this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
344 points (92.0% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3051 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib refused to apologize Wednesday for saying on Tuesday that Israel is to blame for the hospital explosion that day in Gaza, an accusation that sparked political backlash against her from Republicans as Israel denies fault.

Tlaib joined thousands of protesters calling for a ceasefire in Gaza during a solidarity rally hosted by the left-leaning group Jewish Voice for Peace at the National Mall. She was visibly emotional, at times pausing her speech to openly weep and criticizing lawmakers who have not backed a ceasefire resolution.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] paintbucketholder 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Israel has negotiated with Hamas before.

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".

[–] paintbucketholder 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

It’s not like the ceasefires were unilaterally observed by Hamas, and only broken by Israel.

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.

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.

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.

[–] Jonna -2 points 1 year ago

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 .