I feel like I’ve been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can’t find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people are able to discern which state is the good one. And some going so far as to believe that one state might even be right over the other.

So far from what I’ve read and heard, it seems that overall Isreal is just more successful militarily and is encroaching on Palestinian land, and is exhibiting control over some of it. Is that the reason why one might support Palestine? Is it the fact that Isreal has more direct power in the region and thus can easily execute its will a problematic issue for some? From what I can see, both sides have caused massive civilian casualties and neither side wants a two state solution, so neither of those reasons can be a contributing factor to side picking, right? That being said, I can’t find a reason for supporting Isreal, so does Palestine win out by default? But what of the people that support Isreal, do they do that purely because they’re an American ally? Is any of this side taking have anything to do with the insertion of Jews into the region? What is expected to be done outside of a two state solution or genocide by those taking sides?

I have a lot of questions, and I obviously don’t expect all of them to be answered in a single post. So maybe focusing on the elements you’re highly informed on would be helpful and then I can kind of piece together the details. Thank you in advance!

  • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Thank you for the nice words. I just felt like with all the discussion of who did what in the last few years, people are forgetting why Israel and Palestine are fighting in the first place.

    Of course there is a lot more to this. For example the fact that Jerusalem is considered a sacred place by three different major religions and so the question who controls it is not only political but also symbolic. It was literally the (official) reason for the crusades during the middle ages. In that way, a neutral Jerusalem might have actually been a good idea. Though of course we don’t know what other problems that would have caused.

    • Sprawlie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      A Neutral UN city not directly ran by Israel or Palestine would likely have settled a lot of tensions. Firstly, Israel couldn’t claim it their capital, which has been a major pain point for decades now. Something Trump further inflamed by moving the US Consulate to Israel in it.

      If it were made a place where all religions of all type are allowed in all parts as a historical landmark, maybe there’d be a peaceful place where the three Bbrahamic religions could actually find common ground.

      Instead they created a religious McGuffin to fight over.

      • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Except a macguffin can be like. Stolen and/or destroyed. You don’t have to murder everybody standing on it to claim it you can just be a regular dickhead and sucker punch the guy and walk off with it. If people get tired enough of people punching each other over it they can either lock it up better or just light it on fire. Land has to have people probably homeless or dead to change hands and almost no matter what you do to it it’ll still be a part of the surface area of this rock we’re stuck on or around for the conceivable future.