this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
702 points (82.4% liked)

Political Memes

8484 readers
3274 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 184 points 1 day ago (7 children)

This is a "let them fight" situation

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 101 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I guess but it sucks for civilians caught in the crossfire. Can’t we just have a Khamenei/Bibi cage fight instead?

And then we just don’t let the winner out of the cage.

[–] ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.org 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'd be down for that. Let the leaders fight!

[–] swagmoney@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

kinda like an inverse hunger games?

[–] ComfortableRaspberry@feddit.org 1 points 8 hours ago

I'd hope for some good old celebrity death match entertainment.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago

The problem is, large parts of each country are supporting their government in what they're doing.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The “settlers” aren’t civilians, they chose this fight and hopefully they get what they deserve.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No uninvolved civilians huh? Where have I heard that before…

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The "settlers" have used force for political reasons so they're terrorists.

Terrorists aren't civilians so they're all valid targets.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So what you’re telling me is if you lived in Israel you’d be pro-genocide lol. You’re using the exact same logic as a transparent fig leaf for your anger and hatred, just like many Israelis do against Palestinians.

You can’t make blanket statements about people based on where they live or what family they were born to. They’re all different individuals with different beliefs and backgrounds. Not all Israelis support the violence, not all of them are settlers, many were born there. Some even lived there for generations. This is nonsense.

[–] Cypher@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I never mentioned all Israelis. I said the settlers are terrorists, which they are per the definition.

Also what anger and hatred? I’m simply calling it as I see it.

The settlers use violence to destroy Palestinian communities, bulldoze them and then build their homes on stolen land in pursuit of a political agenda.

They’re terrorists and strikes on terrorists should be recognised as such.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago

Contextually I thought you were just calling all Israelis settlers. All Israelis (and all Iranians) will be threatened by a war between their countries. But OK, if that’s not what you meant then what I said doesn’t apply. Just a weird thing to focus on since it’s unlikely Iran would specifically target settlers.

[–] bonsai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Make it a knife fight.

There are no winners in a knife fight.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago

IMO a major reason that Israel is levelling Gaza is that it's a one-sided conflict where Israelis are not getting killed. There are apparently 53 Israeli hostages right now, but more than 20,000 Gazans have been killed. There is some pressure to end the conflict, but not enough. If it were a war where Israelis were being killed too, it would end a lot quicker.

I know the Iran / Israel conflict is a different one, but if enough Israelis stop supporting Netanyahu, both conflicts might end. Israeli civilians dying might be the only thing that will stop Netanyahu.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Iran has the right to defend itself, as they like to say

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Another reason to hate Israel. They're making me agree with Iran.

Ew.

[–] DaTingGoBrrr@lemm.ee 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

According to Veritasium and Game Theory (The prisoners dilemma) a retaliation is what should be done in this case

https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM

[–] 8uurg@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I personally prefer the more complex setup discussed in https://ncase.me/trust/.

The prisoners dilemma is a single decision game: you can tattle or stay silent, and as you don't know what the other does, and due to how things are set up you would prefer to tattle, even if both staying silent yields better results for both parties.

Politics like this is more of a repeated game, like the one described in the link. You can trust one another, in spite of this single iteration Pareto optimal setting favoring betrayal, and work together. But also; show that you are not an easy mark that can be exploited.

[–] hoch@lemmy.world 42 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
[–] FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Agreed. The the enemy of my enemy is my, uh, enemy? They both suck lol

[–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's other enemy.

Nothing more, nothing less

[–] klu9@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago

Realpolitik is German for "short-term thinking that will eventually bite you in the arse".

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 day ago

Exactly. Stop giving Israel weapons.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just to add that I have become quite allergic to the “pre-emptive strike”, “weapons of mass destruction “ justification for war. Have we learned nothing?

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago

We did learn that orchestrating these gets you paraded around by the "progressive" party in the US during the last election...

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 7 points 1 day ago

That'd be pretty swell, but then maybe please don't go defend Israel from the consequences of its actions?