this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
669 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4090 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

Do you think there could ever be a deal reached with Republicans on Ukraine aid without Israel being on the table? I seriously doubt it. Sometimes, you have to dance with the devil. Israel has enough money and weapons to exterminate Palestine whether we give them more or not. Ukraine does not.

Not giving Israel funding will not stop the genocide. Giving Ukraine funding will help stop Russia. The only way you're going to get Republicans to agree to fund Ukraine is to agree to fund Israel. I don't like it, but that's just the only way to get it to work.

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

If you're at the point where you're ok with your tax dollars going toward funding and sanctioning indiscriminate genocide in Palestine in order to get around a political issue where the opposite side's pitch is to let the Russian war and genocide against Ukraine get out of hand if you don't bless the other genocide...then wtf are we doing? Just trading genocides to score fucking political points. Is that "compromise"? Absolutely fuck that shit. It's possible to completely stop all funding to Israel until they stop and redirect those resources and funding to Ukraine where they're actually fighting for their land and country. Our political fulcrum has been fucked in this country.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I’m ok with my tax dollars going to help Israel defend itself from the government of a neighboring territory that vows to destroy it and conducted a massive terrorist attack killing over 1,000 civilians

I’m even more ok with my tax dollars going toward helping the oppressed people of that territory victimized by both their own government and their neighbor, with meddling by other regional powers, and with other neighbors unwilling to help much. It would be much easier if they didn’t support a terrorist government though

And yes I’m ok with my tax dollars helping a European country defend themselves from a huge neighbor with imperial ambitions

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hamas did not kill over 1000 civilians on October 7th. Not even Israel claims this. Many of the deaths that Israel reported were active IDF soldiers. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the IDF went in guns blazing to territory Hamas had captured. As such, it’s not clear how many civilians died in the crossfire or were massacred by Hamas as Israel claims.

That’s not to say that civilians were not massacred by Hamas militants. However, it’s dangerous to simply trust Israel when they tell you that the purpose of the October 7th attacks was to murder civilians. That rhetoric is meant to paint Hamas as equivalent to ISIS and thus foreclose the possibility of any negotiation and an end to the violence.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

An, right. I’m sure it was just innocent Palestinians trying to get to that concert, and it was all just a misunderstanding with Ticketmaster

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

What on earth are you talking about? You made a false claim about the number of civilian casualties. I pointed out why that was incorrect and why you shouldn’t just trust the IDF’s narrative. I never said Hamas militants didn’t kill civilians.

As for the concert there’s some reporting that suggests the IDF may have fired indiscriminately on Hamas and civilians alike. As I said, it remains unclear how many civilians died in the crossfire or were intentionally murdered.

https://archive.ph/xNMVm

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Of course I'm not okay with it. But it's that or abandon Ukraine. Should we do that?

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Of course not.

Edit: What I'm saying is it's a false dichotomy driven by our shitty political system that's more focused on political points than actual leadership and governance.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Political realities are, um, real. There's no false dichotomy here.

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Sorry, let me rephrase: it's a manufactured reality. I'm not denying that it's one that's been sold as "the real" one, but at the end of the day it's all manufactured and presents a false dichotomy which is only "real" because the people have been told that it is such and have accepted it. We can conceive of better and more rational systems. And I would argue it's on us to do so and to push back against these false dichotomies

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, my first thought was "why give Israel any aid?", then I realized that trying to get the US to stop giving aid entity was probably impossible. A compromise like conditional aid is better than unconditional aid. Compromises are unfortunately often necessary in politics, especially with how divided the US is and their historic support for Israel.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

The problem here is that there is nobody to actually compromise with. Alongside republicans many if not most democrats also support unconditional military support for Israel.

There’s frankly no reason Bernie can’t take a principled stance against a country that’s committing war crimes with US weapons. He’s usually comfortable advocating for policies he knows won’t pass. As such, I think it’s clear he actually believes in the compromised position to begin with.

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

Sanders is not playing the role of a strategic negotiator here. He’s a liberal Zionist. He legitimately believes in arming Israel despite their history of and ongoing support for ethnic cleansing. He just wants Israel to be less obvious about it.