[flagged]
In fact, at University of Washington, a protest was organized to support Palestine after the Oct 7 massacre on Oct 8; they chose to show support Palestine after Palestine did a massacre. And there was a very little criticism on that kind of actions.
sure it was reprehensible, but is it on the same scale even? both before and after?
criticising hamas seems like premature optimization, and picking something basically irrelevant to the overall conflict
Exactly, and organizing a support for Palestine immediately after Palestine committed a massacre is NOT okay.
> criticising hamas seems like premature optimization
Are you saying we shouldn't criticize Palestine?
> picking something basically irrelevant to the overall conflict
Why do I have to pick? Why do you need to pick?
We can criticize both. Both are evil in different aspects.
Why do you have so much issue with criticizing the evilness of Palestine?
you should think long and hard why that is but answer is as always quite simple
> If you didn't want to discuss that, then you shouldn't have brought it up.
I want to discuss it but you misunderstand the topic and seem angry based on your own misunderstanding.
If you weren't, we would just discuss normally without insulting that the other side didn't have intention to discuss in a discussion forum.
So, somehow my comment angered you that you had to resort to the tactics of undermining the other side.
Who said it wasn't about Palestine? Who even thinks that? We are talking about the protest regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict, right?
So, you think Palestine is irrelevant to the discussion of ... rolling the dice ... the Israel-Palestine conflict
It is not an insult to observe another's behavior and commment on it. What you've pulled out from their comment and called an insult reads as an admonishment. It is no worse than saying "you misunderstand the topic and seem angry based on your own misunderstanding". Bear in mind, I am not saying that is an insult, either, but another admonishment. Rather, you appear to be using this accusation as a tactic to discredit people who are not agreeing with you with you.
> Who said it wasn't about Palestine? Who even thinks that?
These questions are how a reader can be sure you are not discussing in good faith. I was referring to this commment, which was posted by you: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48535128>. The child comment of that one which you took as an insult appears to be expressing the commenter's exasperation at your discussion style, seeing it seems to be conducted in bad faith.
> So, you think Palestine is irrelevant to the discussion of ... rolling the dice ... the Israel-Palestine conflict
I don't believe I wrote anything to that effect but you're welcome to correct the record, I suppose.
Separately, I'm noticing you told on yourself in the comment I initially replied to, the behavior observable in your comments in this thread: "So, somehow my comment angered you that you had to resort to the tactics of undermining the other side." As you accuse, you've been trying to undermine the arguments made by others rather than addressing the substantive points they raise.
The other of the two governments works tirelessly to maximize casualties, especially children.
Both sides, of course, occasionally fuck it up too.
> Hamas is resisting occupation
This is definitely not true. The fact that you downplay what Palestine has been doing is wild.
They both want to kill each other. It's only that one side is winning.
Not sure why you need to mislead. It has been clear for 50 years at least.
It's common sense yet you keep denying it.
Only one side is being armed and funded by our tax dollars, and that’s good enough reason to protest.
I mean, yeah, I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other. Specifically, the side that I consider to be fundamentally in the right in the conflict.
Whichever side I am talking about is not relevant to the point. What's relevant to the actual point I am trying to make, is that I don't think that one side being better armed and funded serves as a reasonable indicator of which side is right/wrong in a given conflict.
Most Americans would prefer that we fund neither.
And this isn’t 2012, majority of Americans today do not see Israeli’s, who steal, spy on and try to get Americans killed through wars they start as the “good guys”.
I'd say, based on the latest election result, this isn't true.
Trump was basically like: I'm gonna fuck up Palestine. They'd better watch it. He was always clear about this.
And then he won every single swing state and even won popular vote.
Not that I agree with Trump. I merely state what I've observed.
The Israeli-Palestine conflict is far from the #1 priority of things US voters consider when voting in presidential elections.
Also, winning by one of the narrowest margins in US election history, and with less than 50% of the popular vote is hardly a decisive mandate to give Israel a blank check. [1]
[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/us/politics/trump-electio...
This dude said he would help commit genocide and became the first republican to win popular votes in 20 years.
> The Israeli-Palestine conflict is far from the #1 priority of things US voters consider when voting in presidential elections.
If a president promises to commit a genocide, I don't think any kind of policies would get voters (who are against genocide) to vote for him.
It's certainly not #1 priority but it is a deal breaker.
You only think that in order to fit your narrative... even I already stated the contrary.
> that’s good enough reason to protest.
Clearly, this protest isn't about that. The protest is about criticizing Israel's actions.
It's you who should stop being disingenuous
And you tacitly admitted just that.
And how about this: are Jewish people allowed to commit war crimes against Arab colonizers whose stated official goal is Jewish genocide ("from the river to the sea")? If not, then why is it different?
This is the time of moral fortitude of a 12 year old.