#trump israel plan

[latestnews69]

Israel plans to expand Golan settlements after fall of Assad

Read more click here

[reasonsforhope]

Heads up/warning that I'm going to start posting articles related to the Israel-Palestine War

I've worked really, really hard to keep my blog about positive news only, and that's going to continue - these posts will be only about good news related to the war.

Of which there really, really isn't much, so I don't know that there will be a lot of posts, but I will be posting articles about humanitarian aid reaching those who need it and actions that will prevent more lives from being taken.

I know that, no matter my position on the war, this is something that would be very controversial and make a lot of people upset, so I wanted to be explicit about my position on this - and my posting policy, which is not the same thing. I also wanted to give people a heads up because I know the war in general is really, really triggering for a lot of people right now, for a lot of different reasons. I'll be tagging all relevant posts, so if screening those out is something that you need to do, you can.

I have worked very hard to make this blog a space with only good news because I know how much it can matter to have just one place, if nowhere else, that you can count on to not give you emotional whiplash with horrible news. To know you have one place you can go where you are guaranteed not to see bad news that will send you into a tailspin. That's why I've had a policy of not including signal boosts or PSAs about tragedies, no matter what they are, on this blog. (I do post about some of that stuff, including the Israel-Palestine War, on my main blog, though. I consider this blog to be me trying to run a public service, basically, and so have specific policies for myself around that, including my editorial and fact-checking standards.)

I'm going to be honest, I was really, really hoping the war would end after a couple of weeks, which has historically not been uncommon for wars with/involving Israel.

But that's clearly not happening, and I can't keep not acknowledging what's happening on here, so, this post.

With that, I imagine people probably want to know my actual stance on the war, since that's what I'll be posting in accordance with.

So, here's the official stance of this blog:

Every time a civilian is killed, it is a tragedy; Every time a child is killed, it is a tragedy, no matter their nationality. I condemn all antisemitism and all Islamophobia.

I support all calls for a ceasefire, as well as demands that Israel immediately stop its repeated bombing of hospitals, ambulances, shelters (including UN shelters), and refugee camps.

There is no situation in which the repeated and/or intentional bombing of hospitals is justified.

There is no situation in which the repeated and/or intentional bombing of shelters or refugee camps is justified.

There is no situation in which the repeated and/or intentional bombing of ambulances is justified.

There is no situation in which the killing of children is justified. Yet more children have now been killed in Gaza than in all global conflict zones combined in each year since 2019.

There is no situation in which cutting off an entire country and/or territory's supply of food and water is justified.

Yes, this applies to every group involved in the war, including countries supplying either side, and any countries or non-state organizations who may yet join the fighting.

The initial Hamas attack on Israel was a tragedy. The continued Israeli bombardment and invasion of Palestine is also a tragedy.

Most of the things I post will be about aid reaching Palestinians or news about tangible, confirmed progress toward a ceasefire. I probably will not be posting good news posts about aid reaching Israel, unless it's explicitly and only humanitarian and/or barring drastic unforeseen changes in circumstance. This is because as of yesterday, November 7, the Palestinian death toll is over 10,000 to Israel's roughly 1,400 (only about 200 of whom have been killed in the past month, starting on October 8, aka outside of the initial attack by Hamas). At least 3,195 children have died in Gaza, 33 in the West Bank, and 29 in Israel.

The Palestinian death toll is nearly 8 times the Israeli death toll. The number of children killed is 110 times higher in Palestine than Israel. (Source for death toll here, ratios via calculator.) Every single one of those deaths is a tragedy - and there have been far, far too many tragedies this past month.

(On a related note, Israel stands very, very little chance of actually eliminating Hamas with this war. The US has attempted this same strategy and failed many times: the US failed to eliminate the communist/North Korean regime in the Korean War, which is technically still ongoing 70 years later; failed to eliminate the Viet Cong in the Vietnam War; failed to eliminate numerous groups of Iraqi insurgents in the Iraq War, which triggered Iraq's civil war; and failed to eliminate the Taliban in the Afghanistan War, even though that war lasted for literally 20 years. Afghanistan is once again under total Taliban control.)

The last thing we need is another 20 year war. The last thing we need is more civilian deaths. Bombing civilian settlements, as well as hospitals, shelters, and refugee camps are war crimes under international law, meaning that both Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes.

It's time for the war crimes to stop.

Humanitarian aid reaching civilians is good news, and I will be posting accordingly.

Ceasefire now.

[wolf-skins]

OP of that "vote for Joe Biden" post shared "sources" and their sources for Biden's ceasefire stuff is literally just straight eating the U.S. propaganda with no critical thinking and this is easily proven many times over that Biden does not want a ceasefire deal and because they take the White House point blank at their word and because people in the notes are saying unhinged shit like "Biden is the only restraint on Bibi" I feel like I'm going to have to share a breakdown on how to do media analysis on tumblr

the tldr will be that the white house pushes any narrative that supports u.s. interests and the u.s. very much is interested in israel's supremacy and this is obvious.

[formicarum-rex]

kamala has apparently agreed to meet with uncommitted movement leaders about their desire for a weapons embargo against israel.

she has been a zionist forever (walz too), and even dismissed protesters again at one of her rallies tonight, so i can't expect too much of this (at least not without more pressure against her campaign). but just a month ago i wouldn't've guessed a pro-palestine movement would have gotten this far this quickly.

and as a bit more assurance, donald "should let them go and finish the job" trump is no longer a sure bet to win

i feel more hope tonight about forcing the us govt to cut off israel and end the bombing in palestine than i have in the past several months.

feels good, honestly. gives me a lot more motivation to participate more in protests and other activism to know it might budge something. i hope others feel similarly and there can be a big surge in support and action for palestine over the coming months

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

Not gonna get into it on the post because discourse™ but I too enjoy Shaun's YouTube videos but find his views on voting etc a bit iffy. I didn't actually come across them on his twitter but I watch his streams sometimes and it comes up there too.

Like to be clear my own plan here is like. Lie to my local Labour MP about not voting for them if they don't get their shit together, but when it comes to it vote for them anyway because what else can you do. Like there's a very real additional human cost to the least awful guy not getting in so I can't really morally justify actually witholding my vote. But I CAN justify pretending (to them) that I'm considering it. And it seems like he's one step further than me on the extremity scale in that he advocates for actually witholding your vote and it's like. Look I get all your reasons. Labour in the UK/Democrats in the US are complicit in some truly awful things right now and I'm absolutely furious about it. But what could you achieve by witholding your vote that you cannot achieve simply by lying about it?

To be clear I'm absolutely one of the most truthful (honesty is a different matter and I don't feel qualified to comment on my own, but in terms of literal truth-telling I CAN claim this) people I know. But this is one of the few situations where I'm like. I think the most ethical thing to do is to lie actually?

Yeah no I'm in total agreement with you there.

At the end of the day, actually withholding your voting or voting for the Green Party as a protest vote are the most useless political actions you can take. Your intention with it doesn't matter when the outcome is the Tories or Republicans getting more power and enacting more of their policies that are going to hurt the vulnerable people that you care about.

It's very LARPy. You insist you're doing something principled and meaningful and acting like a "good leftist", but you're not. Intentions don't automatically equate to outcomes and in this case, we know that they are not synonymous.

Meanwhile, things like directly threatening to withhold your vote can do something, especially at a local level where the candidates are much more likely to actually hear that threat.

I mean, in general, there's a lot more you can do politically at a local level. Local politicians can better hear your demands and are much more likely to meet them. You can often communicate with them one on one and because a lot of people are barely bothered to get involved when the Big Election rolls around, you can get shit done because no one else is there to oppose you.

It's one of the things that really irks me about the withdraw-your-vote crowd because they act is if electoral politics is useless, and completely ignore the very existence of local politics.

Also one of the things I find very frustrating is the way critiques of the labour party or of the democrats are almost never followed up with any action. Like if you want to shift these parties further left, get involved with them. Starting your own party is not gonna work because you won't be able to get the votes or the seats or whatever to have any real power as a party. Good thing there's two nominally left-wing, already existing parties that you can very easily get involved with and push for more leftist policies within them.

When people like Shaun talk about genuinely abstaining from voting and from electoral politics in general, I feel the exhaustion seep into my bones. They're basically advocating for us to hand political power over to the right wing on a silver platter because well, the platter itself wasn't of perfect quality so let's just give the whole thing away, ay?

[plethoraworldatlas]

The Biden administration signaled on December 12 that it is willing to make disastrous—and permanent—changes to asylum and immigration policy to obtain temporary military aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.

Top White House officials reportedly met with some of the key Senate negotiators, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), as well as Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Unfortunately, media reports indicate the White House is willing to resurrect some Trump-era anti-immigrant policies to cut a deal on Ukraine funding. These include the nationwide expansion of a fast-track deportation process known as “expedited removal,” the expansion of mandatory detention, and the immediate expulsion of migrants at the border under a Title 42-like authority.

...

The implementation of Title 42-like authority at the border would be counterproductive at addressing migration and, instead, will result in many individuals being sent back to persecution in their home countries or forced to wait in Mexico indefinitely. Human rights organizations have tracked thousands of incidents of violence against migrants, including murder, rape, and torture, during the Biden administration’s implementation of Title 42.

Reimposing Title 42 would also fail to seriously address border crossings. Analysis from the American Immigration Council shows that these expulsions do not deter migrants from attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. During the Title 42 policy, roughly one in three people apprehended after crossing the border were on their second or higher failed attempt to cross. This is confirmed by a recent analysis of DHS data from the Cato Institute, which revealed that ending Title 42 significantly reduced repeat crossings and halved so-called “gotaways.” As a result, allowing any DHS secretary to simply shut the border to asylum seekers would lead to tremendous harm to both asylum seekers and to basic principles of border management.

Dramatically expanding mandatory immigrant detention

The White House has also reportedly agreed in principle to language that would strip authority from DHS to release migrants who cross the border and are taken into custody. While many of those individuals are currently eligible for release, language currently in H.R. 2,  a Republican-supported bill that passed along party lines in the House earlier this year, would bar DHS from releasing any migrant—regardless of whether they are families or children.

The expansion of detention raises serious human rights concerns and would represent a complete break from the promises President Biden made as a candidate and while in office. Within the confines of the already expansive immigrant detention landscape, there are numerous complaints of negligent medical care, unsafe conditions, unfair and discriminatory treatment of detained migrants, and excessive use of force. Barring the release of migrants seeking protection to deter migration would only increase these abuses.

In addition, the United States simply does not have, and has never had, sufficient detention capacity to detain all migrants crossing the border, so releases would have to continue anyway. But by barring DHS from releasing migrants, Congress would also likely force the administration to restart family detention centers, leading to children suffer in detention centers for months or longer

Heightening the Standard for an Initial Asylum Screening

Negotiators are contemplating heightening the standard used for initial asylum screenings at the border. Currently, migrants must show that there is a “significant possibility” that they are eligible for asylum or similar protections, including under the Convention Against Torture. The standard was established in 1996 as a safeguard to prevent the U.S. government from breaking its international humanitarian agreements by erroneously deporting someone back to danger. If the migrant fails to show a significant possibility, they can be swiftly deported through the expedited removal process.

As we’ve seen under the Biden administration, making the standard more difficult will have not have a significant impact on newly arriving migrants. Since May, the Biden administration has been implementing a heightened standard in this initial screening process under its Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule. Despite this, border apprehensions have risen significantly since this rule went into effect, which suggests that it has not been a deterrent.

Migrants often don’t know the nuances of immigration policy and arrive at our border simply hoping to find safety. This means that raising the standard will only result in the deportation of migrants who may have viable asylum claims but can’t immediately prove their case to an asylum officer at the border.

Third Country Transit Asylum Ban

Though the specifics are not yet known, an asylum ban for people who travel through a third country before arriving to the United States can have devasting consequences for U.S. foreign policy and for immigrants arriving in this country on visas. For example, under a bill passed along party-lines in June, an untold number of individuals could lose access to asylum for simply having an international layover on a flight to the United States. This means that even an Afghan national evacuated from Kabul via a U.S. military base in Germany could not apply for asylum for failing to apply in Germany first. A Ukrainian national whose flight stopped in London before arriving to the United States would be similarly barred.

Such a proposal ignores that many people may pass through a country where applying for asylum is impracticable or which is not safe for them, and they would be barred from asylum as a result. In addition, this proposal will not have any impact on reducing migration. Under the Biden administration’s asylum restriction, roughly 90% of migrants who cross the border between ports of entry are already banned from seeking asylum. Imposing a statutory transit ban would most heavily impact individuals who enter legally through ports of entry or who fly into the country on visas.

Expansion of Fast-Track Deportations Nationwide

On December 8, news broke that the White House would be willing to support a nationwide expansion of “expedited removal,” a fast-tracked deportation process.

Currently, expedited removal is applied to noncitizens who present themselves at a port of entry without proper entry documents, or who enter without permission within the last 14 days and are apprehended within 100 miles of the border. This process severely limits due process by allowing low-level immigration officials (not judges) to immediately order deportations without the right to an attorney.

A nationwide expansion, like previously occurred under the Trump administration, could mean that immigrant parents, children, and spouses of U.S. citizens living in the United States for years could be swept up for swift removal with little legal recourse. Due to the expedited nature of this process, migrants with pending applications for relief could be removed and Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities could be unfairly targeted. This would also require significantly more resources for immigration enforcement, as interior enforcement of expected removal would involve significant operational complexities.

Crucially, expanding expedited removal to the interior would not reduce border crossings, as the policy is already in effect at the border. It would, however, provide a powerful tool for a future administration that aimed to carry out mass deportations of recently arrived migrants.

What’s Next?

It’s still unclear whether any of these concessions can make it through both chambers of Congress. The House GOP has indicated that they want significantly broader changes to asylum and border policy, and hardline GOP senators have reportedly said that even these policies are “not nearly enough.” With the clock ticking on holiday recess, the chance that Congress can hammer out a deal and make it law by the end of December is increasingly slim.

However, in the past few days, the Senate negotiations have moved us closer to potentially seeing these Trump-era like policies becoming law. We need real policy solutions that don’t throw the immigrant community under the bus

[notaconservative]

All the biden supporters are for some reason acting like biden really wants a ceasefire when Bibi is still scheduled to come and address congress 🤔 how do you see so clearly when trump lies but miss it when biden lies? Fucking blue maga, willing to follow anyone they're told to follow by the dnc even if they commit genocide 😪

[feminariden]

I don't really like how the "kurdish question" is treated in many articles, i'm against all of ethnostates and more ethnic conflicts but bruh kurds are absolutely a targeted minority in the region let's not kid ourself

[surajworldnews]

Can the Constitution Curb Trump’s “Frightening” Payback Plans?

Unfortunately, Ali Soufan was right. One year ago, shortly after the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the start of Israel’s military response, Soufan told me that the events had “ushered in a new era of chaos to the region.” The fallout has seen the displacement of millions of Gazans, the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, a ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, and the overthrow of former…

[arielfi]

Trump otti johtajuuden Lähi-itään, Suomi vielä peesaa islamistiblokkia

Yhdysvaltain tuleva presidentti Donald Trump on antanut Hamasille varoituksen ja uhannut olevansa hyvin vihainen (“all hell to pay”), jos Gazassa vangittuja panttivankeja ei vapauteta ennen kuin hän palaa Valkoiseen taloon 20. tammikuuta. “Syylliset saavat iskun kovemmin kuin ketään on lyöty Amerikan yhdysvaltojen pitkässä ja historiallisessa historiassa.” Presidentti Trumpin Lähi-itää koskevina…

[generaldavila]

MUNDO EN EVOLUCIÓN: LA GUERRA, BIDEN, SÁNCHEZ Y DE REPENTE TRUMP General de División (R.) Rafael Dávila Álvarez

  Esto es la guerra. Biden no se acuerda y el Pentágono ve que la ha perdido algo que no le gusta nada a los que pronto harán las maletas del retiro. Hegseth, futuro Secretario de Defensa de los EEUU, tiene la lista en su bolsillo que abarca desde generales hasta las tropas a mandar. La popularidad de la institución militar está por los suelos y hay que demostrar que un Ejército lo es sobre todo…

[ardentperfidy]

hot take but i actually think there's a fairly significant foreign policy divide between people who remember the obama syria red line failure and people who were too young or not dialed in enough to politics at the time

[shipperwolf1]

"I support palestine so much that I'm willing to help destroy my own country (further) to prove it"

@neolesbian

Okay, but you cannot end the statement there.

Then what?

I promise I am not looking to be contentious. I'd prefer not to fight and have a discussion. I am genuinely curious where you go from there. I just don't understand your point of view.

I'll tell you my thought process and you are free to tell me yours.

So you don't vote for Biden. Do you not vote at all? Do you have a viable alternative candidate? Or do you plan to do a protest vote for someone with no chance of winning?

Also, what if you or someone who feels the same as you lives in an area where not voting for Biden is essentially a spoiler vote for Trump? Do you still support not voting for Biden?

What do you think the consequences of that could be?

Every single far right politician is enthusiastically calling for blood. All of them want to fund the Israeli government and IDF, probably to a greater extent.

So I feel you get the same result, but you also get far right judges with lifetime appointments. Perhaps even another on the Supreme Court. A border wall. An increase of concentration camps near the border. Federal bans on gender affirming care. Bathroom laws. Anti-drag laws. Anti-choice will probably get codified. Any public health emergency will not be taken seriously and the elderly and disabled will die needlessly. Public schools will continue to get worse. Books will continue to be banned. Don't say gay laws. Don't say trans laws. School prayer. More tax cuts for the rich. The wage gap increases. Cost of living increases. Cost of healthcare increases. Voting restrictions. Voter ID laws. Gerrymandering. They could poison our elections to the point no progressive candidate would ever have a chance for not just the presidency, but also US Congress.

Put simply, if you are truly trying to help Palestine, how do you feel not voting for Biden accomplishes that?

[dancedance-resolution]

if any of you guys are wondering if the rnc is as disturbing as you imagine…..yes, and then some!

[agentfascinateur]

Crimes of Kushners

Jared Kushner never should have landed a job in the White House. Before joining the Trump administration, Kushner was best known as his father’s son...

[notaconservative]

Libs somehow believe biden wants a ceasefire when HE'S THE ONE GIVING WEAPONS TO ISRAEL. Somehow kamala has 'no power' and will supposedly do something once she's elected, when she's just parroting what biden said lol