I see you conflating criticism of the actions of the Israeli government with opposition to Jewish lives. They are not the same. I oppose the Israeli government's policies and actions towards Palestine, but that does not mean I wish harm on you or your family, nor does it mean I don't see and value the Israeli lives lost during this conflict. There ARE other explanations for it.
No. I'm saying that putting israeli government under a completely different set of standards than any other country in the world cannot be explained with anything else rather than pure anti-semitism.
Every time this conflict happens again, I can't help but realise that if it was not for IDF, my family would have long have been brutally killed, and all those first-world liberals who're so busy fighting for their causes wouldn't even mind.
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...
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.
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.
The protests are because people are upset not simply at Israel, but at their own governments for not devoting energy to constraining Israel.
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.
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.
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.
I say this to everyone reading: if you can't understand your enemy, if you cannot fathom why they act the way they do, if you cannot get into their heads and hearts and empathize with them, you ought to wonder if you simply lack imagination or are living in a bubble.
How about criticizing Hamas for shooting these rockets from civilian centers?
Seems like the media is willfully ignorant here.
Then you have nonsense like: https://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5912189/yes-gaza-militants-hid...
Clearly this smells foul.
How about criticizing Israel, a country with one of the most advanced militaries in the world, for bombing civilians that can't defend themselves, in retaliation for very basic level attacks by a terrorist group Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself from?
Hamas are the bad guys, Israel are even worse because they could show restraint and not murder civilians, not evict Arabs and resettle their lands with Jews and all the other war crimey shit they do, yet they still do that, under a very corrupt leader that mostly stays in power with nationalistic and proto-fascistic rhetoric.
On top of that, many people, me included, criticize Israel for illegally occupying Palestinian territory, stealing houses from Arab Israels, and generally treating Palestinians as second-rate citizens and worse. There's simply no excuse for that.
Imagine yourself in a situation like that. Whatever you do, whoever you complain to, the situation only gets worse. You're helpless against enormous injustice. While I don't condone violence, I do understand why people resort to violence when everything else fails.
Looking at google maps it sure seems that the IDF does the same, keeping their headquarters in the middle of densely populated center of Tel Aviv. Between a large hospital and a shopping mall.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Israel+Defense+Forces/@32....
If you are gonna both-sides this, you should commit to it.
It is not the Palestinians' job to submit quietly to gradual but violent displacement by an occupying outside force. It is also not the Palestinians' job to make a big show of getting murdered in an open field with honor. Those are not the requirements for a people to be defended from ethnic cleansing.
Why would you put aside variables that are more important to casualty numbers? It's not a symmetrical situation.
One side tries to increase casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict.
The other side tries to decrease casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict.
How would comparing casualty numbers in this situation tell you anything about the conflict?
Using slightly less violence than is available to you does not make you the good guy, especially when the violence you use is drastically higher than the violence that is even possible from the other side.
Citation needed. If a building is used for warfare, it is not civilian building.
Citation needed! Show that all the buildings Israel has bombed were being used for warfare.
Second of all, even if I accept your premise, that "One side tries to increase casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict. The other side tries to decrease casualty numbers on both sides of the conflict.", then clearly it's not working, right?
Regardless of motivations, the outcome is Palestinian lives are being lost at a disproportionally higher rate than Israeli. That must be understood.
The standard Israeli response to this is "Hamas uses human shields." OK....so you know this, and are still shooting missiles. That means you are knowingly killing human shields.
OK, so maybe these human shields are protecting military equipment. Military equipment that is primitive and is completely neutralized by the Iron Dome.
The point I'm making is that even if you accept ALL of Israel's narratives about Hamas, about IDF's strategy (which have all sorts of other problems, such as when they get caught sniping civilians and medical personnel), you still wind up in a situation where you have a massive power differential and one side knowingly killing civilians.
That means that you decrease amount of your citizens that will end up dead.
> Military equipment that is primitive and is completely neutralized by the Iron Dome.
It's not. IDF and official Israelis obviously want everyone to believe that, but in reality, Iron Dome is not limitless, and can simply run out of ammunition, if Hamas launch sites are not counter-attacked. Which means a couple of thousand, or tens of thousands, of dead israelis in a few hours.