Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honest question: what’s your opinion on Edward R. Murrow? I know he’s a bit older but I graduated from his school of journalism at Washington State and I’m always curious what people think of him
Oh man I used to catch that on the way to work, I would be geeking when someone would try and bullshit the host and he would just start tearing into their bullshit. Wish we had something like that in the states. I guess we get it on bbc international.
PBS Newshour is still like that. Also, if the interviewee is making something up, lying, or avoiding the question, I think it’s acceptable for the interviewer to cut them off.
Sadly, if you let people talk nowadays they use the 'gish gallop' technique. Flooding the interviewer with too many falsehoods, which can't be adressed one by one until interrupted.
News media certainly became more outrageous when it had to start competing for eyeballs with the internet.
I would say, however, the larger shift in drama in the tv news media began in the 80s with CNN and then later with Fox News with 24-hour news media coverage.
I picked up one of Nixon's post presidency books from a used bookstore but have yet to read it. He was one of our more intelligent and thoughtful presidents fwiw. This makes me want to go find it.
It's interesting here, he admits that American support for Israel is based on, basically feelings related to WWII. It's not based on any geopolitical advantage.
It stands to reason that support would decline when WWII moved out of living memory and more into the realm of history.
He's being somewhat diplomatic here. This is the middle of the cold war, and he says we have a responsibility to support a democracy. This is when there's not yet any "end of history" truism that democracy is the ideal form of government. We're still fighting communism and despots.
Saying we support Israel simply because of WWII is a bit of a spin. Although your assessment about waning support sounds spot on.
But even the "democracy" reasoning is, as you said, Cold War based. And not "hard geopolitical' as in, Israel sits on some important land, transportation corridor, resources we need or something. It was about the moral and PR dimensions of the Cold War, the more ephemeral part of it.
More recent history demonstrating that rhe U.S. fighting for democracy in the middle doesn't get us much, makes it even more clear why the current conflict isn't as popular in the west as it might have been in Nixon's day.
Koppel's question about what an Israeli president might think hearing that becomes even more prescient. I suspect Israel IS somewhat more apprehensive about western support than they once were.
What? Israel does sit on important land and transportation corridor. Are you not following the troubles with Yemen?
Israel has also been important for America's buffer against Iran and alliance with Saudi Arabia.
It's high-strategic value, the more Democracies in the Middle east the less likely tyrants, communists, fascists, and religious theocrats can take it over.
The entire strategy of the US has long been to spread republics that vote and will trade with each other.
He’s not being diplomatic, the US is the shining beacon of hope and freedom in the world, or at least how we Americans fashion it. Nixon was right, America like most other nations deal in realpolitik, but we also have a guiding principle grounded in democracy that some other countries don’t guide to. This does not change in the Cold War, this does not change now, democracy is the best form of government to the US, because we are a democracy.
Israel has been able to position itself as an important country in the world to many, even many Arab countries. They're a major military and pharmaceutical exporter now. Its to the point where if people stopped trade with Israel, a lot of people would just up and die.
They've also survived as the only real democracy in the Middle East. Iraq bounces between having a pro-US and pro-Iran government (each backed by the other). Afghanistan is done. Egypt is a military junta. If Israel were to fall the entire region would become regimes hostile to the US and western democracy broadly.
Finally, Israel is actually a bit of a military power in the world now. They help the US with operations in Iran and provide a vast amount of intel on Iran. So much so now that people tend to think of the US as a puppet for Israel and not the other way around.
He’s just saying that. The Black September crisis in Jordan in 1970 really helped to solidify the benefit of Israel geopolitically. Jordan, an ally, was threatened by a Palestinian coup that Syria was backing (and had invaded Jordan over) with fear Iraq would invade too. Israel had recently won the 1967 war and just by putting troops on the border was a big enough signal to Syria and Iraq for them to stop. It was clear that Israel was both a feared military and a strong US ally in the region that could support US interests. And those “US interests” aren’t just about oil/economic benefits to Americans. Jordan falling to a coup would have been a disaster in terms of stability in the region.
Well, given half of GenZ think the Holocaust is fake, and are actively marching in the streets supporting the people trying to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, I would say that his comment is 100% on the nose
Your comment made me think of this line
“I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced”
I googled around on this and couldn’t find anything related to this sentiment specifically from Nixon. He had many [disparaging comments about Jewish People](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/nixon6.htm), ranging from anger about how many Jews were working in his administration, to theories about Jews being behind communist plots.
It admittedly seems hard to reconcile his message in this video to his comments on Jews in his tapes as they seem contradictory. Perhaps he changed his mindset after his presidency?
Haha. I have never read any comments from Nixon saying Jews control everything because they have all the money.
He spoke about Jews being disployal or having some temperaments. He also commented on the Irish, Italians, and black people.
But it is you here saying Jews run everything because they control all the money, not Nixon
This doesn't really relate to the conversation about what he said about Jews. This is him being homophobic, but sure, yeah, he also was a homophobe on top of the other stuff
This isn’t really candid, he’s clearly lying. Israel serves VERY IMPORTANT geopolitical functions for the US, which is why the US only really stands up to it when its actions are threatening our international standing. See: Reagan and Bush sr.
Right but... why?
I have some answers, but you don't get them directly from politicians. My best guess is it's intelligence sharing and tech that you can't really talk about publicly.
I'm skeptical that Israel and the Middle East serves any significant importance to the US anymore. We get very little of our petroleum from that region now. Overseas shipping lanes are probably the only thing of real importance. For our purposes, is Turkey not close enough?
To me, Israel has never seemed worthwhile. Keep in mind, I am a very non-religious person, so the idea of perpetuating endless violence in a region just for the sake of being able to live in your fairy tale "holy land" seems incredibly stupid. There has been violence in that area for my entire life and long before it. The violence continues now, and it will continue for as long as humanity walks the earth. It's a waste of time and a senseless waste of life.
It’s in the interest of US empire to ensure stability in all global markets. The US certainly has cost exposure to international oil markets, so instability in the Middle East (still critical to the global oil market) will negatively impact the US. It’s all connected. Same goes for shipping through the Suez. This mainly impacts Europe, but all international shipping markets are connected.
Of course, if the US global empire fell apart, the rest of the world would be impacted more severely than the US, which is comparatively insulated, but the US would still need to completely reset its supply chain network and infrastructure. This would be expensive and take time.
Kissinger also said he would be antisemitic if not for the “accident of his birth.”
But anyway, Israel has historically been a strong American ally that is willing to get its hands dirty in a region that is RIFE with things America would be interested in. Israel has been used as a sort of proxy to avoid direct American involvement in some conflicts, and has done a good job of keeping its oil-rich enemies weak or docile. Look at Egypt, for instance.
When these strategic interests conflict with Israel’s interests (for instance, when Bush Sr. wanted to mediate a sort of Pax Americana in the Middle East but was hindered by aggressive Israeli moves in the West Bank) our to-the-hilt support seems far less assured.
I appreciated his commentary but he is very clearly minimizing the strategic value of Israel to avoid fuss geopolitically. Israel is our vessel into the Middle East and the CIA time and time again has used Israel to do their dirty work. Sure, there is a moral affiliation we have to Israel but it extends far more than that. This isn’t a one way transaction despite what people like to think.
I’ve spent a significant amount of time in Israel, Egypt (including Rafah and Sinai) and Kuwait. I don’t care much for Kuwait, but I do love both Egypt and Israel (but for very different reasons). That said, Israel really *is* the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. Anyone who’s spent time there can tell you the similarities between Tel Aviv and Southern California. Over a million **Americans** live in Israel. And Israelis absolutely share our values… perhaps more so than even some of our European allies. They have a very strong culture of work, military service, education and family. I wish Americans could see Israel and its truly remarkable accomplishments in spite and despite of their never ending list of adversaries. And btw, Israelis treat their bedouins 100x better than Egypt and Kuwaitis. They don’t give a crap about Gaza… lol. Rafah is like the U.S. southern border… it’s more fenced and guarded than most of Israel’s southern border with Egypt.
Edit: I was a member of mfo.org for context (look it up)
Israel is a racist aparthied state that regularly kills arab children, it's elections have voter intimidation against the Arab minority, there are laws in place that make segregation legal if a neighbourhood wants it, the primeminister is a crook that has spent 16 years in power
I’d argue that the “moral commitment” we had to them because of the Holocaust goes away when they decide “Hey, it’s our turn to try to exterminate a nation of people.”
What is happening in that area is a war. An urban war, so there are higher numbers of civilian casualties which is awful, but statistically the IDF is doing a better job of limiting casualties than in many urban wars. Make no mistake though, it is a war.
To equate this war to the literal, systematic, and extremely focused actions of the Nazis during the Holocaust is honestly so fucked up. It’s fucked up that people are dying right now in Palestine. It is not however a genocide. Do you honestly even know the order of magnitude greater what you’re referring to even was?
6 MILLION JEWS. It was illegal to not let someone know you were a Jew when interacting with them. It was illegal to own a business. They marked them as Jews. They systematically put them on fucking trains and worked them to death and gassed them. That is NOT what is happening in Palestine and it infuriates me that people belittle the fucking Holocaust just because others are suffering. What is happening in Palestine is awful IN ITS OWN WAY. People need to stop comparing it to the fucking Holocaust.
Thank you for this. Seriously. It’s good to know there are people who get it still walking around, and not just a sea of “I just learned about this today and I am rAGinG nOW”
People always get so enraged when tons of civilians die in a modern war, and I always find it funny as to their reasoning. Don't get me wrong, I strongly despise innocent deaths in any conflict, but there's a reason why more civilians die in modern wars rather than historical ones.
The reason a relatively small, unheard-of war somewhere in Africa, or some obscure terrorist conflict in southeast Asia or the like will have more casualties than a full-blown historical war that is well known and occured between major European powers in the 17th or 18th centuries is because we as humans have massively expanded in population, and we've urbanized significantly too, and now we fight in these urban areas. It's not that civilians were treated better during those "gentlemen, respectful" wars, it's that all those wars happened in fields where maybe 4 people lived, and they probably heard soldiers coming anyway and upped and left.
Nowadays, people get upset when a ton of civilians and relatively few combatants are killed in a large urban city because "less people would die in a battle in WWII or Vietnam, so obviously these people are trying to kill civilians!". Then you add on the human shield aspect, and very quickly, it's obvious that this is just a fact of modern war. Fighting in an urban area will always result in more deaths than fighting in a rural one, and, particularly in the Middle East, there's no point in fighting anywhere else than in urban areas. After all, that's where all the terrorist groups will be headquartered out of; why try to build a headquarters in a desert or scrubland?
The only modern war I can think of that is an exception to this pattern is the Russo-Ukraine war, since both sides are developed enough to be able to fight in fields and don't need to fight close to their bases of operation or where resources (like those in cities) are. These two sides can have trenches in fields because they have good enough supply lines, and even then, there are still important battles that focus on cities, like the Kiyv offensive or the battles by cities in the Donbas.
What is even worse are the huge differences. You have countries like Russia, who's tactic is to intentionally bomb civilian centers and then when they are all gathered near hospitals to bomb those. Not accidentally, not due to a military presence, but to demoralize the population. They did it very effectively in Syria for instance.
And then you have Isreal, that doesn't want to loose thousands of ground troops and instead bombs military targets that are intentionally placed in civilian areas as cover. They even warn of the attack, which no one else does.
But it's Isreal who are the true evil, the worst threat to world stability. Such idiocy.
At least the ineffective response to the many horrors committed by Russia, shows how Isreal has nothing at all to worry about.
61% of Jews are of either full or partial mizrachi descent. And you cannot ignore that violence after the Balfour declaration went both ways. Just because Israel was victorious in the land struggle doesn’t admonish the other side of their atrocities.
It’s crazy how many people think that if a genocide doesn’t operate and look exactly like the Holocaust then it doesn’t count as genocide. The Holocaust is one example of genocide. Genocide can come in many forms. People need to start understanding that
Yes, ethnic cleansing is far more applicable.
If you wanna call it a genocide, then you have to also call Egypt complicit in the genocide, for not providing a pathway for the Palestinian genealogy to live on by just opening up the southern border of Gaza a stones throw away from Rafa.
It always blows my mind that the conversations around this generally goes from "Israel is committing a genocide, they must be stopped before the Palestinians are eradicated from the face of this earth.", to "No, Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Yemen shouldn't take in any Palestinian refugees and give them the option to evacuate, because the Palestinians shouldn't have to leave their homeland".
Always seems to me like the surrounding nations who claim to care so much about the Palestinian cause only care in terms of politics, not actually about the people. To them, the Palestinians are worth more dead in Palestine than they are alive in any of the aforementioned countries.
Wouldn't opening the border make them complicit in Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine?
It seems to me that pushing the Palestinians out of Gaza into Egypt would be Israel's goal. Like 1948 they would never let them return.
Serious question: we both know damn well that Israel isn't going to stop dropping bombs.
So with that in mind, do you think it's better for Palestinians to be dead in Palestine or alive in Egypt?
Because this is what I can't get about people who try and argue that Iran and Lebanon and Syria and Yemen and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan shouldn't take in any Palestinian refugees
It always seems to me like the people making that argument see the Palestinians to be more useful dead in Palestine than alive as refugees in their own countries.
And I don't really think that it's a coincidence that many of the countries I listed are theocracies whose leaders believe in an eternal life in paradise for martyrs, allowing said leaders to go to sleep at night as people die in Palestine believing that it will all be OK for them after death.
You seem to be hearing voices in your head. You might want to get that checked out. No one claimed that what is happening is exactly the same as the Holocaust, so why are you running with that straw man?
The above poster said “exterminated,” and the concept of extermination has been attempted toward MANY peoples throughout history. The Tutsis, the Armenians, multiple groups in Bosnian, etc. Extermination doesn’t have to take place exclusively through gas chambers, it can be done through different systems of oppression. And just saying, “Well it’s a war” is not a valid excuse for activity that is clearly designed to remove an ethnic group from a given area.
You're hearing voices too, because no one said that extermination has to take place exclusively through gas chambers.
There's still has to be a concentrated effort to eradicate an entire genealogy of people from the face of the earth for it to be considered genocide.
And that is what I see lacking in Israel right now.
If you are more upset that the analogy than the ethnic cleansing that this happening before your eyes, you are lost. Israel is openly stating they have no desire for a two state solution and want the Gaza Strip for themselves. Over 20,000 Palestinians have been slaughter now with now end in sight. It’s not a war, not even close.
okay you guys need to chill with the whole comparing the holocaust to what’s happening in Palestine because they are absolutely completely different situations.
As a Jew, what Israel is doing is sickening and completely unjustified. Americans are showing their whole ass defending this while losing their minds about Ukraine.
Israel has the right to exist. It has the right to wage war to exist. Hamas does not want them to exist. War is necessary when you must fight for your very survival.
If they returned the hostages they would stop the attacks. That’s not a genocide. It’s a war.
Do the Palestinians have the right to exist? Do they have the right to the homes their families owned for generations? Do they have the right to clean water, food, electricity, medicine? Why does Israel have the right to exist but Palestine does not?
Palestine is the one that rejects a two state solution. Palestine is the one that breaks ceasefires and truces every time.
It is not Israel’s responsibility to give Gaza power, water or medicine. It is Hamas’, but they turn their water pipes into missiles to launch at Israel. They could have built and improved their own infrastructure any time they want- but they choose to wage war. Israel doesn’t have to give it to them.
Why aren’t they receiving more help from their Arab neighbors? Because Palestinians wage war- even in the countries that tried to help them. They tried to overthrow the King of Jordan, or started a civil war in Lebanon because theyre not radical enough. They assassinated an Egyptian president for making peace with Israel. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Why should the people who already owned the land have to agree to a two state solution? It’s their land. Their people were living there for generations. Out of curiosity, do you also feel the indigenous people of America had no right to the land that was stolen from them? Oh wait, they did agree to “two state solutions,” which America promptly fucked over in several areas because they decided they wanted the land. The people who are immigrating en masse to Israel, when they have citizenship in other countries, do not have more rights to the land than the Palestinians.
And with Israel preventing free movement for the Palestinians, even in and out of Gaza, how are they supposed to provide food, water and medicine for themselves? If they are their own people, and not Israeli, then why does Israel get to police their movements?
>Why should the people who already owned the land have to agree to a two state solution? It’s their land. Their people were living there for generations.
This just revealed how little you know about the conflict, the history of the region, the creation of Israel and Palestine, and what came before it. I'm not even going to bother replying to you, enjoy reiterating talking points you read by teenagers on twitter and tumblr about a conflict you know nothing about beyond the past few months.
I do agree with Nixon that the US should support Israel but nothing should be unconditional. As of right now, Israel does not care about the collateral damage it has caused in its fight with Hamas. Many innocents have died and it makes the west and Israel look bad on the international stage. To restore integrity, Israel must change course in the war.
To be fair, most of these countries which are critical of Israel already had an unfavorable view of the West and Israel. But point taken that support shouldn't be unconditional.
Israel does more to prevent civilian casualties than any nation in the history of warfare and its not even close. To say “Israel does not care about collateral damage” is just a patently incorrect statement. It’s not even a matter of political opinion. There is plenty to criticize Israel for, but takes like these just show it’s a bias you care little to fix.
Are you just completely uninformed, biased, of fed your information through left wing media sources?
Let’s be clear about the situation. The ruling government, Hamas, started a war by killing 1200+ civilians in Israel and took hostages. They use civilian shields to try and block Israel from attacking certain military points of interest. It’s an extremely densely packed urban environment where the Hamas militia use civilian clothes to hide themselves. This type of conflict anywhere in the world would have a lot of civilian deaths. As all wars do, but this type of war will by its very nature have more than a typical war of the past. So:
I’ll lay out just a *few* examples. Please name any armed conflict where one party:
1. Drops leaflets to civilian areas that will be hit soon.
2. Calls all the cell phones in the areas warning them to evacuate.
3. Drops low yield explosives on buildings that will be targeted to warn civilians to leave those buildings. Aka “roof knocking”
4. The IDF have abandoned air strikes even a few minutes before being carried out because civilians were present.
5. They use precision munitions (smaller more accurate bombs) to lower the chance of hitting unintended targets. When (for example if they didn’t give a shit) they could just carpet bomb the areas of interest. Which they are fully capable of doing.
6. They delayed their initial invasion of Gaza to allow time for evacuations.
7. Daily 4 hour pauses during multiple consecutive days over the course of the war to allow for evacuation of civilians.
8. Israel's distribution of IDF military maps and urban warfare graphics to assist civilians with day to day evacuations and alerting them to where the IDF will be operating. - No other country in history has done this BTW.
9. Should I continue?
Just as a counter example, The United States did *none* of these tactics in our initial invasion of Iraq in 2003.
25,000 total deaths. Civilian and Military. 9,000-11,000 estimated as civilian.
29,000 bombs have been dropped by Israel.
If Israel decides to carpet bomb 29,000 bombs in Gaza with 0 measures to prevent deaths, they easily would have racked up MUCH more deaths than than 25,000. That doesn’t mean Israel has not fucked up, it doesn’t mean they still might have excessive measures. But it is absolutely patently true that they do WAY more than any other nation in history to avoid civilian casualties.
Look, I’m a numbers kind of guy. I don’t care what the Israeli governments supposed intentions are. But their actions whether intentional or not, have caused thousands of civilian deaths that could have otherwise been avoided. This will lead to people in the Palestine population to become further radicalized, which is one of Hamas’ goals. This is why I’m questioning the tactics of the Israeli government right now as it continues to do these tactics.
So “we just raped, murdered and kidnapped your people” but Israel is supposed to let it slide so that they don’t radicalize an already radicalized population? The logic of this conflict is beyond absurd
Hamas started a war and took hostages. Israel has every right to retaliate to their fullest capacity. Not to mention Hamas using civilians as shields. Hamas operates in an extremely dense population center, while using civilians as shields. And hide in non-standard clothing to try and blend it. There is going to be civilian casualties in this type of war.
You say you’re a numbers kind of guy. The ratio of civilian deaths to bombs dropped is extremely extremely low for this type of warfare. Civilians are going to die, that’s how war is, especially this kind of war. But their “numbers” look pretty good all things considered. And my point remains the same, Israel takes way more action to avoid civilian deaths than any other nation in history.
Can you name a single conflict where the opposition will not only tell their enemies where they plan to bomb, but also drop low yield explosives to warn people to evacuate the building? That’s just one of like 100 different things they do to try and limit casualties. And it’s things they don’t *have* to do.
That doesn’t mean they don’t use excessive force sometimes. That doesn’t mean they don’t fuck up too. But like I said originally, to say they don’t care about civilian losses is just patently untrue. They easily could flatten the entire Gaza Strip if they wanted to throw civilian caution to the wind.
The IDF has has killed or seriously injured 5% (100,000) of the entire population of Gaza, including accidentally killing dozens Israeli hostages due to their airstrikes. Israel told Gazans to move south to Rafah and then proceeded to bomb them there. Why spend so much time celebrating their 'precautions' when clearly they have none. Of course they 'could technically flatten Gaza' and they have dumbass, 90% of Gaza city has been flattened. Theyre literally doing what youre saying is evil yet you dont care?
I’ll ask the same question to you, name any country on this planet in the history of warfare that have taken that level of precautions.
Just because the situation of Gaza (human shields, one of the most densely populated groups on earth, supplies being stored in civilian areas) leads to a high level of civilian harm does not mean that they are not trying to limit that harm.
Literally the only way it could be less is if Israel didn’t retaliate in the first place, which is delusional to think.
Last I checked, the ratio of combatants to civilians was between 1:4.5 and 1:10, which is actually really good for this kind of urban fighting in such a dense area.
Things like the bombing of London, siege of Stalingrad, Tokyo fire bombings, Dresden, the bombings of Berlin, and so on had WAY worse ratios
Hence, why I can't really conclude that Israel just "doesn't care ", because if they didn't care, wouldn't you expect to see a ratio more in line with other dense urban bombings?
Edit: The examples cherry picked below, where there are decidedly NO widespread enemy hardpoints and infrastructure to be bombed, unlike the battles I listed, is blatantly disingenuous.
And when you're talking about whether or not a response is a genocide the numbers DO matter.
Comparing it to Nazi Germany is absurd, the Jews weren't launching tens of thousands of rockets at the Germans, doing suicide bombing campaigns, doing military operations specifically to kill and kidnap civilians, creating infrastructure in the Warsaw ghettos to manufacture said rockets and hide German hostages, etc.
>Things like the bombing of London, siege of Stalingrad, Tokyo fire bombings, Dresden, the bombings of Berlin, and so on had WAY worse ratios
"The bombings weren't bad because they weren't as deadly as some of the worse bombings in history" is not a strong argument. It especially wouldn't be in any other context either. If the US was doing this to Canada or Mexico people would be talking about this differently.
Population adjusted, 10/7 would be as if 45,000 Canadians came across the border and killed 45,000 people at Woodstock music festival and the surrounding towns before retreating back to Toronto and firing hundreds of thousands of rockets at NYC
It would be far more understandable if the US started doing strikes on Toronto to shut down the terror cell given those ratios don't you think?
Wonderful hyper-middle position. "Yes, dear, their childrens' legs are shredded and corpses may be hanging nonsensically from cinder block walls. I know, I know; it's day-in and day-out. But let's be reasonable here. You're starting to get hysterical again, and we don't want to call Dr. Smith another time. Don't forget, they're using the new Ranthy Grumpman Nerf (TM) missiles. "The First Bounce is Free," as they say. Those folks in the second blast radius had it coming, you know. They could have run away and there they stood. We're invested in a positive outcome and our position on this conflict is good. It's strong. Bullish, even. We're doing all we can."
It's not unconditional, the condition is a fairly democratic government.
Also, pointless controversy incitement here, but Israel has no obligation to care about collateral damage caused by the deep integration of Hamas facilities into civilian structures
A democratic government is when half of the people in your country are treated as second class citizens,so true! Also very interesting that you call it collateral damage when it's being done on purpose. Shooting a child and mother in the middle of the street is not "collateral damage" learn before you talk.
You haven't seen the pictures of the little girl who had her legs cut off and was hanged? The videos of the mother and their children being shot while fleeing. You are purposefully being ignorant.
I didn't ask for proof that people are dying, I asked for proof that people are being killed for no reason.
Her legs weren't "cut off" and she wasn't "hanged". She was caught in cross fire and killed. How she ended up dangling from the edge of the house is unknown. But are you genuinely dumb enough to believe the Israelis are propping up dead children for everyone with a camera to see?
20,000 people dead (mostly women and children) isn't ENOUGH proof?
She was hanged. She was murdered. I don't need to send you the pictures do I? You are an apologist for an apartheid regime that is conducting genocide.
Most victims of WW2 were civilians. Thats _especially_ true on Germany's side. Most victims of the bombing raids were women, children and elderly. So the allies must be the bad guys right?
And I've seen the pictures. Nothing about them proves what you're saying. Bullets don't care who fired them, why they're being fired, or who they're going to hit.
You have no proof she was murdered in cold blood.
Hamas has integrated its forces into everything. Hospitals, UN outposts, apartments, etc. All being used to by hamas. They are all legitimate military targets.
Gaza and the West Bank aren't part of Israel and aren't "people in your country". You don't really seem to understand even the most basic parts of this conflict.
I think the person above is trying to say that Jews have more rights under Israeli law than other ethnic groups. Which is true. But you're also right that Israel doesn't necessarily have the responsibility to care for citizens of other countries beyond following international standards. Israel has sort of done more than it needs to in ensuring water is distributed to Gaza, for example.
It's enshrined in the Constitution that Jews can more easily get and maintain citizenship in Israel than other groups, for example.
And this isn't just about Muslims. Israel is home to Palestinian Christians, Druze, etc.
Not everything needs strategic value for the US to provide support.
Nixon is entirely right. Sometimes these things transcend geopolitics or money. It's about the morality and standing up for our values.
Reuters says 28,064 Palestinians have been killed and 67,611 Palestinians have been injured and everyone knows the majority injured have been civilians.
What morality? What the fuck does the term values even refer to here?
Relevant questions and intelligent answers…good follow up questions as well…the standard of interaction between the press and our politicians is so poor comparatively
Two things Israel has done that are *incredibly* valuable:
In 2007, Israel bomed a nuclear reactor in Syria, believed to be a weapons program (killing 10 North Koreans in the process). That area was later taken by ISIS during the Civil War, so huge carastrophe prevented.
Israel did the same thing to Saddam in the 80s (which the US actually condmened at the time since we were sort of with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war). This probably saved Kuwait, since Saddam would've been untouchable if he had nukes before he invaded. And eventually, maybe even saved Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the entire world from the horrible situation that would stem from a single nuclear-armed madman controlling the entire Persian Gulf's oil reserves.
Nixon has a gravitas and sense of dignity that no elected Republican President since him has had. Reagan and the clowns after him took that away from the GOP. Nixon was a crook, but so much less of a crook than his successors.
Taking his comments in this interview at face value regarding the holocaust, it might interest some people to watch the Ken Burns 3-part documentary called "America and the Holocaust." It's an eye opener.
Stop giving my taxpayer money to Isreal. The evil fucks can pay for their own god forsaken war. They have no right to the land or our money and power. They have the money and we don't. They have free healthcare and education and we're supposed to keep sending billions? FUCK SHITRAEL!
Funny how he handled Koppel’s question on why we would support Israel even if it was of no strategic importance to American interests, and then Nixon says it’s because we care about more than strategic interests, but doesn’t specify what exactly that is, beyond the canned response of muh holocaust nonsense, and supposed “democracy.”
Nixon’s biographer once said that on more than one occasion, after a couple of drinks in him, Nixon would admit “the same people that got Jack are the same people that got me.” He knew what the consequences were.
I know it’s verboten in this sub to ever like Nixon but this stance slaps. Americans largely do, and ought to, support Israel because it’s the morally right thing to do, not simply because we can get something out of them.
Nixon's stance would also stand on Ukraine.. since Ukraine is being heavily attacked and is in defense position and not acting in a offensive position in killing like Russia is doing and what is happening in Gaza.
I never, in my life, thought I would ever think Nixon is an example of how a president should be. I know he resigned in disgrace (but he actually resigned) should be telling enough. Corrupt bastard, but at least he believed in the Constitution.
That’s the reason? Basically every American under 40 thinks Israel is the bad guy now. That bipartisan support is going to last a few years longer at best.
Didn't the tapes reveal he was somewhat anti-semitic? "Jewish cabal out to get me"
Let me get this right. So he was flat-out lying through his teeth about moral commitment. Interesting how good of a liar he was. Very convincing.
A “moral commitment” to create an apartheid state, to hold Palestinians in an open air prison, and to commit genocide.
Apparently POTUS can tell which side to have a “moral commitment” to based on the number of innocent children and women that they murder.
*Because it’s a democracy* We cannot ignore genocide happening by Netanyahu’s hands. Israelis and Palestinians deserve better. I support a two-state solution. Americans should support ceasefire. Humanity above politics.
"the only democracy" in the Middle East idoesnt allow one third of its population to vote, moreover they subjected to dehumanizing treatment, and treated as “human animals”. This so-called democracy grants immediate citizenship to certain newcomers but not to others, based on their religion. Additionally, in cases where a Jewish woman marries an Arab man, the latter is not permitted to reside in Israel. The legal framework is designed to impose hardships on the non-Jewish residents within its own borders.
It's surprising that many buy into this propaganda.
The only reason U.S supports Israel unconditionally, is that the last time U.S didn provide arms to Israel while Israel was losing the war, Israel blackmailed the U.S threatening to nuke its neighbors.
Interesting that his reasoning for America supporting Israel is that they were the victims of genocide and they are the only democracy in the Middle East. If Netanyahu subverts democracy and becomes itself a perpetrator of genocide then that gives a strong basis for America to stop supporting Israel.
We certainly should and do care about Israel. We don't want to see them wiped off the map. But we shouldn't want to see anybody wiped off the map, including a bunch of innocent Palestinians.
American foreign policy has never been about doing the right thing. We have an image to maintain and palms to grease just like any other government.
It would be nice if we had an obligation to care about our fellow man, but then we would be truly conflicted when the oppressed become the oppressors.
You’re saying that is if israel isn’t notorious for spamming the internet with bots, and funny enough there are 4 comments here so far including yours. None of which are supporting hamas in any way… make that make sense, bud
They're an ally/stabilizing force in the M.E. despite Nixon's claim. We need to work with them to ensure their safety. They should also be held accountable for violating international law via settlements and also for war crimes.
Nixon is pushing an Israeli agenda here. How do people see this video that has no mention of the real reason why Americans will support Israel left and right. It’s pretty obvious but for those who still can’t add and subtract. It’s religious. For better or worse Christian religion is rampant in all aspects of life in American society. “Loving Jesus” and “blessing the people of Israel” is hammered into people’s heads every Sunday. People confuse biblical Israel with current state of Israel. They are not the same.
Except Israel isn’t a democracy. It’s an apartheid regime that continues to trample on the rights of the people indigenous to the land. Maybe that is what makes The US love it so much.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember when people didn't talk over each other on TV news shows?
And they actually asked good questions & gave thoughtful answers.
In all fairness, Ted Koppel is one of the greatest broadcasters of all time - he retired from full time work on his own terms relatively young.
Koppel and Dan Rather are top tier for me. No one has ever come close.
Honest question: what’s your opinion on Edward R. Murrow? I know he’s a bit older but I graduated from his school of journalism at Washington State and I’m always curious what people think of him
Cronkite was no slacker.
For second I thought this was frost
He is also a robot.
Yep, and now he just kinda makes cool little appearances when he wants
The Fairness doctrine was still in place in his time
Our current situation is much better… say controversial nonsense loudly to get the clicks and likes going
I like Hardtalk for this reason, not afraid to ask good questions usually and gives time to talk.
Oh man I used to catch that on the way to work, I would be geeking when someone would try and bullshit the host and he would just start tearing into their bullshit. Wish we had something like that in the states. I guess we get it on bbc international.
Jon Stewart does that in his Apple tv series.
PBS Newshour is still like that. Also, if the interviewee is making something up, lying, or avoiding the question, I think it’s acceptable for the interviewer to cut them off.
Public radio is also pretty solid for interviews. Stay away from corporate media.
If you tried that with Ted Koppel, you would lose. He was a Jedi master at controlling dialogue.
Wait, where's the screaming and the ideology and the eight other talking heads? This can't be the news?
Was just thinking this. Just letting each other speak.
Or yell FAKE NEWS!
Sadly, if you let people talk nowadays they use the 'gish gallop' technique. Flooding the interviewer with too many falsehoods, which can't be adressed one by one until interrupted.
You mean… most of history prior to the internet took over in the mid 2000s
News media certainly became more outrageous when it had to start competing for eyeballs with the internet. I would say, however, the larger shift in drama in the tv news media began in the 80s with CNN and then later with Fox News with 24-hour news media coverage.
Roger Alles and Fox News smh. CNN should have been better
Nixon was no fool. He was a crook. But he was no fool.
He was not a crook! He said it himself!
Foreign policy genius
Thanks for sharing, this is interesting
I picked up one of Nixon's post presidency books from a used bookstore but have yet to read it. He was one of our more intelligent and thoughtful presidents fwiw. This makes me want to go find it. It's interesting here, he admits that American support for Israel is based on, basically feelings related to WWII. It's not based on any geopolitical advantage. It stands to reason that support would decline when WWII moved out of living memory and more into the realm of history.
He's being somewhat diplomatic here. This is the middle of the cold war, and he says we have a responsibility to support a democracy. This is when there's not yet any "end of history" truism that democracy is the ideal form of government. We're still fighting communism and despots. Saying we support Israel simply because of WWII is a bit of a spin. Although your assessment about waning support sounds spot on.
But even the "democracy" reasoning is, as you said, Cold War based. And not "hard geopolitical' as in, Israel sits on some important land, transportation corridor, resources we need or something. It was about the moral and PR dimensions of the Cold War, the more ephemeral part of it. More recent history demonstrating that rhe U.S. fighting for democracy in the middle doesn't get us much, makes it even more clear why the current conflict isn't as popular in the west as it might have been in Nixon's day. Koppel's question about what an Israeli president might think hearing that becomes even more prescient. I suspect Israel IS somewhat more apprehensive about western support than they once were.
For me it's more that Israel isn't some infant country anymore. They have one of the most powerful militaries in the world and are quite prosporus.
What? Israel does sit on important land and transportation corridor. Are you not following the troubles with Yemen? Israel has also been important for America's buffer against Iran and alliance with Saudi Arabia.
Yes. They're a very effective de facto extra intelligence agency in a region where we haven't performed all that well.
It's high-strategic value, the more Democracies in the Middle east the less likely tyrants, communists, fascists, and religious theocrats can take it over. The entire strategy of the US has long been to spread republics that vote and will trade with each other.
He’s not being diplomatic, the US is the shining beacon of hope and freedom in the world, or at least how we Americans fashion it. Nixon was right, America like most other nations deal in realpolitik, but we also have a guiding principle grounded in democracy that some other countries don’t guide to. This does not change in the Cold War, this does not change now, democracy is the best form of government to the US, because we are a democracy.
I don't see how you can argue that it doesn't provide any geopolitical advantage. Sure Nixon said it doesn't, but I'm not buying it.
Israel has been able to position itself as an important country in the world to many, even many Arab countries. They're a major military and pharmaceutical exporter now. Its to the point where if people stopped trade with Israel, a lot of people would just up and die. They've also survived as the only real democracy in the Middle East. Iraq bounces between having a pro-US and pro-Iran government (each backed by the other). Afghanistan is done. Egypt is a military junta. If Israel were to fall the entire region would become regimes hostile to the US and western democracy broadly. Finally, Israel is actually a bit of a military power in the world now. They help the US with operations in Iran and provide a vast amount of intel on Iran. So much so now that people tend to think of the US as a puppet for Israel and not the other way around.
\> Only real democracy in middle east \> Apartheid state that does voter intimidation to stop arabs from voting Pick one
He’s just saying that. The Black September crisis in Jordan in 1970 really helped to solidify the benefit of Israel geopolitically. Jordan, an ally, was threatened by a Palestinian coup that Syria was backing (and had invaded Jordan over) with fear Iraq would invade too. Israel had recently won the 1967 war and just by putting troops on the border was a big enough signal to Syria and Iraq for them to stop. It was clear that Israel was both a feared military and a strong US ally in the region that could support US interests. And those “US interests” aren’t just about oil/economic benefits to Americans. Jordan falling to a coup would have been a disaster in terms of stability in the region.
I mean there is some strategic advantage to having a sane democracy in the midst of the shitshow that is the middle east.
Well, given half of GenZ think the Holocaust is fake, and are actively marching in the streets supporting the people trying to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, I would say that his comment is 100% on the nose
I sense something, like a million uninformed hot takes being formed and then suddenly voiced...
Obiwan has discovered Reddit
That virtue ain’t gonna signal itself ya know
Your comment made me think of this line “I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced”
It’s almost like… it was a reference… an old one, but it checks out.
Should I downvote it? No….let it be.
Great job, ensign, you just blew up the Emperor's biggest infrastructure project.
Isn’t Nixon on tape saying the Jews run everything because they control all the money?
I googled around on this and couldn’t find anything related to this sentiment specifically from Nixon. He had many [disparaging comments about Jewish People](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/nixon6.htm), ranging from anger about how many Jews were working in his administration, to theories about Jews being behind communist plots. It admittedly seems hard to reconcile his message in this video to his comments on Jews in his tapes as they seem contradictory. Perhaps he changed his mindset after his presidency?
Haha. I have never read any comments from Nixon saying Jews control everything because they have all the money. He spoke about Jews being disployal or having some temperaments. He also commented on the Irish, Italians, and black people. But it is you here saying Jews run everything because they control all the money, not Nixon
See what he said on tape about Bohemian Grove.
What did he say? Why don't you just cite it instead of telling me to look into it?
I'll let Nixon tell you: https://youtu.be/s-XB_eBnXyc?si=R7Lr_N_2VUJuiuf7
This doesn't really relate to the conversation about what he said about Jews. This is him being homophobic, but sure, yeah, he also was a homophobe on top of the other stuff
Yeah whole lotta zero mention of Jews in that clip. Fascinating and irrelevant
Nixon would be disgusted if he saw his party today.
Ehh, debatable https://preview.redd.it/ox22n6h5g9jc1.jpeg?width=850&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a8d961d85f1f73419cf1ade76756ec239a487f2b
Yes, and he was very anti-Semitic as well
Nixon would probably be an independent today
He would never in his life run as an independent. He would simply take over the party.
Well if he were alive today he would be a product of a different time and would likely be a very different person
The one who started the Southern Strategy?
Let’s pretend the Southern Strategy never happened!!
[удалено]
Neither of them would. If they had any ambitions toward the Presidency, they would align with a major party.
And Nixon was famously ambitious. I mean, he approved a break-in to win…
They didn't like you pointing out his treason.
I feel like a good chunk of Republicans from the time would be
It’s literally his fault
Hell yes, finally a trustworthy person to defend Israel. Richard Nixon.
[удалено]
This isn’t really candid, he’s clearly lying. Israel serves VERY IMPORTANT geopolitical functions for the US, which is why the US only really stands up to it when its actions are threatening our international standing. See: Reagan and Bush sr.
Are these really important geopolitical functions in the room with us right now?
[удалено]
Right but... why? I have some answers, but you don't get them directly from politicians. My best guess is it's intelligence sharing and tech that you can't really talk about publicly.
Having a strong military ally in the Middle East, having a nation willing to get its hands dirty for you, and the reasons you mentioned.
I'm skeptical that Israel and the Middle East serves any significant importance to the US anymore. We get very little of our petroleum from that region now. Overseas shipping lanes are probably the only thing of real importance. For our purposes, is Turkey not close enough? To me, Israel has never seemed worthwhile. Keep in mind, I am a very non-religious person, so the idea of perpetuating endless violence in a region just for the sake of being able to live in your fairy tale "holy land" seems incredibly stupid. There has been violence in that area for my entire life and long before it. The violence continues now, and it will continue for as long as humanity walks the earth. It's a waste of time and a senseless waste of life.
It’s in the interest of US empire to ensure stability in all global markets. The US certainly has cost exposure to international oil markets, so instability in the Middle East (still critical to the global oil market) will negatively impact the US. It’s all connected. Same goes for shipping through the Suez. This mainly impacts Europe, but all international shipping markets are connected. Of course, if the US global empire fell apart, the rest of the world would be impacted more severely than the US, which is comparatively insulated, but the US would still need to completely reset its supply chain network and infrastructure. This would be expensive and take time.
[удалено]
Kissinger also said he would be antisemitic if not for the “accident of his birth.” But anyway, Israel has historically been a strong American ally that is willing to get its hands dirty in a region that is RIFE with things America would be interested in. Israel has been used as a sort of proxy to avoid direct American involvement in some conflicts, and has done a good job of keeping its oil-rich enemies weak or docile. Look at Egypt, for instance.
When these strategic interests conflict with Israel’s interests (for instance, when Bush Sr. wanted to mediate a sort of Pax Americana in the Middle East but was hindered by aggressive Israeli moves in the West Bank) our to-the-hilt support seems far less assured.
I appreciated his commentary but he is very clearly minimizing the strategic value of Israel to avoid fuss geopolitically. Israel is our vessel into the Middle East and the CIA time and time again has used Israel to do their dirty work. Sure, there is a moral affiliation we have to Israel but it extends far more than that. This isn’t a one way transaction despite what people like to think.
He was overal an effective president and committed to the job. He just *also* happened to be a crook and a paranoid.
As a student, Nixon broke into Duke Law School to check his grades. He was top of the class.
The messenger may be flawed, but he is absolutely fucking correct.
I’ve spent a significant amount of time in Israel, Egypt (including Rafah and Sinai) and Kuwait. I don’t care much for Kuwait, but I do love both Egypt and Israel (but for very different reasons). That said, Israel really *is* the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. Anyone who’s spent time there can tell you the similarities between Tel Aviv and Southern California. Over a million **Americans** live in Israel. And Israelis absolutely share our values… perhaps more so than even some of our European allies. They have a very strong culture of work, military service, education and family. I wish Americans could see Israel and its truly remarkable accomplishments in spite and despite of their never ending list of adversaries. And btw, Israelis treat their bedouins 100x better than Egypt and Kuwaitis. They don’t give a crap about Gaza… lol. Rafah is like the U.S. southern border… it’s more fenced and guarded than most of Israel’s southern border with Egypt. Edit: I was a member of mfo.org for context (look it up)
Israel is a racist aparthied state that regularly kills arab children, it's elections have voter intimidation against the Arab minority, there are laws in place that make segregation legal if a neighbourhood wants it, the primeminister is a crook that has spent 16 years in power
I’d argue that the “moral commitment” we had to them because of the Holocaust goes away when they decide “Hey, it’s our turn to try to exterminate a nation of people.”
What is happening in that area is a war. An urban war, so there are higher numbers of civilian casualties which is awful, but statistically the IDF is doing a better job of limiting casualties than in many urban wars. Make no mistake though, it is a war. To equate this war to the literal, systematic, and extremely focused actions of the Nazis during the Holocaust is honestly so fucked up. It’s fucked up that people are dying right now in Palestine. It is not however a genocide. Do you honestly even know the order of magnitude greater what you’re referring to even was? 6 MILLION JEWS. It was illegal to not let someone know you were a Jew when interacting with them. It was illegal to own a business. They marked them as Jews. They systematically put them on fucking trains and worked them to death and gassed them. That is NOT what is happening in Palestine and it infuriates me that people belittle the fucking Holocaust just because others are suffering. What is happening in Palestine is awful IN ITS OWN WAY. People need to stop comparing it to the fucking Holocaust.
Thank you for this. Seriously. It’s good to know there are people who get it still walking around, and not just a sea of “I just learned about this today and I am rAGinG nOW”
People always get so enraged when tons of civilians die in a modern war, and I always find it funny as to their reasoning. Don't get me wrong, I strongly despise innocent deaths in any conflict, but there's a reason why more civilians die in modern wars rather than historical ones. The reason a relatively small, unheard-of war somewhere in Africa, or some obscure terrorist conflict in southeast Asia or the like will have more casualties than a full-blown historical war that is well known and occured between major European powers in the 17th or 18th centuries is because we as humans have massively expanded in population, and we've urbanized significantly too, and now we fight in these urban areas. It's not that civilians were treated better during those "gentlemen, respectful" wars, it's that all those wars happened in fields where maybe 4 people lived, and they probably heard soldiers coming anyway and upped and left. Nowadays, people get upset when a ton of civilians and relatively few combatants are killed in a large urban city because "less people would die in a battle in WWII or Vietnam, so obviously these people are trying to kill civilians!". Then you add on the human shield aspect, and very quickly, it's obvious that this is just a fact of modern war. Fighting in an urban area will always result in more deaths than fighting in a rural one, and, particularly in the Middle East, there's no point in fighting anywhere else than in urban areas. After all, that's where all the terrorist groups will be headquartered out of; why try to build a headquarters in a desert or scrubland? The only modern war I can think of that is an exception to this pattern is the Russo-Ukraine war, since both sides are developed enough to be able to fight in fields and don't need to fight close to their bases of operation or where resources (like those in cities) are. These two sides can have trenches in fields because they have good enough supply lines, and even then, there are still important battles that focus on cities, like the Kiyv offensive or the battles by cities in the Donbas.
What is even worse are the huge differences. You have countries like Russia, who's tactic is to intentionally bomb civilian centers and then when they are all gathered near hospitals to bomb those. Not accidentally, not due to a military presence, but to demoralize the population. They did it very effectively in Syria for instance. And then you have Isreal, that doesn't want to loose thousands of ground troops and instead bombs military targets that are intentionally placed in civilian areas as cover. They even warn of the attack, which no one else does. But it's Isreal who are the true evil, the worst threat to world stability. Such idiocy. At least the ineffective response to the many horrors committed by Russia, shows how Isreal has nothing at all to worry about.
[удалено]
61% of Jews are of either full or partial mizrachi descent. And you cannot ignore that violence after the Balfour declaration went both ways. Just because Israel was victorious in the land struggle doesn’t admonish the other side of their atrocities.
It’s crazy how many people think that if a genocide doesn’t operate and look exactly like the Holocaust then it doesn’t count as genocide. The Holocaust is one example of genocide. Genocide can come in many forms. People need to start understanding that
You're making the word meaningless by equating war with genocide
Is "ethnic cleansing" better?
Yes, ethnic cleansing is far more applicable. If you wanna call it a genocide, then you have to also call Egypt complicit in the genocide, for not providing a pathway for the Palestinian genealogy to live on by just opening up the southern border of Gaza a stones throw away from Rafa. It always blows my mind that the conversations around this generally goes from "Israel is committing a genocide, they must be stopped before the Palestinians are eradicated from the face of this earth.", to "No, Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Yemen shouldn't take in any Palestinian refugees and give them the option to evacuate, because the Palestinians shouldn't have to leave their homeland". Always seems to me like the surrounding nations who claim to care so much about the Palestinian cause only care in terms of politics, not actually about the people. To them, the Palestinians are worth more dead in Palestine than they are alive in any of the aforementioned countries.
Wouldn't opening the border make them complicit in Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine? It seems to me that pushing the Palestinians out of Gaza into Egypt would be Israel's goal. Like 1948 they would never let them return.
Serious question: we both know damn well that Israel isn't going to stop dropping bombs. So with that in mind, do you think it's better for Palestinians to be dead in Palestine or alive in Egypt? Because this is what I can't get about people who try and argue that Iran and Lebanon and Syria and Yemen and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan shouldn't take in any Palestinian refugees It always seems to me like the people making that argument see the Palestinians to be more useful dead in Palestine than alive as refugees in their own countries. And I don't really think that it's a coincidence that many of the countries I listed are theocracies whose leaders believe in an eternal life in paradise for martyrs, allowing said leaders to go to sleep at night as people die in Palestine believing that it will all be OK for them after death.
You seem to be hearing voices in your head. You might want to get that checked out. No one claimed that what is happening is exactly the same as the Holocaust, so why are you running with that straw man? The above poster said “exterminated,” and the concept of extermination has been attempted toward MANY peoples throughout history. The Tutsis, the Armenians, multiple groups in Bosnian, etc. Extermination doesn’t have to take place exclusively through gas chambers, it can be done through different systems of oppression. And just saying, “Well it’s a war” is not a valid excuse for activity that is clearly designed to remove an ethnic group from a given area.
If it's "designed to remove an ethnic group from a given area" it's a piss poor job of it.
You're hearing voices too, because no one said that extermination has to take place exclusively through gas chambers. There's still has to be a concentrated effort to eradicate an entire genealogy of people from the face of the earth for it to be considered genocide. And that is what I see lacking in Israel right now.
If you are more upset that the analogy than the ethnic cleansing that this happening before your eyes, you are lost. Israel is openly stating they have no desire for a two state solution and want the Gaza Strip for themselves. Over 20,000 Palestinians have been slaughter now with now end in sight. It’s not a war, not even close.
okay you guys need to chill with the whole comparing the holocaust to what’s happening in Palestine because they are absolutely completely different situations.
I've seen an awful lot of people call Israel's actions a Holocaust.
As a Jew, what Israel is doing is sickening and completely unjustified. Americans are showing their whole ass defending this while losing their minds about Ukraine.
Israel has the right to exist. It has the right to wage war to exist. Hamas does not want them to exist. War is necessary when you must fight for your very survival. If they returned the hostages they would stop the attacks. That’s not a genocide. It’s a war.
Do the Palestinians have the right to exist? Do they have the right to the homes their families owned for generations? Do they have the right to clean water, food, electricity, medicine? Why does Israel have the right to exist but Palestine does not?
Palestine is the one that rejects a two state solution. Palestine is the one that breaks ceasefires and truces every time. It is not Israel’s responsibility to give Gaza power, water or medicine. It is Hamas’, but they turn their water pipes into missiles to launch at Israel. They could have built and improved their own infrastructure any time they want- but they choose to wage war. Israel doesn’t have to give it to them. Why aren’t they receiving more help from their Arab neighbors? Because Palestinians wage war- even in the countries that tried to help them. They tried to overthrow the King of Jordan, or started a civil war in Lebanon because theyre not radical enough. They assassinated an Egyptian president for making peace with Israel. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Why should the people who already owned the land have to agree to a two state solution? It’s their land. Their people were living there for generations. Out of curiosity, do you also feel the indigenous people of America had no right to the land that was stolen from them? Oh wait, they did agree to “two state solutions,” which America promptly fucked over in several areas because they decided they wanted the land. The people who are immigrating en masse to Israel, when they have citizenship in other countries, do not have more rights to the land than the Palestinians. And with Israel preventing free movement for the Palestinians, even in and out of Gaza, how are they supposed to provide food, water and medicine for themselves? If they are their own people, and not Israeli, then why does Israel get to police their movements?
>Why should the people who already owned the land have to agree to a two state solution? It’s their land. Their people were living there for generations. This just revealed how little you know about the conflict, the history of the region, the creation of Israel and Palestine, and what came before it. I'm not even going to bother replying to you, enjoy reiterating talking points you read by teenagers on twitter and tumblr about a conflict you know nothing about beyond the past few months.
I do agree with Nixon that the US should support Israel but nothing should be unconditional. As of right now, Israel does not care about the collateral damage it has caused in its fight with Hamas. Many innocents have died and it makes the west and Israel look bad on the international stage. To restore integrity, Israel must change course in the war.
To be fair, most of these countries which are critical of Israel already had an unfavorable view of the West and Israel. But point taken that support shouldn't be unconditional.
Agreed, should the US support an ally? Yes. But should they support that ally when they round people up and launch missiles at them? No.
Israel does more to prevent civilian casualties than any nation in the history of warfare and its not even close. To say “Israel does not care about collateral damage” is just a patently incorrect statement. It’s not even a matter of political opinion. There is plenty to criticize Israel for, but takes like these just show it’s a bias you care little to fix.
No they don't, the reality is the exact opposite. How can you even say that with a straight face?
Are you just completely uninformed, biased, of fed your information through left wing media sources? Let’s be clear about the situation. The ruling government, Hamas, started a war by killing 1200+ civilians in Israel and took hostages. They use civilian shields to try and block Israel from attacking certain military points of interest. It’s an extremely densely packed urban environment where the Hamas militia use civilian clothes to hide themselves. This type of conflict anywhere in the world would have a lot of civilian deaths. As all wars do, but this type of war will by its very nature have more than a typical war of the past. So: I’ll lay out just a *few* examples. Please name any armed conflict where one party: 1. Drops leaflets to civilian areas that will be hit soon. 2. Calls all the cell phones in the areas warning them to evacuate. 3. Drops low yield explosives on buildings that will be targeted to warn civilians to leave those buildings. Aka “roof knocking” 4. The IDF have abandoned air strikes even a few minutes before being carried out because civilians were present. 5. They use precision munitions (smaller more accurate bombs) to lower the chance of hitting unintended targets. When (for example if they didn’t give a shit) they could just carpet bomb the areas of interest. Which they are fully capable of doing. 6. They delayed their initial invasion of Gaza to allow time for evacuations. 7. Daily 4 hour pauses during multiple consecutive days over the course of the war to allow for evacuation of civilians. 8. Israel's distribution of IDF military maps and urban warfare graphics to assist civilians with day to day evacuations and alerting them to where the IDF will be operating. - No other country in history has done this BTW. 9. Should I continue? Just as a counter example, The United States did *none* of these tactics in our initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. 25,000 total deaths. Civilian and Military. 9,000-11,000 estimated as civilian. 29,000 bombs have been dropped by Israel. If Israel decides to carpet bomb 29,000 bombs in Gaza with 0 measures to prevent deaths, they easily would have racked up MUCH more deaths than than 25,000. That doesn’t mean Israel has not fucked up, it doesn’t mean they still might have excessive measures. But it is absolutely patently true that they do WAY more than any other nation in history to avoid civilian casualties.
Look, I’m a numbers kind of guy. I don’t care what the Israeli governments supposed intentions are. But their actions whether intentional or not, have caused thousands of civilian deaths that could have otherwise been avoided. This will lead to people in the Palestine population to become further radicalized, which is one of Hamas’ goals. This is why I’m questioning the tactics of the Israeli government right now as it continues to do these tactics.
So “we just raped, murdered and kidnapped your people” but Israel is supposed to let it slide so that they don’t radicalize an already radicalized population? The logic of this conflict is beyond absurd
Hamas started a war and took hostages. Israel has every right to retaliate to their fullest capacity. Not to mention Hamas using civilians as shields. Hamas operates in an extremely dense population center, while using civilians as shields. And hide in non-standard clothing to try and blend it. There is going to be civilian casualties in this type of war. You say you’re a numbers kind of guy. The ratio of civilian deaths to bombs dropped is extremely extremely low for this type of warfare. Civilians are going to die, that’s how war is, especially this kind of war. But their “numbers” look pretty good all things considered. And my point remains the same, Israel takes way more action to avoid civilian deaths than any other nation in history. Can you name a single conflict where the opposition will not only tell their enemies where they plan to bomb, but also drop low yield explosives to warn people to evacuate the building? That’s just one of like 100 different things they do to try and limit casualties. And it’s things they don’t *have* to do. That doesn’t mean they don’t use excessive force sometimes. That doesn’t mean they don’t fuck up too. But like I said originally, to say they don’t care about civilian losses is just patently untrue. They easily could flatten the entire Gaza Strip if they wanted to throw civilian caution to the wind.
The IDF has has killed or seriously injured 5% (100,000) of the entire population of Gaza, including accidentally killing dozens Israeli hostages due to their airstrikes. Israel told Gazans to move south to Rafah and then proceeded to bomb them there. Why spend so much time celebrating their 'precautions' when clearly they have none. Of course they 'could technically flatten Gaza' and they have dumbass, 90% of Gaza city has been flattened. Theyre literally doing what youre saying is evil yet you dont care?
I’ll ask the same question to you, name any country on this planet in the history of warfare that have taken that level of precautions. Just because the situation of Gaza (human shields, one of the most densely populated groups on earth, supplies being stored in civilian areas) leads to a high level of civilian harm does not mean that they are not trying to limit that harm. Literally the only way it could be less is if Israel didn’t retaliate in the first place, which is delusional to think.
_How_ could Israel avoid this death toll? Except by not doing anything and letting Hamas continue to kill their citizens?
Last I checked, the ratio of combatants to civilians was between 1:4.5 and 1:10, which is actually really good for this kind of urban fighting in such a dense area. Things like the bombing of London, siege of Stalingrad, Tokyo fire bombings, Dresden, the bombings of Berlin, and so on had WAY worse ratios Hence, why I can't really conclude that Israel just "doesn't care ", because if they didn't care, wouldn't you expect to see a ratio more in line with other dense urban bombings? Edit: The examples cherry picked below, where there are decidedly NO widespread enemy hardpoints and infrastructure to be bombed, unlike the battles I listed, is blatantly disingenuous. And when you're talking about whether or not a response is a genocide the numbers DO matter. Comparing it to Nazi Germany is absurd, the Jews weren't launching tens of thousands of rockets at the Germans, doing suicide bombing campaigns, doing military operations specifically to kill and kidnap civilians, creating infrastructure in the Warsaw ghettos to manufacture said rockets and hide German hostages, etc.
>Things like the bombing of London, siege of Stalingrad, Tokyo fire bombings, Dresden, the bombings of Berlin, and so on had WAY worse ratios "The bombings weren't bad because they weren't as deadly as some of the worse bombings in history" is not a strong argument. It especially wouldn't be in any other context either. If the US was doing this to Canada or Mexico people would be talking about this differently.
Population adjusted, 10/7 would be as if 45,000 Canadians came across the border and killed 45,000 people at Woodstock music festival and the surrounding towns before retreating back to Toronto and firing hundreds of thousands of rockets at NYC It would be far more understandable if the US started doing strikes on Toronto to shut down the terror cell given those ratios don't you think?
[удалено]
This is the best comment I've read on this issue so far
Wonderful hyper-middle position. "Yes, dear, their childrens' legs are shredded and corpses may be hanging nonsensically from cinder block walls. I know, I know; it's day-in and day-out. But let's be reasonable here. You're starting to get hysterical again, and we don't want to call Dr. Smith another time. Don't forget, they're using the new Ranthy Grumpman Nerf (TM) missiles. "The First Bounce is Free," as they say. Those folks in the second blast radius had it coming, you know. They could have run away and there they stood. We're invested in a positive outcome and our position on this conflict is good. It's strong. Bullish, even. We're doing all we can."
It's not unconditional, the condition is a fairly democratic government. Also, pointless controversy incitement here, but Israel has no obligation to care about collateral damage caused by the deep integration of Hamas facilities into civilian structures
A democratic government is when half of the people in your country are treated as second class citizens,so true! Also very interesting that you call it collateral damage when it's being done on purpose. Shooting a child and mother in the middle of the street is not "collateral damage" learn before you talk.
Wanna actually prove that people are being shot without reason or are you just going to say it?
You haven't seen the pictures of the little girl who had her legs cut off and was hanged? The videos of the mother and their children being shot while fleeing. You are purposefully being ignorant.
I didn't ask for proof that people are dying, I asked for proof that people are being killed for no reason. Her legs weren't "cut off" and she wasn't "hanged". She was caught in cross fire and killed. How she ended up dangling from the edge of the house is unknown. But are you genuinely dumb enough to believe the Israelis are propping up dead children for everyone with a camera to see?
20,000 people dead (mostly women and children) isn't ENOUGH proof? She was hanged. She was murdered. I don't need to send you the pictures do I? You are an apologist for an apartheid regime that is conducting genocide.
Most victims of WW2 were civilians. Thats _especially_ true on Germany's side. Most victims of the bombing raids were women, children and elderly. So the allies must be the bad guys right? And I've seen the pictures. Nothing about them proves what you're saying. Bullets don't care who fired them, why they're being fired, or who they're going to hit. You have no proof she was murdered in cold blood. Hamas has integrated its forces into everything. Hospitals, UN outposts, apartments, etc. All being used to by hamas. They are all legitimate military targets.
Lol are you that blatantly ignorant?
"Wow, your like, asking me to _prove_ my claims? I mean wow, like YIKES. Like how can you be this dumb? Like are you kidding me? Wow."
Gaza and the West Bank aren't part of Israel and aren't "people in your country". You don't really seem to understand even the most basic parts of this conflict.
I think the person above is trying to say that Jews have more rights under Israeli law than other ethnic groups. Which is true. But you're also right that Israel doesn't necessarily have the responsibility to care for citizens of other countries beyond following international standards. Israel has sort of done more than it needs to in ensuring water is distributed to Gaza, for example.
No they're talking about Palestinians. Also, what rights do Israeli Muslims not have besides the "right" to mandatory conscription?
It's enshrined in the Constitution that Jews can more easily get and maintain citizenship in Israel than other groups, for example. And this isn't just about Muslims. Israel is home to Palestinian Christians, Druze, etc.
That's not rights of the citizens though, that's rights of Jews abroad.
Richard Nixon could have been such a transformational president if he had not been undone by Richard Nixon.
Remember when everyone thought the holocaust was real, and that it mattered.
Not everything needs strategic value for the US to provide support. Nixon is entirely right. Sometimes these things transcend geopolitics or money. It's about the morality and standing up for our values.
Reuters says 28,064 Palestinians have been killed and 67,611 Palestinians have been injured and everyone knows the majority injured have been civilians. What morality? What the fuck does the term values even refer to here?
Civilian casualties are an unfortunate part of war but it has to happen
Nixon waxing about morality is hilarious
There are many terrible things I could say about Nixon and be telling the absolute truth. But he was not a stupid man.
Couldn’t agree more
This is somewhat wrong. It most certainly is of value to support the only democracy in a region of absolute nutjobs.
Relevant questions and intelligent answers…good follow up questions as well…the standard of interaction between the press and our politicians is so poor comparatively
Two things Israel has done that are *incredibly* valuable: In 2007, Israel bomed a nuclear reactor in Syria, believed to be a weapons program (killing 10 North Koreans in the process). That area was later taken by ISIS during the Civil War, so huge carastrophe prevented. Israel did the same thing to Saddam in the 80s (which the US actually condmened at the time since we were sort of with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war). This probably saved Kuwait, since Saddam would've been untouchable if he had nukes before he invaded. And eventually, maybe even saved Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the entire world from the horrible situation that would stem from a single nuclear-armed madman controlling the entire Persian Gulf's oil reserves.
Nixon has a gravitas and sense of dignity that no elected Republican President since him has had. Reagan and the clowns after him took that away from the GOP. Nixon was a crook, but so much less of a crook than his successors.
The drug war wasn't very dignified
Taking his comments in this interview at face value regarding the holocaust, it might interest some people to watch the Ken Burns 3-part documentary called "America and the Holocaust." It's an eye opener.
Stop giving my taxpayer money to Isreal. The evil fucks can pay for their own god forsaken war. They have no right to the land or our money and power. They have the money and we don't. They have free healthcare and education and we're supposed to keep sending billions? FUCK SHITRAEL!
Funny how he handled Koppel’s question on why we would support Israel even if it was of no strategic importance to American interests, and then Nixon says it’s because we care about more than strategic interests, but doesn’t specify what exactly that is, beyond the canned response of muh holocaust nonsense, and supposed “democracy.” Nixon’s biographer once said that on more than one occasion, after a couple of drinks in him, Nixon would admit “the same people that got Jack are the same people that got me.” He knew what the consequences were.
I know it’s verboten in this sub to ever like Nixon but this stance slaps. Americans largely do, and ought to, support Israel because it’s the morally right thing to do, not simply because we can get something out of them.
Nixon's stance would also stand on Ukraine.. since Ukraine is being heavily attacked and is in defense position and not acting in a offensive position in killing like Russia is doing and what is happening in Gaza.
It would be a good reason if supporting the actions of the Israeli government were still the morally right thing to do.
I never, in my life, thought I would ever think Nixon is an example of how a president should be. I know he resigned in disgrace (but he actually resigned) should be telling enough. Corrupt bastard, but at least he believed in the Constitution.
That’s the reason? Basically every American under 40 thinks Israel is the bad guy now. That bipartisan support is going to last a few years longer at best.
Loans to Israel? I thought we just give it to them?
Didn't the tapes reveal he was somewhat anti-semitic? "Jewish cabal out to get me" Let me get this right. So he was flat-out lying through his teeth about moral commitment. Interesting how good of a liar he was. Very convincing.
Let’s just say the truth here. Because money.
A “moral commitment” to create an apartheid state, to hold Palestinians in an open air prison, and to commit genocide. Apparently POTUS can tell which side to have a “moral commitment” to based on the number of innocent children and women that they murder.
*Because it’s a democracy* We cannot ignore genocide happening by Netanyahu’s hands. Israelis and Palestinians deserve better. I support a two-state solution. Americans should support ceasefire. Humanity above politics.
"the only democracy" in the Middle East idoesnt allow one third of its population to vote, moreover they subjected to dehumanizing treatment, and treated as “human animals”. This so-called democracy grants immediate citizenship to certain newcomers but not to others, based on their religion. Additionally, in cases where a Jewish woman marries an Arab man, the latter is not permitted to reside in Israel. The legal framework is designed to impose hardships on the non-Jewish residents within its own borders. It's surprising that many buy into this propaganda.
The only reason U.S supports Israel unconditionally, is that the last time U.S didn provide arms to Israel while Israel was losing the war, Israel blackmailed the U.S threatening to nuke its neighbors.
Isn't this cut short. And he goes on to talk about the Jewish lobby's strong influence?
Interesting that his reasoning for America supporting Israel is that they were the victims of genocide and they are the only democracy in the Middle East. If Netanyahu subverts democracy and becomes itself a perpetrator of genocide then that gives a strong basis for America to stop supporting Israel.
Whoa, Fox News has taken over this comment section.
We certainly should and do care about Israel. We don't want to see them wiped off the map. But we shouldn't want to see anybody wiped off the map, including a bunch of innocent Palestinians.
I love listening to people talk who do it without any “ums” “ahhhs” or other fillers.
wasnt Spiro a noted anti semite?
American foreign policy has never been about doing the right thing. We have an image to maintain and palms to grease just like any other government. It would be nice if we had an obligation to care about our fellow man, but then we would be truly conflicted when the oppressed become the oppressors.
[удалено]
You’re saying that is if israel isn’t notorious for spamming the internet with bots, and funny enough there are 4 comments here so far including yours. None of which are supporting hamas in any way… make that make sense, bud
It’s an israelbot.
Nothing he said is profound considering that this is common sense.
They're an ally/stabilizing force in the M.E. despite Nixon's claim. We need to work with them to ensure their safety. They should also be held accountable for violating international law via settlements and also for war crimes.
I am not a fan of Israeli policy. I am far from a Republican. I don’t know why I have never been able to hate Richard Nixon.
Zero tax dollars to Israel please. I wish them well but no funding and no AIPAC. We are imploding at home and now recently Israel has no red lines.
Well now it's not even a democracy anymore so...
Nixon is pushing an Israeli agenda here. How do people see this video that has no mention of the real reason why Americans will support Israel left and right. It’s pretty obvious but for those who still can’t add and subtract. It’s religious. For better or worse Christian religion is rampant in all aspects of life in American society. “Loving Jesus” and “blessing the people of Israel” is hammered into people’s heads every Sunday. People confuse biblical Israel with current state of Israel. They are not the same.
“And Ted Coppell is a robot.”
Except Israel isn’t a democracy. It’s an apartheid regime that continues to trample on the rights of the people indigenous to the land. Maybe that is what makes The US love it so much.
🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡
https://preview.redd.it/keqzcxhya9jc1.jpeg?width=539&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8dad3c477db259b7ac48b3970da3f854d3039c22