zlacker

>>anigbr+(OP)
Pro-Palestinian views outrank Pro-Israeli online by around 36 to 1 on TikTok and 8 to 1 on other online platforms. https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1721561226151612602

If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views https://twitter.com/committeeonccp/status/173279243496103143...

It also seems like these platforms create (rather than support) anti-Israeli views: https://twitter.com/antgoldbloom/status/1730255552738201854

US views skew pro-israel, and GenZ is closer to 50/50, so if there's something going on online, it's not in favor of Israel.

It's probably relevant that there are 1 billion Muslims to 16 million Jews, and that the largest relevant population of pro-Israeli internationals is India and Indian Hindus, and they are not on TikTok (blocked in India).

>>jdross+15
I think the fundamental assumption of the analysis that there are two mutually exclusive groups, 'pro-Israel' and 'pro-Palestine' is flawed. It is possible to simultaneously support the interests of Palestinian and Israeli civilians (and support a peaceful Israel within the 1967 boundaries), while condemning the massacre of civilians under the orders of Likud (and other far right parties) and Hamas.

I think it is currently about an order of magnitude more civilians deaths have resulted from the actions of Likud (Netanyahu etc..., who control the government and hence the IDF) than from the actions of Hamas. IDF is apparently disrupting civilian aid, destroying infrastructure including hospitals, and causing mass population movements into areas that cannot support them, so the risk of death from starvation and infectious disease at a massive scale as an indirect result is high. The Likud-controlled IDF are also apparently enforcing a 'lock down' of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank while allowing Israeli citizens to seize land by force and further expand the occupied territories.

So the scale of the atrocities seems to be much higher on the Likud side than the Hamas side, covers both the West Bank and Gaza, and it makes sense that the Palestinian victims of those atrocities would receive more support. That doesn't mean that all the people who care about the plight of the Palestinian population are anti-Israel (they are just not posting about it because they are likely prioritising issues).

>>A1kmm+gP
I think that forcing this dichotomy is part of the deliberate pro-Israel media strategy - if you despise Hamas inhumane acts, then of course you need to be pro-Israel. They want you to focus on Hamas to steer away your attention from what Israel has been doing. (this is also one of the reasons why Hamas has historically been an asset for the Israeli right)

>>The_Co+DT
Hamas has been an assset for the Israeli right because it helps prevent a two state solution. The goal is really to weaken the Palestinian Authority. In recent years most of Hamas' crimes were against Palestinians and nobody cared. Forcing this dichotomy today is certainly a strategy but I don't think that was really a strategy pre-Oct 7th. I.e. I don't recall ever Israel trying to justify settler violence against Palestinians in the west bank as being a response to Hamas- wouldn't make any sense.

In some perverse way, the objection to the two state solution forces the one state solution, which is likely the only solution that would ever work. Jews and Arabs living side by side in the same country as equal citizens. Hamas isn't interested in that solution either.

>>YZF+ma1
> Jews and Arabs living side by side in the same country as equal citizens.

Except that Israel has Arabs already, living side by side with the Jews there. Palestinians have rejected that.

>>zozbot+Ha1
Yes yes. I'm from Israel. I know that story.

Palestinians did not reject a one state solution. Most Israelis don't want that. I.e. annex the West Bank and Gaza and have a single country, let's call it "Israel-Palestine".

I think the Israeli Arabs are a model/proof that it can work. It might need a generation or two to get there.

If you want more radical ideas then if all Palestinian Arabs convert to Judaism we can also solve the problem pretty quickly...

>>YZF+4b1
Arabs rejected a two-state solution at the very inception of Israel. An Arab majority Israel-Palestine would drive out its Jews, just as every other Arab country has done.

>>rayine+Of1
Arabs rejected getting <50% of the land (and being evicted at gunpoint from the rest) when they were ~2/3rds of the population in 1948. 1948 was 75 years ago, things have changed since then.

>>George+yi1
Arabs got the vast majority of the land, which became Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt.

The reason Arabs supported the British against the Ottomans was because they wanted to create a unified Arab nation: https://awayfromthewesternfront.org/campaigns/egypt-palestin.... And Arabs got the overwhelming majority of the territory they wanted (notwithstanding the many minority groups they had conquered in the Levant), with the exception of what became Israel. Put differently, you could say that Arabs got 0% of Israel, and that’s technically true. But it’s not an accurate description of what they got in comparison to what they actually wanted.

>>rayine+ql1
This argument completely ignores both the cultural distinctions between the different areas of the former Ottoman empire, and the fact that a person's home is not interchangeable with any other place. Nobody would expect a Polish person in 1939 to say "well, we Slavs have the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia so I guess it's fine that German settlers took my farm at gunpoint and forced me to leave".

The implicit assumption is that any place with a majority of "Arabs" would ethnically cleanse all the Jews or become an Islamic theocracy, so we must view everything through the lens of competing ethno-states. It's important to challenge this assumption. Ethno-states are inherently violent because every population is a mixture of different ethnicities, and an ethno-state needs to maintain a majority of a certain population. If the "wrong" group's population grows in an ethno-state, it becomes a "demographic problem" that the government needs to "solve". This is why carving up the world into such states is never a lasting solution for peace.

Aside: "Arab" and "Jew" are not mutually exclusive. You can be an Arab Jew in the same way you can be a Hispanic Jew - Arab is a distinction based on one's mother language not one's religion. This is why the Arab League includes countries in north Africa where most people aren't descended from ancestral Arabians. The history of and literature of Judeo-Arabic is an interesting rabbit hole: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Jews

>>tdeck+3r1
Most of the world is competing ethnostates, including most if not all Arab states. (I’m certainly glad my parent’s generation secured our ethnostate, at great cost.) Whether there is a better way is an open question. But anybody would be an idiot to sacrifice their ethnostate for that experiment. It’s never ended well.