this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
199 points (90.9% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2831 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
 

A pro-Palestinian rally Sunday in Times Square endorsed by the city chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America ensnared prominent party members amid widespread condemnation of the event.

Gov. Kathy Hochul and other leading Democrats blasted the rally as “abhorrent and morally repugnant” and drew a dividing line with far-left members of the party — including New York Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal Bowman, who denounced the attacks and called for a ceasefire but didn’t take a stand on the rally.

“I condemn Hamas’ attack in the strongest possible terms,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement. “No child and family should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing oppression and occupation in the region. An immediate ceasefire and de-escalation is urgently needed to save lives.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No no, the peace process failed. What Gaza has now (which isn't a lot considering... y'know) is a result of the Second Intifada that came after.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What they have is because of a good faith effort by Israeli's left wing parties to broker a "prove-it" peace deal in Gaza. In Gaza, they gave up every single demand that Palestine had for the West Bank as a whole as a way to prove domestically that such an outcome would lead to peace.

So tell me, what did Palestine demand in the Oslo Accords that they didn't get in the Gaza deal?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So first, I can't actually find anything about that deal. Also one of Palestine's demands was sovereignty over the entire West Bank and Gaza strip, which is obviously not what's happening now, off the top of my head.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What do you mean you can't find anything about that deal! Did you Google it, the info is easily findable.

Also one of Palestine's demands was sovereignty over the entire West Bank and Gaza strip,

They got it over the Gaza strip!

The 2004 deal was orchestrated by the left wing coalition I'm Israel. They said if we go down the path of the Oslo Accords, down a 2 state solution path, there will be peace. Gaza was their way to prove it.

The second infintada was an objective failure for Gaza. It's what caused their border with Egypt to be closed, and the Blockade to be put in place. It stopped millions of cross border employees from the West Bank and Gaza which further impoverished the Palestinian people. It's led to a whole generation of Israeli school children with PTSD from constant rocket attacks who will likely never support Pro-Palestinian policies. It's also marked the turning point in US polling where the majority of Americans. Additionally, because both Democrat Bill Clinton (Oslo Accords, that Palestine pulled out of) and Republican George Bush (Gaza Strip Deal) had invested significant political capital on pushing Israel to accept concessions in return for peace it also marked the beginning of an era in American politics where no Palestinian leader could be seen as trustworthy, and since then no President or party has made peace between Israel and Palestine a focus of their administrations.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The 2004 deal was orchestrated by the left wing coalition I’m Israel. They said if we go down the path of the Oslo Accords, down a 2 state solution path, there will be peace. Gaza was their way to prove it.

Oh you're talking about the disengagement? If so I can't find any info about a deal; it was a unilateral Israeli decision, and I suggest you read about the reason it was proposed because it's... Not because they discovered a sudden love for peace and democracy.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago

It's because the West, specifically the US, was pushing for a peace deal. Clinton with the Oslo Accords and Bush with Gaza. The Cold War was over and we wanted to stop spending money in the Middle East. That's why we bought the support of the Saudis with Desert Storm, that's why we woo'ed Egypt and Jordan with sweetheart military supply deals. That's why we continue to toss money at Lebanon in foreign aid.

The terrorism that followed convinced the American body-politic that Palestine couldn't be negotiated with and public support for Israel has remained aajority opinion in the US ever since.