That's a shallow take. How about: people learned about the situation between Palestine and Israel and root for human rights and ability to live in safety.
The entire conflict has been a staging ground for juvenile takes. From people demanding one side agree to a ceasefire that the other side never even offered to others calling for indiscriminate attacks on civilians on both sides. At best it is a lot of tough talk from ignorant people with zero skin in the game. The IDF and Hamas are just going to do whatever they think gives them maximum advantage while the world remains hands-off.
The international community has been nurturing the dysfunctional status quo for some time in hopes of a two-state solution. With one hand providing weaponry to Israel–usually but not always defensive equipment like AA–and with the other billions in humanitarian aid to Gaza and the West Bank. Meanwhile other foreign actors have been funding the insurgency in Gaza to disrupt peace efforts. It's a very messy situation where the state of Israel has both committed crimes against Palestinians and is simultaneously presently unable to just go hands-off as foreign actors have demanded.
One needn’t even go as far as “the international community”, Hamas was funded by Israel itself as a perceived counterweight to the secular PLO. Divide and conquer is what kept the Israeli settlers moving outwards, and that necessitated funding and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and later Hamas.
If they account for more details, sure. They usually are.
Take the comment originally responded to. Hamas is more of an underdog than Palestine, yet the public opinion we're discussing here is pro-palestinian, not pro-hamas.
No they are not. I can very easily come up with even more convoluted take than yours and call your shallow. Doesn't mean my convoluted take is superior.
eg: it unlikely that american teens on tiktok can enumerate human rights.
"Occam’s razor is a principle often attributed to 14th–century friar William of Ockham that says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one."
But that is Ockham's opinion. Doesn't mean it is some unassailable universal truth. The keyword here is "should"; it is a prescriptive opinion, nothing more
You're going to have to give us your parameters for "superior," and we can compare notes. I consider an informed opinion superior to an uninformed one, and a comment that displays insight to one without insight, and effort superior to a lack thereof.
I don't know why you're going through this much effort to defend your comment. You couldn't even be arsed to write the word "people" out entirely. I have to assume you're just here to troll.
