7 ms·

Useless except if the following done on the US side: Remove exception to AIPAC political status Reevaluate AIPAC non profit status entirely Replicate EO 1404

Useless except if the following done on the US side: Remove exception to AIPAC political status Reevaluate AIPAC non profit status entirely Replicate EO 14046 for Israel which adds the entire ruling party and head of state and spouses and military and affiliated business to the OFAC list all of this is easy and doesn’t require Congress but nobody is close to considering those actions with regard to Israel. Notably, other nation’s organizations do not enjoy this courtesy (Don’t sorry guys, Hamas is already on these lists too)

therobots927 1y ago
Voters can take a stand and refuse to vote for anyone complicit in this atrocity.
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - netsharc 1y ago
    [flagged]
- imglorp 1y ago
  In the US, both parties were supportive in the last election. Not many choices.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    One party had a long leash. The other cut the leash and yelled attaboy. Now acting mildly concerned when the neighbour downstreet (Qatar) got their chickens bombed.
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      > Now acting mildly concerned when the neighbour downstreet (Qatar) got their chickens bombed. Thing is, what was bombed there was Hamas leadership, not some rank-and-file goons.
      - actionfromafar 1y ago
        Yes, and at this point I'm not arguing for or against that action. I'm saying the current and previous US administration have very different foreign policy.
      - MomsAVoxell 1y ago
        So? Justifying this kind of act, no matter what, opens the doors for such assassinations to occur in any other country in the world. The precedence has been set. Don't moan when your own politicians, branded terrorists by the governments of some foreign nation, also get blasted away.
        rogerrogerr 1y ago
        Nothing in the real world is held back by “moaning”. Foreign countries mostly don’t assassinate American leaders because we have myriad ways to find out who did it and make life less enjoyable for them. Not because of adherence to some mutual code of conduct. If they thought they could get away with it, they’d be doing it.
        MomsAVoxell 1y ago
        American Supremacy is a dire fallacy. They do get away with it.
    - IncreasePosts 1y ago
      Why shouldn't Hamas leadership be bombed wherever they may be? They're the leaders of a terrorist organization. The US takes out terrorists wherever they may be (or, works with local authorities to get them first). But, when local authorities are siding with the terrorists, we go in there and do it ourselves. October 7th was Israel's 9/11 - we went and got bin Laden in Pakistan, without dealing with the Pakistani government. Why shouldn't Israel do the same thing? I say - kill all the Hamas leadership, and leave the random Palestinian citizens alone.
      - axus 1y ago
        There was only one bin Laden, and we didn't use missiles for that one.
      - kayodelycaon 1y ago
        We have bombed their leadership. This is an entirely different war. Hamas was/is the government of Gaza. They're part of the people there, not outside it. You're trying to fight an organization that is part of the civilian population, not above it or outside of it. And that organization is deliberately using human shields to blur the lines even further. It's not easy to figure out who's a random Palestinian or who's going to fire a rocket into Israel five years from now. If we want to keep bombing our way to victory, that's going to continue down the road of genocide. Humanity needs to be better than this. We need to be better than this.
        fahhem 1y ago
        I can turn anyone, including you, into "someone who will fire a rocket in 5 years". Give me US backing and I can do it in 4
        kayodelycaon 1y ago
        Out of curiosity, how would you plan to do that? You know nothing about me.
        1y ago
  - therobots927 1y ago
    I can write in “free Palestine”
    - dmbche 1y ago
      And it's gonna get seen by one (1) vote counter who'll then put it away/throw it in the bin
      - therobots927 1y ago
        As long as it doesn’t go to a genocide enabler I could care less where my vote goes
        dmbche 1y ago
        Oh I just don't vote instead, it just feels performative now
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > both parties were supportive in the last election. Not many choices. Primaries. The truth is that foreign policy rarely flips American elections. Particularly when we don't have our troops on the ground.
    - jjk166 1y ago
      Last election the democrats didn't have a primary, and the republicans barely had one. Political change requires more than one day at the polls; it demands large scale sustained effort by many people, including those in positions of prominence, and even with that success takes time and luck. Part of being in a leadership position is taking responsibility for what happens on your watch. The electorate can't be blamed for its leaders not doing their jobs when the their leadership is needed.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Last election the democrats didn't have a primary, and the republicans barely had one Now do down ballot. > electorate can't be blamed for its leaders not doing their jobs when the their leadership is needed Pro-Palestinian voters who swung for Trump explicitly endorsed the war. Even if they thought they were just throwing a tantrum. That includes the war’s repercussions, including the dissolution and incorporation of Palestine. If you care about net effect, the answer is obvious. If how one feels reigns supreme, yes, that voting bloc is excused. (But still irrelevant.)
        jjk166 1y ago
        > Now do down ballot. As I stated before, changing a political party from the bottom up takes time. While a good endeavor, it doesn't affect who is currently in the drivers seat. Either Harris or Trump were going to be making the decisions about the current Gaza situation regardless of what the electorate did. > Pro-Palestinian voters who swung for Trump explicitly endorsed the war. Pro-palestinian voters didn't swing to trump. Virtually no one swang to Trump; his election results in 2024 were basically the same as in 2020 plus the increase in population of areas that voted for him in 2020. Exit polls indicate that Trump voters were overwhelmingly pro-israel. I'm sure some individuals did, but not enough to make any difference one way or the other. Trump won because 6 million democrats who showed up in 2020 stayed home in 2024. If they had gone out and voted for Harris, and then Harris supported Israel's efforts, as she publicly said she would, you would still be saying they endorsed the war.
  - 8note 1y ago
    couldnt you instead, run for government? if its something voters care about, either youll win, or the competing candidates will change their tune
    - imglorp 1y ago
      The parties have already decided their position on a variety of issues so if you're going to get nominated for the party you'll be against them on that issue. And the system is designed to exclude independents. The last nationally visible "I" candidate was roughly H Ross Perot. The system made sure that didn't happen again.
- margalabargala 1y ago
  They tried that last November and wound up worse off than if they hadn't.
jmyeet 1y ago
I fully understand the feelings of helplessness and hopelessness with this situation. Lots of people like to imagine what they'd do in certain situations, historical or otherwise. We no longer need to imagine what most people would do in the HOlocaust. We now know: nothing. In WW2, most people could reasonably claim ignorance. Even a lot of Germans could claim ignorance. Now we have livestreamed 4K 60fps evidence that is impossible to ignore. There's a phrase that's widely attributed (arguably misattributed) to Lenin: "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen" So while the US could end this entire thing with a phone call, it's not true to say that things aren't changing. US support for Israel continues to plummet to new lows [1], to levels I never thought I'd see. Small things like blocking a cycling event in Spain, the future of Eurovision being uncertain, European states recognizing Palestine, problems for the port in Haifa due to changes in shipping because of Houthi rebels, ICC?ICJ investigations, these genocide findings and so on... it all adds up. It all matters. It all compounds to political and economic pressure on the actors involved. [1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/692948/u.s.-back-israel-military-action-gaza-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/692948/u.s.-back-israel-militar...
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  I don't feel hopeless by pointing out that the UN report is a small piece of a puzzle, despite the high level of energy used to collectively create it. It's easier to talk about these things and seeing consensus shift on consensus driven forums like this. My prior observations about that state's policies and supporting culture have been similar, but seen as extreme and "cancellable" at one point. Espousing my observations would have been conflated with ideas of physical harm to Jewish and Israelis, which I don't harbor. My ideas are much more similar to Jewish Israeli residents that protest their own government within Israel. And it's been nice to see many stateside Jewish people distance themselves, and now even second guess Zionism, which Jewish community leaders initially denounced 120 years ago by foreseeing these specific issues and its inherent extremism. When it comes to my country's involvement, it's a complete aberration in US foreign policy. The reasons require a contorting ourselves for no real practical reason that isn’t already fulfilled by other countries in the Middle East, it’s just money moved from one account to the account of our politicians and appointed representatives. So I am happy to see piece by piece, people re-evaluating the state narrative on that country. The politicians with discretion on all the levers are unfortunately a far cry away from changing anything.
shykes 1y ago
> Remove exception to AIPAC political status > Reevaluate AIPAC non profit status entirely What would that achieve? AIPAC is a domestic organization. Their members are US citizens and permanent residents, making individual political donations of their own free will. AIPAC vets candidates for their support of Israel, and individual donors rely on them to make an informed decision. But ultimately it is their decision, and their money. If AIPAC disappeared tomorrow, their members would still be directing their political donations towards pro-Israel candidates, as is their constitutional right. They would simply look for another nonprofit to do the vetting, or do the research themselves. On top of being ineffective, attacking AIPAC in this way would also be unethical. You may not like that some US citizens prioritize support for Israel in their donations. That doesn't give you the right to suppress their donations. It creates a dangerous precedent where suppressing the political rights of some citizens is justified if they have the "wrong" opinions.
- MomsAVoxell 1y ago
  >You may not like that some US citizens prioritize support for Israel in their donations. That doesn't give you the right to suppress their donations. It's quite simple, treat Israel like Russia. Same tools are available for any nation which commits atrocities under the watchful guise of the mighty, moral, USA.
  - shykes 1y ago
    My point is that you should tell that to the US-based individuals who choose to donate to pro-Israel candidates, or donate to other candidates yourself (if you're legally allowed to), instead of attacking their ability to exercise their right to donate.
    - MomsAVoxell 1y ago
      The point is, donations from an active vocal minority aren't the only way to deal with the problem of subjugation of one government to another, especially when those governments are in the process of committing heinous acts of terror, war crimes, and crimes against humanity at massive scale. If it works on Russia, it'll work for Israel.

therobots927 1y ago

Voters can take a stand and refuse to vote for anyone complicit in this atrocity.

mrguyorama 1y ago
[flagged]
- netsharc 1y ago
  [flagged]
imglorp 1y ago
In the US, both parties were supportive in the last election. Not many choices.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  One party had a long leash. The other cut the leash and yelled attaboy. Now acting mildly concerned when the neighbour downstreet (Qatar) got their chickens bombed.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > Now acting mildly concerned when the neighbour downstreet (Qatar) got their chickens bombed. Thing is, what was bombed there was Hamas leadership, not some rank-and-file goons.
    - actionfromafar 1y ago
      Yes, and at this point I'm not arguing for or against that action. I'm saying the current and previous US administration have very different foreign policy.
    - MomsAVoxell 1y ago
      So? Justifying this kind of act, no matter what, opens the doors for such assassinations to occur in any other country in the world. The precedence has been set. Don't moan when your own politicians, branded terrorists by the governments of some foreign nation, also get blasted away.
      - rogerrogerr 1y ago
        Nothing in the real world is held back by “moaning”. Foreign countries mostly don’t assassinate American leaders because we have myriad ways to find out who did it and make life less enjoyable for them. Not because of adherence to some mutual code of conduct. If they thought they could get away with it, they’d be doing it.
        MomsAVoxell 1y ago
        American Supremacy is a dire fallacy. They do get away with it.
  - IncreasePosts 1y ago
    Why shouldn't Hamas leadership be bombed wherever they may be? They're the leaders of a terrorist organization. The US takes out terrorists wherever they may be (or, works with local authorities to get them first). But, when local authorities are siding with the terrorists, we go in there and do it ourselves. October 7th was Israel's 9/11 - we went and got bin Laden in Pakistan, without dealing with the Pakistani government. Why shouldn't Israel do the same thing? I say - kill all the Hamas leadership, and leave the random Palestinian citizens alone.
    - axus 1y ago
      There was only one bin Laden, and we didn't use missiles for that one.
    - kayodelycaon 1y ago
      We have bombed their leadership. This is an entirely different war. Hamas was/is the government of Gaza. They're part of the people there, not outside it. You're trying to fight an organization that is part of the civilian population, not above it or outside of it. And that organization is deliberately using human shields to blur the lines even further. It's not easy to figure out who's a random Palestinian or who's going to fire a rocket into Israel five years from now. If we want to keep bombing our way to victory, that's going to continue down the road of genocide. Humanity needs to be better than this. We need to be better than this.
      - fahhem 1y ago
        I can turn anyone, including you, into "someone who will fire a rocket in 5 years". Give me US backing and I can do it in 4
        kayodelycaon 1y ago
        Out of curiosity, how would you plan to do that? You know nothing about me.
        1y ago
- therobots927 1y ago
  I can write in “free Palestine”
  - dmbche 1y ago
    And it's gonna get seen by one (1) vote counter who'll then put it away/throw it in the bin
    - therobots927 1y ago
      As long as it doesn’t go to a genocide enabler I could care less where my vote goes
      - dmbche 1y ago
        Oh I just don't vote instead, it just feels performative now
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > both parties were supportive in the last election. Not many choices. Primaries. The truth is that foreign policy rarely flips American elections. Particularly when we don't have our troops on the ground.
  - jjk166 1y ago
    Last election the democrats didn't have a primary, and the republicans barely had one. Political change requires more than one day at the polls; it demands large scale sustained effort by many people, including those in positions of prominence, and even with that success takes time and luck. Part of being in a leadership position is taking responsibility for what happens on your watch. The electorate can't be blamed for its leaders not doing their jobs when the their leadership is needed.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Last election the democrats didn't have a primary, and the republicans barely had one Now do down ballot. > electorate can't be blamed for its leaders not doing their jobs when the their leadership is needed Pro-Palestinian voters who swung for Trump explicitly endorsed the war. Even if they thought they were just throwing a tantrum. That includes the war’s repercussions, including the dissolution and incorporation of Palestine. If you care about net effect, the answer is obvious. If how one feels reigns supreme, yes, that voting bloc is excused. (But still irrelevant.)
      - jjk166 1y ago
        > Now do down ballot. As I stated before, changing a political party from the bottom up takes time. While a good endeavor, it doesn't affect who is currently in the drivers seat. Either Harris or Trump were going to be making the decisions about the current Gaza situation regardless of what the electorate did. > Pro-Palestinian voters who swung for Trump explicitly endorsed the war. Pro-palestinian voters didn't swing to trump. Virtually no one swang to Trump; his election results in 2024 were basically the same as in 2020 plus the increase in population of areas that voted for him in 2020. Exit polls indicate that Trump voters were overwhelmingly pro-israel. I'm sure some individuals did, but not enough to make any difference one way or the other. Trump won because 6 million democrats who showed up in 2020 stayed home in 2024. If they had gone out and voted for Harris, and then Harris supported Israel's efforts, as she publicly said she would, you would still be saying they endorsed the war.
- 8note 1y ago
  couldnt you instead, run for government? if its something voters care about, either youll win, or the competing candidates will change their tune
  - imglorp 1y ago
    The parties have already decided their position on a variety of issues so if you're going to get nominated for the party you'll be against them on that issue. And the system is designed to exclude independents. The last nationally visible "I" candidate was roughly H Ross Perot. The system made sure that didn't happen again.
margalabargala 1y ago
They tried that last November and wound up worse off than if they hadn't.

jmyeet 1y ago

I fully understand the feelings of helplessness and hopelessness with this situation. Lots of people like to imagine what they'd do in certain situations, historical or otherwise. We no longer need to imagine what most people would do in the HOlocaust. We now know: nothing. In WW2, most people could reasonably claim ignorance. Even a lot of Germans could claim ignorance. Now we have livestreamed 4K 60fps evidence that is impossible to ignore. There's a phrase that's widely attributed (arguably misattributed) to Lenin: "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen" So while the US could end this entire thing with a phone call, it's not true to say that things aren't changing. US support for Israel continues to plummet to new lows [1], to levels I never thought I'd see. Small things like blocking a cycling event in Spain, the future of Eurovision being uncertain, European states recognizing Palestine, problems for the port in Haifa due to changes in shipping because of Houthi rebels, ICC?ICJ investigations, these genocide findings and so on... it all adds up. It all matters. It all compounds to political and economic pressure on the actors involved. [1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/692948/u.s.-back-israel-military-action-gaza-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/692948/u.s.-back-israel-militar...

yieldcrv 1y ago
I don't feel hopeless by pointing out that the UN report is a small piece of a puzzle, despite the high level of energy used to collectively create it. It's easier to talk about these things and seeing consensus shift on consensus driven forums like this. My prior observations about that state's policies and supporting culture have been similar, but seen as extreme and "cancellable" at one point. Espousing my observations would have been conflated with ideas of physical harm to Jewish and Israelis, which I don't harbor. My ideas are much more similar to Jewish Israeli residents that protest their own government within Israel. And it's been nice to see many stateside Jewish people distance themselves, and now even second guess Zionism, which Jewish community leaders initially denounced 120 years ago by foreseeing these specific issues and its inherent extremism. When it comes to my country's involvement, it's a complete aberration in US foreign policy. The reasons require a contorting ourselves for no real practical reason that isn’t already fulfilled by other countries in the Middle East, it’s just money moved from one account to the account of our politicians and appointed representatives. So I am happy to see piece by piece, people re-evaluating the state narrative on that country. The politicians with discretion on all the levers are unfortunately a far cry away from changing anything.

shykes 1y ago

> Remove exception to AIPAC political status > Reevaluate AIPAC non profit status entirely What would that achieve? AIPAC is a domestic organization. Their members are US citizens and permanent residents, making individual political donations of their own free will. AIPAC vets candidates for their support of Israel, and individual donors rely on them to make an informed decision. But ultimately it is their decision, and their money. If AIPAC disappeared tomorrow, their members would still be directing their political donations towards pro-Israel candidates, as is their constitutional right. They would simply look for another nonprofit to do the vetting, or do the research themselves. On top of being ineffective, attacking AIPAC in this way would also be unethical. You may not like that some US citizens prioritize support for Israel in their donations. That doesn't give you the right to suppress their donations. It creates a dangerous precedent where suppressing the political rights of some citizens is justified if they have the "wrong" opinions.

MomsAVoxell 1y ago
>You may not like that some US citizens prioritize support for Israel in their donations. That doesn't give you the right to suppress their donations. It's quite simple, treat Israel like Russia. Same tools are available for any nation which commits atrocities under the watchful guise of the mighty, moral, USA.
- shykes 1y ago
  My point is that you should tell that to the US-based individuals who choose to donate to pro-Israel candidates, or donate to other candidates yourself (if you're legally allowed to), instead of attacking their ability to exercise their right to donate.
  - MomsAVoxell 1y ago
    The point is, donations from an active vocal minority aren't the only way to deal with the problem of subjugation of one government to another, especially when those governments are in the process of committing heinous acts of terror, war crimes, and crimes against humanity at massive scale. If it works on Russia, it'll work for Israel.