> On the other hand, there are conflicts across Africa and Asia which are not receiving half the attention.

Because the West doesn't fund and shield the perpetrators unlike Israel.

woodruffw 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Because the West doesn't fund and shield the perpetrators unlike Israel.

You could make an at least passable argument that the US offers a favorable media environment to our MENA allies (i.e., those other than Israel) during what is by all accounts an extremely brutal and mostly ignored conflict in Sudan.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the West doesn't fund and shield the perpetrators unlike Israel

Sure. Though Western arms absolutely play heavily in Sudan and across South America. My point is it’s odd to single out Gaza as a case where the West doesn’t care. It’s more that it uniquely has folks in the West who care strongly about both sides.

▲

troupo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Because the West doesn't fund and shield the perpetrators unlike Israel.

Who do you think supplies the weapons to most of the world's conflicts? They just appear out of thin air?

▲

throwaway3060 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I hear this sentiment a lot when it comes to people trying to justify why Ukrainians or Iranians are somehow less deserving of their attentions, and it infuriates me every time. If the goal is to try to prevent unjustified killings, then it makes no sense.

▲

kombine 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I personally raise awareness about Ukraine and Palestine in equal measure. But there is fundamental difference: Israelis will stop their violence on Palestinians the minute they lose support of the US and Europ, whereas the West doesn't hold the same leverage over Russia.

▲

throwaway3060 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I disagree with many parts of this narrative, but even this fundamental hypothesis that Israel will just give up without Western support, that there is absolute leverage, I have no idea where it comes from or what evidence suggests this. If Israel feels they need to do this, they will just source supplies from somewhere else. And everyone will be worse off for it.

	▲	justin66 12 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> And everyone will be worse off for it. There is nothing obviously true about that statement.

▲

peterashford 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It makes perfect sense. In a democracy your government (supposedly) represents you, thus the actions of your government are those you are partly morally responsible for and partly have some control over. If Russia or China is selling AK47s to warlords in Sudan, there's not much that westerners can do about it

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> thus the actions of your government are those you are partly morally responsible for and partly have some control over America has global force projection power. It has about as much influence in Gaza as it does in e.g. Venezuela or even, arguably, Iran. Everyone has good reasons for why their pet war is the most central to our interests. I think it’s fair to accept that there are multiple good answers.
	▲	throwaway3060 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is supposing that people only have an obligation to not cause harm, and that those who are able have no moral obligation to actively help protect those who need and deserve it. Kind of like the trolley problem, I suppose.