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

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

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

    • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
      386·
      1 year ago

      Thank you so much.

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

      It always has been.

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

      • fosiacat@lemmy.world
        1652·
        1 year ago

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

          • fosiacat@lemmy.world
            127·
            1 year ago

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

            • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
              3·
              1 year ago

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

        • flicker@kbin.social
          697·
          1 year ago

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

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

      • livus@kbin.social
        241·
        1 year ago

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

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

      • Lophostemon@aussie.zone
        123·
        1 year ago

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

        • some dumbass cracker evangelical, probably.
  • TinyPizza@kbin.social
    766·
    1 year ago

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

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

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

  • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
    608·
    1 year ago

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

      • meowMix2525@lemm.ee
        139·
        1 year ago

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

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          143·
          1 year ago

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

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

        • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
          104·
          1 year ago

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

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

      • Lt_Cdr_Data@discuss.tchncs.de
        31·
        1 year ago

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

  • dx1@lemmy.world
    5917·
    1 year ago

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

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

    • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
      216·
      1 year ago

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

      Shit is fucked.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      2716·
      1 year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • coffee_poops@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        199·
        1 year ago

        Constantly bombs refugee camps, schools, and hospitals This is just war, bro. Yeah we have the 4th most sophisticated and accurate military on earth but we just can’t help hitting civilians who just happen to be a minority in their own land…

        Dude, the logical hoops you’ll jump through to justify a genocide is extremely concerning.

        Holocaust scholars all over the world have even condemned the bloodshed.

        This isn’t the cost of war. It’s punishment. It’s imperialism.

      • jarfil@lemmy.world
        44·
        1 year ago

        The objective of the IDF is to free the hostages. They will make an effort to minimize civilian casualties.

        When a legitimate target is hiding among civilians, there are two possible responses:

        • Civilized nations: “F%ck, guess we’ll have to wait until they move”
        • Non-civilized nations: “Collateral damage”

        But they must achieve that objective even while know civilian causalities are a certainty

        No “buts”. Like it or not, defend it or not, that’s what non-civilized nations do.

    • AMillionNames@sh.itjust.works
      98·
      1 year ago

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

  • Veedem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    326·
    1 year ago

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

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

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

    • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      1638·
      1 year ago

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

      • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
        15·
        1 year ago

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

        • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          07·
          1 year ago

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

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

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

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

          • Salamendacious@lemmy.worldOP
            52·
            1 year ago

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

            • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafeEnglish
              15·
              1 year ago

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

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

              That’s what being an adult means.

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

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

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

    • Dran@lemmy.world
      102·
      1 year ago

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

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

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

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        3·
        1 year ago

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

      • iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.worldEnglish
        45·
        1 year ago

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

    • Reptorian@lemmy.zipEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

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

  • spudwart@spudwart.comEnglish
    226·
    1 year ago

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

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

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

    • bonus_crab@lemmy.world
      92·
      1 year ago

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

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

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

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

    • nicetriangle@kbin.social
      15·
      1 year ago

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

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        12·
        1 year ago

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

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

    • s_s@lemm.eeEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      Normal in the modern era.

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

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

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

    • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
      21·
      1 year ago

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

  • thecrotch@sh.itjust.works
    1016·
    1 year ago

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