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
She's not wrong about Israel. I would support cutting off aid from Israel and not support Palestine either. That's probably the best solution.
The U.S. actively helped Israel starve Gazans and the U.S. ensured that UN aid to Palestinians was blocked. We have a collective responsibility to Palestinians to help undo our damage.
I'm not versed in Palestine-Israel history. I only know that Palestine currently doesn't seem like it has a leader while Hamas is still a issue, and Israel is participating in trying to destroy Palestine. Basically, it looks like no one wants to solve problems there or get involved.
At least you’re honest about your ignorance. A lot of people do want to solve problems on both sides but you don’t hear about them in English speaking media headlines, and extremists on both sides can easily shatter fragile deals made by leaders.
Palestine would burn to the ground in this scenario.
But at least America wouldn't be HELPING Israel burn Palestine to the ground.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/10/us-and-israel-start-joint-military-exercise
An "at least" that includes a bunch of deaths isn't a viable solution.
"This meeting was inconclusive and thus we'll keep aiding Israel."
At least Russia won't control all of Ukraine
Ok, what are other solutions that would work? I could think of sanctions toward Israel on top of cutting off aid toward Israel would help a bit. I do not know much about Israel-Palestine history, but to me I get the impression no one there wants it to end or seem to be so.
I don't know, I'm not an expert on this topic.
My initial reaction is that this is a "both sides" stance that punishes the victim, but I'm interested to become more nuanced. Would you mind expanding on why this would be best?
Read my other response. I do have a impression that Palestine doesn't seem like it has a leader, and there's some issues with Hamas. And it appears no one wants to come to a end. So, I can only think of cutting off aid to Israel and possibly with sanctions as a response to continuation of war.
If you want to get real nuanced, realize that a lot of people are missing the point. Our aid to Israel has nothing to do with their human rights record. They're a foothold for Western hegemony in a geopolitically significant region. Stop aiding Israel, or Saudi Arabia for that matter, and that is a retreat from the global conflict between West (USA/Europe) and East (China/Russia).
Withdrawing from the Middle East cedes control of the region to the Eastern proxy, Iran. Is a Middle East controlled by Eastern interests preferable to one controlled by Western interests? Does that result in Palestinian liberation? Does it result in peace? Or do we end up with a genocide in the opposite direction?
Of course, there are smaller adjustments that can be made that may pressure one side or the other into pursuing a brokered peace. That's what we've tried and failed at for decades, up until Trump anyway. We were quite close until Netanyahu riled up the crazies and caused the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
This sounds like a lot of good reasoning that could have been used to respond to the original poster of this thread ; ¯_(ツ)_/¯
The "both sides" stance is really just basic nuance applied.