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide ) while continuing to steal their land and deny them basic rights. ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/6/who-are-israeli-set... ). The oppressors and the victims are clear in the Israel - Palestine conflict, and thus it is easy to take a firm moral stand supporting one over the other.

2. What is happening in Iran is either (at best) a power struggle and violent conflict between two groups - the supporters of the Ayatollah and the supporters of the Shah (backed by the west), or (at worst) the start of a civil war. In this case, apart from sympathy for the victims of violence on both sides, it is hard to take a firm political stand for one side because both have a tainted record. (How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days - https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthr... ). Note that these so-called "revolutionaries" in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal too went on a rampage when law and order collapsed their, looting killing and doing senseless destruction ultimately destabilising their whole country. (Now Bangladesh is conducting a farce "democratic" election that deliberately excludes a major political party, the Awami League, because the so called "revolutionaries" fear that they will not be able to defeat them electorally. Something similar happened in Ukraine too). When both sides choose violence to capture power, and are hell bent on excluding the "other" from any future "democratic" setup, who really is the one with the "democratic" values and the real victim?

There is no doubt in my mind that the stand of the west (US / UK) here is totally hypocritical (and morally repugnant) if you praise the opponents of Ayatollah as "freedom fighters", while with the same breath you denounce the Palestinians as "terrorists" for daring to fight their Israeli colonial masters for freedom!

> The oppressors and the victim are clear in the Israel - Palestine conflict

Only if you zoom in and focus on one tiny sliver. If you look at the bigger picture, Israel is surrounded by dozens of countries 100s of times its size, that have all been ethnically cleansed of Jews, many of them in different stages of open or proxy war with Israel, militarily or politically.

If you look at the even bigger picture, it was Israel that decided to pick fights with all those countries.

Those countries literally attacked Israel on the day it became a state, and many times thereafter. Israel is definitely not perfect, but their neighbors have been trying to wipe them out for no good reason for a long time.

What was the process that made Israel a state? What was there before Israeli state was? Who were the allies of that country?

I'd suggest the Wikipedia article as a very good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Ancient_Isra...

Did they have states in 1209 BC? I'm pretty sure the modern Israel state is a modern invention, that just happens to take its name from former states. The modern state of Greece isn't the one from Jesus's time either.

Well, if you're only going to count modern states, the only previous one to occupy that area was the Ottoman Empire. After that, there was a British Mandate, but that wasn't a state. Modern states only started after the Treaty of Westphalia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

Does the modern Israel state have continuity from the Ottoman empire?

That really depends on what you mean by ‘continuity’ and your view of the British Mandate. I could imagine the case being made either way.

I'll give you a hint: the successor to this part of the Ottoman Empire was named Palestine.

Are these questions you're unable to answer yourself, or are you playing some kind of game?

I think you should just be honest about how you feel.

Unlike the west, the Arabs or Persians have never nurtured any hatred of Jews till the British (and later the Americans) forcefully backed the creation of a Jewish state in the middle-east. Even today, muslims around the world don't give a damn about Jews or antisemitism unless it is in the context of Palestinians. This is in stark contrast to the christian west, which still harbours a lot of antisemitism and is the factory that still generates most of the modern Jewish conspiracy political tropes (some of which do find their way to religious fundamentalists in the east too). The Israeli-right, ofcourse, has a vested interest in painting Arabs and muslims as antisemites, because otherwise "Israel" can't showcase itself as a "victim". I do believe the Israelis are victims too though not in the way the Israeli-right depicts it - early Zionists never realised that the bigger plan of the western superpowers in forcing them to the middle-east (instead of giving them their own country in Europe) was part of their "divide and rule" policy for the middle-east. Frankly, Israel and Palestine will never be at peace because it is not in the interest of western superpowers. (The Israeli-right have latched on to this too, and are trying to exploit it to increase their own power and influence in the region. Unfortunately for them, that is undesirable for the west and worse, they did it in a way that brings unwanted attention to the west - the Trump and Blair lead Board of Peace is the western response to cut Israel down to size, in the coming future).

There was plenty of oppression against Jewish people in the Middle East before Israel became a country. Blame whomever you want, but the Jewish populations there were targeted for discriminatory taxation and various other forms of oppression.

The Jizya tax on non-muslims in many Islamic empires was never a "discriminatory" tax. This is a common anti-muslim trope and an example of distorting history by considering it through modern political lens. In most muslim empires, this tax was only imposed on non-muslims who wanted to be exempt from serving in the military but still be a citizen of the Islamic empire they were part of. Those who chose to join military service were exempted from payment. Only free adult, non-muslim males were required to pay it and women, children, elders, the disabled, the insane, religious workers, hermits, slaves etc. were exempt. Some muslim rulers also exempted the poor amongst the non-muslims from paying it.

Muslims weren't required to pay a similar tax to the government because they were already obligated by their religion to pay a certain percentage of their wealth every year towards charity (Zakat).

This trope was popularised as part of the "divide and rule" policy of the British to generate animosity between muslims and non-muslims in many a British colony and today is commonly spouted in the anti-muslim tirades of many a right-wing religious fundamentalists.

There were a variety of other discriminatory measures in most of the Middle-East; many applied to religions other than Judaism as well. Another notable one was the limited access to the legal systems, along with the inferior legal status non-Muslims were relegated to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Arab_world

I also think it’s absurd to pretend that taxing people who do not tithe to one’s favored faith or cause is non-discriminatory. Imagine Utah taxing non-Mormons because they don’t tithe to The Church or The United Way.

I have no idea what country's legal system you referring to. My broad understanding is that most Islamic empires allowed the minorities to retain their own personal laws on some legal matters (marriage, divorce, inheritance etc) as Sharia laws were largely Islamic, for muslims. From today's modern perspective many things that was done by many former empires of the past would be problematic. Like I said, you will only get a warped view of history if you try to analyse it by applying modern principles. By and large, for their time, Islamic empires were largely egalitarian towards their citizens. (The Ottoman empire's secular history undermines sharia claims - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/07... ). If you want to judge them by their worst examples, you can ofcourse "prove" the worst that you imagine of them.

> Imagine Utah taxing non-Mormons because they don’t tithe

Mormons don't pay their tithe to the government. In the Islamic empire, it was the government that collected the 'tithe' from the muslims after calculating their wealth. So you can imagine how disgruntled muslim citizens would have been, every year, when the tax collector only came to collect money from them and not from the non-muslims. It was this kind of social unrest that lead to the imposition of the Jizya on non-muslims.

From the linked Wiki: “Restrictions included residency in segregated quarters, obligation to wear distinctive clothing, public subservience to Muslims, prohibitions against proselytizing and against marrying Muslim women, and limited access to the legal system (the testimony of a Jew did not count if contradicted by that of a Muslim). Dhimmi had to pay a special poll tax (the jizya), which exempted them from military service, and also from payment of the zakat alms tax required of Muslims.”

On a slight tangent, I can see how many of these things - segregated quarters, obligation to wear distinctive dress, prohibitions against proselytizing and against inter-religious marriage etc. - could all have been demanded by the minority community themselves in those times, to protect themselves from "majoritarianism". Just look at some of the conservative Jewish communities in Israel today - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/1/who-are-the-haredim-... - who still practice some of these customs.

Note though that none of it can be termed antisemitic as everything in it was also applicable to other non-muslims (in whatever specific Islamic kingdom it happened). Right? That has been my whole point - muslims (other than religious fundamentalists ones) have never harboured any kind of ill-will or hatred for Jews (or other religions), till the west encouraged (sometimes forced) migrations of non-native, foreign-born Jews to the middle-east and tried to change the demographic of the whole region with nefarious political intentions.

This is not true, Jews, like many other groups, have been oppressed and humiliated by the Islamic Arab world for well over a thousand years. I truly can not believe you can say this with a straight face if you have spent any amout of time in Arabic speaking circles. The disgust towards Jewish people is open and constant, and I am not talking about attitudes towards zionism.

I have indeed spent some time in Arab countries, and also know a few Arabs. They didn't spout any kind of antisemitism. (Some of them did warn me to be careful of Egyptians though :). They do have disgust towards Israel as a country because of the actions of the Israeli-right in power. But that's not antisemitism however much Netanyahu and his cohorts would like it to be. I however do know some religious fundamentalist Muslims in my own country, who are definitely antisemitic and hate Jews for, well, being Jews. I also know some religious fundamentalists Hindus who hate Muslims, again, just because they are Muslims. But that's just how religious fundamentalists are - they aren't rational human beings and you can't use them as an example to tarnish a whole community. Netanyahu and his ilks are right-wing religious fundamentalists too, and that is why it is easy for them to slaughter Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Does that mean all Israeli jews are horrible human beings too, like them? Ofcourse not.

Today, Jews are denied entry to many Muslim countries - not just Israelis, anyone who looks Jewish.

The excuse that “some other people of this religion did something bad” does not justify hating and ethnically cleansing everyone who shares that religion.

As for the ban on Jews by some Arab / muslim countries - remember that the west was actively encouraging Jews, with Zionist movements all over the world, to migrate to the middle-east and occupy muslim-Arab territory. Sure, it began with a narrow focus with only Palestine. But who knew where it would stop if it was successful? Most of these countries are former western colonies who immediately understood what the west was trying to do by sending foreign Jews to occupy their land - the "divide and rule" policy was how they were subjugated too in the first place, to become colonies, and the newly independent Arab states understood that by driving Jews to the middle-east, their former masters wanted to use the Jews to foment a conflict between Jews and Muslims which they could then use to break the newfound unity amongst the Arab states and use as an excuse for interventionist politics. It had (and still has) nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do with making sure that former imperialists doesn't exploit any political vulnerability in their country and endanger their (then) newfound independence. (It also doesn't help matters that Israel acts like a western puppet, further reinforcing the view that Israel is just a pawn of the west in the middle-east).

It is not as those Arab nations are some phenomenon of nature. The process of Arabization was, and perhaps is, itself one of settler colonialism and oppression. The fact that the colors of the caliphates are explicitly flown in areas outside of Arabia is proof enough of that.

Sure. I am from one such country (India) that was exposed to the Islamic culture through trade, muslim raiders and even many muslim conquerors who made our country their home (the Mughal empire being the most famous one). We are also quite familiar with imperialism and colonisation as, like the Palestinians, we were once a British colony too. However, in my country no one rational advocates that as we are a relatively powerful nation today, we too should raid some foreign country or occupy and colonise it. Israelis unfortunately often use that as an excuse for their occupation of Palestine or when they seize the territory of their states to fulfil the dream of the Israeli-rights vision of a "Greater Israel" - "every superpower or former power has done it, so why can't we?". And that's really problematic.

I wonder what is the relation of Israel to this discussion. why can't you support the Iranian pepole?

Israelis are not advocating to “raid some foreign country and occupy it”, and Israel has not expanded in controlled territory since 1967.

1. Palestine is not a settler-colony of Israel.

2. The opposition in Iran is not orchestrated by the west.

1. Israel-Palestine:

- History of Settler Colonialism in Palestine - https://www.globalresearch.ca/history-settler-colonialism-pa...

- Israeli Settler Colonialism Is The Obstacle To Peace - https://www.huffpost.com/entry/israeli-settler-colonialism-i...

- From Balfour to the Nakba: The settler-colonial experience of Palestine - https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/balfour-nakba-settler-...

2. Iran-US/UK:

- How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days - https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthr...

- They don’t care if you die: How Iran’s protests became a bargaining chip for oil and power - https://www.rt.com/news/631163-irans-protests-oil-and-power/

You wrote "Palestine is a settler-colony of Israel". Nobody on either side of the conflict believes that. Your response here is a non sequitur.

Are you talking about grammar? Would you prefer that I write Israel is a settler-colonial state?

At least that claim would parse? The issue isn't grammar!

Yes, it would and I have already shared some sources for the claim. So your assertions, without any supporting arguments for it, doesn't really sway me. Anyhow, I think we may have reached the limit of this kind of discussion on HN. If you want to explore this topic more, with others, https://politics.stackexchange.com/ would be a better place for this topic.

I think you're a bit confused here.

> the Palestinian and Iranian situations

It's simple. One is a genocide. The other is not.

The more "israelis" ( or is it "iranian expat" ) like you try to pretend to be "westerners" and skew the conversation, the more obvious it becomes.

This is pretty much entirely false. Maybe you don't actually know or talk to any progressives? Or the ones you're around are very bizarre. Or maybe you're extrapolating from impressions you've gotten on Twitter?

I do talk to progressive people. They are not informed about anything. They just look at everything as the struggle of the "wronged" against those that have historically committed wrongs (in their eyes) and this mystical alignment of all "wronged" to bring about change.

I'm sure there are many "progressives" who do think for themselves and have some rational agenda but those are not the (very smart but) people I interact with.

Russias' narrative about its special operation in Ukraine is also about a defensive war. I'm curious to know about your stance on this Russian-Ukraine conflict.

Ukraine didn't attack Russia. Hamas attacked Israel.

Didn't know Hamas was a country now.

It had a polity. Which is a country, just not a recognized country. It for all intents and purposes ruled the polity/country of Gaza.

The cognitive dissonance is supporting Ukraine but not supporting Israel. Both were attacked. The anti-Israel argument is like saying Ukraine can't fight back because it's not Russia that attacked Ukraine, it's Putin, and therefore Ukraine has no justification to defend itself against Russia. That's the odd logic that the anti-Israelis bring to bear when Israel defends its population. Granted the power balance is different but the moral position is not. Israel is much stronger than the attacking Palestinian entity but if Ukraine was much stronger and it could inflict a lot more damage on Russia and Russians that would be justified given Russia invaded Ukraine and does not yield.

> One is a defensive war

So what the germans did in ww2 was a defensive war also? Funny how the people whining endlessly about genocide are so eager to defend it.

> Because they've decided the Jews in their historical lands

First of all, it was never the "historical lands" of the jews. It belonged to the canaanites whom the jews decided to steal it from. Read your torah. Secondly, europeans larping as jews are not part of the torah and hence have no claim to that land.

> the other is slaughtering of people by an oppressive regime.

Is that the "oppressive regime" defending itself from constant israeli attacks? Hmmm...

Another israeli trying to get the US involved in more wars for their selfish interests.

Last I checked the Germans weren't invaded before WW-II and had their civilians massacred and abducted.

The European Jews are absolutely the Jewish people from the Torah. This is proven by DNA tests and is also a result of the Jewish people in Europe staying in their own separate communities. Very few people convert to Judaism. A Cohen in Europe is a descendant of biblical Aaron, there is no other way to become a Cohen (a priest), similar for Levy's. Because of all these complicated laws Jewish people have always kept track of their lineage which impact various religious laws. But yeah, that's the antisemitic lie the Palestinians are propagating amongst their many other lies.

The Israelites are likely descendants of the Canaanites. This was before anyone was Jewish. More antisemitism. Modern Jewish people and others (including some Palestinians and other people of the Levant) carry Canaanite DNA.

Israel can handle Iran. But I guess you couldn't care less about their oppressive regime and innocents being murdered.

Statistically, the vast majority of Humans are also descended from the Jewish people of the Torah. In fact, half of the people I know have an Ashkenazi Grandfather or Great-grandfather. So, why can't we all be part of the state of Israel, too? Isn't that the easiest solution?

Every human should have a country they could call home.

There are many Christian countries, and many Muslim countries, does it bother you so much if there’s one tiny Jewish country?

Every Christian country that has been around long enough has at some point persecuted and/or expelled its Jews.

Israel’s definition of Jew is not based on Rabbinic law - it’s based on who the antisemites considered Jewish enough to persecute.

Who are the antisemites? Are you implying people are born antisemite? If so, please pray for better eyes and ears.

The vast majority of people have never seen or interacted with a rabbinic Jew. People only see the country of Israel, which apparently has authority over Judaism. And, Israel has always been a bad actor. But, it's fixable! Don't lose hope. Israel can one day be a positive force for the world.

> The European Jews are absolutely the Jewish people from the Torah.

This is 100% false. The vast majority of european "jews" were converts. DNA proves it. History proves it. Not to mention european "jews" look like aliens in the levant.

> A Cohen in Europe is a descendant of biblical Aaron, there is no other way to become a Cohen (a priest), similar for Levy's.

Considering that the babylonians essentially wiped out the descendants of aaron/levites ( assuming the lineage made it that far ), your assertion is rather absurd. Ever wonder why judaism went from patrilineal to matrilineal after the babylonian conquest? How can you claim a cohen is descended from Aaron when european jews claim jewish lineage is MATRILINEAL! The torah says jewish lineage is patrilineal. European "jews" claim it is matrilineal. Hmmmmm....

> The Israelites are likely descendants of the Canaanites.

Yes. REAL israelites were descended from the SEMITIC canaanites. Do you know who aren't semites? European "jews". Most modern israelis are not semitic because europeans are not a semitic peoples.

> Modern Jewish people and others (including some Palestinians and other people of the Levant) carry Canaanite DNA.

Sure. Modern ethnic jewish people. Europeans jews are not ethnic jews nor ethnic semites nor are they religiously jewish. But palestinians are ethnic semites.

The most anti-semitic peoples in the world are european "jews" who are genociding palestinians ( who are actual semites ).

> the people whining endlessly about genocide

With that you’ve revealed exactly what you are and how much you care about human life in general.

> The more "israelis"

I'm a Canadian with an Irish/Ukrainian background who's never been to the Middle East. I've been using this username for 20y now, nobody's pretending to be anyone here.

Do you really think I'm some kind of Mossad-bot? This topic sends otherwise normal communities into an absolute epistemic frenzy, I swear.

…and they’ve been completely silent on the 20k per day, every day, who die from lack of access to clean and fresh water.

People actually don’t really care, and almost all outrage about everything outside of lunch being served late is performative.

You will be surprised to learn that other people are not as hollow

> A lot of my peers have been incredibly active on social media the last couple years supporting Palestinians.

So it took from 1947 (if not longer) to 2023 to have this population become aware of the problem. Still up until a few months ago, at least here in France, it was very unwelcome (and even politically persecuted, via house searches and terrorism charges) to even mention the idea of a genocide in Palestine.

I remember over a decade ago quoting israeli settlers, newspapers and politicians arguing a genocide was ongoing. But at the time, calling it a genocide here in France placed you in the loony bin in the eyes of most people. Given some time, the iranian revolution of 2025-2026 will be well-known.

Beyond the differences outlined by other commenters (that western governments don't support Iran, but do support Israel), there's this difference that few feel compelled to get over-active on this issue because every one already feels concerned: all the TVs are talking about it, and even the right-wingers are on board. Overall, everyone (apart from some islamists) are convinced that the Iranian government is criminal. Now what can we do?

Continue spreading awareness ; your peers may get on board! But better, get informed and involved. There may be, for example, a kurdish-iranian diaspora near you organizing solidarity protests and proposing courses to understand the politics of Iran, get versed in jineology, or understand the basic tenants of democratic confederalism. There's also other diaspora. I would just encourage you to be careful with the "Reza Pahlavi" crowd, who support a fascist regime change in Iran and would encourage just as much horrible crimes as those we witness today, if they weren't done in the name of islam.

Arguably what's happening in Iran is so much worse.

The majority of people killed in Gaza were terrorists while in Iran they are mostly peaceful protestors.

I think the main reason is that propaganda really works! Qatar has spent $20B on US education alone, and Qatar Russia and China have launched a massive propaganda campaign to divide the US. The left was silent on Sudan, Syria, and Nigeria as well.

No Jews no news.

> The majority of people killed in Gaza were terrorists

Not true at all. Terrorist supporters != terrorists

That's because leftism needs an antagonism against the cultural self. I.e. it needs to somehow have an element of fighting against others in your own society.

That exists with say Palestine - it's allows picking a side that's against a western right-wing state, Israel.

It also exists with say Russia, here's a right wing white male traditionalist attacking a state that was aligning towards the leftist EU.

In the case of Iran, there's not really an angle there.

So if you understand leftism not as standing for its claimed virtues and instead being politically akin to a group of teenagers rebelling for the sake of it against their own authority figures, it makes perfect sense that deaths of the downtrodden in general are not of concern - the victimhood cause must resonate with a particular format that gives them a clear and familiar path to self-congratulation - which is the primary goal.

You are talking about US.

UK doesn't fund Israel, yet they've had most demonstrations there - still do. Clearly it isn't about the violence (whether in Iran or Israel). It's about Israel.

The RAF does a lot of flights over Gaza so the UK is actually involved, and the big focus in the UK is on Elbit systems who makes parts for the planes that bomb Gaza. The UK government isn't materially supporting the Iranian regime as far as I can tell

There have been protests in countries that do not “fund” Israel too, so it’s not about funding only.

The protests have also been against the Israeli government so you’d anticipate at least protests against the Iranian government if not against one’s own government which they protest because of funding.

But we don’t see those protests against the Iranian regime. It reminds me of US protestors protesting the removal of Maduro contrasted with near total approval from expat Venezuelans in various countries.

Something doesn’t square.

Most western countries already don’t do business with Iran. These are extremely different situations. The whataboutism is just bizarre.

In the simplest ways also, to "fix" the situation in Iran, potentially a war has to start.

To "fix" the situation in Palestine, a war has to stop.

That's inherently very different.

> To "fix" the situation in Palestine, a war has to stop.

Curious then, why, instead of tearing down photos of the hostages, we saw precious few protesters urging Hamas to return the hostages they kidnapped in order to stop the war they started.

Any possible response to this comment would either be full of lies or an extreme violation of site rules. Well done, nice trap.

Thanks for your service.

And Donald Trump and republicans in general already want to murderfuck Iran and always have, and don't need or want my support to justify such an act, and already bombed Iran once this admin.

I don't support all that 100% but it's not like I have any advice on the matter. I certainly don't have better ideas of where to bomb Iran or how to help a populace 8000 miles away rise against their oppressors.

Yes, OUR government does fund Iran. Read about the Iran Nuclear deal under Obama, we gave them billions, more than we have given Israel.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-united-states-iran-an...

https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-...

To add context: the funds were not “given” as one might give humanitarian funding. The funds were Iranian financial assets that were frozen after the Iranian Revolution, accrued interest over the subsequent decades, and were returned as part of a legal settlement. I stake no position on whether this should have happened, just providing more specific color to the situation.

that is true, but it was still a large sum of money given to an authoritarian murderous regime, was it not?

That's an extraordinarily loose definition of "gave"

Your government doesn’t fund Israel, either.

Most Western governments fund Israel. The US funds it the most.

Where’s the data to support your extraordinary claim?

You could start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_supplying_ar...

You’ve given a list of countries selling weapons to Israel. If I sell you my car, I am not “funding” you.

What an exercise in utter futility.

You could also read https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts

These are just Google results.

US not only fully funds Israeli military and security forces, but also issues sovereign loan guarantees Israeli central bank, especially during Israeli wars. for example, the 2003–2016 for $9 billion, and additional $3.8 billion since.

Israeli Shekels would be worthless without American tax payer guarantee.

The Israeli military and security forces budget is more than $55bn a year, and you are saying the US pays all of it. It’s the first time I’ve ever encountered such an outlandish claim.

The guy is an antisemite and a loon who’s obsessed with Mossad.

> The guy is an antisemite and a loon who’s obsessed with Mossad

CIA & Mossad in that order, and of course, MI6 as well, but their budget is small

right, a crazy person

To anyone downvoting my sibling comment, go look at the post history [1] this guy indulges in loads of crazy conspiracies and ties them all back to Mossad. It’s pretty clear what the underlying motivation is.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=FilosofumRex

US finances costliest weapons (fighter jets, precision munitions, air and missile defense systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow, and Iron Beam) which provides the qualitative edge of Israel’s military, while Israel’s own budget covers personnel, operations, and much of the day‑to‑day war cost.

Without US tax dollars, Israeli part of military budget would have to shrink by 50 - 60% to pay for R&D, manufacturing, testing, deploying and maintaining of US provided advanced weapon systems.

Not only do we fund israel, our leaders have been wasting trillions fighting wars on behalf of israel. The newest target israel want the US to take out is strangely enough - Iran...

US does not fund Israel. US has a strategic interest in Israel, just as much as it has in Germany, South Korea, Japan and many other places which host a huge US military presence. Unlike those outposts, the support to Israel is given in American military equipment.

> My government doesn’t fund Iran.

And iran doesn't control the US like israel does. And iran doesn't force censorship on americans like israel does. And iran isn't commiting genocide like israel does. When's the last time iran order the US government to attack peaceful college protestors on american college campuses? Israel has. And the US government obeyed.

Most western a world governments don't fund Israel and yet people there seem to "care" a lot. I don't think your argument holds water. Many western governments trade with Iran and support the oppressive regime there in direct. The US also funds Egypt which is another oppressive regime where there's no human rights. It supports Saudi Arabia that chops up journalists.

Your logic doesn't hold because it never held. The reason people "care" about Palestine is that they've been manipulated to care.

The logical thing would be for the American population to stand with Israel when it's being attacked. That would be the normal default. Like the rest of the world supported the US when it was attacked on 9/11. What we're seeing is the collapse of logic and truth and the win of propaganda campaigns and lies.

I'm sorry but I just don't believe anyone who says this. Israel has a military expenditure above Turkey's with almost a tenth of the population. They could do everything they did and then some with no Western backing.

The number of progressives shutting the fuck up in a scenario where Israel does the same thing they're doing but without Western funding is I imagine approximately 0.

Your government does fund Sudan and did fund Iran to the tune of billions of dollars in relief under Obama and Biden. Why didn't you care then?

You know why. So does everyone that uses this copypasta argument.