4 ms·

Gaza is not just about the suffering but also the fact that the suffering is directly caused by a rich Western nation enabled by all other rich Western nations.

Gaza is not just about the suffering but also the fact that the suffering is directly caused by a rich Western nation enabled by all other rich Western nations. As far as I can tell the US is not supplying the army of Sudan with billions of cash, munition, weapons and unconditionally political backing.

energy123 2y ago
[flagged]
- apexalpha 2y ago
  I seriously doubt the indirect support for the war in Yemen or in Sudan through proxies even comes close to the direct support for Israel. Also please dont dismiss opposing views as irrelevant copy pastas. Im not blind to your argument either. If you have sources that say the level of support is similar after all ill consider them.
  - addicted 2y ago
    The logical implication of your reasoning is that if the U.S. were to drop 5 bombs on the people of Sudan, that killed a few dozen people, US involvement would be even more direct and therefore that would make protesting the deaths of hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of people morally justified? As long as the US does not drop bombs, however, it’s completely moral to ignore these deaths altogether?
  - gryzzly 2y ago
    According to this The Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/09/us-israel-weapons https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/09/us-israel-weap...) US exports of weapons are at about 3.3bln. According to this article (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-time-to-stop-us-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-time-to-stop-us-arms-...) US exports to Saudis are more in $ value: > In the five years before the war, U.S. arms transfers to Saudi Arabia amounted to $3 billion; between 2015 and 2020, the U.S. agreed to sell over $64.1 billion worth of weapons to Riyadh, averaging $10.7 billion per year. Sales to other belligerents in the war, like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), also rose exponentially. Not sure about the quality of these sources, but these seem to not be complete garbage and they suggest at least comparable volumes of weapons export.
  - energy123 2y ago
    Labelling support for one as "indirect" and the other as "direct" is begging the question via rhetorical framing. The Saudis wouldn't have a functioning military if it wasn't for US support, they receive more weapons as a percentage of their arms from the US than Israel does. I don't want to split hairs and do bean counting. But the level of passion surrounding the war in Gaza and the level of detachment surrounding the war in Yemen is a contrast that can't be explained by your hypothesis. There's a mental fixation and a level of moralizing that tells me other factors are more salient.
    - perihelions 2y ago
      You're drastically underselling your point: the US didn't just passively sell arms to the Saudis—US foreign policy deliberately supported their bombing campaign in Yemen, since the Houthi group is a common enemy to both (and to most of the world, really). It was only very late into the Saudi atrocities that the US government started to balk—late, because, as is our topic, US domestic media narratives entirely ignored the civilian consequences of what the Saudis did in Yemen. There's an entire Wiki entry devoted to this question, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_operations_in_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saud... ("United States support for Saudi Arabian–led operations in Yemen") (It might be clarifying to remember that the start of this conflict, the Saudis weren't the aggressors. The Houthis (at least from the US PoV) were the aggressors. The US (and others) viewed this as a defensive war against the Houthi rebellion, in which war the Saudis were allies and partners in defending the legitimate Yemeni government against a violent, Iran-backed, terroristic insurgency. This was the context in which the US sided with the Saudi military).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
yhavr 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
golergka 2y ago
[flagged]

energy123 2y ago

[flagged]

apexalpha 2y ago
I seriously doubt the indirect support for the war in Yemen or in Sudan through proxies even comes close to the direct support for Israel. Also please dont dismiss opposing views as irrelevant copy pastas. Im not blind to your argument either. If you have sources that say the level of support is similar after all ill consider them.
- addicted 2y ago
  The logical implication of your reasoning is that if the U.S. were to drop 5 bombs on the people of Sudan, that killed a few dozen people, US involvement would be even more direct and therefore that would make protesting the deaths of hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of people morally justified? As long as the US does not drop bombs, however, it’s completely moral to ignore these deaths altogether?
- gryzzly 2y ago
  According to this The Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/09/us-israel-weapons https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/09/us-israel-weap...) US exports of weapons are at about 3.3bln. According to this article (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-time-to-stop-us-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/its-time-to-stop-us-arms-...) US exports to Saudis are more in $ value: > In the five years before the war, U.S. arms transfers to Saudi Arabia amounted to $3 billion; between 2015 and 2020, the U.S. agreed to sell over $64.1 billion worth of weapons to Riyadh, averaging $10.7 billion per year. Sales to other belligerents in the war, like the United Arab Emirates (UAE), also rose exponentially. Not sure about the quality of these sources, but these seem to not be complete garbage and they suggest at least comparable volumes of weapons export.
- energy123 2y ago
  Labelling support for one as "indirect" and the other as "direct" is begging the question via rhetorical framing. The Saudis wouldn't have a functioning military if it wasn't for US support, they receive more weapons as a percentage of their arms from the US than Israel does. I don't want to split hairs and do bean counting. But the level of passion surrounding the war in Gaza and the level of detachment surrounding the war in Yemen is a contrast that can't be explained by your hypothesis. There's a mental fixation and a level of moralizing that tells me other factors are more salient.
  - perihelions 2y ago
    You're drastically underselling your point: the US didn't just passively sell arms to the Saudis—US foreign policy deliberately supported their bombing campaign in Yemen, since the Houthi group is a common enemy to both (and to most of the world, really). It was only very late into the Saudi atrocities that the US government started to balk—late, because, as is our topic, US domestic media narratives entirely ignored the civilian consequences of what the Saudis did in Yemen. There's an entire Wiki entry devoted to this question, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_operations_in_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saud... ("United States support for Saudi Arabian–led operations in Yemen") (It might be clarifying to remember that the start of this conflict, the Saudis weren't the aggressors. The Houthis (at least from the US PoV) were the aggressors. The US (and others) viewed this as a defensive war against the Houthi rebellion, in which war the Saudis were allies and partners in defending the legitimate Yemeni government against a violent, Iran-backed, terroristic insurgency. This was the context in which the US sided with the Saudi military).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

yhavr 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

golergka 2y ago

[flagged]