Those are extremely minor and restricted sanctions, and they’re relatively new. South Africa under apartheid was sanctioned for much longer, and the entire country was sanctioned, not just a tiny portion like the settlements. Nothing remotely close to that level of sanctions has been tried against Israel.
So, those sanctions did not work, obviously then we need more and bigger sanctions? 
Do you realize that if Dem candidates suggested sanctions on the level of the South African ones vs Israel- it would be political suicide, guaranteeing a GOP victory? And the GOp aint gonna do any sanctions.
And why is it the business of the USA to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?
While I don’t think the sanctions specifically targeting settlements will ever singlehandedly have the effect that all the international pressure against apartheid did, it should be noted that those sanctions are only 2 weeks old.
Tiny sanctions don’t work and have never worked. Massive sanctions have sometimes worked (like with South Africa).
Sanctions aren’t “meddling in the internal affairs”. Do you think the sanctions against South Africa were wrong?
Might makes right possible.
I can’t tell if he’s joking or not.
That is once- maybe. And some argue that it was not the sanctions at all. It was more the Mass domestic mobilization by groups like the African National Congress and local labor strikes
The biggest US sanctions have been against Russia- since 2014, or 12 years. And FORTY-FIVE (45) other nations have also imposed sanctions. Do you see Putin yielding? Are they working?
They are the definition of meddling.
That did work during the days of “Big Stick” gunboat diplomacy.
So, sanctions can not and will not work here- except to elect more MAGAs to US office.
The President publicly denouncing Israeli atrocities- did so little that it was not only not a “massive news story” but forgotten by posters here.
Cutting the aid will do nothing to stop what is happening in Gaza, but it will make more innocent civilians dies from missile attacks.
So, then- what is the solution?
What is the solution in Sudan, then? Not as political. How can the USA stop the violence in Sudan, which is far, far worse than Gaza. Cutting aid? Sanctions? Publicly denouncing the violence?
See, if you can not think of how to stop the violence in Sudan- which is not an issue that wins or loses elections here in America- how can we stop what is happening in Gaza?
…let’s not pretend the situation in Gaza is anywhere close to being “good.” And lets not pretend that the reason why things are not good in Gaza is for any other reason than Israel is preventing things from getting good.
It’s like the solution to the illegal occupation of Palestine is to end the occupation. The solution to the aid problem is to stop blocking the aid. The solution to the 1.98 million people needing shelter is to let construction materials in. The solution to the healthcare crisis is to stop attacking the hospitals and to end the blockade.
It’s not like we are asking for much. This is the most easily fixable humanitarian crisis imaginable. All it requires is just treating Palestinians with humanity, dignity, and respect.
As you have been told multiple times already, Hamas is already stepping down. What is required is for Israel to stop blocking the transitional authority.
Talking about sanctions:
Existing US sanctions on UN and ICC court officials mean their assets get frozen. It means they can’t even open a bank account. And they are sanctioning them for no other reason than they are trying to hold war criminals to account.
The President of the United States of America is the Chairman for Life of the Gaza Board of Peace. The United States of America is sanctioning individuals from Italy, Japan and Senegal. The USA are funding and materially supporting the Israeli government. They are providing protection to them at the United Nations and international courts. They are (along with private actors) shutting down dissent of people trying to stop the illegal actions of the Israeli government.
And in a world where the US government is doing all of these things, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that “it isn’t the business of the USA to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation.” Because meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations is just what the United States of America does. It’s standard operating procedure. The country that dropped bombs on a school in Iran this year, killing over 120 schoolgirls, meddles in the affairs of sovereign nations.
And if they can kill 120 schoolgirls, they can sanction a country that is credibly accused of commiting countless atrocities.
There are two things at play here.
Firstly:
It is very, very clear that the tide is changing. A majority of Democratic voters think Israel is committing genocide and that sanctions should be imposed on them.
The issue isn’t about what most Democrats want to happen. It’s the fact that America isn’t really a “democracy,” and what the voters want doesn’t materially matter, because who gets to be president is ultimately decided by a statistical handful of votes in a handful of states.
We live in a world where Donald Trump got elected president of the United States twice. There was nothing sensible in his campaign promises or his strategy, and any traditional campaign strategist would have argued “you were mad” to think a failed businessman and reality host that could barely string sentences together coherently could become the most powerful person on the planet.
And yet here we are.
So the fact that most traditional campaign strategists think that “sanctions on the level of the South African ones vs Israel-would be political suicide, guaranteeing a GOP victory” isn’t an actual guarantee.
It’s radical, I know: but perhaps having policies that are popular with your base that ALSO try to put an end to inhumane treatment of a people should be a no-brainer. I think we should always be trying to do the right thing, and that doing the right thing is popular with Democratic voters, so it’s a matter of selling it to the ones who don’t.
So calling it “political suicide” is a talking point. It’s a narrative. It’s what many establishment dems actually believe. But if Donald Trump can get elected president twice, then anything should be possible at this point, wouldn’t you agree?
…do you think America should stop sanctions on Russia?
You can’t call what Biden did as “publicly denouncing Israeli atrocities.”
Because while Biden was president, Israel was committing multiple atrocities a day. Rafah was flattened on his watch. We didn’t forget. We will never forget. Biden and his administration were complicit in what happened to the Palestinian people. The fact that he made a handful of carefully crafted political messages won’t ever change that.
That would be a great question for the Sudan thread. But I don’t think anyone owes you any answers to that question in this thread. This is just an attempt to deflect from the topic at hand.
Those people are wrong. It was the mass sanctions that caused the South African economy to tank, and that economic downturn was the biggest factor in causing the apartheid leaders to realize their cause was doomed (and thus they must negotiate with their opponents).
If there were similar mass sanctions against Israel, and these sanctions were specifically tied to Israeli atrocities and violations of rights in Gaza and the West Bank, an economic crash might similarly motivate the government (and Israeli voters) to reduce or end those atrocities and violations of rights.
This has not been tried. It’s not a guaranteed success, but it’s a possibility.
Cite these fools, so I can point out how wrong they are (and gods, this better not be based on an idiosyncratic misreading of Lee Jones.)
You think sanctions and these internal actions were unrelated? And who do you think was calling for sanctions in the first place? The ANC was right there doing that.
Also, of course, no-one - NO-ONE - has made the argument that sanctions alone ended apartheid. So you’re arguing with a strawman of your own making, looks like.
I am making no such argument.
Then why point out other factors that also had a role (which no-one disagree with)? What’s the point of that deflectionary whataboutism?
Like I said, no-one said sanctions were the only strategy in SA (just like no-one thinks BDS and other sanctions are the only action to do on Palestine). So bringing up other things done in SA serves what purpose?
Great article about the state of Gaza from one of the best interviewers around, Isaac Chotiner:
The Gazan academic he interviews claims that Israel is not allowing peanut butter into Gaza, which can be a critically important nutritional aid for malnourished people (especially children). Googling suggests that the UN reported this, though I’m having trouble finding an article from a news org I’ve heard of.
Pretending to be a journalist or doctor is beyond the pale in any armed conflict. What is the point of spreading links to Hamas lists and photos of people they “claim”? Do you seriously believe, lend weight to, or care about anything Hamas says? People falsely claiming to be journalists are an actual problem, but that means you have to actually vet your own people and, among other things, most definitely ignore whom Hamas says is (or isn’t) a member. If they tell you the sky is blue, you had better triple-check that.
Unless the mods object, I hope we can discuss the documentary NAZA in this thread. I haven’t seen it yet.
New York Times review here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/30/movies/naza-review.html
Non paywall link here:
Throughout “NAZA,” the interviewees describe the systems — the technologies of war — used in Gaza. In the process, they also speak to the systemic dehumanization of their targets. “After Oct. 7th,” one man tells Abraham, “everyone kept saying: There are no innocent people in Gaza.” As the movie continues, some interviewees express remorse; others do not. One speaks about the need to trust the system, while another talks about doing a job; this too is bureaucratic dehumanization. Abraham and Szor never solicit pity for their subjects who, in serving their country, have helped perpetuate what the United Nations and Israeli human rights organizations have described as genocide. Instead, the filmmakers ask and they listen.
As Hamas and PIJ continue admitting that more and more “journalists” were actually terrorists, the total has now climbed all the way to 170.
Link is in Hebrew, but machine translation is trivial nowadays.
The fabricated narrative that Israel was deliberately targeting journalists is falling apart.
…is your argument that Hamas claims people who were not combatants as actual combatants? For what purpose, to help Israel?
I’ve never seen anyone make that claim before. Do you have any kind of cite showing evidence that Hamas or PIJ intentionally claim noncombatants as combatants?
I do not know about that in detail, but Hamas likes to publish lists of tens of thousands of “martyrs” (شهداء) that includes anyone and everyone that was killed. That Telegraph link mentions “martyrs”. Even so,
- I do not regard Hamas a a reliable source;
- I do not regard the IDF as a reliable source;
- Therefore, I would not place much weight on Hamas lists filtered through the IDF as an isolated source, even though it strikes me as plausible that more than zero combatants have posed as journalists.
- I am not convinced it matters, either way: non-combatants do not take place in hostilities. If someone was a Hamas member in the past (explaining why their name was on some list) but quit and became a journalist, that does not make them cool, but neither does it imply they are a combatant now.
- I find it implausible, to say the least, that the IDF is positively identifying anybody before killing them. They have been documented to indiscriminately mow down passers-by, emergency workers, journalists, little kids, their own hostages, you name it.
Good question and I am happy to elucidate the difference.
You are correct, anyone who dies in a conflict can be called a “Martyr” as in a person whose death was “for the cause”. Martyrdom is how you appease a mom whose kid died because you decided to hide your rockets under his bed.
But the “journalists” that Hamas and PIJ are now identifying as combatants aren’t “martyrs” or “Shahid”, the Arabic word you listed which literally means “witness” (of Allah’s glory). They are identified as Mujahid, meaning combatant or fighter, derived from the word Jihad. The closest translation would probably be “Jihadi”.
Another similar term is Muqatil.
I am unaware of any examples or even allegations of Hamas or PIJ claiming dead civilians as Mujahid or Muqatil, which is why I asked for a cite.