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).
> If anything the skew within the platforms is to prioritize pro-palestinian views.
That platforms prioritize one over the other is just one possible explanation. An alternative explanation is that more people already have those views. And it's dishonest to present one explanation and omit the other.
Nothing inflames people like injustice.
I think they are saying that the composition of users of these apps skews one way rather than the other due to pre existing stances, and the fact that the apps are not available in some markets.
As a result, certain views are prioritised as a byproduct of the fact that all modern social media apps have an algorithm that shows you more of what you already agree with, in order to maximise ad profits.
I think the notion that the vast chunk of Twitter or TikTok had a pre existing stance on Israel/Palestine before Oct 7 is kind of silly, imo? Before this I could scroll Twitter without seeing anything about Israel or Palestine for... idk. Weeks, months at a time. I'll maybe see one thing on Palestine being oppressed, usually about West Bank settlements, from the one or two people who happen to be Palestinian. Now I literally cannot avoid it whenever I open either app.
I really struggle to believe anyone beyond a small minority even thought about Palestine or Israel before Oct 7.
The population was small, up to about 5% of the region during the Ottomans (after heavy losses due to multiple Black Plague outbreaks), but the reason that specific area was chosen (as opposed to alternatives) was because there was already a community of Jews there.
Keep in mind that the vast majority of the area was uninhabited swamps until the 1940s and huge numbers of people died from malaria every year before resettling Jews completely changed the local terrain.
Look up details about the the late 1880s and the distinctions marking the difference between the Old Yishuv and New Yishuv.
Political aspirations of the Old Yishuv were pretty low due to the fact that they were broke as shit and depended on handouts from abroad, whereas New Yishuv resettlers came with money and dreams.
The biggest problem I find with the collective understanding people have of the conflict is that people largely think nothing of note happened before 1900 but the prior history determines a ton of why later decisions were made that people attribute to the start of conflict.
Ultimately, the security needs of Israel need to be balanced against the rights of the Palestinians, and as it stands, the Palestinians have no negotiating power, so they get nothing. If politicians around the world made it clear you cannot be 'the only democracy in the middle east' while having millions of people subject to military law, I expect the Palestinians would have enough negotiating room to force some kind of reasonable settlement.
History is complicated, yes, but it is how we got into this situation and everybody's idea of a solution is based on their preferred version of history.
> Are Palestinians citizens of Israel, or is it a foreign country
> that Israeli settlers are invading
League of Nations (and UN) mandates can not change the laws of the lands they administer - then can only issue temporary orders (usually limited to three years). So British orders are not valid in the holy land today. Likewise, military occupation (Jordanian, Israeli) also can not change the laws but rather can issue temporary orders. So the law of the land in the West Bank even today remains Ottoman law, modulo "temporary" Israeli military orders that are actually renewed (for the most part) every three years or so.
Ottoman law since the 1850's stated that anyone who settles land (houses, farms, factories) owns it - Muslims and Jews and Christians alike. Their goal was to increase the population of the near-desolate holy land (which they called Greater Syria), and collect more taxes. Those laws still stand today, for better or for worse. There is nothing "illegal" about Israeli citizens building homes in the West Bank. What would be illegal would be if the Israeli state were to transfer its citizens - international law is binding on states, not citizens. But citizens moving is not banned by any international law, and settlement of the West Bank is actually encouraged by the laws in the West Bank dating over 150 years, because nobody since has had the authority to change those laws.