5 ms·

This is confusing to say the least, the US are providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition to kill the Palestinian civilians, and then they want to take

This is confusing to say the least, the US are providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition to kill the Palestinian civilians, and then they want to take the children victims for medical care?! Why the US plays on both sides?

jalapenod 1y ago
remember jews want all Palestinians deported from the area, it makes perfect sense for zionists to support humanitarian efforts OUTSIDE of israel
s5300 1y ago
>> This is confusing to say the least, the US are providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition to kill the Palestinian civilians, and then they want to take the children victims for medical care?! Why the US plays on both sides? The US taxpayer has always paid for Israel’s citizens healthcare, while US citizens go without healthcare and ration their necessary medicine. Makes you wonder how such leverage can exist.
- apical_dendrite 1y ago
  > The US taxpayer has always paid for Israel’s citizens healthcare What is your source for this claim? Most US military aid to Israel goes to US defense contractors. The US hasn't provided any significant economic aid to Israel in decades.
  - siliconc0w 1y ago
    Dollars are fungible
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      By this logic, the US is funding X at 173 countries, where X is anything governments spend money on (healthcare, soup kitchens, cocktail parties?)
      - MentatOnMelange 1y ago
        Since the US has shuttered USAID which distrubutes food for humanitarian reasons, and made massive cuts to domestic healthcare program, this is indeed the logic of the current administration
      - jkaplowitz 1y ago
        Your rhetorical question is more true than you may realize: The high levels of US military spending is indeed a major reason why so many countries in (for example) Europe have been able to afford their robust social welfare systems instead of having to spend more of their budget on defense than they traditionally have. A lot of articles discussing the consequences of the Trump administration’s pressure on other NATO countries to spend more of their GDP on defense and its public hesitation to protect Europe militarily have discussed how some of European governments’ nonmilitary expenses may have to be reduced as a result.
        impossiblefork 1y ago
        No, robust healthcare is cheaper than the US system. Here in Sweden we had this even back in the day when we spent 5% of GDP on defence, mostly materiel, and upon that had mandatory military service. The US healthcare system is more expensive than a Swedish-style healthcare system. Another fun fact: our university education is cheaper per head than our high school education. I think the education of physicians is maybe 1.5x as expensive as high school education, but that's an unusually expensive program.
        jkaplowitz 1y ago
        If you focus only on healthcare, I agree completely. But then look at the rest of the system. I don't know about Sweden specifically, so I'll stick with Germany as the example I know better: free university education for everyone, strong unemployment benefits and worker rights, heavily subsidized mass transportation, lots of social housing even if still inadequate for the demand, the list goes on and on... Definitely not a cheap bill, and definitely more affordable when not having to spend that money on the military.
    - apical_dendrite 1y ago
      They aren't really dollars, so much as in-kind aid. The US pays Raytheon to manufacture interceptors in the US and then send them to Israel. So it's fungible in the sense that without US military aid, Israel would have to figure out how to pay for missile defense and other military needs. And maybe that involves less domestic spending on healthcare and maybe it involves making deals with other countries or making foreign or military policy changes. Maybe it leads to positive changes like peace deals, but maybe it leads to negative changes, like Israel switching its allegiance to countries that aren't as friendly to US interests. Ultimately, the person I'm replying to is giving a false impression of what the US is doing.
  - Cyph0n 1y ago
    Because the $1 saved on a missile can be spent elsewhere?
dathinab 1y ago
because - it's about civilians and at least the official stance is that the US helps Israel to fight terrorist, not civilians. - a government isn't a single person - this doesn't just involves the US government but also humanitarian help groups
wat10000 1y ago
“The US” is not providing medical care for the victims. A private charity is. The role of the US government is in allowing, or now denying, the recipients to enter the country to receive care.
mc32 1y ago
[flagged]
- rasz 1y ago
  [flagged]
- watwut 1y ago
  The hospitals in area were targetted by bombings. So were journalists and NGO.
  - mc32 1y ago
    I somehow doubt Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad would get targeted. Or, we could go to 1,000NM and include Athens and Istanbul and Kuwait. When our own Armed forces folks need hospital care, we take them to DE or IT. we don't fly them all the way to the US when there are facilities that can treat them closer to where they were injured.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Because there are people in the US who are willing to give them medical aid for free. They would travel here, receive medical care, and then leave. "Well, there are other charities elsewhere in the world" is a horrible reason to prevent a charitable organization from doing good for people.
  - mc32 1y ago
    That would make more sense if if there weren't locals who needed intensive care. We have many, many people who fall through the cracks. Why do they take second place to people 5,000+ miles away? It's cool that they want to be charitable and nice; are their own people not worthwhile helping, if not why not? In addition, if they have all the money and want to help both locals and foreigners, they could do it cheaper by financing this care at places closer to where these people live.
    - UncleMeat 1y ago
lisbbb 1y ago
[flagged]
- isr 1y ago
  [flagged]
- throawayonthe 1y ago
  yeah and the invasion of ukraine definitely had denazification as the goal
- watwut 1y ago
  It is quite literally genocide and yes Israelis are targetting civilians. They were doing it for years, but now they do it very openly.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
Gibbon1 1y ago
You're confused because you favor a simplistic view of the world where you have evil people and good people. The US is not an enemy of Palestinians in general. Policies historically reflect conflicting goals and problematic facts on the ground. And problematic facts on the ground are often not the US's fault. The biggest problematic thing is outsiders that support Palestinians armed conflict with Israel. And then get butthurt and double down due to the predictable results.
foogazi 1y ago
Because the US is an entity made up of millions of people The “US” doesn’t do anything- it’s people in the country that ultimately act
duxup 1y ago
It's not weird for an organization to choose to help children, any children. Even the military conducting some action in an area will do so. Plenty of photos of solders sharing rations with local kids. That seems like a reasonable goal all by itself.
yes_really 1y ago
The US are not providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition "to kill the Palestinian civilians". Israel seeks to MINIMIZE collateral damage to Palestinian victims while achieving the military objective of destroying the terrorist group Hamas and its military capabilities. The rate of civilians and combatants dead is lower than the average of urban wars (lower than when the US fought in urban wars). Israel performs precise attacks on Hamas combatants and military facilities. It sends communication before performing attacks though radio, leaflets, "sound bombs", etc, to allow civilians to escape even though this obviously hinders the effectiveness of its operations because this allows Hamas to change the location of its combatants and weapons. Israel even flat out cancels some operations on valid military targets (such as Hamas weapon deposits and launchers) in order to save civilian lives. In short, Israel seeks to MINIMIZE collateral damage to Palestinian victims while achieving valid military objectives. Saying Israel seeks to kill Palestinian civilians is as absurd as saying that the US Federal Highway Administration seeks to kill American civilians in car accidents.

jalapenod 1y ago

remember jews want all Palestinians deported from the area, it makes perfect sense for zionists to support humanitarian efforts OUTSIDE of israel

s5300 1y ago

>> This is confusing to say the least, the US are providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition to kill the Palestinian civilians, and then they want to take the children victims for medical care?! Why the US plays on both sides? The US taxpayer has always paid for Israel’s citizens healthcare, while US citizens go without healthcare and ration their necessary medicine. Makes you wonder how such leverage can exist.

apical_dendrite 1y ago
> The US taxpayer has always paid for Israel’s citizens healthcare What is your source for this claim? Most US military aid to Israel goes to US defense contractors. The US hasn't provided any significant economic aid to Israel in decades.
- siliconc0w 1y ago
  Dollars are fungible
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    By this logic, the US is funding X at 173 countries, where X is anything governments spend money on (healthcare, soup kitchens, cocktail parties?)
    - MentatOnMelange 1y ago
      Since the US has shuttered USAID which distrubutes food for humanitarian reasons, and made massive cuts to domestic healthcare program, this is indeed the logic of the current administration
    - jkaplowitz 1y ago
      Your rhetorical question is more true than you may realize: The high levels of US military spending is indeed a major reason why so many countries in (for example) Europe have been able to afford their robust social welfare systems instead of having to spend more of their budget on defense than they traditionally have. A lot of articles discussing the consequences of the Trump administration’s pressure on other NATO countries to spend more of their GDP on defense and its public hesitation to protect Europe militarily have discussed how some of European governments’ nonmilitary expenses may have to be reduced as a result.
      - impossiblefork 1y ago
        No, robust healthcare is cheaper than the US system. Here in Sweden we had this even back in the day when we spent 5% of GDP on defence, mostly materiel, and upon that had mandatory military service. The US healthcare system is more expensive than a Swedish-style healthcare system. Another fun fact: our university education is cheaper per head than our high school education. I think the education of physicians is maybe 1.5x as expensive as high school education, but that's an unusually expensive program.
        jkaplowitz 1y ago
        If you focus only on healthcare, I agree completely. But then look at the rest of the system. I don't know about Sweden specifically, so I'll stick with Germany as the example I know better: free university education for everyone, strong unemployment benefits and worker rights, heavily subsidized mass transportation, lots of social housing even if still inadequate for the demand, the list goes on and on... Definitely not a cheap bill, and definitely more affordable when not having to spend that money on the military.
  - apical_dendrite 1y ago
    They aren't really dollars, so much as in-kind aid. The US pays Raytheon to manufacture interceptors in the US and then send them to Israel. So it's fungible in the sense that without US military aid, Israel would have to figure out how to pay for missile defense and other military needs. And maybe that involves less domestic spending on healthcare and maybe it involves making deals with other countries or making foreign or military policy changes. Maybe it leads to positive changes like peace deals, but maybe it leads to negative changes, like Israel switching its allegiance to countries that aren't as friendly to US interests. Ultimately, the person I'm replying to is giving a false impression of what the US is doing.
- Cyph0n 1y ago
  Because the $1 saved on a missile can be spent elsewhere?

dathinab 1y ago

because - it's about civilians and at least the official stance is that the US helps Israel to fight terrorist, not civilians. - a government isn't a single person - this doesn't just involves the US government but also humanitarian help groups

wat10000 1y ago

“The US” is not providing medical care for the victims. A private charity is. The role of the US government is in allowing, or now denying, the recipients to enter the country to receive care.

mc32 1y ago

[flagged]

rasz 1y ago
[flagged]
watwut 1y ago
The hospitals in area were targetted by bombings. So were journalists and NGO.
- mc32 1y ago
  I somehow doubt Cairo, Damascus or Baghdad would get targeted. Or, we could go to 1,000NM and include Athens and Istanbul and Kuwait. When our own Armed forces folks need hospital care, we take them to DE or IT. we don't fly them all the way to the US when there are facilities that can treat them closer to where they were injured.
UncleMeat 1y ago
Because there are people in the US who are willing to give them medical aid for free. They would travel here, receive medical care, and then leave. "Well, there are other charities elsewhere in the world" is a horrible reason to prevent a charitable organization from doing good for people.
- mc32 1y ago
  That would make more sense if if there weren't locals who needed intensive care. We have many, many people who fall through the cracks. Why do they take second place to people 5,000+ miles away? It's cool that they want to be charitable and nice; are their own people not worthwhile helping, if not why not? In addition, if they have all the money and want to help both locals and foreigners, they could do it cheaper by financing this care at places closer to where these people live.
  - UncleMeat 1y ago

lisbbb 1y ago

[flagged]

isr 1y ago
[flagged]
throawayonthe 1y ago
yeah and the invasion of ukraine definitely had denazification as the goal
watwut 1y ago
It is quite literally genocide and yes Israelis are targetting civilians. They were doing it for years, but now they do it very openly.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

Gibbon1 1y ago

You're confused because you favor a simplistic view of the world where you have evil people and good people. The US is not an enemy of Palestinians in general. Policies historically reflect conflicting goals and problematic facts on the ground. And problematic facts on the ground are often not the US's fault. The biggest problematic thing is outsiders that support Palestinians armed conflict with Israel. And then get butthurt and double down due to the predictable results.

foogazi 1y ago

Because the US is an entity made up of millions of people The “US” doesn’t do anything- it’s people in the country that ultimately act

duxup 1y ago

It's not weird for an organization to choose to help children, any children. Even the military conducting some action in an area will do so. Plenty of photos of solders sharing rations with local kids. That seems like a reasonable goal all by itself.

yes_really 1y ago

The US are not providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition "to kill the Palestinian civilians". Israel seeks to MINIMIZE collateral damage to Palestinian victims while achieving the military objective of destroying the terrorist group Hamas and its military capabilities. The rate of civilians and combatants dead is lower than the average of urban wars (lower than when the US fought in urban wars). Israel performs precise attacks on Hamas combatants and military facilities. It sends communication before performing attacks though radio, leaflets, "sound bombs", etc, to allow civilians to escape even though this obviously hinders the effectiveness of its operations because this allows Hamas to change the location of its combatants and weapons. Israel even flat out cancels some operations on valid military targets (such as Hamas weapon deposits and launchers) in order to save civilian lives. In short, Israel seeks to MINIMIZE collateral damage to Palestinian victims while achieving valid military objectives. Saying Israel seeks to kill Palestinian civilians is as absurd as saying that the US Federal Highway Administration seeks to kill American civilians in car accidents.