This is a
really hard problem. Just consider that there are ~150 Muslims for every Jew worldwide. In the USA it's the reverse - 2:1 in favor of Jews, concentrated in particular geographic areas.
Imagine what it means to get ranking right here - if you let just 1% of the international population into the USA ranking system, you have a majority in favor of Palestine, and of course these ideas will spread in communities without a lot of people who can represent Jewish history. It's clear to me why this happens, but fixing in an algorithmic but fair way is also extremely difficult.
I think there's an erroneous implicit assumption in your reasoning, namely that to be Zionist is equivalent to be Jewish, and to be anti-zionist is to be Muslim (otherwise, why would you be talking about Jew:Muslim ratios). The fact of the matter is that not every Zionist* is Jewish (in fact, the vast majority of Zionists are christian), and vice versa not every Jewish person is a Zionist (Jewish voice for peace, the ultra orthodox, etc).
But even beyond that, I think engaging in censorship to hide an ethnic cleansing is an affront to humanity.
* Here, I'm taking Zionism to mean to be in support of the way Israel has formed and continued to form in the past 77 or so years. I am aware that there are many different interpretations of Zionism (to illustrate the breadth; Noam Chomsky considered himself a Zionist), but this particular interpretation is the one that is relevant to this conversation.
The pager attack indiscruminantly attacked healthcare workers and killed a 9 year old girl and another child. It was the definition of untargeted, immoral and unprofessional. How does eliminating over 3% of a population, of which the majority are women and children amount to anything but deliberate extermination? There is nothing defensive about the IOF, or the army which calls palestinian citizens "human animals" and says "no child is too young to be a terorist"
There is nothing indiscriminate about attacking Hizbollah pagers. There is however something indiscriminate about attacking civilians like on Oct 7. Targeting civilians as a matter of fact. Even if someone called them "animals" it's hardly equivalent to women being raped and having their breasts cut off, and being stabbed while being raped. That would be "treating" people like animals. Let's not forget who launched this whole war. Hamas.
You're right, attacking civilians
is bad. So what does it say about a nation when it kills at least fifty thousand? (
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...)
Again, you are not differentiating between targeting and collateral damage. Hamas broke a ceasefire and targeted civilians. Israel went in to destroy Hamas with the unfortunate result of civilians dying as collateral damage. When you say 50k, there are several problems. For starters you are quoting the Gaza Health Ministry which is Hamas and is provably unreliable. On top of that about 40% of those are Hamas fighters, which you are failing to differentiate between. If you take the time to look at urban warfare statistics, you can see that the IDF has put more effort into preserving civilians than any other army. If you don't believe me just reference John Spencer who is the head (and founder I believe) or urban warfare studies at West Point. You're also ignoring the biggest point, which is that Hamas attacked Israel, which pulls Israel into a war they did not want. During the ceasefire, why was there not a push for peace by Hamas? Why did they think murdering innocents, raping teenagers at a music festival, and kidnapping families and babies is the right course of action? It's amazing to me you are defending this in even the most remote sense? Why did Gaza not build itself into a productive economy and instead elect Hamas, a totalitarian religious regime into power? It's a ridiculous argument to even begin to try and make excuses for this.
Not at all, the ICC is a kangaroo court. They issued a warrant for Netanyahu and a dead Hamas leader. That is insane. Also have you seen the U.N.s resolution against Israel?! They have more resolutions against Israel than against the rest of the world combined! I can't explain that except for either some foreign interest funding them to condemn Israel in this way, possibly anti-semitism, or maybe the entire body was co-opted by malicious actors. Just as a point of comparison about how one sided and strange the criticism of Israel is, recently a mass grave was found in Syria with 100,000 dead in it. That's more than twice this entire war, plus they were NOT combatants. That's Bashar Al-Assad. To top it off he is also killed an additional 600,000 of his own citizens. The war in Yemen, largely perpetrated by the Houthis (another Iranian militia, much like Hamas, and Hizbollah) killed another 400,000 people. These are insane numbers and these are not defensive wars. Yet somehow Israel is worse? Iran has murdered who knows how many of their civilians since 1979, North Korea, Russia, but a tiny democracy in the middle east is the devil? It's complete bs.
The Israel conflict is somehow popular, it's just anti -westernism coupled with support for socialism / communism for some odd reason, which is popular at the moment, mixed in with anti-semitism.. anti-zionism is the same thing btw. Zionism as described in modern political terms started around 1880, that's 145 years ago! There is no Zionism anymore. Also, it's a weird term. As I've mentioned basically all jews are "zionists" because they will all gravitate to "zion" which is a mountain in Jerusalem. It's the same as Muslims gravitating towards Mecca. If I was "anti-maccanism" it's the same as being anti-muslim.