334
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
334 points (92.8% liked)
politics
18956 readers
5224 users here now
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.
- 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Quite disappointed with Sen. Sanders on this one considering his general stance. Barack Obama had a better understanding here:
How about Israel stop bombing civilians so that Hamas doesn't get new recruits? Does it really not occur to them that 7000+ civilians killed is going to radicalize more youth. Especially since Gaza's demographic is mostly youngsters due to past conflicts killing off those who survive for longer.
It's quite clear that in this conflict, the following people have all the gain: Netanyahu who wants to prolong the war to keep corruption charges and an ouster at bay, by winning favor with Israel conservative fundamentalists; Hamas who successfully intervened when relations were about to be mended with the Saudis, Israel, and a few other countries; Putin, whom the U.S is funding against in the conflict with Ukraine; U.S. war manufacturers that supply the missiles to Israel.
Edit: Fixed some typos and an incorrect negation
Edit2: It's been pointed out to me that there was a wild misrepresentation of what Sanders said. My faith is restored. Thankfully it was I who foolishly fell for this clickbait.
If you ever read a headline about Bernie and are disappointed in what he said, it's a pretty good chance he said some other stuff too that got left out.
Just because the headline doesn't have him also criticizing Netanyahu, doesn't mean he's suddenly supporting him.
Agree with you. I was browsing when out on a weekend and fell for the clickbait.
The problem with his idea is that Hamas actively refuses the two state solution and has been doing so violently for decades. That's their whole thing.
And then you've got Netanyahu on the other side. Which... You know
The PLO called for the elimination of Israel as well. That changed after the first intifada and it's the closest we've ever been to peace. This is a different and much more fraught situation, though. I don't expect conciliation on the part of Hamas after this.
I mean at this point the two state solution is entirely a political fiction. Bibi has seen to it with his support of the settlers in WB.
Only shot now is to fold in everyone and turn it into the Confederation of Jerusalem. Expose the extremists of both sides to electoral accountability from the tired masses they try to demonize now that they're voting members of the public too.
The CNN article seems to be cherry-picking his statements. This is his op-ed on the topic which is much more in-depth:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/01/gaza-humanitarian-pause-bernie-sanders
Yeah you need to actually read what he said.
Gaza doesn't have a young population because the old people died in fighting, Gaza has a young population because its birth rate is insane.
I mean, at this point, just stopping the bombing isn't going to stop giving Hamas recruits, because people will remember the bombings and other things already done, and will remember for a long time, and Hamas is certainly going to milk them for all they can get. Continuing the bombing makes things much worse of course, but just stopping by itself isn't all that's needed for peace, just the start. Which is what I suspect he's getting at based on some of the context other people have replied, a cease-fire that just returns things to how they were before the current elevated level of conflict isn't viable, because the same conditions would exist that led to what is going on now, and so it would just happen again sometime later.