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
Was there an act? I thought she's known to be fairly pro-Israel (or pro-Zionist I guess)
Wouldn't matter. As a matter of policy the US is always going to honor its defense commitments to Israel. We're never going to leave them defenseless against Iran or Hamas. But a commitment to humanitarian aid and an acknowledgement that their current actions constitute genocide would be nice for laying the groundwork to apply some pressure.
What Israel is doing in Gaza stopped being "defense" a long time ago.
What Isreal is doing in Gaza is inexcusable, particularly doing it with our guns.
But the above poster is right, the US would never drop them. Isreal is too important to the US MIC for maintaining control in the middle east. If we abandoned Isreal, neighboring countries would (with good justification) most likely ally to invade them, led by Iran. Then the US has to deal with an allied ME bloc, possibly backed by Russia, China, or both.
Really, the US is pouring money and arms into its own "defense" via Isreal as proxy. We should step in to stop them being genocidal, but I think the worry is that we'd just stir up a bigger shitstorm if we tried to actually deploy.
Not that it's going to matter soon since Iran ramping up aggression will "force" the US to step in.
Israel is not important whatsoever. If anything we currently have to subdue Egypt and provide Saudi Arabia with nukes just to appease israel.
a.k.a Israel is the keystone of US imperialism. but so Called American "leftists" are fine with their own imperialism, otherwise they will loose all other privileges over the rest of the world.
Their current actions have crossed the line, I would agree. That doesn't mean we would leave them without defense against future attacks. It's all a bunch of fucking nuance where it seems like just do the right fucking thing would be easy but it turns out not because without US support Israel would get wiped off the map and we don't want that for both moral and geopolitical reasons. It's a fucking mess.
(Edit: just skip this and read Codex's response. Similar idea, but it's better in every way and with 100% less fucking swearing.)
They have nukes, ffs. They're plenty defended, and they don't need us enabling Netanyahu's genocide in order to continue defending themselves.
A colonialist country is blind to colonialism.
It's actually useful to consider a distinction between pro-Israel and pro-Zionist. The difference is being able to stand with the Israeli peace protestors and against the ultra-orthodox faction and Netanyahu in their attempts to aggressively expand and consolidate land. Similar to the ability to stand with innocent Palestinians and against hamas.
It's a specific position that tries to muddy those waters, trying to paint all Israelis as evil invaders regardless of whether they were born there or not, or whether they support the war or not, and hamas as some sort of freedom fighters despite their own oppression and weaponization of the Palestinian people. If you think about it, this is pretty obviously a pro-war position that tries to justify violence and warfare against one particular group of people, though, on the basis of the sins of their ancestors, not necessarily anything they themselves are guilty of. (Beyond being born in the wrong place.)
People should not be punished for the wrongs committed by others, and this includes both innocent Israelis and innocent Palestinians. If someone is unwilling to recognize that either innocent Israelis or innocent Palestinians even exist in the modern day, then that should be a red flag.
Anti-zionism is literally calling for the dismantlement of the Israeli state and all the violent horror that would entail. What Israel is doing in Gaza right now is also horrific, should be condemned, and in no way justified, but the idea that the solution to that problem is to put millions of innocent people under control of an organization which openly states their desire to exterminate them, is insane. It's literally just information warfare, because no honest geopolitical observer could possibly fine it palatable. To believe that Israeli citizens would just stand by and allow themselves to fall under the thumb of a self avowed Islamist extermination cult without vigorously defending themselves is simple fantasy. There is no reality where that creates a peaceful resolution. Anyone seriously calling for that should be assumed to favor incredible violence against Israeli citizens, which is precisely why it is a position which has been historically linked to white supremacists. And is why literally nobody else was seriously espousing such ideas this time last year
Sure. The problem is that pro-Zionism has become associated with Israeli takeover of Gaza and the West Bank, including all the blood involved. Zionism is not just Israel, but Israeli expansion now.
So, a more Zion-neutral position that involves neither the destruction nor the expansion of Israel might be preferable to some.
There is no difference between pro israel and pro Zionist. They're literally the same thing.
With her pick of Walz instead of Shapiro and her comment of "not staying silent" there was some slight hope she'd be willing to push back and use real leverage against israel.
Then again, it is a bit ridiculous to expect a career politician who obtained her position by stabbing Palestinians in the back to suddenly grow a backbone and do the right thing after reaching the top.