The title is not an unfair assessment.
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
22 points (57.9% liked)
politics
18828 readers
4787 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think your ideas are quite flawed here. You're thinking like three parties sitting down at a table and talking, but that's not how this works. You're also making logic leaps without any evidence, which is just foolish.
Let's use Occam's Razor to see what's more likely here:
- Netanyahu is a piece of shit trying to cling to power and stalling to get one last show of force out the door to inspire his crazy ass base
- The US and Israel and all of their diplomats, representative bodies, and armed services scheming together in a room to keep this thing going with zero benefit to anybody but Netanyahu
I think most reasonable people would probably say it's the second choice. The you might say "Well, then the US should just stop supplying them", to which most would probably agree...except all the people who don't. So then you're pissing off the other side of the aisle.
It's a lose-lose for the US here for anything except a ceasefire. Suggesting otherwise makes zero sense whatsoever unless you have a deep seeded belief the US is out to get Palestinians for some reason, which would also be pretty insane, and I've seen no evidence of that either.
The you might say “Well, then the US should just stop supplying them”, to which most would probably agree…except all the people who don’t.
And Democrats would rather be wrong than popular.
Don't think that has anything to do with it, because if I'm reading your statement correctly, and that "The Democrats" are doing the least popular thing, you're wrong.
The Democrats would be worried about the electors in the US. This is just based on super generically available data, and making an assumption about allegiances, BUT:
- US Jewish population: 7.5 million
- US Planestinian population: 172,000
So if you're saying that "The Democrats" are all in lock-step and support the same things - which is demonstrably false - then they are doing the popular thing.
Whether or not you're a Democrat and supporting what is happening would probably be the whole "Genocide is bad" thing, which I'd like to believe most people agree with.
What do Jews have to do with israel?
Are you kidding?
The United States is it no less credible mediator in this situation than Hamas or Israel themselves. Which is the the bigger issue.
Whoever this better more credible mediator is. People should ask them why they're not doing anything.
Well Hamas already accepted the American deal which Biden claimed was proposed by israel.
Hamas has called the bluff of israel never accepting to a ceasefire by accepting that proposal.
America still covering for israel after Hamas accepted their proposal is enough proof that the post is true.
No it isn't. There are lots of other more fact-based and reasonable ways that could be explained. Though this extremely biased bad faith argument of yours isn't surprising given your defense of things like houthi child soldiers. Which you were at least temporarily banned for in the news community.
Now just for fun. Let's pretend for a moment that that your bad faith misrepresentation of the situation were factual and true. If the United States. A country with a large Palestinian population. And Palestinians in government. Has a vested interest in and is an eager and willing to participate in genocide of the Palestinian people. A claim which you yourself personally make several times a day everyday. There must be some sort of clear benefit from it. For the Israelis they get land and resources it's very clear what they get from it. They don't get any of the land. They don't get any of the resources. They don't get any new bases. Or anything for that matter. And it upsets and amenates a large part of their own population. So since this is your position. what does America logically, directly stand to gain from the extermination of the Palestinian people?
Can you cite where I defended the usage of child soldiers? The WorldNews mods weren't able to find it
You keep using the word bad faith. Maybe shut the projector off.
Yes. And I will answer your question only after you've answered mine. Otherwise all you're doing is deflection and your usual projection.
The two main ways in which the US benefits from supporting Israel militarily is that it maintains US hegemonic influence in the region and that it greatly benefits the Military Industrial Complex.
Taxes from US citizens subsidize these arms deals, the profit of which goes to those heavily invested in our private Military Contractor companies making the weapons.
Historically, our main geopolitical interests for supporting Israel is counter other foreign interests such as the USSR, and to support our interest in the region such as our invasion of Iraq and Iran for access to natural resources such as oil.
Additionally, the main base of support for the continued military support of Israel, other than capital and geopolitical interests, are Christian Zionists. Which far outnumber all Jewish people, let alone Jewish Zionists, in America.
Yeah. And killing Palestinians actually jeopardizes that. So no the United States sees no benefit from the genocide.
I agree it's bad policy and bad politics. I was just laying out the historical reasons.
I'm a major advocate for ending unconditional support to Israel, forcing them with international pressure to end the Apartheid, and for a Bi-National One State with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians including Right of Return for all Refugees
If you ever travel outside the USA you'll see how half the world population agrees that the US is a murderous oppressive country. And since 2016, those feelings have grown so it us much more than that. The only people still deluded enough to think the US has anything but murder to offer the world, are Americans that live in isolation.
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?
The US had been the bad guys in every war we've been involved in since WWII. That hasn't changed in this instance and likely won't change in the future.
The US being the bad guys in the Korean conflict is an interesting take that I wouldn't expect anyone outside of lemmygrad to espouse, care to elaborate?
Google is free.