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 want to be clear on my position so that you don't argue against something else: I'm not arguing that Israel is in any way justified for their actions of apartheid or their retaliation.
I'm arguing Hamas isn't going to be happy if the apartheid ends. They want not just the state of Israel destroyed but all Jews dead. Not a few members here or there but the super majority. Claiming that this is just about apartheid is pretending that there isn't a genocidal goal. That predates the apartheid. It's what caused Israel to start the apartheid in the first place. It's a feedback loop. The tighter they squeeze the more martyrs they make. The less the squeeze the more they risk being genocided. It's a no win situation. Until one side kills the other, per each's own view of manifest destiny, this will not end.
The culmination of the apartheid is the expulsion of Palestinians from 1947, the martial law and military rule on the Palestinians within Israel proper since 1948, the decision to occupy and settle the west bank and Gaza strip in 1967, and the development of military control and maintenance of the apartheid in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to this day. Hamas emerged in 1988 from the first Intifada, after 21 years of Israeli Occupation. If there was no occupation, there wouldn't be any resistance to occupation.
What do you mean it predates the apartheid? That's a revisionist history of the founding of Israel. Perhaps you're referencing the Azzam Pasha misquote (Haaretz on misquote) or the slogan From the river to the sea which is no call for genocide. Plus, there were no military plans by the Arab Legion either for genocide. In fact, Ben-Gurion and King Abdullah colluded to partition Palestinian territory. Maybe you mean The Grand Mufti and Nazi Propaganda Time, Haaretz, WaPo, yet he had quickly dwindling support after his expulsion and visit to Nazi Germany. After all, 12,000 Palestinians fought against Nazi Germany in WWII: Haaretz, JPost, a magnitude more than his Personal Holy War Army.
On the other hand, The Concept of Transfer goes back to 1882 by Zionist Leaders. As during the British Mandate, Forced Displacement by the unofficial Transfer Committee and the JNF led to 100,000 displaced Palestinians. Which continue today 972mag, MEE, Haaretz. Leading to the development of Plan Dalet which included hundreds of (Declassified) Massacres. (Details of Plan C (May 1946) and Plan D (March 1948) )
While Ben-Gurion was advocating for partition to acquire as much palestinian land as possible, the Palestinian leadership repeatedly argued to a unitary binational state.
This rhetoric that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and apartheid are the fault of Palestinians out of self defense is a deliberate tactic to dehumanize Palestinians and justify the collective punishment and ongoing enthnic cleansing. Whether you know it or not.
Palestinian Arab Congress advocating for Unified State 1928
Peel Commission Report and Memorandum of the Arab Higher Committee advocating for Unified State 1937
History of peace process
10 Myths of Israel
Palestine and Israel: Mapping an annexation
If your intent is to give me hours worth of reading by link spamming then I have some bad news for you. I'm not reading all that.
Have you listened to season one of the Martyr Made Podcast? It does a pretty decent job of covering the early 20th century reinvention of Israel long before the 40s. And the baby steps of the apartheid in the later half of that century. Anyway, you keep avoiding my question so I'm going to assume you aren't arguing in good faith. You have just one side you are willing to discuss and anything on the intent of the other side is something you dodge. You aren't having a conversation. You are pushing an agenda. And I just don't have time for that.
If you click the history link you'll see even more sources about both sides of the conflict. You can look at any of the sources to learn more. If you want a genuine history of the conflict, I suggest you look at the works by new Historians Ilan Pappe, Rashid Khalidi, or Avi Shlaim. Why would I listen to a podcast over the works of actual Historians on the subject.
Genocide is neither the historical goal, the official goal, the stated goal of the Oct 7th attack, or within the means of Hamas. It's a bad question. And it ignores the will of Palestinians too, which you can see from the polls I also linked.
You spent all that time compiling all those resources and you expect me to believe that you wouldn't be interested? That's straining credibility.
Try listening to the first 7 minutes of the first episode. A person would have to be defective to not be instantly interested in more.
https://www.martyrmade.com/podcast-parts/1-fear-and-loathing-in-the-new-jerusalem
I looked at the episode synopsis list. I can't tell who's making the podcasts or their credibility. From the look of it doesn't seem as in-depth as I would expect, I don't see a mention of settler Colonialism. Maybe it's a good place to start. But if that's where you learned (falsely) that Palestinians have been wanting genocide, while also leaving out all the other events I referenced; sorry but I don't consider it a good source compared to actual Historians that have exhaustively researched all this. Personally, I recommend the work of Ilan Pappe. He uses Israeli sources, Arab sources, official Israeli documentation, and oral history to show a very comprehensive and detailed history of the conflict. The book A History of Two Peoples has a lot of information since the early Zionists settlements in the 1920s. He also has multiple books on audible if you'd prefer to listen than read.
You failed to understand the assignment.
Well if you're interested in learning more, you have plenty of places to start
And, apparently, if you don't want to learn more you have plenty of excuses. You'd love the opening because it fully supports your view but instead of exploring a few minutes of audio you decided to do research to confirm that you don't know anything about it and dismissed it without even trying it.