politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Israel has the world's sympathy and support but if they retaliate brutally and massively that sympathy and support will shift to the Palestinians.
I think it already has.
I think it's very confused and polarized. Neither side is even remotely in the right at this point, and those who suffer have almost no agency. The only third rail here is the Israeli people. They can make the madness stop.
The civilians on both sides aren't in the right? I misunderstand you, and am being genuine here. Morality/ethics of a conflict can't just be measured and analyzed by the actions and consequences of the combatants. The people caught in the middle, whether Palestinian or Jewish are the real losers in this. War has no real victor..
They're saying the powers at play, the big boys, on both sides are fucked. The people in the middle, the civilians on either side, have no real say in what's going on, they just get slaughtered.
I find it so crazy that people can pick sides in this conflict. I don't know if there's a nation, military or people in the middle east that doesn't have the blood of thousands of innocent civilians on their hands. With how brutal every single conflict is its no wonder that the survivors feel the need to pick up arms and continue the cycle of pain and suffering
Since Israel has already killed at least twice the number of Palestine civilians than the number of Israeli citizen that were killed by Hamas, this is absolutely true.
Every single time this type of shit plays out the same way. Outrage at whichever Palestinian group did whatever. Outrage at Israel's response. Then people taking what they think are reasonable sides in a religious war, then finally things calm back down to the fucked up status quo. I see no reason this will be any different.
I think there are four factors at play here. They're mixed together in an extremely messy fashion and overlap quite a bit, but they are:
The people on both sides fear for their safety. The Palestinians fear the Israeli government and military taking action against them. The Israeli people fear rocket attacks and raids like the one that just happened. When a populace lives in fear, it leads to -
Extremist groups are in charge. You have Hamas on one side whose stated goal is to kill all Jews. (Not just in Israel, but across the world.) You have the right wing Israeli government on the other side who push for horrible actions against the Palestinians in the name of "safety."
Foreign interference. Iran on one side is arming/helping Hamas. On the other side, evangelical Christians help the settlers and push the Israeli government because they think Jesus will come back if Israel suffers a big enough attack. (Peace would prevent that attack and stop Jesus from returning.)
A long and bloody history. Both sides remember when they were killed by the other side. Both sides refuse to leave the past in the past and intend on making the other side pay. The problem here is that the cycle of violence never breaks. If you always have to attack because "they did X to us" then they will feel like they always need to attack because you did Y to them. It goes around and around and never changes no matter how much everyone suffers.
How do you untangle this mess? If I knew that, I'd have the Nobel Peace Prize. I wish I did know. I'd set the peace prize aside in a second, tell the world what to do, and stop it all. Unfortunately, I'm no diplomat. (Some of the best diplomats have failed in this arena.) I can see what's going on, but I have no clue how to stop it.
The best I can think of is that perhaps UN security forces need to move in. Not to attack one side or another, but to keep both sides away from each other. Sort of like the national version of putting two kids who were fighting in time out until things cool down. But again, I'm no diplomat so for all I know that would make things worse.
You act as though both sides are equivalent.
They are not. Israel is an apartheid state. Palestinians are legally deprived of human rights and restricted to ghettos. Hamas is merely an extremist group that offers Palestinians something, even if its something they cannot deliver on and have no legitimate means of achieving. Palestinians have been massacred by Israel since its inception. Israelis have occasionally died in comparatively small numbers from Hamas attacks. Hamas is not Palestine though. And hamas has no legal power within the Israeli state. The Israeli state is entirely responsible for the current state of affairs and for the ongoing violence.
Palestinians have no state. They have no home. They are kept in ghettos. They are currently facing one of the largest humanitarian crises of the 21st century. The Israeli state could stop it all tomorrow. They could stop it all right now. Unconditionally grant equal citizenship to all Palestinians, return them their homes, give them 50% representation in the Israeli government, and formally condemn the racism and genocidal rhetoric of the Netanyahu administration and the many war crimes committed both by him and the IDF and the Israeli police force.
Its entirely up to Israel. Palestinians can do none of these things. Their only available recourse is extremism.
I agree with one caveat: the Palestinians can help themselves the same way India, South Africa, and other colonial peoples have. Non-violent resistance gets really good results in democracies. It's not easy, but it's less dangerous than attacking a modern military.
The hardest step is getting rid of Hamas, which is more like a mafia than a government. They're more interested in keeping their power and position with help from Iran. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela was a violent terrorist before he turned to 100% non-violence.
Here's an interesting article that no one will read:
https://time.com/5338569/nelson-mandela-terror-list/
They tried. They tried a lot (well the first intifada also had a violent element but yk). The result was the Oslo accords, which were almost there until the then-PM was assassinated and Netenyahu who succeeded him just called the whole thing off. Since you mentioned India, the situation in Palestine is more like the troubles in Northern Ireland. You need people who actually care about human rights (many Israelis do, but enough don't that Netenyahu was/has been PM for a total of 16+ years).
Hamas aren't actually 100% opposed to peace. They've already made three good faith efforts (2008 ceasefire, 2012 ceasefire, 2012-2013 united government), but in all three Israel actively rejected peace.
Edit: I know it's weird that a terrorist organization is being the (slightly) reasonable side here, but yeah the fact that the conflict went on for so long is on Israel's far-right party and Netenyahu specifically for rejecting peace time and time again. As soon as peace comes Hamas will either mellow out into an Islamist government or die off.
I can only think to part of a response Orwell had for pacifists:
Yeah, that's correct:
That's why I said democracies are vulnerable to non-violent resistance.
Democracies, like Israel, are the opposite of authoritarian governments. Developed democracies can withstand all the force you send at them because they rule with the consent of the governed and have much larger resources at their disposal.
They are more vulnerable to soft power. Hamas already has broadcast abilities. They should literally get rid of most weapons, and start broadcasting 24/7 about the hardships of living in the West Bank and Gaza. They have an unlimited amount of ammo because Israel genuinely makes people's lives terrible.
just because a place calls its self or even is a democracy doesn't mean it can't be despotic.
there is no inherent "democracy is not despotic" we have seen plenty of despotic democratic governments, almost all of them only toppled due to outside influence.
and a side point Democracies aren't more resistant to force, they are just a little less likely to collapse due to a general trust in the standing government, nothing to do with resources.
THEY'VE TRIED.
Doesn't help when most of the "offers" they get are basically, "you give up at least half of your land (including most of the Mediterranean Coast) and in return, we'll stop genociding you."
And those are the "good" offers.
I wouldn't wish that on you. Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin won the Nobel in 1994, and was assassinated for it the following year.
Nah it's actually pretty easy. Just needs someone who isn't Netnyahu.
That's definitely a start. Unfortunately, just swapping Netenyahu out with someone less extreme wouldn't get Hamas to stop their attacks. It wouldn't cause the people on both sides to feel safe enough to trust in a peace process and to forgive past actions.
There are a lot of factors in play and the solution to this, if there is one, is going to be very complicated and difficult to achieve. It will be worth it, but it won't be easy.
I mean Hamas already agreed to stop their attacks in ceasefires before (see: 2008 and 2012 ceasefires). It was then Netenyahu who didn't lift the blockade, therefore not holding Israel's end of the agreements. It was also Netenyahu who stopped the peace process in 1995 because he's Netenyahu.
This is what I meant by just needs someone who isn't Netenyahu. Hamas has proven that they're willing to engage in dialogue, despite what's written in their charter. It's Netenyahu who doesn't want that, so he's basically acting as a barrier between both sides and peace.
You are defending a group who as part of their founding charter calls for the extermination of all Jews on earth not just in Israel. You are at best wildly ignorant on this subject if not dishonest.
I made easily provable statements and can provide sources on them. If you have proof that anything I said is wrong, you're welcome to provide it.
You get someone who stops the illegal settlement expansion and gives the land back.
You would also need someone on the Palestinian side that the Israelis would trust to keep their word and not attack. That trust just isn't there and will be difficult to rebuild.
I'm not completely disagreeing with you. The illegal settlements need to go. I'd like to see any illegal settlements responded to by having a special group of Israeli police, working with Palestinian authorities and not just moving in on their own, arresting the settlers instead of the military moving in to protect them.
There's also the outside influence to consider. Evangelical Christians love the settlers. They help them and any politicians who would protect them. They'd work against a politician who promised to arrest them.
There are a lot of factors in play and the solution won't be an easy one.
My bad for my tone. I was tired and didn't noticed how sassy I came off.
I don't think my suggestion will ever happen, but I think it's what needs to happen.
I don't think Palestinians would trust IDF soldiers to be escorts to be honest, but I suppose white police/soldiers played a role in integration in the US.
As far as implementing solutions, I think the Palestinians should decide that for themselves. I don't think the international community will allow that for MANY reasons, Christians being just one. And until we can stop the ethnic cleansing policy from its current implementation, there is no room to even try anything.
But yes, the evangelical Christian relationship with Israel is VERY different than the relationship of Israel to Jews. I understand the propaganda I see in the Jewish community, and I understand how it's harder to see this issue clearly when you're more likely to have family members, friends, and memories made in a region.
Christian fantasize about Israel being theirs or seeing themselves as the true Israel already, and that it's a metaphor for them and not Jews.
that's not even getting into how all the neighboring countries feel and how all their allies and enemies feel. It's a lot.
Not to simplify your points and overall message because I really appreciate your words and thoughts, but game theory would do a lot to explain point 4 pretty tidily. The fucked up thing about that, though is that the hate and division is so entrenched that the fact that these people have to deal with one another all the time, has no effect in how they treat each other.
Then again, this gets into some anthropological territory of how culture begats culture, and a culture of violence can never be anything else (me adlibbing here on theoretical anthro), but I digress.. The people that perpetrate the attacks are so far removed from the rank and file and every day experiences, and have so much to gain from continuing it, that why on Earth would they stop? To rational and reasonable people, it seems absurd, but so does how the Fossil Fuel industry persists in plunging us into extinction, so it all bears out, if you ask me.
I completely agree. Hamas' leadership isn't based in Gaza. Attacks on Gaza don't affect them because they're living in luxury (in Qatar IIRC). Meanwhile, they've cancelled all elections so the Palestinians can't just choose a new government.
And this applies to the outside influence as well. Iranians and evangelical Christians don't need to live with the chaos they help to thrive. They get to sit back, thousands of miles away, safe from any consequences. Since they don't suffer any consequences, why would they stop? And if they don't stop, it makes it that much harder to achieve peace.
UN created this quagmire so let them sort it. Reset borders to the original plan, Jerusalem becomes its own city state, administered by the UN. It will anger everyone but let the UN take responsibility and clean up the mess they made (sort of).
I do. This time the scope has changed and a big army is going to engage. This isn't going to be tit for tat.
It has never been tit-for-tat at any point during this conflict. Unless you're going back to the fucking crusades or something.
Since ww2, no. The Palestinians aren't even close to being capable of going tit-for-tat against the US Military Industrial Complex (aka Israel's military).
You're missing the part where Israel's reaction to an attack (often on the IDF) ends up with casualties at least one or two orders of magnitude higher. Nearly all civilians who are already living an oppressed life and being illegally displaced from their homes and their land.
One has unquestionable support by the most powerful military that has ever existed.
But yeah man, both sides are the same.
That's the way it happens most times. This time, though, will probably be very brutal with lots of blood on both sides.