To the dismay of some of their Democratic colleagues, Squad members' reactions to Hamas' attack included decrying the "cycle of violence" between Israelis and Palestinians and demanding an end to U.S. military assistance to Israel.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I remember when W. Bush invaded Iraq and one of his justifications was that they were in violation of something like 17 or 18 UN Resolutions.

    https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

    Problem: At the same time, Israel was in direct violation of close to 80 UN resolutions. Human rights violations, illegal settlements, basically attempting to crush and exterminate the Palestinian people. There would have been more except the US has veto power.

    Since 2015, the UN adopted an ADDITIONAL 140 resolutions against Israel.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/

    If this were any other country in the world there would be sanctions to direct military intervention.

    Oh, it's Israel? Nah, fam, give them $3 billion a year… they need it.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah wouldn't it be tight if billions of dollars in foreign aid didn't go to support any of this nonsense and instead went back to the people it was taken from in some tangible way?

          • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Boost the economy, sure, but probably not increase wages.

            A Pandemic Ara social safety net would wonders for the economy. It would also increase wages indirectly by increasing what economists call the reservation wage, or the minimum amount a person is willing to work for.

            A pre-Pandemic Era, neoclassical, supply-side policy would almost certainly be nominally good for the economy, but businesses would just increase profits without increasing jobs or raising wages.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I’m increasingly of the position that the most reasonable solution is to end aid and offer voluntary dissolution of Israel. If a joint Palestinian state akin to modern South Africa is wanted that’s cool. If it’s better to just import Israelis to the nation they went there from that’s fine too. When Israel sees this as a “do war crimes or your family dies” they do war crimes.

      Apartheid states have ended. Sometimes it went poorly like in the United States and South Africa, sometimes it went so much worse like in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. But we can’t keep propping this state up and supplying them with weapons.

      • paintbucketholder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If it’s better to just import Israelis to the nation they went there from that’s fine too.

        Israel is full of people who were born there, who have never lived anywhere else, and - as the recent anti-Netanyahu protests have shown - want their nation to be a free, open, democratic society.

        I don't see how deporting them to a county they've never even been to and giving their land to somebody else is any different than what was done to Palestinians in the creation of the state of Israel.

        I would prefer solutions to look at the current status, as it exists today, and seek a solution that minimizes suffering for everyone involved - regardless of the history of how we arrived at this situation, and certainly without using that history to justify even more suffering.

        This is not a pro-Isreal or pro-Palestinian position, by the way.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          True, and one answer would be expedited citizenship for any Israeli willing to cede their Israeli citizenship. But there’s a certain hypocrisy in saying that with that as an American where it’d be taking people from one settler colonial nation to another. And leaving the Palestinians with a lot of rubble that once was infrastructure isn’t great either. Offering Palestinians refugee to citizen pathways as well may also help.

          And yeah I do believe that there are quite a few Israelis who want a shared secular state. That state is what I believe to be the ideal path to peace. But it isn’t my land or my conflict. I’m just someone from the country that keeps arming one side and helped raise and radicalize Netanyahu. My scope is more in line with what my country can do without causing problems

    • DoomBot5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The UN has a super hard on for Israel. It's a pathetic joke at this point. 95% of what Israel is condemned for in the UN is actually done in other Middle Eastern countries to a much worse degree (or potentially not done at all in Israel vs those countries), yet no condemnations are ever brought against them. Hell, North Korea is mentioned less than Israel.

      If you want Israel to ever take any of these resolutions seriously, don't make a fucking joke of the process.

  • atetulo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    and demanding an end to U.S. military assistance to Israel.

    Hear hear!

  • neptune@dmv.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Democrats in disarray! Again! 😱

    If republicans had policy debates maybe they could get inane headlines like this too

  • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Relevant context, 2019:

    Israel is barring two freshman Democratic congresswomen from entering the country. Both Minnesota's Ilhan Omar and Michigan's Rashida Tlaib have been critical of Israel's policies. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the decision after President Trump tweeted his thoughts on the matter. Trump said it would show great weakness if Israel were to let the two lawmakers go on a trip they had planned for this weekend.

    Netanyahu said that Israeli law allows authorities to bar entry to people who advocate a global movement to boycott Israel. And he said these congresswomen were going to do just that. They were going to use the trip to promote a boycott of Israel. Now, these Congresswomen do support the right to boycott Israel. They are outspoken critics of Israel. Tlaib has talked about Israel's, quote, "racist policies." The question here is, why this Israeli decision now to ban them? - because last month, Israel said it would let them in out of respect for Congress. It seems that the deciding factor here was Trump.

    I spoke with a group associated with a Palestinian official. This group was organizing the trip, and they say that the congresswomen were going to be visiting Jerusalem and three Palestinian cities in the West Bank. And one of the organizers told me that the congresswomen wanted to see the impact of U.S. policies on Palestinians, so they were going to visit a Jerusalem hospital that was affected by the Trump administration's funding cuts for Palestinians. They were going to visit Israeli and Palestinian human rights activists, Palestinian youth and also visit the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. And Tlaib has a grandmother in the West Bank, and she was going to be visiting her and other relatives there.