Every now and then I feel the need to remind people: if not for the US, Gaza would have been a flat patch of land six months ago. This is a fraction of what our right wing wanted and wants to do...
Exemplary
Every now and then I feel the need to remind people: if not for the US, Gaza would have been a flat patch of land six months ago.
This is a fraction of what our right wing wanted and wants to do to the Palestinian people. Western influence is absolutely and unquestionably required in order to prevent this from becoming one of the worst genocides since the Holocaust. This cannot happen without leverage, and the only real leverage the US has is weapons and money. Left to its own devices, every single person in this thread would be wide eyed on their couch watching what Israel can really do unshackled. It really feels like I'm living in an alternate reality when I read these kinds of articles whilst also seeing what goes on in our right wing forums, who complain all day and night that there are still people alive in Gaza (actual paraphrase). These people are in our government and want nothing more than for the US to leave us alone and let us "get the job done".
The US backs Israel militarily and this emboldens Israel to continue to do things that literally no country of its size could get away with. If the US stopped supporting Israel or made its support...
The US backs Israel militarily and this emboldens Israel to continue to do things that literally no country of its size could get away with. If the US stopped supporting Israel or made its support conditional, then Israel would have to act in accordance with the regional power structure, which does not leave any room for a genocide or an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. This "leverage" concept is propaganda through and through, to get people of conscience in the US to trick themselves into thinking that we're doing the right thing here.
I don't know that this is really supported by Israel's history. We have, at almost every turn, acted in our own best interest whilst disregarding the impact on our allies. I mean, we quite...
If the US stopped supporting Israel or made its support conditional, then Israel would have to act in accordance with the regional power structure, which does not leave any room for a genocide or an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.
I don't know that this is really supported by Israel's history. We have, at almost every turn, acted in our own best interest whilst disregarding the impact on our allies. I mean, we quite literally smuggled uranium from the United States and used it to build nuclear weaponry. Could any other country get away with that? Obviously not, and it shows that the states are for one reason or another deathly avoidant of harming relations with Israel.
Unlike dictatorships that the US can sanction with impunity, sanctioning Israel will immediately prompt the country to look for alternatives. This is not a one-sided thing and nothing happens in a vacuum; the moment western support becomes an uncertainty, Israel will begin rethinking their allegiances. Remember, self interest.
If this is propaganda, then we need another explanation. People aren't evil for no reason (referring to US officials seemingly not doing anything) and the opaqueness of geopolitics makes it very difficult to judge a situation. One thing is for sure, the US is actively involved in Israel military planning and intelligence. It's the only reason that the northern front hasn't exploded and led to regional war. There are constant and unending diplomatic conversations behind the scenes trying to reign Israel in.
I do worry about what Israel would do without US support, but I look at how much effort they spend on maintaining US support and have some hope. If they truly would continue doing the exact same...
I do worry about what Israel would do without US support, but I look at how much effort they spend on maintaining US support and have some hope. If they truly would continue doing the exact same thing with no slowdown or ceasefire, then why would they spend all this political and monetary capitol on keeping US support?
Also, I'm sure geopolitics would change, and China may back Israel to keep their ongoing replacement of Uyghur people safe, but we don't know. And plenty of nations have at least condemned Israel already. It's worth a try.
I may have come off too hard with the implication that Israel doesn't care about US support. They absolutely do. There is such a deep relationship between the two countries that detachment would...
I may have come off too hard with the implication that Israel doesn't care about US support. They absolutely do. There is such a deep relationship between the two countries that detachment would be a disaster.
But at the end of the day, who's going to suffer from that disaster? It sure won't be the upper class Israelis. If we want to go a bit deeper into the hypothetical, what will probably end up happening is left wing citizens with and without dual citizenship leaving in droves as the country backslides harder and harder and has to make some really, really bad decisions in order to stay... Existing. This will be nothing short of horrific for everyone around us.
Of course, I should clarify, I know this is a doomsday scenario and I don't really believe this has a chance of happening. But when you have people who are protesting and advocating for this to happen and potentially allowing the US to become a fascist hellhole if it doesn't, I feel that I have to point out that the future they're imagining will (in my opinion) not be sunshine and rainbows.
Agreed, that is a horrible scenario. But too many people look at a potentially horrific future, and discount the currently horrific present. Every decision we make has consequences, even not...
Agreed, that is a horrible scenario. But too many people look at a potentially horrific future, and discount the currently horrific present. Every decision we make has consequences, even not making a decision has consequences.
And as for the idea that Israel would have to commit horrific acts to exist, isnt that the current justification? That Israel has to genocide Palestinians to exist right now? Because yes, I'm sure they could do worse. But they are using the same line of argument currently.
I do think a complete break between the US and Israel would be bad for everyone, as minority groups and the poor always suffer the worst from sanctions. But there are other options. Israel can't make every weapon itself, it's why there is so much lobby to keep selling weapons. And even just a UN peacekeeping force would at least be an attempt at stopping these horrific acts, instead of just turning our backs on people being bombed.
But that entire argument acts as if the US couldn't be an active player on either side. Sure we can arm Israel, but we can also arm the Palestinians like we did in Afghanistan with the Taliban...
But that entire argument acts as if the US couldn't be an active player on either side. Sure we can arm Israel, but we can also arm the Palestinians like we did in Afghanistan with the Taliban back in the 70s, but this time we could follow up with aid to rebuild.
I think there is a pervasive idea of Israel being this "uncontrollable" entity. They are currently running on our funding and military equipment, if the US had the political will we could not only turn off those support lines, but actively engage militarily.
That is what diplomacy is all about. Yes, Israel could thumb their nose at us, and we could in turn make it very difficult for them to maintain their military dominance in the area. Out thumb is already on the scale and it wouldn't be difficult to shift it to the other plate.
Yes, we could fund partisans to help destabilize a nuclear state that's surrounded by unfriendly neighbors. "Why* we would do that I don't know, but we absolutely could.
Yes, we could fund partisans to help destabilize a nuclear state that's surrounded by unfriendly neighbors. "Why* we would do that I don't know, but we absolutely could.
Well historically we've been happy to, look at Libya. I'd be curious to see what folks would be saying if the arguments were about stopping the holocaust rather than this genocide. We all seem to...
Well historically we've been happy to, look at Libya.
I'd be curious to see what folks would be saying if the arguments were about stopping the holocaust rather than this genocide. We all seem to be pretty fine with the fact that there is an active genocide that we're the ones funding. I think that is the "why* for me. I don't feel like throwing my hands up and saying "oh well we did nothing and nothing changed", guess they'll just all have to die.
EDIT: I'm going to leave up my comments for context but I can feel my blood pressure rising as I've been reading and writing everything. I think I'm crossing into unhelpful/hurtful territory so I'm going to head outside, jump on my bike and cool down. I'm sorry if I've added offense to anyone here. It's been a hard thread to read.
In response to both of your comments I'll ask if you, or anyone else in this thread, is prepared to support another war in the middle east with American boots on the ground. This has NEVER worked...
In response to both of your comments I'll ask if you, or anyone else in this thread, is prepared to support another war in the middle east with American boots on the ground. This has NEVER worked for America. Beyond that Israel is a nuclear power that has threatened action before, they're not Afghanistan, the politics are completely different. Active US military intervention is the least likely of an already unlikely situation, and even if Israel "defected" I would be very surprised to see any military force present.
With all due respect America and the west utterly eviscerated the middle east with their "diplomacy" throughout the past few decades. Propping up another player and saying "this time we'll do it right" is kind of out of touch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that if you had the political will America could militarily engage right now? If that's the case, then all I can really say is that I couldn't disagree more. Military intervention against Israel in this conflict by the US is not an option under most circumstances.
This is a reasonable assumption...if you think the Samson Option is fake. Israel is probably a nuclear state. The game theory and leverage you're referring to hardly applies if Israel is a nuclear...
This is a reasonable assumption...if you think the Samson Option is fake. Israel is probably a nuclear state. The game theory and leverage you're referring to hardly applies if Israel is a nuclear state. This is even more true if Bibi is willing to resort to extreme measures were Israeli statehood threatened.
If Israel is a nuclear state, negotiations and coalition building are the best options we have. Sanctions have an abysmal track record (see Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc). Things will change if Netanyahu loses power and goes to jail for corruption.
Nuclear powers are still subject to game theory, especially when they're democratic to some degree or another. The difference between a 1 percent chance of destruction and a near 0 percent chance...
Nuclear powers are still subject to game theory, especially when they're democratic to some degree or another. The difference between a 1 percent chance of destruction and a near 0 percent chance of destruction has profound ramifications for decision-making. Sanctions would undoubtedly collapse the Israeli economy, given how much of the Israeli economy depends on the US and close US allies. Russia, Iran, and North Korea are a different story.
Iran is also a democracy. Sanctions are extraordinarily blunt and ineffective tools that almost never drive policy change. Even if sanctions collapsed Israel's economy, there's no guarantee that...
Iran is also a democracy. Sanctions are extraordinarily blunt and ineffective tools that almost never drive policy change. Even if sanctions collapsed Israel's economy, there's no guarantee that would improve their government policy.
Sanctions would reduce Israel's conventional weapon supply, but they have a fully functioning independent military industry. Israel also trades with China, Russia, and India who would all refuse to follow US sanctions. The US would lose any ability to talk Israel down from the stupidest possible decisions (like total war with Iran and its proxies).
It's honestly tough to even have a discussion here in Czechia. Union of Jewish Comnunities reports on "antisemitic speach" and both politicians and media are kind of afraid of being labelled...
It's honestly tough to even have a discussion here in Czechia.
Union of Jewish Comnunities reports on "antisemitic speach" and both politicians and media are kind of afraid of being labelled antisemitic so they tend to avoid confronting the Union. And lately, criticism of Israel has became part of what gets labeled antisemitic.
John Oliver's episode on West Bank would put him in a spot light as a Jew-hater and public figures might try to actively distance from him if he lived and worked here.
To tell the truth I'm not sure how this relates to my post, but you're right that some Israeli and Jewish media has been very thorough in applying the anti-semitic label to anyone and anything...
To tell the truth I'm not sure how this relates to my post, but you're right that some Israeli and Jewish media has been very thorough in applying the anti-semitic label to anyone and anything that criticizes Israel. It's become somewhat of a filter to me. If someone calls someone else anti-semitic when they're just being a rational human being, that tells me the former is probably not someone I should be taking seriously.
Alternate history is always tricky, but I think it's fair to say that American right wing doesn't have much say over what the Israeli military does? Reading right-wing American forums don't seem...
Alternate history is always tricky, but I think it's fair to say that American right wing doesn't have much say over what the Israeli military does? Reading right-wing American forums don't seem like a great way to try to understand what Israel would do under other circumstances.
I think it's hard to say how much difference the Biden administration made in restraining Israel. They try, they put pressure on Israel, but Israel still seems to do whatever they wanted to do, most of the time?
I don't have time to respond in depth now so I'll add an edit later, but I'll clarify: I'm Israeli. I'm talking about Israeli right wing forums. That's who I mean when I say "us". It's hard to...
I don't have time to respond in depth now so I'll add an edit later, but I'll clarify: I'm Israeli. I'm talking about Israeli right wing forums. That's who I mean when I say "us". It's hard to overstate how dangerous some of the rhetoric I read there is.
It's okay and not your fault, I'm known for being pretty vague and assuming people just "get" what I mean. Regarding the other half of your comment, there are plenty of people here who would...
It's okay and not your fault, I'm known for being pretty vague and assuming people just "get" what I mean. Regarding the other half of your comment, there are plenty of people here who would disagree with you, lol
Israel only seems to be doing what it wants because foreign media only reports what Israel does, not what their operational plans look like. The beginning of the war, with its ruthless and unprecedented bombing campaigns, was a more accurate look at what Israel's military campaigns usually were like: unbound, uncaring, unending firepower.
Now that the west has intervened to some extent there was a shift to more methodical warfare. Truth be told I have little doubt in my mind that in the first few months there were real and tangible preparations for genocide, which are now bleeding out into the battlefield gradually because of how strongly America reacted to the initial attack. This is still really, really bad, but it gives both the US and Israel time to become politically active and change.
Which is where I get to my issue with the article itself. The idea that a two party country can suddenly convince one of the parties to make a radical and sudden change in foreign policy by not voting for the candidate is, to say the least, an idealistic and almost privileged way of looking at this kind of politics in my opinion. We simply cannot always get what we want. The left wing in Israel couldn't agree on anything and squandered the government they were given, which led to this one. We're all seeing how well that's going.
I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with your level headed approach to this thread. It's a mighty polarizing issue.... everywhere in western society, basically. And something a lot of...
I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with your level headed approach to this thread. It's a mighty polarizing issue.... everywhere in western society, basically. And something a lot of people tend to take hard stances for and/or against something without considering the complexity and potential domino effects it has.
Hey thanks. I'm always worried when I make posts like this because I don't always feel like my thoughts really transfer all too well. It's nice to see people seem to think I make sense, hehe
Hey thanks. I'm always worried when I make posts like this because I don't always feel like my thoughts really transfer all too well. It's nice to see people seem to think I make sense, hehe
Yes, the unrealistic claims of some pro-Palestinian advocates are something I think is worth pushing back against, so I’m happy to see participation from someone who has a more based view of...
Yes, the unrealistic claims of some pro-Palestinian advocates are something I think is worth pushing back against, so I’m happy to see participation from someone who has a more based view of things.
I am just an out-of-touch software developer in California who reads the news, so sharing articles from apparently unbiased English-language newspapers is the best I can do.
Regarding the accomplishments of the Biden administration with respect to Israel, it would be nice to have some specific examples. I’ve read enough to know they’re trying. The Gaza floating pier seemed like an attempt to have a port of entry not under Israeli control (though they would be allowed to make inspections), but operational difficulties did it in.
And I think that’s got to be the way forward. Gaza is surrounded and there needs to be some way in and out controlled by someone who is going to allow enough humanitarian assistance to make a difference. Allowing refugees to leave would be a great thing too. Building a more permanent port would take time, though.
Also, not reducing the place to rubble would help. Apparently, Israel blew up a reservoir in July? It sounds like a war crime to me, but what do I know?
For the record, my you's are general, not you specifically. Sorry, it's a bad habit of my writing. I don't mean to come off like I'm accusing you of believing in anything I write, it's more of a...
For the record, my you's are general, not you specifically. Sorry, it's a bad habit of my writing. I don't mean to come off like I'm accusing you of believing in anything I write, it's more of a "you, the person reading this" kind of thing.
I can find specific articles later, but essentially every single time that a US official hops over it's for de-escalation talks. It's very often reported in media that Biden and Netanyahu's phone calls aren't exactly calm all of the time. The best proof I have to give you is offering you to look at how Israel has conducted itself in warfare in the past and compare it to now. Israel isn't holding back because of the goodwill of its heart, it's trying to do as much as it can get away with but not anger the US too much.
And you're absolutely right, it would help if Israel stopped committing war crimes whilst trying to claim that it isn't commiting war crimes, but... what's new.
Sure, I’m not asking you to do homework. Yes, there’s been a lot of reporting about negotiations between the US and Israel, but I’d have to do more research to say anything sensible about them.
Sure, I’m not asking you to do homework. Yes, there’s been a lot of reporting about negotiations between the US and Israel, but I’d have to do more research to say anything sensible about them.
Like the other comment, I don't have time right now to write paragraphs, but no. Thankful isn't the word I'd use. Israel is committing horrific acts of violence, and US weapons are being used for...
Like the other comment, I don't have time right now to write paragraphs, but no. Thankful isn't the word I'd use. Israel is committing horrific acts of violence, and US weapons are being used for them. That said, considering Israel's history of radical self-interest and the lengths they'd go to preservation, I think we should think about what would happen if they got their weaponry from a different global power that wouldn't care in the slightest about the death of untold people.
Thinking that Israel will not turn to China for example if they have no other option is naive. Even if they don't succeed in finding another country to ally with, the fallout from the inevitable conflict that will follow US detachment would make everything happening today look like a walk in the park.
Well said. But I wonder if the unwavering support for Israel by the US didn’t create this problem in the first place. And I’m not talking the war in Gaza, but way before that. Israel got both too...
Well said. But I wonder if the unwavering support for Israel by the US didn’t create this problem in the first place. And I’m not talking the war in Gaza, but way before that.
Israel got both too powerful and too hostile to its neighbors (and they to Israel), for this problem to be easily solved.
That's really a Bibi specific issue in my opinion. Israel was extremely close to normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia which would've caused a fundamental change in the Middle East...then...
That's really a Bibi specific issue in my opinion. Israel was extremely close to normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia which would've caused a fundamental change in the Middle East...then October 7th happened.
I think that's a mischaracterization of the history of the conflict and Israel's active policy of derailing peace accords and assassinating Palestinian leaders.
I think that's a mischaracterization of the history of the conflict and Israel's active policy of derailing peace accords and assassinating Palestinian leaders.
But imagine if that meant that the US actively engaged in the combat or acting as they are right now for Ukraine. If Israel turns to China/Russia/whoever I believe they will have made an enormous...
I think we should think about what would happen if they got their weaponry from a different global power that wouldn't care in the slightest about the death of untold people.
But imagine if that meant that the US actively engaged in the combat or acting as they are right now for Ukraine. If Israel turns to China/Russia/whoever I believe they will have made an enormous strategic mistake.
Yes. It's well reported that the US is a moderating force on Bibi's stupid military plans in Gaza. Biden specifically has made calls talking Bibi off the ledge, pressuring him to avoid stupid...
Yes. It's well reported that the US is a moderating force on Bibi's stupid military plans in Gaza. Biden specifically has made calls talking Bibi off the ledge, pressuring him to avoid stupid military operations that could lead to total war with Iran.
I only see the US moderating Israeli war options with Iran, not stopping the genocide. US officials know that getting involved with a war with Iran would be bad, and so don't want Israel to drag...
I only see the US moderating Israeli war options with Iran, not stopping the genocide. US officials know that getting involved with a war with Iran would be bad, and so don't want Israel to drag us in.
Everyone seems to be talking as if she even has the option. Obama could barely manage to pull official US forces out of Iraq within 3 years. You really think Kamala or the US is gonna manage to...
Everyone seems to be talking as if she even has the option. Obama could barely manage to pull official US forces out of Iraq within 3 years. You really think Kamala or the US is gonna manage to get Netahnyahu to stop killing Palestinians? Bibi is in the midst of destroying Gaza while provoking Hezbollah/threatening war with Lebanon and assassinating targets in Iran. It’ll be lucky if there’s even a ceasefire before Gaza is completely flattened and we manage to avoid some spiraling conflict with Iran that sucks in a whole bunch of players into a wide scale regional war. There is very little the US President can really do about this. Israel is still a sovereign country and it doesn’t just jump at the president’s beck and call. Even if there wasn’t all the internal US political stuff that comes up around this issue. Not to mention the internal Israeli political stuff.
Now, Kamala could try betting her career on trying to get Israel to stop killing Palestinians. She would lose her career and Israel would continue on.
I’m not trying to excuse the mass murder of hundreds of thousands by a modern day apartheid state. Nor do I love a Bay Area prosecutor. But people way overestimate how much Kamala could accomplish here, even if she wanted to.
The United States stopping the genocide is one thing. Right now, they are aiding and abetting. There are some things here that can be done with an executive order, such as sanctioning most...
The United States stopping the genocide is one thing. Right now, they are aiding and abetting. There are some things here that can be done with an executive order, such as sanctioning most transactions in illegal settlements in the West Bank, like they did with Crimea. Which again, did nothing to stop Russia and will likely do nothing to stop Israel but is the bare minimum.
Other than executive action, at least a commitment or public call or anything to stop sending billions of taxpayer money in the form of arms to Israel or at least make it contingent on human rights commitments would have gone a long way here. (Of course, in this specific instance, Israel and Ukraine were a bundle in that bill to get it through the Republican house. One can hope the Democrats intend to galvanize their base and capture the house in November...)
Harris hasn't even said a single thing that isn't consistent with the US State Department's de jure policy, supporting a two-state solution via a negotiated peace between the parties to the conflict (which as we know is de facto giving Israel whatever they want.) Like, words are cheap but they don't even want to give progressives and Arab-Americans that.
During her election campaign, I don’t expect her to say anything much different from current American policy. It’s in her interest to say as little about Israeli policy as she can get away with....
During her election campaign, I don’t expect her to say anything much different from current American policy. It’s in her interest to say as little about Israeli policy as she can get away with. She’s not running against Biden. She needs to win the center and that’s what electoral candidates focus on after the primaries are over.
We probably won’t find out how her Israeli policy differs from Biden’s until after the election.
And yes, that means ordinary citizens have little input into US foreign policy regarding Israel. Same as it ever was. I’m hopeful that we’ll see a return of Obama’s more skeptical approach, though.
The USA, as in the soulless state entity, doesn't give 2 shits about genocide or justice. It cares about military power and resource control. Any and all other actions are in service of that....
The USA, as in the soulless state entity, doesn't give 2 shits about genocide or justice. It cares about military power and resource control. Any and all other actions are in service of that.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see that change. But as of right now, its far more likely that the USA is gonna be dealing with some genocide problems internally before that will come to pass.
There’s a lot of good discussion here but not much about the demographics she needs. The whole last night of the dnc seemed to be targeted towards white and black conservative leaning men. To...
There’s a lot of good discussion here but not much about the demographics she needs. The whole last night of the dnc seemed to be targeted towards white and black conservative leaning men. To assuage fears she’s a weak woman, that she plans to gut the military, etc etc. People are acting like it still isn’t a toss up election - she needs 2-5% of those dudes in midwest swing states to hop over the aisle. It was a stump speech for maybe the only time they might tune in.
The whole main body of the opinion piece is worth reading. However, other than the main focus of the article, that is Kamala's support of the Gaza genocide, there is also this part. Unbelievably...
The whole main body of the opinion piece is worth reading. However, other than the main focus of the article, that is Kamala's support of the Gaza genocide, there is also this part.
“As commander-in-chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” she thundered, later adding: “I will never hesitate to take whatever action is necessary to defend our forces and our interests against Iran and Iran-backed terrorists.”
Unbelievably straightforward and proud war hawk attitude. Call me crazy but Trump might not be this aggressive toward rest of the world. This is an extremely worrying attitude in light of the fragility of the international order, thanks to the attacks of Israel and Russia. Either way, unless the progressives in US push harder, US will continue to support the Gaza genocide. But it also makes me anxious that US might get such a war hawk president. That never ends well for the rest of us.
The first and most important thing I want to add is that Trump wouldn't be as aggressive because he's completely for sale. Russia, Iran, North Korea - doesn't matter who they are or how much they...
Exemplary
The first and most important thing I want to add is that Trump wouldn't be as aggressive because he's completely for sale. Russia, Iran, North Korea - doesn't matter who they are or how much they hate America, Trump will sell this country out immediately to anyone who will stroke his ego or bribe him. Well, that and he has a great deal of admiration for all authoritarian leaders.
But now to address Kamala's statement, the NY Times pointed out this morning that she's doing a bit more flag waving than you usually see from Democrats these days. Shockingly, I am finding it quite refreshing.
Kamala was clear that she thinks both Israel and Palestine have a right to self-determination and dignity. She essentially denounced Israel's actions while also acknowledging that terrorism can't just be ignored either. I'm not sure what more you'd want her to say. It's a complex issue and most reasonable people think both groups will have to find a way to coexist.
Probably not a bad idea to keep our military strong either. Hate to say it but NATO and friends are really counting on the US now. Too many authoritarian countries getting way too grabby lately. Peace should always be the goal, but appeasement isn't peace.
And look, as a progressive liberal who generally hates the idea of war, I admit that my desire for peace and social progress is absolutely not going to be better served in a world where China or Russia have stronger militaries
It very much is a rock and a hard place situation, and at the end of the day I'll always vote for the one that didn't also try to overthrow an election. The geopolitical reality is that neither...
It very much is a rock and a hard place situation, and at the end of the day I'll always vote for the one that didn't also try to overthrow an election.
The geopolitical reality is that neither party will remove support from Israel, certainly not into the election where the attack ads write themselves.
I'm kinda curious about what attack ads write themselves about Harris in your view. Anti-Semitic? There are many Jewish voices against Zionism and have been since the birth of that mindset. That...
I'm kinda curious about what attack ads write themselves about Harris in your view. Anti-Semitic? There are many Jewish voices against Zionism and have been since the birth of that mindset. That she's a cop? I mean, I think that's valid criticism if you are in a position where the judicial system is prejudiced against you. Most of the other attacks I've seen from the right have just seemed unhinged or poorly constructed.
I hear this said very regularly on the internet, but it's never reflected my reality. In every Jewish space I've ever been in (liberal, conservative, mostly secular, orthodox), if you take a...
Exemplary
There are many Jewish voices against Zionism and have been since the birth of that mindset.
I hear this said very regularly on the internet, but it's never reflected my reality. In every Jewish space I've ever been in (liberal, conservative, mostly secular, orthodox), if you take a limited definition of zionism after the movement's success in 1948 (viz: Jews should be able to continue to exercise self determination in Israel, they should not be expelled, nor should they become a minority, which would put their lives in danger), only a tiny minority would claim to not agree.
Support for the Israeli government, particularly Netanyahu, Likkud, and the insane folks further to the right? That's a hell of a lot less universal.
As for it being anti-semetic, when non-Jews start talking about the sort of policy that would result in the end of Israel as a safe place for Jews... Well, a common view is that the results of that could be as catastrophic as the holocaust; if you think that's extreme, or jumping to a conclusion, remember that a lot of the people we are talking about are only a generation or two removed from survivors. It's not uncommon to hear someone talk about how lucky their family was that ${relative} decided to flee early, and thus survived, sometimes with an entirely bare family tree.
Israel now hosts, as a result of both holocaust refugees emigrating, and the expulsion of the Jewish population of almost all of the surrounding countries, almost half of the world's Jewish population. Combine that with another common belief that the only thing between Jews in Israel and another holocaust is the IDF, and while you may personally disagree, I think it's not illogical for them to come to the conclusion that any policy that advocates for a single state solution, or for Israel to be disarmed has wanton disregard for Jewish lives.
I'll say that I've met a fair number of Jews who are strictly opposed to ethno-theocratic states as a whole, and Israel is no exception. They're not exactly keen to get into internet arguements...
I'll say that I've met a fair number of Jews who are strictly opposed to ethno-theocratic states as a whole, and Israel is no exception. They're not exactly keen to get into internet arguements about it though. And they don't really wanna piss off their other friends and family, so it really only comes out in our secular space.
They also tend to get a little freaked out by non-Jewish Zionists who give off a pretty strong 'send them back where they came from' vibe. Which is just as offputting as hearing people shout 'go back to Africa' at black people.
Yup, that I've also seen. I haven't met any who think Israel should be undone though. Honestly, there's a point in my life where I probably would have agreed. As I've grown older though, and spent...
a fair number of Jews who are strictly opposed to ethno-theocratic states as a whole, and Israel is no exception
Yup, that I've also seen. I haven't met any who think Israel should be undone though.
Honestly, there's a point in my life where I probably would have agreed. As I've grown older though, and spent more time away from where I grew up with a large Jewish population, I can see how it could be valuable to people to live in a place where Judaism is the cultural basis instead of Christianity -- for an idea of what that looks like, I suggest looking at some of the content from JewWhoHasItAll https://www.facebook.com/JewWhoHasItAll/
There's a Tiktok creator who's since written a book that does a similar thing with talking about race - talking about people from the "outer-city" and how they don't even know how to wear a...
There's a Tiktok creator who's since written a book that does a similar thing with talking about race - talking about people from the "outer-city" and how they don't even know how to wear a bonnet, and insist on their strange cultural rituals.
I appreciate things that challenge the deeper assumptions we make about society, usually the ones we don't even realize we're making so I enjoy things like that.
Oh I'm very aware of families that escaped by the skin of their teeth, my uncles was one of them. While I cannot claim to be of Jewish descent, he also does not have an account on here, so I have...
Oh I'm very aware of families that escaped by the skin of their teeth, my uncles was one of them. While I cannot claim to be of Jewish descent, he also does not have an account on here, so I have to fact check the zionist cause for him.
You put forward the common myth that Jewish people are not safe without the state of Israel, the IDF and their genocide. Yes, Jewish people have been horrendously prejudiced against in their history, and today. But Israel has created the problem that you suppose - that Jewish people are not safe in the world without them. They have repeatedly supported anti Jewish governments (Hungary, some anti- semitic movements in Brazil) to drive Jewish populations to Israel, to then use them to supplant local families and continue evicting families.
It is very easy to fall into an echo chamber on Zionism, especially with Israel spending quite a lot of political and monetary capitol to silence anti Zionist voices, both Jewish and Gentile. But there have always been people saying that the idea has problems, that they are not from Palestine but from New York, or Germany or Russia. Yes, Jewish people have been slandered, hunted and killed, but instead of fighting to protect them in their neighborhoods and cities, you are backing up a genocide of another people under the pretense of protecting Jewish people.
Frankly, I have trouble taking you in good faith when you make that accusation directly at me, so this will be my last response on this topic. If the "you" was not intended, I would suggest...
you are backing up a genocide of another people
Frankly, I have trouble taking you in good faith when you make that accusation directly at me, so this will be my last response on this topic. If the "you" was not intended, I would suggest avoiding 2nd person when debating such fraught subjects. You are entitled to your opinion on the subject. I do not believe that Israel's actions are aimed at wiping out (materially or culturally) the civilian population of Gaza or the West Bank, and that's the end of my comments on the topic, because I don't think I will ever convince you of that. I do believe that there are members of the Israeli government who have that as their desire, but we also have a few American politicians who are absolutely insane, and nobody seems to think those politicians are accurate representations of the goal of the entire government.
You put forward the common myth that Jewish people are not safe without the state of Israel
What I said was "the common belief that...". I actually didn't bother to assess the truthiness, because I didn't think it would be a helpful thing to debate in this forum. All that matters to my comment is that it is a common belief among Israelis. It is a belief that leads to a conclusion that forsakes what many people want to be the resolution (a single state).
Following from there, to them, it does not matter whether or not Israel's continued existence makes things worse or not, because there is no alternative that results in anything but (at best) the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the middle east, or at worst, their mass murder. They've seen that antisemitism existed long before attempts to establish modern Israel and have no reason to believe that it would not continue to exist in a world where it was destroyed.
And for good measure, because it poorly represents the real situation.
that they are not from Palestine but from New York, or Germany or Russia
50% of the Jewish population of Israel either are, or are descended from Mizrahi Jews, native to the region. A small amount of those having lived in Israel for generations before the foundation of Israel, and a larger number who were expelled from the surrounding nations, or fled due to extreme danger. For many of those "German" Jews you are referring to, they had been stripped of German citizenship well before they fled as stateless refugees. One of the reasons that "Zionism" (definition -- same as on my comment further up) is seen as so critical is because historically how common it has been for the tides to change and loyal citizens to be murdered. And for all you can say that the holocaust survivors who stayed in Germany turned out to be reasonably safe, that's only visible with the benefit of hindsight.
And another comment -- you talk about a "New York Jew", but the vast majority of Jews in New York have only been here for 3 or 4 generations. At what point will you consider Jews born in the region of Palestine to be native? My own heritage varies from 2nd generation American to 4th and I definitely consider myself native to New York, so that's a real question.
but instead of fighting to protect them in their neighborhoods and cities,
I'm not sure what you even mean by this, and frankly, every interpretation I can come up is me seeing red: victim blaming the Jews for their pogroms for not organizing to defend themselves. For what it's worth, self defense is a hell of a lot easier when people are centralized in fewer locations, instead of spread over the world in a diaspora, and when you have a national government to organize it. In the case of Israel, many of those making Aliyah to early Israel had already been made refugees, they had no neighborhoods and cities left to return to.
For your comments on on support of Hungary and Brazil, they're unsourced, and I can't find anything. What I can find implies that there have been only a few thousand Jews total who have made Aliyah from Hungary from 1989 to 2016 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/sena.12312 - page 27). Aliyah from Brazil has increased in recent years, but it's still only at its peak around 600-700 a year, ~4000 between 2011 and 2020. I really don't think that's a large enough number to influence governmental policy, especially since that growth is likely drowned in size by Israel's OECD topping fertility rate of nearly 3.0 children per women.
I think its always important to interrogate what ones actions and words support, either passively or actively. If you put forward a "common belief" that is also used by the state of Isreal to...
I think its always important to interrogate what ones actions and words support, either passively or actively. If you put forward a "common belief" that is also used by the state of Isreal to justify its actions and do not fact check it, you are reinforcing this view with your words and actions. It becomes your belief, at least so far as other internet commentors can tell.
I never in my post called for the immediate destruction of Israel, but if you will put words in my mouth, lets discuss it. I do not think that the situation has an easy out, and it certainly needs debate. The only way I can see stopping a future genocidal campaign from Isreal would involve the arming of Palestine in a similar fashion as Isreal, and that clearly would only create a future conflict. What I am callign for in my posts and in person, is an immediate ceasefire, aid for the injured, and the returning of illegally ceased property, and the rebuilding of bombed structures. Then we can discuss the future, but the killing must stop.
I have been unable to verify the 50% number you posted. Some estimates are lower, and some are higher. But, you do point out that a large number of those people came from surrounding states after the creation of Isreal. Which would, at least in my view, mean they were somewhat safe and secure in those countries before an Illegal uprising took place, forcing many Palestinians out of their homes, and the surrounding nations responded by forcing Jewish people from their homes and communities. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind after all.
In terms of generation nativeness, I think its heavily dependant on culture and assimilation. You consider yourself a New Yorker, and I will not dissuade you of that fact. I believe there is a line between maintianing your ancestors culture and assimilating into the local culture you are born in. Many Jewish New Yorkers maintian large parts of their religous culture, but if you cut them off in the street they would yell "Im walkin here!" Forgive the bad joke, I love and cherrish my New York family and cant wait to visit for pizza and bagels.
But, the settlers in Isreal are ousting communities and destorying homes to rebuild new gated suburbs or malls. Clearly they want to create a more American esque culture, and eliminate the local culture. While I would never try to deny where they are born, one must always keep in mind those who lived there before you. There will always be bad actions and words of those who came before, but by ignoring them completely and bulldozing the area, we forget our own history.
I will be blunt - I believe Israeli propoganda feeds actual Nazis. Israel right wing propaganda about expanding beyond the current borders feeds the idea about Jewish invasions. The use of Jewish voices in Hollywood and other media enterprises to silence Palestinian voices and Anti- Zionists feeds the idea that "Jews control the media". The threat of AIPAC funding another candidate to force support of Israeli arm shippments feeds the polictical side. I do not agree with any facist on this matter, and spend time online on my lunch breaks and weekends to try and fight facists where I can. But I think this feeding of Nazis along side the global right wing surge makes Jewish people less safe in their homes and communities world wide. I will not stand by and let my family feel unsafe in their homes.
As for Hungary and Brazil, it was never about immigration, and more about Israel supporting anti- semetic movements, and I cant fully understand why. But you are absolutely right to interrogate my lack of source. Heres one I just gave a quick read through.
While I probably shouldn't put myself in a very uneasy conversation, I want to point out that being at a place does not necessarily mean the people were safe in that place. The Romani have...
Which would, at least in my view, mean they were somewhat safe and secure in those countries before an Illegal uprising took place, forcing many Palestinians out of their homes, and the surrounding nations responded by forcing Jewish people from their homes and communities. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind after all.
While I probably shouldn't put myself in a very uneasy conversation, I want to point out that being at a place does not necessarily mean the people were safe in that place. The Romani have suffered, and are suffering, a lot in Europe for example. And while they have their lives, culture, traditions among others in place, it's far from comfortable or equal to say the least.
Personally, I really disapprove of the way Israel is conducting its current invasion. Even if it doesn't fit the textbook description of Genocide, at the very least the parallels are bad enough to be treated as such. On which, I agree with many of your points.
But when you're filling in blanks the way you do by making the assumption on how Jewish people were treated before an uprising, which is another assumption, then use the language you do: I think Interesting has a right to be sceptical about your intentions at least. Especially if they've been having similar arguments by participants in bad faith.
Which, incidentally, I don't think you're doing. In fact, I actually think you have a point regarding the media in particular. When the Eurovision was happening I saw an add on Youtube, with the Israeli participant along with the text 'vote with your heart'.... which I really thought was poor in taste, and doesn't exactly help the stereotypes(and frankly Eurovision not being political is laughable but that's a story for another time). There are more examples, both recent and not-so-recent.
Of course, I can't claim to be perfect either, just: to both you and @Interesting I want to say, this is one of the few places on the Internet where you can have some discussion about this topic without bad faith actors being drawn in. And when I look at your mutual comment history I don't believe either of you really want to encourage, or facilitate, genocide, antisemitism, or other horrid parts of humanity. Like many here, I used to moderate, and I moderated mental health communities which had some really nasty parts of humanity.
I don't know how else to ask this without sounding like the genocide compromise meme dude, but: is there any chance you guys could try to take a moment and ponder why the other person may say what they say, while coming from a place of good faith?
On any other place on the Internet, and frankly many irl places as well, I'd probably be actually helping literal Nazis. But here I feel like that the conversation is either going to run in circles, repeated accusations of genocide, or otherwise cause spicy comments that we're all familiar with here.
There's a chance that you two will never see eye-to-eye on this subject, but if there's any platform on the Internet that can foster this kind of conversation it's here. And I'd hate for that opportunity to be lost.
If I sound like the enlightened centrist here, or even a holier-than-thou-preacher, then I apologise in advance. An Internet forum comment won't change the geopolitical reality, and I'm well aware that I may blow this out of proportion myself.
There are also a significant number of Israelis with ancestry in Russia. Putin doesn't want them back. There are a smaller but significant number from Africa.
There are also a significant number of Israelis with ancestry in Russia. Putin doesn't want them back. There are a smaller but significant number from Africa.
Agreed, and while I wish they could reclaim their homes there I dont forsee that happening. The Jewish people in Russia have endured some horrific events. It would be one thing to me if Israel was...
Agreed, and while I wish they could reclaim their homes there I dont forsee that happening. The Jewish people in Russia have endured some horrific events. It would be one thing to me if Israel was just trying to house these people forced out, but I dont think that would give the Israeli state enough settlers to populate the land they wish to drive Palestinians out of, so they spend the majority of their time and money appealing to dual passport Jewish people.
It doesn’t seem hard to me to picture how they would go. They would paint her as a terrorist sympathizer. Footage of massacre victims paired with text or voiceover to the effect of “a Kamala...
It doesn’t seem hard to me to picture how they would go.
They would paint her as a terrorist sympathizer. Footage of massacre victims paired with text or voiceover to the effect of “a Kamala Harris presidency will guarantee this happens again”.
Might also be an effective idea to compare and contrast her domestic history of locking up drug offenders with letting Hamas terrorists get away with mass murder.
I'm not putting blame on USA citizens for thinking of their own and fellow citizens' well-being when voting. However, I would point out that progressive movements can create pressure on...
I'm not putting blame on USA citizens for thinking of their own and fellow citizens' well-being when voting. However, I would point out that progressive movements can create pressure on governments to change their policies. A classic example is the reaction against the Vietnam War and its success.
So, it's very vital to remember that grassroots movements and similar progressive movements can create change. Voting is not the only way to engage in politics, it's just one part of it.
Edit: I'm emphasizing this because you're talking about "geopolitical reality" as if it can't be changed. But you're talking about a social attitude that is the emergent result of a system where many people and organizations participate. You are one of these pieces that affect the emergent properties of the system. An individual of course doesn't have all the power in the world, but it's as equally false to assume they have none.
A modern example was the mass protests against the Iraq war, which were larger than the protests against the Vietnam war, and acomplished fuckall for 2 decades. Protesting has been effectively...
A classic example is the reaction against the Vietnam War and its success.
A modern example was the mass protests against the Iraq war, which were larger than the protests against the Vietnam war, and acomplished fuckall for 2 decades.
Protesting has been effectively suppressed as be easily ignorable after a few token placations.
A counter argument I think worth looking into was the George Floyd protests/ riots. The officers involved may very well have not been brought to justice without them. However, we have seen a large...
A counter argument I think worth looking into was the George Floyd protests/ riots. The officers involved may very well have not been brought to justice without them. However, we have seen a large regression on what little change was brought about in terms of policing in the last few years, which does reinforce your point.
Progressives in America need to be realistic about what they can actually get from the dems. they are not policy setters, they follow. Even just the simple fact that Harris is the nominee should...
Progressives in America need to be realistic about what they can actually get from the dems. they are not policy setters, they follow.
Even just the simple fact that Harris is the nominee should be seen as a win. If we see an actual material difference between the Biden and Harris admin on how they treat protestors, that's as good as we can expect from a Democrat. If they, heaven forbid, stop trying to make it illegal to BDS we can only assume that's a concession to the left too.
All that American progressives can do then is continue to agitate and protest. We did it with apartheid in the 80s, and we can do it again. Death by a thousand cuts may be slow, but it does happen eventually.
I understand and acknowledge why people have a problem with supporting Israel, but I'm honestly surprised that you see this specifically as so problematic. She's describing the status quo that has...
Unbelievably straightforward and proud war hawk attitude. Call me crazy but Trump might not be this aggressive toward rest of the world.
I understand and acknowledge why people have a problem with supporting Israel, but I'm honestly surprised that you see this specifically as so problematic. She's describing the status quo that has allowed the US to continually be the main superpower instead of China or Russia, and that is also necessary for NATO to function as it does now. Doing anything else would mean wanting to step down from that position as a country, and the majority of people would not want to live with the consequences of that - I, a citizen of a tiny US ally, certainly wouldn't either.
It's bad policy. It's fantastic politics. I disagree with it as policy. If she gets elected, I trust her to use force judiciously. I cannot say the same for her opponent.
It's bad policy. It's fantastic politics.
I disagree with it as policy.
If she gets elected, I trust her to use force judiciously. I cannot say the same for her opponent.
I worry this whole discussion will get buried, but the amount of blind patriotism at the DNC worries and sickens me. I used to think "Blue MAGA" was a made up term to try and slander more center...
I worry this whole discussion will get buried, but the amount of blind patriotism at the DNC worries and sickens me. I used to think "Blue MAGA" was a made up term to try and slander more center leaning liberals, but after seeing some of the DNC I really worry about Democrats trying to learn right to pick up Never Trumpers over actually taking actions to heal our nation.
We are still struggling with policing systems built off of slave catchers and Jim Crow, but we have a Texan cop speaking at the DNC.
We are still struggling with a huge amount of corruption in politics, but when Harris was announced as the Democratic Candidate, the a number of articles were lauding her fundraising.
And we are still arming an apartheid regime, but rather than making even basic campaign promises about stopping arms shipments, we are signing 20 billion dollar arms deals.
This is kind of why progressives are often so divided though. We let perfect be the enemy of good and we have become very reluctant to celebrate our country simply because it's not perfect....
Exemplary
This is kind of why progressives are often so divided though. We let perfect be the enemy of good and we have become very reluctant to celebrate our country simply because it's not perfect. Meanwhile the MAGA crew are in lock step because they go nuts for anything with a flag on it.
The DNC wasn't blind patriotism in my opinion. It was a lot of diverse voices standing up and saying, "We're sick of Trump's bullshit. We love this country and we aren't going to give in to hatred and fascism."
You can tell that it was different than Trump's brand of patriotism because the DNC was sharing messages of empathy, respect, family, mutual understanding, diversity, unity, etc. Other than a few (well-deserved) jabs at Trump/Vance, this was an event that shared a message of hope and love. It was the first time in a long time where I really felt like Dems weren't afraid to be proud of their country and stand up for it against bullies. We've needed that for a long time now.
Prosecutors, cops, farmers, millionaire bankers - and yes, even Trump supporters - they're Americans too. The Dems need to embrace this fact and welcome all of America into the movement. We are never going to be free of MAGA if large groups of Americans feel excluded from the other party. Cops are our fellow countrymen and they do incredibly dangerous, incredibly important work. Even if the system needs some serious reform, we have to welcome them. We need everyone and it's time to come together.
Clearly this is a popular opinion here, and I feel my reply will be buried, but I feel the need for a response. I do agree that progressives are easily divided, but rather than reluctance to...
Clearly this is a popular opinion here, and I feel my reply will be buried, but I feel the need for a response.
I do agree that progressives are easily divided, but rather than reluctance to celebrate our country I believe it is because progressives have standards and strong moral beliefs that are not easily cast aside.
I loathe the longing many liberals have for the left to be in lockstep. I do not understand why people see it as a positive, from what I thought is a phrase about literal Nazi highstepping. Diversity of opinion is a strentgh. Lockstep is onyl achieved by the drowning out of minority voices.\
I personally felt like the messaging about joy I kept seeing was really out of touch. With so many Americans struggling to pay bills or afford groceries, saying this is a joy feels really weird. I would love a woman to represent our country globally as president, but this smacks of "Its her turn" from the Hillary campaign.
This last paragraph about apealing to traditionally right wing voices like cops, bankers and Trumpists is something I have been complaining about for a while now. The whole point of having multiple political parties is to have different focal issues, but it feels like the Dems have been abandoning many focal issues just to draw in more right wing voices. Its part of why more and more people are being increasingly ignored by their representatives.
There is only so much bandwith to represent voices. By appealing to those in traditional places of power, Dems are only helping drown out minority voices, whether they be racial, cultural or LGBTQ+
You're letting perfect be the enemy of good though - my point exactly. The Democrats just nominated a biracial female president and you're talking about drowning out minority voices. This is the...
Exemplary
You're letting perfect be the enemy of good though - my point exactly.
The Democrats just nominated a biracial female president and you're talking about drowning out minority voices. This is the only party where minority voices are being listened to at all. The American dream is an ever-changing ideal. The work will never be done. We aren't going to ever have the perfect platform. What we can do is unite with one another as proud Americans and strive toward that goal. Especially when the alternative is an absolutely vile and hateful party.
I think a lot of people are sick of progressives whining and splitting hairs. "I would vote for the Democrats because I support abortion up to 7 months, but this Democrat only supports abortion up to 6 months so I can't support that. I think I'll choose not to vote and maybe if Trump wins the Democrats will finally hear my voice."
Meanwhile, every Republican in the country is saying, "Is candidate X going to take away trans rights? Okay, I don't need to hear anything else. I'm in."
Nobody wants Democrats to sacrifice the critical thinking and empathy that makes them compassionate. But if we're going to beat the Nazis who are trying to take our country, we need to work together.
If the Dems can beat hate with joy, division with unity, and bullying with mockery, then that will be an amazing thing and it will show the true soul of this country. We do need to welcome minority voices, but we also need to welcome cops and prosecutors. We need to convince them that this is patriotism. We need them to see that Trump's message is one of hate and nationalism, and that they can join hands with gay trans immigrants while proudly waving our flag with us.
To be clear, we shouldn't pivot to center to appease them. But we should be welcoming them to come join us and we should be incredibly proud of the country we believe America can be.
This sounds very hollow in the face of the fact that the party very actively supports the Gaza genocide, and it plans to continue to do so. If you're proud of an organization that supports an...
This sounds very hollow in the face of the fact that the party very actively supports the Gaza genocide, and it plans to continue to do so. If you're proud of an organization that supports an ongoing genocide, then I don't think we can have any reasonable and humane discussion.
You are using very colorful language, but are you aware that you are espousing being proud of an organization that supports an ongoing genocide?
I think you're using black and white language to describe a situation of enormous complexity and nuance. I applaud Kamala for acknowledging Israel's extreme heavy-handedness. I give her credit for...
I think you're using black and white language to describe a situation of enormous complexity and nuance.
I applaud Kamala for acknowledging Israel's extreme heavy-handedness. I give her credit for saying aloud that Palestinians have the right to self-determination. But I have to ask you seriously, what do you propose? What is the answer to the Israel/Palestine situation? I'm not under the impression that Hamas and their sponsors have any plans to stop committing horrific acts of terrorism regardless of what Israel decides to do here. Why do I rarely hear my fellow progressives raging against Hamas for using innocent civilians as props and meat shields?
Again, I want to be clear that I'm absolutely not in favor of slaughtering innocent people. But what is your easy answer here? Best I can come up with is making a time machine and founding New Israel somewhere else entirely from the get go. Obviously not realistic to just give back the entire country at this point in time.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect a random person to solve a century long, extremely bloody conflict, on a single comment on the internet. Why would I pretend to be an expert on the...
I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect a random person to solve a century long, extremely bloody conflict, on a single comment on the internet. Why would I pretend to be an expert on the issue? Why does anyone pretend to have a very clearcut solution? I don't have access to experts or resources like these politicians do. But even by having made a cursory reading on the topic in the past, I know that there are at least two entire academic fields dedicated to this: genocide prevention and peacebuilding. The war hawks, if they cared, could have consulted the experts of these fields. They instead chose genocide, because they do not care. They see us, non-US people, as not human. Not truly.
I want to also add that I did not claim to have the solution in previous comments. The peacebuilding process is of course going to be complicated, but what is not complicated is Kamala's implicit endorsement of the genocide. This shouldn't have happened. She should've not acted like a war hawk. She should not have endorsed the genocide. She should have been more sympathetic to Gaza's people. Any one of these would have given me hope.
About the other issue, I don't think anyone should be proud of a genocide supporter organization. This is not a complicated thing. This is not where one can find a middle ground. Genocide should be fought by all means. Being proud of such an organization sweeps their "bad deeds" under the rug. Even if you may not like hearing this, it also means you are endorsing their support. That is the reason I had a strong reaction to your comment.
None of what I say is new or especially profound. These are decades old criticisms of the US (and the general) war machine. This is how the warmongers and militarists operate. If one who has grown up in such a culture does not actively and persistently try to deconstruct their narratives, they very easily fall into their trap.
It's simple, really. UN needs to send forces that will effectively occupy Palestine and possibly parts of Israel and will extract and prosecute anyone who breaks international law. Then an actual...
It's simple, really.
UN needs to send forces that will effectively occupy Palestine and possibly parts of Israel and will extract and prosecute anyone who breaks international law. Then an actual two state roadmap is discussed with both Palestine and Israel for up to 5 years. If no solution is found until then, it will be decided for them. The occupation will continue for at least 50 years, possibly more. Ideally anyone who is an adult at the start of the process would be a pensioner unable to take up arms by the time the UN withdraws. That way nobody will remember anything besides peace.
Outside the UN framework, both countries will be pressed, possibly with sanctions, to adopt laws against hate speech and acts of racial/religion-motivated hatred including effective mechanisms for reporting and resolving them. Can't really have peace with police ignoring pogroms.
Of which nations will the forces be composed of? How will you prevent human abuse within the forces? With the prevalence of antisemitism, islamophobia and racism, it will not be easy to find...
Exemplary
UN needs to send forces that will effectively occupy Palestine and possibly parts of Israel and will extract and prosecute anyone who breaks international law.
Of which nations will the forces be composed of? How will you prevent human abuse within the forces? With the prevalence of antisemitism, islamophobia and racism, it will not be easy to find countries that are a good fit, let alone who are both capable of being effectively in maintaining order and not take advantage of the situation geopolitically due to the strategic location of the region.
Then an actual two state roadmap is discussed with both Palestine and Israel for up to 5 years.
Who will represent the Palestinian population? Who will represent the Israelian population? How will you manage the media during the occupation? The media is especially tricky here, as it will affect the representatives and their popular support (or lack thereof). If it's forced upon them like this, can you call them legitimate representatives in any way?
The occupation will continue for at least 50 years, possibly more.
How are you going to deal with logistics, anti-corruption efforts, consistent funding when world tension is guaranteed to fluctuate through such a long time span, among others? Even worse, what if the occupying forces end up forming defacto a militant oppressive state in the long run? Over such a long timespan the forces will have lot of hard power in the region.
Can't really have peace with police ignoring pogroms.
Who will decide what the police are composed of? How will you ensure that the police will enforce the laws, not be corrupt, have funding, have trust from the local communities. The West Bank in particular is going to be incredibly difficult here because of all the illegal settlements Israel has constructed there.
Additionally, you will have to deal with insurgencies immediately. Both populations are not going to take it lying down. Insurgencies can't be defeated with just brute force, as all the family members and friends of any killed insurgency member will feel vindicated and potentially join the insurgency. Unless you have such overwhelming manpower that surpasses the population. A quick search indicates that you're close to 15 million in the region completely. If you're incredibly generous and flips the 1:10 manpower needed to occupy the region you will need 1.5 million personnel. Every single person will need to be fed, be given equipment, training, navigate an incredibly complex region, and a parallel structure to combat corruption is needed which is really not easy.
There's more, but I don't want to just write an entire paragraph pointing out flaws. My main point is: As much as I'd love for it to be possible, I can't see occupying the region being a solution. A good portion of both the Israeli and Palestinian population already distrust most of the international community for a good reason. In an era with geopolitical tensions being thrive, this could have catastrophic effects.
I want to end with stating that I really, really don't mean this in any personal way. And, I do think the current approach is failing as well. I don't have a solution either.
I don't know whether there is a solution. Or whether it's even conceivable to see a lasting peace occurring in my lifetime. I do think it's something we have to aim for, obviously. People are dying, Palestinian prisoners have been, and probably are still, being raped while in Israeli custody in horrendous conditions. I also don't know if a heavy handed interference may actually pave the way for a sustainable peace. At it's core, I have an issue with your very first sentence:
Look, if twe kids are duking it out in the mud to the point that both are bleeding and some of their bones are broken, you need some adults step in and make sure the kids both calm down and stop...
Look, if twe kids are duking it out in the mud to the point that both are bleeding and some of their bones are broken, you need some adults step in and make sure the kids both calm down and stop hurting each other. Then you maybe restart the dispute about which toys are whose.
By exactly your logic, people are dying in the streets today. Others would be inconvenienced to e.g. call them an ambulance.
The situation is actually simple. Two gangs are duking it out. Why? Because we fucked up and did not invest in prevention. Some people in power even helped pour on gasoline over the past couple decades.
Now the moral solution is super expensive and would lead to loss of lives on the side of potential peacekeepers.
Do I believe that we can get our collective shit together and prevent this from happening again, elsewhere, not to say in this case? Not anytime soon.
If there's hell (I don't really believe in one, but for the sake of the argument), we are both spending our share in the purgatory for this one.
I'm going to have to ask here, do you really think this is a proper analogy to the most complicated boundary problem in all of human history? As for this, one is an ambulance, and the other a mass...
Look, if twe kids are duking it out in the mud to the point that both are bleeding and some of their bones are broken, you need some adults step in and make sure the kids both calm down and stop hurting each other. Then you maybe restart the dispute about which toys are whose.
I'm going to have to ask here, do you really think this is a proper analogy to the most complicated boundary problem in all of human history?
By exactly your logic, people are dying in the streets today. Others would be inconvenienced to e.g. call them an ambulance.
As for this, one is an ambulance, and the other a mass mobilization of millions of people throughout the entire world. My 1.5 million people was on the far lower end of the scale. Just the logistics of this operation you propose would be unlike anything has done before in human history. If you think the current polio outbreak in Gaza is bad, imagine all of that, over the entire region.
Also, keep in mind that Syrian civil war is technically still ongoing, Lebanon has a high chance of being dragged into this, and the international logistics network would have major issues as well due to the proximity of the Suez canal. D-day was a logistical walk in the park compared to what you're proposing, and even that had issues.
The situation is actually simple. Two gangs are duking it out.
Israel having a nuclear arsenal alone makes this more different than just two gangs 'duking it out'.
Because we fucked up and did not invest in prevention. Some people in power even helped pour on gasoline over the past couple decades.
It is true that there have been more than enough than people making the situation worse. But are you really, really stating that we 'did not invest in prevention'?
I honestly don't care about specifics. At this point, I wouldn't mind taking all the holy sites apart and stashing them away all over the world to be returned in 50+ years once a joint agreement...
I honestly don't care about specifics. At this point, I wouldn't mind taking all the holy sites apart and stashing them away all over the world to be returned in 50+ years once a joint agreement on the conditions of their use is ratified on both sides, just to simplify the debate.
That’s unfortunate, because the two parties involved most assuredly care about the specifics. I can’t help but feel a sort of “assume a spherical cow” physics joke parallel here.
That’s unfortunate, because the two parties involved most assuredly care about the specifics. I can’t help but feel a sort of “assume a spherical cow” physics joke parallel here.
Anyone who reads the papers knows that there's lots of stuff the Israelis are doing that the US administration opposes. The answer to your question is: I am not aware of that and it doesn't...
Anyone who reads the papers knows that there's lots of stuff the Israelis are doing that the US administration opposes.
The answer to your question is: I am not aware of that and it doesn't accurately summarize my beliefs.
I don't think its a blind patriotism, but rather embracing it instead of just letting the Republicans own it. Part of what the Democrats need to do now is not just win, but fracture the Republican...
I don't think its a blind patriotism, but rather embracing it instead of just letting the Republicans own it.
Part of what the Democrats need to do now is not just win, but fracture the Republican Party such that they cease to be relevant at all. They need to (and have been successfully IMO) highlight just how offputting and traitorous the Republican platform has become, and get all moderates to hop ship.
We need a Reagan-like landslide win here, one that is followed up with making third parties viable so that it's harder to reform the katamari ball of extremism.
I said this 4 years ago that the fact that the Democrats didn't see a Mondale/Reagan level sweep in 2020 was proof even then that the party had lost the mandate of the people. And you know what?...
I said this 4 years ago that the fact that the Democrats didn't see a Mondale/Reagan level sweep in 2020 was proof even then that the party had lost the mandate of the people. And you know what? They might have finally realized it.
The dems seem to finally have stopped entirely catering to the center of the party, and started actually politicking to average Americans. talking about things like capping out of pocket healthcare costs. These are things poor people care very much about since they're so price sensitive.
I hope you're right. I hope the dems utterly demolish the Republican party, and as they shift right trigger a split with the progressive wing, and we can actually have some semblance of normalcy again.
Progressives should take care to note though - for better or for worse (mostly for worse) about 2/3 of voters simply don't give much of a shit about Palestine. It's depressing sure but most people flatly do not care about death that abstracted from their lives. Be realistic about what we can get policywise here. The dems aren't gonna change policy much, but they might turn slightly more of a blind eye to less passive protests. It sucks to live in "the land of the free (to dig your head into the sand and pretend nothing is wrong)" sometimes. This is one of those times.
Totally agree on the need for third parties, but I doubt we will get that with even a bad Trump loss. Yes the Republicans have thrown in entirely behind Trump, and don't seem to have any other...
Totally agree on the need for third parties, but I doubt we will get that with even a bad Trump loss. Yes the Republicans have thrown in entirely behind Trump, and don't seem to have any other options, but 4 years is a long time.
I just don't think we have any chance of third parties without a change to the system of electing. Personally I think Ranked Choice would be best as it would allow you to wholeheartedly support a fringe candidate but have a backup moderate if your preferred candidate loses. I just don't see how a first past the post system can sustain a third party long enough to actually force candidates to run on promises rather than the R or D beside their name.
I agree ranked choice is one of the best possible options. Making it the default is the only hope to allow the big parties to fracture in a healthy way. Otherwise Project 2028 is all but assured.
I agree ranked choice is one of the best possible options.
Making it the default is the only hope to allow the big parties to fracture in a healthy way. Otherwise Project 2028 is all but assured.
Every now and then I feel the need to remind people: if not for the US, Gaza would have been a flat patch of land six months ago.
This is a fraction of what our right wing wanted and wants to do to the Palestinian people. Western influence is absolutely and unquestionably required in order to prevent this from becoming one of the worst genocides since the Holocaust. This cannot happen without leverage, and the only real leverage the US has is weapons and money. Left to its own devices, every single person in this thread would be wide eyed on their couch watching what Israel can really do unshackled. It really feels like I'm living in an alternate reality when I read these kinds of articles whilst also seeing what goes on in our right wing forums, who complain all day and night that there are still people alive in Gaza (actual paraphrase). These people are in our government and want nothing more than for the US to leave us alone and let us "get the job done".
The US backs Israel militarily and this emboldens Israel to continue to do things that literally no country of its size could get away with. If the US stopped supporting Israel or made its support conditional, then Israel would have to act in accordance with the regional power structure, which does not leave any room for a genocide or an ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. This "leverage" concept is propaganda through and through, to get people of conscience in the US to trick themselves into thinking that we're doing the right thing here.
I don't know that this is really supported by Israel's history. We have, at almost every turn, acted in our own best interest whilst disregarding the impact on our allies. I mean, we quite literally smuggled uranium from the United States and used it to build nuclear weaponry. Could any other country get away with that? Obviously not, and it shows that the states are for one reason or another deathly avoidant of harming relations with Israel.
Unlike dictatorships that the US can sanction with impunity, sanctioning Israel will immediately prompt the country to look for alternatives. This is not a one-sided thing and nothing happens in a vacuum; the moment western support becomes an uncertainty, Israel will begin rethinking their allegiances. Remember, self interest.
If this is propaganda, then we need another explanation. People aren't evil for no reason (referring to US officials seemingly not doing anything) and the opaqueness of geopolitics makes it very difficult to judge a situation. One thing is for sure, the US is actively involved in Israel military planning and intelligence. It's the only reason that the northern front hasn't exploded and led to regional war. There are constant and unending diplomatic conversations behind the scenes trying to reign Israel in.
I do worry about what Israel would do without US support, but I look at how much effort they spend on maintaining US support and have some hope. If they truly would continue doing the exact same thing with no slowdown or ceasefire, then why would they spend all this political and monetary capitol on keeping US support?
Also, I'm sure geopolitics would change, and China may back Israel to keep their ongoing replacement of Uyghur people safe, but we don't know. And plenty of nations have at least condemned Israel already. It's worth a try.
I may have come off too hard with the implication that Israel doesn't care about US support. They absolutely do. There is such a deep relationship between the two countries that detachment would be a disaster.
But at the end of the day, who's going to suffer from that disaster? It sure won't be the upper class Israelis. If we want to go a bit deeper into the hypothetical, what will probably end up happening is left wing citizens with and without dual citizenship leaving in droves as the country backslides harder and harder and has to make some really, really bad decisions in order to stay... Existing. This will be nothing short of horrific for everyone around us.
Of course, I should clarify, I know this is a doomsday scenario and I don't really believe this has a chance of happening. But when you have people who are protesting and advocating for this to happen and potentially allowing the US to become a fascist hellhole if it doesn't, I feel that I have to point out that the future they're imagining will (in my opinion) not be sunshine and rainbows.
Agreed, that is a horrible scenario. But too many people look at a potentially horrific future, and discount the currently horrific present. Every decision we make has consequences, even not making a decision has consequences.
And as for the idea that Israel would have to commit horrific acts to exist, isnt that the current justification? That Israel has to genocide Palestinians to exist right now? Because yes, I'm sure they could do worse. But they are using the same line of argument currently.
I do think a complete break between the US and Israel would be bad for everyone, as minority groups and the poor always suffer the worst from sanctions. But there are other options. Israel can't make every weapon itself, it's why there is so much lobby to keep selling weapons. And even just a UN peacekeeping force would at least be an attempt at stopping these horrific acts, instead of just turning our backs on people being bombed.
But that entire argument acts as if the US couldn't be an active player on either side. Sure we can arm Israel, but we can also arm the Palestinians like we did in Afghanistan with the Taliban back in the 70s, but this time we could follow up with aid to rebuild.
I think there is a pervasive idea of Israel being this "uncontrollable" entity. They are currently running on our funding and military equipment, if the US had the political will we could not only turn off those support lines, but actively engage militarily.
That is what diplomacy is all about. Yes, Israel could thumb their nose at us, and we could in turn make it very difficult for them to maintain their military dominance in the area. Out thumb is already on the scale and it wouldn't be difficult to shift it to the other plate.
Yes, we could fund partisans to help destabilize a nuclear state that's surrounded by unfriendly neighbors. "Why* we would do that I don't know, but we absolutely could.
Well historically we've been happy to, look at Libya.
I'd be curious to see what folks would be saying if the arguments were about stopping the holocaust rather than this genocide. We all seem to be pretty fine with the fact that there is an active genocide that we're the ones funding. I think that is the "why* for me. I don't feel like throwing my hands up and saying "oh well we did nothing and nothing changed", guess they'll just all have to die.
EDIT: I'm going to leave up my comments for context but I can feel my blood pressure rising as I've been reading and writing everything. I think I'm crossing into unhelpful/hurtful territory so I'm going to head outside, jump on my bike and cool down. I'm sorry if I've added offense to anyone here. It's been a hard thread to read.
In response to both of your comments I'll ask if you, or anyone else in this thread, is prepared to support another war in the middle east with American boots on the ground. This has NEVER worked for America. Beyond that Israel is a nuclear power that has threatened action before, they're not Afghanistan, the politics are completely different. Active US military intervention is the least likely of an already unlikely situation, and even if Israel "defected" I would be very surprised to see any military force present.
With all due respect America and the west utterly eviscerated the middle east with their "diplomacy" throughout the past few decades. Propping up another player and saying "this time we'll do it right" is kind of out of touch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that if you had the political will America could militarily engage right now? If that's the case, then all I can really say is that I couldn't disagree more. Military intervention against Israel in this conflict by the US is not an option under most circumstances.
This is a reasonable assumption...if you think the Samson Option is fake. Israel is probably a nuclear state. The game theory and leverage you're referring to hardly applies if Israel is a nuclear state. This is even more true if Bibi is willing to resort to extreme measures were Israeli statehood threatened.
If Israel is a nuclear state, negotiations and coalition building are the best options we have. Sanctions have an abysmal track record (see Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc). Things will change if Netanyahu loses power and goes to jail for corruption.
Nuclear powers are still subject to game theory, especially when they're democratic to some degree or another. The difference between a 1 percent chance of destruction and a near 0 percent chance of destruction has profound ramifications for decision-making. Sanctions would undoubtedly collapse the Israeli economy, given how much of the Israeli economy depends on the US and close US allies. Russia, Iran, and North Korea are a different story.
Iran is also a democracy. Sanctions are extraordinarily blunt and ineffective tools that almost never drive policy change. Even if sanctions collapsed Israel's economy, there's no guarantee that would improve their government policy.
Sanctions would reduce Israel's conventional weapon supply, but they have a fully functioning independent military industry. Israel also trades with China, Russia, and India who would all refuse to follow US sanctions. The US would lose any ability to talk Israel down from the stupidest possible decisions (like total war with Iran and its proxies).
It's honestly tough to even have a discussion here in Czechia.
Union of Jewish Comnunities reports on "antisemitic speach" and both politicians and media are kind of afraid of being labelled antisemitic so they tend to avoid confronting the Union. And lately, criticism of Israel has became part of what gets labeled antisemitic.
John Oliver's episode on West Bank would put him in a spot light as a Jew-hater and public figures might try to actively distance from him if he lived and worked here.
To tell the truth I'm not sure how this relates to my post, but you're right that some Israeli and Jewish media has been very thorough in applying the anti-semitic label to anyone and anything that criticizes Israel. It's become somewhat of a filter to me. If someone calls someone else anti-semitic when they're just being a rational human being, that tells me the former is probably not someone I should be taking seriously.
Alternate history is always tricky, but I think it's fair to say that American right wing doesn't have much say over what the Israeli military does? Reading right-wing American forums don't seem like a great way to try to understand what Israel would do under other circumstances.
I think it's hard to say how much difference the Biden administration made in restraining Israel. They try, they put pressure on Israel, but Israel still seems to do whatever they wanted to do, most of the time?
I don't have time to respond in depth now so I'll add an edit later, but I'll clarify: I'm Israeli. I'm talking about Israeli right wing forums. That's who I mean when I say "us". It's hard to overstate how dangerous some of the rhetoric I read there is.
Okay, that makes more sense. Sorry about making assumptions and thanks for clarifying!
It's okay and not your fault, I'm known for being pretty vague and assuming people just "get" what I mean. Regarding the other half of your comment, there are plenty of people here who would disagree with you, lol
Israel only seems to be doing what it wants because foreign media only reports what Israel does, not what their operational plans look like. The beginning of the war, with its ruthless and unprecedented bombing campaigns, was a more accurate look at what Israel's military campaigns usually were like: unbound, uncaring, unending firepower.
Now that the west has intervened to some extent there was a shift to more methodical warfare. Truth be told I have little doubt in my mind that in the first few months there were real and tangible preparations for genocide, which are now bleeding out into the battlefield gradually because of how strongly America reacted to the initial attack. This is still really, really bad, but it gives both the US and Israel time to become politically active and change.
Which is where I get to my issue with the article itself. The idea that a two party country can suddenly convince one of the parties to make a radical and sudden change in foreign policy by not voting for the candidate is, to say the least, an idealistic and almost privileged way of looking at this kind of politics in my opinion. We simply cannot always get what we want. The left wing in Israel couldn't agree on anything and squandered the government they were given, which led to this one. We're all seeing how well that's going.
I just wanted to say that I'm really happy with your level headed approach to this thread. It's a mighty polarizing issue.... everywhere in western society, basically. And something a lot of people tend to take hard stances for and/or against something without considering the complexity and potential domino effects it has.
Hey thanks. I'm always worried when I make posts like this because I don't always feel like my thoughts really transfer all too well. It's nice to see people seem to think I make sense, hehe
Yes, the unrealistic claims of some pro-Palestinian advocates are something I think is worth pushing back against, so I’m happy to see participation from someone who has a more based view of things.
I am just an out-of-touch software developer in California who reads the news, so sharing articles from apparently unbiased English-language newspapers is the best I can do.
Regarding the accomplishments of the Biden administration with respect to Israel, it would be nice to have some specific examples. I’ve read enough to know they’re trying. The Gaza floating pier seemed like an attempt to have a port of entry not under Israeli control (though they would be allowed to make inspections), but operational difficulties did it in.
And I think that’s got to be the way forward. Gaza is surrounded and there needs to be some way in and out controlled by someone who is going to allow enough humanitarian assistance to make a difference. Allowing refugees to leave would be a great thing too. Building a more permanent port would take time, though.
Also, not reducing the place to rubble would help. Apparently, Israel blew up a reservoir in July? It sounds like a war crime to me, but what do I know?
For the record, my you's are general, not you specifically. Sorry, it's a bad habit of my writing. I don't mean to come off like I'm accusing you of believing in anything I write, it's more of a "you, the person reading this" kind of thing.
I can find specific articles later, but essentially every single time that a US official hops over it's for de-escalation talks. It's very often reported in media that Biden and Netanyahu's phone calls aren't exactly calm all of the time. The best proof I have to give you is offering you to look at how Israel has conducted itself in warfare in the past and compare it to now. Israel isn't holding back because of the goodwill of its heart, it's trying to do as much as it can get away with but not anger the US too much.
And you're absolutely right, it would help if Israel stopped committing war crimes whilst trying to claim that it isn't commiting war crimes, but... what's new.
Sure, I’m not asking you to do homework. Yes, there’s been a lot of reporting about negotiations between the US and Israel, but I’d have to do more research to say anything sensible about them.
What are you saying? That we (and the people in Gaza) should be grateful to the US for not letting Israel destroy Gaza’s even more?
Like the other comment, I don't have time right now to write paragraphs, but no. Thankful isn't the word I'd use. Israel is committing horrific acts of violence, and US weapons are being used for them. That said, considering Israel's history of radical self-interest and the lengths they'd go to preservation, I think we should think about what would happen if they got their weaponry from a different global power that wouldn't care in the slightest about the death of untold people.
Thinking that Israel will not turn to China for example if they have no other option is naive. Even if they don't succeed in finding another country to ally with, the fallout from the inevitable conflict that will follow US detachment would make everything happening today look like a walk in the park.
Well said. But I wonder if the unwavering support for Israel by the US didn’t create this problem in the first place. And I’m not talking the war in Gaza, but way before that.
Israel got both too powerful and too hostile to its neighbors (and they to Israel), for this problem to be easily solved.
That's really a Bibi specific issue in my opinion. Israel was extremely close to normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia which would've caused a fundamental change in the Middle East...then October 7th happened.
I think that's a mischaracterization of the history of the conflict and Israel's active policy of derailing peace accords and assassinating Palestinian leaders.
But imagine if that meant that the US actively engaged in the combat or acting as they are right now for Ukraine. If Israel turns to China/Russia/whoever I believe they will have made an enormous strategic mistake.
Yes. It's well reported that the US is a moderating force on Bibi's stupid military plans in Gaza. Biden specifically has made calls talking Bibi off the ledge, pressuring him to avoid stupid military operations that could lead to total war with Iran.
I only see the US moderating Israeli war options with Iran, not stopping the genocide. US officials know that getting involved with a war with Iran would be bad, and so don't want Israel to drag us in.
Everyone seems to be talking as if she even has the option. Obama could barely manage to pull official US forces out of Iraq within 3 years. You really think Kamala or the US is gonna manage to get Netahnyahu to stop killing Palestinians? Bibi is in the midst of destroying Gaza while provoking Hezbollah/threatening war with Lebanon and assassinating targets in Iran. It’ll be lucky if there’s even a ceasefire before Gaza is completely flattened and we manage to avoid some spiraling conflict with Iran that sucks in a whole bunch of players into a wide scale regional war. There is very little the US President can really do about this. Israel is still a sovereign country and it doesn’t just jump at the president’s beck and call. Even if there wasn’t all the internal US political stuff that comes up around this issue. Not to mention the internal Israeli political stuff.
Now, Kamala could try betting her career on trying to get Israel to stop killing Palestinians. She would lose her career and Israel would continue on.
I’m not trying to excuse the mass murder of hundreds of thousands by a modern day apartheid state. Nor do I love a Bay Area prosecutor. But people way overestimate how much Kamala could accomplish here, even if she wanted to.
The United States stopping the genocide is one thing. Right now, they are aiding and abetting. There are some things here that can be done with an executive order, such as sanctioning most transactions in illegal settlements in the West Bank, like they did with Crimea. Which again, did nothing to stop Russia and will likely do nothing to stop Israel but is the bare minimum.
Other than executive action, at least a commitment or public call or anything to stop sending billions of taxpayer money in the form of arms to Israel or at least make it contingent on human rights commitments would have gone a long way here. (Of course, in this specific instance, Israel and Ukraine were a bundle in that bill to get it through the Republican house. One can hope the Democrats intend to galvanize their base and capture the house in November...)
Harris hasn't even said a single thing that isn't consistent with the US State Department's de jure policy, supporting a two-state solution via a negotiated peace between the parties to the conflict (which as we know is de facto giving Israel whatever they want.) Like, words are cheap but they don't even want to give progressives and Arab-Americans that.
During her election campaign, I don’t expect her to say anything much different from current American policy. It’s in her interest to say as little about Israeli policy as she can get away with. She’s not running against Biden. She needs to win the center and that’s what electoral candidates focus on after the primaries are over.
We probably won’t find out how her Israeli policy differs from Biden’s until after the election.
And yes, that means ordinary citizens have little input into US foreign policy regarding Israel. Same as it ever was. I’m hopeful that we’ll see a return of Obama’s more skeptical approach, though.
The USA, as in the soulless state entity, doesn't give 2 shits about genocide or justice. It cares about military power and resource control. Any and all other actions are in service of that.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see that change. But as of right now, its far more likely that the USA is gonna be dealing with some genocide problems internally before that will come to pass.
Seems like the perfect time to roll back military aid and funding.
There’s a lot of good discussion here but not much about the demographics she needs. The whole last night of the dnc seemed to be targeted towards white and black conservative leaning men. To assuage fears she’s a weak woman, that she plans to gut the military, etc etc. People are acting like it still isn’t a toss up election - she needs 2-5% of those dudes in midwest swing states to hop over the aisle. It was a stump speech for maybe the only time they might tune in.
The whole main body of the opinion piece is worth reading. However, other than the main focus of the article, that is Kamala's support of the Gaza genocide, there is also this part.
Unbelievably straightforward and proud war hawk attitude. Call me crazy but Trump might not be this aggressive toward rest of the world. This is an extremely worrying attitude in light of the fragility of the international order, thanks to the attacks of Israel and Russia. Either way, unless the progressives in US push harder, US will continue to support the Gaza genocide. But it also makes me anxious that US might get such a war hawk president. That never ends well for the rest of us.
The first and most important thing I want to add is that Trump wouldn't be as aggressive because he's completely for sale. Russia, Iran, North Korea - doesn't matter who they are or how much they hate America, Trump will sell this country out immediately to anyone who will stroke his ego or bribe him. Well, that and he has a great deal of admiration for all authoritarian leaders.
But now to address Kamala's statement, the NY Times pointed out this morning that she's doing a bit more flag waving than you usually see from Democrats these days. Shockingly, I am finding it quite refreshing.
Kamala was clear that she thinks both Israel and Palestine have a right to self-determination and dignity. She essentially denounced Israel's actions while also acknowledging that terrorism can't just be ignored either. I'm not sure what more you'd want her to say. It's a complex issue and most reasonable people think both groups will have to find a way to coexist.
Probably not a bad idea to keep our military strong either. Hate to say it but NATO and friends are really counting on the US now. Too many authoritarian countries getting way too grabby lately. Peace should always be the goal, but appeasement isn't peace.
And look, as a progressive liberal who generally hates the idea of war, I admit that my desire for peace and social progress is absolutely not going to be better served in a world where China or Russia have stronger militaries
It very much is a rock and a hard place situation, and at the end of the day I'll always vote for the one that didn't also try to overthrow an election.
The geopolitical reality is that neither party will remove support from Israel, certainly not into the election where the attack ads write themselves.
I'm kinda curious about what attack ads write themselves about Harris in your view. Anti-Semitic? There are many Jewish voices against Zionism and have been since the birth of that mindset. That she's a cop? I mean, I think that's valid criticism if you are in a position where the judicial system is prejudiced against you. Most of the other attacks I've seen from the right have just seemed unhinged or poorly constructed.
I hear this said very regularly on the internet, but it's never reflected my reality. In every Jewish space I've ever been in (liberal, conservative, mostly secular, orthodox), if you take a limited definition of zionism after the movement's success in 1948 (viz: Jews should be able to continue to exercise self determination in Israel, they should not be expelled, nor should they become a minority, which would put their lives in danger), only a tiny minority would claim to not agree.
Support for the Israeli government, particularly Netanyahu, Likkud, and the insane folks further to the right? That's a hell of a lot less universal.
As for it being anti-semetic, when non-Jews start talking about the sort of policy that would result in the end of Israel as a safe place for Jews... Well, a common view is that the results of that could be as catastrophic as the holocaust; if you think that's extreme, or jumping to a conclusion, remember that a lot of the people we are talking about are only a generation or two removed from survivors. It's not uncommon to hear someone talk about how lucky their family was that ${relative} decided to flee early, and thus survived, sometimes with an entirely bare family tree.
Israel now hosts, as a result of both holocaust refugees emigrating, and the expulsion of the Jewish population of almost all of the surrounding countries, almost half of the world's Jewish population. Combine that with another common belief that the only thing between Jews in Israel and another holocaust is the IDF, and while you may personally disagree, I think it's not illogical for them to come to the conclusion that any policy that advocates for a single state solution, or for Israel to be disarmed has wanton disregard for Jewish lives.
I'll say that I've met a fair number of Jews who are strictly opposed to ethno-theocratic states as a whole, and Israel is no exception. They're not exactly keen to get into internet arguements about it though. And they don't really wanna piss off their other friends and family, so it really only comes out in our secular space.
They also tend to get a little freaked out by non-Jewish Zionists who give off a pretty strong 'send them back where they came from' vibe. Which is just as offputting as hearing people shout 'go back to Africa' at black people.
Yup, that I've also seen. I haven't met any who think Israel should be undone though.
Honestly, there's a point in my life where I probably would have agreed. As I've grown older though, and spent more time away from where I grew up with a large Jewish population, I can see how it could be valuable to people to live in a place where Judaism is the cultural basis instead of Christianity -- for an idea of what that looks like, I suggest looking at some of the content from JewWhoHasItAll https://www.facebook.com/JewWhoHasItAll/
Oh this is like the Man Who Has It All page that flips gender normativity on its head. Thanks for this! I wonder which came first.
Apparently she was inspired by The Man Who Has It All, though I hadn't heard of him before today.
https://www.jta.org/2022/04/20/religion/this-twitter-account-went-viral-for-explaining-easter-using-jewish-jargon
There's a Tiktok creator who's since written a book that does a similar thing with talking about race - talking about people from the "outer-city" and how they don't even know how to wear a bonnet, and insist on their strange cultural rituals.
I appreciate things that challenge the deeper assumptions we make about society, usually the ones we don't even realize we're making so I enjoy things like that.
Oh I'm very aware of families that escaped by the skin of their teeth, my uncles was one of them. While I cannot claim to be of Jewish descent, he also does not have an account on here, so I have to fact check the zionist cause for him.
You put forward the common myth that Jewish people are not safe without the state of Israel, the IDF and their genocide. Yes, Jewish people have been horrendously prejudiced against in their history, and today. But Israel has created the problem that you suppose - that Jewish people are not safe in the world without them. They have repeatedly supported anti Jewish governments (Hungary, some anti- semitic movements in Brazil) to drive Jewish populations to Israel, to then use them to supplant local families and continue evicting families.
It is very easy to fall into an echo chamber on Zionism, especially with Israel spending quite a lot of political and monetary capitol to silence anti Zionist voices, both Jewish and Gentile. But there have always been people saying that the idea has problems, that they are not from Palestine but from New York, or Germany or Russia. Yes, Jewish people have been slandered, hunted and killed, but instead of fighting to protect them in their neighborhoods and cities, you are backing up a genocide of another people under the pretense of protecting Jewish people.
Frankly, I have trouble taking you in good faith when you make that accusation directly at me, so this will be my last response on this topic. If the "you" was not intended, I would suggest avoiding 2nd person when debating such fraught subjects. You are entitled to your opinion on the subject. I do not believe that Israel's actions are aimed at wiping out (materially or culturally) the civilian population of Gaza or the West Bank, and that's the end of my comments on the topic, because I don't think I will ever convince you of that. I do believe that there are members of the Israeli government who have that as their desire, but we also have a few American politicians who are absolutely insane, and nobody seems to think those politicians are accurate representations of the goal of the entire government.
What I said was "the common belief that...". I actually didn't bother to assess the truthiness, because I didn't think it would be a helpful thing to debate in this forum. All that matters to my comment is that it is a common belief among Israelis. It is a belief that leads to a conclusion that forsakes what many people want to be the resolution (a single state).
Following from there, to them, it does not matter whether or not Israel's continued existence makes things worse or not, because there is no alternative that results in anything but (at best) the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the middle east, or at worst, their mass murder. They've seen that antisemitism existed long before attempts to establish modern Israel and have no reason to believe that it would not continue to exist in a world where it was destroyed.
And for good measure, because it poorly represents the real situation.
50% of the Jewish population of Israel either are, or are descended from Mizrahi Jews, native to the region. A small amount of those having lived in Israel for generations before the foundation of Israel, and a larger number who were expelled from the surrounding nations, or fled due to extreme danger. For many of those "German" Jews you are referring to, they had been stripped of German citizenship well before they fled as stateless refugees. One of the reasons that "Zionism" (definition -- same as on my comment further up) is seen as so critical is because historically how common it has been for the tides to change and loyal citizens to be murdered. And for all you can say that the holocaust survivors who stayed in Germany turned out to be reasonably safe, that's only visible with the benefit of hindsight.
And another comment -- you talk about a "New York Jew", but the vast majority of Jews in New York have only been here for 3 or 4 generations. At what point will you consider Jews born in the region of Palestine to be native? My own heritage varies from 2nd generation American to 4th and I definitely consider myself native to New York, so that's a real question.
I'm not sure what you even mean by this, and frankly, every interpretation I can come up is me seeing red: victim blaming the Jews for their pogroms for not organizing to defend themselves. For what it's worth, self defense is a hell of a lot easier when people are centralized in fewer locations, instead of spread over the world in a diaspora, and when you have a national government to organize it. In the case of Israel, many of those making Aliyah to early Israel had already been made refugees, they had no neighborhoods and cities left to return to.
For your comments on on support of Hungary and Brazil, they're unsourced, and I can't find anything. What I can find implies that there have been only a few thousand Jews total who have made Aliyah from Hungary from 1989 to 2016 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/sena.12312 - page 27). Aliyah from Brazil has increased in recent years, but it's still only at its peak around 600-700 a year, ~4000 between 2011 and 2020. I really don't think that's a large enough number to influence governmental policy, especially since that growth is likely drowned in size by Israel's OECD topping fertility rate of nearly 3.0 children per women.
I think its always important to interrogate what ones actions and words support, either passively or actively. If you put forward a "common belief" that is also used by the state of Isreal to justify its actions and do not fact check it, you are reinforcing this view with your words and actions. It becomes your belief, at least so far as other internet commentors can tell.
I never in my post called for the immediate destruction of Israel, but if you will put words in my mouth, lets discuss it. I do not think that the situation has an easy out, and it certainly needs debate. The only way I can see stopping a future genocidal campaign from Isreal would involve the arming of Palestine in a similar fashion as Isreal, and that clearly would only create a future conflict. What I am callign for in my posts and in person, is an immediate ceasefire, aid for the injured, and the returning of illegally ceased property, and the rebuilding of bombed structures. Then we can discuss the future, but the killing must stop.
I have been unable to verify the 50% number you posted. Some estimates are lower, and some are higher. But, you do point out that a large number of those people came from surrounding states after the creation of Isreal. Which would, at least in my view, mean they were somewhat safe and secure in those countries before an Illegal uprising took place, forcing many Palestinians out of their homes, and the surrounding nations responded by forcing Jewish people from their homes and communities. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind after all.
In terms of generation nativeness, I think its heavily dependant on culture and assimilation. You consider yourself a New Yorker, and I will not dissuade you of that fact. I believe there is a line between maintianing your ancestors culture and assimilating into the local culture you are born in. Many Jewish New Yorkers maintian large parts of their religous culture, but if you cut them off in the street they would yell "Im walkin here!" Forgive the bad joke, I love and cherrish my New York family and cant wait to visit for pizza and bagels.
But, the settlers in Isreal are ousting communities and destorying homes to rebuild new gated suburbs or malls. Clearly they want to create a more American esque culture, and eliminate the local culture. While I would never try to deny where they are born, one must always keep in mind those who lived there before you. There will always be bad actions and words of those who came before, but by ignoring them completely and bulldozing the area, we forget our own history.
I will be blunt - I believe Israeli propoganda feeds actual Nazis. Israel right wing propaganda about expanding beyond the current borders feeds the idea about Jewish invasions. The use of Jewish voices in Hollywood and other media enterprises to silence Palestinian voices and Anti- Zionists feeds the idea that "Jews control the media". The threat of AIPAC funding another candidate to force support of Israeli arm shippments feeds the polictical side. I do not agree with any facist on this matter, and spend time online on my lunch breaks and weekends to try and fight facists where I can. But I think this feeding of Nazis along side the global right wing surge makes Jewish people less safe in their homes and communities world wide. I will not stand by and let my family feel unsafe in their homes.
As for Hungary and Brazil, it was never about immigration, and more about Israel supporting anti- semetic movements, and I cant fully understand why. But you are absolutely right to interrogate my lack of source. Heres one I just gave a quick read through.
https://jacobin.com/2024/03/orban-israel-rafah-ukraine-hypocrisy
While I probably shouldn't put myself in a very uneasy conversation, I want to point out that being at a place does not necessarily mean the people were safe in that place. The Romani have suffered, and are suffering, a lot in Europe for example. And while they have their lives, culture, traditions among others in place, it's far from comfortable or equal to say the least.
Personally, I really disapprove of the way Israel is conducting its current invasion. Even if it doesn't fit the textbook description of Genocide, at the very least the parallels are bad enough to be treated as such. On which, I agree with many of your points.
But when you're filling in blanks the way you do by making the assumption on how Jewish people were treated before an uprising, which is another assumption, then use the language you do: I think Interesting has a right to be sceptical about your intentions at least. Especially if they've been having similar arguments by participants in bad faith.
Which, incidentally, I don't think you're doing. In fact, I actually think you have a point regarding the media in particular. When the Eurovision was happening I saw an add on Youtube, with the Israeli participant along with the text 'vote with your heart'.... which I really thought was poor in taste, and doesn't exactly help the stereotypes(and frankly Eurovision not being political is laughable but that's a story for another time). There are more examples, both recent and not-so-recent.
Of course, I can't claim to be perfect either, just: to both you and @Interesting I want to say, this is one of the few places on the Internet where you can have some discussion about this topic without bad faith actors being drawn in. And when I look at your mutual comment history I don't believe either of you really want to encourage, or facilitate, genocide, antisemitism, or other horrid parts of humanity. Like many here, I used to moderate, and I moderated mental health communities which had some really nasty parts of humanity.
I don't know how else to ask this without sounding like the genocide compromise meme dude, but: is there any chance you guys could try to take a moment and ponder why the other person may say what they say, while coming from a place of good faith?
On any other place on the Internet, and frankly many irl places as well, I'd probably be actually helping literal Nazis. But here I feel like that the conversation is either going to run in circles, repeated accusations of genocide, or otherwise cause spicy comments that we're all familiar with here.
There's a chance that you two will never see eye-to-eye on this subject, but if there's any platform on the Internet that can foster this kind of conversation it's here. And I'd hate for that opportunity to be lost.
If I sound like the enlightened centrist here, or even a holier-than-thou-preacher, then I apologise in advance. An Internet forum comment won't change the geopolitical reality, and I'm well aware that I may blow this out of proportion myself.
There are also a significant number of Israelis with ancestry in Russia. Putin doesn't want them back. There are a smaller but significant number from Africa.
Agreed, and while I wish they could reclaim their homes there I dont forsee that happening. The Jewish people in Russia have endured some horrific events. It would be one thing to me if Israel was just trying to house these people forced out, but I dont think that would give the Israeli state enough settlers to populate the land they wish to drive Palestinians out of, so they spend the majority of their time and money appealing to dual passport Jewish people.
I hate the expansionist side of Israeli policy and de facto policy
It doesn’t seem hard to me to picture how they would go.
They would paint her as a terrorist sympathizer. Footage of massacre victims paired with text or voiceover to the effect of “a Kamala Harris presidency will guarantee this happens again”.
Might also be an effective idea to compare and contrast her domestic history of locking up drug offenders with letting Hamas terrorists get away with mass murder.
I'm not putting blame on USA citizens for thinking of their own and fellow citizens' well-being when voting. However, I would point out that progressive movements can create pressure on governments to change their policies. A classic example is the reaction against the Vietnam War and its success.
So, it's very vital to remember that grassroots movements and similar progressive movements can create change. Voting is not the only way to engage in politics, it's just one part of it.
Edit: I'm emphasizing this because you're talking about "geopolitical reality" as if it can't be changed. But you're talking about a social attitude that is the emergent result of a system where many people and organizations participate. You are one of these pieces that affect the emergent properties of the system. An individual of course doesn't have all the power in the world, but it's as equally false to assume they have none.
A modern example was the mass protests against the Iraq war, which were larger than the protests against the Vietnam war, and acomplished fuckall for 2 decades.
Protesting has been effectively suppressed as be easily ignorable after a few token placations.
A counter argument I think worth looking into was the George Floyd protests/ riots. The officers involved may very well have not been brought to justice without them. However, we have seen a large regression on what little change was brought about in terms of policing in the last few years, which does reinforce your point.
Progressives in America need to be realistic about what they can actually get from the dems. they are not policy setters, they follow.
Even just the simple fact that Harris is the nominee should be seen as a win. If we see an actual material difference between the Biden and Harris admin on how they treat protestors, that's as good as we can expect from a Democrat. If they, heaven forbid, stop trying to make it illegal to BDS we can only assume that's a concession to the left too.
All that American progressives can do then is continue to agitate and protest. We did it with apartheid in the 80s, and we can do it again. Death by a thousand cuts may be slow, but it does happen eventually.
What does BDS mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions
Anti-BDS laws of varying severity are in 38 states.
Thanks!
I understand and acknowledge why people have a problem with supporting Israel, but I'm honestly surprised that you see this specifically as so problematic. She's describing the status quo that has allowed the US to continually be the main superpower instead of China or Russia, and that is also necessary for NATO to function as it does now. Doing anything else would mean wanting to step down from that position as a country, and the majority of people would not want to live with the consequences of that - I, a citizen of a tiny US ally, certainly wouldn't either.
It's bad policy. It's fantastic politics.
I disagree with it as policy.
If she gets elected, I trust her to use force judiciously. I cannot say the same for her opponent.
I worry this whole discussion will get buried, but the amount of blind patriotism at the DNC worries and sickens me. I used to think "Blue MAGA" was a made up term to try and slander more center leaning liberals, but after seeing some of the DNC I really worry about Democrats trying to learn right to pick up Never Trumpers over actually taking actions to heal our nation.
We are still struggling with policing systems built off of slave catchers and Jim Crow, but we have a Texan cop speaking at the DNC.
We are still struggling with a huge amount of corruption in politics, but when Harris was announced as the Democratic Candidate, the a number of articles were lauding her fundraising.
And we are still arming an apartheid regime, but rather than making even basic campaign promises about stopping arms shipments, we are signing 20 billion dollar arms deals.
This is kind of why progressives are often so divided though. We let perfect be the enemy of good and we have become very reluctant to celebrate our country simply because it's not perfect. Meanwhile the MAGA crew are in lock step because they go nuts for anything with a flag on it.
The DNC wasn't blind patriotism in my opinion. It was a lot of diverse voices standing up and saying, "We're sick of Trump's bullshit. We love this country and we aren't going to give in to hatred and fascism."
You can tell that it was different than Trump's brand of patriotism because the DNC was sharing messages of empathy, respect, family, mutual understanding, diversity, unity, etc. Other than a few (well-deserved) jabs at Trump/Vance, this was an event that shared a message of hope and love. It was the first time in a long time where I really felt like Dems weren't afraid to be proud of their country and stand up for it against bullies. We've needed that for a long time now.
Prosecutors, cops, farmers, millionaire bankers - and yes, even Trump supporters - they're Americans too. The Dems need to embrace this fact and welcome all of America into the movement. We are never going to be free of MAGA if large groups of Americans feel excluded from the other party. Cops are our fellow countrymen and they do incredibly dangerous, incredibly important work. Even if the system needs some serious reform, we have to welcome them. We need everyone and it's time to come together.
Clearly this is a popular opinion here, and I feel my reply will be buried, but I feel the need for a response.
I do agree that progressives are easily divided, but rather than reluctance to celebrate our country I believe it is because progressives have standards and strong moral beliefs that are not easily cast aside.
I loathe the longing many liberals have for the left to be in lockstep. I do not understand why people see it as a positive, from what I thought is a phrase about literal Nazi highstepping. Diversity of opinion is a strentgh. Lockstep is onyl achieved by the drowning out of minority voices.\
I personally felt like the messaging about joy I kept seeing was really out of touch. With so many Americans struggling to pay bills or afford groceries, saying this is a joy feels really weird. I would love a woman to represent our country globally as president, but this smacks of "Its her turn" from the Hillary campaign.
This last paragraph about apealing to traditionally right wing voices like cops, bankers and Trumpists is something I have been complaining about for a while now. The whole point of having multiple political parties is to have different focal issues, but it feels like the Dems have been abandoning many focal issues just to draw in more right wing voices. Its part of why more and more people are being increasingly ignored by their representatives.
There is only so much bandwith to represent voices. By appealing to those in traditional places of power, Dems are only helping drown out minority voices, whether they be racial, cultural or LGBTQ+
You're letting perfect be the enemy of good though - my point exactly.
The Democrats just nominated a biracial female president and you're talking about drowning out minority voices. This is the only party where minority voices are being listened to at all. The American dream is an ever-changing ideal. The work will never be done. We aren't going to ever have the perfect platform. What we can do is unite with one another as proud Americans and strive toward that goal. Especially when the alternative is an absolutely vile and hateful party.
I think a lot of people are sick of progressives whining and splitting hairs. "I would vote for the Democrats because I support abortion up to 7 months, but this Democrat only supports abortion up to 6 months so I can't support that. I think I'll choose not to vote and maybe if Trump wins the Democrats will finally hear my voice."
Meanwhile, every Republican in the country is saying, "Is candidate X going to take away trans rights? Okay, I don't need to hear anything else. I'm in."
Nobody wants Democrats to sacrifice the critical thinking and empathy that makes them compassionate. But if we're going to beat the Nazis who are trying to take our country, we need to work together.
If the Dems can beat hate with joy, division with unity, and bullying with mockery, then that will be an amazing thing and it will show the true soul of this country. We do need to welcome minority voices, but we also need to welcome cops and prosecutors. We need to convince them that this is patriotism. We need them to see that Trump's message is one of hate and nationalism, and that they can join hands with gay trans immigrants while proudly waving our flag with us.
To be clear, we shouldn't pivot to center to appease them. But we should be welcoming them to come join us and we should be incredibly proud of the country we believe America can be.
This sounds very hollow in the face of the fact that the party very actively supports the Gaza genocide, and it plans to continue to do so. If you're proud of an organization that supports an ongoing genocide, then I don't think we can have any reasonable and humane discussion.
You are using very colorful language, but are you aware that you are espousing being proud of an organization that supports an ongoing genocide?
I think you're using black and white language to describe a situation of enormous complexity and nuance.
I applaud Kamala for acknowledging Israel's extreme heavy-handedness. I give her credit for saying aloud that Palestinians have the right to self-determination. But I have to ask you seriously, what do you propose? What is the answer to the Israel/Palestine situation? I'm not under the impression that Hamas and their sponsors have any plans to stop committing horrific acts of terrorism regardless of what Israel decides to do here. Why do I rarely hear my fellow progressives raging against Hamas for using innocent civilians as props and meat shields?
Again, I want to be clear that I'm absolutely not in favor of slaughtering innocent people. But what is your easy answer here? Best I can come up with is making a time machine and founding New Israel somewhere else entirely from the get go. Obviously not realistic to just give back the entire country at this point in time.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect a random person to solve a century long, extremely bloody conflict, on a single comment on the internet. Why would I pretend to be an expert on the issue? Why does anyone pretend to have a very clearcut solution? I don't have access to experts or resources like these politicians do. But even by having made a cursory reading on the topic in the past, I know that there are at least two entire academic fields dedicated to this: genocide prevention and peacebuilding. The war hawks, if they cared, could have consulted the experts of these fields. They instead chose genocide, because they do not care. They see us, non-US people, as not human. Not truly.
I want to also add that I did not claim to have the solution in previous comments. The peacebuilding process is of course going to be complicated, but what is not complicated is Kamala's implicit endorsement of the genocide. This shouldn't have happened. She should've not acted like a war hawk. She should not have endorsed the genocide. She should have been more sympathetic to Gaza's people. Any one of these would have given me hope.
About the other issue, I don't think anyone should be proud of a genocide supporter organization. This is not a complicated thing. This is not where one can find a middle ground. Genocide should be fought by all means. Being proud of such an organization sweeps their "bad deeds" under the rug. Even if you may not like hearing this, it also means you are endorsing their support. That is the reason I had a strong reaction to your comment.
None of what I say is new or especially profound. These are decades old criticisms of the US (and the general) war machine. This is how the warmongers and militarists operate. If one who has grown up in such a culture does not actively and persistently try to deconstruct their narratives, they very easily fall into their trap.
It's simple, really.
UN needs to send forces that will effectively occupy Palestine and possibly parts of Israel and will extract and prosecute anyone who breaks international law. Then an actual two state roadmap is discussed with both Palestine and Israel for up to 5 years. If no solution is found until then, it will be decided for them. The occupation will continue for at least 50 years, possibly more. Ideally anyone who is an adult at the start of the process would be a pensioner unable to take up arms by the time the UN withdraws. That way nobody will remember anything besides peace.
Outside the UN framework, both countries will be pressed, possibly with sanctions, to adopt laws against hate speech and acts of racial/religion-motivated hatred including effective mechanisms for reporting and resolving them. Can't really have peace with police ignoring pogroms.
Of which nations will the forces be composed of? How will you prevent human abuse within the forces? With the prevalence of antisemitism, islamophobia and racism, it will not be easy to find countries that are a good fit, let alone who are both capable of being effectively in maintaining order and not take advantage of the situation geopolitically due to the strategic location of the region.
Who will represent the Palestinian population? Who will represent the Israelian population? How will you manage the media during the occupation? The media is especially tricky here, as it will affect the representatives and their popular support (or lack thereof). If it's forced upon them like this, can you call them legitimate representatives in any way?
How are you going to deal with logistics, anti-corruption efforts, consistent funding when world tension is guaranteed to fluctuate through such a long time span, among others? Even worse, what if the occupying forces end up forming defacto a militant oppressive state in the long run? Over such a long timespan the forces will have lot of hard power in the region.
Who will decide what the police are composed of? How will you ensure that the police will enforce the laws, not be corrupt, have funding, have trust from the local communities. The West Bank in particular is going to be incredibly difficult here because of all the illegal settlements Israel has constructed there.
Additionally, you will have to deal with insurgencies immediately. Both populations are not going to take it lying down. Insurgencies can't be defeated with just brute force, as all the family members and friends of any killed insurgency member will feel vindicated and potentially join the insurgency. Unless you have such overwhelming manpower that surpasses the population. A quick search indicates that you're close to 15 million in the region completely. If you're incredibly generous and flips the 1:10 manpower needed to occupy the region you will need 1.5 million personnel. Every single person will need to be fed, be given equipment, training, navigate an incredibly complex region, and a parallel structure to combat corruption is needed which is really not easy.
There's more, but I don't want to just write an entire paragraph pointing out flaws. My main point is: As much as I'd love for it to be possible, I can't see occupying the region being a solution. A good portion of both the Israeli and Palestinian population already distrust most of the international community for a good reason. In an era with geopolitical tensions being thrive, this could have catastrophic effects.
I want to end with stating that I really, really don't mean this in any personal way. And, I do think the current approach is failing as well. I don't have a solution either.
I don't know whether there is a solution. Or whether it's even conceivable to see a lasting peace occurring in my lifetime. I do think it's something we have to aim for, obviously. People are dying, Palestinian prisoners have been, and probably are still, being raped while in Israeli custody in horrendous conditions. I also don't know if a heavy handed interference may actually pave the way for a sustainable peace. At it's core, I have an issue with your very first sentence:
It's not. There is no simple solution.
Look, if twe kids are duking it out in the mud to the point that both are bleeding and some of their bones are broken, you need some adults step in and make sure the kids both calm down and stop hurting each other. Then you maybe restart the dispute about which toys are whose.
By exactly your logic, people are dying in the streets today. Others would be inconvenienced to e.g. call them an ambulance.
The situation is actually simple. Two gangs are duking it out. Why? Because we fucked up and did not invest in prevention. Some people in power even helped pour on gasoline over the past couple decades.
Now the moral solution is super expensive and would lead to loss of lives on the side of potential peacekeepers.
Do I believe that we can get our collective shit together and prevent this from happening again, elsewhere, not to say in this case? Not anytime soon.
If there's hell (I don't really believe in one, but for the sake of the argument), we are both spending our share in the purgatory for this one.
I'm going to have to ask here, do you really think this is a proper analogy to the most complicated boundary problem in all of human history?
As for this, one is an ambulance, and the other a mass mobilization of millions of people throughout the entire world. My 1.5 million people was on the far lower end of the scale. Just the logistics of this operation you propose would be unlike anything has done before in human history. If you think the current polio outbreak in Gaza is bad, imagine all of that, over the entire region.
Also, keep in mind that Syrian civil war is technically still ongoing, Lebanon has a high chance of being dragged into this, and the international logistics network would have major issues as well due to the proximity of the Suez canal. D-day was a logistical walk in the park compared to what you're proposing, and even that had issues.
Israel having a nuclear arsenal alone makes this more different than just two gangs 'duking it out'.
It is true that there have been more than enough than people making the situation worse. But are you really, really stating that we 'did not invest in prevention'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Middle_East_peace_proposals#Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_peace_diplomacy_and_treaties
Some have been an absolute joke(and even made it worse), but are you really, really claiming that 'we did not invest in prevention'?
Also, you completely ignored all my previous points on geopolitics as well when you can't just ignore it.
Edit: Grammar
I'd love to see your proposed borders. I've never seen a map that would satisfy everyone.
I honestly don't care about specifics. At this point, I wouldn't mind taking all the holy sites apart and stashing them away all over the world to be returned in 50+ years once a joint agreement on the conditions of their use is ratified on both sides, just to simplify the debate.
That’s unfortunate, because the two parties involved most assuredly care about the specifics. I can’t help but feel a sort of “assume a spherical cow” physics joke parallel here.
Anyone who reads the papers knows that there's lots of stuff the Israelis are doing that the US administration opposes.
The answer to your question is: I am not aware of that and it doesn't accurately summarize my beliefs.
I don't think its a blind patriotism, but rather embracing it instead of just letting the Republicans own it.
Part of what the Democrats need to do now is not just win, but fracture the Republican Party such that they cease to be relevant at all. They need to (and have been successfully IMO) highlight just how offputting and traitorous the Republican platform has become, and get all moderates to hop ship.
We need a Reagan-like landslide win here, one that is followed up with making third parties viable so that it's harder to reform the katamari ball of extremism.
I said this 4 years ago that the fact that the Democrats didn't see a Mondale/Reagan level sweep in 2020 was proof even then that the party had lost the mandate of the people. And you know what? They might have finally realized it.
The dems seem to finally have stopped entirely catering to the center of the party, and started actually politicking to average Americans. talking about things like capping out of pocket healthcare costs. These are things poor people care very much about since they're so price sensitive.
I hope you're right. I hope the dems utterly demolish the Republican party, and as they shift right trigger a split with the progressive wing, and we can actually have some semblance of normalcy again.
Progressives should take care to note though - for better or for worse (mostly for worse) about 2/3 of voters simply don't give much of a shit about Palestine. It's depressing sure but most people flatly do not care about death that abstracted from their lives. Be realistic about what we can get policywise here. The dems aren't gonna change policy much, but they might turn slightly more of a blind eye to less passive protests. It sucks to live in "the land of the free (to dig your head into the sand and pretend nothing is wrong)" sometimes. This is one of those times.
Totally agree on the need for third parties, but I doubt we will get that with even a bad Trump loss. Yes the Republicans have thrown in entirely behind Trump, and don't seem to have any other options, but 4 years is a long time.
I just don't think we have any chance of third parties without a change to the system of electing. Personally I think Ranked Choice would be best as it would allow you to wholeheartedly support a fringe candidate but have a backup moderate if your preferred candidate loses. I just don't see how a first past the post system can sustain a third party long enough to actually force candidates to run on promises rather than the R or D beside their name.
I agree ranked choice is one of the best possible options.
Making it the default is the only hope to allow the big parties to fracture in a healthy way. Otherwise Project 2028 is all but assured.