[kombine]

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

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

[woodruffw]

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

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

[JumpCrisscross]

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

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

[troupo]

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

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

[throwaway3060]

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.

[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