Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldandboring | Hacker News Reader

> The activists want the excessive death and suffering to end in Palestine, and they want to avoid death and suffering in Iran.

And yet they are silent on the death and suffering in: Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Congo, Myanmar, Libya. Just to name current active conflicts where people are dying, to say nothing of all the others that have flared up and subsided in my decades on this earth as I've watched "activists" ignore them all so they could hyper-focus on whatever Israel was doing at the time to protect its citizens and the Jewish diaspora. The word "exhausting" doesn't even scratch the surface of how it feels to deal with otherwise smart, educated people who roll around in this hypocrisy-laden dogpile.

View on HN

In none of those conflicts you mentioned does the US act as the main benefactor to the side causing excessive suffering. And in none of those conflicts do they lobby aggressively for the support of US politicians.

Considering that reality, does it not make sense that Americans would be more vocal when it comes to this conflict, because we actually have agency to affect it?

I genuinely want to know what your response is to that argument, because it's not a new one, and seems very obvious to me.

> In none of those conflicts you mentioned does the US act as the main benefactor to the side causing excessive suffering.

The United States is far and away the Saudis' most important and pivotal ally. We almost single-handedly ensure their security and and diplomatic standing. Now, many believe the "side causing excessive suffering" in that conflict is actually the Houthis. I would be interested to know if you fall in that camp, while (it would seem) not feeling the same way about Hamas, as that would do a better job of making my point than I could ever do on my own.

I think the impression most people have is that the United States is no longer dependent on Saudi oil. The main reason we're their most pivotal ally is to encourage normalization with Israel, and to make sure they help counter Iran. So kind of the same root cause.

Beyond that, the Houthi / Saudi conflict is a lot less asymmetric, which I think plays a factor in people's response to it. The Houthis have more territorial control, weapons, agency. It's closer to a state-state war. Gaza is quite literally boxed in--air, sea and land.

Respectfully, you're making things up and adding the words "I think the impression most people have". That's motivated reasoning.

If you're actually interested in the geopolitics of this I suggest you just spend some time tonight reading about these relationships and their history.

To be fair, I'll admit there's somewhat of a double standard when it comes to silence in regard to US support for Saudi Arabia vs Israel. But realistically, for me, I don't think the answer is to offer full-throated support to Israel and to be quiet about issues Americans have with it. Especially if it risks spiraling into a broader conflict.

I do think there are particular aspects about US support for Israel, outside of humanitarian concerns, that lead to people being more critical about US involvement in the conflict.

> I do think there are particular aspects about US support for Israel, outside of humanitarian concerns, that lead to people being more critical about US involvement in the conflict.

Well, yes. If someone doesn't like Jews (and many many many people do not), that is the only "particular aspect" they need. The one good thing about antisemitism is that it's been around for so long that it's pretty easy to spot, even when the bigots try to swap some of the terminology around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com