this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
573 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2102 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago (3 children)

So we should abandon diplomacy precisely when it is needed most? When we withdraw our support and Iran and Egypt join the conflict, will it be easier to stomach the killing of even more children in more nations? After we cede our influence in the middle east and China expands its influence to fill the vacuum, we will be able to honor our treaty with Taiwan after an emboldened China begins bombing and killing their children?

This is the macabre calculus of geopolitics. This is the risk of reactionary policy. All of this is a hypothetical worse case scenario, but one thing is certain: if we withdraw our support, Israel will lose any incentive to stop the killing. More will die. And that would be the best case scenario.

[–] index@sh.itjust.works 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

diplomacy

To send israel government "whatever it needs" and additional aid is the opposite of diplomacy. The really reason they are getting away with a genocide is because they have the west backing.

There's a genocide happening right now under your nose where thousand of kids are getting killed, this is already the worst case scenario. They are doing exactly what they want to do, they are not seeking diplomacy they want war.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world -5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think...this is more complicated than a clear cut black and white choice. Not killing is clearly the correct response. Thing is how do we get there? Do we attempt to send in troops to police a location half a planet away? You know people will support that while also pointing out other conflicts we should be "dealing with" and pointing casually to situations we've made usually worse by stepping into.

That's not really the point though. The point is the support being given.

I agree that the sales of arms to any institution inflicting harm on another is, at the absolute best, a grey area on a good day. It seems to me though that in a conflict that is powered by ideology, this legitimately makes no real difference. It will happen whether we break off the relationship or not. Because of this, it is best to attempt to utilize that relationship to attempt to diplomatically stop the conflict. The alternatives are send in forces which will increase regional political strain and possibly ignite a larger conflict, or do absolutely, irrefutably nothing.

If there is a fourth decision that leads to a better outcome I am not wise enough to see it. What I do understand is that all relationships require some give in order to have some take. I don't agree with any weapons being sent over, though I do believe they made zero real impact on the result. This was going to happen and I feel attempting to stop it without escalation was the right choice, because it usually is the right choice.

Anyway, chances are the situation is far more complex than we realize. 50/50 on me being wrong, which is fine, opinions can change. Diplomacy should always take precedence over added conflict though.

[–] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Diplomacy should always take precedence over added conflict though.

Then we should start doing diplomacy and actually put pressure on Netanyahu to stop the genocide.

Until then we aren’t doing diplomacy we are appeasing a genocide of at this point probably ~50,000 Palestinians.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

When Israel kills all Palestinians the problem is diplomatically solved!

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 5 points 8 months ago

This would be funnier if it wasn't unironically what some are advocating.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm probably more ignorant than I realize, though I am under the understanding that there has been increasing levels of pressure. Netanyahu just doesn't care.

[–] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Its ok to be ignorant, but you have to understand we are talking about this like it is an unpaid loan or some material bullshit.

This is an entire people and their landscape being erased. Every moment of "increasing pressure" that doesn't create material policy change is horrifically extending hell on earth.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Right and next Satan is going to tap dance on your kitchen counter.