[throwaway3060]

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]

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]

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.

[kombine]

Israel couldn't even defend themselves against Iran missile attacks without US and UK stepping in. Israel wouldn't survive the the kind of sanctions the West imposed on Russia and should have imposed on Israel too.

[throwaway3060]

I wonder how the victims of Russia's imperialism feel about this comparison.

If you back someone into a corner with no escape valve, they will just double down.

[moxifly7]

A Cuba style embargo on Israel until they stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population would be the end of the current direction of the Israeli establishment.

Look at the size of the country, the natural resources and where they are positioned.

They are dependent on Western imports for pretty much everything, and only export technology that Europe and the US can easily replace with domestic or other foreign sources.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Cuba style embargo on Israel until they stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population would be the end of the current direction of the Israeli establishment

Doubtful. You’d just get another Iran. Israel is rich and a weapons buyer and exporter. That gives it many friends of opportunity, from Russia to India.

[moxifly7]

Building those weapons requires foreign imports. An embargo would stop that.

Rich doesn't mean much if you're under international financial sanctions and can't use your assets.

>You'd just get another Iran.

The sanctions have crippled Iran making it a much less powerful and influential version of what it would have been without sanctions. And by the looks of it is now on the verge of collapse. So I guess this kinda reinforces the point that Western sanctions on Israel would be effective?

Yes, like Russia and Iran, the fanatics in charge could continue in their direction for years, but they would be much less potent and the reaction of their population (who largely have dual nationalities and have extensive business and family ties abroad) may end up forcing a change in direction from the state policy of slow genocide and gradual ethnic cleansing of their indigenous population.

[throwaway3060]

China and Russia would love to have another chess piece for their collection. While I doubt Israel would ever willingly choose to joint that circle - if you give them no choice, that's what will happen. Then you lose all leverage. Not to mention, Russian arms are a lot more likely to hit untargeted civilians.

[peterashford]

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]

> 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]

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.