116
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 29 Mar 2024
116 points (100.0% liked)
News
22896 readers
3793 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The US could at any point have assisted with getting aid into Gaza over land. All they'd need to do is tell Israel to back off and lift their blockade.
Instead this gives a US base in Gaza. Obviously we are going to take this option.
The feds can't force Texas to stop shooting migrants you think they can force Israel to stop doing anything they're set on?
You think they've actually tried? Given that they're still supplying weapons to them?
Look, I'll put it this way: there is no upside to the US in any of this.
Ok, let's run the scenario: the US administration without approval from congress pulls some kind of magic trick and blocks weapon sales to Israel tonight.
What series of events do you think would unfold?
How would local politics unfold in the US, in Israel, in Palestine and in each of the surrounding countries?
Is peace now nearer? A two state solution closer?
Or would Israel, now that the bandaid has been pulled and no further threat remains, would decide that nothing will stop them, that they are on their own and they might as well just finish the job thoroughly?
Would Hamas declare that victory is near without the US involvement and redouble their efforts? Would Israel decide they need to find more reliable partners and turn to China? Or Russia? What would China do? Russia? Iran? Jordan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia?
Do you not think the US would have been much better off geopolitically for this thing to have gone away 6 decades ago? Why have they been trying with summit after summit?
This conflict has been sustained over the decades from different political actors for different reasons, some of them petty and pathetic, some religious and some geopolitical.
There are plenty of hungry sharks around ready to take their pound of flesh and it's not to help the Palestinians - we know the neighbours don't give a shit about them (except rhetorically) by the way they treat refugees within their own borders
There's no magic button to press to solve it.
This is like the 3 body problem, but really it's 20 moving celestial bodies.
I don't care about the weapons. Israel obviously doesn't need more weapons to finish their genocide.
It's just pretty obvious that you don't make a real effort to prevent a state completing it's genocide before you stop supplying them with arms.
Great, but, after that - is there a realistic next day scenario that doesn't hurt Palestinians more? If so, what is it?
You're right there's absolutely no solution remotely possible, and that justifies the complete lack of even trying anything spicier than "Bibi pls"
Come on, that's a bit weak - is strawmanning the best you can do?
My guy you're literally saying there's no solution that isn't worse than doing what the current administration is doing, which is more or less nothing.
That's not a straw man. That's just restating your argument at you.
That's the strawman - at no point did I make that argument.
I didn't say all possible actions are pointless, nor that I agree with how the US is handling it - which is increasingly poorly for a very long time.
I merely disagreed with your proposal in detail and asked you to defend it if you were so convinced of it.
Pointing out that cutting our nose to spite our face is a bad policy, and will do worse than fuck all to help anyone, does not equal agreement with the administration, the US or Israel or anyone or doing nothing.
So you're just strawmanning me? Because at no point have I made a "proposal".
What position do you want me to defend? So far my position has been that the US should be doing more to apply pressure to Israel.
How do you disagree with that WITHOUT taking the stance that any other action would lead to a worse outcome?
Again, what is this hypothetical cutting of the nose?
If you say that doing anything more than what the US is currently doing will "do worse than fuck all", how is that not an endorsement of that policy? You're saying it's the best option.
You are right, "proposal" was overstating it, and a strawman.
Let's see here:
Up to now what you put forward twice was a purity test.
I thought the test was tantamount to a specific proposal: to stop the arms supply - but apparently you say it's not, and you want to play the definition game now, or just a frustrated "no you".
Maybe that's your underlying motivation, which I agree with.
I didn't disagree with doing more.
And I didn't say that any other action will lead to a worse outcome.
You keep on performing the same fallacy and ascribing me motivations I don't have.
I disagreed with the non-proposal of stopping the arms right now as a minimum first step.
It's clearly the minimum action you mentioned in the litmus test.
At this point I'm not sure we understand language the same way.
I'm out.
I mean the CIA can kill U.S citizens if needed but I laugh that you think the U.S government can't mobilize when enough motivations appear.
Can you point to the part where I put forward that argument?
I'd imagine holding some funds back may be an effective deterrent.
We could have also put our foot down and refused to give Israel any more weapons but nah.