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.
- 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.
- 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
Your links are from nearly 6 months ago. There were concerns from people that don't know what a war is. Yes, there were high casualty numbers when the IDF initially moved in, because there was a lot of combat happening between the IDF and Hamas. But after that the war became low intensity and the casualty numbers leveled off. If a country was committing genocide the civilian casualties would increase when there was no longer anyone there to defend them. We've seen the opposite trend in Gaza. High casualties in the initial stages when there was heavy fighting, casualties drop off when Hamas loses control of an area.
The UN expressed concerns about a potential genocide, but we haven't heard much in the last six months. It's because the genocide the UN had concerns about didn't happen. Check your wikipedia link again. They may soon change the page from "Gaza genocide" to "Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war" because.... well people are realizing the genocide narrative being heavily promoted didn't actually materialize.
What do you suppose it would be like to be on the wrong side of history? What will historians say about people that wanted a war to be called a genocide in an obvious effort to foment hatred against a country? Only time will tell I suppose.
But at any rate the pattern of behavior is undeniable. The pro-Palestinian movement have the exact same behavior as the alt right. There's a great many conspiracy theories shared between the pro-Palestinian movement and the alt-right, same distrust of media that doesn't conform to their biases, same misuse of terms like genocide to create a violent fervor. At this point the only thing the genocide narrative is accomplishing is helping Hamas and friends recruitment numbers which will result in more violence in the future. Is this what you want?
Well, maybe you haven't, but today I read in the AP that the the U.N. chief called the destruction in Gaza the worst he had ever seen. His exact words were:
He then went on to say that a two-state solution was the only path forward, and compared Israeli treatment of Palestinians to South African apartheid:
Anyway, I guess this must be one of those antisemitic dog whistles you're talking about. I must be a moron for believing every crazy thing being said by...[checks notes]...the Associated Press and the United Nations. I bet those are some of those racist conspiracy sources you're talking about. From now on I'll only trust reliable sources like yours, which is...[checks post]..."trust me bro!"
Also, speaking of sources, did you know that Wikipedia actually did the opposite of what you suggested? They voted to remove the words, "allegations of," from the article because they decided that there was enough evidence to call it a genocide. Thanks for bringing that up, I forgot about that!
What do you suppose it would be like to be on the wrong side of history? I'm guessing you're going to find out real soon, given that you're resistant to doing any kind of introspection on whether any of your views might be stemming from biases. It's a shame you lack the self-awareness to take your own advice and reevaluate your beliefs (beliefs which, again, include FUCKING GENOCIDE DENIAL). But maybe you'll feel a bit better if you keep calling everyone else antisemitic and comparing them to the alt-right. Then you won't have to think about the atrocities you're supporting.