Answer: he recently has been pretty vocal about the conflict. And while being vocal he has shared several controversial things. He recently posted a story with “zionism is sexy” stickers. Last week he also “liked” a highly controversial post that was making what people found to be islamophobic and racist jokes. Link to the screen shot in another sub
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/s/H2lx3Sqrlt
Answer: Noah Schnapp is one of the child actors from the Netflix show Stranger Things. He was 12 when the show premiered and is 19 now. In most seasons of the show, he plays the sensitive gay kid who gets captured by the monster and must be rescued by his party of friends.
On October 7th, war broke out between Palestine and Israel again. Following these events, Noah Schnapp made posts on social media supporting Israel, specifically being seen wearing merchandise with the slogan "zionism is sexy" on it.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine is controversial and often poorly understood. Historically, western nations have been overwhelmingly supportive of Israel. It was not considered a partisan issue. However, over the past 80 years, there has been a trend, especially among young liberals, to support Palestine instead of Israel.
This trend is often baffling to older and more conservative Americans. From what I can tell, the difference in perspectives stems from extraordinarily different understandings of the context of the conflict.
Many older and conservative westerners see Palestine as a separate country from Israel. They emphasise that Israel exists as the original homeland of the Jewish people. Palestine attacks on Israel are seen as an attempt to carry out a second WW2 style antisemetic genocide, in the name of Islamic terrorism.
Many younger and more liberal westerners emphasis that Palestine is not a separate country from Israel, but rather an occupied territory of Israel. They emphasise that Israel was created as a colonial state, and in many ways still exists as a colonial state in a post-colonial world. In their worldview, the country of Israel was created by antisemetic Europeans in the 1940s to prevent holocaust refugees from returning home. Because the formerly British colony was turned into a Jewish ethnostate, but 1-in-3 people born there are not Jewish, the conflict between Palestine and Israel is seen as the same conflict between all apartheid states and their colonial governments from centuries past.
The pro-Israel side usually focuses on the overtly violent atrocities of Hamas. The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade, in which Gaza is characterized as the world's largest open-air prison that millions of Israeli's indigenous natives are born into, for the crime of being the wrong race.
Historically, Netflix targeted young college-aged audiences, because these audiences did not already subscribe to cable TV services, and were more open to the new invention of "streaming" television. Netflix programming was thus characterized as being very progressive and gay compared to traditional television programming. Therefore, it is surprising to netflix audiences that a netflix actor would come out in overt support of Israel, potentially alienating the young liberal audience of Netflix.
I was scrolling one day saw a post and thought "cute guy" realized it was was the main stranger kid Finn, started panic googling his age(only a year younger) then realized when stranger things released. And proceeded to have an existential crisis over the way I perceive time as a new adult. lf you told me it was a quarantine binge I might've actually believed it
What really made me feel it was when someone mentioned something about a song from when I was in high school and it said something like "This (1990s song) is now as old as the Beach Boys (60s song) was when (the 90s song) came out."
I accidentally shouted "oh *f@#$* no!" in front of my 4yo and instantly googled the years and did the math...hoping it was wrong.
Right before covid, I got a chance to ask somebody born in the early 2000s what decade they thought off when people say “10 years ago” and they also said “the 90s” so apparently this also happens to people who weren’t even around back then though I’m not sure how widespread that is.
I feel like it has something to do with a combination of how millennials have prolonged the popularity of their favorite 90s trends/media well into our development, and us simply not wanting to believe that our first two decades are over, that we are adults and we have to face the hellscape that's been left to us with next to no preparation 🙃
I think it’s a side effect of HD and digital video. Until digital video storage, stuff would wear out and show at least a bit of age but now footage shot in the early 2000s looks like footage shot now whereas before older films and tv stuff looked different so maybe it’s the fact that the 90s was the last full decade where footage of it looked different?
I remember being in high school and having a conversation about how Snoop and Dre would be like classic rock in thirty years. My favorite radio station these days is one that plays hip hop from the 90s and earlier.
I felt that with movies. 1999 was a MASSIVE year for movies with the matrix, Star Wars episode 1, American beauty, fight club, American beauty, she’s all that, Toy Story 2, the sixth sense etc. in 2 weeks it will be about 25 years since these films came out. When they came out films like Rocky, Jaws, Star Wars a new hope, Halloween were all UNDER 25 years old. The fact this difference in time is shocking to me
Lol, I had that same realization too when my kids were groaning about me listening to the 80s station. It occurred to me suddenly that it was the same as me groaning about my dad listening to 50s music when I was a kid and then I wanted to cry.
But, here, if you ever want to turn it around on someone near your age, refer to your high school years as "back before the turn of the century." It is hilarious watching the wheels turn because almost always they're confused as to why you're talking about the 1890s and then see the horror dawn on them when they realize you mean the 1990s.
It blew my son's mind when I told him I had met people born in the 1800s. Even if it was when I was his age 30 years ago and they were in their 90s or over 100.
When I was a teenager in the early 90s I "babysat" a woman who was 102 (really I just hung out with her when her daughter went out so I could like call 911 or whatever if need be). She was still really spry and with it and she'd set up these activities for us to do that she thought proper ladies should know how to do like china painting and making paper roses. It was fascinating to hear her talk about when she was my age. My kids can't even fathom that I knew someone who could remember the year 1900.
>"back before the turn of the century."
I predicted in high school that our generations were going to feel old faster than previous generations. (1) because it wasn't going to be long before having to tell someone you born in the 1900s (even if it was 1999) would be weird and (2) how fast technology was changing then... That seems to have skyrocketed since then. My husband and I made a joke of it even before getting pregnant with our first kid, where we'd point to something in a 2001 movie and say "Daddy, what's that!" "That's a telephone booth, son..."
Wait until the stranger things cast starts playing parents. That's how I felt when I saw Josh Hutcherson playing a dad in the Five Nights at Freddie's movie. My knees audibly creeked.
When talking about the abhorrent things HAMAS did
> overtly violent atrocities
When talking about the abhorrent things the IDF did (which btw are much worse, yk since **almost** 20k civilians including literal children have died gruesome deaths in the last 2 months)
>perceived violence
Yes, this is definitely an even-handed take. Lol.
I agree. It's an even handed take that focuses on how the conflict currently looks in the mind of people in the West right now; that explains the heavy emphasis on Gaza and no mention of the Left Bank.
While the west bank contain some of the best examples of the apartheid system some of the conditions are so inconceivable to the minds of people in the west that they usually have to go themselves in order to understand the scope of it. We in America live in a country which on paper ended Jim Crow not long after Israel was founded, and Israel runs the most sophisticated and brutal iteration of a Jim Crow system you could really imagine.
Gaza being considered the worlds largest open air prison is roughly the amount the western brain can take on at one time without overloading
It's a good explanation but there are bits like "perceived violence" which are nothing "even handed".
I'm "perceiving" that violence in 4k video from across the planet. The "optics" are great but the look is not good.
No shit. "An attempt to carry out a second WW2 style genocide..."
Yes, because 300 terrorists killing about 1500 people is the same as a nation-state invading, conquering and subjugating multiple neighboring nation-states and creating mass work camps, deliberately starving and engaging in systematic extermination via industrial means.
Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
I agree.
"Unbiased" in this subreddit just means "conforms to the status quo." But the status quo here is the result of mass ignorance. So it presents a fascinating paradox: Being informed biases me, and a biased comment would be deleted, preserving the mass ignorance.
I think I was intrigued to make this (indulgently long wall-of-text) post because I wanted to try my hand at navigating this paradox. Perhaps I overcorrected? I wonder.
Just to note, you can express a biased opinion either by including a "bias:" preface, or responding to your own comment.
I hear what you're saying in terms of an informed position seeming to be biased when it doesn't conform to the accepted status quo. In my experience though, comments that present factual information and minimize characterization can often express unpopular positions without being removed. It's things like noting that a given creep identifies as a white nationalist rather than just describing them as a white nationalist.
It's close or is the best explanation I've seen. It seemed you put effort into being unbiased. People way over on each side will definitely disagree anyway.
In my experience, if multiple people from both sides attack you when you clearly tried to explain both issues without bias, then you probably nailed it.
A follow up question to your thoughtful reply: I always heard that the motivation for the British to “give” Israel to the Jews was done out of empathy for what they went through in the camps, rather than the uglier “don’t come back” reasoning. Can you point me towards anything documenting the antisemitic motivation?
The edited collection Palestine: A Socialist Introduction (which is available as a free ebook from Haymarket Books currently) has a fair amount of history and analysis (obviously with a socialist slant and bias) of this issue. This is largely based on things said and written by Herzl (a major early Zionist) who believed that antisemitism could not be "cured" only avoided by rejecting assimilation through the creation of a Jewish state outside of Europe. This also started in the late 19th century and the motivation was not solely in response to Nazi violence but rather the much longer history of antisemitism in Europe.
eta: I don't necessarily think the motivation was antisemitic but was rather anti-assimilationist. It's a long and complex issue and I'm not an expert but this is some of what I've been learning from reading as much as I can about the history.
I think I understand Zionism, in general. I am curious about the motivations that went into the formation of the nation (and leading to today's conflict). While so much of today's viewpoint is framed by the holocaust, my last wiki dive pointed out that much of the politics involved in inviting jews to move to Israel happened before WW2 (matching what you said).
I think you did a decent job, but I do feel like you made a fundamental mistake in what the split between the older and younger generation is defined by. It isn't really Palestine being occupied vs a state, because it wasn't really the latter. It's more remembering a pre- vs post- Second Intifada world.
Older people remember an Israel that was routinely the underdog and faced unfair, daunting odds through the 1970s, then ultimately succeeding. Many also remember the pretty heinous terrorism by the PLO such as the Munich Olympic terrorist attacks. Remember that RFK was killed by a supporter the Palestinian cause, after all.
As well, while Israel started to lose its shine during the South Lebanon incurrision, many older people also remember the promise of the Oslo Accords and the pull out from Lebanon, and how it fell apart in the Camp David Summit in 2000, much of which was blamed on Arafat. While now blame is traded on both sides (imo Arafat stupidly set up a timeframe of 5 years and got screwed by Hamas causing a Likud win. They both went into the Summit in bad faith, with Arafat believing he would be able to get better concessions in a further round and Israel thinking they could get better concessions due to Arafat's promise and the fear of further Likud governments. Unfortunately Arafat bet wrong, the breakdown was too politically damaging and Likud won which killed a better peace deal), older people certainly remember how their offer of peace lead to the extremely violent Second Intifada, which certainly made the Palestinians look like they were acting in bad faith all along.
Most of the younger generation have seen the post-Second Intifada world, where Israel vowed to do what was necessary to secure peace as the left saw fatal blows from the fallout to their attempt at the Summit. An increasingly oppressive, controlled state for the West Bank, a party supportive of settlements with the population non plussed as long as security was relatively stable, which it was in light of the Intifada. A Gaza that became an open air prison after the Palestinian Taliban gained control, Israel doing what it felt was necessary to make sure a Third Intifada could not happen again. An Israel that's become increasingly partisan on the world stage as the Israeli left became increasingly enfeebled by internal scandals and policy failures. An Israel that's also become increasingly emboldened to actvwuth impunity both due to terms from Oslo making US support mostly guaranteed and increasing suspicious by (frankly justified) bias from opposing institutions like the UN and HRW. And seeing a Palestinian people continuously failed by its leadership riven with corruption and division, increasingly alienated from potential allies, and an increasing lack of willingness by Israel to engage.
So yeah, I think having a split based around the second Intifada, at least from an outsiders perspective, make the most sense. Of course there's many, MANY other factors that impact this conflict, not the least if which how the US youth is becoming increasingly leftist and picking up on historical anti-Israel leftist views encouraged by the Soviet Union as well as new influenced from Islamic perspectives with their own biases. But I think in general it's a decent way to discuss the general generational split, and why there's such a strong split and why a lack of perspective on either side leads to such alienated discussion.
This is a curious perspective and I do appreciate it. But I don't think your narrative of this "second Intifada" is sound.
Westerners in the 90s expected the Oslo Accords to end the apartheid state of Israel the same way Nelson Mandela ended the apartheid state of South Africa. Israel was relatively progressive at the time, being mostly comprised of first/second generation European immigrants who fled the holocaust. Since jewish people from all around the world were meeting in Israel, the cities were necessarily cosmopolitan and liberal.
While the one-state-solution was more progressive and also more coherent, a multi-cultural Israel would require admitting that the whole idea of the country was a mistake. This was asking too much. So instead the two state solution was pursued.
The two state solution was pretty stupid though. Israel bisected Gaza and the West Bank. The practical application of the idea was just fundamentally flawed. The West Bank would have to rule Gaza without actually having access to it. Ridiculous.
Palestine was (and still is) an occupied territory of Israel, so the narrative of "Palestine refusing the two state solution" is miserably dumb propaganda. Israel forced Palestine into unconditional surrender after winning every war. As the conquering colonialists, Israel has always had unilateral authority to institute whatever the fuck they want (as has been demonstrated, to the extreme!)
Israel's prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was working to set up exactly what he wanted, to unilaterally institute a two-state solution, when he was assassinated in 1995 by fundamentalist Israeli settlers. He was assassinated by Israeli ultranationalists precisely because of his credible threat of instituting the two state solution.
By the 90s, the rate of European immigration to Israel had slowed, while the growth rate of fundamentalist Israeli settlers had exploded. So the fundamentalists murdered Israelis progressive leaders, blamed some irrelevant Palestinian scapegoat, and have controlled the country ever sense.
It is a melancholy truth that all humans are the product of their environment. Israelis thought they could "change the desert" but of course it was the desert that changed the Israelis. Over time they have simply become exactly like the native middle eastern fundamentalists surrounding them. The cities are still relatively progressive for now, but less so every year.
Our grand children will likely note little difference between Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The fact that Israel is Jewish will just be one of those oddities of history, like the way Rwanda is christian but Somalia is Muslim.
Your initial comment felt like it had some over corrections to limit arguments against it, but seeing your continued fleshing out of your point and addressing how you were simply trying to navigate your bias because of the reality of the situation has led me from considering down voting your initial comment to up voting you and finally to this comment saying "good job." You're navigating this issue well.
I agree with the last points, although some of your points are a bit weird. Yes, the two state solution is flawed, but no one ever seriously considered or even considers a one state solution, and definitely not at the time. The two state solution goes back to [UN Resolution 242](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242) after the Six Years War and were codified by the Camp David Accords. No one expected in the 90s for that to change, there was too much bad blood on both sides for that to be considered.
I also disagree with the "refusing statehood" as being propaganda. While there could be arguments on how far Israel would have recognized the Summit agreement, and it had flaws for the Palestinian side, it would have fundamentally have created a Palestinian state and given it far greater power over its territory and autonomy than it currently could dream of. As you said, Israel had the option of setting up far worse, and was willing to give up much control and presenting, if not exactly fair, a reasonable option for statehood all factors considered in a realpolitik sense. Considering how the outcome played a major in the Israeli left falling into decline, and how the realization that the Second Intifada was in the works even at that time irreparably damaging the trust in the two sides, I wouldn't consider that claim a hit job on the Palestinians.
I think that latter sentence really speaks to why I mark the Second Intifada as a marking point of generations. It marked a complete change in Israel's attitude for the worse because it irreparably damaged any sense that a peace process was a viable option and the fragile trust the sides had for each other, although considering the power balance more importantly Israel. Regardless how justified you think it was, it irreversibly killed off the process that had started since that resolution and led to the current situation.
You did fine. People just get upset when there is a chance for their "team" to score points and the opportunity isn't taken.
Notably, nobody wants to talk about the question in the title, about the actor. They just want another go round of scoring points for their team.
As if there aren't already a kajillion places to do that.
That’s a good point but it’s definitely that simple and there’s no reason to think any harder about it.
Black = bad.
White = good.
Complication and nuance are the tools of oppressors. Learning only makes you less easily outraged, hence it’s a bad thing.
No, it’s about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the horrific violence inflicted upon its people by the fascist apartheid regime of Israel. It’s about a conflict that has claimed 20k+ Palestinian lives since October 7 alone.
This is not a football match. It’s not about “teams” and who is trying to “score points”.
Referring to an ongoing genocide and the debate about whether it is justified or not as a simple matter of “team A” vs. “team B” is not only highly reductive but downright asinine.
Hence the “mostly” qualifier. I would also encourage you to find a war in all of human history where innocent people, including women and children, were left unscathed on either side. Armed conflict is a complete mess and many good people pay the price for things they were never involved in.
If you want an actual answer, Israel was mostly killing Palestinian children and HAMAS was mostly still being a terrorist group
[Israel was doing way more killing though](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/s/uXkbkHRwii)
Objectively it is a conflict. You can make the (correct) argument that it’s a vastly disproportionate conflict, but lives have been taken on both sides.
Israel doesn’t want to exterminate every Palestinian. Quite frankly, if they wanted to, that’d be pretty easy to accomplish. They want the leaders of Hamas to surrender to prosecution. Why won’t they? It’s Hamas that’s prolonging this conflict. They have all the power to stop it.
Kidnapping, shooting, and beheading babies. Slitting children's throats. Gang raping and torturing preteens for hours. Raping women with instruments to the point their pelvis broke. Amputating limbs off of women they raped while being forced to lay next to the corpse of their friends. Raping dead women. Urinating and deficating on mutilated corpses. Hacking whole families to death with machetes. Parading naked women's bodies through the streets. Burning entire families alive in their homes. Raping and murdering children while they forced the parents to watch. Gouging the eyes out of parents while the kids are forced to watch. Cutting off women's breasts. Binding children's hands and feet then shooting them execution style in front of the parents. Binding mother's to their children and then lighting them on fire. Cutting open pregnant women's belly and pulling out the child out of the womb and beheading it and lighting it on fire. This is what Hamas has done.
Can you tell me what the IDF is "much worse" than this?
No one's mad about killing HAMAS. Okay well someone probably is but most aren't. Most people aren't cool with the killing of people behind those walls that didn't do the horrific stuff that you just wrote out.
Bro.
The bending babies thing was debunked in like two days. That you are still trying to use it is embarrassing.
There was a total of one dead or missing baby in the Oct 7th attacks.
If you think I am believing pro Hamas propaganda, I'd point out that number comes from the Israeli government.
Also... Look into the atrocities of IDF they are many and as bad as any actually confirmed Hamas act.
Brother, you can literally find the images of the rapes, tortures, decapitated and burned dead babies online. You’re falling for the “proof” narrative. This is all confirmed with a quick google search or a deep dive to see videos of the atrocities.
Wow, there is footage of things IDF forces do too?
That is totally related to my point that the beheaded babies story was fake Israel propaganda you bought into.
"But it also invalidates some statements by Israeli authorities in the days following the attack.
In particular, a claim made on October 10 on the government's official X (formerly Twitter) account spoke of "40 babies murdered" at Kfar Aza kibbutz, based on a report by i24NEWS channel.
According to Bituah Leumi, 46 civilians were killed in Kfar Aza, the youngest 14 years old."
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-773049
If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to admit you were wrong about the beheaded babies.
You know where a lot of babies have been murdered though? Gaza.
I had a hard time even reading what the person wrote to whom your reply was directed. Researching the claims would be an exercise in self inflicted mental trauma, so I can only go with my gut instinct that some of the claims are true, some exaggerated and some fabricated.
Nowadays worse is just a numbers game, even though its illogical. It also implies that Hamas given the military strength and technology of the IDF would simply restrain themselves. I firmly believe that if they had the capability, like a nuke, they would erase Israel from existence.
>Nowadays worse is just a numbers game, even though its illogical.
Aah, yes, the Stalin approach: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic".
Seriously, just how brainwashed must you be to claim that more deaths being worse than less deaths is illogical?
I think alot of the criticism was aimed at the post because he ended it with
"You either stand with Israel or you stand with terrorism. It shouldn't be a difficult choice. Shame on you."
Yeah for sure, that was my main problem with it as well. Showing empathy to victims of Oct 7 makes sense. But attempting to reduce such a complicated conflict to Israel vs. terrorism is just not factually correct.
I get he's a kid and has been convinced he has to have a bais due to his religion(which he doesn't but that's a whole separate thing most adults struggle with).But I think if he ended if differently people would have forgot after a day. I'm not trying to shittalk him but of all the actors on stranger things he doesn't need any controversy around him post that show ending. Like he's on the 30 under 30 list and that pure nonsense decision given outside of being the voice of Charlie brown he got nothing of note going on.
>The pro-Israel side usually focuses on the overtly violent atrocities of Hamas. The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade.
A largely balanced response deeply undercut here.
The violence of Hamas is considered (rightly) obvious while the blockade is “perceived” and the current ongoing military action in the Gaza Strip is not mentioned at all.
Even without the blockade being perceived as violence one could not deny that the current conflict has been heavily skewed towards one in which innocent Palestinians are suffering at a level far beyond what occurred on October 7th in terms of scale.
The violence in the West Bank is a bit more complicated however:
What the settlers are doing is actually *illegal* in Israel and a large part of the Knesset and Israeli population would happily see the settlers, who they perceive as radicalised thugs and terrorists, arrested and their settlements rolled back. In particular, they are seen as exploiting an obligation from the government that they have to be protected, which many Israelis perceive as the settlers basically just taking the piss and exploiting the law. The other half see them as doing what the government of Israel hasn't the balls to do. The likes of Netenyahu and his government refuse to act against the illegal settlers because it's an open secret that they don't really consider their actions a problem, even though they are illegal.
It's not really state-sponsored violence in this case, as it is with official military operations: rather the deeply divided state of politics in Israel has sort of paralysed the state and prevented it from taking definite action against them, while the settlers exploit laws requiring the IDF protect them from harm.
My only issue with your explanation is
> overtly violent atrocities
VS
>perceived violence
Like, in my opinion, 18,000 dead civilians is what I world consider overly violent and I’m sure it’s actually happening and not just my perception of what’s happening 🤔
>The pro-Israel side usually focuses on the overtly violent atrocities of Hamas. The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade, in which Gaza is characterized as the world's largest open-air prison that millions of Israeli's indigenous natives are born into, for the crime of being the wrong race.
Good and balanced comment, but just to add here: it isn't a perceived violence, it is a confirmed violence since the Palestinian causalities and dead are nearing 20,000 in 2 months. And that's not mentioning the starvation and indiscriminate bombings.
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/19/palestinian-casualties-in-gaza-near-20000-with-nearly-2m-people-displaced#:\~:text=Israeli%20forces%20killed%2025%20people,the%20territory%20climbed%20towards%2020%2C000](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/19/palestinian-casualties-in-gaza-near-20000-with-nearly-2m-people-displaced#:~:text=Israeli%20forces%20killed%2025%20people,the%20territory%20climbed%20towards%2020%2C000).
I don’t get why people are having trouble with this line…. Please reread that statement. The “perceived violence of the blockade” is referring to the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of goods and people in and out of Gaza that has existed since 2007 - well *before* the current conflict. OP is not referring to IDF actions during this conflict as “perceived violence”.
"perceived violence against Palestinians" Yes, perceived by the UN, the EU, human rights watch, the red crescent and red cross, and essentially every nation that isn't the US, Britain, or Israel.
>The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade,
Not right now.
The thousands of civilians being killed by Israel is the main focus right now.
Thousands of innocent children have been killed by Israel.
There is more than "perceived violence of the Gaza blockade". That is slimy minimizing language that shows which side you truly on . Give me a few to gather these "perceived violence" data points from the IDF.
Lol I love how blatantly one-sided this is written. Saying that the difference between the generations is the "context of the conflict" rather than personal morals, and the wording of the pro-israel side being against the "overtly violent atrocities" where as the pro-Palestine side is "focuses on the *perceived violence* of the Gaza *blockades*".
Perceived violence? Just the blockade? And it's not context of the conflict, it's that we haven't been brainwashed enough to support killing thousands of innocents in retaliation for what a terrorist organization from the same area did. Ethnic cleansing isn't ok. We've also seen way more footage and journalistic covering of how Israel treats their occupied areas as well.
> Palestine instead of Israel
I would reword this. It comes off like you're saying that people are against Israel's existence, which isn't the case. They're (we're) specifically against Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people. It also fails to separate Hamas from the Palestinian civilians.
> It comes off like you're saying that people are against Israel's existence, which isn't the case
[A majority of young Americans believe Israel should "be ended and given to Hamas," according to a poll conducted last week.](https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/majority-of-young-americans-feel-israel-should-be-ended-given-to-hamas-poll-shows-gaza-strip-middle-east-palestine-war-invasion-october-7-terrorism-harvard-upenn-mit-poll)
Page 69 of [this poll.](https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/HHP_Dec23_KeyResults.pdf)
It's a bit of a stretch to characterize Hamas as the ruling government of Gaza.
Gaza is not a country. It's an occupied territory of Israel. Like the West Bank, it was conquered by Israel in the war of 1967 and forced into unconditional surrender.
There was a lot of talk about making it a country in the 1990s (the two state solution) but then Israeli ultra-nationists assassinated their own prime minister to prevent that. The ultranationalist settler demographic has grown more significant each year since. Consequently, there is not any serious talk about making it a country anymore.
Israel did hold a vote for local government within the occupied territory of Gaza in 2006. Hamas won, but the result was dismissed by Israel (as is their right, as the territory's sovereign authority.) I think it was kind of like if a school principle held a vote for student-council-president, and an ornery student body voted for some subversive protest-candidate. The principle can logically just dismiss the result of the vote, since it's all a big fucking farce anyway.
Now here we are 17 years later, and zionists still characterize Hamas as the government of Gaza. The self-styled "president of Hamas" doesn't even live in Gaza. He'd be dead if he did. All of Hamas "leadership" lives in Qatar and is funded by Iran. Most of the 2,000,000 residents of Gaza weren't even born during this one dismissed vote. But they become Hamas if they hate being imprisoned, and everyone hates being imprisoned, so everyone is Hamas.
It's kind of like differentiating slaves from rebel slaves. What slave wouldn't rebel? It fucking sucks to be a slave.
>Gaza is not a country. It's an occupied territory of Israel.
Israel hasn’t occupied Gaza since 2007.
>slaves
What slaves are you referring to? It seems like you fundamentally misunderstand the conflict.
Idk I’m pretty sure most Palestinians are against Israel’s existence given their [support for Hamas](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514) which explicitly wants to commit genocide against the Jews… no country on earth would allow an organization like Hamas to continue to exist if it launched an attack on them like Hamas did, while Hamas claims to want to genocide your country.
The problem isn't that Israel wants to get rid of Hamas. That's totally understandable. The problem is **how** Israel is going about getting rid of Hamas. Indiscriminately killing civilians and such. (Another problem is the general treatment of Palestinians by Israel outside of this current conflict, but that's another discussion.)
They’re not indiscriminately killing civilians. If they were, we’d see significantly higher death tolls right now. There’s been less than one death per bomb dropped. That’s not what indiscriminate killing looks like. The US’ bombing of Tokyo would be a good example of what indiscriminate bombing really looks like. Reckless or careless might be better descriptors for Israeli bombings, but even that I haven’t really seen good evidence for, but there’s an argument to be made there are least.
What about the church they bombed? They 'claimed' to target only places with Hamas, but where are the hostages if not with Hamas?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/high-civilian-toll-gaza-is-cost-crushing-hamas-israeli-military-officials-say-2023-12-19/
And what do you mean less than 1 death per bomb?
That incident could be evidence for reckless or careless bombing, but an incident of exclusively civilian casualties in a bombing during a war (or even multiple incidents) is not really evidence for indiscriminate killing, especially since the IDF has stated that the church was not the intended target of that strike. If they were killing indiscriminately, we’d see death tolls potentially over 100,000 civilians already, yet the numbers are significantly lower than that.
The total number of civilians killed is lower than the total number of bombs dropped. We have examples of indiscriminate bombing in history, and those were significantly worse than the current bombing campaign in Gaza.
Yeah I was kind of somewhere between earnest and sardonic with that.
We went from an age of full-on-holocaust in Europe the 1940s... to civil rights movements in America in the 1960s... to the end of the second-to-last apartheid state in South Africa in the 1990s... to the world today, where kids kind of flirt with the idea that the situation in Palestine might actually be bullshit.
It's been a loooong journey. We are still used to framing situation in terms of good guys and bad guys, instead of good systems and bad systems. Palestinians definitely did kidnap and rape a bunch of Israelis, so they can't ever fit into the "good guys" role. The systemic, multi-generational incarceration of Palestinians into the world's largest race-based open-air prison is a bad system, but the complexity of that topic scares people.
The implications of that system are also so horrifying, that people are eager to dismiss it all as untrue. If they've already cast the Israelis as good guys, it can't be true. The trend still has a long way to go.
>Because the formerly British colony was turned into a Jewish ethnostate, but 1-in-3 people born there are not Jewish.
One small correction, in Israel proper only 1 in 5 is not Jewish. If you include the whole of occupied Palestine, more than half of the population is non-jewish. At the time of israels founding, 2 in 3 people in the region weren't jewish.
Oh interesting. You're right.
Looking into it now, it appears the population of Palestine is 4.9 million (2 million in Gaza and 3 million in the West Bank.) I assume 0% of the population of the Palestinian population is Jewish.
The population of Israel is 9.7million, and they consider 73% of their population to be Jewish.
So by their numbers, 7 million Jewish people in a land of 13.7 million people. Rough stuff.
One of my "the older conservatives are crazy" moments was hearing Michelle Bachmann (i think it was) talking in a national debate about needing to support Isreal so that they could fail as a nation as per the events leading to the 2nd coming of Christ. Batshit crazy. I've heard that even more in the past 7 years from other polititians and church leaders.
You forgot about all the overtly violent acts by Israel, dozens every year. Also, Noah specifically supporting Zionism, not just Israel. Zionism being a violent racist ideology.
Great informative answer, thank you.
I was a bit alarmed by the fact you wrote that israel is using *the violence* of the hamas, while Palestinians use the *perceived" violence. Im not sure if u meant anything by it. But it did hit my ear(eye) wrong.
On reddit specifically, it's still popular to frame the conflict as "kill for kill." If Palestinians rape and kill X amount of Israelis, Israelis need to be shown raping and killing more than X Palestinians.
But outside of Reddit, before October 7th, much of the progressive academic pro-Palestinian movement was not concerned with this "who rapes and kills more" narrative. The broader concern was of the systemic violence of the brutal apartheid state. Forcing 2 million Palestinians into the world's largest open-air-prison, usually from birth, was seen as this massive act of violence. October 7th was seen as a reaction to this violence, in the same way so many rebel uprisings occurred during the age of colonialism.
Reddit isn't as concerned with colonialism, systemic oppression, and intersectionality. As far as I can tell, Reddit was basically shocked on October 7th, and now is shocked by the IDF's response. The systemic violence of the blockade and the apartheid state of Palestine, is kind of lost on Reddit.
I am sympathetic to this. We excel at telling stories about good guys and bad guys. We struggle to tell stories about good systems and bad systems. But I hate framing Israel/Palestine in a "good guys"/"bad guys" narrative. Hamas kidnapped and raped a bunch of women and children. They're objectively not good guys. But they are the logical product of a savage system of mass incarceration from birth, for the crime of being born the wrong race. It is this bad system that produces the raping and killing. Israel (and we, it's western allies) have created this bad system.
Even in a ridiculously long wall-of-text post, I couldn't fit all that in. Especially when the question is about some dumb actor in a netflix show. And double-especially while managing the subreddits (reasonable) requirements that the answer be unbiased.
>But they are the logical product of a savage system of mass incarceration from birth, for the crime of being born the wrong race.
It's so American to bring race into this. Most Israelis and most Palestinians share the same ancestry.
I just want to say I really appreciate your posts on this matter (the original comment and your other responses). I think you do a really good job of "threading the needle" so to say.
I've been arguing with others over this good guy-bad guy narrative and I really like the way that you phrased your response here.
> But I hate framing Israel/Palestine in a "good guys"/"bad guys" narrative. Hamas kidnapped and raped a bunch of women and children. They're objectively not good guys. But they are the logical product of a savage system of mass incarceration from birth, for the crime of being born the wrong race
I don't disagree with anything you said above.
But it's a chicken-and-egg problem in a way, no?
I'm an American who is certainly not a scholar on these matters. But isn't the reason for this "open air prison" because of the rockets and bombings and violence carried out for decades by Hamas?
It's like the Hatfields and McCoys now. Both sides have done bad things. Both sides feel validated in doing those bad things, because of what the other side has done.
I just see very few people trying to explain *why* Israel treats Palestine this way, even if a consensus thinks it's way overboard and barbaric, and not headed in a good direction. The "open air prison" didn't come about by a whim, it was in response to other aggression.
Right?
Israel is a live demonstration of colonial-era policy in a post-colonial era world. The problem they're seeing with their natives is exactly the same problem every colony saw all around the world a century ago.
In the early days of colonialism, the empires thought the colonial subjects would eventually accept their subjugation. But instead the colonial subjects rebelled and rebelled and rebelled. So much so that the colonies ended up costing more than they were worth! This is why the age of colonialism ended.
All colonies ended in one of two ways: annexation or withdraw. In countries like the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand, the occupied lands were all annexed. The natives were made equal citizens. The natives were logically pissed, but since they could vote, they mostly just channeled their rage through the democratic process. This is a long hard road, but it seems to reliably lead to everyone mostly chilling the fuck out.
The other option is withdraw. Examples of withdraw would be Britain leaving India, or Belgium leaving the Congo. Israelis immigrated to Israel from all around the world, and don't have some great country to withdraw back too. So that option doesn't work very well.
But that leaves Israel with few good options. If they annexed Palestine (the one state solution) and gave all the Arabs a vote, the Jewish identity of Israel would be under threat. Countries like the United States and Canada get to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, but Jewish immigrants immigrated to Israel with the explicit promise that it was going to be a Jewish ethnostate.
I may think ethnostates are a terrible idea, but at this point they've kind of escalated their commitment here. The one-state solution is really asking a lot.
The one remaining alternative is the "two state solution." Israelis withdraw from the occupied territories of Palestine and make Palestine its own country. This was the plan in the 90s. It is extremely difficult in terms of implication though, because Israel bisects Palestine.
The prime minister of Israel was going to institute this system anyway in 1995. It was at least better than the current insane status quo. But radical Israeli ultranationalists assassinated their own prime minister because of this real threat of instituting a "two state solution." The zionist utranationalists logically want all the land, not just some of it.
Unfortunately, this was as close to a solution as we ever got. Since the 90s, both sides have grown more and more radicalized. Turning Gaza into the world's largest open air prison was once unthinkable but now it's seen as kind of a reasonable option within this unreasonable framework.
I don't see any clear "slam dunk" solution to the conflict at this point. As an American, I would really rather just cut ties with Israel and treat the the way we treat all the other backwards fundamentalist countries. Take the L and move on.
This sounds like Chat Gpt, no? He was 12 when the show started and is 19 now, factually accurate but borderline irrelevant. I only really read the first paragraph, but this sounds like something it would spit out in answer the the prompt who is Noah Schnapp?
Chat GPT’s knowledge cut off is ~~January of 2022~~**April 2023**. It has no knowledge of any events since then, not the current Israel-Hamas and certainly not the Noah Schnapp controversy. Doesn’t mean the comment is not a bot, but it isn’t Chat GPT.
Edit: Updated Dates
It’s really not, especially when you start to read between the lines.
They’ve intentionally minimised Israel’s actions (18k civilians killed) by claiming its ‘perceived violence’ vs their description of Palestine’s ‘overtly violent atrocities.’
Shockingly good answer imo.
The only thing I'd add is that probably most folks in support of Palestine don't have as complete an understanding of the above as is detailed, but have generally grown up exposed to media detailing the more general history of the Palestinian struggle and what I guess we might term Israeli military excess.
I'd be pretty proud of myself if I could get ChatGPT to say anything close to this. I wouldn't characterize my take here as "spicy" but to ChatGPT standards, this is practically a Carolina Reaper.
I was confused about this, too. I’m not sure where the citation of this date is but like it’s gotta be a typo right?
Even disregarding the declaration of Israel as an independent state I’m pretty confident that the Palestine sympathy is arising much more within the last 8 years than 80.
>more liberal
Here I think it might actually be useful to say “more progressive.” I mean, I’m already the type that tends to argue there are important distinctions between liberal/progressive/leftist, but even if we don’t want to go down that road in general, I think “progressive” is where the real dividing line is in this specific debate. Plenty of mainstream liberal people support Israel. This is a point of contention within the entire left-of-center wing of the political spectrum, and splitting things by mainstream “liberal” and “progressive” allows us to more clearly point to what we’re talking about.
> The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade
Israel has been killing Palestinian civilians for decades. Often by shooting them from afar.
Why say something like "the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade"? It is murder of civilians. Israel has been committing war crimes for decades. Many Israelis are against this and don't support how Palestinians have been treated. You can more clearly see the willingness and practice of them killing Palestinian civilians in the recent conflict. Look at how many children have been killed and how many children have been maimed and seriously injured. Israel is still shooting unarmed Civilians with sniper rifles.
Hamas and the Palestinian soldiers working for Hamas have done terrible things too, including killing Israeli civilians. These actions should be condemned just as much as the actions of the Israeli government against civilians.
You comment seems to intentionally leave out the killing of civilians by Israel. It isn't "perceived violence". Shooting and killing civilians is real violence.
Answer: I’m adding to the comments that Noah Schnapp has liked posts on instagram that are incredibly homophobic and racist towards Gazans as well.
He can scream and cry about how unsafe he feels while parading around his “Zionism is sexy” stickers as if it’s a cute trend and not 6 year olds getting blown up and suffer no consequences
Meanwhile Melissa Barrera loses her job for being against genocide.
He’s not just supportive of Israel. He’s radically supportive of Israel, sporting stickers that say “Zionism is sexy” and calling people who defend Palestine terrorists
A Jewish state called Israel = Zionism
2-state solution (so there would be a Jewish state called Israel and a state called Palestine) = Zionism
If you think Israel should exist, in any capacity, you are a Zionist.
Essentially, you do have to choose. Do you believe that Israel should exist in any capacity, or do you believe that it should be dismantled as a state? If you don’t believe in dismantling it and Israel no longer existing, then you’re a Zionist. If you do believe in dismantling the state, I think you’re incredibly naive as to the fate of the Jews living there.
When you hear someone speaking out against zionists, you should ask yourself:
Do they believe that Zionism simply means jewish extremism?
OR
Do they not want Israel to exist?
Zionism =\= Zionist movement
Zionism 80 years ago =\= Zionism today thanks to the Zionist movement
Zionism achieved its goal decades ago. Then it was coopted by ultra far right nationalist who have been expanding into illegal settlements using violence and terror. That is the modern zionist movement. That is how it has been viewed by the rest of the world for the last +30 years. Movements change. What starts as something good changes to something bad. That is just how movements work.
So when some ignorant kid comes along and posts "Zionism is sexy" it's going to ruffle feathers.
Put another way, imagine having the Soviets at your doorsteps and some Soviet Russian kid posting (imagine there was Twitter in the Cold War Era) "communism is sexy." People would lose their shit. Would it be sufficient for a Soviet sympathizer to merely rebut with "communism according to the dictionary is equal distribution and ownership of bla bla bla so not bad."
The opposition to Zionism didn’t start 30 years ago.
This idea that the primary issue is settlements in the West Bank or some extremist movement that just cropped up recently is incredibly naive.
The reason for terrorism and war is the Zionism of 80 years ago, where Israel exists.
Tell me you have no Jewish friends without telling me you have no Jewish friends.
The vast majority of Jews (90+%) are Zionist. And yes when the vast majority of Jews describe their Zionism they believe Israel should exist and want peace with the Palestinians.
>[Zionism - noun - an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Zionism#:~:text=%3A%20an%20international%20movement%20originally%20for,the%20support%20of%20modern%20Israel)
Classic Merriam Webster with their crafty propaganda out to hoodwink the public with the underhand use of definitions. Not this time!
______________
[Long before the emergence of Hitler I made the cause of Zionism mine because through it I saw a means of correcting a flagrant wrong....The Jewish people alone has for centuries been in the anomalous position of being victimized and hounded as a people, though bereft of all the rights and protections which even the smallest people normally has...Zionism offered the means of ending this discrimination. Through the return to the land to which they were bound by close historic ties...Jews sought to abolish their pariah status among peoples... The advent of Hitler underscored with a savage logic all the disastrous implications contained in the abnormal situation in which Jews found themselves. Millions of Jews perished... because there was no spot on the globe where they could find sanctuary...The Jewish survivors demand the right to dwell amid brothers, on the ancient soil of their fathers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein#:~:text=In%20a%201938%20speech%2C%20%22Our,creation%20of%20a%20Jewish%20state.).
That man's name? A wildly irrational bloodthirsty fascist rightly reviled by being, as you astutely note, effectively a white supremacist named Albert Einstein (who, it should be noted, had very complicated views on the Jewish state but is relevant here for the usage of the term Zionism).
Edit: it’s remarkable how people are aggressively missing the point, which is to provide the dictionary definition and its real world usage. That is spelled out as clearly as possible in the final statement, I don’t know it could have been made more clear.
Btw Einstein was against Israel once the occupation started. He was a socialist. In fact, Gabor Mattei, Noam Chomsky all were ‘Zionist’ before the founding of Israel. They became against after how it
All went through. Einstein you was considered to be once the prime minister of Israel would be considered a self hating Jew later in his life
Ah yes, because that's how things work. And I'm sure that men's rights activists are solely focused on men's rights, right?
It would be cute if it wasn't such a serious topic
I always interpret "Zionism" to hold deeper meaning than that. It carries the connotation of a "promised land" mindset, which is nothing if not dangerous, in my opinion. Thinking land is your destiny always leads to trouble.
No, he's supportive of Zionism. Something that the world recognized through UN resolution for decades as being racist. Israel demanded the resolution be revoked as a condition for peace talks that they then tanked in 1991.
Answer: He’s not supporting the terrorists in the ongoing conflict, and idiots all over the internet don’t like it when people don’t support terrorists.
Answer: he recently has been pretty vocal about the conflict. And while being vocal he has shared several controversial things. He recently posted a story with “zionism is sexy” stickers. Last week he also “liked” a highly controversial post that was making what people found to be islamophobic and racist jokes. Link to the screen shot in another sub https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/s/H2lx3Sqrlt
Ugh... I wish I could go back to five minutes ago when I hadn't read this post.
Never meet your heroes
I just wanted a picture. You can't disappoint a picture! I hate you Pierce!
Butterfly in The sky…..
A bit of a force but you still get my up vote for a random community quote
Never meet the maladjusted child actor from your favourite Netflix series
You think that dude is anyone's hero?
Answer: Noah Schnapp is one of the child actors from the Netflix show Stranger Things. He was 12 when the show premiered and is 19 now. In most seasons of the show, he plays the sensitive gay kid who gets captured by the monster and must be rescued by his party of friends. On October 7th, war broke out between Palestine and Israel again. Following these events, Noah Schnapp made posts on social media supporting Israel, specifically being seen wearing merchandise with the slogan "zionism is sexy" on it. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is controversial and often poorly understood. Historically, western nations have been overwhelmingly supportive of Israel. It was not considered a partisan issue. However, over the past 80 years, there has been a trend, especially among young liberals, to support Palestine instead of Israel. This trend is often baffling to older and more conservative Americans. From what I can tell, the difference in perspectives stems from extraordinarily different understandings of the context of the conflict. Many older and conservative westerners see Palestine as a separate country from Israel. They emphasise that Israel exists as the original homeland of the Jewish people. Palestine attacks on Israel are seen as an attempt to carry out a second WW2 style antisemetic genocide, in the name of Islamic terrorism. Many younger and more liberal westerners emphasis that Palestine is not a separate country from Israel, but rather an occupied territory of Israel. They emphasise that Israel was created as a colonial state, and in many ways still exists as a colonial state in a post-colonial world. In their worldview, the country of Israel was created by antisemetic Europeans in the 1940s to prevent holocaust refugees from returning home. Because the formerly British colony was turned into a Jewish ethnostate, but 1-in-3 people born there are not Jewish, the conflict between Palestine and Israel is seen as the same conflict between all apartheid states and their colonial governments from centuries past. The pro-Israel side usually focuses on the overtly violent atrocities of Hamas. The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade, in which Gaza is characterized as the world's largest open-air prison that millions of Israeli's indigenous natives are born into, for the crime of being the wrong race. Historically, Netflix targeted young college-aged audiences, because these audiences did not already subscribe to cable TV services, and were more open to the new invention of "streaming" television. Netflix programming was thus characterized as being very progressive and gay compared to traditional television programming. Therefore, it is surprising to netflix audiences that a netflix actor would come out in overt support of Israel, potentially alienating the young liberal audience of Netflix.
>He was 12 when the show premiered and is 19 now Holy sh!t! F*** I'm old!!
I was scrolling one day saw a post and thought "cute guy" realized it was was the main stranger kid Finn, started panic googling his age(only a year younger) then realized when stranger things released. And proceeded to have an existential crisis over the way I perceive time as a new adult. lf you told me it was a quarantine binge I might've actually believed it
What really made me feel it was when someone mentioned something about a song from when I was in high school and it said something like "This (1990s song) is now as old as the Beach Boys (60s song) was when (the 90s song) came out." I accidentally shouted "oh *f@#$* no!" in front of my 4yo and instantly googled the years and did the math...hoping it was wrong.
In my head ‘99 was like 10 years ago. If that makes sense.
Right before covid, I got a chance to ask somebody born in the early 2000s what decade they thought off when people say “10 years ago” and they also said “the 90s” so apparently this also happens to people who weren’t even around back then though I’m not sure how widespread that is.
I feel like it has something to do with a combination of how millennials have prolonged the popularity of their favorite 90s trends/media well into our development, and us simply not wanting to believe that our first two decades are over, that we are adults and we have to face the hellscape that's been left to us with next to no preparation 🙃
I think it’s a side effect of HD and digital video. Until digital video storage, stuff would wear out and show at least a bit of age but now footage shot in the early 2000s looks like footage shot now whereas before older films and tv stuff looked different so maybe it’s the fact that the 90s was the last full decade where footage of it looked different?
Maybe, but I'm still gonna insist on being salty about the chokehold harry potter and Pokemon have had on my predecessors
This sentence is just so good out of context (and even in context)
They probably have cool parents.
I was born in 87 and the '70s was definitely only thirty years ago
2001 was 22 years ago and 1995 was 10 years ago. the math works
1985 feels like "just yesterday" and I still think of Back to the Future as a recent film.
and the song about 1985 came out in 2004 ... when 1985 was as long ago as 2004 is now
“The Wedding Singer” came out in 1998 and is set in 1985. An equivalent film made today would be set in 2010.
Thanks I hate it
I remember being in high school and having a conversation about how Snoop and Dre would be like classic rock in thirty years. My favorite radio station these days is one that plays hip hop from the 90s and earlier.
"That famous 20th century musician Aaron Carter" God I've never felt so old.
I felt that with movies. 1999 was a MASSIVE year for movies with the matrix, Star Wars episode 1, American beauty, fight club, American beauty, she’s all that, Toy Story 2, the sixth sense etc. in 2 weeks it will be about 25 years since these films came out. When they came out films like Rocky, Jaws, Star Wars a new hope, Halloween were all UNDER 25 years old. The fact this difference in time is shocking to me
Don't forget American Beauty.
Lol, I had that same realization too when my kids were groaning about me listening to the 80s station. It occurred to me suddenly that it was the same as me groaning about my dad listening to 50s music when I was a kid and then I wanted to cry. But, here, if you ever want to turn it around on someone near your age, refer to your high school years as "back before the turn of the century." It is hilarious watching the wheels turn because almost always they're confused as to why you're talking about the 1890s and then see the horror dawn on them when they realize you mean the 1990s.
It blew my son's mind when I told him I had met people born in the 1800s. Even if it was when I was his age 30 years ago and they were in their 90s or over 100.
When I was a teenager in the early 90s I "babysat" a woman who was 102 (really I just hung out with her when her daughter went out so I could like call 911 or whatever if need be). She was still really spry and with it and she'd set up these activities for us to do that she thought proper ladies should know how to do like china painting and making paper roses. It was fascinating to hear her talk about when she was my age. My kids can't even fathom that I knew someone who could remember the year 1900.
[Interview of a woman born in 1868.](https://youtu.be/e4FZkXvAY94?si=8NQyKwpENueZu9z0)
>"back before the turn of the century." I predicted in high school that our generations were going to feel old faster than previous generations. (1) because it wasn't going to be long before having to tell someone you born in the 1900s (even if it was 1999) would be weird and (2) how fast technology was changing then... That seems to have skyrocketed since then. My husband and I made a joke of it even before getting pregnant with our first kid, where we'd point to something in a 2001 movie and say "Daddy, what's that!" "That's a telephone booth, son..."
Its crazy to think we are as far from the 90s now as we were from the 60s in the 90s.
Oh yea. It’s wild. I still think 1980 was only 20 yrs ago.
I was going to say the same. The 80’s are perpetually 20 years ago for me, and I very much prefer not having this illusion shattered in any way.
And it only gets exponentially worse the older you get
i felt the same thing when seeing tony hawk in an old man commercial for cholesterol supplements
Wait until the stranger things cast starts playing parents. That's how I felt when I saw Josh Hutcherson playing a dad in the Five Nights at Freddie's movie. My knees audibly creeked.
I appreciate your mostly even-handed take on this complex issue. It’s refreshing to see online these days.
When talking about the abhorrent things HAMAS did > overtly violent atrocities When talking about the abhorrent things the IDF did (which btw are much worse, yk since **almost** 20k civilians including literal children have died gruesome deaths in the last 2 months) >perceived violence Yes, this is definitely an even-handed take. Lol.
This was clearly written to be unassailable to Zionists and as an anti-zionist I deeply appreciate how it was written actually
I agree. It's an even handed take that focuses on how the conflict currently looks in the mind of people in the West right now; that explains the heavy emphasis on Gaza and no mention of the Left Bank.
While the west bank contain some of the best examples of the apartheid system some of the conditions are so inconceivable to the minds of people in the west that they usually have to go themselves in order to understand the scope of it. We in America live in a country which on paper ended Jim Crow not long after Israel was founded, and Israel runs the most sophisticated and brutal iteration of a Jim Crow system you could really imagine. Gaza being considered the worlds largest open air prison is roughly the amount the western brain can take on at one time without overloading
It's a good explanation but there are bits like "perceived violence" which are nothing "even handed". I'm "perceiving" that violence in 4k video from across the planet. The "optics" are great but the look is not good.
The what bank?!
There is no such thing as even handed or unbiased when we are talking about relationship between coloniser and colonised
Except Israel's violence is also VERY overt and has been long before October 7th.
It’s ok you guys are on the same team. He agrees with you.
No shit. "An attempt to carry out a second WW2 style genocide..." Yes, because 300 terrorists killing about 1500 people is the same as a nation-state invading, conquering and subjugating multiple neighboring nation-states and creating mass work camps, deliberately starving and engaging in systematic extermination via industrial means. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.
I was gonna point this out too. One is overt, the other perceived? That's not biased language at all lmao. Weird how people are claiming it's fair.
TBF, they did say *mostly*. And yeah, that mostly is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
My public defender when I had four felonies did less lifting
I agree. "Unbiased" in this subreddit just means "conforms to the status quo." But the status quo here is the result of mass ignorance. So it presents a fascinating paradox: Being informed biases me, and a biased comment would be deleted, preserving the mass ignorance. I think I was intrigued to make this (indulgently long wall-of-text) post because I wanted to try my hand at navigating this paradox. Perhaps I overcorrected? I wonder.
Just to note, you can express a biased opinion either by including a "bias:" preface, or responding to your own comment. I hear what you're saying in terms of an informed position seeming to be biased when it doesn't conform to the accepted status quo. In my experience though, comments that present factual information and minimize characterization can often express unpopular positions without being removed. It's things like noting that a given creep identifies as a white nationalist rather than just describing them as a white nationalist.
It's close or is the best explanation I've seen. It seemed you put effort into being unbiased. People way over on each side will definitely disagree anyway. In my experience, if multiple people from both sides attack you when you clearly tried to explain both issues without bias, then you probably nailed it.
A follow up question to your thoughtful reply: I always heard that the motivation for the British to “give” Israel to the Jews was done out of empathy for what they went through in the camps, rather than the uglier “don’t come back” reasoning. Can you point me towards anything documenting the antisemitic motivation?
The edited collection Palestine: A Socialist Introduction (which is available as a free ebook from Haymarket Books currently) has a fair amount of history and analysis (obviously with a socialist slant and bias) of this issue. This is largely based on things said and written by Herzl (a major early Zionist) who believed that antisemitism could not be "cured" only avoided by rejecting assimilation through the creation of a Jewish state outside of Europe. This also started in the late 19th century and the motivation was not solely in response to Nazi violence but rather the much longer history of antisemitism in Europe. eta: I don't necessarily think the motivation was antisemitic but was rather anti-assimilationist. It's a long and complex issue and I'm not an expert but this is some of what I've been learning from reading as much as I can about the history.
I think I understand Zionism, in general. I am curious about the motivations that went into the formation of the nation (and leading to today's conflict). While so much of today's viewpoint is framed by the holocaust, my last wiki dive pointed out that much of the politics involved in inviting jews to move to Israel happened before WW2 (matching what you said).
I think you did a decent job, but I do feel like you made a fundamental mistake in what the split between the older and younger generation is defined by. It isn't really Palestine being occupied vs a state, because it wasn't really the latter. It's more remembering a pre- vs post- Second Intifada world. Older people remember an Israel that was routinely the underdog and faced unfair, daunting odds through the 1970s, then ultimately succeeding. Many also remember the pretty heinous terrorism by the PLO such as the Munich Olympic terrorist attacks. Remember that RFK was killed by a supporter the Palestinian cause, after all. As well, while Israel started to lose its shine during the South Lebanon incurrision, many older people also remember the promise of the Oslo Accords and the pull out from Lebanon, and how it fell apart in the Camp David Summit in 2000, much of which was blamed on Arafat. While now blame is traded on both sides (imo Arafat stupidly set up a timeframe of 5 years and got screwed by Hamas causing a Likud win. They both went into the Summit in bad faith, with Arafat believing he would be able to get better concessions in a further round and Israel thinking they could get better concessions due to Arafat's promise and the fear of further Likud governments. Unfortunately Arafat bet wrong, the breakdown was too politically damaging and Likud won which killed a better peace deal), older people certainly remember how their offer of peace lead to the extremely violent Second Intifada, which certainly made the Palestinians look like they were acting in bad faith all along. Most of the younger generation have seen the post-Second Intifada world, where Israel vowed to do what was necessary to secure peace as the left saw fatal blows from the fallout to their attempt at the Summit. An increasingly oppressive, controlled state for the West Bank, a party supportive of settlements with the population non plussed as long as security was relatively stable, which it was in light of the Intifada. A Gaza that became an open air prison after the Palestinian Taliban gained control, Israel doing what it felt was necessary to make sure a Third Intifada could not happen again. An Israel that's become increasingly partisan on the world stage as the Israeli left became increasingly enfeebled by internal scandals and policy failures. An Israel that's also become increasingly emboldened to actvwuth impunity both due to terms from Oslo making US support mostly guaranteed and increasing suspicious by (frankly justified) bias from opposing institutions like the UN and HRW. And seeing a Palestinian people continuously failed by its leadership riven with corruption and division, increasingly alienated from potential allies, and an increasing lack of willingness by Israel to engage. So yeah, I think having a split based around the second Intifada, at least from an outsiders perspective, make the most sense. Of course there's many, MANY other factors that impact this conflict, not the least if which how the US youth is becoming increasingly leftist and picking up on historical anti-Israel leftist views encouraged by the Soviet Union as well as new influenced from Islamic perspectives with their own biases. But I think in general it's a decent way to discuss the general generational split, and why there's such a strong split and why a lack of perspective on either side leads to such alienated discussion.
This is a curious perspective and I do appreciate it. But I don't think your narrative of this "second Intifada" is sound. Westerners in the 90s expected the Oslo Accords to end the apartheid state of Israel the same way Nelson Mandela ended the apartheid state of South Africa. Israel was relatively progressive at the time, being mostly comprised of first/second generation European immigrants who fled the holocaust. Since jewish people from all around the world were meeting in Israel, the cities were necessarily cosmopolitan and liberal. While the one-state-solution was more progressive and also more coherent, a multi-cultural Israel would require admitting that the whole idea of the country was a mistake. This was asking too much. So instead the two state solution was pursued. The two state solution was pretty stupid though. Israel bisected Gaza and the West Bank. The practical application of the idea was just fundamentally flawed. The West Bank would have to rule Gaza without actually having access to it. Ridiculous. Palestine was (and still is) an occupied territory of Israel, so the narrative of "Palestine refusing the two state solution" is miserably dumb propaganda. Israel forced Palestine into unconditional surrender after winning every war. As the conquering colonialists, Israel has always had unilateral authority to institute whatever the fuck they want (as has been demonstrated, to the extreme!) Israel's prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was working to set up exactly what he wanted, to unilaterally institute a two-state solution, when he was assassinated in 1995 by fundamentalist Israeli settlers. He was assassinated by Israeli ultranationalists precisely because of his credible threat of instituting the two state solution. By the 90s, the rate of European immigration to Israel had slowed, while the growth rate of fundamentalist Israeli settlers had exploded. So the fundamentalists murdered Israelis progressive leaders, blamed some irrelevant Palestinian scapegoat, and have controlled the country ever sense. It is a melancholy truth that all humans are the product of their environment. Israelis thought they could "change the desert" but of course it was the desert that changed the Israelis. Over time they have simply become exactly like the native middle eastern fundamentalists surrounding them. The cities are still relatively progressive for now, but less so every year. Our grand children will likely note little difference between Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. The fact that Israel is Jewish will just be one of those oddities of history, like the way Rwanda is christian but Somalia is Muslim.
Your initial comment felt like it had some over corrections to limit arguments against it, but seeing your continued fleshing out of your point and addressing how you were simply trying to navigate your bias because of the reality of the situation has led me from considering down voting your initial comment to up voting you and finally to this comment saying "good job." You're navigating this issue well.
I agree with the last points, although some of your points are a bit weird. Yes, the two state solution is flawed, but no one ever seriously considered or even considers a one state solution, and definitely not at the time. The two state solution goes back to [UN Resolution 242](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242) after the Six Years War and were codified by the Camp David Accords. No one expected in the 90s for that to change, there was too much bad blood on both sides for that to be considered. I also disagree with the "refusing statehood" as being propaganda. While there could be arguments on how far Israel would have recognized the Summit agreement, and it had flaws for the Palestinian side, it would have fundamentally have created a Palestinian state and given it far greater power over its territory and autonomy than it currently could dream of. As you said, Israel had the option of setting up far worse, and was willing to give up much control and presenting, if not exactly fair, a reasonable option for statehood all factors considered in a realpolitik sense. Considering how the outcome played a major in the Israeli left falling into decline, and how the realization that the Second Intifada was in the works even at that time irreparably damaging the trust in the two sides, I wouldn't consider that claim a hit job on the Palestinians. I think that latter sentence really speaks to why I mark the Second Intifada as a marking point of generations. It marked a complete change in Israel's attitude for the worse because it irreparably damaged any sense that a peace process was a viable option and the fragile trust the sides had for each other, although considering the power balance more importantly Israel. Regardless how justified you think it was, it irreversibly killed off the process that had started since that resolution and led to the current situation.
I’ve been wondering if OP knows any of this. Certainly knows more than the average reddditor, but a whole host of curious omissions.
You did fine. People just get upset when there is a chance for their "team" to score points and the opportunity isn't taken. Notably, nobody wants to talk about the question in the title, about the actor. They just want another go round of scoring points for their team. As if there aren't already a kajillion places to do that.
Fighting genocide and wanting people to be free of occupation is not a team sport.
That’s a good point but it’s definitely that simple and there’s no reason to think any harder about it. Black = bad. White = good. Complication and nuance are the tools of oppressors. Learning only makes you less easily outraged, hence it’s a bad thing.
No, it’s about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the horrific violence inflicted upon its people by the fascist apartheid regime of Israel. It’s about a conflict that has claimed 20k+ Palestinian lives since October 7 alone. This is not a football match. It’s not about “teams” and who is trying to “score points”. Referring to an ongoing genocide and the debate about whether it is justified or not as a simple matter of “team A” vs. “team B” is not only highly reductive but downright asinine.
came here for this 'percieved violence' my ass this was one the most bs takes ive seen on the situation
Hence the “mostly” qualifier. I would also encourage you to find a war in all of human history where innocent people, including women and children, were left unscathed on either side. Armed conflict is a complete mess and many good people pay the price for things they were never involved in.
At what point does it progress from "civilians die in war" to genocide?
When the intended goal is to wipe out the civilian population as opposed to civilians dying due to collateral damage.
Quite a while ago.
running cover for Israel with antifa in your username is jokes
[удалено]
At this point? What was Israel doing pre- 10/7. What was Hamas doing?
If you want an actual answer, Israel was mostly killing Palestinian children and HAMAS was mostly still being a terrorist group [Israel was doing way more killing though](https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/s/uXkbkHRwii)
Objectively it is a conflict. You can make the (correct) argument that it’s a vastly disproportionate conflict, but lives have been taken on both sides.
Israel doesn’t want to exterminate every Palestinian. Quite frankly, if they wanted to, that’d be pretty easy to accomplish. They want the leaders of Hamas to surrender to prosecution. Why won’t they? It’s Hamas that’s prolonging this conflict. They have all the power to stop it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And that's not even considering the 70+ years of oppression and atrocities committed by the IOF on the Palestinian people
Kidnapping, shooting, and beheading babies. Slitting children's throats. Gang raping and torturing preteens for hours. Raping women with instruments to the point their pelvis broke. Amputating limbs off of women they raped while being forced to lay next to the corpse of their friends. Raping dead women. Urinating and deficating on mutilated corpses. Hacking whole families to death with machetes. Parading naked women's bodies through the streets. Burning entire families alive in their homes. Raping and murdering children while they forced the parents to watch. Gouging the eyes out of parents while the kids are forced to watch. Cutting off women's breasts. Binding children's hands and feet then shooting them execution style in front of the parents. Binding mother's to their children and then lighting them on fire. Cutting open pregnant women's belly and pulling out the child out of the womb and beheading it and lighting it on fire. This is what Hamas has done. Can you tell me what the IDF is "much worse" than this?
No one's mad about killing HAMAS. Okay well someone probably is but most aren't. Most people aren't cool with the killing of people behind those walls that didn't do the horrific stuff that you just wrote out.
Bro. The bending babies thing was debunked in like two days. That you are still trying to use it is embarrassing. There was a total of one dead or missing baby in the Oct 7th attacks. If you think I am believing pro Hamas propaganda, I'd point out that number comes from the Israeli government. Also... Look into the atrocities of IDF they are many and as bad as any actually confirmed Hamas act.
Brother, you can literally find the images of the rapes, tortures, decapitated and burned dead babies online. You’re falling for the “proof” narrative. This is all confirmed with a quick google search or a deep dive to see videos of the atrocities.
Wow, there is footage of things IDF forces do too? That is totally related to my point that the beheaded babies story was fake Israel propaganda you bought into. "But it also invalidates some statements by Israeli authorities in the days following the attack. In particular, a claim made on October 10 on the government's official X (formerly Twitter) account spoke of "40 babies murdered" at Kfar Aza kibbutz, based on a report by i24NEWS channel. According to Bituah Leumi, 46 civilians were killed in Kfar Aza, the youngest 14 years old." https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-israel-social-security-data-reveals-true-picture-of-oct-7-deaths https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-773049 If you want to be taken seriously, you are going to have to admit you were wrong about the beheaded babies. You know where a lot of babies have been murdered though? Gaza.
I had a hard time even reading what the person wrote to whom your reply was directed. Researching the claims would be an exercise in self inflicted mental trauma, so I can only go with my gut instinct that some of the claims are true, some exaggerated and some fabricated.
Nowadays worse is just a numbers game, even though its illogical. It also implies that Hamas given the military strength and technology of the IDF would simply restrain themselves. I firmly believe that if they had the capability, like a nuke, they would erase Israel from existence.
>Nowadays worse is just a numbers game, even though its illogical. Aah, yes, the Stalin approach: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic". Seriously, just how brainwashed must you be to claim that more deaths being worse than less deaths is illogical?
Starving NICUs so all the babies die a slow death is up there.
That is far from even handed.
You need to have a single digit brain cell to think it was even-handed. Thousands of people have been murdered in Palestine
“Perceived violence” and other such phrasing… bro could write for the New York Times at this rate
What's a single digit brain cell
I think they meant "a single digit brain cell count", as in "less than 10 brain cells"
4
[удалено]
This post is indicative of the way mature adults approach issues that are not at all black and white.
Why did you characterize Hamas’ attacks as “overtly violent”, but not the IDF? Sounds fairly biased to me
I didn’t. I also used the word “mostly”.
This is also an OOTL post comment, not a comprehensive thesis on the subject. That was a pretty decent neutral explanation
I think alot of the criticism was aimed at the post because he ended it with "You either stand with Israel or you stand with terrorism. It shouldn't be a difficult choice. Shame on you."
Because everything has to be a binary, yes or no, black and white, choice....
Yeah for sure, that was my main problem with it as well. Showing empathy to victims of Oct 7 makes sense. But attempting to reduce such a complicated conflict to Israel vs. terrorism is just not factually correct.
I get he's a kid and has been convinced he has to have a bais due to his religion(which he doesn't but that's a whole separate thing most adults struggle with).But I think if he ended if differently people would have forgot after a day. I'm not trying to shittalk him but of all the actors on stranger things he doesn't need any controversy around him post that show ending. Like he's on the 30 under 30 list and that pure nonsense decision given outside of being the voice of Charlie brown he got nothing of note going on.
Ah yes, the teenager's world view
>The pro-Israel side usually focuses on the overtly violent atrocities of Hamas. The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade. A largely balanced response deeply undercut here. The violence of Hamas is considered (rightly) obvious while the blockade is “perceived” and the current ongoing military action in the Gaza Strip is not mentioned at all. Even without the blockade being perceived as violence one could not deny that the current conflict has been heavily skewed towards one in which innocent Palestinians are suffering at a level far beyond what occurred on October 7th in terms of scale.
There is also the West Bank violence, and the massive broad scale discrimination against Israeli Arabs.
The violence in the West Bank is a bit more complicated however: What the settlers are doing is actually *illegal* in Israel and a large part of the Knesset and Israeli population would happily see the settlers, who they perceive as radicalised thugs and terrorists, arrested and their settlements rolled back. In particular, they are seen as exploiting an obligation from the government that they have to be protected, which many Israelis perceive as the settlers basically just taking the piss and exploiting the law. The other half see them as doing what the government of Israel hasn't the balls to do. The likes of Netenyahu and his government refuse to act against the illegal settlers because it's an open secret that they don't really consider their actions a problem, even though they are illegal. It's not really state-sponsored violence in this case, as it is with official military operations: rather the deeply divided state of politics in Israel has sort of paralysed the state and prevented it from taking definite action against them, while the settlers exploit laws requiring the IDF protect them from harm.
TIL that killing ~1200 people is "overtly violent", but killing more than 15x as many people is "perceived as violent"
30% of that 1200 is military btw.
My only issue with your explanation is > overtly violent atrocities VS >perceived violence Like, in my opinion, 18,000 dead civilians is what I world consider overly violent and I’m sure it’s actually happening and not just my perception of what’s happening 🤔
Yeah, I was on board until that VERY biased wording.
It’s clearly written to prevent Zionists from dismissing it. It’s smart.
Calling it a war was indication enough
They were referring to the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza as perceived violence.
>The pro-Israel side usually focuses on the overtly violent atrocities of Hamas. The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade, in which Gaza is characterized as the world's largest open-air prison that millions of Israeli's indigenous natives are born into, for the crime of being the wrong race. Good and balanced comment, but just to add here: it isn't a perceived violence, it is a confirmed violence since the Palestinian causalities and dead are nearing 20,000 in 2 months. And that's not mentioning the starvation and indiscriminate bombings. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/19/palestinian-casualties-in-gaza-near-20000-with-nearly-2m-people-displaced#:\~:text=Israeli%20forces%20killed%2025%20people,the%20territory%20climbed%20towards%2020%2C000](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/19/palestinian-casualties-in-gaza-near-20000-with-nearly-2m-people-displaced#:~:text=Israeli%20forces%20killed%2025%20people,the%20territory%20climbed%20towards%2020%2C000).
I don’t get why people are having trouble with this line…. Please reread that statement. The “perceived violence of the blockade” is referring to the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of goods and people in and out of Gaza that has existed since 2007 - well *before* the current conflict. OP is not referring to IDF actions during this conflict as “perceived violence”.
Had to scroll too far to find this. This should be at the top. Thank you for the clarification
Ok but if that's the case, that is absolutely not the thing most pro-Palestinian advocates focus on when talking about this conflict.
Not to mention constant settler pograms in the West Bank.
Perceived violence of the Gaza blockade? Israel themselves admit to killing thousands of children! It is not perceived nor it is just a blockade
"perceived violence against Palestinians" Yes, perceived by the UN, the EU, human rights watch, the red crescent and red cross, and essentially every nation that isn't the US, Britain, or Israel.
>The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade, Not right now. The thousands of civilians being killed by Israel is the main focus right now. Thousands of innocent children have been killed by Israel.
There is more than "perceived violence of the Gaza blockade". That is slimy minimizing language that shows which side you truly on . Give me a few to gather these "perceived violence" data points from the IDF.
>war broke out Right
Lol I love how blatantly one-sided this is written. Saying that the difference between the generations is the "context of the conflict" rather than personal morals, and the wording of the pro-israel side being against the "overtly violent atrocities" where as the pro-Palestine side is "focuses on the *perceived violence* of the Gaza *blockades*". Perceived violence? Just the blockade? And it's not context of the conflict, it's that we haven't been brainwashed enough to support killing thousands of innocents in retaliation for what a terrorist organization from the same area did. Ethnic cleansing isn't ok. We've also seen way more footage and journalistic covering of how Israel treats their occupied areas as well.
> Palestine instead of Israel I would reword this. It comes off like you're saying that people are against Israel's existence, which isn't the case. They're (we're) specifically against Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people. It also fails to separate Hamas from the Palestinian civilians.
> It comes off like you're saying that people are against Israel's existence, which isn't the case [A majority of young Americans believe Israel should "be ended and given to Hamas," according to a poll conducted last week.](https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/majority-of-young-americans-feel-israel-should-be-ended-given-to-hamas-poll-shows-gaza-strip-middle-east-palestine-war-invasion-october-7-terrorism-harvard-upenn-mit-poll) Page 69 of [this poll.](https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/HHP_Dec23_KeyResults.pdf)
[удалено]
It's a bit of a stretch to characterize Hamas as the ruling government of Gaza. Gaza is not a country. It's an occupied territory of Israel. Like the West Bank, it was conquered by Israel in the war of 1967 and forced into unconditional surrender. There was a lot of talk about making it a country in the 1990s (the two state solution) but then Israeli ultra-nationists assassinated their own prime minister to prevent that. The ultranationalist settler demographic has grown more significant each year since. Consequently, there is not any serious talk about making it a country anymore. Israel did hold a vote for local government within the occupied territory of Gaza in 2006. Hamas won, but the result was dismissed by Israel (as is their right, as the territory's sovereign authority.) I think it was kind of like if a school principle held a vote for student-council-president, and an ornery student body voted for some subversive protest-candidate. The principle can logically just dismiss the result of the vote, since it's all a big fucking farce anyway. Now here we are 17 years later, and zionists still characterize Hamas as the government of Gaza. The self-styled "president of Hamas" doesn't even live in Gaza. He'd be dead if he did. All of Hamas "leadership" lives in Qatar and is funded by Iran. Most of the 2,000,000 residents of Gaza weren't even born during this one dismissed vote. But they become Hamas if they hate being imprisoned, and everyone hates being imprisoned, so everyone is Hamas. It's kind of like differentiating slaves from rebel slaves. What slave wouldn't rebel? It fucking sucks to be a slave.
>Gaza is not a country. It's an occupied territory of Israel. Israel hasn’t occupied Gaza since 2007. >slaves What slaves are you referring to? It seems like you fundamentally misunderstand the conflict.
Misunderstanding the conflict is the first step towards reducing to pure simplicity and gorging on that precious precious outrage.
Idk I’m pretty sure most Palestinians are against Israel’s existence given their [support for Hamas](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-palestinians-opinion-poll-wartime-views-a0baade915619cd070b5393844bc4514) which explicitly wants to commit genocide against the Jews… no country on earth would allow an organization like Hamas to continue to exist if it launched an attack on them like Hamas did, while Hamas claims to want to genocide your country.
The problem isn't that Israel wants to get rid of Hamas. That's totally understandable. The problem is **how** Israel is going about getting rid of Hamas. Indiscriminately killing civilians and such. (Another problem is the general treatment of Palestinians by Israel outside of this current conflict, but that's another discussion.)
They’re not indiscriminately killing civilians. If they were, we’d see significantly higher death tolls right now. There’s been less than one death per bomb dropped. That’s not what indiscriminate killing looks like. The US’ bombing of Tokyo would be a good example of what indiscriminate bombing really looks like. Reckless or careless might be better descriptors for Israeli bombings, but even that I haven’t really seen good evidence for, but there’s an argument to be made there are least.
What about the church they bombed? They 'claimed' to target only places with Hamas, but where are the hostages if not with Hamas? https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/high-civilian-toll-gaza-is-cost-crushing-hamas-israeli-military-officials-say-2023-12-19/ And what do you mean less than 1 death per bomb?
That incident could be evidence for reckless or careless bombing, but an incident of exclusively civilian casualties in a bombing during a war (or even multiple incidents) is not really evidence for indiscriminate killing, especially since the IDF has stated that the church was not the intended target of that strike. If they were killing indiscriminately, we’d see death tolls potentially over 100,000 civilians already, yet the numbers are significantly lower than that. The total number of civilians killed is lower than the total number of bombs dropped. We have examples of indiscriminate bombing in history, and those were significantly worse than the current bombing campaign in Gaza.
“Over the past 80 years, there has been a trend…” jw if this was a typo? Israel became a country in 1948.
Yeah I was kind of somewhere between earnest and sardonic with that. We went from an age of full-on-holocaust in Europe the 1940s... to civil rights movements in America in the 1960s... to the end of the second-to-last apartheid state in South Africa in the 1990s... to the world today, where kids kind of flirt with the idea that the situation in Palestine might actually be bullshit. It's been a loooong journey. We are still used to framing situation in terms of good guys and bad guys, instead of good systems and bad systems. Palestinians definitely did kidnap and rape a bunch of Israelis, so they can't ever fit into the "good guys" role. The systemic, multi-generational incarceration of Palestinians into the world's largest race-based open-air prison is a bad system, but the complexity of that topic scares people. The implications of that system are also so horrifying, that people are eager to dismiss it all as untrue. If they've already cast the Israelis as good guys, it can't be true. The trend still has a long way to go.
I was so invested in the history that by the end, I forgot why Netflix was relevant to the conversation.
>Because the formerly British colony was turned into a Jewish ethnostate, but 1-in-3 people born there are not Jewish. One small correction, in Israel proper only 1 in 5 is not Jewish. If you include the whole of occupied Palestine, more than half of the population is non-jewish. At the time of israels founding, 2 in 3 people in the region weren't jewish.
Oh interesting. You're right. Looking into it now, it appears the population of Palestine is 4.9 million (2 million in Gaza and 3 million in the West Bank.) I assume 0% of the population of the Palestinian population is Jewish. The population of Israel is 9.7million, and they consider 73% of their population to be Jewish. So by their numbers, 7 million Jewish people in a land of 13.7 million people. Rough stuff.
One of my "the older conservatives are crazy" moments was hearing Michelle Bachmann (i think it was) talking in a national debate about needing to support Isreal so that they could fail as a nation as per the events leading to the 2nd coming of Christ. Batshit crazy. I've heard that even more in the past 7 years from other polititians and church leaders.
You forgot about all the overtly violent acts by Israel, dozens every year. Also, Noah specifically supporting Zionism, not just Israel. Zionism being a violent racist ideology.
Great informative answer, thank you. I was a bit alarmed by the fact you wrote that israel is using *the violence* of the hamas, while Palestinians use the *perceived" violence. Im not sure if u meant anything by it. But it did hit my ear(eye) wrong.
On reddit specifically, it's still popular to frame the conflict as "kill for kill." If Palestinians rape and kill X amount of Israelis, Israelis need to be shown raping and killing more than X Palestinians. But outside of Reddit, before October 7th, much of the progressive academic pro-Palestinian movement was not concerned with this "who rapes and kills more" narrative. The broader concern was of the systemic violence of the brutal apartheid state. Forcing 2 million Palestinians into the world's largest open-air-prison, usually from birth, was seen as this massive act of violence. October 7th was seen as a reaction to this violence, in the same way so many rebel uprisings occurred during the age of colonialism. Reddit isn't as concerned with colonialism, systemic oppression, and intersectionality. As far as I can tell, Reddit was basically shocked on October 7th, and now is shocked by the IDF's response. The systemic violence of the blockade and the apartheid state of Palestine, is kind of lost on Reddit. I am sympathetic to this. We excel at telling stories about good guys and bad guys. We struggle to tell stories about good systems and bad systems. But I hate framing Israel/Palestine in a "good guys"/"bad guys" narrative. Hamas kidnapped and raped a bunch of women and children. They're objectively not good guys. But they are the logical product of a savage system of mass incarceration from birth, for the crime of being born the wrong race. It is this bad system that produces the raping and killing. Israel (and we, it's western allies) have created this bad system. Even in a ridiculously long wall-of-text post, I couldn't fit all that in. Especially when the question is about some dumb actor in a netflix show. And double-especially while managing the subreddits (reasonable) requirements that the answer be unbiased.
>But they are the logical product of a savage system of mass incarceration from birth, for the crime of being born the wrong race. It's so American to bring race into this. Most Israelis and most Palestinians share the same ancestry.
I just want to say I really appreciate your posts on this matter (the original comment and your other responses). I think you do a really good job of "threading the needle" so to say. I've been arguing with others over this good guy-bad guy narrative and I really like the way that you phrased your response here.
> But I hate framing Israel/Palestine in a "good guys"/"bad guys" narrative. Hamas kidnapped and raped a bunch of women and children. They're objectively not good guys. But they are the logical product of a savage system of mass incarceration from birth, for the crime of being born the wrong race I don't disagree with anything you said above. But it's a chicken-and-egg problem in a way, no? I'm an American who is certainly not a scholar on these matters. But isn't the reason for this "open air prison" because of the rockets and bombings and violence carried out for decades by Hamas? It's like the Hatfields and McCoys now. Both sides have done bad things. Both sides feel validated in doing those bad things, because of what the other side has done. I just see very few people trying to explain *why* Israel treats Palestine this way, even if a consensus thinks it's way overboard and barbaric, and not headed in a good direction. The "open air prison" didn't come about by a whim, it was in response to other aggression. Right?
Israel is a live demonstration of colonial-era policy in a post-colonial era world. The problem they're seeing with their natives is exactly the same problem every colony saw all around the world a century ago. In the early days of colonialism, the empires thought the colonial subjects would eventually accept their subjugation. But instead the colonial subjects rebelled and rebelled and rebelled. So much so that the colonies ended up costing more than they were worth! This is why the age of colonialism ended. All colonies ended in one of two ways: annexation or withdraw. In countries like the United States, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand, the occupied lands were all annexed. The natives were made equal citizens. The natives were logically pissed, but since they could vote, they mostly just channeled their rage through the democratic process. This is a long hard road, but it seems to reliably lead to everyone mostly chilling the fuck out. The other option is withdraw. Examples of withdraw would be Britain leaving India, or Belgium leaving the Congo. Israelis immigrated to Israel from all around the world, and don't have some great country to withdraw back too. So that option doesn't work very well. But that leaves Israel with few good options. If they annexed Palestine (the one state solution) and gave all the Arabs a vote, the Jewish identity of Israel would be under threat. Countries like the United States and Canada get to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism, but Jewish immigrants immigrated to Israel with the explicit promise that it was going to be a Jewish ethnostate. I may think ethnostates are a terrible idea, but at this point they've kind of escalated their commitment here. The one-state solution is really asking a lot. The one remaining alternative is the "two state solution." Israelis withdraw from the occupied territories of Palestine and make Palestine its own country. This was the plan in the 90s. It is extremely difficult in terms of implication though, because Israel bisects Palestine. The prime minister of Israel was going to institute this system anyway in 1995. It was at least better than the current insane status quo. But radical Israeli ultranationalists assassinated their own prime minister because of this real threat of instituting a "two state solution." The zionist utranationalists logically want all the land, not just some of it. Unfortunately, this was as close to a solution as we ever got. Since the 90s, both sides have grown more and more radicalized. Turning Gaza into the world's largest open air prison was once unthinkable but now it's seen as kind of a reasonable option within this unreasonable framework. I don't see any clear "slam dunk" solution to the conflict at this point. As an American, I would really rather just cut ties with Israel and treat the the way we treat all the other backwards fundamentalist countries. Take the L and move on.
This sounds like Chat Gpt, no? He was 12 when the show started and is 19 now, factually accurate but borderline irrelevant. I only really read the first paragraph, but this sounds like something it would spit out in answer the the prompt who is Noah Schnapp?
Chat GPT’s knowledge cut off is ~~January of 2022~~**April 2023**. It has no knowledge of any events since then, not the current Israel-Hamas and certainly not the Noah Schnapp controversy. Doesn’t mean the comment is not a bot, but it isn’t Chat GPT. Edit: Updated Dates
This is no longer true if you're using the latest version
I see that it it’s been extended, but only up to April 2023, so it still wouldn’t have any knowledge of these events
...is Will Byers supposed to be gay?
Yes
Have you even watched the show past season 2?
[удалено]
It’s really not, especially when you start to read between the lines. They’ve intentionally minimised Israel’s actions (18k civilians killed) by claiming its ‘perceived violence’ vs their description of Palestine’s ‘overtly violent atrocities.’
"war broke out Oct 7th" lmfao sure it did. Definitely hasn't been happening for over half a century
This is a very well thought through explanation and I appreciate it. All the talk online has been very confusing and disorienting.
This is a far more thorough and level headed response than I am used to seeing on the net. Bravo dude. For reals.
Shockingly good answer imo. The only thing I'd add is that probably most folks in support of Palestine don't have as complete an understanding of the above as is detailed, but have generally grown up exposed to media detailing the more general history of the Palestinian struggle and what I guess we might term Israeli military excess.
Nice CHATGPT bro
I'd be pretty proud of myself if I could get ChatGPT to say anything close to this. I wouldn't characterize my take here as "spicy" but to ChatGPT standards, this is practically a Carolina Reaper.
Damn I wish gpt can actually have data as recent as oct 7. I can do so much with it.
Over the past 80 years there has been a trend? Israel has only been a thing for 75 years.
I was confused about this, too. I’m not sure where the citation of this date is but like it’s gotta be a typo right? Even disregarding the declaration of Israel as an independent state I’m pretty confident that the Palestine sympathy is arising much more within the last 8 years than 80.
>more liberal Here I think it might actually be useful to say “more progressive.” I mean, I’m already the type that tends to argue there are important distinctions between liberal/progressive/leftist, but even if we don’t want to go down that road in general, I think “progressive” is where the real dividing line is in this specific debate. Plenty of mainstream liberal people support Israel. This is a point of contention within the entire left-of-center wing of the political spectrum, and splitting things by mainstream “liberal” and “progressive” allows us to more clearly point to what we’re talking about.
Thank you for explaining!
> The pro-Palestine side usually focuses on the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade Israel has been killing Palestinian civilians for decades. Often by shooting them from afar. Why say something like "the perceived violence of the Gaza blockade"? It is murder of civilians. Israel has been committing war crimes for decades. Many Israelis are against this and don't support how Palestinians have been treated. You can more clearly see the willingness and practice of them killing Palestinian civilians in the recent conflict. Look at how many children have been killed and how many children have been maimed and seriously injured. Israel is still shooting unarmed Civilians with sniper rifles. Hamas and the Palestinian soldiers working for Hamas have done terrible things too, including killing Israeli civilians. These actions should be condemned just as much as the actions of the Israeli government against civilians. You comment seems to intentionally leave out the killing of civilians by Israel. It isn't "perceived violence". Shooting and killing civilians is real violence.
Answer: he's a zionist
Answer: I’m adding to the comments that Noah Schnapp has liked posts on instagram that are incredibly homophobic and racist towards Gazans as well. He can scream and cry about how unsafe he feels while parading around his “Zionism is sexy” stickers as if it’s a cute trend and not 6 year olds getting blown up and suffer no consequences Meanwhile Melissa Barrera loses her job for being against genocide.
[удалено]
He’s not just supportive of Israel. He’s radically supportive of Israel, sporting stickers that say “Zionism is sexy” and calling people who defend Palestine terrorists
Zionism is supporting Israel
That's like saying white supremists are merely supportive of white people
A Jewish state called Israel = Zionism 2-state solution (so there would be a Jewish state called Israel and a state called Palestine) = Zionism If you think Israel should exist, in any capacity, you are a Zionist. Essentially, you do have to choose. Do you believe that Israel should exist in any capacity, or do you believe that it should be dismantled as a state? If you don’t believe in dismantling it and Israel no longer existing, then you’re a Zionist. If you do believe in dismantling the state, I think you’re incredibly naive as to the fate of the Jews living there. When you hear someone speaking out against zionists, you should ask yourself: Do they believe that Zionism simply means jewish extremism? OR Do they not want Israel to exist?
Zionism =\= Zionist movement Zionism 80 years ago =\= Zionism today thanks to the Zionist movement Zionism achieved its goal decades ago. Then it was coopted by ultra far right nationalist who have been expanding into illegal settlements using violence and terror. That is the modern zionist movement. That is how it has been viewed by the rest of the world for the last +30 years. Movements change. What starts as something good changes to something bad. That is just how movements work. So when some ignorant kid comes along and posts "Zionism is sexy" it's going to ruffle feathers. Put another way, imagine having the Soviets at your doorsteps and some Soviet Russian kid posting (imagine there was Twitter in the Cold War Era) "communism is sexy." People would lose their shit. Would it be sufficient for a Soviet sympathizer to merely rebut with "communism according to the dictionary is equal distribution and ownership of bla bla bla so not bad."
The opposition to Zionism didn’t start 30 years ago. This idea that the primary issue is settlements in the West Bank or some extremist movement that just cropped up recently is incredibly naive. The reason for terrorism and war is the Zionism of 80 years ago, where Israel exists.
Zionism comes in many flavors. Just saying "Zionism" means little other than supporting the existence of Israel.
Tell me you have no Jewish friends without telling me you have no Jewish friends. The vast majority of Jews (90+%) are Zionist. And yes when the vast majority of Jews describe their Zionism they believe Israel should exist and want peace with the Palestinians.
>[Zionism - noun - an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Zionism#:~:text=%3A%20an%20international%20movement%20originally%20for,the%20support%20of%20modern%20Israel) Classic Merriam Webster with their crafty propaganda out to hoodwink the public with the underhand use of definitions. Not this time! ______________ [Long before the emergence of Hitler I made the cause of Zionism mine because through it I saw a means of correcting a flagrant wrong....The Jewish people alone has for centuries been in the anomalous position of being victimized and hounded as a people, though bereft of all the rights and protections which even the smallest people normally has...Zionism offered the means of ending this discrimination. Through the return to the land to which they were bound by close historic ties...Jews sought to abolish their pariah status among peoples... The advent of Hitler underscored with a savage logic all the disastrous implications contained in the abnormal situation in which Jews found themselves. Millions of Jews perished... because there was no spot on the globe where they could find sanctuary...The Jewish survivors demand the right to dwell amid brothers, on the ancient soil of their fathers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein#:~:text=In%20a%201938%20speech%2C%20%22Our,creation%20of%20a%20Jewish%20state.). That man's name? A wildly irrational bloodthirsty fascist rightly reviled by being, as you astutely note, effectively a white supremacist named Albert Einstein (who, it should be noted, had very complicated views on the Jewish state but is relevant here for the usage of the term Zionism). Edit: it’s remarkable how people are aggressively missing the point, which is to provide the dictionary definition and its real world usage. That is spelled out as clearly as possible in the final statement, I don’t know it could have been made more clear.
[удалено]
Btw Einstein was against Israel once the occupation started. He was a socialist. In fact, Gabor Mattei, Noam Chomsky all were ‘Zionist’ before the founding of Israel. They became against after how it All went through. Einstein you was considered to be once the prime minister of Israel would be considered a self hating Jew later in his life
Ah yes, because that's how things work. And I'm sure that men's rights activists are solely focused on men's rights, right? It would be cute if it wasn't such a serious topic
Wow. Way to cherry pick quotes from Albert Einstein. He was very opposed to Israel. Israel is an evil apartheid state.
I always interpret "Zionism" to hold deeper meaning than that. It carries the connotation of a "promised land" mindset, which is nothing if not dangerous, in my opinion. Thinking land is your destiny always leads to trouble.
Anyone who supports Hamas, supports terrorism. Simple.
I’d say he seems more *against* the existence of Palestine than he is in support of Israel.
No, he's supportive of Zionism. Something that the world recognized through UN resolution for decades as being racist. Israel demanded the resolution be revoked as a condition for peace talks that they then tanked in 1991.
That’s a cute way of undermining the actual issue
Answer: He’s not supporting the terrorists in the ongoing conflict, and idiots all over the internet don’t like it when people don’t support terrorists.
[удалено]