356
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 06 Nov 2023
356 points (100.0% liked)
politics
25046 readers
1805 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Surprise: It's not. They're giving them less than the amount they need not to starve.
Their military occupiers, Israel. Or maybe the people blockading them and actually controlling how much aid goes in and how much they can import (with their meagre economy since they're not allowed to export their goods), which is also Israel. Maybe the people who actually created the current situation and actively worked to maintain it so Palestinians can't have peace—you guessed it, Israel.
Egypt also could provide help, but for some "strange reason" they do not want. All the countries that cheered on October 7th and supposedly support Palestine, won't provide any help beyond weapons. They don't give damn, their goal is to kill Jews, and if Palestinians die in the process, hey that's "even better".
How about this: It’s solely unrwas responsibility, but anyone who specifically bombs unrwa resources has to take over fully?
How about this. It's the responsibility of the government in charge, Hamas to consider the feeding and care of it's citizens as a part of its war plan with its neighbors.
Given that the plans that government arranged for are being thwarted by Israel, it seems they are taking steps to reassert their ability to feed their people. I don’t think that’s the best solution here, that Hamas keeps attacking Israel, so I’m looking elsewhere. If you’re content with the way Hamas handles things, by all means, leave them with no humanitarian support or other options.
In normal warfare. When a siege shows that it's has the ability to starve the populace if continued; it's the duty of the seiged to surrender before their population starts to starve.
Or to try to escalate. Which do you honestly think Hamas will do?
Honestly, they're dying. Israel estimates they've killed 1/4th of their Army. And based on the things that they're trying to smuggle in it (oxygen equipment) seems like they might have a significant amount of their forces stuck underground, caved in.
That either makes them fight more desperately or we wait a generation for the surviving Palestinians to grow up and start the fight anew.
We know how this goes, unless Israel makes huge concessions or starts killing even larger numbers of Palestinians
That army was just used offensively against Israel. It must be considered valid to fight it. Those fighters can choose to surrender.
You think they will?
Some will.
But enough to have peace?
At the rate Israel is going? Yes.
Dead men always make peace.
So to summarize: in your opinion, Hamas and Israel are both doing exactly what they should be?
No. Should? No. But are they on a path to peace if they keep fighting? Yes. A cease fire delays eventual peace if the disagreement between to sides is incurable. And at this point it does seem as if it's incurable.
I think it’s worth trying to save still and the first step along that path is a ceasefire.
That’s too cynical for me. Take away offensive military support from Israel and the disagreement may stay uncured, but it won’t kill over 10k people a month
How many people will die in the next conflict though? Or do we just expect Israel to regularly have thousands of citizens murdered and hundreds taken hostage as a regular course of business?
Nobody likes the human casualties. But at this point, the Taliban could take control in Gaza and do a better and more peaceful job.
Palestinian casualties are casualties, and there’s millions of Palestinians whose lives are currently in danger. If not a ceasefire, what do you think is the ideal first step for preventing as many casualties as possible?
In the long run or the short run? If I only care about the casualties in the next 1-3 months; of course I want a ceasefire. I'd be a fool not to. However; if I widen my view to 12 months, 24, 5 years Hamas is going to kill thousands of Gazans a year if left in power. It's going to kill them by starting more wars, by impoverishing them, by keeping them from accessing the aid that's being provisioned from them.
Like it's not like people are heartless. What's happening in Gaza is horrible and I wish it wouldn't. But it feels like taking out Hamas' ability to govern and rule is like taking off a bandaid. It's best done quickly.
Again, there are millions of Palestinians currently in danger. Thousands have been killed by Israel in a month. I don’t see how hamas is a larger threat than Israel.
I’m not a fan of Hamas. They’re there because someone hasn’t allowed Palestine to have an election in over a decade. Taking out Hamas’ ability to govern and rule could be done quickly by allowing an election.
If Hamas retains it's military might, how many more wars causing thousands of casualties a month will happen in the next 5 years?
If Israel agrees to a ceasefire, then allows aid to flow in and new elections to be freely held, Hamas will cause zero wars in the next five years, because they won’t have any power.
What makes you think Hamas wouldn't win the election?
Hamas ran on an entirely different platform (of moderation) to a different group of voters. Why not see what happens?
Convince the EU to support sanctions until an election. That's what's keeping Hamas going.
Netanyahu has been seen sending covert money to Hamas and has been alleged on multiple times to have said that Hamas is good for the Israeli government (which might have been true before October).
Sanctions would simply be an expansion of the siege. Collective punishment is against the Geneva conventions. What grounds are there to sanction a people for having a government they themselves dislike but which they are forbidden from voting out of power? Further, how is that better than organizing a vote? Palestinians will starve to death between then and now, if they’re sanctioned.
You can't continue to give Hamas more money and claim to support elections in Gaza. Giving them money is defacto support for a non-democratic Gaza Strip.
I don’t want to give Hamas money, because I don’t support Hamas. I want to give Palestinian people access to food, water, healthcare, safe shelter and education, ideally through NGOs, until an election can be held.
Then, if the government elected is Hamas or worse, you still support the populace through NGOs, because they’re still people, and lack of education and stability have never made a group less extremist. The cost of basic social services and life supports for a few million people is far smaller than the cost of the weapons to eradicate them
Israel has in the last month specifically targeted hospitals, schools, Red Cross/red crescent vehicles, and MSF operations. That’s why the ceasefire is a necessary first step.
You can't do both as long as Hamas rules the strip. You can give Palestinians aid in the West Bank and in Lebanon and Jordan; but not in the Gaza Strip.
What the last few months have shown is that aid meant for individuals is stolen by Hamas to fund terrorism. Unless the UN or EU puts troops on the ground to police the aid; funding the Strip will be finding terrorism to a large degree.
Aside for some areas in North Gaza, Israel doesn't occupy the Gaza Strip, and hasn't for decades.
Then why is the Gaza strip considered to be occupied by the UN?
1 nation one vote combine with a European history of hating Jews and Gypsies.
That's... well... an original opinion, at least.
Is it? Have you ever asked a European about their opinions on Jews and Gypsies? I'd make a KKK member blush.
I know that, but assuming that influence somehow makes it all the way to the UN is tenuous at best. You're gonna need proof for that. Also, European countries are 44 out of a total of 193, so even if somehow they were all ruled by antisemites, that's not nearly enough to make the whole UN antisemitic.
The UN is one of the least biased entities in the world, so if you think they're biased, there's a good chance you're the one being biased.
44 European nations plus 56 Islamic nations is essentially a majority.
I'm what way? The UN has confirmed Israel more than every other thing that has happened on the planet combine. How is that not bias?
There's an additional 56 Islamic nations. Combine with the Cold War nations on the Soviet side that still vote with them.
The Old World loves to hate Jews.
All aid has to be approved and funneled through Israel. Remember the freedom floatilla?
Well it's kind of their responsibility, since you ask, since they're completely blockading them. Otherwise it's undeniably genocidal mass starvation.
Removed for rule three. You can disagree without ad hominem attacks.