US support for Israel is one of the most horrible things imaginable, really makes me ashamed. It is only the US standing between the current horrendous status quo and Israel being an true international pariah state. Hopefully we cut off support and usher in a find out era.
(Though to be honest my position is probably that we need to go past cutting off support and US tax dollars should go toward reparations for Palesine, Lebanon and probably Iran and others, we are complicit in a lot of fucked shit.)
((I don't think those places are lead by great individuals and everything is amazing to be clear, I also think the people there have suffered immensely from a century of american, british and israeli meddling and we should be held accountable))
We've already given Israel almost $400 billion. Subrogate them for Palestinian reparations instead of billing everything to us like a teenage girl let loose at the mall with Daddy's credit card.
US support for Netanyahu is one of the most horrible things imaginable. US support for a non-Netanyahu Israel may not be so much. The distinction is important, at the very least so people don't call you an anti-Semite. But even without that, I think it's important. I'm anti-Trump, anti-Netanyahu, anti-Hamas, and anti-IRGC, but not anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-Palestine or anti-Iran. The citizens of those countries are the victims of their leaders.
Claiming that Israel is entirely a Netanyahu problem is ridiculous. No Netanyahu and what do you have left? An apartheid state, probably run by any number of awful replacements, like ben gvir or smotrich. Israel was founded in the shadow of the Nakba - they displaced million people and killed something like 15,000. That was only right when it was founded too. Post 1967, Israel ceased to have any left wing politics, and dove head first into their genocidal project, they’ve been doing it ever since. This is not antisemitic. I don’t care about religion and I’m not a baboon - I don’t care what you believe, I care what you do. And Israel has done, since the beginning, very bad stuff.
I deliberately used the phrase "Netanyahu's Israel". The problem is much more than Netanyahu, it's the Israel Netanyahu epitomizes whether or not it got there via Netanyahu or other similar routes. Given that Netanyahu was legitimately elected, there are lots of similar routes.
To be honest the more I started getting interested in geopolitics the more I understood that the humanitarian ideals we preach simply don't work in real world.
Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Nobody wants that because Iran is a dictatorship and in case of an already ongoing conflict dictatorships have a bias towards escalation - see how Russia is still fighting in Ukraine even though it's obvious that the whole operation has been a huge mistake. Either we stop Iran or we get a second North Korea - go to South Korea and ask how they feel about a nuke being pointed at Seoul at all times.
Before Trump it was kind of taboo that US would just go to Iran and shoot them, hence the necessary existence of Israel that gives zero fucks and will shoot everyone who even thinks of threatening them. The deal was, US gives weapons to Israel, Israel shoots everyone that US doesn't like, Israel takes the moral blame but in exchange maintains its independence.
The point is, being morally right means nothing if you die, therefore even good guys need someone to do the dirty job once in a while in order to survive against an opponent that is not playing by the same rules. Imagine a world where police have no guns and politely ask criminals to stop.
And from the point of view of Israel - there is literally no good solution for the Palestine situation. If Palestine gets independence it's a matter of time before they declare war on Israel. Whether justified or not, the entire Arab world hates Israel just because they exist exactly where they do, and that's the reality Israelis live in.
I wonder if Iran being a dictatorship has a cause? Why does the Arab world hate Israel I wonder? Everything you're talking about is basically a direct result of UK, US and israeli bullshit in the area. It's people with exactly the same sort of colonial geopolitical ideas as you that CAUSED THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
They're almost certainly #1 global problem causers so it's usually the safest bet. Though I wouldn't be as expansive as you, the USA, Portugal, Spain and the USSR are no slouches. Can't be forgetting the Dutch either.
So basically all powerful countries cause problems for other countries. Not exactly a resolutionary thing. Don't forget China, Japan, Mongolia, Romans, all sorts of infighting between native American groups before Columbus. And I assume that Africa wasn't exactly a paradise even before colonialism.
Yes, history happened and people should be held to account for it, not ad infinitum, but you know, if my dad killed your dad and took all his shit, and then left it to me, I'm pretty sure I shouldn't get to keep it and all the benefits that come from it just because I had nothing to do with it.
Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons.
...
Before Trump it was kind of taboo that US would just go to Iran and shoot them, hence the necessary existence of Israel that gives zero fucks and will shoot everyone who even thinks of threatening them.
Before Trump, the US had a deal with Iran whereby they promised not to build nuclear weapons, and we had inspectors in the country to ensure they kept said promise. There was little to no threat they would acquire nuclear weapons.
Trump blew up that deal in his first term, proving Iran can't trust any non-proliferation deals, the recent attacks proved they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves, and the BS with the strait of Hormuz gave them a giant pile of cash to streamline things.
Congratulations, a country that once may not have built nuclear weapons in our lifetimes is virtually guaranteed to have them inside the next decade.
Don't forget the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader - the man who issued a fatwa against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
It makes you think that ultimately, this is not simply about nuclear weapons. It is really about ensuring there is no possibility of a strong non-vassal state in the region (with the obvious exception).
This is a pretty naive post. First, Russia has nukes. You say Iran can’t have a nuke because dictatorships “tend toward escalation” yet in the same breath mention Russia who has nukes and does not use them against Ukraine. How about North Korea? They have nukes have they “escalated”?
You say Iran is “dangerously close” to a nuke. Do you know this has been said for decades at this point? Do you remember Netanyahu’s ridiculous bomb picture from like 2009?
Did you know Iran specifically had a religious policy AGAINST nukes, a fatwah? So most of your premises are wrong and most importantly, paradoxically:
In fact if Iran had the weapon, the whole region would be MORE secure.
I don't think the passive voice is meant to protect the perpetrators. Instead, they are presenting sexual assault as a deliberate tactic or policy, or at least a common pattern. If true, this is a much bigger story than isolated incidents of violence. But sixteen reported cases over three years seems very low. Likely there are more cases they missed. Mainly it seems like they have very little data.
As the sibling comments point out, in isolation your argument would be reasonable, but within the context of the decades-long conflict, and English-language media in general, passive voice is very much used to soften the blow of damning reports against figures of authority and other privileged peoples.
The passive voice and dishonest language is often used by British and US corporate and state media when describing atrocities committed by Israeli Jews.
"Some Palestinians are dead." Implying, "They seem to have just died. Nobody knows what happened." To describe the countless massacres of Palestinians by Israeli Jews
E.g., the BBC reported an IDF soldier, in uniform, who was captured as a prisoner of war as, "A young girl was kidnapped by Hammas." The BBC also reported on an 8 year old little girl who was kidnapped by the IDF and held as a hostage as, "a woman who was detained."
The BBC is still at it with the Israel-US illegal war of aggression against Iran. They reported that "180 people died" in the triple-tap strike on the school that murdered 165 young children, mostly little girls. The BBC also did not mention that it was a triple-tap strike where subsequent strikes killed rescue workers, parents coming to find their children, and 10s of children who had survived the first strike.
The UK (and Germany) are as bad as the US for media and government controlled by Zionists.
More likely, they already knew what they wanted to say, data or no data: Israel/US, bad: global revolution, good. They have to keep the pressure up so they need to write papers and get articles written about those papers and then get them posted on hacker news regardless of what actually happened. It’s a constant grind, but I suppose it will all be worth it for them if they get appointed on the committee of the vanguard or something like that.
Look up the article in Ha'aretz recently "IDF Soldiers Talk About the 'Moral Injury' – and the Silence" for another example of this. I mean, I am glad they are talking about it, but the way it is framed is maddening.
Israeli Jews recently got out into the streets to protest for the right to rape, after some soldiers were prosecuted for a recorded rape of a Palestinian prisoner where a long knife blade was inserted into body orifices during the rape. The whisleblower was condemned while the rapists were celebrated.
Most likely the settlers. If you start researching the violence by settlers in the West Bank and what they do to try to push out Palestinians and grab more of their land, it's horrifying. And the settlers are not your average Israeli -- they are the most hard-core Zionist Israelis (many of them foreigners)--that's explicitly why they are there in the first place. The pattern has been repeating for decades: Israeli army occupies some land in the WB, gives the land for free plus subsidized living to hardline Zionists who are armed and willing and able to defend and hold the land. Those people abuse the neighboring Palestinians to drive them away, and the now "empty" land can be occupied, the illegal settlement expanded, bring in more people. Rinse and repeat. Even though the settlements have been declared illegal over and over again by the UN and even previous US governments, Israel just ignores all of that. As long as there are "talks" going on, it can continue to slowly gobble up the WB and push the Palestinians into Jordan or an ever shrinking piece of land, just like Gaza.
This is absurdly one-sided. The "report" is just a summary of internet articles, two of which are from The Guardian itself, which makes this some weird content laundering situation. It also--obviously on purpose--leaves out IDF's response to the incident at Wadi-as-Seeq: "'After the initial investigation, a decision was made to dismiss the commander of the unit that carried out the arrest. Due to the seriousness of the suspicions, it was decided to open a Military Police investigation,' the army said." Sounds like that guy is in deep shit!
I'm so tired of this garbage. The Guardian had to have read this Times of Israel article because the details it reports (ex: the date) aren't included in the report, but they leave out the part where the commander is under investigation by the Military Police? What a joke.
Sexual assault and violence is the biblical explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah according to more and more modern biblical scholars. The Christian's who hate the gays should instead direct their bible and politicians at Israeli soldiers and their government.
The reality that war goes hand-in-hand with sexual violence is rarely fairly portrayed in American / Hollywood media. It sickens me when I see warhounds in our government who are, by extension of campaigning for war, rooting for sexual violence against entire populations - though they might not realize it through their ignorance.
That’s why I appreciate anti-war cinema, like Come and See, which notoriously came from Belarusian screenwriters.
Yep, war is the shittiest of things and rarely it is described completely for what it is. Humans following orders are well known to be ruthless and humans in power places are known to abuse their power. Add this to brainwashing and religious propaganda and beliefs, makes this kind of war a particularly shitty one.
"War isn't Hell. War is war and Hell is hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse"
"How do you figure that Hawkeye?"
"Easy Father, tell me, who goes to Hell?"
"Hmm, sinners, I believe"
"Exactly, there are no innocent bystanders in Hell. But war is shot full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for a few of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander"
I’m a fan of media that conveys the message that hell is real and it’s what we manufacture as humans, like 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. In fact, the broad theme of the 28 * Later series is that even with the most hellish events unfolding, humans are still capable of being depraved to the limits of our imagination.
The christian supporters of Israel can also think a bit about the itf soldiers destroying a statue of Jesus in Lebanon if they want to understand what they are supporting. Useful idiots doesn't even start to describe it.
It's ironic that netanyahu says that Christians are thriving in Israel and more than any other middle Eastern country.
Only 2% of Israel identifies as Christian, whereas Lebanon has 37%, which Israel is bombing
US support for Israel is one of the most horrible things imaginable, really makes me ashamed. It is only the US standing between the current horrendous status quo and Israel being an true international pariah state. Hopefully we cut off support and usher in a find out era.
(Though to be honest my position is probably that we need to go past cutting off support and US tax dollars should go toward reparations for Palesine, Lebanon and probably Iran and others, we are complicit in a lot of fucked shit.)
((I don't think those places are lead by great individuals and everything is amazing to be clear, I also think the people there have suffered immensely from a century of american, british and israeli meddling and we should be held accountable))
This is "let's you and him fight" logic.
We've already given Israel almost $400 billion. Subrogate them for Palestinian reparations instead of billing everything to us like a teenage girl let loose at the mall with Daddy's credit card.
US support for Netanyahu is one of the most horrible things imaginable. US support for a non-Netanyahu Israel may not be so much. The distinction is important, at the very least so people don't call you an anti-Semite. But even without that, I think it's important. I'm anti-Trump, anti-Netanyahu, anti-Hamas, and anti-IRGC, but not anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-Palestine or anti-Iran. The citizens of those countries are the victims of their leaders.
I said what I said; israel is the problem, I have no significant beef with Judaism (no more than any religion and less than some).
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-extremes-of-israe...
The first woman doctor in the Netherlands was Jewish.
Ofcourse nowadays Dutch/European Jewish culture is utterly despised by Israelis because it was secular and liberal.
Claiming that Israel is entirely a Netanyahu problem is ridiculous. No Netanyahu and what do you have left? An apartheid state, probably run by any number of awful replacements, like ben gvir or smotrich. Israel was founded in the shadow of the Nakba - they displaced million people and killed something like 15,000. That was only right when it was founded too. Post 1967, Israel ceased to have any left wing politics, and dove head first into their genocidal project, they’ve been doing it ever since. This is not antisemitic. I don’t care about religion and I’m not a baboon - I don’t care what you believe, I care what you do. And Israel has done, since the beginning, very bad stuff.
I deliberately used the phrase "Netanyahu's Israel". The problem is much more than Netanyahu, it's the Israel Netanyahu epitomizes whether or not it got there via Netanyahu or other similar routes. Given that Netanyahu was legitimately elected, there are lots of similar routes.
To be honest the more I started getting interested in geopolitics the more I understood that the humanitarian ideals we preach simply don't work in real world.
Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Nobody wants that because Iran is a dictatorship and in case of an already ongoing conflict dictatorships have a bias towards escalation - see how Russia is still fighting in Ukraine even though it's obvious that the whole operation has been a huge mistake. Either we stop Iran or we get a second North Korea - go to South Korea and ask how they feel about a nuke being pointed at Seoul at all times.
Before Trump it was kind of taboo that US would just go to Iran and shoot them, hence the necessary existence of Israel that gives zero fucks and will shoot everyone who even thinks of threatening them. The deal was, US gives weapons to Israel, Israel shoots everyone that US doesn't like, Israel takes the moral blame but in exchange maintains its independence.
The point is, being morally right means nothing if you die, therefore even good guys need someone to do the dirty job once in a while in order to survive against an opponent that is not playing by the same rules. Imagine a world where police have no guns and politely ask criminals to stop.
And from the point of view of Israel - there is literally no good solution for the Palestine situation. If Palestine gets independence it's a matter of time before they declare war on Israel. Whether justified or not, the entire Arab world hates Israel just because they exist exactly where they do, and that's the reality Israelis live in.
> even good guys
I assume in your fantasy said "good guys" are the US?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/09/20-years-us-torture-and-...
https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-us-wa...
https://theconversation.com/operation-condor-the-secret-syst...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes
I wonder if Iran being a dictatorship has a cause? Why does the Arab world hate Israel I wonder? Everything you're talking about is basically a direct result of UK, US and israeli bullshit in the area. It's people with exactly the same sort of colonial geopolitical ideas as you that CAUSED THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
When in doubt, blame the British. The British theorem: all life's problems can eventually be traced back to the British.
They're almost certainly #1 global problem causers so it's usually the safest bet. Though I wouldn't be as expansive as you, the USA, Portugal, Spain and the USSR are no slouches. Can't be forgetting the Dutch either.
So basically all powerful countries cause problems for other countries. Not exactly a resolutionary thing. Don't forget China, Japan, Mongolia, Romans, all sorts of infighting between native American groups before Columbus. And I assume that Africa wasn't exactly a paradise even before colonialism.
Yes, history happened and people should be held to account for it, not ad infinitum, but you know, if my dad killed your dad and took all his shit, and then left it to me, I'm pretty sure I shouldn't get to keep it and all the benefits that come from it just because I had nothing to do with it.
Dad? Sure. Grandfather? Maybe. Great-grandfather? Let it go.
Well, God is British. It is customary to blame Him
The largest empire in global history had influence on contemporary geopolitics. Why should we pretend otherwise?
Trump blew up that deal in his first term, proving Iran can't trust any non-proliferation deals, the recent attacks proved they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves, and the BS with the strait of Hormuz gave them a giant pile of cash to streamline things.
Congratulations, a country that once may not have built nuclear weapons in our lifetimes is virtually guaranteed to have them inside the next decade.
Don't forget the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader - the man who issued a fatwa against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
It makes you think that ultimately, this is not simply about nuclear weapons. It is really about ensuring there is no possibility of a strong non-vassal state in the region (with the obvious exception).
Fascinating theory. Are there any statistics on how many Israeli soldiers have died for the U.S.? How many have been deployed to fight for the U.S.?
This is a pretty naive post. First, Russia has nukes. You say Iran can’t have a nuke because dictatorships “tend toward escalation” yet in the same breath mention Russia who has nukes and does not use them against Ukraine. How about North Korea? They have nukes have they “escalated”?
You say Iran is “dangerously close” to a nuke. Do you know this has been said for decades at this point? Do you remember Netanyahu’s ridiculous bomb picture from like 2009?
Did you know Iran specifically had a religious policy AGAINST nukes, a fatwah? So most of your premises are wrong and most importantly, paradoxically:
In fact if Iran had the weapon, the whole region would be MORE secure.
I've heard Israel is close to a nuclear bomb since 1972. How is it different today?
The language in the article would be fascinating if it wasn't such a horrible thing.
It's not that the Israeli soldiers are sexually assaulting Palestinians, instead they are using Sexual Assault.
Later they say "Sexualised violence is used...", "men and boys were Targeted..."
It's like there is a gun shooting people, or someone using a gun. But we can't connect fully understand how or who is perpetuating it.
Edit: some more:
"Israeli soldiers present during abuse had repeatedly failed to prevent it..." Who was abusing?
I don't think the passive voice is meant to protect the perpetrators. Instead, they are presenting sexual assault as a deliberate tactic or policy, or at least a common pattern. If true, this is a much bigger story than isolated incidents of violence. But sixteen reported cases over three years seems very low. Likely there are more cases they missed. Mainly it seems like they have very little data.
As the sibling comments point out, in isolation your argument would be reasonable, but within the context of the decades-long conflict, and English-language media in general, passive voice is very much used to soften the blow of damning reports against figures of authority and other privileged peoples.
The passive voice and dishonest language is often used by British and US corporate and state media when describing atrocities committed by Israeli Jews.
"Some Palestinians are dead." Implying, "They seem to have just died. Nobody knows what happened." To describe the countless massacres of Palestinians by Israeli Jews
E.g., the BBC reported an IDF soldier, in uniform, who was captured as a prisoner of war as, "A young girl was kidnapped by Hammas." The BBC also reported on an 8 year old little girl who was kidnapped by the IDF and held as a hostage as, "a woman who was detained."
The BBC is still at it with the Israel-US illegal war of aggression against Iran. They reported that "180 people died" in the triple-tap strike on the school that murdered 165 young children, mostly little girls. The BBC also did not mention that it was a triple-tap strike where subsequent strikes killed rescue workers, parents coming to find their children, and 10s of children who had survived the first strike.
The UK (and Germany) are as bad as the US for media and government controlled by Zionists.
See it in EU news as well. They're essentially free PR for IDF.
More likely, they already knew what they wanted to say, data or no data: Israel/US, bad: global revolution, good. They have to keep the pressure up so they need to write papers and get articles written about those papers and then get them posted on hacker news regardless of what actually happened. It’s a constant grind, but I suppose it will all be worth it for them if they get appointed on the committee of the vanguard or something like that.
Look up the article in Ha'aretz recently "IDF Soldiers Talk About the 'Moral Injury' – and the Silence" for another example of this. I mean, I am glad they are talking about it, but the way it is framed is maddening.
The settlers. They are there illegally and do illegal things but the soldiers are there to provide them with functional immunity
> Who was abusing?
Israeli Jews. Both IDF soldiers and civilians.
Rape was always a weapon by the Israeli Jews. Remember that every accusation made by the Israeli Jews is an admission.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/report-of-the-commission...
Israeli Jews recently got out into the streets to protest for the right to rape, after some soldiers were prosecuted for a recorded rape of a Palestinian prisoner where a long knife blade was inserted into body orifices during the rape. The whisleblower was condemned while the rapists were celebrated.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/israelis-rio...
The article starts with “Israeli soldiers and settlers” so presumably the answer to your question is settlers.
Most likely the settlers. If you start researching the violence by settlers in the West Bank and what they do to try to push out Palestinians and grab more of their land, it's horrifying. And the settlers are not your average Israeli -- they are the most hard-core Zionist Israelis (many of them foreigners)--that's explicitly why they are there in the first place. The pattern has been repeating for decades: Israeli army occupies some land in the WB, gives the land for free plus subsidized living to hardline Zionists who are armed and willing and able to defend and hold the land. Those people abuse the neighboring Palestinians to drive them away, and the now "empty" land can be occupied, the illegal settlement expanded, bring in more people. Rinse and repeat. Even though the settlements have been declared illegal over and over again by the UN and even previous US governments, Israel just ignores all of that. As long as there are "talks" going on, it can continue to slowly gobble up the WB and push the Palestinians into Jordan or an ever shrinking piece of land, just like Gaza.
> Who was abusing?
It's possible that in some cases it was settlers. So technically not soldiers. But soldiers protected them, incl. from any resisting abuse.
Nothing to say. Just absolutely maddening that this is what my taxes go to accomplish
This is absurdly one-sided. The "report" is just a summary of internet articles, two of which are from The Guardian itself, which makes this some weird content laundering situation. It also--obviously on purpose--leaves out IDF's response to the incident at Wadi-as-Seeq: "'After the initial investigation, a decision was made to dismiss the commander of the unit that carried out the arrest. Due to the seriousness of the suspicions, it was decided to open a Military Police investigation,' the army said." Sounds like that guy is in deep shit!
I'm so tired of this garbage. The Guardian had to have read this Times of Israel article because the details it reports (ex: the date) aren't included in the report, but they leave out the part where the commander is under investigation by the Military Police? What a joke.
Sexual assault and violence is the biblical explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah according to more and more modern biblical scholars. The Christian's who hate the gays should instead direct their bible and politicians at Israeli soldiers and their government.
The reality that war goes hand-in-hand with sexual violence is rarely fairly portrayed in American / Hollywood media. It sickens me when I see warhounds in our government who are, by extension of campaigning for war, rooting for sexual violence against entire populations - though they might not realize it through their ignorance.
That’s why I appreciate anti-war cinema, like Come and See, which notoriously came from Belarusian screenwriters.
Yep, war is the shittiest of things and rarely it is described completely for what it is. Humans following orders are well known to be ruthless and humans in power places are known to abuse their power. Add this to brainwashing and religious propaganda and beliefs, makes this kind of war a particularly shitty one.
If only hell was real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUeBMwn_eYc
"War isn't Hell. War is war and Hell is hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse"
"How do you figure that Hawkeye?"
"Easy Father, tell me, who goes to Hell?"
"Hmm, sinners, I believe"
"Exactly, there are no innocent bystanders in Hell. But war is shot full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for a few of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander"
Well it sure must seem real for Palestinians. And it's just called life on Earth.
I’m a fan of media that conveys the message that hell is real and it’s what we manufacture as humans, like 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple. In fact, the broad theme of the 28 * Later series is that even with the most hellish events unfolding, humans are still capable of being depraved to the limits of our imagination.
The christian supporters of Israel can also think a bit about the itf soldiers destroying a statue of Jesus in Lebanon if they want to understand what they are supporting. Useful idiots doesn't even start to describe it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpd575n1znzo
Maybe they were carrying out exodus 20:4...
It's ironic that netanyahu says that Christians are thriving in Israel and more than any other middle Eastern country. Only 2% of Israel identifies as Christian, whereas Lebanon has 37%, which Israel is bombing
I kinda feel like from all the things going on ... breaking statue is the least of the things. Like, who cares.
Anything for Second Coming of Jesus
And Iraq used to have Christians before the pointless wars for israel, now it doesn’t.