this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
1313 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2384 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jordan_U@lemmy.ml 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This same argument has been made throughout history.

"If we let Black people have freedom they'll murder all of the white plantation owners!"

Now, I wouldn't blame formerly enslaved people for murdering the people who enslaved them, but that didn't happen.

Aparthide in South Africa was ended without the promised (by white people) "white genocide" either.

Settler-colonial powers always think that the people they're oppressing will commit genocide, because it's what colonizers do.

The only road to true peace is full human rights for all.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If there's an argument that's going to sway me, it's the historical comparisons. I need to read more about how similar situations have ended in the past, even if a direct comparison probably isn't fully accurate.

I'm absolutely interested in a path to peace; I just don't see one right now. I don't think putting 100% of the burden of peace on Israel is reasonable or possible. Hamas still has over a hundred hostages (assuming they're still alive).

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don’t think putting 100% of the burden of peace on Israel is reasonable or possible.

Israel is the one who singlehandedly built the current status quo, going as far as to fund Hamas and support them against the PNA.

Hamas still has over a hundred hostages (assuming they’re still alive).

Because hostages are one of the few ways Hamas can get concessions (including Palestinian political prisoners) out of Israel. If Hamas doesn't have hostages Israel simply won't stop.