Somehow it’s supposed to be a revelation that Hamas feeds lies to journalists? And that it threatens Palestinian journalists (and maybe sometimes harms them)? And is this supposed to somehow make it okay that Israel also threatens (and definitely harms) Palestinian journalists?
For those of us who are more troubled by the lack of actual, meaningful solutions that would dramatically improve lives of Palestinians in Gaza, and less by the need to call for actions that would do little more than assuage our moral consciences – what are the solutions that you’d like to see implemented, if/when both the Trump and Netanyahu administrations no longer stand in the way of meaningful progress?
It is a somewhat rhetorical question, because I view the current political reality as an impasse to a meaningful action. Insisting that something must be done! on moral grounds is facile. Nobody with a shred of humanity disagrees.
It is only if the Netanyahu government is toppled in the coming election and replaced by a more moderate administration that things can begin to improve for Gazans. It is only when/if the Trump administration is replaced by reasonable adults that the US will be able to take effective steps in helping improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
We are currently not represented by political leaders who are interested in any of these things.
Let’s say we get President AOC in '28. She should and hopefully would do all the things I mentioned a few posts ago. That wouldn’t be nothing – it would have some material impact on some Palestinian lives.
If Netanyahu is replaced by some hypothetical “moderate” Israeli politician, then they’d probably be a lot less willing to just snub their nose at American disapproval (as Netanyahu did), and a lot less willing to be publicly disrespectful towards an American president and the Democratic party. That means they might be willing to pull back on settlements and settler violence in the WB (this presumes they wouldn’t be so politically joined with the Israeli far-right). Maybe with enough pressure, and threats of sanctions and the like (including, perhaps and this just spitballing, the possibility of normalizing US relations with Iran after immediately ending the stupidest war of this century), they’d be willing to pull out of most of Gaza, into a defensive posture.
After that, maybe serious and strongarm negotiations could end the immediate fighting and move towards some sort of medium-term ceasefire, with the eventual goal of negotiations towards two-states (which would necessarily include an end to Israeli apartheid).
This seems very unlikely – as I understand Israeli public polling, even “moderate” Israelis still want to punish Palestinian civilians and Gazans in particular. If it’s President AOC and the Israeli government is just a less corrupt version of Netanyahu, who are still pushing for/allowing mass punishment/slaughter of Gazans (even if they end up “easing” up the awfulness in the WB), then I’d advocate that the US (and the West in general) no longer sees Israel as an ally, but rather an untrustworthy agent of chaos and violence, similar to other regional far-right belligerent regimes. No more aid, less trade (maybe no more trade aside from food and medicine), less travel (maybe no more travel except for US citizens with Israeli family members and vice versa), etc.
The funds do not, in any way signal the US approval of any 'atrocities". Germany. Italy and others also send or send military aid.
The US has no “culpability” over what a sovereign nation does. The US is not culpable for what Ukraine does, or Jordan, nor Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. The US sends aid to 211 Nations or regions. Are we 'culpable" for what every one of those nation doe?
Such as? the last one was- September 18, 2025 Vetoed a draft resolution demanding an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages.
Since 1993, the U.S. government has provided more than $7.6 billion in total assistance to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Illegal according to who, and how does the US “sanction” stuff in other nations?
which would do- what?
So, to me, there does not seem much the US can do.
Good points.
Correct.
I don’t accept this. A non-Trump US president publicly denouncing Israeli atrocities would be a massive news story. US military aid to this Israeli government absolutely helps legitimize their atrocities. The US is still the richest and most powerful country in the world, and our actions and words mean a lot. A few billion dollars over 30 years is virtually nothing. You’re acting like we’re powerless, which is ridiculous.
It also protects Israeli civilians from getting blown to smithereens in rocket attacks.
I don’t accept that this is true. Israel could easily protect themselves from rocket attacks with a fraction of the budget that’s gone towards invading and holding Gaza and assisting settlements.
Joe Biden did- criticism against Israel’s heavy-handed tactics, warning that Israel was losing global support due to what he termed “indiscriminate bombing”. And more. And what happened? Nothing.
The US aid includes high tech missile defenses. Stuff the IDF does not make. That is the “big ticket item” of us Aid for Israel. The US aid to israel is not meant ot aid the IDF actions in Gaza.
From 2011 to 2021, the United States contributed a total of US$1.6 billion to the Iron Dome defense system, with another US$1 billion approved by the US Congress in 2022.
Money is fungible. Funding from the US that defends Israeli civilians is money that Israel itself doesn’t have to spend, and thus can instead spend for their war (and genocidal) efforts. Even supplies that wouldn’t work for the war would still free up money to buy war supplies.
It really is a “stop doing this or we stop funding you” situation. And then, if they do it anyway, well that’s their own issue.
Any aid would need to be neutral to which side it is on, given based on need. Otherwise it is allying with the government and army committing the atrocities.
Not that morals have much to do with foreign policy—only in as much as the people of those nations force it upon them. People have morals. Organizations (including nations) do not.
…there are so many atrocities committed by the IDF in Gaza that I could list an atrocity a day with multiple reputable cites and I’d still be going three years from now. Name just one atrocity I’ve talked about in this thread and I’ll provide you multiple reputable cites.
I find this a very weird argument every time it comes up for multiple reasons.
For starters, let’s talk about the Board for Peace.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803 welcomed “the formation of a Board of Peace and describes it as a transitional governing body to oversee the administration of Gaza.” Their role, among other things, includes overseeing the process of the Gaza Peace Plan. They are at the forefront of reconstruction discussions.
Do you know who the Chairman of the Board of Peace is? It’s this guy called Donald Trump. And get this: he’s Chairman for life.
Do you know who sits on the executive board of the Board of Peace? The President of the United State’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff.
The idea that the US can’t actually do anything is painfully laughable.
Again: this doesn’t make any sense.
Whether or not you should continue to fund and materially support a regime that commits daily atrocities should not be dependent on appeasing a political lobby group. Out of all of the arguments to do nothing, this is literally the worst.
And there are plenty of Jewish voters in America who do not want American taxpayers’ dollars spent on what they consider a genocide in Gaza. What your argument does is weaponize Jewish voices. You are arguing they are a monolith. That isn’t fair to people who don’t agree.
And you are arguing that we can give regimes committing atrocities a pass if it will “piss off part of the voter base.” I don’t think that’s morally defensible.
But this thread is for discussing Israel/Gaza/West Bank. It obviously isn’t the only humanitarian crisis in the world. We all know that. But it’s the subject of this thread. That’s why we are discussing it here.
And one of the reasons why I’m discussing it is because my government, just like your government, helps fund and materially contributes to the country that is credibly accused of committing genocide at the International Court of Justice. Contracting Parties, and that INCLUDES the United States of America, are obligated to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. And it’s the preventing part that we are focused on right now.
And the other reason I’m taking part in this discussion is because people try to minimise the scale of the atrocities being committed against Palestinians (for example, you opened this post talking about “dubious cites”), and other people (not you, you’ve NEVER done this) try to defend those atrocities, even going as far as to argue that the Palestinians deserve it and had it coming.
This board is about fighting ignorance. It was my birthday last week. I’m well into my fifties now. And what I’ve learned over the last three years was that everything I thought I knew about Palestinians and Gaza and the West Bank has been filtered through layers of propaganda and media bias. I was ignorant. And I’ve got decades of ignorance I need to atone for.
I’ll never forgive the Biden administration for saying “Rafah was a red line” but then letting this happen.
Joe Biden never denounced this.
According to the International Court of Justice.
You know that people in Germany and Italy are also protesting their own governments’ complicity in what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank, right?
It can do what it (eventually, dragged kicking and screaming over Reagan’s explicit objections) did with Apartheid SA, and actually support BDS rather than actively oppose it.
Even Republicans in 1986 knew what the right side of history was.
Throwing up one’s hands and insisting nothing can be done is an age old strategy that aids the wealthy and powerful and an exploitative status quo. Just because change is very hard doesn’t make it okay to give up.
Doomerism helps the bad guys.
Given that you appear to agree that a fundamental change in leadership in US and Israel is necessary to affect any meaningful change, let’s play out your hypothetical:
It is not an “of course” that Israel would easily capitulate to President AOC’s demands. They were not particularly respectful of Obama or Biden, if you recall. And sure, Netanyahu was at the helm. But Israelis are a stiff-necked people. Even with a more moderate leader, they are not just going to capitulate to AOC’s demands. Maybe especially not to AOC’s demands on principal.
It is not an “of course” that whatever pressure is applied to Israel by the US would necessarily lead to two-state solution negotiations. In order to reach an agreement, you have to have a negotiating partner willing to negotiate in good faith. Palestinians have demonstrated time and time again they do not want a two-state solution with Israel. I predict you’ll say that AOC will put equally considerable pressure on Palestinians, but we both know that’s unlikely in this scenario. And anyway, given that you’ve argued (persuasively, I would say) that the US influence in the world has diminished due to the Trump administration, where is all this strong-arm US influence coming from all of a sudden?
Finally, it is not an “of course” that a two-state solution is even the correct path to lasting peace anymore. More and more, I think that ship has sailed both for the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Bright eyed idealism helps no one.
Where did I say anything like “of course”? I said explicitly my optimistic scenario seemed “very unlikely”.
The emphasis is mine. Not my intention to make it seem like you said it.
Even with an Israeli government totally unwilling to cooperate, serious sanctions could still have an impact, just like they did in SA.
That’s a lovely cherry. But they haven’t worked in more instances, e.g.: Cuba, Iran, Russia…
It seems like you’re saying “this could be really hard and likely to fail, so it’s silly to talk about trying to dry anything about it”. If not, what are you saying? Just that it could be really, really hard and may fail? If so, that is correct.