this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
41 points (95.6% liked)

politics

19932 readers
3763 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/54635924

Reuters discusses former U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial proposal for the U.S. to take control of Gaza and transform it into a luxurious "Riviera of the Middle East" while resettling Palestinians elsewhere. This plan has been widely condemned by international powers, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France, China, Russia, and several European nations, all of which reaffirmed their support for a two-state solution.

Trump suggested that Jordan and Egypt could be persuaded to accept displaced Palestinians, though both countries have rejected the idea. Critics argue that forced displacement of Palestinians would violate international law and destabilize the region. The Palestinian militant group Hamas dismissed Trump's proposal as "ridiculous and absurd," while Palestinians fear another "Nakba" (catastrophe), referring to the mass displacement during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Saudi Arabia reaffirmed that it would not normalize relations with Israel without a Palestinian state, contradicting Trump's claim that Riyadh was open to normalization without such conditions. The proposal has raised concerns about worsening regional tensions and whether it is a serious policy initiative or a bargaining tactic.

Opinion: This reeks of tactics to drum up war in the Middle East. By bullying the little sibling that is Palestine, Trump looks to provoke the bigger Islamic states into conflict. With Trump's track record of arrogance and the already poor relationship that the United States has with countries like Iran and Iraq, that conflict is likely to happen. If Trump and his administration continues this route, there is bound to be retaliation from Palestinian supporters, and they will have a backing that will enable them to do so. It would then be the Trump administration's agenda to find a large enough enemy to blame and then likely invade.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nightwingdragon 22 points 6 days ago

Remember, all of you "Genocide Joe" people who insisted you needed to "send a message" by staying home and allowing Trump to return to power: You Voted For This.

This is a message that should be at the top of every single comments section of every single article we ever see about the Middle Ease again. You voted for this.

You decided you needed to "send a message" that you were against the genocide. Because you were acting as if Kamala Hariss's supporters were taping pictures of Palestinian children to targets at a shooting range and gleefully firing away or something. Trump was openly saying he'd do it harder and faster. His position throughout the campaign was to just raze the whole place and turn it into beachfront property. People were shouting from the rooftops exactly what would happen if he returned to power. We were telling you that this protest would accomplish exactly nothing but making the situation exponentially worse for the people you claimed to be trying to protect. We were trying to tell you that you don't have to like Harris or her position on the conflict, but the reality was that she was the least bad option available for those who considered this their most important issue.

You ignored us. You taunted everybody with your "Genocide Joe" monikers and insisted that Trump would be "different". When we asked to explain your reasoning, we were told to go fuck ourselves. And you stayed home. And Trump won.

And what happened? We're barely two fucking weeks into his term and he's threatening to take over the Panama Canal, Greenland, and Palestine by force. The Palestinian people you insisted you were trying to protect are now about to lose their homeland. Trump is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. Everything we told you was going to happen is happening, except more of it and faster than expected.

We fucking told you. We tried to tell you to not shoot yourself in the foot, and you decided to put the gun at your own head instead. I'm sure the Palestinian people who are about to lose their homes are so fucking grateful for the "support" you've given them. This is your fault. You allowed Trump to return to power fully knowing what Trump was promising, what would happen, and the consequences of your protest vote. You were warned well in advance and decided to go down that path. As the saying goes, elections have consequences. And the consequences of your own actions are Trump returning to power, putting the genocide on overdrive, destroying US alliances around the world, and speedrunning the country right into a recession.

You voted for this.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 7 points 6 days ago

I'm glad someone's thinking about the struggles of the rich. /s