103

Truthdig.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 9 points 11 months ago

The reason is right there in the article, but glossed over. Th US UN Ambassador complained of no inclusion of Israel's right to defense. This is a reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter which reads:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Basic stuff.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Obviously, all those other countries can’t read and didn’t know what they were voting on. Was it all an elaborate plan to make the US look bad on the world stage? Or maybe America just throws it’s weight around and does what it wants. Then, justifies it after the fact. Kind of like your comment. Basic stuff.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago

Obviously every country deserves the rights in the UN Charter except for Israel is closer to what you mean.

[-] cfbundy@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

The bombing and forced migration of a captive civilian population is not self defense. It is the textbook definition of genocide.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago

How would you deal with Hamas? I know what you don't want to do, but what would you do given Hamas uses human shields. Would you try to get those shields to move?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Maybe improve the the material conditions of the average Palestinian with an influx of money to make Hamas obsolete?

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 4 points 11 months ago

This will not stop Hamas or Israel

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

The other option is if one side becomes extinct.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

It’s the only thing that will stop both.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago

War is immenat. Promises are dependant on long term goals.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

If Blackrock went into Gaza and invested into a bank for the people of Palestine. This war would end real quick.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago
[-] cfbundy@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

You sound like you actively want war

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 11 months ago

I actively understand reality

[-] cfbundy@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

Keep telling yourself that! Youd take the word of a US diplomat over the combined voices of the rest of the international community. You must understand very little indeed

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago

The rest of the international community ...

[-] cfbundy@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago

I would understand that Hamas is a symptom of the repression and poverty of Palestinians, and endeavour towards a diplomatic two state solution.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 3 points 11 months ago

That is the same as saying al Qaeda was a symbol of oppression. It's not true.

[-] cfbundy@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Hamas and al Qaeda are not equivalent. One is the democratically represented governent of a people. However unpalatable their motives, they must be taken seriously, because they are the only game in town. Ignoring them, as Israel and the Western governments have, will lead them resorting to violence to be heard.

Al Qaeda are fringe radicals committed to religious war. They will always choose violence, and there is no point negotiating with them.

Conflating the two is a mistake, rooted in ignorance.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago

Oh? And when was the last time Hamas was elected?

[-] cfbundy@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

More often than Palestinians have been able to vote for the Israeli leadership, i.e. never.

"Khaled Mashaal, its leader, has publicly affirmed the movement's readiness to accept the borders of 1967. When Hamas won a majority in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Haniyeh, the then president-elect, sent messages both to George W. Bush and to Israel's leaders, asking to be recognized and offering a long-term truce (hudna), along the 1967 border lines. No response came."

"In November 2011, Hamas leader Khaled Mishal made an agreement with Mahmoud Abbas in Cairo, in which he committed to respecting the 1967 borders."

"In February 2012, according to the Palestinian authority, Hamas forswore the use of violence. Evidence for this was provided by an eruption of violence from Islamic Jihad in March 2012 after an Israeli assassination of a Jihad leader, during which Hamas refrained from attacking Israel. "Israel—despite its mantra that because Hamas is sovereign in Gaza it is responsible for what goes on there—almost seems to understand," wrote Israeli journalists Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, "and has not bombed Hamas offices or installations".

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)

Of course there should be more elections in Palestine. But there should be a Palestine first, something that Israel's actions are not facilitating.

[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 11 months ago

In other words, Hamas has never been elected.

load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
103 points (88.7% liked)

politics

18888 readers
3204 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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