Sanders says he doesn’t know that a ceasefire is possible ‘with an organization like Hamas’
cnn.com
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders said Sunday he doesn’t know that a ceasefire is possible in the Israel-Hamas war with “an organization like Hamas” involved.
“I don’t know how you can have a ceasefire, (a) permanent ceasefire, with an organization like Hamas, which is dedicated to turmoil and chaos and destroying the state of Israel,” Sanders told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday.
I don't think peace is possible when one side is holding the other in an open air prison and giving them only the amount of calories needed to not die (after the war started even that was suspended)
Stop calling it a prison, prisons are for convicted criminals, Palestinian's only crime is being Palestinian. These were open air concentration camps, they are now open air extermination camps
Always?
No one said the conviction is justified, but yes, convicted.
What is Guantanamo?
A torture camp with no blanket constitutional protections
“Uh it’s just a building with rooms you can’t leave. But it’s not a prison”
Not a prison if that is what you are getting at
That’s not what they’re getting at. They question isn’t “what is it not?”. The question is “what is it?”.
The non-trivial question that moves this forward
Have you ever seen Gaza? I thought it looked more like a city.
Is "open air concentration camps" now a code word for dense urban city?
Honestly this looks like a pretty nice city to me.
It is when trying to leave gets you opened up on by the Israeli air force.
No, a prison is just a facility designed to keep people inside against their will.
Does that change anything?
Hamas is a terrorist organization with strong ties to Iran. We've already seen what happens when terrorist groups destabilize countries and take control. Syria is an ongoing testament to that. So is Afghanistan
Are the Israeli Government's sins the reason why Hamas is in power? The extent is arguable, but it would be a lie to outright say "no".
But... does that change anything?
Hamas is the power in Gaza. Any form of concessions that don't involve the destruction of Hamas will be considered a win because the Palestinian people have been held in an open air prison for decades. And that will just lead to Hamas becoming more powerful.
If someone was abused horrifically as a child and decided to get a gun and take it out on others, what do you do? In a just world, you get them the help that they need. But in any world, the first thing you do is take the gun away before they can hurt anyone else.
What that means in this situation? I don't know. Short of external military intervention, the Israeli government is not going to stand down. And I for one don't want the US and NATO to fuck around in yet another middle eastern country for another two decades only to leave it considerably worse than we found it.
You realize Israel is controlling the prison in reality, right?
Hamas doesn't shoot Palestinians that go to far off the coast, Israel does.
Hamas didn't erect a huge border wall around Gaza, Israel did.
Hamas doesn't control the supply of food, water, and goods into Gaza. Israel does.
Who controls Gaza?
WRT the wall at least:
Hamas's goal from securing power in 2007 has been rejecting the two state solution and destroying Israel leading to many many attacks since then so, maybe securing the border isn't an insane idea? I mean, fuck all good the wall did recently but still.
Slightly amend that one, Egypt also supports the blockade. That being said, it's not the fault of all the civilians in Gaza that people voted in 2007 to let a terrorist organization take over and things went poorly because of it. This blockade needs to end. Humanitarian aid needs to be able to get to Gaza.
I'm not going to get fully bogged down in the semantics, but Israel still basically controls the Egypt border.
The US forced a vote, didn't like the outcome, attempted to coup Hamas, and failed. Also, if Hamas is so bad (which they are in many respects), why does Israel fund them and explicitly has a policy of only interacting with them as being the legitimate government?
Easy, they want an unsympathetic enemy that does not want peace. They want to continue the project of taking the rest of Israel for the ethnostate.
I'm overall on board for this comment but how does Israel find Hamas?
Through Qatar: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/israel-helped-funnel-qatar-money-to-fund-hamas-netanyahu-palestinian-state-gaza-war-2456157-2023-11-01
It's a deliberate strategy to divide and conquer and create blowback (Oct 7th)
You missed half the article.
Correct on funding, with the aim to provide a glimpse of a better life and work permits - for its people, not the organization in control.
I do find in interesting that there is a thing on Israel funding Hamas while at the same time issues that Israel stopped providing power and food.
I'd be absolutely fine if Israel didn't have Gaza under total blockade and THEN not giving aid. Sure.
But no, if Israel insists on total control (I think is counter productive, but whatever), they gain total responsibility.
You can't just not feed your open air prison full of refugees (of your own making).
WRT to your correction about the wall: Hamas's attacks aren't because they reject the two-state solution; they're because of the blockade. The blockade started in 2005 (not 2007 as is popularly believed; that's when the blockade moved into full force) before Hamas was elected. They withdrew and blockaded the border.
The idea that Israel blockaded Gaza because they of Hamas terrorist attacks is basically Israeli propaganda.
Yes and no, there was a lesser blockade starting in 2005, that's correct. Then halfway into 2007 after violence broke out between Hamas and Fatah which resulted in the first of Hamas's civilian executions in Gaza, the current, and more draconian, blockade was instituted.
Which then, you are correct, Hamas responded to the new restrictions by committing another war crime of firing missiles into urban areas.
That's why it's yes and no, the original blockade no, the much stricter one that is in effect today was however a direct result of Hamas's first war crime after being voted into office.
Like quick edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)
This is what caused the blockade that was supposed to be a temporary one to shift to a draconian ongoing one. War crimes.
That Wikipedia article is a mess that sounds like it was written by a high school student. He said, she said, with very few citations.
That’s basically the entire history of the region and current conflict. Everyone is lying, IDF and supporters, Hamas and supporters. You have to treat all of it as the propaganda it is.
There is no one with clean hands over there.
Which was a result of the first blockade. You say lesser, and while it was more lenient that doesn't mean it was fine. Israeli actions in late 2005/2006 destroyed the Gazan economy, and had large destructive effects on the West Bank's.
I never said it was fine, but no Hamas's first war crime in Gaza after taking control was not because of the blockade. They straight up publicly executed their political opponents in the Palestinian Authority. You can't do that and not be labeled terrorists.
But yeah their first war crime in office wasn't even against Israel, it was against fellow Palestinians.
Oh you're talking about that. Yeah that's just indefensible, but I don't see how that meant a permanent blockade was the right move. It was nothing short of pure tyranny.
Also, how was the blockade supposed to be temporary? It lasted for more than a year and a half and showed no signs of being lifted. It only seems to me like Israel took the chance to tighten the blockade.
Well, yeah so we have to take that with a grain a salt. It was claimed that the original blockade was meant to be temporary and the reason it went draconian instead of ending after the transition of power was because the transition of power was violent.
But yeah, just because those are the claims doesn't mean it's actually true, you're correct.
Edit: found it under "description of plan" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_Gaza
Eventually Gaza was supposed to be opened up and have the airport rebuilt etc etc, whether you take the plan was in good faith though is another thing.
Hamas and Palestine have no power. Their rejecting or accepting any solution is kinda a ridiculous proposition. It's an officer offering an inmate a banana. Just give it to them, there's no need to ask.
At least for #2, you might want to do more research into why hamas doesn't have prisons in Gaza..
How about we start by defunding Israel, followed by sanctions?
And what does that do about the violent terrorists who have already raped and murdered anyone who had the misfortune of being nearby and have repeatedly said they intend to do the same again?
How does that not increase their power?
All we need to do to reduce the power of Hamas is to stop actively blocking Gazans from importing weapons. Like, the individuals.
Hamas has no internal check, and that’s a big part of why it’s so god awful
All we need to do to reduce the power of Hamas is to stop actively blocking Gazans from importing weapons. Like, the individuals.
Hamas has no internal check, and that’s a big part of why it’s so god awful
So pull a Mexico gun running type operation in Gaza? What could ever go wrong.
It just might force Israel to fucking negotiate the future in good faith, if it no longer felt as if it could continue slow-walking the removal of an entire people from their lands. You are so quick to paint Palestinian violent as barbaric and incomprehensible, yet you ignore the larger scale violence that Israel has been inflicting on Palestine for decades. Bombs from above, collective punishment, punitive control over vital resources, imprisonment and torture of even children! For what? To make more space to house someone descended from ancestors who left that land a thousand years ago?
No. I painted what Hamas did as violent and barbaric and reprehensible. Rape and child killing tends to trigger that.
And you'll note I even pointed out that a good chunk of why Hamas is in power is BECAUSE of the IDF
Again, we have been down this road. Syria is a hellscape. Afghanistan is a hellscape. When terrorists take control of a nation, it is the people who suffer. And regardless of why they are in power right now: they can't continue to be in power if the actual welfare of the Palestinian people matters at all.
But hey, maybe this time it will work, right?
Terrorists are in control of Israel. But then, my country does have a long history of financing terrorists, including in those other countries you mention. But hey, maybe this time it will work, right?
you know, you can add raping babies and eating them in your fairy tales. coward you are !
Was that really necessary?
Ok are you talking about Hamas or the Palestinian people? Cause I keep being told they're different, and that Hamas doesn't represent Palestinians, yet here you are talking about them as if they're the same. So which is it? Cause you're asking me to feel bad for Hamas fighters? Cause I won't.
I didn't mention Hamas, I said Israel is oppressing Palestinians and you should feel bad for the nearly 4,000 children that died.
Hamas is oppressing Palestinians and are responsible for the 4000 children that died. Non hamas Palestinians should try fleeing the country or fighting back against hamas so they can be free
Fight back? Lol. After being born in an open air prison.
After being born into oppression.
After being told they're nothing more than animals.
After being thrown in prison as a kid for decades because they threw stones at a fucking tank.
After being slowly starved to death.
After being evicted from their lands and homes by the Israeli military, AND being mocked by the very settlers that take their homes from them right in front of their faces at the same time.
After their parents, children, siblings, aunts and uncles, their entire fucking bloodline is being bombed to death.
After watching the whole world just stand there and watch them being slaughtered just because Israel has more money, so they can lobby?
After weeks of Israel secretly lobbying the EU and US to displace all Palestinians to the Sinai peninsula, you know, a fucking HUGE part of another sovereign country like that's very normal, all the while killing thousands of people for a little piece of their land? Now I understand why the Egyptian president Sisi told the EU to take in Gazans themselves, if they care so much about human rights.
After kids literally see organs and body parts flying around because of the bombing?
After having no access to water, so no drinking water, toilets, showers, dehumanising them. Opening one water source because of UN pressure and then a few days later bombing that specific water source...
After having no food for a month now.
After threatening the UN to teach them a lesson because they asked for a humanitarian pause.
After killing journalists and their entire family in precision attacks, so they can't report what's really going on?
After killing UN workers?
Right now they've also run out of medicine. One patient's lungs had to be rinsed with ginger. They use effing ginger as an antibiotic/antiseptic. One kids leg had been blown off and they had to operate without anesthesia....
You want these people to fight? LOL.
There's really no way Israel comes out of this as the 'good guy'. The atrocities they committed and still are committing in less than a month's time, has made the world forget about 7/10. THAT says something, because we thought THAT day was bad.
Actually in Gaza they have the 1967 borders and all the settlers were forcibly evicted in 2004/2005 (some at gunpoint). You're thinking of the West Bank, we're talking about Gaza.
A lot of this rant doesn't really apply to Gaza.
Yes fight back like so many oppressed people have done before. Or flee to a place that doesn't oppress you.
Clearly you didn't read any of that. Where can they go? They are essentially trapped. And of course they have to leave their homes when they're being oppressed.
They are surrounded on 3 sides woth places they can go. Into the water to flee , down into Egypt or up.into Jordan by land.
The Palestinians you are telling to fight back are also children.
And ? Lots of revolutions are lead by the young.
44% of their population is under the age of 15. Name one revolution that was lead by an army of 7 year olds. If by some miracle you can, name one that was lead against a terrorist organization. Not some rinky-dink operation either. Terrorists that were, I don’t know, funded by a country like Iran?
Pretty hard to flee the country when the two countries on either side of you won't let you in. So how are they supposed to do it?
If only there wasn't something to the other side they can flee to
The somethings are Israel, who won't let them out and Egypt, who won't let them out. There's no other place for them to go. Look at a map.
You should go and look at a map the medterranean sea is its other border. They can leave by sea. Cubans do it , African do it to reach Italy and so on. So it's very possible to leave the country
You do realize Israel has a navy, right?
And ? So dies Italy, so does the jsa. Migrants still come in on rafts
I'm pretty sure those countries aren't trying to kill the migrants when they try to leave. Sort of a really huge difference.
I'm not sure why you think the Israeli military would see a raft of migrants and not just blow it out of the water.
Setting aside the whole part about you supporting the genocide of Palestinians, you MFing clown the Israeli blockade is also by sea.
Where can they flee?
Honestly if anyone actually cared about the people there's loads of places that could go, I'm sure Israel would even help fund the building of a city on Saudi Arabia or Iran, plenty of space and cities are getting built in the region all the time. They could all live nice happy lives
But no one will let that happen of course because it's not about the people it's about the land, and not even land with resources - land the people funding all this have no intention of ever visiting, but they don't want Israel to have it.
What you are describing is ethnic cleansing
Literally anywhere. Have you looked at the people illegally crossing the usa southern border? There are Russians and idians. They can escape almost anywhere they have access to flight through then ocean or land borders
And become like... The west bank?
oppressed people went with the extreme as they had no hope of freedom and anger built up from their oppression.
Remember people,
Hamas != Palestina
Putin's mafia != Russia
Also with regard to Russians. I work retail, and lately have more and more Russians come in, speaking broken English, very polite, always respectful.
It both warms and breaks my heart to see them. It’s so sad that they’ve left their homeland, but it’s inspiring that they decided they’d rather move across the planet than be puppets to a warlord so deranged as to conscript soldiers.
They always seem a little sheepish. Always like “sorry, sorry” for asking me questions, for taking up my time. I just want to tell them “I’m so glad you’re here! You’re a blessing to me! Stop apologizing please!” but unless they come out and tell me their situation it’s not my place to comment on it.
We’ve got this dim view of “draft dodgers”, but the reality is it takes courage to say no to one’s own government, to put oneself in danger to avoid becoming an armed puppet of someone else’s ambition.
They generally are, but one Russian lady was walking around our downtown and spray painted z on some of our crosswalk push buttons. Some of the other Russians I have met came over long ago to escape Russia or even the USSR and have nothing good to say about it.
I feel waaaay more sorry for my Ukrainian friends and coworkers, particularly my friend's wife whose family back in Luhansk and Melitopol were bombed and sent to filtration camps. Never heard back from two of her cousins, 16 year old boys.
I don't think there's actually a dim view of draft dodgers, just the ones that then try to be war hawk politicians
I keep thinking about “how much responsibility does a people have for its government?”
I’d say that Israel has zero moral claim to blame Gazans for Hamas, for one specific reason: the blockade on weapons into Gaza.
I think that if Gazans’ natural right to arm themselves were respected, it would be a different story. But there is literally no way for the Gazans to depose their ruling junta, because (a) that junta isn’t offering any elections and (b) the means to do it more directly are being denied to them.
Like, I think that we in the USA bear more responsibility for our government than Gazans bear for Hamas, because we have regular elections and we have access to weapons. We have two layers of escape clause from our government; they don’t have any.
I agree Hamas != Palestine. Hamas is just using the Palestinians as hostages. Like a “bodyguard” that you didn’t hire, can’t get to stop following you, and who regularly attacks people then hides behind you.
... holy shit, this is peek shitamericanssay
I agree on the Hamas != Palestine though, but I feel like the citizens of Gaza are not completely without blame in this.
This. In a modern society there's no natural right (or even a need) to own firearms.
And it's hard to imagine that Hamas could smuggle weapons, build rockets in basements, set up launchers between apartment blocks, fire missiles and return to step one - if the people of Palestine actually opposed them. But since they are able to do all of this, at least a significant portion of the people must actively support them and basically everyone else needs to tolerate their presence and activities.
Are you then advocating for supplying weapons to Gaza?
Do you feel that would be a wise decision?
Because most Israelis are pissed at their PM for allowing Qatari funding to Gaza and Hamas. I would love to see their reaction to weapons being supplied to them. It would probably look pretty similar to what they are doing now.
You know, I wonder how many people would support guerilla tactics if they were living in the fucking hunger games.
Murdering civilians isn't 'guerilla tactics'. It's not even a useful form of terrorism.
Seems to be working for Bibi.
Let me rephrase that - it's not a useful form of terrorism for achieving reasonable goals. If one's goal is to perpetuate a pointless and bloody sectarian conflict so that one can hold onto power over their own people even as the overall prosperity of the nation suffers, I guess murdering civilians is useful.
When killing is mostly or entirely random, all that happens is that the civilian population at large begins to consider themselves (rightly) under threat, and the conflict is perpetuated by mutual fear and spite rather than fear being a means to leverage negotiations or achieving policy.
It really isn't, he's so unpopular even the rally around the flag effect hasn't saved him from regular demands he resign
Honestly probably the same amount of people who'd support carpet bombing Florida if they started firing missiles into neighbouring states.
If you only imagine yourself on one side it's easy to say the other one is evil but live isn't that simple really
I mean it is florida after all; I'm not sure the missiles would be necessary.
Nobody would support that,
The combination of swamp gas and meth would turn the entire peninsula into the world's largest MOAB
The crater would be large enough to expose the fucking mantle
Quite disappointed with Sen. Sanders on this one considering his general stance. Barack Obama had a better understanding here:
How about Israel stop bombing civilians so that Hamas doesn't get new recruits? Does it really not occur to them that 7000+ civilians killed is going to radicalize more youth. Especially since Gaza's demographic is mostly youngsters due to past conflicts killing off those who survive for longer.
It's quite clear that in this conflict, the following people have all the gain: Netanyahu who wants to prolong the war to keep corruption charges and an ouster at bay, by winning favor with Israel conservative fundamentalists; Hamas who successfully intervened when relations were about to be mended with the Saudis, Israel, and a few other countries; Putin, whom the U.S is funding against in the conflict with Ukraine; U.S. war manufacturers that supply the missiles to Israel.
Edit: Fixed some typos and an incorrect negation
Edit2: It's been pointed out to me that there was a wild misrepresentation of what Sanders said. My faith is restored. Thankfully it was I who foolishly fell for this clickbait.
If you ever read a headline about Bernie and are disappointed in what he said, it's a pretty good chance he said some other stuff too that got left out.
Just because the headline doesn't have him also criticizing Netanyahu, doesn't mean he's suddenly supporting him.
Agree with you. I was browsing when out on a weekend and fell for the clickbait.
The problem with his idea is that Hamas actively refuses the two state solution and has been doing so violently for decades. That's their whole thing.
And then you've got Netanyahu on the other side. Which... You know
The PLO called for the elimination of Israel as well. That changed after the first intifada and it's the closest we've ever been to peace. This is a different and much more fraught situation, though. I don't expect conciliation on the part of Hamas after this.
I mean at this point the two state solution is entirely a political fiction. Bibi has seen to it with his support of the settlers in WB.
Only shot now is to fold in everyone and turn it into the Confederation of Jerusalem. Expose the extremists of both sides to electoral accountability from the tired masses they try to demonize now that they're voting members of the public too.
The CNN article seems to be cherry-picking his statements. This is his op-ed on the topic which is much more in-depth:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/01/gaza-humanitarian-pause-bernie-sanders
Yeah you need to actually read what he said.
Gaza doesn't have a young population because the old people died in fighting, Gaza has a young population because its birth rate is insane.
I mean, at this point, just stopping the bombing isn't going to stop giving Hamas recruits, because people will remember the bombings and other things already done, and will remember for a long time, and Hamas is certainly going to milk them for all they can get. Continuing the bombing makes things much worse of course, but just stopping by itself isn't all that's needed for peace, just the start. Which is what I suspect he's getting at based on some of the context other people have replied, a cease-fire that just returns things to how they were before the current elevated level of conflict isn't viable, because the same conditions would exist that led to what is going on now, and so it would just happen again sometime later.
How 'bout we try it and see - what do we have to lose?
Innocent human lives. (Which the Jsraeli government is of course also carelessly discarding. But that's why I think Sanders' position is the most reasonable. We should definitely demand Israel greatly reduce the military force it's exerting, but a total ceasefire might not be entirely realistic)
We lose "innicent human lives" in a ceasefire attempt? The killing will increase?
Also you really don't need to reiterate a very obvious typo. Ideally the goal here should be to have some form of dialogue that works towards the goal of understanding each other better and increasing knowledge, not ridiculing each other. It's pretty poor form imo.
If I were going to correct what you got wrong when quoting you, I could just swap your post with my own.
Ok, so you're not imterested in sincere dialogue. Have a good day then.
Wouldn't misquoting you be the insincerity?
What's your proposal to reduce civilian casualties more than a ceasefire would? Seems like an impossibility to me.
The question you're asking implies a decrease during the ceasefire which is of course a near certainty however in the time scale of the total conflict it's very possible that the total number of civilian casualties will increase.
Hamas will use the time to move troops, stock defences, replenish supplies and plant IEDs - this will prolong the war and make fighting more difficult resulting in more rockets and bombs and thus more potential civilian life loss.
Decisive victory can often be less brutal than lingering conflict, especially with logistical considerations like in Gaza.
What's the better solution? Continuing to bomb refugee camps and hospitals in an incredibly densely populated area where 45% of the people are children and food, water, power, fuel, and movement have all been stopped doesn't seem great to me.
Imagine a comic strip where the Joker is holding a kid hostage at gunpoint. With his other gun he repeatedly shoots random people on the street. Batman shows up but does nothing, for he doesn't want the boy to die. Bam, another passerby dead. And another. Bam-bam, this time it's a twofer. Then Superman shows up and eye-lasers the Joker cleanly in half along with the kid.
Whose action resulted in fewer deaths?
Pretty poor analogy when superman has propped up the Joker (Hamas) over the pacifist Harley Quinn (PLO) while being pretty open about wanting to genocide Arkham asylum (Palestine) - you think they might have done that to create a pretext for what's currently playing out?, and has operated Arkham as a concentration camp, constantly killing its innocent residents and taking over more of it, blowing up refugee camps, hospitals, apartment blocks, you name it, while eye lasering 20-500x the number of bystanders the Joker is killing (depending on the stats you choose). Superman is also a nuclear power with a modern military and f35s - the Joker has small arms and a paraglider.
So far, Israel has killed over 11,000 people in a population that's 45% kids - statistically, that points to them killing 55 Hamas members and 5,000 children (and plenty more adult civilians). Even if they're 10x more effective than that, it's still 10 dead kids for every dead Hamas member.
Who is the bad guy again? Feel free to look at the kill count over the past few decades of that helps.
Thanks for the non-dismissive reply and for the additional context. Just to clarify, I have only voiced my view on the "avoid killing innocents when others are in danger" situation - I admittedly lack the knowledge regarding the big picture to be able to pass judgement or offer solutions. But it seems the answer to your last question is pretty clear: everybody involved in this situation in any way is bad for some degree.
Which is fair enough, but given what we know about the situation, it's incredibly frustrating that everyone is being called to condemn Hamas when Israel are unequivocally the aggressor here.
But yes - between a jihadi org and the Israeli government, there are no good guys, but I think we're collectively failing to recognise the far greater evil here.
So just wait a few days for Hamas to dig in then do the same?
How are Hamas going to dig in to a more meaningful extent with a few days' respite from Israel's attacks on Palestine? It's not as though the IDF is making so much as a token effort to avoid killing Palestinian children and civilians.
B-but Hamas is a pretty poor excuse for killing thousands of children.
Well not compared to the current situation, but that it would possibly be an increase compared to the most civilian sparing scenario. Obviously the situation should be deescalated to the maximum amount possible, but I don't think it's a realistic scenario to assume that if the current main aggressor (Israel) were to cease military action completely, no more civilian lives would be lost.
What's your proposal to reduce civilian casualties more than a ceasefire would?
Last time ignoring Hamas ended up costing 1033 dead civilians and more than 3000 wounded. And anyone that thinks that Hamas wouldn't do worse war crimes in retaliation if the situations were inverted is deluding themselves.
Peace is not possible while Hamas has any power (the same being true for lots of Israeli organizations but this escalation is entirely on Hamas).
Only counting one side i see...
Seriously. Like, Israel's retaliation was warranted against Hamas. But the innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire, especially the children, is unjustified in every way.
Ignoring Hamas? You mean actively committing genocide and bombing infrastructure in Gaza made a freedom fighting army stronger? Yo that's crazy. You should tell people about the Jews that tried to resist Hitler. Must have been very violent terrorists according to your logic.
Who is proposing ignoring Hamas? It's a ceasefire - not a new concept, and certainly not one that depends on ignoring the counterparty to that ceasefire.
Israel has been the primary aggressor here for decades, and unless I'm mistaken, has propped up Hamas over the more secular, reasonable PLO tp establish this pretext for the genocide they're now attempting to carry out.
Hamas are murderous jihadis, but they're a product of Israel's hostility and decisions to prop them up. Hamas are armed with small arms and a paraglider, Israel has a nuclear arsenal and F-35s. Depending on the count you use, over the past few decades, Palestinian casualties have outnumbered Israeli casualties between dozens to one and 500:1. The UN has called Israel's management of Palestine an open air concentration camp, and we've seen Israel's response to the Hamas attack has already carelessly killed many more times more people - particularly children than Hamas did - they've shut off food, water, and supplies, they've shut down movement, they've pushed them out of their homes, they've bombed hospitals and refugee camps.
Who is the overwhelming military force that's killing all the innocent civilians here? But yeah - Hamas are escalating this.
You want to defend Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the Nazis, Chinese expansionism, and the US war on terror while you're at it with the monstrous shit takes, my dude?
what am I going to put in my pitas now?
I suppose it depends on whether or not you're a member of the IDF leadership - there's plenty of kids (mostly Palestinian) that have been reduced to a paste.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
As Israel continues its fourth week of intense bombardment of the besieged Gaza strip, huge crowds of protesters have gathered to call for a ceasefire in Washington, D.C. as well as in other capital cities around the globe.
Israeli airstrikes have targeted hospitals, schools, refugee camps and ambulances, sparking outrage from the international community and warnings from rights groups that the strikes may constitute war crimes.
Israel maintains it does not target civilians and its attacks on the strip are intended to eradicate Hamas, the militant Islamist organization that governs Gaza and is considered a terrorist group by the US and EU among other countries.
While the Biden administration has consistently advocated for humanitarian pauses to facilitate getting fuel into the war-torn strip and getting civilians out, Secretary of State Antony Blinken remains opposed to a ceasefire, arguing that it would give Hamas time to regroup and launch another attack on Israel.
In recent weeks, she has roiled some of her colleagues determined to present a united front amid the Israel-Hamas war as divisions have grown more personal.
The video – which features images of protests with chants of “Free Palestine” and ‘From the river to the sea” across Michigan, California, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and New York – ends with text that states: “Joe Biden supported the genocide of the Palestinian people,” “The American people won’t forget,” “Biden, support the ceasefire now,” and “Or don’t count on us in 2024.”
The original article contains 514 words, the summary contains 229 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Blink twice if you are been kidnapped
Honestly this is the most coherent take Sanders has had on Israel this decade.
No, you probably can't. But you can, however, hold the moral high ground and offer one.
Here is a list of peace offers which would grant the Palestinians a country of their own, they refused all of them
1937 - Peel commission, rejected
1947 - Partition resolution, rejected
2000 - Camp David, rejected
2001 - Taba, rejected. Arafat starts the second intifada and a year later changes his mind.
2008 - Olmert offer, rejected
Hamas have tried to agree to boundaries Despite media attempts to portray it as a new Hamas charter, it is not. The new ‘policy document’ accepts the creation of a Palestinian state in 1967 borders, but still rejects Israel and claims its territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39775103
Here are some other noteworthy peace meeting or proposals from Israel to the rest if the Arab world, which were rejected
1919: Arabs of Palestine refused nominate representatives to the Paris Peace Conference.
1920: San Remo conference decisions, rejected.
1922: League of Nations decisions, rejected.
1937: Peel Commission partition proposal, rejected.
1938: Woodhead partition proposal, rejected
1947: UN General Assembly partition proposal (UNGAR 181), rejected.
1949: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNGAR 194), rejected.
1967: Israel’s outstretched hand for peace (UNSCR 242), rejected.
1978: Begin/Sa’adat peace proposal, rejected (except for Egypt).
1994: Rabin/Hussein peace agreement, rejected by the rest of the Arab League (except for Egypt).
1995: Rabin’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.
2000: Barak/Clinton peace offer, rejected.
2001: Barak’s offer at Taba, rejected.
2005: Sharon’s peace gesture, withdrawal from Gaza, rejected.
2008: Olmert/Bush peace offer, rejected.
2009 to 2021: Netanyahu’s repeated invitations to peace talks, rejected.
2014: Kerry’s Contour-for-Peace, rejected.
Not gonna link Trump’s imbecilic peace plan as an example.
Here is a list of peace offers
the Palestiniansthe governing body of palestinians offered to Israel -None
That doesn't sound right. One of those was stopped by an assassination. One was stopped by conservatives gaining power in Israel. One was stopped by a war between Fatah and Hamas.
The PLO offered peace in 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 and were stopped by Israel.
Many were stopped because of a Hamas attack or Israel refusing to stop taking West Bank territory.
It seems like you were saying that because Palestine didn't give in to Israel's demands every time that it's always their fault.
This is from some quick research, though. Someone feel free to correct me.
Yes, and it was all for shit because hamas threatened violence if any party thought about compromise. Aka. Exactly what i wrote.
Kind of, but not really. You were equating Hamas and all Palestinians together. They're not all the same. Lots of Palestinians want peace, including ones that have been in governing positions. I'm glad you crossed out the one sentence that did that but you've still got this one:
That's a very ambiguous "they" up there and seems to refer to all Palestinians and not just Hamas.
Hamas has been a great excuse to break off peace negotiations, though. I can see why Bibi propped them up to prevent a two state solution. It's worked wonders, although hopefully the blowback of this past event takes him out of political life forever now.
But USA can't waste billions of taxpayer's money on this if they do so
This only leads to a North Korea situation where you end up in a cycle of appeasement, every time they make a threat or attack.
Idk about you but the current situation doesn't look like appeasement to me.
Category section of Bernie's wikipage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
so, you know Bernie, fuck you.
If your reaction to something Bernie said or did is "fuck you", you should read more. He said that the bombings need to stop ASAP, then the whole world needs to help things progress to a two-state solution.
This is pretty clear to me. this fallacy of saying "destroying the state of Israel", which is
As far as I know, this is not Israeli which get their water/food/electricity/movement/borders controlled, this is not Israeli under the bombs, this is not Israeli moving to the south...
So Bernie... we can't even talk kind of chessmaster rhetoric ("ya know, he critics Israel behind"), this is pure cowardice if not dishonesty (by its affiliation)
*cause of course, Isreal is creating generation of - legit - haters
He kind of has a point. The idea that a permanent ceasefire with Hamas is impossible has some merit. The keyword here is permanent, that any ceasefire will eventually collapse and lead to this situation happening again. Then he clarifies what should be done instead.
I don't agree with him on this point, don't get me wrong, but the point seems to be that a return to pre-Oct 7 conditions won't do any favors for everybody. He says this too in the article:
That's a pretty agreeable position.
Again, you are ignoring the context. This is not Hamas - or whatever you call it today - a population is getting decimated on a faster pace right now! 7 Oct was tragic (still, not everything has been investigated yet and we know Israeli's trend to inflate shit) but it CAN'T be drawn as a sacred milestone which could erase all the previous and atrocious forfeits, should I say "crimes", committed by Israel.
I mean he says the bombing needs to end and has voted as much in the Senate.. He's definitely not claiming Israel is in any way innocent.
We're falling into the trap of "Do you condemn Hamas" here. Not any mention of Hamas needs to be accompanied by a condemnation of Israel, just as not every mention of Israel needs to come with a condemnation of Hamas.
Not at all, I see what you mean but no. The "relation" is irrelevant here. Who has the power, the control and who is dying?
That's such a simplistic view though, how long would you ignore a country firing missiles at you and sneaking in to kill civilians? Israel spent staggering sums on defensive security rather than just carpet bombing and still they find ways to kill Israelies.
And they always will, the leader of Hamas went to Iran again the other day to talk about further support that Iran can give them - they already train Palestinian fighters, supply them with missiles, scuba suits, paragliders, and tunnel making equipment. This isn't just a small city being bullied it's a proxy war, and yeah there are people in Palestine who don't support Hamas but it's not just Israel that's too blame for their bad experience - fundamentalist despots need them to be there suffering and dying so they can have a reason to keep attacking Israel, so they can hold Israel up as a bogeyman to cement their power at home.
This isn't a simple situation, Israel can't just stop fighting and tear down it's walls.
Anoooother inflate. talking about missile (which are guided and of higher destruction capacity) while the others use artisanal rocketry, shows a level of cowardice, jeez... And if you are so fucked up that, a death, if arab should only interest their ethnic, be aware that Iran is persian and shite, not arab and sunnite like... ya know, Saudi Arabia, Liban or Jordania OR Egypt!
Just look a the fucking map. The reality Israel is theocratic state (pseudo democratic, Bibi refers often to the book), laws are based on Talmud and they cry to build their great Israel.