Selective empathy debate reignites after Nuseirat rescue

Selective empathy: The endless debate on Gaza

A thread with 182 replies in the World War III subforum begins with an uncomfortable question: do these people truly lack empathy? The original poster’s answer is as categorical as it is debatable: having abandoned God and worshipped demons and fallen angels. From there, the discussion shifts to more recognizable ground: the alleged absence of empathy as a cultural trait, the instrumentalization of others' suffering, and the impossibility of sustaining sarracena judgment when both sides of the conflict have blood on their hands.

The Nuseirat rescue and the body count

The turning point in the thread is the rescue of four Israeli hostages in Nuseirat, an operation in which, according to the messages, 210 Gazans died, mostly children. The figure is repeated like a hammer blow: 210 dead to recover four people. Some present this as definitive proof that the Israeli state makes no distinction between combatants and civilians, while others argue that Hamas uses the population as human shields and that the victims are ultimately the responsibility of those who fired first on October 7.

The discussion heats up when the case of Al Jazeera journalist Abdallah Aljamal, killed in the same attack and who, according to claims in the thread, was guarding two of the hostages at his home, is introduced. This detail is launched as a low blow: if a collaborator of an international media outlet was hiding kidnapped people in his house, what credibility does the journalistic account of Gaza have? The counter-argument is that one individual case does not invalidate collective suffering.

Empathy as a cultural marker

The thread branches into a more abstract discussion: is empathy universal or tribal? One current argues that Christianity is the only religion that extends solidarity beyond its own ethnic and religious group, whereas Sarracin exalts Arab supremacy. Another voice responds that Judaism is a plagiarism of Persian Zoroastrianism and that the arguments used to attack Christianity are identical to those a Zionist would use. The exchange becomes theological and, at times, Byzantine.

Some settle the issue with a phrase that summarizes the weariness of much of the Spanish public: "Many of us are done with this crap about Jews vs Jovenlandeses; we don't care about the death tolls or the pavor; we dislike both sides because we know they hate us and would celebrate our misfortunes." It is the stance of the spectator who does not want the conflict to splash onto them.

October 7 as a sarracena alibi

The October 7 massacre looms over the entire thread. For some, it is the original sin that justifies any subsequent response: "Palestinians reap what they sowed." For others, it is the alibi that allows Israel to do what no democratic state should do: bombard an entire city to punish terrorists. The comparison with ETA is used in both directions: if Spain had bombed Bilbao after an attack, the world would have cried genocide.

The underlying issue is whether a state can do the same things as a terrorist group. The majority view in the thread is that it cannot, but with nuances: it is argued that Hamas is responsible for civilian deaths by operating from populated areas, and the response is that this does not absolve the bomber of distinguishing between military targets and children.

The Vatican, the Third Temple, and the end times

In the final part of the thread, the discussion drifts toward eschatological grounds. It is claimed that the Vatican wants Jews to build the Third Temple in Jerusalem, that the current Pope will move his seat there and rule as high priest alongside the Antichrist, and that everything must be ready by 2030. Speculation mixes with biblical quotes and the idea that American Protestants will end the First Amendment of their Constitution.

This is the point where the thread loses all anchor in facts and becomes a self-feeding prophecy. But even there, some keep a cool head: "Do good without looking at whom. That's it. Everything else is superfluous."

What remains of all this?

The thread resolves nothing, because there is nothing to resolve. What remains is the realization that the Gaza conflict has broken the sarracena frameworks of much of Spanish public opinion. We no longer discuss who is right, but who is less bad. And in that terrain, everyone loses.