Alue42

Nowhere in my response did I say that anyone had a right to the land, and nowhere in my response did I say that it was Western powers that I was concerned about getting resources.

This is what happens when someone looks at the surface of issues and then becomes incredibly passionate about it.

You need to listen to people that have lived through many, many years of middle east conflicts. Talk with people who have been entrenched over there. Become friends with middle easterners who have moved over here during the 80s and 90s (as adults, not the children of those that came over) and started businesses and ask about their experiences.

You don't want to hear about how things are nuanced, but you look at things in such a black and white manner, which is typical of those in your age group becoming interested in politics.

You are still being incredibly naive.

Would you give bullets to someone after watching them shoot a kid if it benefitted you?

It has nothing to do with it benefiting me - or specifically the US as the case with Israel goes, or even the party or the politician. As I tried to describe in my original comment, it is a strategic move for GLOBAL PEACE - not just the US. This is not only about US intervention, which it is clear you have a lot of thoughts about, but also about the ports and access to resources both in and out for all of the countries in that region, and militaries of all countries. And destroying our only allyship in that region (not just us, but the other countries that have maintained their stance with Israel), maintains the ability to keep a foothold in that region.

If someone just shot a child in front of me, would I give them bullets? If they controlled the only access to all of the resources (oil, water, food, etc) that would cause my other allies to die without during times of crisis, I would absolutely consider it. That does not mean it would come without limitations.

For you to still think this way after it being explained to you shows how shortsighted and limited you are thinking.

From the rest of your comments, it's clear that you are very interested in politics and learning a lot, which is good! And you've gotten to a lot of topics, also good. But it seems like you have gotten to the surface level issues and become very passionate about them and it's that way or the highway instead of looking any deeper.

You've admitted that you are young and haven't been around for large scale issues and deep seated treaties and ally-ships that lead to the development of global political issues. It is incredibly understandable that given your age and experience you've summed up your decision into what you've currently seen in the news and perhaps the few bullet-point-history issues you've read up on.

The issues going on with Israel are enormously complex and are not as simple as who's land it is, who is keeping who away, and who is committing genocide. Yes, it is horrible, and it would be ideal if our political leader could step up and call out that country for those actions. The unfortunate reality from a geopolitical perspective and from the strategic perspective of being a world leader that needs to think many, many steps ahead is that the middle east is a very hostile area, and Israel is very strategically placed to not only have an ally, but also to keep key ports open - both for economic and military reasons.

Making a statement against the actions of Israel would have been detrimental to future global peace options. Instead, Biden can work with Netanyahu behind the scenes without making an official statement.

The instant I saw this picture, I thought of the Parks and Rec scene:
"That's not really the attitude I expect from an award winner."
"Everything I do is the attitude of an award winner, because I have won an award."

That should be the case for the picture "Everything I do is manly because I am a man." And the same for the person you are responding to "Everything I do is gay/straight/other because I am gay/straight/other." That one part of someone's identity has no bearing on defining the rest of them - ie, being gay means that he's attracted to men but doesn't define what he wears, how he acts, etc.