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 am really disappointed with the discourse concerning Biden's handling of the most recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Everyone is acting like Biden invented our alliance with Israel and is somehow personally responsible for our support of Israel. Geopolitical alliances are complicated matters that touch everything from international reputation to national security. They are fostered over decades. We have obligations to Israel that precede Biden and the recent conflict.
I understand the moral positions people are taking, and I agree that a genocide is taking place. But with anything geopolitical, these issues must be approached without hard lines and moral absolutism, because those ideals are what both sides are using to justify the atrocities we are witnessing. They both feel morally justified, and that the other side has crossed some hard lines. That is how diplomacy breaks down.
Those of you that want to see an end to the conflict need to understand that the official US position at this moment is aligned with you. But so many of you are proposing "simple" solutions that will not achieve that outcome. If we end support for Israel, they will not stop the genocide. What we will lose is leverage in negotiating peace and we will weaken the alliance with Israel, and the genocide will continue unhindered by US calls for restraint. You may argue that Israel relies on this alliance for security, and that is true, but you assume that other super powers would not jump at the chance to replace the US as a close ally to a nuclear power in the middle east.
Let's not forget how rash reactionary approaches to geopolitics threatened the NATO alliance during the Trump presidency. Our allies are already doubting if the US will honor the treaty, and this doubt extends to Taiwan, too. Weakening these alliances gives power to our enemies, full stop. Do you want to see war break out in the Pacific? Russia to expand its empire eastward? The Israel-Palestine conflict to extend to other Arab nations? Damaging these alliances will cause more war, not less.
Outrage against Israel is justified. But look past your nose before you jeopardize our key alliances. Diplomacy is slow and frustrating, but it is better than more war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war
There's a genocide happening right now with USA support where thousand of childrens have already been murdered. Israel is bombing neighbor countries and the whole middle east is boiling as a result. They are not seeking diplomacy they are seeking war.
So we should abandon diplomacy precisely when it is needed most? When we withdraw our support and Iran and Egypt join the conflict, will it be easier to stomach the killing of even more children in more nations? After we cede our influence in the middle east and China expands its influence to fill the vacuum, we will be able to honor our treaty with Taiwan after an emboldened China begins bombing and killing their children?
This is the macabre calculus of geopolitics. This is the risk of reactionary policy. All of this is a hypothetical worse case scenario, but one thing is certain: if we withdraw our support, Israel will lose any incentive to stop the killing. More will die. And that would be the best case scenario.
To send israel government "whatever it needs" and additional aid is the opposite of diplomacy. The really reason they are getting away with a genocide is because they have the west backing.
There's a genocide happening right now under your nose where thousand of kids are getting killed, this is already the worst case scenario. They are doing exactly what they want to do, they are not seeking diplomacy they want war.
I think...this is more complicated than a clear cut black and white choice. Not killing is clearly the correct response. Thing is how do we get there? Do we attempt to send in troops to police a location half a planet away? You know people will support that while also pointing out other conflicts we should be "dealing with" and pointing casually to situations we've made usually worse by stepping into.
That's not really the point though. The point is the support being given.
I agree that the sales of arms to any institution inflicting harm on another is, at the absolute best, a grey area on a good day. It seems to me though that in a conflict that is powered by ideology, this legitimately makes no real difference. It will happen whether we break off the relationship or not. Because of this, it is best to attempt to utilize that relationship to attempt to diplomatically stop the conflict. The alternatives are send in forces which will increase regional political strain and possibly ignite a larger conflict, or do absolutely, irrefutably nothing.
If there is a fourth decision that leads to a better outcome I am not wise enough to see it. What I do understand is that all relationships require some give in order to have some take. I don't agree with any weapons being sent over, though I do believe they made zero real impact on the result. This was going to happen and I feel attempting to stop it without escalation was the right choice, because it usually is the right choice.
Anyway, chances are the situation is far more complex than we realize. 50/50 on me being wrong, which is fine, opinions can change. Diplomacy should always take precedence over added conflict though.
Then we should start doing diplomacy and actually put pressure on Netanyahu to stop the genocide.
Until then we aren’t doing diplomacy we are appeasing a genocide of at this point probably ~50,000 Palestinians.
When Israel kills all Palestinians the problem is diplomatically solved!
This would be funnier if it wasn't unironically what some are advocating.
I'm probably more ignorant than I realize, though I am under the understanding that there has been increasing levels of pressure. Netanyahu just doesn't care.
Its ok to be ignorant, but you have to understand we are talking about this like it is an unpaid loan or some material bullshit.
This is an entire people and their landscape being erased. Every moment of "increasing pressure" that doesn't create material policy change is horrifically extending hell on earth.
Imagine being so psychotic that you pretend 10/7 didn't happen.
Why do you think it happened?
You can use that rationale to justify any invasion against a weaker nation. All it takes is the lack of morality to justify horrific crimes. Your logic falls flat on its face in cases where force and coercion end up having the opposite effect than your stated goal. Countries in the Middle East are finding themselves more and more inclined to do business with China in times of increased threats and sanctions from the US. The "Great Satan" is hated by the population exactly because of the "diplomacy" that you advocate for. An increased resentment among the population influences politics, which drives these countries closer to enemies to the US.
So if Zionist government officials don't steal taxpayer money in order to fund their Zionist invasion of the Middle East, Israel will kill more people. So Israel must be supported in order to kill less people. Nice logic.
A cornered rat can only do so much before it gets exhausted. It's better to corner a rat and have it rage rather than pouring in all its cousins to make it feel safer in order to pacify it.
I have to point out that your "diplomacy" perfectly aligns with the Zionist project, which does involve a genocide as has been documented time and time again.
I don't like to attack the person besides the argument, but in this case I don't think you deserve the benefit of the doubt because of your colossal lack of empathy and unwillingness to consider solutions that don't involve supporting a full-scale invasion. What's more disgusting than an overtly wicked individual is one who hides behind talks of nuance and who uses fancy deductions (with false premises) in order to put wool in front of people's eyes.
Right and next Satan is going to tap dance on your kitchen counter.
You just stated the point of OPs post. It's not like when we sent arms to them since the 80s Biden was suddenly like "ok go kill babies". We should definitely suspend future transactions until at least the end of the current government term though. This whole US is equally responsible is a bit much though.
If genocide isn't a red line for sending military aid then our alliances are already useless. We are the country and the country is us; not some third entity. So a moral failure of this magnitude being forced on us "for the good of our country" just opens the door to more moral failures. And we're the ones that will have to live in that system.
Furthermore, allies who do have moral standards are now looking at us wondering if our moral failures will extend to keeping our word when it's not a country that's entangled itself with our religious conservatives. They are very aware of why we support Israel. And very aware that they do not share Israel's unique political position.
It's that enough big picture stuff for you or would like to attempt to rationalize sending weapons to a genocidal regime some more?
Also a genocide is basically something where all kinds of crime are encompassed. Keeping an alliance despite genocide, maybe counterintuitively, makes one less trustworthy of an ally, because an alliance is an agreement, a contract to be held in good faith. There were obligations and agreements taken to not partake in such things, some even directly to the victims.
You managed to unironically demonstrate the point of the person you responded to.
I'm never leaving lemmy. I love the way it's common to see normal sane views being widely accepted. I can breathe here.
This is one of those ones that sounds rational but really isn't.
Nobody said we have to leave Israel completely in the wind. They just want weapons deliveries to stop. Other countries aren't worried about Democrats holding their alliances. They're worried the Democrats are following the Republicans down the hole and supporting extreme religious parties. You show your allies you value them by listening to them, not by vetoing their anti starvation measures in the UN for several months.
Eh there's plenty of people who want to completely abandon Israel, and I'm honestly sympathetic to their viewpoint. There's definitely people who think any violence against Israeli civilians is justified, although they're usually heavily downvoted.
I think the comment is perfectly rational when you consider these other comments.
It's really refreshing. We do have our share of crazies, as my block list can attest, but for the most part people are willing to accept that sometimes situations can be really complicated.
A lot of astroturfing bots though. :/
Oh?
Ohh.
What I really like about here is that nuance is understood and accepted. Very few people have a "bomb, baby, bomb!" approach. We largely agree that this violence is a tragic genocide and needs to stop. But we also understand the political reality in the US, and what our options are. And I think people have done a good job of successfully bringing Biden around on this.
Yeahhhh, about that, ...
Biden didn't invent the alliance to Israel, but when the conflict increased during his term he side-stepped congress to give weapons to them faster, so they can kill more civilians as quick as possible.
Don't excuse for what he has done. Biden is a war criminal. And having NATO, most powerful minitarly alliance in the World, threatened is no comparison to genocide in Gaza. NATO is a problem just as well, but Israel needs to be stopped ASAP.
Slaughter all genocidists and eat the rich
Biden did not invent our alliance with israel, but he certainly has strongly supported it for decades and decades: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86Nrv5izaTs
Calling the situation complicated and saying there is a lot of nuance has often been used as a cover for israel's campaign of terrorism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and now full-speed mask-off genocide. The official US position amounts to nothing because it's two-faced. Biden will claim he is doing what he can while he bypasses congress and otherwise sneaks weapons to israel to continue the genocide. You ask about theoretical wars while downplaying a genocide happening right now. Somehow you think caring about genocide is rash, but being paranoid about imaginary wars is rational. I don't know what your intentions are, but your post sounds like a PR piece, urging us to stay calm and take things slow so that israel can complete its mission of genocide in peace.