this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025

227 points (97.9% liked)

politics

25143 readers

2603 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

• 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

227

The Problem With Israel Is So Much Bigger Than Netanyahu (jacobin.com)

submitted 1 day ago by Agrajag@scribe.disroot.org to c/politics@lemmy.world

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

Finally, the global political community starts to push back against Israel's genocidal expansionism. A little.

The sheer fact that it took them almost 2 years and massive protests to find some of their humanity again is in itself quite depressing, but hey, it's better than nothing.

But right now it feels that at best we'll be returning to the status quo as it was before Trump 1.0, before Netanyahu went full mask off.

As it was for decades:

Mild criticism of Israel to keep them in check and suitable for polite society, but never enough to actually solve the Palestine problem once and for all, never enough to actually stop Israel from expanding more-or-less aggressively. Tacit agreement by only stepping in when it becomes too ... disgusting?

I truly hope there's an actual solution somewhere on the horizon. This has been going on since 1948, it's time wouldn't you think.

[–] wampus@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 hours ago

Hamas has often been the roadblock for getting a two state setup sorted. I mean, the chant "From the River to the Sea" is about the Jordan river, and includes all of Israel -- it's legit a call for the extermination of all Israeli Jews. Hamas has pretty clearly not been in favour of a two state solution, ever. Like, the Oslo accords fell apart due to failures from both the Israeli govt and the Palestinian Authority -- it's hard to blame just Israel, when Hamas was busy assassinating people involved in the peace talks.

Doesn't excuse what Israel's doing to civilians currently though, nor how they've generally treated the Palestinian population for decades.

Another note worth highlighting, is that the 'world response' is largely one that eyes the USA with caution. The US govt prioritizes Israel's interests even over their own citizens, with Trump commenting on FEMA aid being denied for any state that's off-message on the ongoing conflict. Trump even jacked up tariffs on Canada just because the PM said he might recognise Palestine (if a bunch of impossible conditions were met). The US president isn't exactly subtle when he tweets shit like this. Imagine what the USA would do if other countries tried to take actual military action (blockades, or deploying UN peacekeepers or whatnot) to stop Israel from committing genocide -- cause that's what it realistically would've taken to stop them.

Hell, Israel has nukes. That's more than most other countries. There's this fun conspiracy theory I've heard that Israel managed to get some smaller nukes into America at some point, and basically has a 'quiet understanding' with the USA that if Israel goes down, they'll detonate nukes in key points in America. It'd help explain America's capitulation to Israel, though I think it's a bit far fetched -- the more likely reason is prolly more mundane, like campaign money/financing and regular corruption.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 16 points 15 hours ago

Religious extremists shouldn't be in charge of anything

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

The whole region is so engrained with violence, oppression and exploitation. All of it stems from religious control.

The only way to rehabilitate the region is to remove religious control and establish secular institutions.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

All of it stems from colonialism and Western meddling you mean. Who do you think gave Palestine to the Zionists?

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

The conflicts are much older than that, but yes, it is definitely not helping.

[–] Naevermix@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Was there even a conflict in the beginning of the 18th century? As far as I'm aware, the current conflict has it's roots in the British takeover after WW1.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 43 minutes ago

Was there even a conflict in the beginning of the 18th century?

Nope.

As far as I'm aware, the current conflict has it's roots in the British takeover after WW1.

Zionists had been making moves since the start of the 20th century, mostly buying land from absentee landlords and expelling the inhabitants, but yeah their program only really got going after the British takeover.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] loonsun@sh.itjust.works 4 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

It can be both

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

That'd imply that secular countries in the region are better, which is clearly not the case. Baathist Iraq and Syria were explicitly secular, and as is Egypt which also happens to be a police state under a military dictatorship. Israel also managed to keep religious fanatics outside of government for most of its history, yet the horrors of Zionism progressed unimpeded (see: the Nakba). "Religion bad" as a framework for understanding the current state of the Middle East, aside from falling apart when you think about it for five seconds, is deeply colonial thinking. It seeks to push the blame for the terrible events that have plagued the region on religion or culture or a non-existent history of instability rather than active choices by global hegemons seeking to further their imperialist agendas.

[–] absentbird@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

They aren't saying "religion bad", that's a strawman. The sentiment is that theocracies are bad, which seems pretty obvious. In much the same way police states are bad; there has never been a theocratic regime that hasn't used their power to oppress other religions.

Theocracies oppress religious minorities in much the way ethnostates oppress ethnic minorities, and patriarchies oppress women and gender minorities. We don't need to structure the state around religion like that, it's a recipe for disaster.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

But then they claim that "The whole region is so engrained with violence, oppression and exploitation. All of it stems from religious control." If the sentiment is that theocracies are bad, then that would imply that the whole region is governed by either de jure or de facto theocracies. That's factually untrue, so we're back where we started.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 hours ago

I would clarify my point. It's not that religion needs to be in control, it's that religion's power over society is used by whomever is in power to control people.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago

Religion is still used by those powers to control people, even if the government is not overtly religious.

Religion's power over society is easily co-opted by those with power.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I agree it's far from the only factor, but it is one that prevents a path to peace and the one that many people avoid confronting because of the taboo against criticising religion.

Religion does not need to be in control of the government for it to be used to control people.

Look how republicans co-opted Christianity to get leaders like Bush and Trump in power.

Look how Judaism is used to force people to tolerate the dominance and oppression of the region.

Look how Islam is used to restrain people from claiming human rights and how it is used to infiltrate, undermine and further imperial ambitions.

Religion is the tool used by oppressors to get normal people to tolerate and do terrible things.

To clarify my earlier point, you need to break Religion's power over society, in order to make the society resistant to following those types of leaders.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Look how Judaism is used to force people to tolerate the dominance and oppression of the region.

Being Jewish is also an ethnicity so this is a moot point.

Look how Islam is used to restrain people from claiming human rights and how it is used to infiltrate, undermine and further imperial ambitions.

Where? In most of the Middle East religion is tightly controlled or outright suppressed by authorities, with Islamists overwhelmingly being political opposition rather than pro-regime. The Islam people are almost invariably not happy with how their countries are run, which is why any anti-authoritarian resistance in the region invariably has significant Islamist presence.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Note that when I say Islam, I am referring to the religion, not using it as a replacement of the distinct cultural groupings of muslim and Islamist. Much like Orthodox and Catholic are distinct cultural grouping, but both are still part of the Christian religion.

Similarly when I refer to Judaism, I am referring to the religion, not the culture referred to as the Jews.

In terms of human right oppression, i am referring to the religion's effect. That is present in most of the Islamic countries.

It's not just islam. Look of christian evangelism has been leveraged by the republican party in the US. Look how Catholicism is used by the right wing in Poland.

Everywhere you see human rights retreating, your see prominent religion alligned with those forces.

You are correct that there are Islamic extremists as well that are not satisfied, often because they think the government is not being extreme enough. Just like the far right evangelical Christians supporting the Jewish occupation of Gaza, becuase they want to end of the world to happen.

Countries that have managed to defang their religions have much better economic and social outcomes. Countires who have had them creep back in, like in the USA are getting much worse.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

not using it as a replacement of the distinct cultural groupings of muslim and Islamist.

That's... not what those words mean. Muslim = someone who follows in Islam, Islamist = someone who believes in political Islam. Islamist is a subcategory of Muslim, not a group distinct of it.

In terms of human right oppression, i am referring to the religion's effect. That is present in most of the Islamic countries.

Again, where is this happening? Give me examples with sources of this supposed region-wide phenomenon.

Everywhere you see human rights retreating, your see prominent religion alligned with those forces.

This is completely untrue. See: Egypt, where the government is intensifying its crackdown on civil and political rights at the same time it's cracking down on expressions of Islam.

You are correct that there are Islamic extremists as well that are not satisfied, often because they think the government is not being extreme enough.

Again, not true. Many major Islamist organizations, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have explicitly pro-democracy lines.

Countries that have managed to defang their religions have much better economic and social outcomes.

That's not really true (see Malaysia for example), but it also has absolutely nothing to do with your initial claim.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 1 points 26 minutes ago

I take you point on Language being important. A lot of things get misunderstood due to different definitions in different circles. I don't disagree with the definition as you explained it

In terms of human rights, you only need to look at the correlation between level of religion in a country vs the personal freedoms. There is also a distinction between what the laws in a country prosecutes and what society prosecutes. Child marriage and arranged child marriage is one example. most countries make it illegal, but its still very common is highly religious societies.

Another example is Woman's rights:

I don't have enough specific knowledge about what is happening in Egypt right now. What I would expect to see is a similar pattern of other countries in the world after regime changes. One religious group uses their influence in the government to crack down on other religious groups. or the Government uses one group to go after another group to keep people divided and focused on each-other, rather than against the government. Something like what we saw happen in Iraq under and after Saddam, Northern Ireland, Balkans.

In terms of examples of countries economic outcomes, the economic picture is less clear cut because of a lot of factors, so you need to isolate as best you can for those. You could equally compare look at Europe, point a Greece and say its an example of Europe weak economy. Best to look at the region overall. So using the Malaysia example, you also need to look at the region including Thailand, Indonesia, to compare those examples. The de-fanging example I had in mind, was the fall of religious monarchies in Europe resulting in the renaissance. Individual rights and economic prosperity for the average person only really started in Europe when the people became less religious and their Monarchies lost power. You could say the same thing for places like Japan and its Emperors.

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

If "all of it" stems from one thing, it can't "all of it" stem from another thing. I'm not arguing for either, I'm just uppity about logic.

[–] grindemup@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Of course it can—why do you think something can't have multiple stems? No one said that it stems exclusively from one thing.

[–] stevedice@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

The "stem" is the thing itself, not the thing it stems from. A stem can't come from two places.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 11 hours ago

That's kind of what the word "stem" means, both literally and figuratively.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works -2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

And before them, it was the Ottomans, and before them it was the Arab islamic conquests and so on and so forth. Colonialism is far from only a western problem.

Palastine has been faught over and handed between major powers for millenia. They have never been allowed to form their own regional state for long enough.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

What? You're not making any sense. Palestine was ruled by these powers, as was the rest of the Middle East, but it was never a center of conflict. Places tend to be ruled by people, that's how that works.

Palastine has been faught over and handed between major powers for millenia.

Like... every other part of the world? I'm not sure what part of this is unique to Palestine.

They have never been allowed to form their own regional state for long enough.

That's like saying Berlin was never allowed to form its own regional state for long enough. The desire for a Palestinian state is a very recent phenomenon. Hell, Palestinian identity is a very recent phenomenon created through Zionist oppression; had Britain not reared its ugly head Palestine and Lebanon would've been parts of Syria.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works -2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

You forgot about the Crusades. When the islamists invaded the region and the catholic church counter invaded.

It has very much been one of the conflict hotbeds in the world. Like the Balkans, Armenia, Somalia.

The little secret that the Zionists and Islamists would like to forget, is that there are almost no generic differences between Modern Israelis and Palestinians. They come from the same people, from before the Islamic, Catholic and Zionist conquests.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Okay I'll be frank: You lack too much information about Middle Eastern history, politics and culture to be having this conversation.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works -1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

So when I demonstrate knowledge that does not support your views, your response is to dismiss it?

Are you simply unwilling to engage and provide the necessary information to be convincing, or are you simply falling back on projecting your own ignorance on me?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 3 hours ago

You have not, in fact, demonstrated any such knowledge, only tells you don't really understand what you're talking about. For starters, that's not what the word "Islamist" means (Islamism refers to the modern political movement), and second there were a full four centuries between the Muslim conquest of Palestine and the first crusade. Four centuries between major conflicts isn't what I'd call "a conflict hotbed." Like, seriously just go hit Wikipedia, type "history of Palestine" and see the massive gaps between the conflicts you're talking about. You also keep bringing up Islamism in completely irrelevant contexts.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Not taking sides here, but here is a great animated history map of the region (although whether the"Kingdom of Israel" existed as a united entity as shown on this map is debated).

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago

Thanks for contributing information.

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Bibi is Hitler, anyone who had a role in supporting him is a Nazi. There, problem identified. Now prosecute in international court.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Now prosecute in international court.

Already underway but it seems in these times international agreements are seen as decorative and/or leftist tubthumping.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 1 hour ago

Always have been.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 13 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Good start, but then you have to ask: Where is the opposition to the genocide? Where are the people horrified by the genocide being committed by their compatriots and taking to the streets? Where are the opposition politicians attacking Bibi for committing genocide?

This goes way beyond Netanyahu's supporters; even people who oppose him for corruption and anti-democratic behavior tend to support him, or at least toe the line, when it comes to the war.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works -2 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

What do you think Israel should have done after October 7? Packed up and left?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

How about a proportionate response? Something Israel has refused to learn in ~80 years of oppressing Palestinians.

But also: don't explicitly allow the attack to occur in the first place (which we now know happened). Don't be shocked when 80 years of brutal oppression, ethnic cleansing, and now genocide, leads to desperate people who want to fight back any way they can.

Netanyahu sure as shit isn't shocked. He literally funded Hamas.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I personally wish that Netanyahu and whoever was in charge of the Defense were punished instead of invading Gaza for retaliation. Sucking up the 1200 slaughtered by the Al Qassam Brigade would have been cheaper with less death for everyone concerned.

From Israel's own self-interest perspective: they have lost 454 soldiers. They have had 148 hostages returned but could have had them all returned (and lost no soldiers) at the start of the war with a swap.

Israel underestimated the extent of the tunnels and the unquestioning support Hamas would get from the Global Left (eg believing the Al Ahli Hospital hoax).

But Hamas (who were as keen for war as Likud) also underestimated: they mistakenly thought the Arab League would join the war like in 1967.

And so the mission creep has gotten us to this situation today. The only realistic way out I see is if Hamas would surrender and the Arab League would occupy and reconstruct. I certainly would not trust Likud and the even more right wing parties in their coalition (who support expansionist terror by settlers in the West Bank).

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Not commit genocide, that's for goddamn sure. I'll do you one better: What goal other than genocide and occupation does Israel have in this so-called war? It has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated through its attitude towards peace deals that deposing Hamas isn't the point.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You haven't answered the question.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Okay, here's your answer: After October 7th, Israel should've ended its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, cooperated with Palestinians and its Arab neighbors to create an independent, sovereign and democratic Palestinian state (or absorbed these regions in one binational state with equal rights for all if that's your thing), given refugees right to return or equivalent compensation to the generation wealth they were robbed of and then pushed for fair trials for all involved under international law. Notice the conspicuous lack of genocide.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Gaza was not occupied. Israel withdrew settlements in 2005.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Generations of Israeli's could have stopped the genocide and apartheid before Oct 7. They didn't, because the majority of Israelis are pro-genocide fascists, who believe in their religious nationalist ethnostate with righteous indignation.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

So you think Israel should have tried a one-state solution? I don't see any Arab governments anywhere in the Middle-East interested in anything other than their own brand of "religious nationalist ethno-state".

But one small such state for Israel is too much? (Which is very much more secular than any Arab state).

There's a lot of "righteous indignation" in this thread.

[–] ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If 3 terrorists take over a bank with 50 hostages - including children - inside, do you just bomb the bank and call it a day? No, because we don't kill the innocents indiscriminately to eliminate the terrorists.

Israel is not only murdering innocent people, including children, indiscriminately, they've murdered journalists and aid workers intentionally who are reporting on their behavior and we have memos showing starvation, displacing the innocent civilians and taking control of their land is part of the plan.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

The ratio of Gazan deaths isn't 50 civilians to 3 militants though. Not even remotely that ratio. You are not discussing in good faith and you avoided answering my question.

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

I've tried reasoning with my Nazi-ass/Diet Nazi family, but they seem to earnestly believe that they're not Nazis. I try to provide emotional support to my cousin in the IDF, who has spent his entire career trying to protect Palestinians as best as he can, but we haven't heard from him for nearly a year now. I hope he's just in jail again for defying orders...

Other than that, I'm still freaking out too much about the Nazis gaining power here at home. There's too many goddamn Nazis these days...

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments