this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
228 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18894 readers
4024 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 71 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Israel wanted this to happen. The US wasn't the only warning they got.

And the civilians are the ones who suffer.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 57 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Israel

No, the Netanyahu regime wanted it to happen. We hold leaders responsible for their own decisions, rather than blaming a nationality.

[–] Why9@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

I agree with you. I do.

But where the hell does that logic go when it's not American political allies in the firing line?

When Saddam allegedly had WMDs and Al-Qaida did 9/11, why were all Muslims everywhere suddenly terrorists?

When COVID was allegedly sourced from a lab in China, why were all Chinese people being targeted, attacked and killed on US streets?

Now that we're talking about Israel, everyone's suddenly so protective of exactly who the fingers should be pointed at. Saddam never did have WMDs. The upper echelons of Saudi Arabia were behind 911. There's no proof that COVID came from a lab in China, but those generalisations are often justified, because "look at how many they've killed!".

I agree with you, that it really is Netenyahu's regime that wants this. There are many, many Israeli's all over the world who are condemning Israel's actions in this war, in much the same way that Muslims have spoken out against terrorism for years, and Chinese people called for the hate crimes to cease.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

why were all Muslims everywhere suddenly terrorists?

They weren't. The people who said they were, were being shitty people.

why were all Chinese people being targeted, attacked and killed on US streets?

This was actually really rare, and while it was terrible where it happened, it's a mistake to pretend that it was at all common, typical, or accepted.


As an analogy that may be even more contentious: Rape happens. It's bad. When it does, it's usually a man raping a woman. But it's a mistake to say that all men rape all women; and anyone saying that men are all rapists is expressing their own trauma, not the truth.

People are real. Nations and other interest groups are kinda fake.

[–] Reality_Suit@lemmy.one 3 points 11 months ago

Because of ignorant hateful people who exist in every part of the world. Remember, there were a lot of Americans against the war. Same fucking racism exists everywhere. How many countries are run by the native population? The problem is the inbred old wealth. The few groups of people across the world convincing people who are not wealthy that the poor are the problem.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 1 points 11 months ago

Information is a lot easier to come by nowadays. When Saddam allegedly had WMDs and Al-Qaida did 9/11, most people were still getting newspapers and watching the evening news on TV. If you wanted to hear viewpoints outside of the MSM you had to really dig for them.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You might have a point if the majority of Israelis didn't keep voting for the fucker.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 48 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Dude. My country elected Donald Trump, but that doesn't make me a Cheeto.

[–] PoastRotato@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is a valid point, but to be fair, the majority of Americans didn't vote for Donald Trump

[–] paintbucketholder@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

And only 23 percent of Israelis voting in the last elections voted for Netanyahu.

That's only half as much as Trump got in the popular vote in 2016.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

More importantly, more voters who actually voted voted for the other candidate.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I said "keep voting", the majority see nothing wrong with Bibi's treatment of the Palestinians, although they'll be calling for blood after his failure to keep them safe.

The US kicked the tires on a Trump presidency and decided one term was more than enough.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 11 months ago

Actually, we impeached him twice because of how bad he was.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I mean to be fair a majority of Americans never elected Donald Trump but because some people votes literally matter more than others he still won the election

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Your country has been a long time ally and supporter of Israel. Almost all voters consistently choose parties which support this. It's one of the justifications Bin Laden gave for 9/11.

I know this is controversial in some parts of the fediverse, but I don't agree with groups like Al Qaeda.

I find it shocking how often you'll read comments echoing that logic, and suggesting that civilians deserve to die for the crimes of their government or leader, simply because they were born on the wrong side of a border.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

23.41% of the electorate voted for Likud in the last election.

The right wing bloc led by Netenyahu did not win a majority of votes in the election either.

In part due to a rule change, a few smaller anti-Netenyahu parties didn't gain enough votes to meet the electoral threshold, which is why Netenyahu's bloc gained a majority in the Knesset despite gaining less than 50% of the vote.

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Israelis have been voting for increasingly far right politicians for years. The plain truth is that many of them are extremely comfortable with their government's brutal treatment of the Palestinians. I'm certainly not attacking every Israeli voter, many don't support their countries' policies but enough do for it to continue.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You said that a majority of Israelis voted for Netenyahu. This is not true.

The plain truth is that many of them are extremely comfortable with their government’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians.

Earlier today I decided to read some opinion pieces in Haareetz. I kept reading comments similar to yours, and was wondering what actual Israelis think. Hareetz is a paper of record and luckily also available in English.

I'll copy paste a few excerpts I found interesting. Hope you do to.


These were human beings whom Israel dispossessed and expelled, whom it conquered again in their land of refuge and then turned into animals in a cage. They’ve experienced indiscriminate bombardments before, but now the worst of all is ahead of them. Israel has already announced that all the restraints it supposedly used in previous attacks will be lifted this time. Yes, hundreds of Gazans committed atrocious crimes, an outgrowth of 17 years of blockade and 75 years of suffering, with a bloody past and no present or future. But not all of a Gaza is to blame.

This:

Consequently, this needs to be said: Israel has held millions of people under a brutal blockade for more than 15 years with the support of the entire Western world. That is inhumane and inconceivable, and every solution to this bloody conflict ultimately includes respecting the rights of all people, both in Gaza and Sderot, to live with security and human dignity. And that begins with respecting the most basic rules as set down in the international laws of war, which are designed to reduce the harm to civilians.

Or this:

Ironically, those who cheer Hamas's deeds, believing they're advancing the Palestinian agenda, are inadvertently supporting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's long-term strategy: the existence of Hamas ensures there will be no Palestinian state. More so, it eliminates any chance of dialogue, especially with Palestinians and Israelis already committed to end the occupation. These are dark times: the fear of a catastrophe waiting to unfold. Israelis still don’t know the fate of their loved ones, everyday Palestinians are trying to survive under an all-out Israeli attack, the Israeli government and Hamas, both corrupt and bloodthirsty

[–] expected_crayon@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

Article makes it sound like they expected just the typical barrage of rockets rather than the invasion that occurred. I’m not convinced this is evidence Israel wanted the attack - with the Iron Dome they likely had sufficient protections against rockets. Neither this nor the reported Egyptian warning appear to have provided details to make one expect what was essentially a ground invasion.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 19 points 11 months ago (4 children)

As I wrote 8n another string...

Those assessments, if true, were certainty shared with the Israelis. Problem is that there is no actionable intelligence, but certainly Israel could have moved up its security posture. The same thing happened on 9/11 when Rice was advised and did nothing to upgrade security as she was NSA.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

For some governments they view the break out of violence as an opportunity.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There is no justification for terrorism. There is no justification for a government wishing violence on its citizens. Both of these concepts should be easy to agree with.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 2 points 11 months ago

You forgot about money and racism, which is all the justification that Netanyahu and his ghouls need.

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

Wait, I'm confused. Can you tell me though which of the sides is "my people?" Then I'll know whether it's justified.

/s :-(

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The same thing happened on 9/11 when Rice was advised and did nothing to upgrade security as she was NSA.

Yeah but even if the US had decided to increase security, I doubt it would have really prevented highjackers from seizing the planes.

The biggest difference is that netanyahus failed to move security forces back to the border, keeping them preoccupied with protecting the illegal settlements. More than likely this wouldn't have been possible, or at least nearly as bad if the current administration wasn't so fixated on the settlements.

[–] fubo@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Arguably, preventing violence against illegal settlers is a higher priority for the Netanyahu regime than preventing violence against innocent civilians, because illegal settlers are reliable Netanyahu supporters and innocent civilians are not.

It's standard neofascist strategy. Trump, Modi, Orban, Putin, etc. would do the same.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

That's kinda my theory as well, his regime and Hamas are codependent on each other being willing to escalate violence to maintain their hold on power.

I believe that bibi probably thought there would eventually be some escalation that he could utilize to consolidate power, I just don't think it was going to be quite as large or effective.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Used to travel quite a lot. Before 9/11 when you landed in say Germany you would get eyes on you from the time you left the plane. There was always security with machine guns. Don't know if that would have given al Queida pause, but it would have been something instead of nothing.

As for Bibi, he'll be gone as soon as the war is over. It's happened before in Israel.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Used to travel quite a lot. Before 9/11 when you landed in say Germany you would get eyes on you from the time you left the plane. There was always security with machine guns. Don't know if that would have given al Queida pause, but it would have been something instead of nothing.

Really? I'm an old fart as well, and I don't ever recall ever seeing security armed with machine guns pre 9/11, especially in Europe.

Though I guess it depends on how far back you're talking. If it's early 90's or late 80s it might make more sense, there were more than a couple odd terrorist groups active in the western part of Germany back then that may have juiced up security.

[–] bufordt@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

Lived in Germany in the 80s, flew in and out of the Frankfurt airport every year. There was a bombing there in 85, and for years after that there were people with automatic weapons in the airport.

We flew out of Frankfurt a couple days after the bombing. It was a bit tense.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think things changed after the 72 Munich Olympics. The subtle part was the cleaning crew that always seemed to be cleaning your gate and giving you the once over. The not so subtle part was fully strapped security officers. I suppose things might of changed with the travel databases.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

Ahh, yea the 70s to about mid 80s was the golden age of plane highjacking. Your visit may have been after the Lufthansa highjacking in 77' by the PLO. Germany had a massive increase in security after that lasted until the early 90s.

The last time I was in Germany pre 9/11 was around 97 I think? They had relaxed on the security by then, at least for transatlantic flights. Sometimes I forget how crazy the late 80s and early 90a were in Europe.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago

Worse, they actually lowered security because their soldiers were too busy evicting and killing civilians in the West Bank.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


None of the American assessments offered any tactical details or indications of the overwhelming scope, scale and sheer brutality of the operation that Hamas carried out on October 7, sources say.

But the assessments were among a wave of high-level warnings given to the Biden administration by both its own intelligence community and Middle Eastern allies over the past year, raising questions about whether the US and Israel were appropriately attuned to the risk.

A Middle Eastern ambassador in Washington, DC, also told CNN that their government had repeatedly warned the White House and US intelligence officials of a buildup of Hamas weapons and anger among Palestinians that was set to explode.

But US officials also believe that Israel had become complacent about the threat Hamas posed and failed to recognize key indicators that the group was planning for a large-scale operation.

Israel believed that its policy of offering work permits to Gazans and allowed Qatari money into the country had given Hamas something to lose — and lulled the group into quiescence.

“Hamas is very, very restrained and understands the implications of further defiance,” Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel’s national security adviser, told an Israeli radio channel six days before the assault.


The original article contains 1,278 words, the summary contains 201 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

Benny is fucked.