this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2024
19 points (56.8% liked)

politics

25059 readers
2043 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
19
The US is not a credible ceasefire mediator, but a genocide partner (www.middleeastmonitor.com)
submitted 11 months ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Inspecting its involvement in the ceasefire efforts, some believe the US is really interested in the ceasefire and reaching an end to the bloodshed and Israel’s genocide in Gaza. However, the reality of the situation is the opposite: hypocrisy. The US had only been buying the time needed for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to complete the mission: getting rid of the Palestinian resistance in Gaza.

Examples of affording enough time for the Israeli occupation forces to complete its planned destruction of the Gaza Strip and continuing to kill as many civilians as possible are beyond being counted. One of the clearest examples is the political support for the Israeli aggression on Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of displaced people gathered from different parts of the Gaza Strip.

In the beginning, the US claimed that they had suspended arms support for Israel, and they would not cancel this suspension before obtaining a detailed plan for a “limited operation” in Rafah that would guarantee the safety of civilians and displaced people. US officials continued repeating these remarks in response to regional and international rejection of the aggression on Rafah, giving a cover-up for the destructive Israeli attacks on the southern Gaza city.

Another example is Biden’s ceasefire proposal, used to synthesise the world for months, claiming that Hamas rejected it. The US used to justify the Israeli genocide and blame Hamas for it; however, the Israeli occupation was the perpetrator. When Hamas accepted it, they continued to claim that there were gaps between Israel and Hamas that would be closed through negotiations where Netanyahu did not give meaningful power to the Israeli negotiators in order to delay reaching a deal.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think your ideas are quite flawed here. You're thinking like three parties sitting down at a table and talking, but that's not how this works. You're also making logic leaps without any evidence, which is just foolish.

Let's use Occam's Razor to see what's more likely here:

  • Netanyahu is a piece of shit trying to cling to power and stalling to get one last show of force out the door to inspire his crazy ass base
  • The US and Israel and all of their diplomats, representative bodies, and armed services scheming together in a room to keep this thing going with zero benefit to anybody but Netanyahu

I think most reasonable people would probably say it's the second choice. The you might say "Well, then the US should just stop supplying them", to which most would probably agree...except all the people who don't. So then you're pissing off the other side of the aisle.

It's a lose-lose for the US here for anything except a ceasefire. Suggesting otherwise makes zero sense whatsoever unless you have a deep seeded belief the US is out to get Palestinians for some reason, which would also be pretty insane, and I've seen no evidence of that either.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The you might say “Well, then the US should just stop supplying them”, to which most would probably agree…except all the people who don’t.

And Democrats would rather be wrong than popular.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Don't think that has anything to do with it, because if I'm reading your statement correctly, and that "The Democrats" are doing the least popular thing, you're wrong.

The Democrats would be worried about the electors in the US. This is just based on super generically available data, and making an assumption about allegiances, BUT:

  • US Jewish population: 7.5 million
  • US Planestinian population: 172,000

So if you're saying that "The Democrats" are all in lock-step and support the same things - which is demonstrably false - then they are doing the popular thing.

Whether or not you're a Democrat and supporting what is happening would probably be the whole "Genocide is bad" thing, which I'd like to believe most people agree with.

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

What do Jews have to do with israel?

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Are you kidding?

[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

The title is not an unfair assessment.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The United States is it no less credible mediator in this situation than Hamas or Israel themselves. Which is the the bigger issue.

Whoever this better more credible mediator is. People should ask them why they're not doing anything.

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

Well Hamas already accepted the American deal which Biden claimed was proposed by israel.

Hamas has called the bluff of israel never accepting to a ceasefire by accepting that proposal.

America still covering for israel after Hamas accepted their proposal is enough proof that the post is true.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

No it isn't. There are lots of other more fact-based and reasonable ways that could be explained. Though this extremely biased bad faith argument of yours isn't surprising given your defense of things like houthi child soldiers. Which you were at least temporarily banned for in the news community.

Now just for fun. Let's pretend for a moment that that your bad faith misrepresentation of the situation were factual and true. If the United States. A country with a large Palestinian population. And Palestinians in government. Has a vested interest in and is an eager and willing to participate in genocide of the Palestinian people. A claim which you yourself personally make several times a day everyday. There must be some sort of clear benefit from it. For the Israelis they get land and resources it's very clear what they get from it. They don't get any of the land. They don't get any of the resources. They don't get any new bases. Or anything for that matter. And it upsets and amenates a large part of their own population. So since this is your position. what does America logically, directly stand to gain from the extermination of the Palestinian people?

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Can you cite where I defended the usage of child soldiers? The WorldNews mods weren't able to find it

You keep using the word bad faith. Maybe shut the projector off.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yes. And I will answer your question only after you've answered mine. Otherwise all you're doing is deflection and your usual projection.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The two main ways in which the US benefits from supporting Israel militarily is that it maintains US hegemonic influence in the region and that it greatly benefits the Military Industrial Complex.

Taxes from US citizens subsidize these arms deals, the profit of which goes to those heavily invested in our private Military Contractor companies making the weapons.

Historically, our main geopolitical interests for supporting Israel is counter other foreign interests such as the USSR, and to support our interest in the region such as our invasion of Iraq and Iran for access to natural resources such as oil.

Additionally, the main base of support for the continued military support of Israel, other than capital and geopolitical interests, are Christian Zionists. Which far outnumber all Jewish people, let alone Jewish Zionists, in America.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. And killing Palestinians actually jeopardizes that. So no the United States sees no benefit from the genocide.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I agree it's bad policy and bad politics. I was just laying out the historical reasons.

I'm a major advocate for ending unconditional support to Israel, forcing them with international pressure to end the Apartheid, and for a Bi-National One State with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians including Right of Return for all Refugees

[–] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

If you ever travel outside the USA you'll see how half the world population agrees that the US is a murderous oppressive country. And since 2016, those feelings have grown so it us much more than that. The only people still deluded enough to think the US has anything but murder to offer the world, are Americans that live in isolation.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 months ago

I mean look no further than the fact that they're arming one side of the conflict. How are you going to mediate when you clearly have a horse in the race?

[–] RangerJosie@sffa.community -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The US had been the bad guys in every war we've been involved in since WWII. That hasn't changed in this instance and likely won't change in the future.

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The US being the bad guys in the Korean conflict is an interesting take that I wouldn't expect anyone outside of lemmygrad to espouse, care to elaborate?

[–] RangerJosie@sffa.community -4 points 11 months ago

Google is free.