How are they concealing it? I have heard news reports citing the Gaza Health Ministry’s claims of tens of thousands of casualties since the war began. I believe they are correct (how many are non-combatants is debatable).
Anyone who is paying even a little bit of attention knows that many civilians are getting killed. Only a small minority seem to care.
" On Thursday, lawmakers voted 269-144 on an amendment to prohibit the State Department from citing statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry. "
Their death toll numbers have been very accurate in the past. The Defense department has also cited them.
No other group is allowed to enter Gaza (by Israel) to independently verify the death toll. Gaza Health Ministry is the only reliable source. This bill effectively censors the Gaza death toll.
I came to posit that if the government doesn’t release the numbers we have a press to do that. Supposed to do that. Used to do that. Can’t tell if even this story tried to do that.
Fuck the genocide deniers. Block all the info you want. Those of us who are sane, and aren’t bought by AIPAC money see through it all. All your attempts are transparent and ultimately futile. We know what Israel is doing, what info we do have clearly paints them as genocidal. Innocents dont murder journalists. Your reputation is shredded, Israel. Hopefully we can stay mad at this and AIPAC long enough to end lobbying. Destroying a lot of the incentive to be a complete piece of shit.
If Hamas killed 4 on Oct 7, that puts the ratio at 26:1.
Israel estimates that 1200 were killed on Oct 7.
A recent estimate puts Israel at 34,900 killed.
Thats a ratio of about 29:1. Is that acceptable to you?
I’m doing this not because there is any acceptable level, but to highlight the absurdity of the idea that there even is one. Hamas needs to be held accountable for its crimes. Israel needs, at a level about 29 times more so, also needs to be held accountable for their crimes.
The idea that any level of incidental murder is acceptable is absurdist, and you are a terrible person if you think there is one.
To me, if my children or wife had been taken hostage. There would be no limit to the ratio I would be willing to accept to get them back.
Hamas still has hostages captured that day they are tying to use for negotiations.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that you consider it incidental murder, while I consider it a war that Palestinians are losing. War kills people, and acceptable casualties (enemy, friendly, and even innocents) are literally part of the calculations made by every single country that has ever participated in a war.
And how many hostages does Israel have? Do Palestinians not have the same right, that if their family has been taken hostage, to do anything to get them back?
They get it, but they believe that some lives are less important than others. When someone holds that position I haven’t found an argument to convince them otherwise.
They get it, but they believe that some lives are less important than others. When someone holds that position I haven’t found an argument to convince them otherwise.
Exactly. This is the fundamental lesson you (the royal “you”; as ‘one’) needed to learn from BLM. The history and legacy of settler colonialism and white supremacy leaves us with inherent and structural biases that means some “lives” are valued higher than others.
When you attack someone stronger than you, it usually does not end well. They can try, but there will be further consequences.
It took a few hundred thousand middle eastern civilians dying after 9/11 before anyone started complaining and even that did not lead to this level of protest.
People are ok with violence if its their country that has been attacked.
To me, if my children or wife had been taken hostage. There would be no limit…
So then, when about all those people killed in the process. What about the mothers and children dying? The ones that are not directly involved in this fight either. Do their spouses get the chance for the same level of revenge once they’re killed?
Do I should let them take my family with no consequence because they’re using human shields?
No, my side is strong enough to get them back. Screw the terrorists and those that harbour them. They can try to retaliate, and they can die until they won’t fight back anymore.
People these days seem to think there’s a diplomatic solution for everything. They need to go read a nonfiction history book, because they are currently in the fiction section.
What if you were born in the wrong place and your family got gunned down or buried under rubble because the enemy thought a hostage (or their dead body) was in a building at the end of your street?
You can’t always assume you’re the one who is both on a righteous quest and in possession of superior firepower.
Well, the biggest problem with this situation and using the term “innocent” is that the vast majority of Gazans support Hamas and supported the attack on Oct 7th.
The first thing I’d do is find a dozen people of the same ethnicity as the hostage taker and kill them. Then I’d send in a strike team to grab anyone I believed was affiliated with the hostage taker - coworkers, family members, social media contacts - and imprison them indefinitely. Finally, I’d bulldoze someone’s house. Doesn’t really matter whose. Just to show people I mean business.
The difference between my opinion and yours is that you consider it incidental murder, while I consider it a war
It’s important to stop for a moment here and take note of the fact that Friedman’s idea wasn’t that we specifically needed to attack Iraq. Friedman didn’t even bother to claim to Charlie Rose that there was, for example, a link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Instead, he said that the problem is that “they” needed to see that Americans didn’t care so much about our “stock options and Hummers” that we were unwilling to make sacrifices.
What was the “they,” exactly? Muslim extremists? Muslims in general? The Middle East as a region? Friedman casts a very wide net:
“What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house—from Basra to Baghdad—and basically saying:
“Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?: You don’t think we care about our open society? You think this fantasy—we’re just gonna let it grow? Well, suck. On. This. That, Charlie, was what this war was about. We coulda hit Saudi Arabia… We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.”
How many people are they allowed to kill in retaliation for Oct 7th? Zero? 1:1? 10:1?
Per the Dahiya Doctrine the general rule is 30:1. If a single Israel is injured or killed, the state has the authority to kill up to 30 Palestinians.
Commentators for The Guardian, The Washington Post, and Mondoweiss have noted that the attacks of the Israeli Defense Forces on the civilian infrastructure of the Gaza Strip during the 2023 Hamas-Israel war may constitute an extension of the doctrine. Haaretz reported that IDF had dropped “all restraint” in its war: killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure at an unprecedented rate.
Writing in The Guardian, Paul Rogers of Bradford University argues that Israel’s goal in the 2023 war is to “corral the Palestinians into a small zone in the southwest of Gaza where they can be more easily controlled,” and that the long-term goal is to make clear that Israel “will not stand for any opposition.”
But the whole thing is confusing because there’s AIPAC, AIPAC PAC. And AIPAC super PAC, along with less obvious overlaps.
This is intentional because the entire reason AIPAC exists, is former methods of Israel lobbying the American government had been shut down.
Journalist and lawyer Isaiah L. Kenen founded the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs (AZCPA) as a lobbying division of the American Zionist Council (AZC), and they split in 1954.[9] Kenen, a lobbyist for the Israeli government,[8] had at earlier times worked for the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a lobbyist, Kenen diverged from AZC’s usual public relations efforts by trying to broaden support for Israel among traditionally non-Zionist groups. The founding of the new organization was in part a response to the negative international reaction to the October 1953 Qibya massacre, in which Israeli troops under Ariel Sharon killed at least sixty-nine Palestinian villagers, two-thirds of them women and children.[9] As the Eisenhower administration suspected the AZC of being funded by the government of Israel, it was decided that the lobbying efforts should be separated into a separate organization with separate finances.[9]
Because he put his friend of decades, Blinken, as secretary of state for his presidency. The same state department who is blindly repeating Israeli lies and refusing to do any investigation into these war crimes thus further protecting and enabling Israel and it’s genocide.
Biden has pushed funding and weapons to the Israeli military despite clear evidence they will be used for the genocide of Palestinians. So yes he is responsible.
Not really. The Great Famine that the British forced on Ireland took 7 years. The Holodomor took multiple years. Even The Holocaust went on for years and that was industrialized genocide and not a deliberate famine. Not all genocides are quick.
Oh ok, so when third parties were trying to negotiate the ends to the Holodomor, Holocaust, and potato famine were those people trying to end those guilty of genocide?
We’re probably never going to be able to see eye-to-eye on this since you clearly see the war as the Jewish people vs. the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, I see it is as two groups of right wing fanatics fighting each other while civilians are caught in the crossfire, at best. But to me, it looks a lot more like they’re deliberately being starved, slaughtered, and/or held hostage.
Maybe someone else on here has the time to debate a sea lion if you want to post more but it’s Taco Tuesday and I have important taco-related business to attend to.
**16. **Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity.
Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, says in an interview with a Lebanese TV channel that the terror group will repeat the October 7 attack time and again until Israel is annihilated.
“Hamas should surrender”
And I guess until they do, Israel will continue to kill children? I mean, if the baddies are hiding behind children you are fully allowed to bomb them into a red mist. Just say they were hamas and you are good to shoot and bomb them. It’s only just because, you know, hamas!
Israel has lost all morality and has become which they suffered so much under.
You are implying, or outright saying it, that it is OK to bomb children. You support that because, what else can Israel do? Right? How about: don’t bomb your way through children
Discussing the morality of hiding behind children is another one all together. I (almost) cannot believe you hold this opinion. Turning 5 year olds into a red mist of blood because…reasons. You want it justified, you want Israel to be able to kill little children.
No need to reply, you are a despicable person holding these opinions.
I also - now, try to follow along here - don’t personally command the Israeli army.
This might shock you but I’m not pointing at things telling them where to shoot or bomb.
This is going to also be a pretty big shock to you, but, bear with me.
If Hamas surrenders right now then this conflict ends.
If Hamas didn’t attack on 10/7 then this conflict wouldn’t be ongoing.
Once this conflict is over there will be millions of Palestinians living in and around the region.
Oh also one other thing - you’re fine with mass murder and carnage, as long as it’s against Israelis. That’s what you’re saying when you don’t say Hamas should surrender.
You are so, so wrong here. These children are not hamas, yet you equate them nonetheless. Notice how I did not take a side other then the children’s side. And yet, you argue.
This tells me all I need to know, I have seen your stance already. Not because I want to see something, it’s your arguing the matter that tells all I need to know.
“Oh also one other thing - you’re fine with mass murder and carnage, as long as it’s against Israelis. That’s what you’re saying when you don’t say Hamas should surrender.” And there it is, took you long enough. None said any such thing, you are making this up and you know it. Next up: calling me an anti-semite…
All I did was argue to not kill children and you argued and keep arguing it is an option, a valid option at that. See, if only hamas surrenders right now then all will be fine. This is a lie, a way to justify the killing of children. Well, you argue this point while you know the little children have no say in this at all. So instead of making the correct moral decision to not kill children, Israel chooses to do so anyway, knowing fully well that the kids have no say in the matter.
You keep being despicable and it just gets worse with each post.
It’s OK to hold Israel to account for killing innocent people, it is OK to ask Israel to stop bombing little kids. You will not loose anything of value of you are opposed on these stances. Be good, take the moral path. This is a softball position to hold and yet…you fail at it.
See, you still want to couple hamas and the allowance to kill children. I purposefully decoupled them because I know what will happen, bizarre discussions where “he said she said” will be abound.
No, there is no story or excuse to kill children. It is that simple. I am at a loss that this is not understood or agreed upon.
Are the children hamas? Do they have a say in this?
Insane that you keep pushing the hamas narative where these kids have no blame or influence over them being bombed. Yet you keep equating the existence or actions of of hamas with it being OK to kill little kids.
Wow, are you really this thick or are you putting on a show?
Read carefully, you have been told this before but it doesn’t register it seems:
hamas is irrelevant to the position of israel killing kids.
Israel killing kids is solely and purely the responsibility of Israel the moment they pull the trigger or drop bombs on them.
Why is it so so so difficult for you to understand this simple statement: you do not bomb your way through kids to get at your target.
You know, this insistent clowning around this morally simple topic of you is starting to make me think you are a troll Denying reality and relishing in the pain and hurt of others. Little kids in this case seems to be your…niche? Or is it a fetish? Either way, something is really wrong with you.
FYI, I will now block you as I have no interest debating or discussing with people who find justice and reason in infanticide.
Yes, both Carter and Reagan picked up the phone, told Israel they wouldn’t get any weapons and they immediately backed down. That’s the leverage the US has over them, and it can be used any time.
He’d definitely try. Although it’s not necessarily our weapons that are the import part. Mostly how we (USA) does cover and is the silent protection against any western powers doing anything
Biden also fucked over Obama and Hillary when trying to put pressure on Israel, so it’s not even a recent thing for biden to be just ensuring they get weapons
Asked about those findings on Monday, Miller noted that Israel said there were no tanks in the area, and that the State Department couldn’t attest to any particularities because it is only conveying what Israel has said.
The Washington Post previously confirmed there were armed military vehicles in the vicinity, as did Al Jazeera’s analysis of satellite imagery.
Most expansive intelligence apparatus on the globe, but they just can’t figure out what’s going on in Gaza.
Genocide Joe and the state department are on that CCP grind.
“No that never happened. Israel said so. Yes we have seen your evidence but israel denies those claim so it never happened. There is no Genocide in Ba Sing Se”.
There isn’t one gov’t in the world that doesn’t spin like a top under certain circumstances.
Israel just seems to do it all the time, with impunity, no matter what the story is. The boy who cried wolf comes to mind every time I read, “Israel said …”.
Obviously this is cruel and the republicans can go fuck themselves. But also it would be quite hilariously stupid for the US to pay to destroy Gaza and pay to rebuild it.
I would say help rebuild it, but perhaps they should have reconsidered the destroying part. But hey what do I know. Something something important ally in the region, just a little smidge of genocide and apartheid. All good nothing to see here
If you don’t like how Congress represents you, vote in congressional elections. Democratic congressional election turnout is consistently less than 50%.
Make note of your state election dates and vote for change.
I agree with the sentiment, but I think you mean air. Fish breathe oxygen from the water through their gills. That’s one of the many problems with climate change deoxygenating the ocean.
Minor nitpick: while participating in voting is an important component of politics, I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s the most influential thing you can do. It’s not even the most influential thing you can do if you’re strictly operating in the framework of electoralism.
Volunteering in a campaign, running for office, designing and/or distributing pamphlets. All of these are potentially more effective than voting because you could get more than one vote for your preferred candidate that way.
And that’s just the obvious conventional stuff. If we get into theoretical strategies shit gets wild.
So who do I vote for that will change it? Because my sample ballot only has genocide supporters on it. Am I writing in a name and just hoping the majority of the country writes the same name or what?
Moreover, while a lesser evil is still an evil, we are in a situation where these are the choices we have. By choosing Biden we have a chance to shift the lesser evil towards a greater good. Though four years isn’t a long time I sincerely feel we can make those changes if we just. stop. bickering. Cause fuck me if the Right won’t come together just to nail someone to a cross. Most the rest of us will have heated arguments over whether day old spaghetti is better than fresh.
Don’t you dare. I see you starting to make spaghetti claims, dammit.
Standard voter disengagement advocate response. No suggestions for improvement, just don’t vote. This is how Republicans have been winning for decades. Good on you for calling it out when you see it.
Unless you’re capable of reasoning in which case you’d see that there are only 3 possible outcomes:
vote democrat to reduce the amount of harm done
vote third party and convince literally millions of other people to do so also (very very very unlikely to the point of basically impossibility)
take literally any other action which at worst fully enables Trump and at best remains complicit in him amping up support for slaughtering Palestinians.
Options two and three are the same option in reality. But I know that Extra-Militant-Joffrey is in denial of these facts.
But in all seriousness, Linkerbaan is an obvious bad faith actor. They’re actually campaigning for Trump by trying to get people to not vote for Biden.
Let’s just say for a moment you’re right and Democrats increase harm. Sure, they take Korporate Kampaign Kash (the other KKK), and are always about the donor class, and we can sure hit them on this. They’re feckless, always finding reasons we couldn’t POSSIBLY do Left-Wing priorities, and yeah, I’m pissed about how many times Manchin Lucy-Yanked the football on us this last term. They’d rather please the donor class than us, because, well, frankly, I can’t pay for an all-expenses paid junket to exotic places with exotic food and exotic people quite the same way as Mr. Gates and Mr. Dimon and Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk can. It pisses me off that I have to sit so far back on the table while all the big names get to wine and dine President Biden and the Democratic Party, while I get a few scraps from the table.
We’ll ignore the fact that the scraps I have gotten have finally made it so I can quit schooling and realistically pay my Student Loans now that it’s capped to 5% of your disposable income, and that I only have to pay that for 10 years rather than 25 or more because of PSLF. We’ll ignore the fact that I got quick and free access to a vaccine that ended COVID as a threat to me, and that I am able to work from home because my (Democratic) governor said ‘we’re out of the business of commercial real-estate. Everyone, your home is your office now.’ Between the vaccine and the not having to crowd on public transit with people who are frankly nasty, I haven’t gotten sick more often than once a year. But hey, the Dems increase harm according to you, so let’s go with that. Why trust my lying eyes eh?
OK. The Democrats are the equivalent of slow-driving a car towards a cliff. The Republicans? They have a plan for what they want to do. What does it include?
Fire Federal employees who refuse to implement Trump’s conservative manifesto for the USA.
End FBI attempts to police misinformation (oh, sorry, “Speech”).
Ban abortion pills federally.
Enforce Comstock Act to ban the mailing of abortion pills.
Exclude abortion coverage from Medicade
Ban unfriendly news media from the White House press pool.
Enforce unitary executive theory practices.
Schedule F - Replace tens of thousands of career bureaucrats with hand-picked conservative plants, which will require a similar overreach by the next Democrat, assuming we are allowed to pick one as POTUS, to undo.
Reverse liberal policies.
Removing references to abortions.
Defunding clinics that provide abortion services
Defund Dept of Justice and FBI
Target Political foes and unfriendly media orgs.
Restrict LGBTQ+ rights.
Rollback of climate policies.
Force Conservative policies on us
"Family Values"
“Christian Values”
“Traditional Gender Roles”
So, when I say the Democrats are slow-driving the car towards the cliff, if you let the Republicans behind the wheel, they’re gonna stomp on the gas as hard as they can, and they’re gonna rocket that sucker off the edge.
It may suck to you having to make this choice, but it’s what America offers. There are no other options in the USA thanks to our antiquated system of electing representatives. Pick the slow choice, or the fast choice will rocket you and everyone else off right…fucking…now.
PS: in case it’s not clear, I disagree with the heart of your argument, but for the sake of pointing out that even under your own assumptions, it’s better to vote D than R, I entertained it long enough to explain why you’re a fucking moron for pushing not to vote for Dems.
Third parties rarely run for Congress. This is actually how you can tell that the US has no serious third parties. None of them make Congress even a remote priority. If they somehow won the presidency, they wouldn’t be able to do anything because they have no Congressional support.
You’ve inadvertently highlighted why your only options are to vote Democrat or Republican. No other party is serious about trying to win. If they were, they’d be building up a local presence in all 50 states and winning local elections. Then they’d look at state legislatures and governors. Then Congress for the House and Senate, and then the presidency.
That’s a lot of work though, so they’d rather run presidential candidates and grift for donations. The argument typically goes that they’re trying to bring awareness to their party through the presidential election – but how exactly is that going for them? It’s readily apparent that strategy doesn’t work, and they’d be better off putting in the hard work to become actual political contenders.
If you don’t like how Congress represents you, support your desired representatives and senators in primaries, and then vote for the person you dislike least in the general election. Or, encourage a third party candidate to run who has statewide recognition and plenty of political experience.
Democrats and Republicans are the only options because all the other choices are batshit insane or just want to steal your donations.
Absolutely. Anyone who would waste a lot of money on an election they stand zero chance of winning and spends nothing on elections they actually could win. Is not a serious group. Until you know basically all third parties in America are simply presidential spoilers. Outside of the likes of the DSA Etc who have run candidates in a few state and local races as well.
Yeah they’re pretty much the only group that seems to understand this. They have other struggles though with having greater appeal – mainly from what I can tell, there’s a lot of discord between different chapters.
That said, there actually is one socialist who did win a state legislature election, in Virginia. And they were able to get an insulin cap bill passed because they worked cooperatively with democrats.
This is the model that people need to follow if they want to move beyond Democrats and Republicans. This single socialist legislator in one state has done more than the entire green party combined.
I’m Canadian. We have first past the post. Largely its a toss up between 1 of 2 parties federally but our far left party has won provincial elections and was within spitting distance of winning federally in recent memory.
It isnt fptp that’s prevenring you from electing a third party. Its your share delusion that it can’t happen.
Your election system allowed Doug Ford to win the Premiership of Ontario with 2.3 million votes, despite the NDP winning 1.9 million votes and the Liberal party winning 1.1 million votes. In fact, Ford won Ontario with a net margin of victory of -991,722 votes. That is to say, he lost the popular vote by almost a million votes, and still win the majority of seats. Here’s a few highlights
8 ridings went for the Progressive Conservatives in a margin narrower than 1000. These are:
Ottawa West - Nepean (175 MoV, 16.4k NDP, 14.8k Lib)
Brantford - Brant (635 MoV, 23.8k NDP, 5.6k Lib)
Brampton West (490 MoV, 14.5k NDP, 7.0k Lib)
Sault Ste. Marie (414 MoV, 13.1k NDP, 3.2k Lib)
Kitchener-Conestoga (686 MoV, 16.3 NDP, 6.0k Lib)
Kitchener South - Hespeler (770 MoV, 15.7k NDP, 6.3k Lib)
Eglinton-Lawrence (957 MoV, 9.0k NDP, 19.0k Lib)
Scarborough-Rouge Park (963 MoV, 15.3k NDP, 8.8k Lib)
Had less than 1000 people in each of these ridings from the smaller left wing party given their votes to the larger left-wing party, 8 seats would have been taken from the Progressive Conservatives (leaving them with 68 seats), and the NDP would have gained 7 seats (47) and the Libs would have gained 1 (going up to 8).
This is the same for another 23 ridings, but with a larger margin of victory. These ridings were nevertheless won by fewer votes than were sent to the smaller left-wing party. If we subtract these 23 seats, the PCs would have been down to 45 seats, enough for the NDP to have more seats before we allocate these 23 seats between the Libs, NDP, and Greens.
I like a lot of things about Canada, but I don’t like this fact about your country, and I don’t want it imported into the United States. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania went to Trump in 2016 not because more people voted for Trump’s policies than against them, but because enough people bought the bullshit that Clinton was corrupt and no better than Trump and voted third party or stayed home. Had the Stein voters used a bit of common sense and rethought their votes, we could have avoided 4 years of utter shitshow here. Canadian politics won’t help us here. All we need to do is look at your province of Ontario and see that clear as day.
An interesting thought exercise. What if Ontario used Proportional Representation. Ford would have gotten 76 seats, but he’d have seen an Ontario Parliament that was 187 or 188 seats. Of these:
The NDP would have gotten another 22 seats, in addition to their 40 won seats, for 62 total seats.
The Liberals would have gotten another 29 seats, in addition to their 7 won seats, for 36 total seats.
The Greens would have gotten 7 additional seats, plus their 1 won seat, for a total of 8 seats.
5 seats would have to be allocated between the NDP, Liberals, and Greens since the Progressive Conservatives shouldn’t be entitled to more than 40.5% of the seats as they got 40.5% of the vote.
We’d have to amend the US constitution to make this happen here, but I think you guys could just do it with a law there. But this is what ifs and coulda-bens. The as-is shows clearly why we don’t want to import your political system here. Democrats would never win an election again if we split our votes like Ontarians split theirs…
That’s not realistic in America with our duopoly and FPTP voting system. Voting for progressive candidates locally is our best bet and being represented, and supporting Ranked Voting systems in place of FPTP.
theintercept.com
Newest