I agree with the point you’re making, but the question of why people in the U.S. at least care more about this conflict than the others does have an answer, and I think it’s that the Israel-Palestine conflict has much more of a relevant history to Americans and our government is much more directly involved in it (or at least perceived to be) than the others. Pro-Israel support groups have existed here since Israel was formed and pro-Palestinian groups have existed here for at least a few decades as well. So, there’s already an existing activist structure to respond when something like Oct. 7th happens.

When have the US directly gave and continue to gave weapons to another state. And how many are killed? If you want to compare correctly.

"I'm mad that people are finally caring!" —You

This is an unoriginal take used to silence people who did not know about things like this before. Our media intentionally hides information about things like this. Our schools intentionally hide things like this. You can’t care about something if you don’t know it’s happening.

Either human life matters equally or it doesn't matter at all.

Ah yes, "all lives matter" - a very popular talking point for the left.

While in principle I agree that it's unfortunate that the US tends to turn a blind eye to most of the world's suffering outside of breakthrough trends every once in a while (who still has a green Twitter icon for Pakistan and let's finally get Kony, amirite?), that doesn't necessarily mean that a spotlight on some small corner of global human suffering at the moment is a bad thing.

Innocent civilians are suffering in a part of the world the US policy has extensive influence within. While that's a longstanding pattern that's typically ignored, an arbitrary gatekeeping of "all or nothing" ignores that most change occurs in smaller intermediate steps.

How do you think the push for civil rights would have gone if any advances were to be rejected unless they also included things like legalizing gay marriage at the same time as decriminalization of sodomy?

Maybe today it's the US giving a crap about the downtrodden in the "giving a shit" trend of the month, but if there's successful traction, perhaps caring about foreign policy impacting the powerless continues to shift global policy.

In a large part, I suspect that's part of why these kinds of trends get such silence from administrations. No one wants to give foreign policy mouse a cookie, or he's going to ask for a glass of milk.

(Though I admit it's beyond stupid for foreign policy mouse to enable bringing in an exterminator just because they aren't currently being given a cookie.)

Lol why do you think I got banned from reddit?

The US intelligence and foreign service communities are keenly aware of these horrible things. The question is whether Congress or the executive branch have the political capital to do anything about it.

You're talking about spending political capital to deploy money and human resources to help with the domestic affairs of other countries. Okay, fine. Sometimes we do that. Has to be in America's strategic interest, though.

If a dictator invades an ally or starts genociding self-realized people who desire democracy, America offers help. I know Israel has some serious problems with representative government, and so does America--both are defined as "flawed democracies"--but Israel is the only democratic government in the middleeast. We cannot let Israel fall and become another middle east authoritarian theocracy. And that doesn't mean we have to like everything they do domestically or that we cannot call for peace, as Biden has done. But it does mean that we aren't going to undermine the Israel government because it is literally surrounding by enemies, especially when it has a clear mandate, after Hamas conducted a military attack on Israel civilian population. Like wtf are you even defending here, Hamas?

Same as to the Rohygna. It's not just a matter of deciding to help innocent people caught in a defacto civil war. Since the recent conflict, through 2021, Myanmar had a legitmate government with a bicameral legislature and an executive branch not unlike America's. You're saying what, exactly, that the American people are culpable for not raising the political capital for a military invasion to protect Rohygna Muslims because we don't like its local, mutual sectarian violence? What does the plan for that invasion look like, anyhow? Are we also going to remain in country for the decades it will take to root out a culture of corruption? Is America even capable of rooting out such corruption when we can't root out our own?

Like, yeah, brother, nobody cares about the radical Islamist separatists in Syria getting killed, despite having been a part of the Free Syrian Army, only ever wanted to topple Assad to install a slightly different brand of militant theocracy. Are you saying we did nothing, and just watched it happen? America gave the FSA hundreds of millions of dollars to fight the Assadists to maybe turn Syria into a flawed democracy, too. Corrupt military leaders took the money and weapons and gave them to ISIL and Syria is basically a total loss.

Point is, it's not enough that innocent people are getting killed. The victims and their memory will never enter America's lexicon if there's no political capital--because there is no means or reason of self interest--to really do much about it. The media simply does not cover it.

It's like gang violence in America. Most of the murders in America are gang members getting killed by handgun violence, but the only (limited) political capital spent to address gun violence is left for victims of stranger murders or mass shootings, nobody gives a fuck when gang members are shooting each other as nothing of value is lost.