https://sh.itjust.works/post/31716642
Edit: There used to be a screenshot here. I messed up the link in an edit and don't have a local copy saved.
My comment was roughly 'It already looks like it might be better than things now, at least Biden never advocated for full displacement of all Palestine."
I had already seen half the comment section of the post with ban marks. This single comment copped me a fully-expected permaban. Unfortunately my comment doesn't show up in modlogs so I had to retype it more or less from memory.
The bloodshed:
Screenshot edited as per mod request.
Most of the banned comments are actually still visible. If you browse the thread you'll notice there's nothing particularly inflammatory or banworthy about any of them.
Best part, in the middle of all that banning, our buddy found the time to mod the one guy in that post who supported his opinions. Welp, another echo chamber in the making.
Follow up:
The mod posted in a similar post in this comm. FWIW, while I stand by my actions and opinion, I did msg them to offer them a personal apology.
The most frustrating part of getting banned from there is that having echo chambers like that decreases the likelihood that new Lemmy users will stick around.
Palestinians have my full sympathy and the Israeli government my full ire, with the past year's bloodshed demonstrating that an independent Palestine being necessary and long overdue if there's to be any chance of a long term peace.
My problem with the moderator's comments was twofold. First, they themselves are demonstrating an extremist position in suggesting that terrorism committed in retribution to Israel's war crimes is in any way acceptable. While I can sympathize with there being few other meaningful options available when Israel has the US as an ally, any hope of meaningful political support for the Palestinian cause—something will only degrade further under Trump—is lost if Israel is no longer seen as the aggressor. Resistance is one thing, terrorism is another.
Secondly, setting the goalposts of success as being the proclamation of a ceasefire was meaningless, given that they now have Trump's support to gradually expel the remaining Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and establish additional Israeli settlements. Like him or not, Biden was at the very least against that, something that means a lot more in terms of the long term ability for Palestinians to remain in Palestine.
Having been banned, I can't interact with any posts on there now unfortunately, so just added it to my block list. More importantly, however, the more echo chambers that people establish on Lemmy, the harder it'll be to attract new users to the platform.
Military force is the primary limiting factor against Israel, not international sympathy. This election has demonstrated the limitations of that sympathy, because at least in the US, the electoral system completely disregards popular support on this issue. How exactly do you envision international sympathy manifesting into significant material change?
Sadly, it does not. In this instance.
The problem is not that Americans are unable to vote for what they want, although give it a few years and that may be an issue, too. The issue is that what they want is support for Israel. It's in the media and mass understanding of the world aspect. I doubt you could talk to 10 random Americans and find a single one who's aware of what is happening in Gaza in reality, or that it's a holocaust. Probably the most you would get is that "there's a war" and general support for either Israel or awareness of the suffering of Palestinians in general.
Personally, I'm quite surprised that the "Palestine" line is that high. But bottom line, about 80% of people in the US don't even see the Palestinians as the more sympathetic party, let alone are really aware of the horror that's going on there.
If you have a different poll I'm open to look. I found this one in Newsweek which definitely isn't a stellar source, but it is citing a pretty reliable poll, and the central question sounds unbiasedly phrased instead of focusing on a more useless question like "Do you support a ceasefire?"
https://www.newsweek.com/american-opinions-israel-change-year-after-october-seven-1964801
Your poll clearly shows that only a minority of people are more sympathetic to Israel, yet both candidates offered complete support to Israel. How does, "I'm about equally sympathetic to both sides," translate to, "I think we should give billions of dollars of military equipment to one side?" And I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the "more sympathetic towards Israelis" people still want to be less involved in the conflict, after all, it's not as if all the "more sympathetic towards Palestinians" people want the government to arm Hamas.
Because in a 2 party voting system, politicos generally take whichever side of an issue will (they believe) net them the most votes. Whether their choice did actually net them the most votes is another question entirely.
It translates to "I can understand and live with whatever decisions the politicos make". Which then leads the politicos to consider the previous point, of 'which side will probably net me the most votes?'.
You're just making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. There's no basis for that extrapolation.
Remember, the poll didn't ask anything about whether or not we should be involved in the conflict at all. That means everyone who opposed involvement had to choose one of the three options listed - even isolationists. It's very fair to say that not everyone who supports isolationism is going to be more sympathetic towards Palestine, in fact, it's reasonable to say that many of them wouldn't pay much attention to foreign affairs at all (as in, they care that public funds are going to foreign conflicts but not about the details of those conflicts), and thus might give either the neutral response or the response that they've passively absorbed through the media. In the same way, there are probably plenty on isolationists who are more sympathetic to Ukraine than to Russia, and yet still don't think we should be involved.
When asked about military aid to Israel, opinions are split, roughly 50-50:
The half that were opposed had no candidate courting them whatsoever and therefore had more potential to win over, and there are enough of them to be competitive. Instead, the Democrats went chasing after the pro-Israel voters who already had a candidate offering them everything they could dream of. It's the same story every time the Democrats run right on any issue to try to appeal to "moderate Republicans," it never works. In fact, there were 34% of Republicans who weren't happy about military aid to Israel, and if they wanted to appeal to dissatisfied Republicans, those could've been a prime target.
Two things can be true.