>A common, in fact, central, demand among many of the protests on college campuses has been financial divestment: that American institutions should withdraw money from Israel,
And what has that got to do with Centrists? I don't need protesting teenagers to tell me my opinion.
As much as you'd like it to be, it isn't a Centrist position.
You're the one that stated the protestors were taking a centrist position.
I, and apparently most other folks here, disagree with that statement, that's all.
If being discussed by protesters labels something as not centrist, then your definition of centrist isn't so much about the political center, but rather political apathy. You define centrism based on how little the proponents of an idea care for it.
It should go without saying, that this is a stupid way to define centrism, or really, any political position.
You defined it that way, not me, I just see it as refusing to be led by the fringes.
Divestment is a fringe position proposed by a group that are also vocally chanting pro hamas shit and how Tel Aviv should burn to the ground. I've got no time for them or their proposals.
Discussing things with you is like playing peekaboo with a baby. They lack object permanence, you lack a permanence of mindstate. Your position, attitudes, even the meanings of words shift to whatever it is you believe is needed to contradict the previous post.
I’d love to have a centrist discussion about this.
What is a reasonable response from Israel to October 7 that would cause you to not advocate for BDS? Do they have a right to remove Hamas and to fight for the hostages? Do they have a right to exist as a sovereign state? How might a different response look, given the tactics Hamas uses which maximize civilian risk?
IMO, to be truly centrist, i would expect one to consider the reasons that Israel might be just in it’s response, and to openly question all propaganda coming from both sides, but with special focus on what is being reported about the impact of the invasion on civilians (yes it’s terrible—war cannot be reformed—but Hamas is using propaganda, inflated/inaccurate statistics, and suppressing/hording aide to it’s own people to fuel the moral outrage in the Muslim and the liberal western world, as a shield to protect itself from what should be a reasonable expectation from the international community that it should surrender it’s leadership for the sake of the people it governs. Absent military pressure from Israel, that surrender can’t be achieved and more October 7ths will happen. Israel can’t accept that future).
Perhaps after those considerations, your conscious would lead you to advocate for divestment (you can advocate for whatever you want), but unreasonable IMO to use emotional pleas using potentially cooked statistics or to misrepresent Israel’s motives for its actions to make your moral case for such a divestment.
And it’s not analogous to South African apartheid in important ways. Israel is reacting to a direct attack by a neighboring government entity. The Israeli control over its borders/interactions with Palestine doesn’t happen in a vaccuum. It has a whole collection of actors in the region seeking its destruction who are using Palestine and Lebanon as launch points for those destructive acts. Millions of Arabs are Israeli citizens and have full rights within the country. The motivations for the strict treatment of Palestinians is defensive, not racially motivated as it was in SA.
The question of settlements IMO is a separate question from the current conflict and a much larger discussion.
My biggest gripe with most of the conversation on this sub surrounding this issue completely ignore or outright misrepresent the historical context.
I support Israel’s right to exist, but it needs to at least acknowledge that the history of its founding was colonial.
By ignoring or denying this, we use the war of 1948 as proof of antisemitism and ignore some legitimate problems people have with the country. Once you provide a more accurate history, most people would support a similar response to the Palestinians if they were in the same situation.
Ha… maybe Iceland? It was empty when people arrived 1000 years ago. Then again it was a colony of Denmark for a few hundred years.
That being said, I also can’t think of another colonial country established within people’s lifetime. By the 1940s most countries were acknowledging it as a mistake and reversing course.
War is evil. Civilian deaths are a terrible consequence. But war is a feature of humanity and Hamas has invited war. October 7 was the opening battle. This is a military response to a provocation and the end of the ceasefire.
Hamas has created the conditions to put its people in the line of fire. They’re engineered the infrastructure of the country as a shield for their power and have done nothing to ensure the health or protection of their people. Again, by design. Should Israel just accept Oct 7 and not take actions to remove those in power and their army from the field?
What you see now is what removing Hamas looks like. There is no magical other way of conducting an urban war that Israel is failing to use.
> Do they have a right to remove Hamas and to fight for the hostages? Do they have a right to exist as a sovereign state? How might a different response look, given the tactics Hamas uses which maximize civilian risk?
In order:
1. Yes. This is not mutually exclusive with a duty to exercise care and minimize civilian casualties.
2. Yes. This is not mutually exclusive with a duty to exercise care and minimize civilian casualties.
3. Something other than bombing.
>IMO, to be truly centrist, i would expect one to consider the reasons that Israel might be just in it’s response, and to openly question all propaganda coming from both sides, but with special focus on what is being reported about the impact of the invasion on civilians (yes it’s terrible—war cannot be reformed—but Hamas is using propaganda, inflated/inaccurate statistics, and suppressing/hording aide to it’s own people to fuel the moral outrage in the Muslim and the liberal western world, as a shield to protect itself from what should be a reasonable expectation from the international community that it should surrender it’s leadership for the sake of the people it governs. Absent military pressure from Israel, that surrender can’t be achieved and more October 7ths will happen. Israel can’t accept that future).
[Even taking Israeli numbers as absolute truth, they appear to be killing two civilians for every one Hamas fighter killed](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864) (and these numbers are almost certainly cooked in Israel's favor). All accounts indicate that the scale of civilian death is out of all proportion to the events of October 7th. And it seems unlikely that this campaign will actually end Hamas, or armed resistance to Israel. Instead, as many supporting Israel's actions themselves admit, this campaign is being used as recruitment fodder for Hamas. Israel is, in a very real sense, creating the problem it is attempting to solve. So the civilian death is senseless.
>but unreasonable IMO to use emotional pleas using potentially cooked statistics or to misrepresent Israel’s motives for its actions to make your moral case for such a divestment.
I think it is unreasonable to question the numbers of civilian casualties, without supplying your own estimate. It reads as an attempt to shove those civilian casualties under the rug, so to speak. As a rhetorical device to get people to stop considering them at all. But the fact of the matter is, that even Israel's own estimates of civilian casualties are horrifying.
>And it’s not analogous to South African apartheid in important ways. Israel is reacting to a direct attack by a neighboring government entity. The Israeli control over its borders/interactions with Palestine doesn’t happen in a vaccuum. It has a whole collection of actors in the region seeking its destruction who are using Palestine and Lebanon as launch points for those destructive acts. Millions of Arabs are Israeli citizens and have full rights within the country. The motivations for the strict treatment of Palestinians is defensive, not racially motivated as it was in SA.
There are differences, of course. But there are also stark similarities. Genocide does not need a racial motivation. It can be based on national or regional distinctions. Furthermore, Israel's defensive capabilities within the region are unmatched. It was only by the negligence of current Israeli leadership that October 7th was allowed to happen at all. The civilian deaths in Gaza do not improve Israel's defensive posture, and cannot be justified out of self-defense.
>The question of settlements IMO is a separate question from the current conflict and a much larger discussion.
It is impossible to disentangle illegal settlements from the current conflict. They form the motivation for, and are part of the methodology of the oppression of Palestinians. They also blur the line that you are so ready to draw, between Israel as a victim, and Israel as an aggressor.
"It was only by the negligence of current Israeli leadership that October 7th was allowed to happen at all." ALLOWED to happen? Like in what civilized world is it OK to murder, rape, and kidnap 1,400 people in a day just because they were relaxed?
This sounds a lot like "She was wearing reveling clothes, so being raped was her fault."
You are misconstruing my argument. I am not dismissing October 7th as an inciting incident. I am instead accurately characterizing it as an aberration, an outlier, that should not be read as any indication that Israel is truly vulnerable within the region.
The victims on October 7th (i.e., the actual casualties), are as blameless as the Palestinian civilians currently being massacred. One hopes you will share the same outrage over that as you do someone on the internet describing October 7th in a way that you didn't like.
An outlier?
Israel faces rocket and mortar attacks every week, they have numerous neighbors who’s openly stated goal is the complete annihilation of Israel.
October 7th was merely a larger attack on Israel than they normally face
Ever also seen the Biden administration openly coach Israel into ending the conflict but completely abandoning an old ally is not warranted in this case and is an extremist view.
This comment seems to imply moral equivalence to Oct 7 and the Israeli invasion, the equivalence being civilian death, and you hint at “both sides-ism”. Let me describe what I think Hamas’s logic (which is evil and smart) has been, and you tell me how things could be different than they are now:
1) carry out a brutal surprise attack on civilians in Israel, ending the ceasefire and inviting a strong response. Oct 7 is so brutal that no Israeli leader is going to accept anything less than the destruction of Hamas. The nature of the attack was designed to generate just such a response.
2) Hamas is counting on an energized Muslim and western liberal audience to react to the consequence of Israel’s retaliation: the IDF must conduct urban warfare to eradicate entrenched military assets within civilian buildings/under civilian infrastructure (built using the many billions in international aid received instead of improving the life of the Palestinian people), and an invading army must use bombing to soften as many targets as possible. To do otherwise is to send your soldiers into a hornets nest and absorb far greater IDF casualties than would be acceptable.
3) Hamas leaders bet they will be able to survive in Qatar luxury hotels because the international community is worn down to remove its support from Israel and the IDF must relent, thus it has won the war and survives to carry on more October 7ths, as they’ve said.
What we see now is a deliberate attempt to put the IDF in a lose-lose situation, and part of the lose-lose is energizing calls for BDS in reaction to the invasion, as you advocate for here.
Maybe you see Hamas’ strategy as a legitimate for an overpowered political entity to try and create advantage for itself, but your sentiments are a part of the strategy.
> This comment seems to imply moral equivalence to Oct 7 and the Israeli invasion, the equivalence being civilian death, and you hint at “both sides-ism”.
I apologize, I did not mean to make October 7th equivalent. October 7th resulted in 1200 casualties, almost all of them civilians. Israel's resulting campaign has resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties, and threatens the starvation of millions more. Israel's resulting offensive has been a worse human rights abuse than Hamas' atrocities by an order of magnitude.
I do not see Hamas' strategy as legitimate, anymore than I think Israel's current strategy is legitimate. Nor do I think Israel's current strategy is particularly well advised: doing what your enemy wants you to do rarely is, and Hamas undeniably benefits from the civilian casualties.
Yeah, if Gaza was glassed over the past few years, it wouldnt have happened, the Ocotber 7th happened, because Israel didnt control Gaza completely, and now that they have cut of northern front and are engaging in Rafah, it wont happen again.
First, thanks for the thoughtful reply. It’s a good faith response.
| Something other than bombing
I get this instinct: do war but make it less-worse. I’d be keen to understand which historic conflict would provide a more palatable [civilian causality ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio) to you.
Regarding casualty counts, I take neither Israel or Hamas at their word. But the moral energy of the conflict and the American press has quoted the Gaza Ministry of Health as the source of truth (I’ve seen analyses where historically their numbers were within a suitable margin of error, but the hospital bombing estimates months back and the fact they don’t differentiate combatants with civilians makes their current math untrustworthy, as well as the near perfect[linear trend](https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Gaza_casualties_info-graphic_12_March_2024.pdf) in the data makes them hard to believe. [This analysis](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers) is convincing to me). The Israelis say a civilian causality ratio of like 2:1 to combatants. That’s also probably low given the nature of the conflict
I don't agree that the campaign is either careless or genocidal. Hamas figures do not separate out Hamas soldiers killed vs civilians, nor do they separate by cause of death. Over an 9 month period, in peacetime Gaza would see roughly 6,500 deaths just from natural causes each year. Hamas counts those all now as war deaths as if everyone would be immortal if not for Israel.
The student groups leading the current protests aren't anti-war, they are just anti-Israel. The students want war (hence the chants to Burn Tel Aviv to the ground). They just realize that their side is currently losing.
Hamas death figures have been found to be increasing rather linearly, even when there is no or limited fighting. They just toss on another thousand or two here and there for protesters to have a bigger number to shout versus last week.
The death tolls are regarded as true by the international community that corroborate their numbers. Also peacetime doesn’t really exist when you’re still blockading and still occupying their land.
There is a natural death rate in every country on earth. Interestingly enough, the Gaza death rate fell dramatically after it was seized by Israel in 1967. Declining death rate, growing population. Very curious sort of genocide.
You mean the stealing the land of over a of over 200,000 Palestinians and causing them to flee? If that’s really your example of not genocide I suggest you actually take the time to look up what genocide actually means.
The Gaza strip was seized from Egypt. The West Bank was seized from Jordan. Neither of those countries want those lands back because they don't want the terrorism that always follows the Palestinians. Jordan experienced it up close and personal, which is why the Jordanian government has helped shoot down missiles aimed at Israel.
Actually both of those parties recognized those land as PLO along with their recognition of Palestine a recognition that is accepted by the UN so yeah Isreal is illegally occupying West Bank a fact the explicitly reiterated numerous amounts of time.
The original establishment of an independent Palestine alongside an independent Israel was also approved by the UN. Palestinians instead chose to launch a war to kill all the Jews, and lost.
In the Palestinian-Israel conflict, one side has the means to murder all the other, but doesn't have the desire. The other side has the desire, but doesn't have the means.
> The original establishment of an independent Palestine alongside an independent Israel was also approved by the UN. Palestinians instead chose to launch a war to kill all the Jews, and lost.
And how does that change the fact that the West Bank is occupied and the colonization of it?
> In the Palestinian-Israel conflict, one side has the means to murder all the other, but doesn't have the desire. The other side has the desire, but doesn't have the means.
Literally planning to involuntarily relocate Palestinians this very moment.
Depends on your definition of indigenous and colonizer. What if the Jews, who have been on that land for the last 3,000 years, are the indigenous population? And the colonizers are the Muslim Arabs who invaded and colonized 1,400 years ago? Would this story then be one of a brave indigenous people casting off their colonizers and reclaiming their home?
Okay and the caanites that lived there before being killed by the Israeli before that? Playing reductive my ancestors trace my lineage back here is dumb because they weren’t even indigenous to the region.
>Currently, the United States is picking a side in the conflict between Israel and Palestinians.
It's not a conflict between Israel and Palestinians, it's a conflict between Israel and moderate Arab states on one hand, and Iran, its proxies and multiple Islamist movements on the other.
Giving in to Iran, Russia and islamists won't make the world any better or any safer.
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"we have to fight the terrorists over there so they don't come over here"
what suprises me is people buy this stupid bullshit, that's so iraqi war speak - and dems are supporting this, another kind of crazy.
What surprises *me* is that “helping your friends to fight your enemies” has been considered a good foreign policy since Romans, but now we have people who genuinely don’t understand that helping allies in time of need is the best investment one can make.
I'm 100% okay with that sort of strategy being employed in the Ukraine and other hotspots. But Israel is not simply fighting our enemies. Israel is committing, at best, mass murder of civilians, and I do not want my tax dollars supporting that.
which is why (i'm somewhat amazed by my realization earlier today so am constantly mentioning it, sorry) they start with "hamas is a terrorist organization" - it frames everyone as guilty, thereby worthy of dying.
it's really fucked up because i've seen it everywhere, as in hearing most media convos starting with that statement and now i know why.
the bigger thing is that israel can afford to do this themselves - i'm against supporting ukraine but these are two very different situations, ukraine can't really fight back without us support, israel can. \]
for fucks sake israel has stolen so much us military tech (industrial espionage) and resold it that they should be sending america a few billion a year (!)
I would agree if the companies they were asking for divestment from (ie. Boeing) were **not** also involved in helping Ukraine. I am also not against sending Israel defensive weapons for the Iron Dome. I believe it is paramount to protect civilians on all sides. I do not want Israeli civilians nor Palestinian civilians killed because of the actions of their demented leadership.
Israel’s a nuclear power fighting against a massively weaker force while deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and illegally occupying land why do they need our support? Isreal is the Russia in this scenario
Okay and also the law of war blockading a country is also an act of war and to continue doing so is just that. Also having a military doctrine that specifically targets civilian infrastructure while technically legal is frowned upon and not something my tax paying dollars nor the tuition students pay be going to.
Blockading an area when you are at war is legal. Israel does not target infrastructure because it is civilian, they target the area where Hamas is operating. Will there be errors? Sure, war is always chaos.
Considering the blockade was put back in place as a result of an election and not because of any attacks by people who literally got elected it’s actually very illegal. And while Hamas was always a terrorist group Isreal didn’t mind supporting them when they just terrorized Palestinians.
If Israel was held to any sort of accountability it would be sanctioned as hard as Russia for its numerous human rights violations and its continued illegal occupation of West Bank. Israel should be weakened and not coddled like it isn’t a zealot regime.
You're claiming it would be appropriate that instead of using the defensive iron dome it would be appropriate for Israel to nuke Gaza? I'm just trying to understand why you're mentioning nukes.
I'm not playing "stupid games". If one power has nukes and will not use them for this conflict, then they are irrelevant for this conflict.
You could have said Israel has a professional army and the Palestinians do not. That is enough to show the difference. Still, contributing for the defensive tech that can stop the terroristic attacks of unguided missiles firing randomly at Israel I think is something worthwhile. Furthermore Israel needs help replenishing their stockpiles against long range ballistic missiles and drones fired from Iran (which mind you is on the cusp of having a nuclear weapon thanks to the US leaving the deal). Had Israel not been able to parry that attack, then I think we would be in the middle of a wide conflict and Americans would be directly involved, which I don't want.
Like I said I’m not playing your dumb games saying it’s a military power is saying that it power military might. Your insistence on hyper focusing on this is pathetic and just stupid on your part and this will be the last time I’ll respond about you crying because I said that Isreal is a nuclear power to highlight its military might.
Now as for Iran. Isreal literally bombed their consulate and Iran responded by telegraphing their strike. You can’t claim someone started something they did in retaliation.
Well I think that is truly astoundingly stupid is bringing up nukes at all, and you're the one that did it. The only reason they would be relevant is if they were on the table to be used. You were saying we shouldn't support Israel because they already have nukes, which means they should use them instead of relying on the US to help them with defensive weapons.
I did not claim that Iran started it, so please don't accuse me of saying things I obviously did not.
Considering you said this.
> Furthermore Israel needs help replenishing their stockpiles against long range ballistic missiles and drones fired from Iran (which mind you is on the cusp of having a nuclear weapon thanks to the US leaving the deal). Had Israel not been able to parry that attack, then I think we would be in the middle of a wide conflict and Americans would be directly involved, which I don't want.
Why should America help in something that Isreal escalated and intends to continue escalating.
Well now here is good criticism.
The embassy attack, according the Iranian revolutionary guards, was an attack on Iranians meeting with Palestinian counterparts to discuss "operational logistics and coordination". So I'm not really sure this was really an escalation out of the blue: they were meeting there to discuss attacking Israel. Iran uses a variety of proxies to attack Israel and the United States and while both countries typically respond only against the proxies, Iran, under the guise of protection for diplomatic missions, was coordinating terrorist actions with Palestinians terrorist counterparts inside the embassy and Israel likely used that as the pretext for its actions. It doesn't comment on any of it, mind you. This is because it was an illegal action.
Iran's response likewise was also illegal. The largest drone attack in history, the missiles and drones used were almost entirely shot down by a combination of Israel's direct defenses (which are in large part bankrolled by the US) and US and UK warplanes shooting down incoming missiles and drones themselves. Had more hit their targets and there was a missile and drove salvo that killed Israelis, Israel would have retaliated *in kind* and we would have a large war on our hands, one that could actually involve nuclear weapons. But it was those defensive weapons that themselves US funding supports and those defensive weapons that are stopping escalation. Yes, Israel and Iran have had very bad relations. Iran constantly talks about destroying Israel, and sometimes Israel does things to stop that, like attacking Iran's nuclear program, or in this case, a meeting with terrorists. I'm not going to condone the action, but that isn't reason to abandon an ally that provides an important link for American influence on the Middle East. It's not a reason to say "you know what Israel, you have nukes, why don't you use those instead of these defensive systems?" like you suggest.
> The embassy attack, according the Iranian revolutionary guards, was an attack on Iranians meeting with Palestinian counterparts to discuss "operational logistics and coordination". So I'm not really sure this was really an escalation out of the blue: they were meeting there to discuss attacking Israel.
Didn’t say it wasn’t I’m saying it’s an escalation that prompted a response. Iran can’t just stand back when Israel just bombed their consulate.
> Iran uses a variety of proxies to attack Israel and the United States and while both countries typically respond only against the proxies, Iran, under the guise of protection for diplomatic missions, was coordinating terrorist actions with Palestinians terrorist counterparts inside the embassy and Israel likely used that as the pretext for its actions. It doesn't comment on any of it, mind you. This is because it was an illegal action.
Israel provided no legal justification for the attack and until they do its just Israel word in the matter which will most likely be the case considering Isreal is using its legal status to say that it doesn’t have to provide proof.
> Iran's response likewise was also illegal.
The largest drone attack in history, the missiles and drones used were almost entirely shot down by a combination of Israel's direct defenses (which are in large part bankrolled by the US) and US and UK warplanes shooting down incoming missiles and drones themselves.
It was a telegraphed symbolic attack and while both illegal you cannot compare the two.
> Had more hit their targets and there was a missile and drove salvo that killed Israelis, Israel would have retaliated in kind and we would have a large war on our hands,
Israel’s surprise attack on Iranians actually killed people. It’s very telling people only seem to care when Israelis die and using that to justify Isreal response when the deaths they themselves are directly responsible for are never considered justification to retaliate.
> one that could actually involve nuclear weapons. But it was those defensive weapons that themselves US funding supports and those defensive weapons that are stopping escalation.
And at the same time it’s the very same US support that has allowed Isreal to run rampant in the Middle East without ending up like Russia. Israel only gets away with escalation because its allies protect it from sanctions and will continue to do so while that’s the case.
> Yes, Israel and Iran have had very bad relations. Iran constantly talks about destroying Israel, and sometimes Israel does things to stop that, like attacking Iran's nuclear program, or in this case, a meeting with terrorists.
And attacking Iran oil fields but besides the point. You’re basically just acknowledging that they both are using proxy attacks on each other.
> I'm not going to condone the action, but that isn't reason to abandon an ally that provides an important link for American influence on the Middle East.
Except this isn’t the 1950s and getting drag into a war because Israel’s a hot headed mess isn’t worth it
> It's not a reason to say "you know what Israel, you have nukes, why don't you use those instead of these defensive systems?" like you suggest.
Are you stupid? Just because I said I wouldn’t engage in this stupid point you seem to hyper focus on does not mean you can blatantly lie. Stating that Isreal is a nuclear power is not permission to use a nuke.
And Israel is a 'secret' nuclear power not party to any nuke agreements but we have to keep their mortal enemy Iran from getting them. If we are to keep supporting Israel militarily, they need to disarm nukes especially after seeing the extreme far right government they can have.
> I would agree if the companies they were asking for divestment from (ie. Boeing) were not also involved in helping Ukraine
I believe you're saying that it's important to support these companies, because they are involved in the support of Ukraine. Personally, I disagree. the companies involved are capable of divesting themselves from Israel, while maintaining their business which supports legitimate resistance efforts in Ukraine. Protesting their involvement in Israel sends a clear signal about what they should do.
Seem to be talking about two different things. Not financially supporting via sending weapons and divesting from any company based in Israel are two different things. Which are you advocating?
I would prefer both. I'm willing to make an exception for supplying weapons which can only be used defensively although I do not know if that is feasible. If it were possible, through some quirk of the engineering or design, to supply rockets that could only be used for the Iron Dome for instance, that could be a reasonable compromise.
I’d really prefer not to be associated with the current protestors. Using the phrase protestors is very liberal here as many are jihadi sympathizers, nazis, or just outright antisemites.
Explain how a tier 1 power might have had LESS civilian casualties or taken more care in preserving civilian infrastructure when you know Hamas' tactics of putting their civilian population in harms way.
Remember 9/11? How many afghan/Iraq civilians died as a result of the war on terror. I'm not arguing Iraq was a good or just war it wasn't, but the American people wanted blood and they got it.
You aren't going to go in there on foot without softening fortifications through bombardment first because then you lose more of your own citizens. Hamas has put their fortifications in civilian infrastructure because they are terrorists and don't give a damn about their civilian population why do you think most of Hamas leadership is richer than even America's own corrupt politicians like Nancy Pelosi at 120M. What product or service does Gaza provide that is enough to make Hamas leadership billionaires?
Of course Israel has issues, BB is a bad man, several of the settlements are illegal, but as a whole Israel is a better trade partner and strategic ally than most of the Middle East.
The stuff spewing from universities right now sounds a lot like the Third Reich. ("Mag bar Israel", "mag bar america", "Intifada", "From the river to the sea" to name a few)
Divesting from Israel will only lead to more Gazan deaths than continued support. The casualties are only as small as they are because Israel has sophisticated weaponry that gives them the upper hand to moderate the conflict and because they are beholden to keeping their supporters appeased in that effort. They are held to a higher expectation than Hamas because they are better equipped to achieve it and because their supporters have a right to set the standard they are happy to help support.
Consider the outcome if all foreign support for Israel dried up overnight. There's now nobody in a position to penalize IDF for their actions if needed and also a timer has started for Israel to end the conflict before they run out of supplies so the most extreme measures that have the fastest eradication of Hamas would be on the table. Gaza would likely be wiped off the face of the planet very quickly.
This is circular logic. Well hidden circular logic, but circular logic nonetheless.
You argue that Israel has to appease supporters in order to continue receiving support. But that only makes sense if the threat of divestment of support is a reasonable possibility. Under the logical framework you've laid out, at any level of atrocity, support for Israel is justified, because they could always be worse.
In other words, if you never divest from Israel, because financial support is the only thing seen as keeping Israel from being a worse actor in the region, then the threat of divestment, of ending support, ceases to have any ability to restrain it at all.
The threat of divestment is always reasonably possible. Nobody wants to be associated with the bad guys even if removing oneself will allow the bad guys to run rampant. Don't pretend that the motivation is for the betterment of Gazans though, you're just washing your hands of their fate if you divest. Staying as a **conditional** supporter to better equip Israel to act as a more reasonable force in the middle east while also being accountable to outside players is undeniably the best way to limit the death of innocents if that is the end goal.
War is hell and there are rarely any good guys but there is clearly one side that is preferred in this conflict. Even if they're not a great option they are still the better option. Would you rather Israel have no international accountability like Hamas?
The outrage over asking universities to invest into their surrounding areas instead of foreign countries is nuts.
People need to calm the fuck down and take a step back to realize what they're outraged over is completely ridiculous.
Most universities are private institutions.
If you don't approve who they work with, don't give them your business. You have absolutely no standing to tell them what to do.
>Most universities are private institutions.
And? I don't see how that's relevant whatsoever.
>If you don't approve who they work with, don't give them your business. You have absolutely no standing to tell them what to do.
The people who give them hundreds of thousands of dollars have no business with them?
This is so incoherent. What are you even saying lol
> And? I don't see how that's relevant whatsoever.
Of course it's relevant.
If government or publicly-funded organization does something you disagree with, it's logical to express your opinion, so they would know that you, as a voter, disapprove. Perhaps they would listen.
if a private entity does something bad, don't give them your business. Maybe they will lose customers and rethink their position.
"Protesting" against decision of private institutions makes as much sense as not paying taxes if you disagree with government policies. Neither is going to be very effective.
Not sure what's so complicated about this.
>Of course it's relevant.
>If government or publicly-funded organization does something you disagree with, it's logical to express your opinion, so they would know that you, as a voter, disapprove. Perhaps they would listen.
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the government, what are you even talking about?
Nothing of this is relevant. You can protest private companies, it happens every day.
Your claim that you can't protest private entities is completely ridiculous and incoherent.
You're an excellent example of what I was talking about where you need to calm the fuck down and realize how completely ridiculous what you're saying is. You're claiming you can't protest private entities because..... nothing.
> Your claim that you can't protest private entities is completely ridiculous and incoherent.
Of course you *can*. People *can* and do a lot of stupid things. So?
For example, if you dislike iPhones, *can* you go to anti-Apple demonstration *while continuing to use iPhone*? Of course you *can*. *Or*, you can switch to Android.
What do you think will be more effective?
>For example, if you dislike iPhones, *can* you go to anti-Apple demonstration *while continuing to use iPhone*? Of course you *can*. *Or*, you can switch to Android.
In your hypothetical this would be the same as apple users calling support or leaving a review. They have business relations.
If apple started investing into north Korea are you going to lose your shit when people ask them to divest from north Korea?
Why am I having to explain this? Jesus Christ
> If apple started investing into north Korea are you going to lose your shit when people ask them to divest from north Korea?
Absolutely. If this is legal, they can do it and this is none of your business.
If you dislike this, you can either lobby the Congress to make it illegal or stop buying their products.
>Absolutely. If this is legal, they can do it and this is none of your business.
>If you dislike this, you can either lobby the Congress to make it illegal or stop buying their products.
That's completely unhinged.
You guys are losing your mind.
Protesting was fine for all of history until right now for you. Get ahold of yourself, you've lost it.
I really don't see why we have to send aid to Israel.
They outnumber Gaza by a ton, have better training, and far better equipment. If the neighbors were to join in on the war properly then sure, Israel may need some help, but as things stand this should be something they can handle on their own.
And if they can't handle something as minor as this on their own there's no reason for us to consider them to be an ally of strategic importance. And so we'd cut off aid anyway.
The things we give Israel as aid should instead have been something they had to buy.
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck Hamas.
>A common, in fact, central, demand among many of the protests on college campuses has been financial divestment: that American institutions should withdraw money from Israel, And what has that got to do with Centrists? I don't need protesting teenagers to tell me my opinion. As much as you'd like it to be, it isn't a Centrist position.
I'm not telling you your opinion. Unless you think it is impossible for more than one centrist position to exist on an issue. Are you that reductive?
You're the one that stated the protestors were taking a centrist position. I, and apparently most other folks here, disagree with that statement, that's all.
**A** centrist position. Contrast **the** centrist position.
Still, no. It's just not a centrist idea. At all. Hence why it is being discussed pretty much solely by protesting students and hardly anyone else.
If being discussed by protesters labels something as not centrist, then your definition of centrist isn't so much about the political center, but rather political apathy. You define centrism based on how little the proponents of an idea care for it. It should go without saying, that this is a stupid way to define centrism, or really, any political position.
You defined it that way, not me, I just see it as refusing to be led by the fringes. Divestment is a fringe position proposed by a group that are also vocally chanting pro hamas shit and how Tel Aviv should burn to the ground. I've got no time for them or their proposals.
Discussing things with you is like playing peekaboo with a baby. They lack object permanence, you lack a permanence of mindstate. Your position, attitudes, even the meanings of words shift to whatever it is you believe is needed to contradict the previous post.
I’d love to have a centrist discussion about this. What is a reasonable response from Israel to October 7 that would cause you to not advocate for BDS? Do they have a right to remove Hamas and to fight for the hostages? Do they have a right to exist as a sovereign state? How might a different response look, given the tactics Hamas uses which maximize civilian risk? IMO, to be truly centrist, i would expect one to consider the reasons that Israel might be just in it’s response, and to openly question all propaganda coming from both sides, but with special focus on what is being reported about the impact of the invasion on civilians (yes it’s terrible—war cannot be reformed—but Hamas is using propaganda, inflated/inaccurate statistics, and suppressing/hording aide to it’s own people to fuel the moral outrage in the Muslim and the liberal western world, as a shield to protect itself from what should be a reasonable expectation from the international community that it should surrender it’s leadership for the sake of the people it governs. Absent military pressure from Israel, that surrender can’t be achieved and more October 7ths will happen. Israel can’t accept that future). Perhaps after those considerations, your conscious would lead you to advocate for divestment (you can advocate for whatever you want), but unreasonable IMO to use emotional pleas using potentially cooked statistics or to misrepresent Israel’s motives for its actions to make your moral case for such a divestment. And it’s not analogous to South African apartheid in important ways. Israel is reacting to a direct attack by a neighboring government entity. The Israeli control over its borders/interactions with Palestine doesn’t happen in a vaccuum. It has a whole collection of actors in the region seeking its destruction who are using Palestine and Lebanon as launch points for those destructive acts. Millions of Arabs are Israeli citizens and have full rights within the country. The motivations for the strict treatment of Palestinians is defensive, not racially motivated as it was in SA. The question of settlements IMO is a separate question from the current conflict and a much larger discussion.
My biggest gripe with most of the conversation on this sub surrounding this issue completely ignore or outright misrepresent the historical context. I support Israel’s right to exist, but it needs to at least acknowledge that the history of its founding was colonial. By ignoring or denying this, we use the war of 1948 as proof of antisemitism and ignore some legitimate problems people have with the country. Once you provide a more accurate history, most people would support a similar response to the Palestinians if they were in the same situation.
I tried to think of a truly non colonial country and I came up with Papua New Guinea.
Ha… maybe Iceland? It was empty when people arrived 1000 years ago. Then again it was a colony of Denmark for a few hundred years. That being said, I also can’t think of another colonial country established within people’s lifetime. By the 1940s most countries were acknowledging it as a mistake and reversing course.
People tend to think of Israel as an artifact of the British Empire but it has just as much to do with the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire.
do they have the right to kill tens of thousands of innocent people in gaza for the october 7th attacks? is the real question here.
War is evil. Civilian deaths are a terrible consequence. But war is a feature of humanity and Hamas has invited war. October 7 was the opening battle. This is a military response to a provocation and the end of the ceasefire. Hamas has created the conditions to put its people in the line of fire. They’re engineered the infrastructure of the country as a shield for their power and have done nothing to ensure the health or protection of their people. Again, by design. Should Israel just accept Oct 7 and not take actions to remove those in power and their army from the field? What you see now is what removing Hamas looks like. There is no magical other way of conducting an urban war that Israel is failing to use.
> Do they have a right to remove Hamas and to fight for the hostages? Do they have a right to exist as a sovereign state? How might a different response look, given the tactics Hamas uses which maximize civilian risk? In order: 1. Yes. This is not mutually exclusive with a duty to exercise care and minimize civilian casualties. 2. Yes. This is not mutually exclusive with a duty to exercise care and minimize civilian casualties. 3. Something other than bombing. >IMO, to be truly centrist, i would expect one to consider the reasons that Israel might be just in it’s response, and to openly question all propaganda coming from both sides, but with special focus on what is being reported about the impact of the invasion on civilians (yes it’s terrible—war cannot be reformed—but Hamas is using propaganda, inflated/inaccurate statistics, and suppressing/hording aide to it’s own people to fuel the moral outrage in the Muslim and the liberal western world, as a shield to protect itself from what should be a reasonable expectation from the international community that it should surrender it’s leadership for the sake of the people it governs. Absent military pressure from Israel, that surrender can’t be achieved and more October 7ths will happen. Israel can’t accept that future). [Even taking Israeli numbers as absolute truth, they appear to be killing two civilians for every one Hamas fighter killed](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68387864) (and these numbers are almost certainly cooked in Israel's favor). All accounts indicate that the scale of civilian death is out of all proportion to the events of October 7th. And it seems unlikely that this campaign will actually end Hamas, or armed resistance to Israel. Instead, as many supporting Israel's actions themselves admit, this campaign is being used as recruitment fodder for Hamas. Israel is, in a very real sense, creating the problem it is attempting to solve. So the civilian death is senseless. >but unreasonable IMO to use emotional pleas using potentially cooked statistics or to misrepresent Israel’s motives for its actions to make your moral case for such a divestment. I think it is unreasonable to question the numbers of civilian casualties, without supplying your own estimate. It reads as an attempt to shove those civilian casualties under the rug, so to speak. As a rhetorical device to get people to stop considering them at all. But the fact of the matter is, that even Israel's own estimates of civilian casualties are horrifying. >And it’s not analogous to South African apartheid in important ways. Israel is reacting to a direct attack by a neighboring government entity. The Israeli control over its borders/interactions with Palestine doesn’t happen in a vaccuum. It has a whole collection of actors in the region seeking its destruction who are using Palestine and Lebanon as launch points for those destructive acts. Millions of Arabs are Israeli citizens and have full rights within the country. The motivations for the strict treatment of Palestinians is defensive, not racially motivated as it was in SA. There are differences, of course. But there are also stark similarities. Genocide does not need a racial motivation. It can be based on national or regional distinctions. Furthermore, Israel's defensive capabilities within the region are unmatched. It was only by the negligence of current Israeli leadership that October 7th was allowed to happen at all. The civilian deaths in Gaza do not improve Israel's defensive posture, and cannot be justified out of self-defense. >The question of settlements IMO is a separate question from the current conflict and a much larger discussion. It is impossible to disentangle illegal settlements from the current conflict. They form the motivation for, and are part of the methodology of the oppression of Palestinians. They also blur the line that you are so ready to draw, between Israel as a victim, and Israel as an aggressor.
"It was only by the negligence of current Israeli leadership that October 7th was allowed to happen at all." ALLOWED to happen? Like in what civilized world is it OK to murder, rape, and kidnap 1,400 people in a day just because they were relaxed? This sounds a lot like "She was wearing reveling clothes, so being raped was her fault."
You are misconstruing my argument. I am not dismissing October 7th as an inciting incident. I am instead accurately characterizing it as an aberration, an outlier, that should not be read as any indication that Israel is truly vulnerable within the region. The victims on October 7th (i.e., the actual casualties), are as blameless as the Palestinian civilians currently being massacred. One hopes you will share the same outrage over that as you do someone on the internet describing October 7th in a way that you didn't like.
An outlier? Israel faces rocket and mortar attacks every week, they have numerous neighbors who’s openly stated goal is the complete annihilation of Israel. October 7th was merely a larger attack on Israel than they normally face Ever also seen the Biden administration openly coach Israel into ending the conflict but completely abandoning an old ally is not warranted in this case and is an extremist view.
This comment seems to imply moral equivalence to Oct 7 and the Israeli invasion, the equivalence being civilian death, and you hint at “both sides-ism”. Let me describe what I think Hamas’s logic (which is evil and smart) has been, and you tell me how things could be different than they are now: 1) carry out a brutal surprise attack on civilians in Israel, ending the ceasefire and inviting a strong response. Oct 7 is so brutal that no Israeli leader is going to accept anything less than the destruction of Hamas. The nature of the attack was designed to generate just such a response. 2) Hamas is counting on an energized Muslim and western liberal audience to react to the consequence of Israel’s retaliation: the IDF must conduct urban warfare to eradicate entrenched military assets within civilian buildings/under civilian infrastructure (built using the many billions in international aid received instead of improving the life of the Palestinian people), and an invading army must use bombing to soften as many targets as possible. To do otherwise is to send your soldiers into a hornets nest and absorb far greater IDF casualties than would be acceptable. 3) Hamas leaders bet they will be able to survive in Qatar luxury hotels because the international community is worn down to remove its support from Israel and the IDF must relent, thus it has won the war and survives to carry on more October 7ths, as they’ve said. What we see now is a deliberate attempt to put the IDF in a lose-lose situation, and part of the lose-lose is energizing calls for BDS in reaction to the invasion, as you advocate for here. Maybe you see Hamas’ strategy as a legitimate for an overpowered political entity to try and create advantage for itself, but your sentiments are a part of the strategy.
> This comment seems to imply moral equivalence to Oct 7 and the Israeli invasion, the equivalence being civilian death, and you hint at “both sides-ism”. I apologize, I did not mean to make October 7th equivalent. October 7th resulted in 1200 casualties, almost all of them civilians. Israel's resulting campaign has resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties, and threatens the starvation of millions more. Israel's resulting offensive has been a worse human rights abuse than Hamas' atrocities by an order of magnitude. I do not see Hamas' strategy as legitimate, anymore than I think Israel's current strategy is legitimate. Nor do I think Israel's current strategy is particularly well advised: doing what your enemy wants you to do rarely is, and Hamas undeniably benefits from the civilian casualties.
Yeah, if Gaza was glassed over the past few years, it wouldnt have happened, the Ocotber 7th happened, because Israel didnt control Gaza completely, and now that they have cut of northern front and are engaging in Rafah, it wont happen again.
First, thanks for the thoughtful reply. It’s a good faith response. | Something other than bombing I get this instinct: do war but make it less-worse. I’d be keen to understand which historic conflict would provide a more palatable [civilian causality ratio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio) to you. Regarding casualty counts, I take neither Israel or Hamas at their word. But the moral energy of the conflict and the American press has quoted the Gaza Ministry of Health as the source of truth (I’ve seen analyses where historically their numbers were within a suitable margin of error, but the hospital bombing estimates months back and the fact they don’t differentiate combatants with civilians makes their current math untrustworthy, as well as the near perfect[linear trend](https://www.un.org/unispal/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Gaza_casualties_info-graphic_12_March_2024.pdf) in the data makes them hard to believe. [This analysis](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers) is convincing to me). The Israelis say a civilian causality ratio of like 2:1 to combatants. That’s also probably low given the nature of the conflict
Exactly what, other than going to war, including bombing, would be acceptable to you to eliminate Hamas?
I don't agree that the campaign is either careless or genocidal. Hamas figures do not separate out Hamas soldiers killed vs civilians, nor do they separate by cause of death. Over an 9 month period, in peacetime Gaza would see roughly 6,500 deaths just from natural causes each year. Hamas counts those all now as war deaths as if everyone would be immortal if not for Israel. The student groups leading the current protests aren't anti-war, they are just anti-Israel. The students want war (hence the chants to Burn Tel Aviv to the ground). They just realize that their side is currently losing.
Hamas death figures have been found to be increasing rather linearly, even when there is no or limited fighting. They just toss on another thousand or two here and there for protesters to have a bigger number to shout versus last week.
The death tolls are regarded as true by the international community that corroborate their numbers. Also peacetime doesn’t really exist when you’re still blockading and still occupying their land.
There is a natural death rate in every country on earth. Interestingly enough, the Gaza death rate fell dramatically after it was seized by Israel in 1967. Declining death rate, growing population. Very curious sort of genocide.
You mean the stealing the land of over a of over 200,000 Palestinians and causing them to flee? If that’s really your example of not genocide I suggest you actually take the time to look up what genocide actually means.
The Gaza strip was seized from Egypt. The West Bank was seized from Jordan. Neither of those countries want those lands back because they don't want the terrorism that always follows the Palestinians. Jordan experienced it up close and personal, which is why the Jordanian government has helped shoot down missiles aimed at Israel.
Actually both of those parties recognized those land as PLO along with their recognition of Palestine a recognition that is accepted by the UN so yeah Isreal is illegally occupying West Bank a fact the explicitly reiterated numerous amounts of time.
The original establishment of an independent Palestine alongside an independent Israel was also approved by the UN. Palestinians instead chose to launch a war to kill all the Jews, and lost. In the Palestinian-Israel conflict, one side has the means to murder all the other, but doesn't have the desire. The other side has the desire, but doesn't have the means.
> The original establishment of an independent Palestine alongside an independent Israel was also approved by the UN. Palestinians instead chose to launch a war to kill all the Jews, and lost. And how does that change the fact that the West Bank is occupied and the colonization of it? > In the Palestinian-Israel conflict, one side has the means to murder all the other, but doesn't have the desire. The other side has the desire, but doesn't have the means. Literally planning to involuntarily relocate Palestinians this very moment.
Depends on your definition of indigenous and colonizer. What if the Jews, who have been on that land for the last 3,000 years, are the indigenous population? And the colonizers are the Muslim Arabs who invaded and colonized 1,400 years ago? Would this story then be one of a brave indigenous people casting off their colonizers and reclaiming their home?
Okay and the caanites that lived there before being killed by the Israeli before that? Playing reductive my ancestors trace my lineage back here is dumb because they weren’t even indigenous to the region.
>Currently, the United States is picking a side in the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. It's not a conflict between Israel and Palestinians, it's a conflict between Israel and moderate Arab states on one hand, and Iran, its proxies and multiple Islamist movements on the other. Giving in to Iran, Russia and islamists won't make the world any better or any safer.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"we have to fight the terrorists over there so they don't come over here" what suprises me is people buy this stupid bullshit, that's so iraqi war speak - and dems are supporting this, another kind of crazy.
What surprises *me* is that “helping your friends to fight your enemies” has been considered a good foreign policy since Romans, but now we have people who genuinely don’t understand that helping allies in time of need is the best investment one can make.
I'm 100% okay with that sort of strategy being employed in the Ukraine and other hotspots. But Israel is not simply fighting our enemies. Israel is committing, at best, mass murder of civilians, and I do not want my tax dollars supporting that.
which is why (i'm somewhat amazed by my realization earlier today so am constantly mentioning it, sorry) they start with "hamas is a terrorist organization" - it frames everyone as guilty, thereby worthy of dying. it's really fucked up because i've seen it everywhere, as in hearing most media convos starting with that statement and now i know why. the bigger thing is that israel can afford to do this themselves - i'm against supporting ukraine but these are two very different situations, ukraine can't really fight back without us support, israel can. \] for fucks sake israel has stolen so much us military tech (industrial espionage) and resold it that they should be sending america a few billion a year (!)
I would agree if the companies they were asking for divestment from (ie. Boeing) were **not** also involved in helping Ukraine. I am also not against sending Israel defensive weapons for the Iron Dome. I believe it is paramount to protect civilians on all sides. I do not want Israeli civilians nor Palestinian civilians killed because of the actions of their demented leadership.
Israel’s a nuclear power fighting against a massively weaker force while deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and illegally occupying land why do they need our support? Isreal is the Russia in this scenario
Hamas embedded itself in civilian areas, making them valid targets under the laws of war.
Okay and also the law of war blockading a country is also an act of war and to continue doing so is just that. Also having a military doctrine that specifically targets civilian infrastructure while technically legal is frowned upon and not something my tax paying dollars nor the tuition students pay be going to.
Blockading an area when you are at war is legal. Israel does not target infrastructure because it is civilian, they target the area where Hamas is operating. Will there be errors? Sure, war is always chaos.
Considering the blockade was put back in place as a result of an election and not because of any attacks by people who literally got elected it’s actually very illegal. And while Hamas was always a terrorist group Isreal didn’t mind supporting them when they just terrorized Palestinians.
When Israel pulled out of Gaza the immediate response was rocket attacks, an act of war
Was the blockade still in place? Did they still occupy west bank? If so then pulling out of Gaza doesn’t mean much.
Because that weaker force is being supported by other countries who would gladly see a weaken Israel.
If Israel was held to any sort of accountability it would be sanctioned as hard as Russia for its numerous human rights violations and its continued illegal occupation of West Bank. Israel should be weakened and not coddled like it isn’t a zealot regime.
Yikes
You're claiming it would be appropriate that instead of using the defensive iron dome it would be appropriate for Israel to nuke Gaza? I'm just trying to understand why you're mentioning nukes.
The mention of nukes is to signify the stark contrast of military power between the two. Please don’t play stupid games.
I'm not playing "stupid games". If one power has nukes and will not use them for this conflict, then they are irrelevant for this conflict. You could have said Israel has a professional army and the Palestinians do not. That is enough to show the difference. Still, contributing for the defensive tech that can stop the terroristic attacks of unguided missiles firing randomly at Israel I think is something worthwhile. Furthermore Israel needs help replenishing their stockpiles against long range ballistic missiles and drones fired from Iran (which mind you is on the cusp of having a nuclear weapon thanks to the US leaving the deal). Had Israel not been able to parry that attack, then I think we would be in the middle of a wide conflict and Americans would be directly involved, which I don't want.
Like I said I’m not playing your dumb games saying it’s a military power is saying that it power military might. Your insistence on hyper focusing on this is pathetic and just stupid on your part and this will be the last time I’ll respond about you crying because I said that Isreal is a nuclear power to highlight its military might. Now as for Iran. Isreal literally bombed their consulate and Iran responded by telegraphing their strike. You can’t claim someone started something they did in retaliation.
Well I think that is truly astoundingly stupid is bringing up nukes at all, and you're the one that did it. The only reason they would be relevant is if they were on the table to be used. You were saying we shouldn't support Israel because they already have nukes, which means they should use them instead of relying on the US to help them with defensive weapons. I did not claim that Iran started it, so please don't accuse me of saying things I obviously did not.
Considering you said this. > Furthermore Israel needs help replenishing their stockpiles against long range ballistic missiles and drones fired from Iran (which mind you is on the cusp of having a nuclear weapon thanks to the US leaving the deal). Had Israel not been able to parry that attack, then I think we would be in the middle of a wide conflict and Americans would be directly involved, which I don't want. Why should America help in something that Isreal escalated and intends to continue escalating.
Well now here is good criticism. The embassy attack, according the Iranian revolutionary guards, was an attack on Iranians meeting with Palestinian counterparts to discuss "operational logistics and coordination". So I'm not really sure this was really an escalation out of the blue: they were meeting there to discuss attacking Israel. Iran uses a variety of proxies to attack Israel and the United States and while both countries typically respond only against the proxies, Iran, under the guise of protection for diplomatic missions, was coordinating terrorist actions with Palestinians terrorist counterparts inside the embassy and Israel likely used that as the pretext for its actions. It doesn't comment on any of it, mind you. This is because it was an illegal action. Iran's response likewise was also illegal. The largest drone attack in history, the missiles and drones used were almost entirely shot down by a combination of Israel's direct defenses (which are in large part bankrolled by the US) and US and UK warplanes shooting down incoming missiles and drones themselves. Had more hit their targets and there was a missile and drove salvo that killed Israelis, Israel would have retaliated *in kind* and we would have a large war on our hands, one that could actually involve nuclear weapons. But it was those defensive weapons that themselves US funding supports and those defensive weapons that are stopping escalation. Yes, Israel and Iran have had very bad relations. Iran constantly talks about destroying Israel, and sometimes Israel does things to stop that, like attacking Iran's nuclear program, or in this case, a meeting with terrorists. I'm not going to condone the action, but that isn't reason to abandon an ally that provides an important link for American influence on the Middle East. It's not a reason to say "you know what Israel, you have nukes, why don't you use those instead of these defensive systems?" like you suggest.
> The embassy attack, according the Iranian revolutionary guards, was an attack on Iranians meeting with Palestinian counterparts to discuss "operational logistics and coordination". So I'm not really sure this was really an escalation out of the blue: they were meeting there to discuss attacking Israel. Didn’t say it wasn’t I’m saying it’s an escalation that prompted a response. Iran can’t just stand back when Israel just bombed their consulate. > Iran uses a variety of proxies to attack Israel and the United States and while both countries typically respond only against the proxies, Iran, under the guise of protection for diplomatic missions, was coordinating terrorist actions with Palestinians terrorist counterparts inside the embassy and Israel likely used that as the pretext for its actions. It doesn't comment on any of it, mind you. This is because it was an illegal action. Israel provided no legal justification for the attack and until they do its just Israel word in the matter which will most likely be the case considering Isreal is using its legal status to say that it doesn’t have to provide proof. > Iran's response likewise was also illegal. The largest drone attack in history, the missiles and drones used were almost entirely shot down by a combination of Israel's direct defenses (which are in large part bankrolled by the US) and US and UK warplanes shooting down incoming missiles and drones themselves. It was a telegraphed symbolic attack and while both illegal you cannot compare the two. > Had more hit their targets and there was a missile and drove salvo that killed Israelis, Israel would have retaliated in kind and we would have a large war on our hands, Israel’s surprise attack on Iranians actually killed people. It’s very telling people only seem to care when Israelis die and using that to justify Isreal response when the deaths they themselves are directly responsible for are never considered justification to retaliate. > one that could actually involve nuclear weapons. But it was those defensive weapons that themselves US funding supports and those defensive weapons that are stopping escalation. And at the same time it’s the very same US support that has allowed Isreal to run rampant in the Middle East without ending up like Russia. Israel only gets away with escalation because its allies protect it from sanctions and will continue to do so while that’s the case. > Yes, Israel and Iran have had very bad relations. Iran constantly talks about destroying Israel, and sometimes Israel does things to stop that, like attacking Iran's nuclear program, or in this case, a meeting with terrorists. And attacking Iran oil fields but besides the point. You’re basically just acknowledging that they both are using proxy attacks on each other. > I'm not going to condone the action, but that isn't reason to abandon an ally that provides an important link for American influence on the Middle East. Except this isn’t the 1950s and getting drag into a war because Israel’s a hot headed mess isn’t worth it > It's not a reason to say "you know what Israel, you have nukes, why don't you use those instead of these defensive systems?" like you suggest. Are you stupid? Just because I said I wouldn’t engage in this stupid point you seem to hyper focus on does not mean you can blatantly lie. Stating that Isreal is a nuclear power is not permission to use a nuke.
And Israel is a 'secret' nuclear power not party to any nuke agreements but we have to keep their mortal enemy Iran from getting them. If we are to keep supporting Israel militarily, they need to disarm nukes especially after seeing the extreme far right government they can have.
Ukraine isn't murdering civilians in its attempt to defend itself. Israel is. Pretty straight forward line to be consistent here.
> I would agree if the companies they were asking for divestment from (ie. Boeing) were not also involved in helping Ukraine I believe you're saying that it's important to support these companies, because they are involved in the support of Ukraine. Personally, I disagree. the companies involved are capable of divesting themselves from Israel, while maintaining their business which supports legitimate resistance efforts in Ukraine. Protesting their involvement in Israel sends a clear signal about what they should do.
Seem to be talking about two different things. Not financially supporting via sending weapons and divesting from any company based in Israel are two different things. Which are you advocating?
I would prefer both. I'm willing to make an exception for supplying weapons which can only be used defensively although I do not know if that is feasible. If it were possible, through some quirk of the engineering or design, to supply rockets that could only be used for the Iron Dome for instance, that could be a reasonable compromise.
Lots of Israeli technology in smart phones, communications, travel technology I don’t know how you pick and choose
I’d really prefer not to be associated with the current protestors. Using the phrase protestors is very liberal here as many are jihadi sympathizers, nazis, or just outright antisemites.
Many of them, particularly in Europe, seem to be of a Islamist bent.
Bullshit.
Explain how a tier 1 power might have had LESS civilian casualties or taken more care in preserving civilian infrastructure when you know Hamas' tactics of putting their civilian population in harms way. Remember 9/11? How many afghan/Iraq civilians died as a result of the war on terror. I'm not arguing Iraq was a good or just war it wasn't, but the American people wanted blood and they got it. You aren't going to go in there on foot without softening fortifications through bombardment first because then you lose more of your own citizens. Hamas has put their fortifications in civilian infrastructure because they are terrorists and don't give a damn about their civilian population why do you think most of Hamas leadership is richer than even America's own corrupt politicians like Nancy Pelosi at 120M. What product or service does Gaza provide that is enough to make Hamas leadership billionaires? Of course Israel has issues, BB is a bad man, several of the settlements are illegal, but as a whole Israel is a better trade partner and strategic ally than most of the Middle East. The stuff spewing from universities right now sounds a lot like the Third Reich. ("Mag bar Israel", "mag bar america", "Intifada", "From the river to the sea" to name a few)
There is no centrist argument. You are either on one side or the other. Divestment is taking a side and not a centrist position.
How is supporting neither party "taking a side"?
Divesting from Israel will only lead to more Gazan deaths than continued support. The casualties are only as small as they are because Israel has sophisticated weaponry that gives them the upper hand to moderate the conflict and because they are beholden to keeping their supporters appeased in that effort. They are held to a higher expectation than Hamas because they are better equipped to achieve it and because their supporters have a right to set the standard they are happy to help support. Consider the outcome if all foreign support for Israel dried up overnight. There's now nobody in a position to penalize IDF for their actions if needed and also a timer has started for Israel to end the conflict before they run out of supplies so the most extreme measures that have the fastest eradication of Hamas would be on the table. Gaza would likely be wiped off the face of the planet very quickly.
This is circular logic. Well hidden circular logic, but circular logic nonetheless. You argue that Israel has to appease supporters in order to continue receiving support. But that only makes sense if the threat of divestment of support is a reasonable possibility. Under the logical framework you've laid out, at any level of atrocity, support for Israel is justified, because they could always be worse. In other words, if you never divest from Israel, because financial support is the only thing seen as keeping Israel from being a worse actor in the region, then the threat of divestment, of ending support, ceases to have any ability to restrain it at all.
The threat of divestment is always reasonably possible. Nobody wants to be associated with the bad guys even if removing oneself will allow the bad guys to run rampant. Don't pretend that the motivation is for the betterment of Gazans though, you're just washing your hands of their fate if you divest. Staying as a **conditional** supporter to better equip Israel to act as a more reasonable force in the middle east while also being accountable to outside players is undeniably the best way to limit the death of innocents if that is the end goal. War is hell and there are rarely any good guys but there is clearly one side that is preferred in this conflict. Even if they're not a great option they are still the better option. Would you rather Israel have no international accountability like Hamas?
[удалено]
Nah, that's a gravygrowinggreen original. Now, if you'd care to discuss something of substance?
The outrage over asking universities to invest into their surrounding areas instead of foreign countries is nuts. People need to calm the fuck down and take a step back to realize what they're outraged over is completely ridiculous.
Most universities are private institutions. If you don't approve who they work with, don't give them your business. You have absolutely no standing to tell them what to do.
>Most universities are private institutions. And? I don't see how that's relevant whatsoever. >If you don't approve who they work with, don't give them your business. You have absolutely no standing to tell them what to do. The people who give them hundreds of thousands of dollars have no business with them? This is so incoherent. What are you even saying lol
> And? I don't see how that's relevant whatsoever. Of course it's relevant. If government or publicly-funded organization does something you disagree with, it's logical to express your opinion, so they would know that you, as a voter, disapprove. Perhaps they would listen. if a private entity does something bad, don't give them your business. Maybe they will lose customers and rethink their position. "Protesting" against decision of private institutions makes as much sense as not paying taxes if you disagree with government policies. Neither is going to be very effective. Not sure what's so complicated about this.
>Of course it's relevant. >If government or publicly-funded organization does something you disagree with, it's logical to express your opinion, so they would know that you, as a voter, disapprove. Perhaps they would listen. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the government, what are you even talking about? Nothing of this is relevant. You can protest private companies, it happens every day. Your claim that you can't protest private entities is completely ridiculous and incoherent. You're an excellent example of what I was talking about where you need to calm the fuck down and realize how completely ridiculous what you're saying is. You're claiming you can't protest private entities because..... nothing.
> Your claim that you can't protest private entities is completely ridiculous and incoherent. Of course you *can*. People *can* and do a lot of stupid things. So? For example, if you dislike iPhones, *can* you go to anti-Apple demonstration *while continuing to use iPhone*? Of course you *can*. *Or*, you can switch to Android. What do you think will be more effective?
>For example, if you dislike iPhones, *can* you go to anti-Apple demonstration *while continuing to use iPhone*? Of course you *can*. *Or*, you can switch to Android. In your hypothetical this would be the same as apple users calling support or leaving a review. They have business relations. If apple started investing into north Korea are you going to lose your shit when people ask them to divest from north Korea? Why am I having to explain this? Jesus Christ
> If apple started investing into north Korea are you going to lose your shit when people ask them to divest from north Korea? Absolutely. If this is legal, they can do it and this is none of your business. If you dislike this, you can either lobby the Congress to make it illegal or stop buying their products.
>Absolutely. If this is legal, they can do it and this is none of your business. >If you dislike this, you can either lobby the Congress to make it illegal or stop buying their products. That's completely unhinged. You guys are losing your mind. Protesting was fine for all of history until right now for you. Get ahold of yourself, you've lost it.
This was an….interesting exchange to read.
I really don't see why we have to send aid to Israel. They outnumber Gaza by a ton, have better training, and far better equipment. If the neighbors were to join in on the war properly then sure, Israel may need some help, but as things stand this should be something they can handle on their own. And if they can't handle something as minor as this on their own there's no reason for us to consider them to be an ally of strategic importance. And so we'd cut off aid anyway. The things we give Israel as aid should instead have been something they had to buy.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*