Reflecting on his presidency, Obama posed the question, “Well, was there something else I could have done?”

Former President Barack Obama cautioned against ignoring the complexities of the Israel-Hamas war, warning that “all of us are complicit.”

“If you want to solve the problem, then you have to take in the whole truth. And you then have to admit nobody’s hands are clean, that all of us are complicit to some degree,” he said in an excerpted interview with Pod Save America released Saturday.

    • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
      448·
      1 year ago

      Thank you so much.

      This is way more complex than it’s getting credit for.

      It always has been.

      Anyway, I miss having a better leader. He was just so presidential. Not perfect, but no one can be.

      • fosiacat@lemmy.world
        1857·
        1 year ago

        he was a piece of shit. an eloquent neolib piece of shit. easy to reminisce about the better times when the last 2 presidents have been trash.

          • fosiacat@lemmy.world
            128·
            1 year ago

            “out” myself as what? a leftist that is sick of the constant cycle or warmongering corporate politicians that do fuck all for the good of the people and keep lining their “donors” pockets? I mean yeah ok busted?

            • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
              4·
              1 year ago

              I agree with you to an extent. I think Obama did what he thought was necessary but he did it with a touch of self righteousness that he thought justified his own greed. He caved into a lot of wall streets demands because he wanted to get the economy back on track and they were holding the US and the world to economic ransom. He openly admitted he didn’t know why he was given the Nobel peace prize and at that point I think it was because the world hadn’t seen his true colors - he knew he would go to war if he thought necessary and he did. I am vehemently anti war but I can see that a lot of Trumps anti war stance led to a weakening of stability over time by allowing injustices to take place in exchange for the end of fighting. This led to resentment and over time people reorganised and rose up from different angles. Ukraine would have been a perfect example and still might be if trump gets back in. The US would have let Russia take Ukraine or at least a chunk of it and the resentment would have been festering right now. The fact they are fighting outright is more of a reflection of the ideological stalemate manifesting into combat. If they were not fighting it’s likely the new idealogical imbalance would lead to growing resentment, this is similar to what we are seeing in Israel. The peace deal was done and the ideological imbalance was cemented and now hamas is retaliating. I don’t agree with either side but I understand why hamas are behaving in such a reckless and desperate way even if I don’t agree with their fundamental logic.

        • flicker@kbin.social
          8211·
          1 year ago

          They’re trying to do a “gotcha.” What they mean is, “Are even the dead children responsible for the situation they were in?”

          It’s a fallacy; appeal to emotion. Obviously the dead children aren’t reading this, or hearing the words that “all of us are complicit.” Instead of thinking as a rational person would that the audience being addressed by those words are the people to who that phrase would apply, they did a rapid-fire, emotion-based response because they want to feel right and superior, instead of taking the mature, nuanced approach.

      • livus@kbin.social
        261·
        1 year ago

        @roofuskit
        That’s what I thought when I saw the headline but he’s actually talking about state actors when you read the context:

        “All this is taking place against the backdrop of decades of failure to achieve a durable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians, one that is based on genuine security for Israel, a recognition of its right to exist, and a peace that is based on an end of the occupation and the creation of a viable state and self-determination for the Palestinian people,” he added.

      • Lophostemon
        143·
        1 year ago

        Especially the dead children. They were obviously bad because they chose to get born into the wrong place. Jesus hates them and had them killed for a reason. They should have chosen to get borned into a nice white Christian family in America.

        • some dumbass cracker evangelical, probably.
  • TinyPizza@kbin.social
    847·
    1 year ago

    This is bad news for Israels current course of action. When the guy who was popular (enough that the current guy could “best friend” his coat tails into office) starts saying this stuff loud enough for everyone to hear, it’s intentional. This looks like more subtle public distancing and changing of narrative.

    The former president argued that it was important to acknowledge multiple seemingly contradictory truths: Hamas’ actions were “horrific,” but “the occupation and what’s happening to Palestinians” were also “unbearable.”
    Obama previously spoke out on the conflict, saying in a statement that any actions by Israel that ignore the human cost of the war against Hamas “could ultimately backfire.”

    Israel and it’s supporters should be sobered by this soft diplomacy. It’s very much aimed at them and the timing should make it clear that they are being isolated.

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
    6710·
    1 year ago

    Funny they never say this kinda shit or act upon it when they have any actual power. Like Eisenhower and his military industrial complex speech.

      • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
        1310·
        1 year ago

        Even if it was a misfired Palestinian rocket, which still isn’t proven btw, it doesn’t outweigh the 30+ hospitals that Israel has bombed to this day, or for that matter the fucking refugee camp they bombed last week.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          134·
          1 year ago

          I mean it does though because of the claim of 500 dead bodies that magically appeared and then (not a joke) dissolved like salt into water once it was clear it was IJ at fault and not the IDF.

          Israel has largely been pinpoint with its strikes and when you compare it’s released maps of Gaza’s tunnel networks from the last war with the BBC’s map of its airstrikes it’s very clear what they’re doing.

        • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
          93·
          1 year ago

          or for that matter the fucking refugee camp they bombed last week

          I was confused by this initially too (I read the headline and imagined a tent city for people fleeing this current war, but then the photo was of a city block with like 5 story buildings) but it’s only called a “refugee camp” because it was originally a site where refugees gathered after the 1948 war, in the modern day it’s more or less an urban neighborhood of Gaza with a population (at one point) of 100,000 just like any other part of the city

      • Lt_Cdr_Data@discuss.tchncs.de
        21·
        1 year ago

        I think hospital bombings on both sides must always be taken with a grain of salt… because if you are in a war and are highly unethical; where is the best place to operate a military base from, if you want to protect it from bombings?

  • dx1@lemmy.world
    6818·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, the whole truth of the situation is that the subjugation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was a direct byproduct/prerequisite of the creation of the Israeli state. We will get nowhere if nobody addresses this fundamental aggravant at the heart of this conflict, that formed the basis for the militarized apartheid system that exists there today. These are just pithy quips about “nobody’s perfect” coming from somebody with olympic swimming pools of blood on his hands.

    The reality’s that the only people with the real vision to create peace in this situation have long been sidelined from the political discussion. I’m really encouraged looking at stuff like https://www.odsi.co/en/ that actually understands the fundamental problems going on here. We’ll get absolutely nowhere listening to the political establishment in the U.S. or Israel that spent most of the last century manufacturing this situation.

    • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
      245·
      1 year ago

      Yes but none of us were alive when it happened. Now there’sa nuclear armed ethnostate literally surrounded by (to them) existential enemies, and it just so happens they speak English gud and like the same brand of deity, and let wonder woman move to Hollywood.

      Shit is fucked.

    • jimbo@lemmy.world
      3114·
      1 year ago

      I don’t see where Obama said anything about things being proportionate, and I don’t know what “proportionate” has to do with the fact that heinous acts have been taken by both sides.

      • coffee_poops@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2021·
        1 year ago

        There’s no “both sides” to this anymore. Almost ten times the people have been killed by Israel with almost all of them being civilians.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          3012·
          1 year ago

          How many times can you poke a bear before it decides it’s done?

          It’s not an excuse. Israel’s actions are absolutely disproportionate. I can argue either side, but that’s exactly the point. Nobody’s hands are clean. You don’t have to condone Israel’s actions to understand they were provoked.

          There can never be peace without both sides admitting some fault. Two wrongs don’t make a right. 9061 wrongs don’t cancel out 1400 wrongs. That’s not how any of this works.

          What do you suggest Israel does? What do you suggest Palestinians in Gaza do? Until you think a little bit deeper, you can’t just say dismissive, pithy things that only favor one side.

          This isn’t a sports team. You can’t just pick a side and cheer for them no matter what.

        • jimbo@lemmy.world
          2010·
          1 year ago

          There’s no “both sides” to this anymore. Almost ten times the people have been killed by Israel with almost all of them being civilians.

          Israel has killed ten times the people compared to who? Oh yeah, the other “side”, who also has killed a bunch of civilians.

          • coffee_poops@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            513·
            1 year ago

            I’m not talking a pro-Hamas position. I’m taking a pro-child position. You don’t give a fuck about people though.

            • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
              10·
              1 year ago

              In a complete shock to everyone, the guy with the tankie name is all for the deaths of innocent civilians

              At least they wear it like a badge of honor, making it easy to identify and ignore them

                • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
                  6·
                  1 year ago

                  We should give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he’s only advocating for the ~25% (2m people or so) of the Israeli civilian population that’s not native born to be killed? Or maybe only the ~500k Israeli civilians who are >75 years old that were alive to see the 1948 war and creation of the state? Maybe some combination of the two? Surely a tankie can’t be advocating for the genocide of an entire nation?

                  Edit: Oh he messaged me instead of replying? Not sure if that was on accident but:

                  settlers aren’t civilians, only settlers think they’re civilians

                  and you are definitely so good at ignoring when you reply to my comment

                  you libs are a joke and a half ill tell ya

                  No no, you misunderstand me, when I say “ignore” I only mean disregard your opinions, there’s no way I’d miss out on pointing and laughing with everyone else at the genocidal tankies, we have to make sure nobody around here thinks it’s an appropriate opinion to have

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      2817·
      1 year ago

      Terrorists consider civilian casualties to be a scorecard. Hamas benefits when there’s Israeli civilian casualties. Hamas also benefits when there’s Palestinian civilian casualties.

      That’s the whole point of taking hostages isn’t it? To force Israel into a ground campaign which will cause Palestinian civilian casualties.

      The military forces of civilized nations don’t consider civilian casualties to be a victory no matter which side it’s on. They have an objective and need to achieve that objective while minimizing civilian casualties. The objective of the IDF is to free the hostages. They will make an effort to minimize civilian casualties. But they must achieve that objective even while know civilian causalities are a certainty even when they make an to keep those casualties to a minimum.

      This is the nature of war. And this is a war Hamas started. And remember there could be significantly fewer casualties (and a humanitarian ceasefire) if Hamas released the hostages.

      But they won’t do that because their objective is to maximize the number of Palestinian casualties because many people look at those casualties and become angry and want to support them.

      Netanyahu will lose power because of 1400 Israeli deaths. Both Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties are considered to be a failure by Israelis.

      Both Israeli and Palestinian civilian casualties are considered a success by Hamas. They are psychopaths that know how people react to these numbers.

    • AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works
      97·
      1 year ago

      But only because they are the ones in power. If the positions of power were reversed, it’d be pretty much the same thing, except Hamas would be the one performing the apartheid and the genocide.

    • S_204@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3032·
      1 year ago

      You seem to not understand what a proportionate response in war is. Israel’s goal is extermination of the terrorist threat in Gaza, their actions are proportional for those goals. Not lost in the calculation is the terrorists saying they intend on continuing their terror attacks on civilians, making a ceasefire all but impossible to institute.

      The question of whether or not it’s humane or ethical is a different question that should be debated.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          85·
          1 year ago

          Watch this My life as a Palestinian fighter - YouTube with a little bit critical of an eye and tell me what you think. This is supposed to be in favor of Palestinians, but what I get out of it is that the mother is proud of the son fighting and dying. What I get out of this is that many Gazans want the fighting to continue, but only when it’s their people fighting Israel. Who do you think put out this video? Do you think Israel is behind it? Or do you think it’s honestly made in favor of Palestine? What’s the purpose of this video and who made it?

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          65·
          1 year ago

          How do you propose to kill everyone who is Hamas without killing any civilians?

          In war, civilians always die. That’s just reality.

            • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
              3·
              1 year ago

              Again, how would you suggest they do it? Don’t avoid the question.

              If this was World War 2, would you be saying that we shouldn’t kill any nazis if it causes civilian casualties? Nazis, like their Hamas associates, also used human shield tactics.

              • coffee_poops@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                They have one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world. You think they can’t minimize civilian casualties? The state of Israel is run by fascists who are building an ethnostate. They don’t care about Palestinians.

                The cost of destroying Hamas isn’t worth intentionally targeting civilians. They’re blowing up HOSPITALS.

            • rengoku2@lemm.ee
              45·
              1 year ago

              You didnt answer his question. Avoiding it does not make you more right than him.

              • coffee_poops@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                32·
                1 year ago

                I’m not answering the question because I’m not drawing the line at no civilians. It’s not my position so I’m not going to defend it.

        • S_204@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1626·
          1 year ago

          Where did I justify anything? I’m pointing out your ignorance is all.

          Proportional in the context you’re using it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

          You’re probably one of those people who says things like genocide when the population has doubled since 1950, or apartheid when Arabs serve in the IDF, sit as judges in the courts and hold seats in the parliament.

          Tensions are high, spreading disinformation like you are doing is a problem that needs to be called out. Notice I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt assuming you’re just ignorant and not doing this intentionally.

          None of what I’ve said justifies the actions of anyone either. I’m simply pointing out that accuracy is important and you made a mistake.

          • coffee_poops@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            167·
            1 year ago

            You know that they’re are streets in Jerusalem that Palestinians are not even allowed to walk down, right? It’s an apartheid state.

              • spiderplant@lemm.ee
                22·
                1 year ago

                Proportional in the context you’re using it doesn’t mean what you think it does.

                Proportionality is important in international law which is one of the reasons that the UN keeps calling out Israel for war crimes. Another cool fact in international law is that the threat to national security has to be imminent to strike into another country. They can’t just bomb in retaliation and say they are preventing future attacks.

                You’re probably one of those people who says things like genocide when the population has doubled since 1950, or apartheid when Arabs serve in the IDF, sit as judges in the courts and hold seats in the parliament.

                Big Zionist misinformation here, population numbers going up can not disqualify acts from being genocidal. Also black people participated in South African society in the same way but no one would say SA wasn’t an apartheid state because a minority existed in the army or parliament.

        • Guydht@lemmy.world
          1619·
          1 year ago

          Oh so having thousands of armed forces destroying borders in a calculated coordinated attack including drones and rockets is not an army?

          Read about Hamas. Learn that they’re a small army, coordinated and with levels of commands, platoons, and units.

          Stop imagining Israel as being terrorists targeting civilians - they’re an army targeting terrorists who target civilians, and who’re hiding behind civilians for safety.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            117·
            1 year ago

            Are the cartels armies?

            If a cartel attacks Mexico, should Mexico just bomb their entire city?

            • Guydht@lemmy.world
              52·
              1 year ago

              That’s the wrong question. The right question is if the mexican cartels started launching rockets and slaughtering the U.S.bordering Mexico - then what do you think would happen?

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                41·
                1 year ago

                That isn’t even a question, it’s a tautology given how the US is fully supporting whatever Israel is doing.

            • aidan@lemmy.worldM
              3·
              1 year ago

              Are the cartels armies?

              In some capacity yes.

              If a cartel attacks Mexico, should Mexico just bomb their entire city?

              That’s a different question entirety unrelated to if they’re armies or not. 1940s Japan certainly had an army, but did that justify nuking and firebombing cities?

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                44·
                1 year ago

                This is nothing like Japan. This is like Vietnam where America invades a country it isn’t supposed to be and “self defences” all over the place

            • jimbo@lemmy.world
              87·
              1 year ago

              Makes you wonder the atrocities they’ve been through to commit to such acts.

              It’s fascinating that you’re capable of that kind of thinking with regard to Gaza and yet seem incapable of applying it to Israel, despite being just as relevant.

              • spiderplant@lemm.ee
                1·
                1 year ago

                Ah yes let’s apply it to the side with rights, running water, food, the biggest military in the middle east, backed by the US, given free reign to commit war crimes by the west, deeply racist, most of the population have not lost family in the fight, has fortified bunkers in every house and have no fear of having their house bulldozed to make way for a stronger neighbours population.

                • jimbo@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  the biggest military in the middle east, backed by the US

                  It’s like there’s a historically sound reason for that or something…the events didn’t even happen that long ago.

                  most of the population have not lost family in the fight

                  Yes, because of the aforementioned large military. And maybe they haven’t lost someone in the particular fight (although it’s a rather asshole thing to even mention) this is not the first time Israel and other Jews have suffered casualties from surprise attacks.

                  has fortified bunkers in every house

                  You say that like it’s an indicator that they’re doing alright. How many people in your area feel the need to have fortified bunkers in in their homes to prevent them from being murdered by people living a few miles away? And how many of those people actually had to use those bunkers in the last month (like many Israelis just did)?

      • Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works
        17·
        1 year ago

        The only reason a terrorist threat exists at all is that Israel has openly said they are trying to genocide Palestinians. Combined with the last 30 years of Apartheid they’ve already done.

        • aidan@lemmy.worldM
          4·
          1 year ago

          The only reason a terrorist threat exists at all

          How did this recent war start again?

            • aidan@lemmy.worldM
              1·
              1 year ago

              Mhm it’s almost like after 75 years there are generations that have been born on this land, and now are the locals.

              • spiderplant@lemm.ee
                1·
                1 year ago

                So you’re for a 1 state solution with equal rights and a government ran by the majority like south Africa?

                • aidan@lemmy.worldM
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  So you’re for a 1 state solution with equal rights

                  Sure, or a 10 state solution. Whatever, the number of states doesn’t matter.

                  ran by the majority like south Africa

                  I oppose absolute democracy. I would support a representative state with strong constitutional protections.

          • Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works
            11·
            1 year ago

            By Israel running an apartheid state and committing countless war crimes against the people of Gaza. What is your point exactly?

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.world
    5617·
    1 year ago

    Both sides may have fault however there is a fundamental difference between Israel and Hamas. Hamas is a relatively small terrorist group from a region (Gaza) that has been oppressed and had food, water, and electricity limited (even before the war). Meanwhile Israel has one of the largest militaries and occupies Gaza. The death toll and injuries are not even compatible nor the sheer scale of the war crimes committed by Israel.

    • stevehobbes@lemmy.world
      2559·
      1 year ago

      Have you considered that if Gaza didn’t have terrorist groups they might a functioning society and government?

        • stevehobbes@lemmy.world
          1817·
          1 year ago

          Well, given that the reason Gaza is occupied is because of the terrorist groups, I think order of operations is somewhat disputed.

          This is 70 years of tit for tat. My point is that both parties here are wrong.

          There is no good or bad guy, just two bad guys.

        • Overzeetop@lemmy.worldEnglish
          98·
          1 year ago

          That’s incorrect. The existence of the terrorist groups are the result of Resolution 181 and the ensuing war that established the modern day boundaries of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

          The continued support for these terrorists groups has been bolstered in part by the heavy-handed tactics of Israel and the animosity between Israel and regional powers, but the original sin here was the British (and much of the western world) cowtowing to Zionists to create a theoretical two-state solution from scratch and overlaying it on an existing mixed-background area known as Palestine.

          There are a lot of movie parts here, but the simple enmity between hardline Muslims and hardline Jews predates pretty much everyone currently alive on this planet.

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            2·
            1 year ago

            Resolution 181 is a red herring.

            There were already Arab vs. Zionist clashes before it, and they would have continued with or without a resolution that nobody was following. Only thing the British can be seen at fault for, is leaving without having enforced 181… which meant leaving Israel alone to fight a war against a coordinated attack from multiple Arab countries at once. Not precisely “cowtowing” to Israel.

            Modern terrorist groups are the result of Israel going against its own Declaration of Independence where it promised to follow 181, and instead trying to get exclusive control of the whole territory… while Palestinians are getting pummeled, but still also refuse to consider a two-state solution, leaving them in an underdog position where all they can do is some terrorist attacks and wait to get destroyed.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          82·
          1 year ago

          Gaza isn’t colonized. Israel pulled out unilaterally in 2004 and evicted every Jewish settler, some at gunpoint.

          • aidan@lemmy.worldM
            64·
            1 year ago

            It’s been 80 years, sometimes you have to move on from your grandpa’s battles. Do you think Germans should target Czechs living in Sudetenland? Or Poles in Silesia or Pomeranian or Eastern Prussia?

            • mwguy@infosec.pubEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              No, that’s precisely what I’ve been arguing. Gaza has the 1967 borders and the same borders it had in 1949 after the armistice from the 1948 war was drawn.

      • Arlaerion@lemmy.ml
        74·
        1 year ago

        Maybe if israeli hardliners didn’t support the founding of Hamas and assassinate Rabin they could have reached a peaceful solution almost 20 years ago?

  • Veedem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    368·
    1 year ago

    Well thought out response from someone who knows how to captivate an audience. I miss his leadership even if there were some key flaws during his terms (e.g. the gross overuse of drone strikes).

    Ultimately, no president is perfect but I also believe their ability to be a figure head who can make the public look inward, from time to time, is important.

    Trump did nothing to lead. He just spread anger and hostility. Biden, while he means well, has never been the beet public speaker (both in presence and in avoiding putting his foot in his mouth).

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      1738·
      1 year ago

      I’d rather have an effective leader than a charismatic one. I don’t elect presidents to assuage my fee-fees, and the fact that the rest of the population does is the problem.

      • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
        16·
        1 year ago

        It’s unfortunate but charisma is a very important component in contemporary American politics. I think that’s largely the reason Hillary lost the election. Trump is not as qualified as she was but he is much more charismatic. I think it’s because people don’t care enough to do stay informed and research candidates. So they make emotional decisions based on the stupidest criteria. The biggest example is one of the factors that got George W elected/reelected, “I’d rather have a beer with him than the other guy” .

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          16·
          1 year ago

          That needs to change and adults who refuse to need to have their ability to vote taken away from them.

          Most adults simply aren’t qualified to run a democracy and we can’t continue destroying everything to dumb it down for them to appease them. I probably count among their number and if those depraved assholes couldn’t vote anymore, I’d accept not being able to vote anymore, too.

          Find someone like John Kerry and make him king. Have an AI do it. Force people to submit to extensive psychological and IQ testing throughout their lives if they want to vote. There’s a way to do it fairly. Ignorant assholes might not think it’s fair, but their opinions can’t matter anymore if we’re to escape tyranny and have happy meaningful lives.

          We are capable of reason and overcoming our emotions. We can’t just submit to the will of those who refuse to. They’re no more powerful than you or I.

          • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
            52·
            1 year ago

            The core of a democracy is that people get to choose their own leaders. Even though I agree with you that I wish people took voting more seriously. I don’t think people should lose their right to vote because I disagree with their decision making process. If you want to flip a coin or roll dice or whatever as long as it’s your own choice then you can vote for whomever you want. Even if I utterly disagree with that process. That’s what a right is. It’s innately a part of you. Unless you commit a felony per Richardson v. Ramirez

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
              16·
              1 year ago

              Well, people openly choosing emotions over rationality at the cost of everything they hold dear and bringing untold harm to everyone else around them, including genocide, isn’t “disagreeing with their decision making process”. It’s a credible accusation of wrongdoing.

              Because what’s even more innate than your rights are you responsibilities, and that means you have to put rationality and what’s best for your community above whoever makes you feel the best when you interact with them or when you watch them speak. We’re supposed to run the most powerful nation in the world, one with nuclear weapons, and that means our responsibilities trump our rights and petty desires.

              That’s what being an adult means.

              And if people refuse to do so, then they shouldn’t have that power and influence over politics.

              The truth is there’s nothing innate about voting, humans are not like other animals like bees that can have stable democratic societies (if you want to call beehives that), we’re too selfish and cruel for that, but we also evolved with the capability to overcome those animalistic tendencies. And if we want to survive and have the kind of life we want, we have to be willing to do so no matter how shitty it makes us feel.

              We can’t afford to just be animals anymore. We’re literally destroying the planet. Too much hangs in the balance and if you continue to defend people putting their feelings before facts simply because you feel the same way, no surface life will exist aside from some bacteria and a few pestilence bugs and we have to work for more than that.

    • Dran@lemmy.world
      122·
      1 year ago

      We (the US) are the weapon’s manufacturers and we (the US) sell them the weapons.

      We do it because if we didn’t, Russia and China would effectively conquer the middle east, and they’d allow a lot worse things to happen as long as raw materials, oil, and cheap labour kept flowing back in their favor.

      It’s a complex subject any way you slice it because it’s possible inaction has worse consequences than complicity.

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 year ago

        Don’t you just hate how there are no simple solutions to anything? I’m sick of people saying “just get along” as if they never thought that could be a preferred option.

      • iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.worldEnglish
        45·
        1 year ago

        All I know is we (the US) deserve more investment in ourselves and do not need to fund another country’s war of prosecution.

    • Reptorian@lemmy.zipEnglish
      12·
      1 year ago

      If they want to support Israel, I’m fine with humanitarian support toward Israel at best. And Gaza as well. I can’t think of a single country in Middle East that needs military support, and I can’t think of a good organization in Middle East that one should get behind. Best I can think of is the PLO.

  • spudwart@spudwart.comEnglish
    227·
    1 year ago

    “It’s complicated” is no excuse to be arming an already powerful nation with our tax dollars to make the situation more “complicated.”

    If it’s so damn complicated, maybe we shouldn’t be sending arms and tax dollars directly over to Israel, but rather send humanitarian aid to both sides instead.

    Taking a side in a complicated conflict of which many people don’t fully understand is an unwise decision, and using tax dollars to arm one or even both sides of a conflict we don’t fully understand is unethical.

    • bonus_crab@lemmy.world
      111·
      1 year ago

      Its their job to understand it, and they do. what they understand is that while supporting israel has a monetary cost , it secures our trade routes, which egypt has tried to close purely because ‘fuck you’ through the Mediterranean and puts pressure on the rest of the middle east to support the petrol dollar.

      If the arab countries were remotely as friendly as israel, itd diminish their value as an ally potentially to the extent that we wouldnt have to overlook the atrocities they commit. The reality is that ISIS and Hezbollah and Hamas are 100x worse. Ad soon as Iran gets nukes, theyre going to become another north korea, potentially a catalyst for WW3, and we need an ally in the region as leverage to prevent that.

      What this latest conflict has shown is that they will absolutely make suicidally stupid attacks that will result in massive casualties to their own people, so long as it advances their goal of genociding jews and anyone else thats not an arab.

      Say what you want about israel, but theyve been on the brink of kicking netanyahu and his racist ass out of office for years. Hes in a very similar situation legally to Trump. Hamas’s attack has virtually ensured that won’t happen now , as the nation enters a state of emergency, and theyve proved his fear mongering true.

    • roofuskit@lemmy.world
      28·
      1 year ago

      Yes, it’s normal for past presidents to kind of step aside except for some small fundraising and party politics. It’s not always what happens but it’s more common than the alternatives.

    • nicetriangle@kbin.social
      19·
      1 year ago

      Bush Sr certainly fell of the map and Carter basically went on to do a lot of charitable work but wasn’t particularly vocal in the media.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        14·
        1 year ago

        Bush Sr was spending most of his time in the 90s cultivating a close business relationship with the Saudis, particularly his fellow members of the Carlyle Group.

        Bush Sr was at the Annual Investor’s Conference on 9/11 where Shafiq bin Laden was the Guest of Honor.

    • s_s@lemm.eeEnglish
      9·
      1 year ago

      Normal in the modern era.

      In the 1800s they’d run as senators after their presidential terms if they were young enough.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        51·
        1 year ago

        In the 1800s running for Senate basically meant looking intimidatingly at the statehouse and daring them to explain to the voters why they said no to the former president from their state that those voters probably supported overwhelmingly

    • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
      21·
      1 year ago

      Sure, Truman used to walk around Independance daily and reporters asked him about various topics.

  • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
    1618·
    1 year ago

    Wow Barack “double Bush’s drone strikes, kill 12,000 Afghani civilians, and bomb a Doctor’s Without Boarders hospital” Obama wants to show restraint now that he’s no longer in a position to stop the bloodshed…

      • mommykink@lemmy.world
        51·
        1 year ago

        Don’t you know that criticizing Big Brother I mean The Government (when our guy is in charge) is basically letting Trump become president again?

          • mommykink@lemmy.world
            22·
            1 year ago

            (Ignore the fact that the most effective gun control legislation of the past decade was passed by the Trump administration)

            (Ignore the fact that Joe Biden was literally sold to us as the “Conservative democrat”)

            (Ignore the fact that Roe v. Wade was overturned with Democrats controlling the White House and Congress)