this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
22 points (57.9% liked)

politics

18863 readers
4079 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

Inspecting its involvement in the ceasefire efforts, some believe the US is really interested in the ceasefire and reaching an end to the bloodshed and Israel’s genocide in Gaza. However, the reality of the situation is the opposite: hypocrisy. The US had only been buying the time needed for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to complete the mission: getting rid of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

Examples of affording enough time for the Israeli occupation forces to complete its planned destruction of the Gaza Strip and continuing to kill as many civilians as possible are beyond being counted. One of the clearest examples is the political support for the Israeli aggression on Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of displaced people gathered from different parts of the Gaza Strip.

In the beginning, the US claimed that they had suspended arms support for Israel, and they would not cancel this suspension before obtaining a detailed plan for a “limited operation” in Rafah that would guarantee the safety of civilians and displaced people. US officials continued repeating these remarks in response to regional and international rejection of the aggression on Rafah, giving a cover-up for the destructive Israeli attacks on the southern Gaza city.

Another example is Biden’s ceasefire proposal, used to synthesise the world for months, claiming that Hamas rejected it. The US used to justify the Israeli genocide and blame Hamas for it; however, the Israeli occupation was the perpetrator. When Hamas accepted it, they continued to claim that there were gaps between Israel and Hamas that would be closed through negotiations where Netanyahu did not give meaningful power to the Israeli negotiators in order to delay reaching a deal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago

I mean look no further than the fact that they're arming one side of the conflict. How are you going to mediate when you clearly have a horse in the race?