the front page is now like half articles on this currently, so it’s probably time for a megathread because none of us want to keep track of 12 threads on this subject and all the resulting comments. only major subsequent developments (for example, boots on the ground; pronunciations by governments; that sort of stuff) will get their own thread. otherwise please post stuff in here for the time being. any threads not meeting this criteria will be locked and removed. thank you in advance for your cooperation.

  • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
    31·
    1 year ago

    Exactly. If you look at the big picture, Israelis have killed WAY more Palestinians over the years, as well as apartheid and stealing Palestinian land.

    I’m not taking sides, but the one sided coverage gross.

    • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
      11·
      1 year ago

      taking sides is fine and even right, but that needs to come with recognition and acceptance of that side’s problems

      • BluesF@feddit.uk
        11·
        1 year ago

        The problem with this conflict in particular is that taking the side of Palestine has become synonymous with taking the side of Hamas, or with simply being antisemitic. It’s essential if you want to express any support for Palestine that you also painstakingly lay out exactly what you support and what you don’t, otherwise… Well, the onion said it best.

        • krellor@beehaw.org
          2·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think articulating a concern for any civilians on any side is taken poorly, and I don’t think that the majority of the media has skewed any calls for humanitarian aid and adherance to international warfare rules as anti-semitism. In fact, the new york times has published both investigative and opinion pieces that are very sympathetic to Palestinian civilians, and calling out Israeli disproportionate response.

          I think part of the problem in discussing the issue is that the events of today are inextricably woven into the events of the

          • 1948 founding of Israel by the UN at the end of the British mandate.
          • the invasion of the five armies and the 1949 armistice.
          • the six day war, and the loss of the Sinai peninsula.
          • the eventual recognition of borders by Egypt and Jordan.
          • the results of the shelling of Beirut after the Hezbollah attack in 2006.

          But that is a lot of history, but the back and forth of tragedies, including disproportionate response is driven by these events.

          When most people online seem to confuse the history of Gaza with that of the West Bank, or conflate Hamas and Hezbollah, it is no wonder that discussion breaks down.

          Unfortunately I was in a debate elsewhere on the fediverse where the other person said there is no legitimate response to the Hamas attack for Israel because Israel’s existence is the source of the problem.

          That sounds like the Hezbollah general who yesterday called this a “war of existence” in that either Israel exists or the Arab alliance exists. So how do you reason with that position, and how many people objecting to Israel’s use of force are really all that knowledgeable of the history?

          I also think that people underestimate how you reason with allies. If Biden hadn’t shown solidarity with Israel, then his visit today wouldn’t have resulted in the opening of humanitarian aid. You influence allies by showing solidarity publicly, and having frank conversations on private.

          Anyway, sorry for the long post. Have a great evening!