344
Tlaib refuses to apologize for blaming Israel for Gaza hospital blast, attacks Biden
(abcnews.go.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
344 points (92.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
5165 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Seems like her heart is in the right place, but I fear peace talks at this time would be unproductive. Neither side can be described as conciliatory.
If not now, when? They've been at this for decades
I would love to be able to force them to try, as doubtful as such a peace would be. Any ceasefire would be preferable to this.
The new rules will have a simple "Keep it civil" rule, this comment would be removed under either the old rules or the new rules so removing it now. You can disagree without calling someone a terrorist.
Cheers. I can abide being called a horror, but I'm no antisemite.
Save it for the peace talks.
Ahhh the beheaded babies claim that even Biden had to walk back .
There was a ceasefire? When?
Israel's objective is that Hamas no longer exists and that Gaza can no longer pose a security threat to Israel. They won't accept a return to the status quo that just results in more rocket attacks and another wave of attacks years from now.
I understand wanting to see an end to violence and calling for a ceasefire based on that, but to do so is to de facto support more intentional attacks on Israeli civilians, which Israel is simply not going to allow. The time to discuss the future of Gaza will only come once Hamas and other militias are conclusively out of the picture.
There is. Hamas. It happened before. And Israel didn't follow through with it. Look up the 2008 and 2012 blockades (or I can give a breakdown on them).
I wasn't talking about the hostages, my bad there, though those can be easily demanded as part of a ceasefire agreement.
The thing is that the Islamic Jihad and Hamas don't want to negotiate, since they won't accept a two-state solution, so peace is not possible while any of them has a militarized branch. There are plenty of people in Israel that don't want to negotiate but at least on the Israeli side the only group that needs to stick to the plan is the IDF which will follow the orders they get.
If you see what's going on in the West Bank, Israel is also doing everything it can to make a two state solution impossible
They will. Well at least Hamas well. They changed their charter in 2017 to reflect that.
Yeah, but then Hamas went ahead and murdered 1,400 civilians in Israel. After this, why exactly would Israel want to negotiate with terrorists?
Mostly so this mess doesn't happen again? Hamas and others like it are a symptom, not a cause.
The thing is: The atrocities themselves are symptoms. A free Palestine wouldn't foster the conditions necessary for this kind of bullshit to happen at a large scale.
Note: I condemn any and all murder of civilians.
The thing is: You normally can't gather large numbers of those people and convince them to attack random civilians, especially when it involves a very good chance of dying. There's a very specific combination of desperation and hopelessness that makes things like these
That's just so wrong I can't... Every year innocent people die in the West bank at the hands of the IDF and settlers. Also the "rocks and territory" are people's homes. People are getting chased out of their homes for the sin of being born on land Israelis wanna settle. The West bank is definitely preferable to Gaza, but 7000 civilians died there since the Israeli occupation. The current state of the West bank is not a good argument against Hamas.
There was the whole blockade mess. That's the cause of the rocket fire. Hamas has been pretty explicit about that, and signed two ceasefires before that had them stop launching rockets in exchange for Israel lifting the blockade (the blockade wasn't lifted, so the rocket attacks came back).
Rocket fire started in 2001 when, well, the specific trigger isn't very clear, but let's say it's the breakdown of negotiations at the camp David summit. So the thing is, in 2005 when Israel disengaged from Gaza, they started periodically blockading it, and in 2006 (Hamas hadn't even won the elections yet so they don't even have that excuse) closed the final legal passage between Gaza and Israel. They also withheld Palestinian tax money from the PA (just to clarify, at the time the PA was Gaza and the West Bank, not only the West Bank like it is now) for more than a year, but that's beside the point. Anyway they "lifted" the blockade in February, only the amount of exports they allowed was miniscule and could barely keep up with Gazan imports. This caused food shortages, prevented workers from crossing the border, y'know, classic blockade things.
What started in 2007 was the modern blockade, whereby Israel basically allows nothing other than some international aid to go to and from Gaza, but Gaza has been blockaded in some form since 2005. Only 13% of pre-blockade agricultural exports were allowed in the February 2006 blockade, for example. This is bad for an economy like Gaza that relies on agricultural exports.
Well there was one in 2008 and another 2012. In both basically the same thing happened: Israel and Hamas sign a blockade, Hamas stops rocket attacks, and polices other groups to make sure they follow suit (they weren't 100% successful, but the effects were obvious; Hamas was following the ceasefire in good faith). Then they wait. The agreed upon time passes, even more time passes (the 2012 ceasefire lasted over a year) and the blockade still remains (hell, in the latter half of 2013 Israeli attacks against Gaza increased, even though they were against the terms of the ceasefire).
This is all about the ceasefires, the next paragraph is about the Palestinian unity government, which is sort of but not really related except also being a post-Intifada peace effort.
In 2013 the PA and Hamas came together and formed a unified government. There, both factions wanted peace and they both came together; if Israel had wanted peace there was no better opportunity than this. Well Netenyahu repeatedly opposed the unity government, didn't lift the blockade and didn't budge an inch from his stance on Palestine during peace negotiations with the PA. This meant, of course, repeatedly announcing the construction of new settlements in the West Bank, which made a breakthrough all but impossible. This isn't my opinion, this is the American special envoy sent for the negotiations. So... Yeah.
Israel has negotiated with Hamas before.
Hamas had virtually free reign in Gaza for the past 17 years, despite violently pushing out Fatah and never holding elections again.
That didn't stop Hamas from murdering 1,400 civilians in Israel.
What results should Israel expect if they negotiated with Hamas this time?
Hamas won the 2006 election, and Fatah and the rest of the world opposed them taking office. Hamas and Fatah fought it out, and Hamas won in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank.
You're right that Hamas hasn't allowed elections since then, but simply saying, 'violently pushing out Fatah ' is much less than accurate.
It should also be noted that Hamas won that election because Fatah's strategy of negotiations was seen as a dead end and Israel is responsible for that. And of course, there might not even BE a Hamas if Israel hadn't funded Hamas as a divide and conquer strategy against the Palestinian secular nationalist movement .
And then went back on the results of those negotiations. Two ceasefires were signed before, and in both the blockade being lifted was a condition that Israel didn't fulfill no matter how long Hamas waited.
Also you're being very disingenuous by ignoring the blockade. You can't call the situation in Gaza "free reign".
It's not like the ceasefires were unilaterally observed by Hamas, and only broken by Israel.
I'm not even trying to defend Israel here. My entire point is that there is absolutely no reason to put your entire trust into a terrorist organization that just murdered 1,400 civilians.
At first that was the case. Hamas only broke the ceasefires when it became apparent that the most important part to them, lifting the blockade, wouldn't happen.
We can both condemn the murder of civilians (by both sides) and condemn Israel for not trying to make peace. This isn't trust; this is working off their official position and past examples. Them being a terrorist organization has nothing to do with that.