Comment by betsushikime | Hacker News Reader

Comment by betsushikime | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yes, the coverage of the conflict is one-sided and popular opinion is on the side of the Palestinians. The reason for that is that the conflict itself is one-sided. Gaza is occupied by Israel.

Further, Israel has the overwhelming advantage in military power and the Palestinians suffer the overwhelming majority of casualties every time there is conflict.

In the 2008-09 war, the total number of Israeli citizens killed was 13, 10 of whom were combatants and 3 non-combatants (according to the IDF, see [1]). The total number of Palestinians killed was, depending on the source, between 1166 (IDF estimate) and 1440 (Palestinian ministry of Health, Gaza) [1].

The IDF protects your homes and your families, yes. It also crushes the lives and obliterates the houses of the Palestinians. Public opinion is against Israel not because the IDF protects Israeli citizens, but because the IDF kills Palestinians.

Finally, the IDF can protect your families and your homes, but there is nobody to protect the lives and homes of the Palestinians. Public opinion is their only shield and it doesn't stop bombs.

My comment is by way of explanation, not by way of accusation.

____________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_War_(20...

How do you explain the same exact global reaction in 2006, when Hezbollah started a war by kidnapping and killing Israeli soldiers on the border and firing missiles into Israel? Massive protests, 'Israel is committing war crimes/genocide', followed by international condemnation.

OP that you're responding to is exactly correct - there is zero outrage against the Syrian or Yemen Civil war (where Iranian-funded troops have starved thousands of people to death). Same goes for the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Same goes for Ethiopia vs Tigray.

re: outrage at Israel and not at Syria, etc.:

1. Israeli bombings, unlike actions in Syria and Yemen, are directly funded by the United States, which makes them a highly relevant issue for Americans and for people concerned with America's role in geopolitics.

2. Visibility. Israel is given extreme favor in US political circles, but that ironically works against it in this case. Their struggles are highly visible, but as a result, so is their aggression.

3. We're working on it. International solidarity protests have seen a dramatic rise in recent years, but we can only learn so quickly.

Will start with point 1: Take Europe instead of just the US - protests in Europe against Israel with no equivalent against Iran or Russia, both of whom funded and sent troops to Syria where Assad has committed actual genocide leading to displacement of millions. Europe trades with Russia and Iran and could apply economic pressure. Where were the mass protests in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe or nerve gas attacks against civilians? No calls for the end of Russia or Iran as countries. Why do you think this is?

> Take Europe instead of just the US - protests in Europe against Israel with no equivalent against Iran or Russia,

The protests are because people are upset not simply at Israel, but at their own governments for not devoting energy to constraining Israel.

> Take Europe instead of just the US - protests in Europe against Israel with no equivalent against Iran or Russia, both of whom funded and sent troops to Syria where Assad has committed actual genocide leading to displacement of millions.

The reason for this is that most people around most of the world see the US as the greatest threat to world peace and the prosperity of nations, with China probably second and Iran and Russia very distant contenders. This is certainly true in the Arab world, but in Europe also.

Remember also that the US, under president Trump, went back on a peace deal with Iran, leaving the EU in a very difficult position, between the US rock and the hard place of even more strife in the Middle East. And for many of us, the Middle East is next door, not half a world away as it is for the US. I appreciate of course that Israel is in the Middle East but that's exactly the point. For Europeans, a large region right at our doorstep full of people armed to the teeth and chomping at the bit to kill each other, not to mention that at least one of them is a neuclear power, is a very pressing matter.

Or, if you want a different perspective, Europeans see Israel as closer to European culture (you're even in Eurovision!), a secular democracy with an educated and modern population that can be influenced by international politics and by the popular opinion in European countries. So it makes sense that they would try to influence you.

While I agree that there should be more outrage about other tragedies, "Better than Syria" is not the standard that I want to hold my country to, so I don't engage in such arguments. We (Israel) consider ourselves to be a western nation, with western ideals and standards. And so it is reasonable that we'd be called out if we fail to live up to the standards of the crowd we want to hang out with. I'd be disappointed if we started to be grouped along with Syria and Yemen.

I wasn't referring to Israeli actions vs Syria, which are clearly not comparable, but the difference in reactions. If you think that the protests calling Israel an illegal state are just trying to hold Israel to a higher standard then you are clearly misinterpreting what is happening. They're chanting "From the river to the sea" not "Hold yourselves to a higher standard".

Just to clarify, my comments here are no endorsement of calling Israel an illegal state in any way, shape or form.

Fair enough, I think there are a lot of protestors (in real life as well as on Twitter) that have entirely unrealistic goals, hoping for an ideal situation but not really thinking through what the ramifications of their plan would be. I've seen this among "Greater Israel" Israelis as well - I once had a long chat with a settler in the Jordan Valley region about how he envisions annexation working out, the best he could come up with was "all the Palestinians will voluntarily move to Canada, which will take them in because Trump is going to broker a deal". Not exactly the strongest answer to accusations of ethnic cleansing.

To be clear, anyone hoping for "from the river to the sea" is not in touch with the reality in the region. The only way that could happen is with a terrible war that would make the current war look like a small scuffle. I'm pretty sure there's no diplomatic path from where we are today to a one state solution of any kind that doesn't take several generations, and we're not moving in the right direction.

I don't remember the reaction to Hezbollah's attack. I remember the incident, but not the reaction in the news. If you felt that was one-sided, then I will defer to your opinion and accept that I don't have an explanation for it, other than the fact that news organisations are very often prejudiced and their reporting is dictated by their political affiliations.

Regarding Syria, Yemen, Armenia and Ethiopia, perhaps you are right that the atrocities committed there are not given the same atttention in the news (it depends on where you are; in my country, Syria received the same amount of coverage, mainly because we received a large number of refugees from the war).

However, even if those atrocities were given the same attention as the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinians, that would not necessarily mean that the latter atrocities would somehow be considered less severe, or that public opinion would turn against the Palestinians. Is that what you would expect?

I should also say that the Palestinian issue has been going on for more than 40 years now without resolution and it's natural that there is more attention paid to it, if nothing else because everyone would like to see the end of it.

In any case, realistically speaking, the occupation is a cause célèbre and there's nothing anyone can do about that, except perhaps ending the occupation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com