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'm wondering just how damageable in terms of geopolitics would a deterioration of relations with Israel be. Cause it has to be huge to justify not acting on this genocide. What stops Biden/US from acting ? what can I read to better understand this issue ?
the US sees Israel as the only thing it can control in the middle east. it was always meant to be one of a few "pro-democracy beachheads" in the area, with the US attempting to make iraq work the same way in the 2000s. The idea was to put Israel in a position where they were powerful compared to their enemies but dependent on foreign aid, so that they could do whatever they want as long as they also did whatever we want. This is straight out of the British post-colonial hegemonic playbook - you don't send people to take over, and instead you elevate one local group from second or third place to the top and then make sure they never develop enough power that they can remain on top without your help. If you do this successfully, you can control them completely because all you have to do to send them tumbling from power is nothing when they're counting on your support.
Up until now, the impact of helping Israel didn't have to be all that massive because the impact of Israeli violence against Palestinians (edit: ON THE OPINION OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN) wasn't either. What you're seeing is a replay of the US allowing anyone with a camera to report from Vietnam - the narrative used to be pretty tightly controlled but between Palestinian social media updates and Israel's internal jingoistic propaganda being leaked to the western world it's becoming harder and harder to sustain the whole 'most moral army in the world engaged in a limited defensive operation that respects the right of all law-abiding people to live in peace' narrative. We see them shooting at people gathered around aid trucks now. We hear them talking about "children of light vs children of darkness", "every Palestinian is a terrorist because they all support Hamas" and seizing all of Palestine to build beachfront condos. Americans tend to like war in theory, but we have a strong sense of fair play and we'll only stay on board up to a certain amount of video of unarmed people being mowed down by soldiers. This is why they're simultaneously softening their position on Palestine and moving to seize the only major social media outlet that isn't US-based (and therefore isn't able to be pressured about 'misinformation' the way that FB, X, reddit, etc are). It's a matter of appeasing us in order to stay in power now while moving behind the scenes to ensure that they control the narrative in future so that they're never again put in a position where they're beholden to the will of voters who think that foreign people are people.
point one is also why the chosen rhetoric in opposition of the genocide is targeted at Netanyahu specifically rather than the entire administration, because rather than loosing relations with Israel as a country, the US wants to oust Netanyahu and have someone else they support take his place. That way they can keep their post-colonial pet in the middle east without looking like they're (still) supporting a genocide.
The problems with this, though, are:
you're absolutely right. nothing good ever happens just because it's good, and this is no different. brandon is currently trying to figure out a way to keep power in both America and the middle east, and built into the british model for post-settler-colonial hegemony is the precise lever that he's trying to pull. Namely "either you quit fucking this up for me or I'll fuck everything up for you so badly that you'll cease to exist"
Whoever buys that land to make those needs to be harassed for the rest of their lives. That's absolute scum of the earth bullshit. Religion and real estate all in one gigantic shit storm... Literally the worst humanity has to offer.
Jared Kushner I believe is the one who suggested displacing Palestinians to build luxury buildings and vacation hotspots.
So yeah, pretty much absolute scum of the earth. He can't be allowed near the White House ever again.
Thanks a bunch. Yeah that makes a lot of sense
Which was historically just a way to prolong defeat. I wonder why don't Israelis see that they are going to end up like Rhodesia, if they don't choose some other strategy of existence for themselves.
Well, they may succeed, it happens.
If it is about Israel being the one thing the US can control in the middle east, I wonder then if this is not the US realizing it is losing control of their asset.
Israel uses a significant amount of the $$ the US gives them to lobby (IOW, bribe) members of the US political parties to support them. Including giving them more $$, in a positive feedback loop. The lobbied polits in effect give themselves money along with what Israel keeps.
This is the answer. Everything else may have been more true in the past. But the lobby has become so entrenched, that this is the answer.
Alright thanks for the clarification
From my understanding, we need good relations with israel to have a stable military oresence in the middle east
I see. Appreciate the clarification
Are red or blue going to lose the elections? They are making money and expanding their power why should they stop?
It would be terrible for the West
We would have to permanently ship around the cape of Africa and abandon oil based economies
It also brings about a large issue for future wars due to strategic positioning
And allies won’t trust the US to defend them so you’re better off aligning with Russia or China
Abandoning oil based economies is good.
Yes but when so much especially militarily relies on it, there is a big transition period where you/Europe/East Asia are vulnerable and hoping that Texas is enough
I am pro nuclear but I realize the biggest problem with it is that it is a military target