230
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
230 points (89.1% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2149 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I will never understand why that's so difficult for some people. Calling on Israel to stop the illegal "settlements" in no way indicates support for Hamas.
To be 100% clear, the horrific murders and mutilations they've committed are inexusable and Hamas should be utterly dismantled, with every surviving member put on trial for war crimes. That can be true at the same time as it's true that Israel's illegal annexation of territory and treatment of Palestinians is wrong.
Please, can someone tell me they understand that? Am I taking crazy pills, here?
You aren't taking crazy pills. This entire situation has always been engineered to be difficult for people to talk about who see the world in black and white terms. Not me though, I'm a greyman
I've even seen some people try claiming that the attack didn't happen and Israel must have fabricated it. My first thought was, "Really? We're going to 'Alex Jones/Sandy Hook' this?"
You can both want Palestinians to be treated fairly and be against Israeli citizens (among others) being slaughtered. Saying "Hamas was wrong to do this" doesn't mean you're saying "Israel is blameless in this situation."
Sadly, way too many people need there to be a Good Guy Who Never Does Wrong and a Bad Guy Who Never Does Right.
I hope someday, at a minimum, some really impactful social science comes from the timeframe we are experiencing right now.
I'm just constantly baffled by people's capacity for evil, in the name of a good. Also, people's willingness to intentionally share delusions with people they unquestionably believe in, frightens the hell out of me. There is a very obvious a conscious choice happening when people are choosing to accept lies as truth.
As horrific as it all continues to be, its also fucking really morbidly fascinating. I remember being a little boy and reading about the horrors of the Holocaust, and failing completely to wrap my mind around how an entire Society could allow things to escalate that way. I want to be somebody who says they still don't understand it, but I can't. Because it's happening right here in front of me, and I see why and how. And I hate it.
Back in college (which is longer ago than I like), I went to the Holocaust Museum in DC. The most impactful exhibit was called Daniel's Story. You enter a room and go back in time - into the life of Daniel. He's a Jewish boy growing up in Germany around when Hitler came to power. Everything looks just fine in Daniel's house.
Then you go to the next room and time has skipped forward a bit. There are slight changes, but it isn't anything too bad so you walk on.
In every room, time moves forward slightly and the changes always seem "not too bad."
Then you get to the final room which is the entrance to a death camp. Suddenly, you realize just how all those "tiny/just fine" changes accumulated. But by now, it's too late to stop it. You're at the gates.
Had the Germans launched the full blown Holocaust on Day 1, too many people would have objected. But after a slow burn of tiny steps for reasons that sounded plausible enough to not be widely objected to, dehumanization, and other such tactics, the Nazis created an atmosphere where "kill all the Jews" seemed like a reasonable outcome. At least to most of the general populace who weren't Jewish. Or LGBTQ. Or political dissidents. Etc.
Damn that sounds like a fantastic exhibit.
It was gut wrenching.
The other exhibit that hit hard (well, they all did, but this one was notable to me) was the train car. You can walk around it or through it. I walked through and paused in the middle.
The plaque outside had said how many Jews were put in this car. I tried to imagine sticking that many people in the car, but I couldn't. Then I realized my problem.
I was trying to put PEOPLE in the car.
Even though the "people" I was mentally putting in were imaginary, I was still treating them like people. If I switched to putting that many people shaped objects in the car, it became easy.
It was a huge lesson in the power of dehumanization.
-cries in spatial reasoning-
Brenda Romero made an experience called Train to visualize this and educate.
I don't want Palestinians to be treated fairly, I want an end to the genocide that Israel is perpetrating.
That'd be a lot of fuckin' crisis actors.
You're assuming everyone is discussing this in good faith. They're not. Some are weaponizing antisemitism so only unequivocal support for the Israeli government is welcome. I don't know why anyone would think doing that is a good idea, it's certainly not going to bring people around to the side of Netanyahu's government.
People need to understand that when you do something like that, it waters down both sides of the equation. You can call something "antisemitic" to get people to think that action is evil without looking too closely because they want to distance themselves as much as possible from the evil label. But it also can make people lose the association between "antisemitic" and "evil" because they agree with whatever is being called "antisemitic" and think "if this is antisemitism, it must not be that bad".
And then there's the ones who think "if you're going to call me evil, then I might as well just be evil".
It's an example of crying wolf and I guess we all know how that ended. Accusations of antisemitism have been used as a cudgel to silence critics for so long now that when I hear someone has been accused my first instinct is to dig into what they actually said because I'm automatically skeptical of the accusation.
This kind of thing happened when Jeremy Corbyn was running in the last UK election. To this day, I've yet to read a single comment he has ever made that could be construed as antisemitic.
Yeah, now that you mention it, it's already happened with me, too. I'll still make the assumptions if the news is associated with neo-nazis, but in any other context "antisemetism" needs more specifics before I can tell if it's legit or if it's just Israel (or their allies) trying to silence critics.
Like there was an article about a study just a few weeks back that said "antisemitism was rising among liberals", but then you look into what it actually meant and it was really about liberals not supporting Israel. But even before I clicked it to have a look, I was looking to see how ridiculously they defined "antisemetic" rather than having any worry that hatred of Jewish people was on the rise with progressives.
You aren't crazy. This must have been what it was like being a sane, thinking person right after 9/11 and during the run up to the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and seeing everyone around you descend into psychotic, genocidal bloodlust. That's par for the course for conservatives but it is genuinely horrifying to see it coming from liberals and people on the left.
I remember that sinking feeling and realizing that our culture was going to use 9/11 as an excuse to act really terrible. I’m from the western US and had no cultural or personal ties with anyone east of the Mississippi, so I had less of an emotional connection to the actual terrible events. Nothing has been quite the same since in our culture.
It's only difficult for some. On one hand the Israeli government purposely equates Jews as people with Israel as a nation to deflect criticism. Hell even shady Israeli spy companies like the ones behind the pegasus exploit followed about the reporters from uToronto to try to get them to make anti-Semitic or anti-zionist remarks so as to discredit their reporting on a government sanctioned hacker group that sells to dictators. On the other hand actual anti-semites hide their anti-semitism in criticism of Zionism. Which is how you get gas the Jews chants at pro-palestine rallies.
Nope. I got some if you’d like though. The nuances of a situation seem to be lost on a lot of people. You can disapprove of the Israeli government’s actions (or lack thereof) and not be pro hamas or antisemitic. Unless you ask the internet at large, I suppose.
All I've heard are people that don't support either group.
The only "support" I heard were from people claiming others had support for either. It was all third person.
Are there really people who support either?
Sadly, yeah. I've seen a few on Lemmy, which disappoints me. I mean, it's not that hard:
Why is that difficult? Why is it so goddamn difficult to say both are wrong in different ways? Supporting Israel's right to exist free from terrorism against innocent civilians is not identical to supporting illegal expansion and the oppression of the Palestinian people. And supporting Palestine's right to exist free from tyranny and encroachment is not identical to supporting Hamas, which is a horrendous terrorist organization that is just as awful to the Palestinians as they clearly are to civilian Israelis.
Just look further down in this thread. You can see one person justifying Hamas and saying "slave rebellions require the wanton killing of their masters" and another justifying Israel's actions by conflating all of Palestine with Hamas.
It's the rare case where there are actually a nontrivial group of people taking what would be otherwise a strawman position. And that makes it incredibly difficult for us to discuss this like adults. This conflict is the perfect storm of centuries of geopolitics, anti semitism, anti Muslim sentiment, and nationalism.
The only good people here are the innocent civilians, and they're the ones being brutally murdered and bombed and taken hostage.
Republicans don't understand nuance. Every conflict is a football game. Either you support the good guys or you're a despicable other team fan.
I think the one point of nuance that's continually lost (and ironically, you glossed over it as well) is the Israeli treatment of Palestinians. They're doing more than just "annexing" and "being mean". They've been murdering and disappearing Palestinian civilians for decades.
I think Israel has been complacent, because it's been relatively easy for them to live with Iron Dome and use Gaza as an open-air prison. The scale and effectiveness of this attack is unprecedented even if an attack is expected in general, which makes Israel's failure to stop this and Hamas' success even more surprising.
It's really good to see Burgis (and Jacobin) publish something level-headed about the situation from the left, as well as seeing some Marxist pages I follow make the same distinction. Left pages (I've only seen a few personally) posting memes about revolutionary violence to sort of under-handedly voice support for Hamas I find pretty abhorrent, considering how anti-Communist Hamas is, not to mention would gladly start their own final solution if given the chance.
I don't think anyone should feel good about supporting any group but civilians in this conflict. That means Israel needs to stop treating Palestinians as "animals," which is what their Defense Minister recently openly referred to them as. That also means siding with Palestinian civilians but not the anti-semitic, fascist, Hamas. Many Israeli politicians probably have more in common with Hamas than not in their ideaology. The good people in this fight are the ones not fighting.
The unfortunate thing is how Israel's western allies are basically enabling their complete blockade of Gaza from here on out. 2 million people will have no power, food, water, or medical supplies coming in, while being bombed with nowhere else to go, with the full support of it's allies.
your 100% right.what hamas did is wrong but isreal stoked the flames that brought the attack
even if hamas didn't exist there would be a similar organization doing something similar. Turning Gaza into a giant prison means a gang will pop up to enforce rules and they will build up new angry recruits every time israel kills a protestor, day by day, week by week.
One of the problems is that there's a constant cycle of violence. Palestinians, feeling oppressed by Israel, launch some sort of attack (rockets, firing on civilians, bombs, etc). Innocent people are killed and Israelis react in fear and anger. This pushes right wing Israeli politicians into power which results in bloody responses directed at the Palestinians. Repeat again and again with each side's attack being justified by the other side's latest action.
(And, note, I'm not saying "the Palestinians started this" above. I just need SOMEWHERE to start the illustration and recounting the full 100 or so year history of this conflict would be way too long.)
Then, add to the mix, foreign interference. On the Palestinian side is Iran who doesn't want human rights for Palestinians. No, they just want Israel attacked and Jews killed. So they'll push for attacks like the recent one even if it will hurt, rather than help, the Palestinian cause.
On the Israeli side are evangelical Christians from the US. They think Jesus will come back if Israel, run by Jews, is attacked. They've got the "run by Jews" part and peace would stop an attack that would bring Jesus back. They do things like fund the settlers who take over Palestinian land.
I don't pretend to know the solution. If I did, I'd be a world class diplomat - something I definitely am not. However, I can both understand why each side does what it does while condemning actions that I think cross the line. The whole thing is a twisted mess and anyone who thinks one side is all good and the other side is all bad is vastly oversimplifying the situation.
It's because Zionists have enjoyed complete control over the narrative for decades.
They're in overdrive right now trying to regain that control, and it isn't working.
Okay, but if one of the two, and only two, groups that some demagogue has helpfully divided the world into for me is bad, then the other must be good, right? That's how the world works, right?
Nope. However I think it's important to recognize that desperation breeds radicalization. And Israel creates fertile ground for this.
Proportionally speaking, at least people are publicly talking about how shitty Israel is for now, which is better than before since nobody cared about the many dead Palestine civilians over the years. In that sense, the PA get to actually have a conversation in the media while Hamas can be the fall guy.
Reddit worldnews has had a live thread about Russian invasion of Ukraine since February last year. They didn't have one for the Israeli occupation.
This works both ways also. Israelis feel like they are constantly under threat of attack from rockets, bombs, and now raids that kill civilians. This increases support for hard line, right wing politicians who will act swiftly and harshly. Temporary anger over the attack (which, to be clear, is justified), can result in actions that cross the line.
It's a vicious cycle. Israelis feel attacked and so support right wing politicians who promise them safety. Then the Palestinians are attacked and turn to terrorist groups like Hamas to strike back. Repeat again and again and again. Neither side is willing to back down because they have to get revenge for the latest attack even though this revenge will cause another attack.
I completely agree. I understand why radicalization occurs within Palestine, but this attack does not advance the goals of Palestine in any way but in fact exacerbates their already-dismal conditions tenfold. To me, I feel that Israel has nearly all of the agency to actually change the paradigm, but of course won't. Meanwhile Palestinians are pretty much voiceless on the world-stage and so "acting out" is the only way they can get attention. It's a horrible state of affairs that can only resolve by some miracle of a true leader presenting themselves within both camps and seeking to truly turn the page.
I don't think Israel has "all the agency." Part of the problem is that, with Hamas in charge, Israel would be trying to negotiate with someone whose stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel.
Suppose that, starting tomorrow, Israel treated the Palestinians perfectly. No military members assaulting innocent Palestinian citizens. No blockades of crucial supplies. Not even guards at checkpoints keeping Palestinians from entering/leaving certain areas.
If Hamas and similar organizations kept up attacks (because they wouldn't have achieved their goal of wiping out Israel), it would just lead to pressure to restore those measures (despite them being flawed). The more attacks, the more pressure to act as the more likely that the government would crack down again.
It's tricky because the Palestinians don't want to stop because they fear the Israelis trampling them and the Israelis don't want to stop because they fear terrorist attacks. Both fears are valid but it's resulting in a toxic cycle of violence. It would take both sides cooperating to break this cycle. Sadly, I don't think the current leaders on either side want to even attempt this.
I generally agree with you here; though as a caveat if I understand right, Hamas changed their charter to accept the the 1967 borders two-state solution as of 2017, suggesting a willingness to coexist.
Whether that's in good faith or not I don't know.
I like you acknowledge both wrongs, but you mustn't have spent much time looking at post replies and comments if you think the people decrying the implicit supporters of Hamas are the problem.
I think the thing that's putting an incredibly sour taste in a lot of people's mouths is that anyone who decries the wanton slaughter and rape of innocent civilians by a terrorist group is absolutely bombarded with replies from blindly pro palestinian comments saying things like:
"Israel asked for this"
"Those people shouldn't have been there if they didn't want to get raped and killed"
"People have a right to self defense"
"Look at this map which doesn't reflect the whole story of this conflict, implying that it's justified"
"Freedom fighters fighting against oppression/apartheid/open air jail"
Paraphrased obviously but this is what it reads like. It's hard not to see people posting that stuff whilst bodies are still warm on the ground instead of condemning the barbaric attacks as not implicitly supporting Hamas and the disgusting crimes they just committed. There is no "but" after decrying these attacks. They are unjustifiable and inexcusable.
Obviously Israel needs to stop creating settlements in the west bank, but bringing that up relentlessly like a bot farm of brain damaged propagandists doesn't help the cause. It feels the same as Russian trolls claiming Ukraine is run by Nazis, or MAGA people taking about some laptop. Nothing gets taken seriously when it's clearly a one sided megaphone style discussion.
Making it look like any pro palestinian discourse is actually just people supporting their preferred football team doesn't help create dialogue and a future peace. You're just creating an echo chamber which to less invested observers seems to be celebrating rape and murder of civilians.
The problem is the wording. If you say "To be clear, the horrific murder and the mutilation they've commited are inexcusable and Israel military and government, or Zionist, should be utterly dismantled, with every surviving member put on trial for war crimes" you would be labeled antisemitic, terrorist, and this might be consider hate speech which be law if your employer find out, they can fire you. And if you are a head of State, a politician, a journalist, most likely you will be forced to right an apology, and declare "Israelis" have god giving rights to the land..
The problem is that you're victim blaming. Imagine that Jews had done the exact same things Hamas has done to the Nazis. Would you be right to criticize the Jews for how they behaved towards their oppressors? No. Past a certain level we should not give one shit what lengths an oppressed class goes to to end their oppression. Short of literal genocide, Palestine will be the good guys here no matter what they do, because Israel is doing literal genocide to them.
The only successful slave revolt in history just happens to be the one where the slaves wantonly murdered their enslavers. It is a lot more moral to go to extreme lengths to ensure your oppressors are defeated, than it is to take the high road and lose. The high road is for cowards who would rather do what is easy than do what is necessary.
Nah, mate. Killing random civilians isn't the same as killing slave masters. Random people on the street aren't the ones to blame. Needless blood is counterproductive and just fuels hatred. Being designated as a terrorist org means the slim possibility of receiving foreign assistance is reduced to zero.
Thank you for this. I just wanted to add that Hamas didn't know the political leanings of those they killed so there can't even be a "well, they voted for Netenyahu." I have family in Israel. They all voted against Netenyahu and marched against many of his actions. Luckily, they are all safe, but had they been in that area they would have been killed or taken hostage with everyone else.
This wasn't an attack against the people who attacked the palestinians. This was an attack against random innocent citizens. It's possible to both condemn Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and condemn this attack.
Oh yeah, america calling you terrorists means sooo much... Remember the "terrorists" that were in the hospital Obama bombed? Or the "terrorists" at the wedding he bombed? Or the "terrorists" who had WMDs based on zero proof?
Israel kills far more civilians than Hamas ever has, so it's the lesser of 2 evils. Maybe Israeli citizens should storm the capitol and force an end to the genocide. If your country is doing genocide and you say nothing, you are complicit. I don't care if Hamas targeted civilians, even though they didn't. Because they know better than I do about what is necessary in order to end the genocide.
Talking about needless blood only when Israel loses a fight makes you a hypocrite. There has been a river of blood flowing out of Palestine for 30 years, so excuse me if I declare bullshit on you and the rest of our country caring about innocent civilians now.
Put yourself in the shoes of an Israeli boy. Maybe ten years old or so. One day, a Hamas attack kills your cousin, your best friend, and your five-year-old sister, as well as both of your parents. You survive because you happened to be elsewhere at the time. You're not a soldier. You're not one of the people responsible for Israel's oppression of Palestine. You're literally just some kid.
But in ten years, you better believe you're going to be an IDF soldier, and one of the bad ones, because you want revenge. Every night, in your sleep, you see your parents' corpses. And your sister's. Someone literally cut her head off, and you see it, every night. And you are hellbent and determined to make them pay.
Now... Has Hamas' murder of your little sister accomplished anything good for them? For their goals? Is it practical? Is it pragmatic? Will it move the world closer to a free Palestine?
No. Of course it won't. It's counterproductive. It will make Israel literally level Gaza. It will empower the hardliners, the ones who pushed for illegal settlements in the first place. They will be fueled by the combined rage of tens of thousands of people just like you, a little boy who lost everything because Hamas decided civilians were legitimate targets for murder, rape, mutilation, and torture.
The moral high road isn't for cowards, it's for people who aren't idiots. You don't win by taking the low road in a situation like this, you just make both sides angrier, more scared, and more entrenched. It accomplishes literally nothing that you profess to want accomplished. The low road is for fools.