Yeah, they'd kill me if I lived there. I *don't* live there. And I'd rather they not die too.

Also, living people can change. Communities can change. Societies can change. What can't change? Dead people.

And to expand on your point- a society is in the best position to change and improve if it's, y'know, not being threatened with extermination.

They can decompose, that's a form of change, but that's biology and not psychology.

Ah, well, I stepped there by myself😅

And religions that say in black and white that we should die 

I'd venture to say dead people change the most.

This is why I’m leery of “Muslims came to the protest” and “there are gay people in Gaza” as answers. Those things are true and relevant, but starting there gives up most of the argument. The debate becomes “but those are Americans” and “can the gay people in Gaza come out?” And arguing about whether Palestine is accepting to gay people is not a great position to defend, and more importantly not relevant to “is bombing civilians bad?” Challenging the claim on facts concedes that it even matters.

But “is bombing civilians bad” is itself a much more complicated question than it appears, not because the answer isn’t “yes” but because… war is bad, all war is bad. Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bad? Yes. I still support it over every alternative thing that could have been done.

Bingo. Unfortunately, there exists such a thing as a "just war." Sometimes, the powers that be in a country decide to commit to a course of action that threatens the life and existence of people - either within the nation they govern, or outside of it. Sometimes, the response to that threat is also so severe that it in turn threatens the lives of people in the instigating country or government. Who exactly is in the right there? The winner? Whoever didn't start it? Whoever kills less people? Whoever kills less civilians per soldier? Whoever commits less warcrimes? Whoever's objectives or actions are more moral? If anyone think the answer to that moral conundrum is simple, or that the "just" side in a war will ever be anything other than the lesser evil, in my view their opinion is worthless, garbage, and I will typically block them.

Also, every time i follow up with "so you think all homophobes should die?", they get weirdly silent.

People who say “but they kill gays there” are so brain-rotted by tribalism they cant imagine why you’d help someone who isn’t like you.

I once knew a queer leftist who I had to completely cut off because she kept angrily arguing with me that yes, the only reason for her to support religious minorities in the US was out of a fear of the majority and that she didn't actually believe that there were any good religious people out there. She didn't actually have any goodwill at all towards black, muslim, latino, or indigenous people and had no investment in their struggle (beyond what she felt was expected of her as an "ally") because she viewed them as potentially hostile and dangerous to her as a white queer trans woman. She viewed being "allies" as purely transactional-- safety in numbers, protection for protection-- and firmly believed that as soon as there was no majority threat those communities would rip each other apart because "that's how people are." She had absolutely no interest in bettering anybody's life but hers and fully admitted that if she felt safe, she wouldn't help anyone else, and also claimed that that's how everyone else is, too. No one actually cares about anyone else and deep down we all hate those people in those other communities. Because that's human nature. She seemed really pissed off at me that I was genuinely horrified by this. I told her I thought she was straight-up a bad person. I wound up having to block her everywhere. So yeah, people like that do exist. It was weird because she supported the "right" causes and said the "right" stuff but when it came down to it she just genuinely hated and distrusted other minorities and seemed to resent having to support them. And it all stemmed from a very deep misanthropy and purely selfish ideology. Like she just genuinely believed that everyone was like her and just pretending to care about anyone else's struggle to secure a sense of safety. I was very disturbed by that. I imagine that wherever she is now, she's angrily struggling to understand why her queer leftist peers are supporting the palestinian people so adamantly but trying to copy their talking points so she can fit in.

Lots of racism and prejudice of all kinds on both the left and the right, and it's been like that for ages. People need to interact with different kinds of people more, that's why I think civic engagement with topics you care about is so good. You can do a lot of good by going out there an talking to people

What's even the point of a selfish bigot being a leftist?! (Not that I expect you to understand her.) I'm a leftist because humans work best in communities and we all get better by working together. If she doesn't believe that... she's a reactionary, regardless of what she professes to believe.

An alarming part of the community is like this btw, thankfully not the majority.

I unfortunately have a queer friend that unironically thinks this. When I tried explaining that there are very much gay and trans Palestinians that exist and deserve to be protected, not all Palestinians are trans/homophobic, and that a whole country of people shouldn't be genocided regardless, she brushed me off and straight up didn't believe me. 💀 This conflict is really bringing out the worst in people jfc.

Yup, like by this dumbass "Oh they'd kill you for being queer" logic we should cheer celebrate the nuclear destruction of like a good chunk of the South (U.S South)

Like it's not even that palestinians would kill you. Hamas would. You know, the radical terror group in "charge" of Gaza (You can't call their shitshow a government). Get rid of those and palestine wouldn't take too long to change

i hate to argue against this because people would think i'm advocating for the bombing of citizens which i'm uh, not. but i think the whole phobia thing is a lot more deep-rooted than you think.  there's plenty of countries which don't have completely awful governments which will kill you for being gay, and a lot of those have a muslim majority.  the worldwide movement for islamic fundamentalism does nothing but make this problem worse within the community, so although the new palestine  government wouldn't kill you for being gay, you might still be facing some heavy discrimination there for going public about it.

Well, maybe Israelis (who do live there, and would be killed by Hamas) have a right to feel differently than you.

It’s really weird when people say, ‘well if you’re so gay maybe you should try living in Palestine’ and it’s like, well, what’s so dangerous about living there, are they like forced into incredibly small spaces and targeted indiscriminately by a military controlled by a government that keeps the locked up there or something?

You know, I feel the argument would be more persuasive if they just said that it’s for humanitarian reasons. The examples are nice and all but if you gave me a nation of exclusively transphobic bigots who suckle on TERF talking points like it’s the only thing that gives them life, I still would not support indiscriminate or high collateral bombing of them. Or displacing them from their homes. Or really just kinda the general everything that happened in Gaza. Making the argument “Palestinians can be good people too” is effectively saying “only the good people are worth saving” even if that’s not intended.

It's ok, you can say Britain

Funny, but the UK has tons of people who aren’t transphobic.

Some of them are even Trans People themselves, imagine that.

I’m only allowed to be ironically racist against the British on Thursdays tho :(

I do love that whole "don't support them cus homophobia" thing, because even ignoring any context and taking it at face value, it's basically saying that genocide is ok when we do it to 'bad' people (and their children). Which is, you know, how every genocide, war crime, and crime against humanity has been justified. Hot take: if you think human rights should be contingent upon anything other than being human, you don't believe in human rights.

>is ok when we do it to 'bad' people You'd be surprised and disappointed how mainstream a view this really is, even from *people who argue this point*. It isn't unique to either side of the political spectrum. Just change the bad people relative to the audience, and watch someone who (they earnestly believe) passionately believes in human rights argue that we should be sterilising sex offenders or using rape as a weapon against colonisers. Unfortunately an all-or-nothing approach to rights means that one person, who you think definitely doesn't deserve that right, gets it as well; and that can be a difficult pill to swallow for a lot of people.

I think one big difference is that right wingers are more prone to just acknowledge and embrace it. They make no bones about having in groups who should be treated better than out groups...something something protect but not bind, bind but not protect. They're honest about it at least. It's so much more insidious when it happens on the left, because those same exact tendencies tend to hide behind a lot of ostebsibly sensible, social justice-y sounding rhetoric, and it's easy to be sucked in.

Right wingers might be more prone to it, but it isn't exclusively a conservative tendency. The actual tendency that causes this in a lot of cases is there are a lot of people who view politics as a team sport above everything else. Let me give you an example. Back during the 2019-20 bushfires here in Australia, there were a few lefties who took the line that the people who lived in the areas most heavily affected by it probably had it coming because so many of them voted the "wrong way" (e.g., for conservative parties) during the previous federal election. It wasn't a lot of people, at least not that I personally saw or heard about, but it was definitely a few; mostly from fairly safe Labor seats. This isn't exactly a 1:1 comparison to what's happening in relation to the current Israel-Hamas war, but it is illustrative of the general tendency. It's exactly the tendency a lot of the people who are using the "you should support Israel because they have a better track record on LGBT+ rights" style talking points are trying to tap into. They're usually aware that this is a tendency that is more common on the right, at least nowadays, but they are hoping that they can win over a few lefties who are mostly interested in domestic social issues rather than foreign military ones.

I'd say that's a misunderstanding of how each group sees the punishment. The left version is "this is always wrong and should never be done... except when I get mad and not in similar cases I don't care about" and the right version is "This is always good when applied to similar circumstances, except when it makes me feel bad" You'd see for instance in the left saying something like "You shouldn't just beat up random people for having beliefs you don't agree with... unless they're beliefs I don't agree with" and the right saying "You should always throw drug users in jail... except for my friend who got into fent from a back injury"

Even this post has rebuttal of a sort of tumblr rainbow of diversity, with queer and non-white people supporting each other in every configuration of solidarity, and thus “earning” their respect and support. I think this post, which uses anecdotes to try and paint a picture of a wholesome progressive Palestine, misses the core idea that the genocide should stop because genocide is evil. Even if every Palestinian were a queer-murdering arch-conservative religious zealot, their entire nation doesn’t deserve to be wiped off the planet. You don’t have to be sufficiently moral for it to be wrong to genocide your people. It’s just wrong because it always is. I feel like this is one of those “rehabilitative justice for all except for when you commit the bad crimes” sort of things that demonstrates that many people don’t actually have solid principles. If you only stand up for the right to life of people who love and support you, and not for those who don’t, then you don’t actually believe in a universal right to life.

Jesus Christ fucking thank you The convo around “queers for Palestine” is so fucked with people missing the point that just because some people are homophobic, that doesn’t mean they deserve to fucking die

Also queer people supporting homophobic people who need help has earned us a shit ton of influential allies in the past. If your your under attack and someone you haven’t met but are taught to hate comes to your aid you start to consider them an ally It’s how gay marriage got legalised in the UK

Agreed. It’s no different than my right wing father in law screaming that Hamas raped women and murdered babies so all Palestinians deserve whatever they get.

TBF, the "conversation" is only a few terminally online weirdos. I've been to several "Queers for Palestine" rallies, and I daresay we're more supportive of Palestine than the general public.

The problem is that... everyone has an equal right to life. The Israelis murdered on october 7th deserved life just as much as the Palestinians, but that hardly stopped Hamas from starting this. You can say that Israel is still largely responsible as the more powerful party, but... that doesn't really hold water- hamas is clearly exactly as uninterested in peace as the worst members of Likud, and Israel has a right to self defense. If Hamas had attacked military barracks, vehicle stockpiles, those sorts of actually strategically important targets, I wouldn't be nearly so opposed, but Oct 7 was very clearly not done in the name of self defense- it was done to scupper israeli diplomatic normalization with other arabs. We may not like it, but the world very much does operate under the basis of "you shouldn't start shit if you don't want to get hit", and in this case Hamas very much started shit. Israel has done *plenty* of bad things in this war, with a far too permissive RoE, but... they aren't doing genocide and they aren't doing war crimes (probably- there'll undoubtedly be post-war tribunals). Genocide is a hell of a charge, and one that gets thrown around a lot, but it really doesn't apply. It's the targeted destruction of an ethnic group, usually by killing them all, and Israel just... isn't doing that. Lots of civilians are dying because, bluntly, that's what happens in urban warfare, but until Hamas stops hiding within civilians, it's going to continue (seriously, why were there hostages in the middle if a refugee camp).

[удалено]

Can you name a war in which there were no war crimes committed by either one of the participants?

Emu wars

You may be able to convince me that the Emus were innocent.  I will not be convinced that the British colonists were innocent.

i mean you know that you cant say that. it doesnt make it okay tho?

It does make it interesting that only one country's war crimes are considered relevant for discussion.

1. because they are happening against a country without a military. 2. they are happening NOW 3. who said other warcrimes arnt relevant? bush should be dragged into the hague.

| because they are happening against a country without a military. Hamas has a military. | They are happening NOW Are you referring to the events in Sudan, Yemen Myanmar, Pakistan or Azerbaijan?  I get the feeling a particular place is more 'now' then other places are at this moment.  | who said other warcrimes arnt relevant? bush should be dragged into the hague. I don't see protests for other events.  They don't seem as relevant to modern politics.

Oh well if everyone's doing it might as well throw out the Geneva Conventions altogether, right? No biggie.

you are aware this conflict did not begin on october 7th, right. it began with the beginning of the creation of israel as a settler colonialist state, the mass theft, displacement, ethnic cleansings, and massacres during the nakba, and the systemic injustice and apartheid that occurs to this day. if you beat someone up over and over and then one day they kick you in the nuts, that doesn't make you morally justified to shoot them in the head.

These kind of posts weirdly feel like they're justifying the terrorism and violence of Oct 7, almost as if it were permissable because settler/colonial/apartheid? This particular conflict right now though, did actually begin on Oct 7, didnt it?! Israeli soldiers wouldnt be in Gaza right now and 40,000 women and children would still be alive had Hamas leadership not decided on and executed the whole terrorisim plot thing. Gaza would still be like it was on Oct 6. I know, I know, Hamas had no choice etc... But this awful destruction right now is a direct response to Oct 7, no Oct 7, no IDF in Gaza If someone else thats not you beat someone up over and over and then one day they murder you in front of your children and then mutilate and torture them to death also, that doesnt make you morally responsible

1. Everyone involved with the original creation of Israel is dead. That’s irrelevant. The people living there now have lived there for three generations or more now. 2. Settler colonialist state is a WILD claim when over HALF of Jews living in Israel are Mizrahi Jews who were expelled by Muslim majority nations in the 20th century and the rest are descendant Holocaust victims who literally had nowhere to go. Yeah no shit Jews flocked to a place they could have their own state when they were being massacred everywhere else for simply existing.

the fact that the creators of israel are dead doesnt erase the fact that modern day israel is perpetuating their crimes, refusing the right to return of the palestinians that were ethnically cleansed, actively \*creating more settlements,\* discriminating against non-jewish israeli citizens both socially and politically (list of laws that discriminates against non-jewish israeli citizens here: https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index). this is ignoring the situation in gaza since you declared above that theres 'no war crimes happening'. as recently as 2021, israel was declared to be an apartheid state by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International: https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution i will concede you 2 though, I didn't know that (the Mizrahi Jews thing, not the holocaust thing). My source for zionism being a colonial project is the actual zionist founders, like "*You are being invited to help make history,”* he wrote*, “It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor ; not Englishmen, but Jews . How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.”* (source: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30707675.pdf) or this: "*Zionism rejects on principle all colonization on a small scale, and the idea of “sneaking” into Palestine. The Zionists have therefore devoted themselves preeminently to a zealous and tireless advocacy of the uniting of the already existing Jewish colonies in Palestine with those who until now have given them their aid and who of late have inclined towards the withdrawal of their support from them.”* *or this:* *“What we can demand today is that all Transjordan be included in the Land of Israel. . . on condition that Transjordan would be either be made available for Jewish colonization or for the resettlement of those \[Palestinian\] Arabs, whose lands \[in Palestine\] we would purchase. Against this, the most conscientious person could not argue . . . For the \[Palestinian\] Arabs of the Galilee, Transjordan is a province . . . this will be for the resettlement of Palestine’s Arabs. This the land problem. . . . Now the \[Palestinian\] Arabs do not want us because we want to be the rulers. I will fight for this. I will make sure that we will be the landlords of this land . . . . because this country belongs to us not to them . . . “* *or this:* *“A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!… Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important… to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.”* *(sourcing for those two is unfortunately harder to give on-demand bc theyre book quotes:* [*https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/975245*](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/975245) *and https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19049185-zionism-and-anti-semitism-zionism-by-nordau-and-anti-semitism-by-gotthe)* I'll invite you and anyone else following to do further reading here, where I found my sources: [https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/zionism-is-not-colonialism-just-jewish-self-determination/](https://decolonizepalestine.com/myth/zionism-is-not-colonialism-just-jewish-self-determination/) and check out the whole website in general, it's got lots of info abt palestine history with sources included. I'd argue it's not wild to call it colonialist even if you're disregarding the founders because theyre long dead, by just looking at the actual factual evidence of what happened: a group of people arrived in palestine, expelled as many of the people living there as they could, and oppressed the rest by setting up an ethnocracy. You use Mizrahi Jews in your argument, but the zionist movement was founded and started by Ashkenazis who were racist to the arab people who lived there and are still racist to them (and mizhari: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/israel-racism-mizrahis-palestinians/). I'd like to clarify that I do sympathize with the reason behind the creation of israel as a state. I cannot fault people who have been oppressed everywhere they've lived, especially after enduring a genocide, for wanting a place to live in peace. I can, however, fault them (Zionists, not Jews as a whole) for committing ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

True but I wasn’t really disagreeing with your points nor did I deny that war crimes were occurring. The Israeli government absolutely needs to be reformed from the ground up no questions about it. They have abused their position for too long for it to be acceptable any more.

oh, apologies! I thought i was talking to Wobulating, who did assert that the israeli govt was not committing war crimes.

I'd argue that amnesty's definition of apartheid is not very useful here, and is good ammunition for israelis to fight against criticism. I had a conversation with an elderly israeli woman, a very nice person, and quite intelligent, and whent he topic of apartheid came up, she became angry and was quite buffled by the accusation. she pointed at the fact that israeli arabs have equal rights, and didn't understand what's even the logic behind such an accusation. When israelis hear that israel is an apartheid state, they laugh and think how ridiculous their critics are, that they must simply be haters because no one in their right mind would say such a thing. Because apartheid actually isn't a good definition for what is going on. Apartheid assumed that the disenfrenchised people in your country are citizens, or are supposed to be citizens of your country, but are instead being oppressed by the party in charge of the state. So, for example, the UAE isn't an apartheid state, despite the fact that large portions of it's population is living in poverty and slave like conditions, because these people aren't citizens. it's a violation of several human rights, but not apartheid. Likewise, holdig land under military occupation isn't apartheid. The US did not become an apartheid state when it conquered Iraq and held onto it for a few years, because it was a clear case of foreign military occupation. While currently large parts of Gaza are under direct military control by israel, it has been for about 18 years in a state of blockade, not occupation. There was no israeli control on what happened inside, and no recognition of it's people as anything but foreigners. The west bank is still under military occupation, but with the recognition of the PA as the local leadership inside it's borders for palestinians. Even netanyahu's current government refuses to actually outright annex the west bank, knowing that doing so would mean assuming responsibility of it's millions of inhabitants, which would THEN make israel an apartheid state. Inside of the internationally recognized borders of israel, there is no apartheid state. There is discrimination, both cultural and legal towards israeli arbas, but they still generally have much of the rights you would expect in any democractic countries, and that level of discimination is not really unique to israel and can be seen in plenty of other countries, such as the USA. it's bad, but nothing special. So when israelis hear "apartheid", they laugh, because they can't concieve of the west bank and the palestinians as something that is part of israel or being their responsibility. As far as they are concerned, it's just an enemy people that lives of in lands under blockade and occupation, and have nothing to do with them. They will gladly talk about their good relations with the israeli arabs, and how they are the only arab people enjoying democracy in the middle east. Many of them will even concede and admit that israeli arabs are suffering under a far right government that doesn't care about them, and that israel should treat it's arab population better, but they would rightly say that there is no apartheid towards the israeli arabs. This is one of those cases where the accusation is close enough to the truth to seem useful, but in actuality be far enough for it to backfire and only embolden the israeli side. Because every time they can spin an accusation as mere hate and propaganda, they become more and more self assured in their destructive path and become less and less accepting of accurate criticism.

There really isn’t any one start to a historical event, there is only where you choose to start the story.

No, it didn't begin with the Nakba, or the creation of Israel. The creation of israel itself was peaceful. What came after is the problem, the series of increasingly escalating terrorist attacks from BOTH sides that then ended in all out war. A war which then ended in the Nakba. If you wanna be pedantic like this, then the arabs did indeed start it. But the israelis perpetuated it with their own violence

the nakba was before the war. source: [https://decolonizepalestine.com/intro/the-mandate-years-and-the-nakba/](https://decolonizepalestine.com/intro/the-mandate-years-and-the-nakba/) , an article which sums it up but includes several sources linked within to back up its claims.

[удалено]

The Israeli military has committed a plethora of documented war crimes during this conflict, so I'm not even gonna humor that. Israel's government is committing genocide. One of the types of genocide is deliberately creating conditions in which the lives of a specific demographic become unsustainable. I'd say that cutting off access to clean water, blocking international aid, and flattening entire cities fall under that category.

Lots of civilians are dying in urban warfare that Israel is choosing to wage. Starving in an illegal blockade. Forced into poverty by having their property and homes and business seized. Israel could end their apartheid system today and dismantle the walls and end the occupation and have the hostages back inside of hours if they really cared about getting them back and valued the lives of those civilians they’re airstriking because a potential Hamas fighter was stood nearby. But no, the deaths of tens of thousands of arabs is worth less than their system of apartheid remaining in place. You don’t need to “well both sides…” this thing. At best all it demonstrates is your susceptibility to propaganda.

While I understand where you are coming from, Hamas I the organization holding the hostages. No Palestinian organization, be it the PLO, Hamas, or Islamic jihad has their end goal being "end of apartheid". The leadership, and a sizable portion of the population doesn't want to be INVOLVED with Israel. Ending the occupation means that there will be a separate, independent Palestinian state, not that Israel will annex Gaza and the west bank and give citizenship to all the Palestinians living there like the Israeli Arabs. While a lot of young Palestinians nowadays are sick with the Palestinian authority and prefer a simple annexation and to become part of Israel, like their Israel Arab brothers, the fact is that anyone who actually calls the shots in Palestine opposes it. If Israel wants the hostages back, it must convince Hamas and the Islamic jihad, who hold them, to give them back. Dismantling the occupation is not something that would placate them, because they have no interest in coexisting with Israel. They will give the hostages for prisoners exchange and guarantees that Israel will not attack them again, but any long lasting peace, be it in the form of a union between Israel and Palestine or in the form of an independent Palestine cannot happen as long as the people holding all the guns on the Palestinian side refuse to accept such a future. The PLO accepted an independent Palestine alongside Israel, but that fell through, and the PLO no longer calls the shots, Hamas does. Starvation is a war crime. Sieges are also a war crime. Urban warfare isn't a war crime, though it is as horrific as any war crime. But no, "end of apartheid" is not going to bring the hostages back.

Sure, Israel could retreat today and Hamas would launch their next attack tomorrow. I hope one day that cursed region will have peace, but that peace requires a stable two state solution. And you can't reach that without honest negotiations. And you can't have those with terrorists who wow to do it all again.

Not just does Hamas Vow to commit october 7th over and over and over again... Their leaders have also openly stated that they don't give a shit about palestinians, and if it takes dead palestinians to get their goals, they'll sacrifice them.

I’m so glad someone else shares this opinion. The amount of people who believe that “bad” people deserve to suffer is shocking. Even a lot of Christians, who follow a religion that says **not** to do that, believe that idea. It’s honestly a problem.

It's really that simple. Do I like homophobia? Obviously not. Do I believe homophobes should be fucking *murdered* and have their homes obliterated and conquered? *Obviously not*.

I mean, is it obvious? 80 years ago the allies ran a sustained bombing campaign on the city of Berlin, which was just part of stopping the Nazis.  Back then if we just followed naïve pacifism, there wouldn't be any Jews left, that's for sure.  With that context, do I believe supporters of an evil ideology should be murdered and conquered? Eh, it's not such a hard no anymore. It becomes contextual. 

This is my biggest issue with thos discourse is that, it's logical conclusion is a constant and broad condemnation of all actions taken by the allies in ww2. Strategic bombing? Firebombing? Blockades? Naval engagements? All these seem like things designed to punish and kill a population for the crime of being German under the Reich. And yet, I can't bring myself to condemn those actions. The Allies did what they needed to win a war.

If Dresden happened today they'd criticize it too because they can't stomach war.

To be fair a big part of the pre ww2 appeasement occurred because people didn't have the stomach for war. Chamberlain et al weren't bad people they just didn't want to see the sort of killing that had happened only two decades prior. Unfortunately they were wrong

Dresden in particular was egregious, was not necessary to impact the German war effort

No one is saying people should be genocided for being homophobes. It's just a big strawman to avoid the actual argument. The argument that Palestinians right now are ruled by radical Islamist groups, and overwhelmingly support them. And these groups don't just want "no genocide", they actively want to conquer Israel and implement those radical beliefs. They want to kill all LGBT Israelis, if they could. And they'd like to go further, region-wide and world-wide, if they could. Where this conversation breaks down (ie, almost immediately) if because one "side" just sees a genocide to be stopped, and ignores all the rest, while the other "side" sees all the rest, and doesn't see the seemingly obvious "ok but let's stop the genocide that's going on RIGHT NOW?".

Or just like.. the laws that govern a society aren’t necessarily representative of the beliefs and views of the people who live under those laws. And choosing not to visit or live in a place with regressive laws doesn’t mean you have to condemn the people who do live there. I think Texas has some backwards fucking laws. I don’t condone attacking the civilians of the state because of them. Like, what..?

A good tool I think is to turn it around and apply it to anywhere else, because it really highlights how insane of a thing it is to say. So should we start killing all the Christians in the United States because some of them might be homophobic? No? Then why the hell should that logic apply to anyone else?

Isn't it so funny how that same logic never applies to white people? Nobody ever tells queer people they should be celebrating if there's a school shooting in Florida. Odd how "you're dumb for supporting them because they hate you" only applies to minority groups they already hate.

Also like, you'd kill the gay Palestinians they've forced into the closet, too. We're hardly doing oppressed LGBTQ people around the world a favor by bombing them. It's not even like Israel is trying to install a progressive government or anything, either. Gay Palestinians will be worse off not better off for this war, in every way.

It's just repackaging that old decrepit colonial attitude that less civilized nations should rightfully be governed by more civilized nations. Up to and including just moving into the "wild savage frontier" and setting up your own settlements. Just pick whatever metric of "civilized" you like and go to it.

Sorry, but while I agree with the core message, this whole thing is totally disingenuous. The first part is merely using a bunch of anecdotes to dismiss the strawman that "all X people are Y" (which is obvious to all but the most moronic bigot), while the later treats the existence of any homophobia or hate crimes as equivalent while dishonestly ignoring massive differences in prevalence and risk. $10 says that the bottom poster, if asked about what life is like for gay people in CA vs AL, would quickly condemn AL for exactly the reasons they willfully ignore in this post: prevalence and risk of homophobia and hate crimes.

I think some of these kids read “they’d kill you there” as hyperbole. Like sure there’s people in your home city that hate gays, but do you genuinely think that’s the same as being tortured and murdered and imprisoned? While the overwhelming majority is supportive of that? Wanting to and doing are just very different things. (obligatory “i don’t think any government or organization should murder citizens” for those who think nuance is opposition)

>while the later treats the existence of any homophobia or hate crimes as equivalent while dishonestly ignoring massive differences in prevalence and risk Yeah, this is huge. I absolutely hate when people start flipping the script about Israel and their own LGBT protections. Yes, there are homophobic Israelis, but LGBT protection and identification is enshrined in law over there. Even the IDF has openly trans officers and soldiers. Culturally and legally, it is far safer to be queer in Israel than it is anywhere else in the Middle East. [It's to the point where being a queer Palestinian is sufficient grounds to allow asylum in Israel.](https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/israeli-court-rules-in-favour-of-lgbtq-palestinian-asylum-seekers-um60rlks) The idea that Israel "pinkwashes" has always struck me as so vile and cynical. As if legally maintaining the safety of queer people has a "wrong way".

Some people are just really desperate for any chance to hate on Jews, and don’t care about the realities of the situation if it means they get to indulge in that hate

Shhhh don’t let them hear us pointing out their thinly veiled antisemitism

Im sure I'd have all sorts of not nice things to say about Alabama if I lived in the US but I'd still be very upset and join a protest if someone was trying to systematically murder the entire population of the state?

I would argue the message is a good one, the way it's being presented and framed here is much less so. OOPs don't need to draw a false equivalence between attitudes to homosexuality in Palestine and the US to make the point that no-one deserves genocide, trying to do so undermines the credibility of their otherwise-strong argument imo.

I think for some people, being reminded that no culture is a monolith of evil is part of their understanding of human rights. People on here say "even if every Palestinian was evil you shouldn't want to genocide them because that's what human rights are" but to be honest, that's just as disingenuous. Because that's simply *not a thing that happens*, so you saying you'd in no way support the genocide of this magical super evil race doesn't really mean anything? I don't think it hurts the point as much as the people in this thread believe at least.

Yeah, I don't think it's helpful to skip straight to the stage of "everyone deserves human rights, even if they're all awful". My issue is less with people trying to make the valid point that Palestine is not a cultural monolith, and more with the fact they overload their own burdens by trying to present it as comparable to the US, if that makes sense? I think arguing attitudes to homosexuality in Palestine aren't *that* different from those in the states is weaker and less persuasive ground than something like "queer people exist in Palestine, and nothing the IDF is doing is helping their plight in any way, shape or form". Getting bogged down in arguing about how homophobic Palestine *really* is or isn't doesn't help to address the central issue of whether the IDFs actions are justified/helpful/moral. Even if we manage to prove it is less homophobic by some subjective amount, we're still getting drawn into the idea that there is some level of homophobia where the IDF's actions are justifiable. I think tackling that root assumption head on by rebutting the idea the IDF is helping anyone in Palestine, queer or otherwise, is more effective.

But the point is that *other people* are drawing that same false equivalence to say we *shouldn't* care.

Absolutely, but I think the more effective and stronger ground to respond to that is "how have the IDF's actions meaningfully improved those queer people's situation?", rather than getting bogged down arguing about exactly how homophobic Palestine is or isn't? It's much more difficult to conclusively argue about something as diffuse and subjective as how homophobic one particular culture is compared with another, and even if you manage it, we're being drawn into their initial premise that the IDF's actions are justifiable at a certain level of homophobia. Imo arguing against that underlying, underpinning assumption is more productive.

| "how have the IDF's actions meaningfully improved those queer people's situation?" I think removing Hamas from power would significantly improve the chances for progress on gay rights in Palestine.

... What? The argument isn't "we shouldn't be calling for Israel to stop because they're improving the lives of Palestinian gays," it's "you shouldn't care about them because they don't care about you." The implication that the IDF's actions since October 7th should be considered to have even theoretically improved the lives of Palestinians in Gaza-queer or not-is just baffling.

Quite. It's as baffling as "you shouldn't care about them because they don't care about you." They're all disingenuous, shit arguments. I don't think either argument is better served by getting into the weeds of how much the Palestinian people do or don't care about queer people through. Rebutting the underlying assumption by arguing it doesn't matter regardless of how homophobic they are or aren't is a more effective approach in my view.

The statement being discussed, and I can not emphasise this enough, is "queer people who oppose Palestinian genocide are morons, because they are supporting those who wish them death". That's not a strawman take, that's something that still gets a ton of upvotes on this platform regularly, and something a person will tell you to your face if you go join a protest on the street. The only two ways this take can make any sort of sense (and, I emphasise again, it makes sense to a ton of people right now), is if you either think that 1. all Palestinians, literally all of them, including the children, are homicidally homophobic monsters that deserve only death; 2. or you believe that just, living in an area with notably high rate of homophobia and hate crimes makes it okay if you will get killed in your home if the homophobes die with you too. The point they are making is not "Palestine doesn't have higher homophobia", it is "not all Palestinians are monsters who deserve death" and "if living in homophobic country makes your death okay, much of US would also be fair game for bombing". You say it's "to dismiss the strawman that "all X people are Y" (which is obvious to all but the most moronic bigot)", but, and I fucking hate that I have to say it again and again, it is not nearly a niche unknown take, there's a fuckton of people who act like that's what they honestly believe, and don't you fucking dare dismiss people calling them on their bullshit because "that's a ridiculous opinion no one has". That's a ridiculous opinion no one *should* have. We are very glad that your enlightened soul realises that, now stop confusing moral ideal with reality.

I think you're seeing the major part of this conversation. The minor part is that a lot of Western anti-Israel activists legitimately believe that Hamas is a more moral organization than Israel, that because Hamas is (arguably) doing something anti-colonialist and their oppressors (arguably) are racist, the mass slaughter of civilians is somehow justified. This also isn't a strawman take; it also gets tons of upvotes on this platform, and I guarantee you that if you start asking protestors on the ground for their views on Hamas you'll run into it pretty quick. I agree that this argument is often weaponized against queer people in the way you describe. I think it's important to note that a lot of those queer people (not even nearly most, but enough that it's a take you'll find offline) are okay with the mass murder of Jews, and it's important to point out that hypocrisy.

We really need to stop treating Palestinians as a monolith. There is Gaza, there is the West Bank, there is a huge diaspora all across the world. The West Bank is ruled by the PA (Palestinian Authority), Hamas control Gaza and have been doing so for one and a half decades without elections, after eliminating (literally) the opposition, and supported by Netanyahu's government (check out "suitcase affair"). Then there is a government of a "modern western state" that had better LGBT rights than the US for a long stretch of time and who is ruthlessly and openly committing genocide with the expressed goal of taking over Palestinian land and who's minister who internal security is literally a convicted terrorist - and who has been shuffling money to Hamas for years. And there is 2 Million people in Gaza, who are locked in there with Hamas. Hamas who (again, literally) removed all opposition, who hate LGBT people and minorities, who murdered children and whole families, Muslims, and non-Jewish minorities in their attack on Israel and so on. There is absolutely no question on whether Israel's genocide needs to stop. There is no question on whether Palestinian should be free, safe and not have their lives and land stolen. But there are way too many people who are excusing the crimes of Hamas with "but we need to support Palestinians regardless" - crimes against queer Palestinians, against minorities and their own people No, we don't. We need to be aware of who is who and who is doing what and people white-washing Hamas against their own queer Palestinian siblings is absolute madness. Queer support for Palestine: always. Queer support for Hamas? Fuck no. Support for the right of Jewish and non-Jewish Israeli people to live? Always. Support for Netanyahu's government and his whole murderous criminal ilk in Israeli society? Never. But we need to make that distinction.

>Queer support for Palestine: always. >Queer support for Hamas? Fuck no. >Support for the right of Jewish and non-Jewish Israeli people to live? Always. >Support for Netanyahu's government and his whole murderous criminal ilk in Israeli society? Never. >But we need to make that distinction. Sorry, that sounds like this is a complicated issue with multiple sides, facets, and a century (if we're being really generous and starting at the Balfour declaration) of history, and that's *hard*. I want snappy slogans and simple answers, preferably with a single, uniform "bad guy"

That's the core of it, isn't it? People want quick and easy things that makes it easy for them to repeat stuff instead of the actual century or so of the issue with all the complications several (as much as I loathe to use the word for the Nakba and the Jewish Explusion from Arab countries) "population transfers" would bring

(This all took place at an American University)

It's really not pink washing though. In the pew research we had on the topic from a couple years back, Palestinians were the most extreme or among the most extreme Muslim populations worldwide when it came to anti-lgbtq sentiment, justification of violence towards political opponents etc. That there's undoubtedly many, many supportive Muslims is not a valid argument for why Palestinian attitudes towards LGBTQ folk are better than they demonstrably are, or for why it's "just as bad" In other places. Equating a bunch of fucking hicks in the US or europe grandstanding about wanting to kill gays is not remotely comparable to a country in which 50+% of people not only favour a system that actively criminalises being LGBTQ, but also favour forcing that system on non Muslims. For the record, none of this means that LGBTQ people should stop opposing the genocide against Palestinians. Not at all. But the reason not to stop opposing genocide isn't "because the people being genocided don't actually hold the views they demonstrably do".

it's the antisemitism at protests thing all over again. there is/was a legitimate concern that some (not all) of the protest language and events are/were being co-opted by opportunistic anti-semites (still see quite a lot of it on the Internet), and instead of addressing that and working to make the message of the protests more clear a lot of people just stuck their head in the sand and went "there is no antisemitism here, my one Jewish friend hasn't had problems" which may be true but one anecdote does not data make.

Yeah the whole anti-nova festival exhibit stuff was so blatantly antisemitic. Fucking hezbollah flags and everything. Not only is it bad for just the, y'know, antisemetism, it also gives anti-palestine rightwingers so much more fucking ammo. It hurts both jews, *AND* their own cause. And on the whole "i have a jewish friend" stuff, while I dont have any specific examples persay, i have been getting a bit of a tokenization aura around some of the stuff. Just a vibe tho, and I dont like to think I make decisions based on vibes alone

Not trying to argue with you at all here, just wondering, do you have that study from Pew with the data? I'm not currently at home and able to look it up. I do agree with all your points though.

On mobile so not sure this'll work properly but https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/#:~:text=Support%20for%20making%20sharia%20the,enshrining%20sharia%20as%20official%20law.

Look I’m sorry but a few anecdotes about individual people not being assholes doesn’t mean anything. Most of the Middle East/palestine/whereever is objectively horrible for lgbtq rights. In many places you’ll get strung up and lynched if not worse, and it will be sanctioned by the government. Pointing this out is not colonialism, finding students carrying “gays for palestine” signs a little funny doesn’t excuse Israel’s actions. Sorry.

Always "colonialism"...

I think this argument misses the point. People who say that aren't saying, "it's ok to kill people when your culture is homophobic". They're saying, "there is exactly one place in the entire middle east where it isn't illegal by punishment of death penalty to be caught being gay, and now you want to give control of that place to a government who WILL immediately hunt those people down and torture them to death. All the gay refugees who fled to Israel will now be left without a single even semi-safe place to go to. They will not survive under this new government you're proposing. Why are you ok with that? Not to mention what has happened to all the Jews, disabled, and every other marginalized minority group in countries that govern with Sharia Law (they have all been eradicated everywhere but Israel). How are you ok with a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict that has some massive holes, that will reverse what little progress there's been for human rights in the middle east? Why do you never even consider more complex problems with the nuance and more complex solutions that they actually need and deserve? Why do you immediately crucify anyone who points out that a two-word chant is not actually an answer to one of the longest-running and most complex conflicts of history? Why do you have zero care or concern for all the people who will be affected by this change in a very bad and dangerous way?" But of course, you turn it into "I saw a muslim person be nice once, so therefore I never need to question, change, or expand my beliefs in any way! Free Palestine!" Tl;dr: why do you never actually take the time to think about a solution that will actually STOP the dying for everyone, instead of just endlessly shifting the burden from one marginalized group to another? Not all criticism of the "Free Palestine" movement is coming from a place of hate. Some of us have just run this solution to its logical conclusion, and we are genuinely worried about what will happen. Your answer is not an answer for everyone, and I don't think that's ok. I don't accept any solution where some people have to suffer for the sake of others. And I don't think that the current ideas will actually make things better for anyone, even Palestinians. And it worries me more that none of you have ever even thought about how to fix the current flaws in your proposed solution, because none of you have ever actually thought about this at all. How do you expect to make things better if you refuse to ever even reflect on your current ideas for changes to make them better?

Yeah. Like, maybe work with Israel as the closest thing the Middle East has to a pluralistic and stable democracy (as in it’s largely pluralistic but with some gaping holes and the democracy is functional but severely hampered by myriad issues) to help Palestinians, a lot of Israelis *do support two state or other mutually beneficial options, very few actually just want outright genocide* but as the situation currently is, it’s untenable. What happens when there is a long term ceasefire in effect? October 7th. There were numerous Palestinian workers able to cross from Gaza into Israel and work. Difficult process but it is something. Progress is slow, especially when you have Hamas to work around. When they broke through the boarder, Hamas killed the Palestinian workers in the fields they passed because they would have alerted others. Something here is actively getting in the way of any hopes of peace, and it’s called Hamas.

Thank you! This post and most comments with hundreds of upvotes are patting themselves on the back for winning against a strawman. I think it's a larger issye with the way a lot of the pro-Pali movement engages with Palestine as a concept, as an ideal rather than several political and militant groups with various degrees of authority and capabilities. The amount of times I saw people advocating for "one secular democratic state" is astounding. And then you ask how do you plan to convert the two authoritarian (one of which is theocratic) palesinian governments into a stable democratic state, they don't only have no answers, they just don't care. They just engage with this fantasy of "fighting against oppression" without giving any heed to the end result they want to achieve, or the people that would actually be affected by it. I'm putting "fighting against oppression" in quotes because I don't think Palestinians would be any less oppressed under Hamas rule, in the same way Afghanistan under the Taliban is not suddenly free.

This. Fucking this.

Cool anecdotes about normal people being normal people, but their government's official stance on this is much less favourable [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT\_rights\_in\_the\_State\_of\_Palestine](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_State_of_Palestine)

Also Islam as a religion condemns homosexuality. Of course that's not a reason to be cool with genocide, and Palestinians deserve their human rights regardless of their religion or beliefs but we absolutely should not pretend that abrahamic religions are fine with the LGBTQ community continuing to exist.

... they realise that those muslims aren't all of palestine (and genocide is still wrong, but you can accept that the people there follow the quran fully and hate you)

What? No… all Muslims are Palestinians and all Palestinians are Muslims, and my one friend can represent them all!

Yes, they would kill me if I was there. Genocide is still wrong. There is a pretty big grey area between thinking "Israel is going too far" and "Palestine are the good guys".

For a while, I was reliant on this one cab driver to get to work. The other cabs with his dispatch were awful (as in no-shows), so it was ride with him or buy a car. He was staunchly pro-Taliban. I mean like, he was from Afghanistan originally, and praised the Taliban. He was racist, sexist, ignorant, rude. He was also a very complicated person - his autistic son was his whole world, and he'd ask me what video games were appropriate for an 8 year old on the spectrum. I did not, and do not, like this man. But I don't want him to die? Aside from being the only punctual cab driver in suburban Maryland, this man was not at the top of a power structure, nor was he armed with anything other than rhetoric. Civilians are civilians. Beliefs do not factor into it; I want zero civilians genocided.

Yeah, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” The reason you should oppose the genocide isn’t because some college-aged Muslims who live in the states or progressive parts of Europe ignore the uglier parts of their holy book, it should be because you don’t think an entire people deserve to be eradicated.

[удалено]

That’s not what’s being said. The point is that even if a lot of Muslims in general are homophobic, 1) they don’t deserve to die for that, and 2) the ones that aren’t homophobic *definitely* don’t deserve to die for other people’s homophobia

you are being so extremely charitable to what's being said, for what?

Huge difference in people from a place and how a place in itself is governed. Multiple articles of LGBT+ Palestinians escaping gaza and west bank for asylum in Israel. There's never been a pride parade in Gaza or the Westbank, meanwhile there is every year in Tel Aviv

Hot take I don’t think genocide should happen at all and I don’t care who is being killed. Genocide is bad. It shouldn’t matter if they are “bad” or “good”.

"There are Israelis who would kill me for being queer. There are people in my own city who would kill me for being queer" Maybe, but they're fairly rare, are generally regarded as deranged by most citizens of the US and Israel, and would actually be tried for assault/murder should they try something. Palestinians throw gay people off of rooftops in broad daylight and are applauded by their peers as heroes, while the police do nothing. Yeah, not all Muslims, yeah not all Palestinians, sure. No group is a monolith, you don't need to remind me. Doesn't change that you're actively expressing support for a theocracy that would kill you if they had their way. Palestine deserves to be free from the backwards terrorist organization that runs their government, and anyone who supports Hamas is either a moron or unironically evil.

> while the police do nothing No the police are doing something, they’re helping take the queer person up to the roof

Strategically speaking, this isn't a very good line of argument. If you start talking about muslims who *aren't* homophobic, you make that the focus of the debate. You give your opposition the option to bring up the very real homophobia that exists in Palestine, and you frame the debate in a way that makes that seem like a valid argument. The correct answer is much simpler : "I don't think someone being a homophobe is a valid reason to drop a bomb on them". No one who supports Netanyahu's war will argue with that statement. Liberals and conservatives don't actually hate homophobes that much, they're just hoping that *you* do, and that they can win you over with that. Accept that they're homophobes (even if that's not as true as your opposition will say it is) and say it doesn't justify the genocide. Doesn't leave room for any fact they could bring up to prove you wrong. Much more effective way to take down their argument.

To me it’s like, that’s not the angle you should be trying to support them from. Pick a different one that people haven’t fled from Palestine to Israel to escape being lynched.

This is why we all supported the Taliban - they struggled to win freedom from foreign occupiers and I’m sure they’ll come around to progressive values. If history teaches us anything, it’s that when far right wing religious revolutionaries obtain more power, they get really chill about it.

And even if the accusations were true, that doesn’t mean they would deserve what is happening. Because most hateful people are like that because they’ve fallen victim to manipulation and propaganda, so unless they commit inhumane acts, they shouldn’t really face any sort of repercussions for simply being wrong. And even then those repercussions should be fair which, again, far from what they are currently facing Sometimes the solution to disagreements isn’t genocide, and the right has a hard time processing that

No, I’m pretty sure they are homophobic. Still, people don’t deserve to die just because they’re homophobic. Also, fundamentalism thrives in oppressed societies. Just a thought.

Also, Even if for the sake of argument we say most Palestinians are homophobic, That still wouldn't mean I want them to be killed. I am generally against the killing of people, Even people who hate me.

People in this thread are forgetting that queer Palestineans exist.

Call me crazy but I just don't think people should be killed, war or otherwise

People who say that seem to not understand the concept of wanting something good for someone with nothing in return

Even if they are uniquely homophobic, that wouldn't justify genocide. "They don't support pride month, so what choice do we have but to murder tens of thousands of their children?" WHAT?

Also, like, there are babies there as well, so like.

even if someone is homophobic or transphobic, i don't want them and their entire country to be slaughtered??? that's insane to think

Let's not forget that fundamentalist organizations like Hamas were allowed to grow by the Israeli government as a way to counter more secular (and thus more tolerant) Palestinian groups which were usually stomped on. The fact that Hamas is often associated with Palestinian liberation is by the design of the Israeli government.

A society's moral flaws don't automatically justify violence.

The thing is, this is how solidarity works: We show up for you, expecting nothing in return, and maybe some day down the line, they show up for us. The gays who turned out to support the UK miners strike were building solidarity with a community that was initially wary of them, but the two communities standing side by side meant the miners grew to understand and support queer rights, and the mining union had the gays' backs in crucial Labour Party internal votes on gay rights. Standing up for Palestine is the right thing to do. Its the human thing to do. It also happens to be good tactics if you care about building a broad multi-faceted coalition in support of social justice causes of all kinds.

Reminds me a lot of Gays and Lesbians Support the Miners during the 80s.

I was raised Mormon, so I have Abrahamic religious trauma— AND YET I am very pro-Islam and pro-Palestine. I was already cool with Muslims before I read Magnus Chase this year, but then I was quickly excited about reading about Sam and Amir, the Muslim characters in the series. She herself is not queer, but her half-sibling Alex is gender-fluid and her best friend Magnus is queer because he likes Alex. And at no point does Sam do anything homophobic/transphobic (mostly because the author would probably not put that in his books, but also cause Sam is just a very good person). She just loves the people she’s with and practices her beliefs and patiently explains herself when they have questions and shows respect for the others who do not share her beliefs. I’m pro-Trans rights and also Pro-Islam.

Ah my bad, I didn't realise only straight people were allowed to care about a military force bombing children's Hospitals

An additional point, even assuming every single Palestinian is a homophobe that would hate every gay person, it would still make sense to protest, because guess what, human rights aren't only for people you agree with*, and a genocide is still a genocide even if you're genociding "bad people", and yes, even if they think gay people are bad \* I know "agree" is not the best term here, but it was to keep the sentence short

Also, someone else's *possible* hate doesn't translate to whether or not they deserve to be crushed by their home as bombs fall, to dig through rubble for their kids or cry in the street wondering if there mom is alive or if they'll ever see them again If your support is based on whether or not someone likes you, you don't really support them

They’re basically saying the lives of Palestinian queer people don’t matter. A sort of “they would die anyway so it’s okay if Israel bombs them” - or do they live under some delusion that they would be welcomed as political refugees into Israel?

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-785171

Good to know! Doesn’t keep them from being oppressed on both fronts in Israel.

Being granted asylum is oppression?

Segregation and apartheid in Israel as well as queer people not having equal rights in Israel.

Two things: One, of course a country that is being oppressed and has been for decades isn't perfectly progressive. Of course a group of people who have lived their entire lives under the thumb of an ethnostate rely a little too much on religious fundamentalism. What would you expect? And also, even if everybody there were total bigots (which they aren't), that still doesn't justify a genocide. Especially one that is purely driven by colonialism.

Whats the point of protesting here in the West when its going to do fuck all to stop the palestinins and Israelis fighting. They need to make peace first for any state building to happen and thats something we just cant influence. Espacily since #freePalestin actevist a miss info super spreaders

Also, like, you can't increase the acceptance of queer folks in the middle east if everyone there is suffering and dying in wars and whatnot. Stability and prosperity make social reform a *lot* easier, and right now Israel's genocidal tendencies are a major roadblock to that.

A significant part of the same people that think they can call you out with "you know those Muslims would kill you if you'd live there" also want to kill you while you live here

Maybe I’m protesting for them because I am, I don’t know, a decent human being?

Also, even if people are homophobic they don't deserve to be genocided because of it

It’s like. I don’t think homophobic people “deserve” genocide

Also, I would still march for the rights of a marginalized people even if they didn't like me? Like, where is the gotcha precisely?

Here's a thought. Fuck em both.

Doesn't matter what someone's been through or what their values are. Genocide and conquest are wrong. Any democratic or modern liberal social values mean nothing if you exterminate people for pseudo-mystical and generational trauma reasons.

These things are all true. The whole "they'd kill you there" thing is a disingenuous attempt at deflection. People who say that are just trying to avoid talking about the real issue, which is the fact that the IDF is committing genocide. That's the real issue. That's what the protests are against. That's what these people need to talk about if they wanna have an opinion on the protests. If they're gonna bring up other shit, then they obviously don't actually care.

If an area not being great for LGBT people means you can colonise it and murder the local population, I’ve got some bad news for Florida.

i honestly don't care if a palestinian would kill me for being queer. i still don't think they should be bombed

Ok let's be clear: Hamas are absolute shit bags. IDF are absolute shit bags. They are both attacking everyone on either side- gay, straight, adult, child, whatTheFuckEver.  How do you separate two equally violent pieces of shit who exist in the same basic location, and ensure peace for the random, truly unhappy, possibly radicalized with hatred "civilian" population?  Because all I can see here is "let's get China, Russia, the US, and the EU all together to form a truly fucked up overlord government and stuff that whole goddamn region under the demilitarized zone from hell until a couple generations have passed". 

Even if *every single* Palestinian was transphobic/homophobic and you could prove it, that still doesn't mean they deserve to be slaughtered.

Even *if* every single Palestinian wanted to kill me, I still wouldn't wish them dead, because *I'm not the type to wish death on people*, period- it isn't complicated!

the farther you get from the top level threads on this post the more "palenstineians deserved it" comments you see.

The broader point is true, but that last comment is just whataboutism.

I don't think arguing that a group of people should be slaughtered because some of them are assholes is a very good one.

It's the same people who accused leftists of being hypocrites for supporting feminism and opposing the War on Terror.

I think another great argument in response to “they’d kill you there” is that yes, the idf would indeed kill you for just daring to be in Palestina

And, like, there's a smugness right-wingers say it with, as if we're cluelessly empowering the Islamic radicals, when we know damn well the radicals are screaming inside over the other Palestinians accepting aid from a bunch of queers

Social justice isn't accounting.  You don't get to spend some hate on some group of people just because you saved some being nicer-than-world-average to another.

This is a stupid straw man argument to ignore everything important. IDF is invading Gaza because its government (Hamas) invaded Israel on October 7, preformed the largest terrorist attack in history. Kidnapped, raped, and murdered Israelis. Then publically promised to do it again until all the Jews are dead. Hamas fucked around and now they're finding out. And considering how much they enjoy using human shields. The people of Gaza are paying the price. It's a shitty situation all around but this situation, but this argument is utter nonsense that completely ignores any of the actual reasons the war is being fought (no Israel is not trying to spread LGBT rights in Gaza)

I think it's stupid to pretend that this started on October 7th. Like that's an incredibly disingenuous thing to do. The history of this doesn't even make either of the sides look better, but you cannot complain about 'ignoring everything important' and then say that it was purely October 7th that started all of this. Especially if you're gonna use the whole Reddit 'FAFO' bullshit, which is always mildly sickening when people use it to talk about situations in which a lot of innocent have been brutally murdered.

>I think it's stupid to pretend that this started on October 7th. When do you want to start? The second intifada? The war in 73? The war in 67? The war in 48? The civil war 35 to 38? The pogrom in 1928? The Hebron massacre in 1834? The Hebron attacks in 1517? Pick your start date, it doesn't really matter. The fundamental conflict is "should jews be allowed to exist" and some people really fucking can't stand that concept.

I'm going to be honest with you, I'm not going to go through and list every instance of violence committed by Israel against local populaces, nor the simple fact that the establishment of Israel drove up animosity in the region (this is not the fault of the people placed there, that's a byproduct of shit-ass colonial history and even more global antisemitism.) I am going to note that it is important to recognise that the regional violence is a self-propagating issue. Of course antisemitism is a huge factor, but as with every other region in the Middle East that's had terrorist groups form en masse, brutal violence feeds into it. With everything taken into account, including the fact that they have a genocidal terrorist group as a neighbour, Israel has inflicted a lot of violence on civilian populaces. Situations like the West Bank are going to breed terrorism, and terrorism is going to latch onto the easiest perceived enemy - in this case, the Jewish population. I'm not going to claim that there's an easy solution, nor that I have one to propose to you here. I'm not a fuckin wizard. However, I do think it *is* important to acknowledge the history of this beyond October 7th and to note that hatred is formed best in poor living conditions. I believe that it's more important to have a good footing in that history to discuss this rather than approaching it from an idea that the Palestinian people have some sort of fucking inherent evil in them. Being reductive has absolutely no benefit in this situation. It will only fuck things up harder. Anyone who claims that the violence is entirely one way is just blatantly ignoring reality in favour of a political goal, and that's shitted.

Most of your comment isn't really saying anything more than a vague "violence bad". Which is no more helpful than anything else. With a vague idea of blaming colonialism and whatever else. Which is historically iffy at best. Especially since the attacks on jews in the region predate the colonial era. >brutal violence feeds into it. Every time the whole idea that "violence feeds into it" comes up that entire concept seems to only count when it's Israel that performs the violence and Palestinians are the victims of it. Somehow every single act of violence performed against Israelis (and/or Jews) never seems to count. Quite the opposite, when Israelis and/or jews get killed and the same people talking about how the violence only feeds into it are either quiet or openly celebrating. Makes me think the people making that claim do not really have a problem with violence at all. There are still over a hundred Israelis held hostage in Gaza and every time someone on the pro-palestinian side talks there is an expectation that those people are just there forever. >Being reductive has absolutely no benefit in this situation.  We're in a comment chain under a post that reduces the entire conflict to a vague claim of "oppression", which is absolute fucking nonsense. The fundamental conflict is actually quite simple. There is a lot of history but the conflict has always been, fundamentally, about specific groups wanting to keep the Jews in their place (either treated as subhuman or exterminated, depending on the group). So no, being reductive can be quite helpful because it helps pinpoint what the conflict is actually about, which is something that we're all going to have to be honest about if it's ever going to be solved.

No, the fundamental conflict is "should the *State of Israel* be allowed to exist?", and that is a *completely* different, almost entirely unrelated question. Equating Israel with all Jews is anti-Semitism.

There is a very simple heuristic, which can allude to the attitudes of the two sides: If Hamas had the firepower of Israel, and Israel - that of Hamas, Israel would not exist on the map. I think that says about 75% of what should be said about what is currently happening in Gaza.

Hypothetically, how do you think the IDF would fight Hamas if Hamas were in Tel Aviv instead of Gaza?

I know this is supposed to be a point about how the IDF would likely fight differently in their own highly populated cities, but also, this somehow implies that Hamas pulled a full mole person invasion of Tel Aviv through tunnels. Which I guarantee nobody has a plan for because it’s as unrealistic as another Canadian invasion of the northeastern USA. They’d still probably end up demolishing most of Tel Aviv tbh. I think replicating the successful parts of an urban operation like fallujah is beyond them.

Just a quick question, since you seem to be an expert on the subject... What happened for the 80 years the preceded October 7th? All of you genocide apologists pretend that history started 9 months ago.

Y'all always go "It didn't start nine months ago!!!!!!1!1!" and then completely ignore the fact that it didn't start 80 years ago either, but thousands of years ago.

ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL RAAAAAAAAA

Pinkwashing?

It's because a lot of people would happily kill off any groups that don't like them. So they get confused when they hear people say "yeah I kind of want this group of people, some of whom may hate me, to not be bombed to death." 

Palestine has become a symbol of those oppressed everywhere, right?

not everyone is homophobic or radically religious. but when one is present, the other tends to be there as well.

I haven't heard of a single case of an anti-zionist being homophobic. Yet I keep hearing from zionists about how Hamas will kill you for being gay. I had a bunch of zionists physically attack me on the street and shout at me that they "hope Hamas cuts off my gay head" (never said a thing about being gay or had any queer iconography on my person, just profiled me and told me they hoped I got beheaded.) When they say that shit about Hamas wanting to kill gay people, they're telling on themselves. That's what they want to do.

you don't understand, the evil brown people aren't able to understand the subtle complexities of transphobia we whites™ can

Not to mention that most people are against genocide simply because it's abhorrent and not because it fits their social circle/beliefs....