957
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 15 Feb 2024
957 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32290 readers
473 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Glad he's coming around
Coming around? When was he on the wrong side of this issue?
His October 10 statement includes:
October 10. 3 days after the initial attack.
Back in January he tried conditioning aid to Israel and requiring the state department to issue human rights report on their conducts.
The Palestinian conflict did not start on Oct 7th it's been happening for decades now. Specifically my gripes are with "The United States has rightly offered solidarity and support to Israel in responding to Hamas’ attack. But we must also insist on restraint from Israeli forces attacking Gaza and work to secure UN humanitarian access." I do not agree that any support should have been given period, Israel has been a genocidal Zionist entity for a long time now and Sanders is well aware of this I'm certain. I'm also frustrated by his request for restraint as if anything other than the dismantling of the Israeli state could possibly suffice.
He is also a proponent of the two state solution which is inherently sympathetic to the settler colonial state.
I'm glad he is wants the genocide to stop but conditional fucking Israeli aid is not the way to do that. They should not be aided. Was it wise to aid apartheid South africa through continued trade relations? Was it right to vilify Mandela as a terrorist? Of course not, we can look back on these actions and see how wrong they were because we know what came to be. So why are we doing it again?
Yes obviously apartheid South Africa and the current palestinian genocide are not a flawless comparison but they are similar enough.
Essentially my point is that he has been much too sympathetic towards Israel for a while. Sure he's probably one of the most radical politicians we have on this issue but I find that to be incredibly disheartening.
Why is the two-state solution inherently sympathetic to the settler colonial state ?
The settlers never should have been there in the first place. It isn't their land and never was. They arrived touting violence and have not ceased. A two state solution validates their self professed "right to the land" and allows for eventual further expansion of the settler colonial state some time in the future should we not keep constant surveillance and management on the proposed Israeli state.
In addition, a single state solution does not necessarily require the forceful expulsion of every settler. It is not inherently violent or oppressive either. In apartheid South Africa many settlers left of their own volition once their privileged status had dissolved.
He never was. But he didn't say the exact thing that people wanted him to, which is a mortal sin