199
this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
199 points (98.5% liked)
politics
23545 readers
2474 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Surprising to see the NYT reporting on this, since they've usually been on board with such crushing.
There are a lot of good rank and file journalists at NYT, and they have resisted attempts by the higher-ups to censor them. So there has been both bad and good coverage on this topic as a result.
The NYT has issues going back 7 generations, it’s not like it started to go downhill recently
Every organization has issues. That doesn’t mean there hasn’t been good journalism done under its banner.
Plenty of good journalists have worked there, often with high ideals. But that is not the whole picture. The NYT is soaked with blood and poverty for all the other things it has done. Almost everything we read as bad in history has had its proponents or motivators or mitigators working in the same hallways
The NYT isn't an ethical organization anymore
This article helps the rich by making Neoliberal genociders and leftists fight.
How so?
Because it's owned by a billionaire who tells them what to write?
The owners don’t control every decision made by every writer or editor, but it’s true that they do have excessive influence and power to kill some stories or promote others.
But I meant how does this article in particular make liberals and leftists fight?
I see this article as a growing shift in tone from liberals towards a greater skepticism and criticism of Israeli actions. This would mean they’d align better with leftists, not worse.
There are articles that effect their narratives, they have agreements with the managers that they publish things that forward those narratives.
To continue the crushing of the US Palestinian Movement. Let's not pretend that the retaliation against student protesters started this year.
Heritage describes Project Esther as a “groundbreaking” national strategy to fight antisemitism that aims not to censor opinions but to hold people it deems to be supporters of Hamas, a designated terrorist group, responsible for their actions. But critics such as Mr. Jacoby say the think tank is exploiting real concerns about antisemitism to advance its broader agenda of radically reshaping higher education and crushing progressive movements more generally. Project Esther exclusively focuses on antisemitism on the left, ignoring antisemitic harassment and violence from the right. It has drawn criticism from many Jewish organizations amid increasing calls for them to push back against the Trump administration. “Trump is pulling straight from the authoritarian playbook, using tools of repression first against those organizing for Palestinian rights,” said Stefanie Fox, the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace. “And in so doing, sharpening those tools for use against anyone and everyone who challenges his fascist agenda.”
When I read this it occurred to me once again that there's nothing really in it for groups like this to want to crush Gaza. I wanted to take a moment to finally reflect on it.
The easy answer is AIPAC or real estate or some other opportunity for personal gain. I think that's part of an answer for some of them, but I don't think it's even the largest part of the answer.
Another possibility is anti-terrorism. Hamas is certainly a terrorist organization and has committed horrific atrocities. But I feel like Republicans have always used terrorism as an excuse, not a primary driver.
Palestinians are brown. Is it simple racism? There are lots of brown people involved in conflicts we don't get involved in, though.
For some evangelicals, or those with lots of evangelical supporters, supporting Israel to bring about the end times and the second coming of Christ is probably a small piece of the answer. But I don't even really think most evangelicals think about supporting Israel from that perspective, but more from an emotional perspective. They simply equate Israel with the Holy Land.
Of course it's mostly leftists who are protesting in support of Palestinians. Is it as simple as wanting to hurt leftists? Maybe domestically, but would they execute on this plan with such urgency and persistence?
These all seem like pieces.
Then I zoomed out a bit and thought about the ideological conflict. Israel, a far-right government, is willing and evidently able to crush an enemy population (I think it's fair at this point to say Israel considers all of Gaza their enemy), destroy all infrastructure, and then starve every single person to death. The very definition of genocide. And they can do so completely and with impunity. No one can tell them what to do.
And I realized that while the other factors contribute to their support, Republicans support this primarily because this is Israel doing whatever it wants and crushing its enemies into dust. Republicans love it. They love the strength, they love the control, they love the cruelty, they love hating an Other, and they love simple solutions to complex problems. How many times have I heard a Republican say the US should turn the entire Middle East into glass? Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
And they would love to be able to do the same thing within the US.
It’s also because both Stephen Miller and his wife are very conservative Jews, he’s an extremely conservative and powerful man with grand plans for the US and is using his faith as a weapon.
^ this. I have never bought the whole "evangelical apocalypse" logic, they've never actually followed the bibles teachings to begin with, why would they start now?
I can't speak for the people with the power to actually make this policy, but for the people I know who have been big believers in this, it's because this is the part of the Bible they actually like: Jesus coming down from Heaven with sword in hand to destroy all the wrongdoers (read: people the believers don't like). They have absolutely massive amounts of Christian fanfiction devoted to how they want all this to go down (see: The Left Behind series). This is their superhero power fantasy type beliefs.
this particular group of people can go fuck themselves to the fullest extent