politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
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
view the rest of the comments
I actually don't understand this stance. Pro-Israel people tend to be one of these groups:
1-People who simply grew up with the propaganda and are still believing it. These lost the majority of democratic voters recently, and they're only decrease more, but more importantly to them this isn't an election-deciding issue. I think we can agree that this group doesn't care as much about Israel as they do about Trump not becoming president. There's just not much for them at stake.
2-Zionist Jews. This is usually pointed to as the demographic Biden will lose if he doesn't support Israel, but the thing is: Jews are less likely to support Israel than the general population. If anything being tougher on Israel might win Biden Jewish votes.
3-Evangelicals. These are the real deal here, but let's face it: How many of these were voting democrat to begin with?
Yes a very large number of people support Israel, but that's not the number we need to worry about. The really important question is: How many people on either side will take it as an election-defining issue and how likely are those people to lose Biden the election? Given that losing Muslims alone is liable to make Biden lose, and he's losing (mainly young) progressives on top of that, I think we can see the answer to that question.
so as an asian who supports israel,which group do i belong to?
bearing in mind i am not in any abrahamic religion and i support Israel military actions against hamas and their supporters but not palestinians.
You're number 1. "Military actions against Hamas and their supporters but not Palestinians" don't exist in Gaza.
sounds to me you are a hamas supporter that supports genocide and the oct 7th attack didn't happen kinda people.
Nice strawman. You're literally supporting genocide and apartheid.
as opposed to letting hamas commit genocide per their charter??
Israel has had a permanent occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 1967, maintaining an apartheid state through direct and indirect violence.
Hamas began twenty years into the occupation during the first Intifada, with the goal of ending the occupation.
What Is Hamas? - Council on Foreign Relations
What Does Hamas Actually Want? - NY Mag
Collective punishment has been a deliberate Israeli tactic for decades with the Dahiya doctrine. Violence such as suicide bombings and rockets escalated in response to Israeli enforcement of the occupation and apartheid.
Hamas Election - Snopes
Hamas 1988 Charter and Revised 2017 Charter
The 1988 Charter, which is certainly unreasonable in its fundamentalism with Sharia Law and is antisemitic, does not call for the extermination of all Jewish People. The 2017 Revised charter accepts a Two-State Solution of the 1967 Borders. Check Article 7 and 13 of the 1988 Charter to see yourself, compare it to Article 20 and 24-26 in the revised charter
you are aware,despite their charter saying what is it they represent and do,the reality is they do what they have always wanted,genocide,from the river to the sea,even that statement remains in their 2017 revised charter.
i had to go read through your links,while some does provide insights to the conflict, i get the nagging feeling here you are trying to villify israel while painting hamas as a victim of circumstances. this is a typical propaganda tactic employed by.....hamas and their supporters (surprising,i know).
if you find israel's punishment of innocent palestians for hama's actions indiscriminate,maybe trying calling out hamas for their indiscriminate terror attacks on israel.
an eye for an eye makes the world go blind,israel isn't the good guys here and neither is hamas.
The slogan From the River to the Sea is about Palestinian liberation that started in the 60s by the PLO for a democratic secular state. You're thinking of the Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad in 1966.
Before 1948, Palestinian Leadership repeatedly advocated for a Unitary Binational State for decades.
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948
Palestinian Arab Congress advocating for Unified State 1928
Arab Higher Committee advocating for Unified State 1937
Arab League advocating for Unified Binational State 1948
Partition and later the Peace Process, like the Oslo Accords, have been wielded by Israel to annex and divide as much Palestinian land as possible with the least amount of Palestinians.
Oslo Accords MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ
All members of Hamas and other militant groups who have committed war crimes need to be tried on an international court, the same as all the Israeli officials that have. Palestinians need liberation and to have democratically elected representatives.
we have an consensus,those who are responsible for the war crime needs to be tried and palestinians have a right to exist as israel.
what i can see however,hamas is still hell bent on genocide and have publicity announced they will repeat the Oct 7th attacks until israel is no more,a stark contrast to their revised charter.
you can defend hamas all you want,you can claim they want peace but what their actions says,is a lot louder than what their charter does.
Israel is an Apartheid State. Palestinians have lived under the military control of Israel for generations, enforced with daily violence both direct and indirect. For People living under apartheid, liberation is the end of that apartheid state. That means coexistence, you're the one thinking that means genocide.
don't white wash hamas atrocities as if they are justified or faultless.
hamas is just as guilty as the hardline israelis,none of them are the heroes they themselves believed to be.you certainly aren't changing my mind concerning the terrorists that is hamas,no matter how hard you try to paint hamas as the anti-hero.
hamas should be wiped out,the sooner the better so that palestinians can move forward,else this apartheid will never end.
Hamas' atrocities against civilians are not justified, dude. If you're against that you should recognize Israel has attacked magnitudes more civilians both before and certainly after Oct 7th, especially women and children.
Understanding the context as to why these attacks happened is not a justification, it's necessary to understand and recognize the underlying reasons in order to determine an avenue for peace and end the hostilities.
You're the one justifying Israel's genocide with that last sentence. Wiping out Hamas has been their justification for targeting and destroying Hospitals, Schools, Refugee Camps, and Aid deliveries. That's the justification for cutting of all water/electricity/medical supplies on top of an unending bombing campaign that target civilians and civilian infrastructure. Everyone in Gaza is facing Catastrophic risk of Famine, a man-made famine by Israel blocking aid, food, and water, dozens have already died and many more soon will without help.
Hamas has committed war crimes, documented by Human Rights Organizations. That doesn't change the fact that Israel is responsible for the Settler Colonialism, Ethnic Cleansing, and Apartheid that is the foundation for all this violence. Israel holds all the power to end the conflict, but has instead only increased hostilities with Apartheid State Violence and Settler Violence.
you are right that israel can end hostilities right now if they want to,the same goes to hamas.
the onus here seems to be placed on Israel since they are the ones with superior firepower,as if hamas couldn't end the hostilities by surrendering.
Bear in mind,hamas has always resorted to terrorist attacks whenever they felt like it,had israel agreed to stop all the aggressions,it will just give hamas breathing space to reorganize and begin another round of Oct 7th terror attack.
hamas handed israel the reason for all these violence on a silver platter and israel is not going let it go that easily.if you want me to condemn israel and hold them accountable, i for one agree with you...AFTER hamas is wiped out.
it's not genocide to want hamas wiped out,unless you are conflating hamas as palestinians.
No, Hamas can't end the apartheid and occupation by surrendering. You fundamentally misunderstand the development and continuation of the occupation. You're also making things up about why Hamas decided to attack instead of learning the actual reasons.
I've already given links to learn about the escalation of violence in my first response. Seems like you'd rather believe what you want to.
it would be naive to think hamas can end apartheid alone but hamas can stop giving israel any form of justification by surrendering,we can start there.
your links this far has been an attempt to justify hamas,obfuscate hamas with palestinians and painting hamas as a victim of circumstance. most articles provided has been down playing hamas terrorism and somehow israel is fully responsible for the plight in gaza and west bank today,never mind the fact that hamas played a central role in it as well.
you seem to think Israel should observe the laws and regulations imposed by the international community but you forget a terrorist group like hamas actually spit on those laws and regulations,acting with impunity because they have god on their side.
lest you forget,in israel,people accused of war crimes can be charged under the laws of israel,hamas on the other hand have no such laws.
believe what you want of hamas,i for 1 support the full eradication of terrorists,they do not deserve any reprieve.
You must also think Nelson Mandala and all the armed militant groups that developed out of Apartheid South Africa Should have been eradicated. After all, they were considered terrorists and did acts of terrorism. It's almost like understanding the underlying conditions that make people resort to violence is important if you want violence to end.
Yes, Israel does have military control of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. As they've had since 1967.
1967 war: Haaretz, Forward
Israel Martial Law and Defence (Emergency) Regulations practiced in the occupied territories after 1967
Amnesty Report, HRW Report, AIDA Report, OCHA Report on the details of the daily violence Israel uses to enforce the apartheid.
Gaza Blockade is still Occupation
Forced Displacement of Palestinians continue to this day: 972mag, MEE, Haaretz
Palestinians denied civil rights including Military Court
Palestinian Prisoners in Israel including Child abuse
Human Shields including Children (2013 Report)
Settler Violence Torture and Abuse in Interrogations No freedom of movement Water control
still trying the white wash hamas i see.
understanding the reason for the violence does not equate to justification. that is what you're trying to do since the beginning, conflating the reason for the violence as justification.
no amount of justification is enough for hamas to commit terrorist attacks on innocent people. you can try to villify israel as much as you like,i'd prefer the eradication of hamas and we can discuss who in israel should be held accountable for the war crimes.
That's my point. Yet you justify Israel's actions.
No, my point is that if you understand the increasing violence of Occupation/Apartheid are responsible for the increase in violence of armed resistance, then it's clear that an end to the occupation is the only way to end the violence.
Israel has committed magnitudes more violence on innocent palestinians, both before and after Hamas. There is no metric of violence that Israel hasn't committed far more of.
Israel's actions has been a response to hamas' for Oct 7th attack. Justified??? i am sure it was and still is,given what they (hamas) did. there is no argument on this on this specificity. were there instances where israel isn't justified?? petty sure there is. it's not a blanket statement to say israel is completely justified in everything they do.
you mentioned the continued apartheid/occupation as the source of the violence, so end the occupation and accept the 2 state solution, not that hard for hamas.
this isn't a competition to see who has committed more crimes against whose population, they are crimes and those responsible should be held accountable.
you trying to villify israel and downplaying/apologising for hamas atrocities. i am not sure why you chose to be a hamas apologist,it certainly isn't helping the palestinians in anyway.
The concept of Transfer in Zionist thought and the displacement of Palestinians since the 1920s culminated into a full fledged ethnic cleansing campaign in 1948
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948
Transfer Committee and the JNF led to Forced Displacement of 100,000 Palestinians throughout the mandate.
Plan Dalet
Details of Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948)
Partition and later the Two-State Solution have been wielded by Israel to covet and annex as much Palestinian land as possible with the least amount of Palestinians.
Before 1948, Palestinian Leadership repeatedly advocated for a Unitary Binational State for decades.
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948
Palestinian Arab Congress advocating for Unified State 1928
Arab Higher Committee advocating for Unified State 1937
Arab League advocating for Unified Binational State 1948
After the founding of Israel, the Two-State Solutions were utilized to further annex the Palestinian Occupied Territories and enact military control over Palestinians while denying them human and civil rights. Despite this, both Fatah and later Hamas have accepted a Two-State Solution on the 1967 borders, with the two most important factors being the Right of Return of Palestinian refugees and an end to the permanent occupation.
Oslo Accords MEE, NYT, Haaretz, AJ
History of peace process
still trying to villify israel i see.
fatah seems to be doing ok after accepting the fact that israel and palestine can co-exist. hamas o. the other hand wanted 1967 borders whithout recognizing israel and wants jurusalem as its capital. 1967 borders, israel can compromise, if land swaps and national security are addressed. Jurusalem as Palestine's capital per hamas?? yes no fucking way and hamas knows that for sure.
if israel wanted more lands,they will never have left gaza nor west bank. the settlers problem has been a thorny issues amongst the radical jewish population,its hasn't gone unnoticed and we all know that needs addressing.
dude you trying so hard to villify israel isn't helping your credibility and you are beginning to sound like those hamas propagandist/apologist on overdrive.
So coexistence to you is occupation? You hand-wave away all the overwhelming evidence of Apartheid and Settler Colonialism.
Settler Violence is State Violence and has been intentional.
co-existence is accepting the facts that 1 entity has a right to exist just as any other and you do not arbitrary decide how far back in time to determine who stole whose home.
next, israeli settlers illegally settling in land that does not belong to them is a problem that needs solving,this has been made very clear,your magnification of the violence doesn't negate that fact other than pushing your bias narratives.
hamas never stopped declaring their aim to wipe israel from existence, despite their renewed charter.the fancy words they used serve nothing but to hoodwink the less sophisticated.
if your logic prevails,then prc,timor leste,previous soviet states or even america has no right to exist because they stole,occupy and settled in lands that does not belong to them and the original inhabitants should wage terror attacks on the populance because,you know,these people are stealing lands of their great grand father or however far back in time these terrorists chose.
it's sad that you have, on multiple times, try to push your bias agenda and narratives and each time you are only serving to highlight your bias.
Israel has never had intentions of coexistence, it was founded on Settler Colonialism... You're white washing ethnic cleansing.
hamas never had any intentions of co-existence only genocide and terrorism.
you are and have been justifying hamas terrorism and crimes as the aspirations of palestinians,disgusting to say the least.
You're literally wrong. Has Hamas done war crimes? Yes. You don't need to make things up to not like Hamas. I've provided so many resources to learn the history. Instead you'd rather justify settler Colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and collective punishment. When you do that, it's clear you don't see Palestinians as human beings.
i could say the same to you.
unlike you,i do not solely focus on one side's atrocities to paint the other like some kind of victim.
you are literally a hamas apologist using palestinians to push your agenda for genocide.your resources aren't exactly neutral to begin with.
I'm literally advocating for ending the genocide and equal rights.
Read the Reports on Apartheid and learn for yourself
Amnesty International Report
Human Rights Watch Report
B'TSelem Report with quick Explainer
and i am clearly saying there are no good guys in this conflict,no one side has the moral high ground over the other.
palestine and israel have the right to exist and to overly focus on the elimination/vilification of one over the other is not going to solve anything let alone your so called ending of genocide or equal rights.
Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing and settler colonialism, directly responsible for the ongoing apartheid, and is currently engaging in genocide.
I'm not saying Hamas if good. The majority of Palestinians don't either. Palestinians deserve a free and fair election to choose their representatives, but that's not really possible living under a violent apartheid. Israel has prevented any peace solution. Armed militant groups like Hamas are the only ones fighting against the apartheid.
This is a war between the occupied and the occupier.
To Israel, Palestinians have never had any right to exist, or human rights, or civil rights.
I agree with New Historians on a One-State Solution. If you're genuinely interested in the history of the conflict, you should read their books. They are significantly more detailed than any article and written with a huge amount of sources from both sides of the story.
The book 'A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples' by Ilan Pappe has a detailed account of the history since the early 1920s
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
History of peace process
One State Solution, Foreign Affairs
10 Myths of Israel
Palestine and Israel: Mapping an annexation
you would have made a strong case...if you weren't a hamas propagandist. i am now suspecting you are anti jewish as well.
What is wrong with you.
Anti-zionism and criticism of the state of Israel are not at all the same as antisemitism. Israel and its actions have never and will never represent all Jewish people, regardless of how much they try to claim so.
If you're conflating the two, you are being antisemitic.
so far,i have been equally critical of israel and hamas.
based off your links and articles,seems like the one villifying and conflating is you.
Please tell me how I am conflating antisemitism and anti-zionism. You're the one who claimed I'm antisemitic when I've been exclusively talking about Israel.
My main sources are B'TSelem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Ilan Pappe, Nur Mursalha, and Avi Shlaim.
How many Muslims do you think there are in the US??
I don't necessarily agree. As I said, that's changing. But yes, the average, ill-informed, centrist voter until very recently would have very strong opinions about Biden not supporting Israel. Maybe not enough alone to sway a vote, but with such close sentiment already it would push a large number over the edge.
Irrelevant question.
A better question is - How many Muslims are in Michigan?
And the answer to that is - Enough to flip the state, and therefore the election, to Trump.
Possibly. Another relevant question - how many white centrists in Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona?
People who would vote for Trump because Biden chose not to support genocide? Probably not many. From what I understand real centrists are a dying breed.
Politically active centrists are a dying breed, because if they actually paid attention they wouldn't be centrists.
But somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of the country falls into the low-information voter category.
I mean low-information voter is one thing, but I think even those people either understand that Trump is a threat to democracy or think that he's their messiah who descended from the sky.
It seems like that to us, because those are the types we're exposed to. The low info voters don't comment on political articles.
Thank you for telling us which demographic you consider indispensable.
Not too many Russians in America, so I couldn't say them, I know that's so disappointing for you
I didn't say "tell me what you call people you hate because they oppose genocide."
Not people. Just people like you. Agitators in the service of foreign powers.
Anyone who crosses you must be a scary foreigner, sure. You're talking like a xenophobic republican. Do you think I'm gonna take your job?
Reported.
Hah, just kidding, I'm not thin skinned like you.