Most active commenters
  • YZF(3)
  • raxxorraxor(3)

←back to thread

1332 points Qem | 12 comments | | HN request time: 0.84s | source | bottom
Show context
therobots927 ◴[] No.45266704[source]
I for one will be holding my representatives responsible who continue to vote for the US to enable a genocide. The videos coming out of Gaza have turned me and many others into single issue voters.
replies(16): >>45267088 #>>45267542 #>>45267847 #>>45268465 #>>45268480 #>>45268633 #>>45268878 #>>45269034 #>>45269263 #>>45269527 #>>45269796 #>>45270181 #>>45270992 #>>45274127 #>>45275351 #>>45276704 #
beloch ◴[] No.45267542[source]
Flipping the U.S. really is the key to ending this conflict. The U.S. reliably uses its security council veto to nix any meaningful UN response and the U.S. remains, by far, the biggest supplier of arms to the IDF. If the US were to stop veto'ing everything and cut off the IDF's supply of, at least, some types of weapons, the new ground assault would likely end quickly.

Unfortunately, that isn't likely to happen. Netanyahu has, to date, handled Trump deftly and Rubio's current presence in Israel seems to be aimed at offering support to the ground offensive, not opposition. I honestly have no idea what kind of backlash it would take to shake U.S. support for this genocide.

replies(7): >>45268014 #>>45268029 #>>45268075 #>>45268495 #>>45268727 #>>45271549 #>>45285177 #
jcranmer ◴[] No.45268029[source]
There's definitely a generational gap going in the US. Support for Israel is not popular among the younger generation in the US, and there's a good deal of voters in their 20s and 30s for whom support for Israel a red line in candidates. But older generations tend to be staunchly in favor of Israel, and too much of the gerontocratic political class thinks that pro-Israel uber alles is the key to winning votes.

It is worth noting that Andrew Cuomo, in a desperate last-minute gamble to boost support in the NYC mayoral race, has come out against Israel. Considering that much of the attacks on Mamdani have focused on his support for Palestine (construing him as antisemitic), it's notable that other candidates also seem to think that being anti-Israel is actually the vote winner for moderates right now.

replies(8): >>45268343 #>>45268452 #>>45269585 #>>45269624 #>>45270752 #>>45272165 #>>45274151 #>>45282065 #
sfink ◴[] No.45268452[source]
I wouldn't label this as "support for Israel"/"against Israel". One can support Israel without supporting Israel's current approach. Many within Israel are not happy with Netanyahu's methods, and presumably they are not against Israel.

I understand that that's the current shorthand, but it seems inaccurate and unnecessarily polarizing to me.

replies(6): >>45269739 #>>45269810 #>>45271487 #>>45271646 #>>45273039 #>>45277564 #
thunky ◴[] No.45269810[source]
> One can support Israel without supporting Israel's current approach.

I think you're overthinking this. We're taking about a country committing genocide here. You either support them or you don't.

replies(3): >>45270020 #>>45270810 #>>45283995 #
SilverElfin[dead post] ◴[] No.45270810[source]
[flagged]
1. YZF ◴[] No.45272457[source]
Genocide according to the genocide convention which is what we're talking about can occur even when a single person is killed as long as there is "intent". This is why we keep seeing the reference to certain Israeli MK statements as proof of intent. So according to Israel's critics, which seems to be everyone here, because Yoav Gallant said that we'll shut the water to Gaza as a response to the Oct 7th attack the first bomb dropped on Hamas on Oct 8th constitutes genocide. There is no possibility of self defense.

What Israel's critics will add to that is that Israel has no right to self defense because it was occupying Gaza before the Oct 7th attack.

They'll also downplay the Oct 7th attack, claim Israelis killed their own, there was no sexual violence etc.

Then they'll look at the number of casualties as another proof. It's not "proportional". Israel is only allowed to kill a certain number of people in its wars. Otherwise it's clearly not self defense. But only for Israel, for other countries, still self defense.

People see bodies, children, on their social media feeds and destruction and that makes it very clear who the good guys and who the bad guys are.

Israel can't win this argument. Don't look for logic. Days after the Oct 7th attack Israel was already accused of genocide. Nothing Israel can do here is right and the actions western countries have taken (e.g. US post 9/11 or western response to ISIS) are not available to Israel because Israel shouldn't even exist and therefore should definitely not be allowed to defend itself (vs. the Americans and the Canadians who have lived on their land for 10,000 years and definitely didn't just steal it from the natives and kill all of them).

The only thing Israel can win is the actual war on the ground and so the leadership of Israel, while making many mistakes, is determined to win the war on the ground. Not all Israelis agree with that either. Personally I don't know if any other options really exist.

All that said, you can't really argue with the fact the population of Gaza is suffering immensely, many of them have lost everything they've had, many killed and injured, they live in terrible conditions. I mostly blame Hamas. I also blame the west for prolonging this war and not offering any reasonable solutions to Israel. Israel has faults and can and should do better but for the most part its hand is forced and has been forced by Palestinian violence/actions for some time. Maybe Gaza should have been taken immediately after Hamas took over in 2007. Maybe there would have been other courses of actions including post Oct 7. I donno. Oct 7th stunned me, it was an utter failure. Not really seeing anything proposed here at this point in time and don't recall seeing anything productive going back.

So all in all it's terrible. There's human suffering. We need to end it. The only way out I see is for Hamas to surrender. Let's get there and then we can debate what words mean, two states, one state, where do we go from here. This was is not going to end e.g. by the US telling Israel to end it.

replies(4): >>45272824 #>>45273419 #>>45273773 #>>45278981 #
2. raxxorraxor ◴[] No.45272824[source]
I agree and it means that the critics have part in why Israels only action is to see it through and more or less upend Hamas. And it probably will go on for many months.

With pressure on Hamas to surrender after being defeated in a war they started, this conflict would probably be over long ago.

replies(2): >>45273097 #>>45273893 #
3. goatlover ◴[] No.45273097[source]
Wild blaming Israel's critics for something the Israeli government and military are doing. How can Hamas possibly remain a threat at his point? How many tens of thousands of more Palestinians need to die? Enough is enough!
replies(2): >>45273188 #>>45283358 #
4. raxxorraxor ◴[] No.45273188{3}[source]
Pressure Hamas to surrender would have saved many people from getting killed, but only a day after Israel was attacked the criticism against Israel started. The reality is that it was not the aggressor in the latest war, which also shines light on the accusation of genocide.
5. zmgsabst ◴[] No.45273419[source]
Accused of genocide by a state in which a political party regularly lead chants and songs about murdering an ethnic minority.

I’m sure it’s not a sign of bias how often, eg, the UN writes reports on Israel versus murdered Christians in Africa.

6. shellkr ◴[] No.45273773[source]
It is sad how history repeats itself.. how the country who should have been on the forefront of preventing genocide is actually the one who does it. Israel is even using similar reasoning for continuing the fight. Similar how the Nazis in Norway was furious over the resistance there.

I think a lot would have been won if the illegal settlements stopped and the apartheid like system ended. Hamas (and any other resistance) lives on the resentment created from that.

It think if Israel went back to the border of -67 and then did not try to expand its territories. It would with time resolve.

replies(2): >>45281587 #>>45283302 #
7. shellkr ◴[] No.45273893[source]
No, I don't think it would have. Israels objective is to occupy everything as it is and have been using illegal settlements to achieve. This prolonged war and genocide of Palestinians is just an excuse to further that goal.

The oppression is the biggest reason Hamas can grow. If that stopped I think with time Hamas would weaken and disappear. Like IRA in Northen Ireland eventually did.

replies(1): >>45274548 #
8. raxxorraxor ◴[] No.45274548{3}[source]
> Israels objective is to occupy everything

Wrong. It is only their goal to occupy "everything" because they got attacked and need to secure their borders.

Israel already tried to completely withdraw from Gaza which evidently isn't a feasible solution. And this behavior, which cannot sensibly disputed, would also directly and thoroughly contradict any ambitions for genocide as well for that matter.

Israel has to leave the west bank eventually and what they do is wrong. But it is only tangentially related to the current war in Gaza.

9. martin8412 ◴[] No.45278981[source]
Hamas and the Palestinians need to capitulate in the same way Japan did in WW2. Complete surrender. Then let someone come rebuild it into a functioning country.
10. quickthrowman ◴[] No.45281587[source]
> It think if Israel went back to the border of -67 and then did not try to expand its territories. It would with time resolve.

I can’t remember, was that the third or fourth time in 20 years that all of Israel’s neighbors simultaneously invaded it and lost territory? It’s hard to keep track with all of the wars of aggression against Israel that Israel won and gained territory from.

11. YZF ◴[] No.45283302[source]
If Israel went back to the borders of 1967 it would be continuously attacked from both Gaza and the West Bank. Israel already went part way. Fully in Gaza and partially in the West Bank where it handed over territory to the PA.

What would happen is exactly what did happen. Hamas would take over the entire territory. Arm to the teeth. Dig tunnels. And launch endless attacks against Israel.

I'm not a fan of the settlements but they are not the issue. The issue is Jewish presence in the middle east. When there were no settlements Israel was attacked. Pre-1967 it was still attacked. Pre-1948 Jews were still attacked. I don't think there should be any settlements and I would support dismantling them. I also condemn the settler violence against Palestinians. But again, this isn't really the issue, this is an outcome. Israel should have either annexed the west bank and given citizenship to all Palestinians or not allowed Israeli civilians to live there.

Tell me how the Jewish people murdered German civilians, broadcasted that to the world, committed hundreds of suicide bombing attacks in German cafes, supermarkets, malls and theaters, and fired 20,000 rockets at major German cities. Just so I can complete your analogy in my head. Also explain to me how what Israel is doing in Gaza to Palestinians is in any way comparable to the Nazis murdering six million Jews by rounding them up, loading them on trains to concentration camps, and then packing them in gas chambers. How does this compare with Israel targeting Hamas combatants, evacuating civilians population, and providing them with aid?

12. YZF ◴[] No.45283358{3}[source]
I agree that today Hamas isn't a huge threat.

However it still has considerable weaponry and underground facilities and it is still holding Israeli hostages. The issue isn't Hamas tomorrow. The issue is the consequence of letting Hamas retake the entire Gaza strip and rebuild itself, and the loss of deterrence when Hamas is going to declare they won the war once it ends on their terms.

I can relate to your point though and many people would agree with you. Let's stop killing people and see where this takes us is not an unreasonable position. But Israel is still in PTSD from Oct 7th and the mood is that it can't afford to take a chance here and that any stop/pause will just result in a higher price for Israelis and Palestinians paid a little down the line. The truly totally "unreasonable" side here is Hamas and I see how you can't understand their calculus because it is so death-cult fanatical.