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).
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).
It’s not always “right” to measure just action in terms of lives saved or lost, but it’s hard for me (and so many other American Jews) to see anything right or just about 10 dead Palestinians for every dead Israeli.
If your suggested law of war isn't 'majority or ruthless minority, get to do everything they want because they have more causalties', than you need an alternative. The alternative is the current laws of war, which allow for strikes with collateral damage (what Israel says it's doing), but not for terrorist attacks aimed at civilians.
* Suicide bombers, Iranian mullahs sending kids with 'plastic keys to heaven' to dismantle minefields, or current refusal of Hamas to allow civilians to use its tunnels as shelters. We could fill the page with examples really.
** Funny, I don't recall opposition to America's post 9/11 response based on counts. Almost as if the same rules don't apply.
“Collateral damage” is one of those bloodless wartime euphemisms for killing innocent men, women, and children. It’s a dirty, unavoidable reality. But I don’t believe for one second that Israel’s hands are so sufficiently constrained that the current degree of civilian death is necessary. I say that as a Jew, with family in Israel, who I worry about.
It's not a just a euphemism, because there really is a difference. Justified or not, Dresden wasn't collateral damage - it was directly targeting and killing innocent civilians. Collateral damage really is something different.
> But I don’t believe for one second that Israel’s hands are so sufficiently constrained that the current degree of civilian death is necessary.
(For the record, I'm Israeli)
This is a hard question to answer. No one actually knows, because given fog of war and given the incentives of both sides, it's hard to get real numbers for what's going on. Not to mention that what even counts as "necessary"? Obviously zero civilian deaths is the only legitimate goal, but just as obviously this is impossible to achieve in practice. (I'd also add that zero deaths of militants is the goal, if possible - anyone that can be stopped by arresting them or causing them to surrender should be dealt with that way - though obviously this is even harder to achieve.)
Given all that, I think a few points I'll say, again speaking as an Israeli citizen with my own particular biases:
1. While I highly mistrust our current government (like many Israelis), I certainly don't think most of our government would condone killing civilians completely unnecessarily. At least not the ones in charge, mostly.
2. More importantly, I trust the IDF a lot (and this is probably a big difference between me and most non-Israelis). While I'm sure that not literally every civilian death is legitimate, I do trust that the IDF is only attacking valid targets given reasonable intelligence, and that it's not knowingly targeting civilians for the most part.
3. Most importantly - taking the outside view - the IDF estimates that it's killing roughly 2 civilians for 1 militant killed. If you believe that number - it's roughly in line with similar wars fought by Western countries.
Note: While I talk about civilian deaths here as a "statistic", every death is a horrible tragedy. In a good world, no one would ever have to die of violence, and good people should mourn the deaths of any person on any side of this horrible situation.
1. I am not sure if you are saying that extremists like Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bezalel Smotrich are not in charge, but their rhetoric and speech has made it clear they do not care for Palestinian deaths, and rather would like to carry out more killings. If you didn't know about the people in charge of your government, I implore you to look into their history.
2. I would ask you to look more critically at the IDF, after all that B'Tselem has shown them to have committed. I would look to what the IDF did during the peaceful 2018 Great March to Return where they shot and killed hundreds of unarmed civilians, including women and children, and severely injured thousands of others. Only one Israeli soldier was slightly wounded in the whole conflict. They have also been killing children indiscriminately in the West Bank, what would justify that? There are dozens to hundreds of other cases where the IDF has been incriminated for unjustified violence but I am not able to collate them for you at the current time. If that is not enough evidence to change your stance on the IDF, that nobody can help to change your mind.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-...
Yes, I was saying that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are not the ones in charge now, luckily for everyone. They are horrible people, and I believe that if they were in charge, they would commit crimes as bad as any that Hamas has committed. It's shameful that they are part of our government and as far as I'm concerned they should be barred from office in any decent country.
But no, they are not currently in charge, the majority of the government is not in line with their extremist views, and neither is the majority of the country. (Though views have certainly gotten more extreme after October 7th, predictably.) Their power in the current government is inflated because all decent politicians (the entire center and left) refuse to form a coalition with Netanyahu. And the populace have been protesting this government, with the backdrop of the judicial reform, in the largest protests in Israel's history, for the last year.
2. I do look critically at the majority of things the IDF does. It's not all perfect, there are many moral failures, like in any army. I think B'Tselem and the world in general look far more critically and without context at Israel and the IDF, compared to other armies.
Note, like most secular Israeli men, I served in the army (though not in any kind of combat way - I was a programmer). I also know many, many reservists serving today, as does literally every Israeli. There are a lot of Israelis with views I vehemently disagree with, but very few that would target civilians for no reason. (Though obviously take this with a grain of salt - my view of the IDF is still, at the end, anecdotal to me - my circle of acquaintences don't represent a true random sample of the army.)
I can't speak to The Great March of Return, I don't have any inside info here, I'll just note that the situation with the border is very complicated. Look at what happened when the border wasn't defended strongly, thousands of militants were able to storm in and slaughter thousands of Israelis, and drag all of us (Israel and Gaza) into a terrible war. Does this mean everything that happened there was justified? Of course not. But life's complicated.
I'll take specific note of something you said:
> They have also been killing children indiscriminately in the West Bank, what would justify that?
Nothing would justify that, but I don't believe that's happening. I don't think there are real, verified cases of the IDF targeting children, only of children dying as collateral damage.
> There are dozens to hundreds of other cases where the IDF has been incriminated for unjustified violence but I am not able to collate them for you at the current time. If that is not enough evidence to change your stance on the IDF, that nobody can help to change your mind.
I'll reframe this as a question, because I think it's a very good one. What would make me change my mind? Let's be specific, what would make me change my mind that the majority of operations the IDF is currently undertaking are "unjustified"?
1. Firstly, if I get convinced that the current aim of getting back the hostages or destroying Hamas is itself an incorrect/immoral goal, I'd be convinced current actions are unjustified. This is almost impossible to change my mind on - Hamas has invaded Israel and slaughtered civilians, and claim they will do it again and again. I don't see a way for Israel to avoid trying to seek Hamas's destruction. That said:
2. If I am convinced that the current war isn't the best way (or one of the best ways) of achieving the goal of Hamas's destruction, or of retrieving the hostages, then I'll consider Israel's actions unjustified. If we could pause the fighting, go back to the previous status quo, and stop Hamas by targeted assassinations or whatever over the next year, then it's not justified to risk so many civilians. I don't think this (or other ways) are practical, but I could be convinced otherwise.
3. If I see evidence that the IDF systematically targeted civilians without any justified reasoning, I'll consider the way Israel's waging this war unjustified. Note that I say systematic - I'm sure many individual horrible cases have happened (and anyone doing this knowingly should be arrested, though I doubt they will be), but on the whole targeting is aimed at legitimate targets.
4. If I see evidence that the IDF is knocking down civilian infrastructure without any legitimate military reasoning, but rather only in order to cause damage in Gaza, I'll consider this illegitimate, though a lesser crime than other accusations. (It would probably be considered ethnic cleansing if the goal is to e.g. make Gaza uninhabitable.)
I think those are all situations where, were I to change my mind on what is actually happening in reality, would make me change my mind on the legitimacy of the current war.
I think it would be a good idea for you to do the same as me - what would make you change your mind about the current situation?
Note: 'killing children indiscriminately' usually means 'not taking adequate precautions to avoid killing children' - which means that children as collateral damage is part of the problem. On the extremes I believe it's easy to agree on this: nuking Hiroshima hit some military targets but also killed unconscionable numbers of children and civilians as collateral damage.
To continue: What counts as evidence? Do these stories from Amnesty International of bombed civilian residential buildings with no warnings to the inhabitants fit your section 3? Or do they not meet the bar of being systematic, because it's possible they are e.g. hitting the wrong target, or being targeted based on incorrect information?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/damning-evide...
Hamas is an actual movement, not a cult around one leader. Moreover, it controls local media and education in Gaza. We can't cut off the radicalization pipeline when they control the local media. Dealing with that requires controlling the ground. Also, there's no amount of assassination which can dislodge a real movement, and it makes very little sense when the big leaders live underground in deep tunnels.
There are two ways to deal with the deep tunnels: Flood them with something, or lob 1t bombs from the air on every deep tunnel one can detect, when the deep tunnels are often under residential blocks. The first requires invasion and ground control. The second has a lot of collateral damage (There was a recent example in Jabalia where the houses above collapsed with a bad result after dealing the 1t bomb), to the point a serious assassination campaign may not even be ensuring less civilian deaths.