US state department stops issuing visas for Gaza’s children to get medical care(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
US state department stops issuing visas for Gaza’s children to get medical care
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/16/gaza-children-visas-medical-care-laura-loomer
142 comments
The WHO is organizing some evacuations internationally
> the World Health Organization supported the transfer of 32 children and six adults to Italy, Belgium and Turkey, but more than 14,800 patients are still waiting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/16/malnourished-p...
> the World Health Organization supported the transfer of 32 children and six adults to Italy, Belgium and Turkey, but more than 14,800 patients are still waiting.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/16/malnourished-p...
I didn't expect the article to conclude with a pg quote from twitter. Why did they think pg was a notable authority on the matter of human rights? I am not asking in snark, just curious.
It's an example of notable criticism. The campaign was on twitter, so the PG quote is context and as an example of what detractors are saying.
Writing a summary of twitter hot takes is easier than doing actual research.
To prevent the story from getting flagged on HN.
The quote is there to distract from the fact that Laura Loomer herself is Jewish, and that is probably what motivates her in this case - not adherence to some abstract political ideals, but simple in-group/out-group distinction.
This is confusing to say the least, the US are providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition to kill the Palestinian civilians, and then they want to take the children victims for medical care?!
Why the US plays on both sides?
Why the US plays on both sides?
“The US” is not providing medical care for the victims. A private charity is. The role of the US government is in allowing, or now denying, the recipients to enter the country to receive care.
because
- it's about civilians and at least the official stance is that the US helps Israel to fight terrorist, not civilians.
- a government isn't a single person
- this doesn't just involves the US government but also humanitarian help groups
- it's about civilians and at least the official stance is that the US helps Israel to fight terrorist, not civilians.
- a government isn't a single person
- this doesn't just involves the US government but also humanitarian help groups
It's not weird for an organization to choose to help children, any children. Even the military conducting some action in an area will do so. Plenty of photos of solders sharing rations with local kids.
That seems like a reasonable goal all by itself.
That seems like a reasonable goal all by itself.
Because the US is an entity made up of millions of people
The “US” doesn’t do anything- it’s people in the country that ultimately act
The “US” doesn’t do anything- it’s people in the country that ultimately act
remember jews want all Palestinians deported from the area, it makes perfect sense for zionists to support humanitarian efforts OUTSIDE of israel
>> This is confusing to say the least, the US are providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition to kill the Palestinian civilians, and then they want to take the children victims for medical care?!
Why the US plays on both sides?
The US taxpayer has always paid for Israel’s citizens healthcare, while US citizens go without healthcare and ration their necessary medicine. Makes you wonder how such leverage can exist.
The US taxpayer has always paid for Israel’s citizens healthcare, while US citizens go without healthcare and ration their necessary medicine. Makes you wonder how such leverage can exist.
> The US taxpayer has always paid for Israel’s citizens healthcare
What is your source for this claim?
Most US military aid to Israel goes to US defense contractors. The US hasn't provided any significant economic aid to Israel in decades.
What is your source for this claim?
Most US military aid to Israel goes to US defense contractors. The US hasn't provided any significant economic aid to Israel in decades.
Because the $1 saved on a missile can be spent elsewhere?
Dollars are fungible
By this logic, the US is funding X at 173 countries, where X is anything governments spend money on (healthcare, soup kitchens, cocktail parties?)
Since the US has shuttered USAID which distrubutes food for humanitarian reasons, and made massive cuts to domestic healthcare program, this is indeed the logic of the current administration
Your rhetorical question is more true than you may realize: The high levels of US military spending is indeed a major reason why so many countries in (for example) Europe have been able to afford their robust social welfare systems instead of having to spend more of their budget on defense than they traditionally have.
A lot of articles discussing the consequences of the Trump administration’s pressure on other NATO countries to spend more of their GDP on defense and its public hesitation to protect Europe militarily have discussed how some of European governments’ nonmilitary expenses may have to be reduced as a result.
A lot of articles discussing the consequences of the Trump administration’s pressure on other NATO countries to spend more of their GDP on defense and its public hesitation to protect Europe militarily have discussed how some of European governments’ nonmilitary expenses may have to be reduced as a result.
No, robust healthcare is cheaper than the US system.
Here in Sweden we had this even back in the day when we spent 5% of GDP on defence, mostly materiel, and upon that had mandatory military service.
The US healthcare system is more expensive than a Swedish-style healthcare system. Another fun fact: our university education is cheaper per head than our high school education.
I think the education of physicians is maybe 1.5x as expensive as high school education, but that's an unusually expensive program.
Here in Sweden we had this even back in the day when we spent 5% of GDP on defence, mostly materiel, and upon that had mandatory military service.
The US healthcare system is more expensive than a Swedish-style healthcare system. Another fun fact: our university education is cheaper per head than our high school education.
I think the education of physicians is maybe 1.5x as expensive as high school education, but that's an unusually expensive program.
If you focus only on healthcare, I agree completely. But then look at the rest of the system. I don't know about Sweden specifically, so I'll stick with Germany as the example I know better: free university education for everyone, strong unemployment benefits and worker rights, heavily subsidized mass transportation, lots of social housing even if still inadequate for the demand, the list goes on and on... Definitely not a cheap bill, and definitely more affordable when not having to spend that money on the military.
They aren't really dollars, so much as in-kind aid. The US pays Raytheon to manufacture interceptors in the US and then send them to Israel. So it's fungible in the sense that without US military aid, Israel would have to figure out how to pay for missile defense and other military needs. And maybe that involves less domestic spending on healthcare and maybe it involves making deals with other countries or making foreign or military policy changes. Maybe it leads to positive changes like peace deals, but maybe it leads to negative changes, like Israel switching its allegiance to countries that aren't as friendly to US interests.
Ultimately, the person I'm replying to is giving a false impression of what the US is doing.
Ultimately, the person I'm replying to is giving a false impression of what the US is doing.
mc32(3)
lisbbb(4)
You're confused because you favor a simplistic view of the world where you have evil people and good people.
The US is not an enemy of Palestinians in general. Policies historically reflect conflicting goals and problematic facts on the ground. And problematic facts on the ground are often not the US's fault.
The biggest problematic thing is outsiders that support Palestinians armed conflict with Israel. And then get butthurt and double down due to the predictable results.
The US is not an enemy of Palestinians in general. Policies historically reflect conflicting goals and problematic facts on the ground. And problematic facts on the ground are often not the US's fault.
The biggest problematic thing is outsiders that support Palestinians armed conflict with Israel. And then get butthurt and double down due to the predictable results.
The US are not providing Israel with heavy hardware and ammunition "to kill the Palestinian civilians". Israel seeks to MINIMIZE collateral damage to Palestinian victims while achieving the military objective of destroying the terrorist group Hamas and its military capabilities. The rate of civilians and combatants dead is lower than the average of urban wars (lower than when the US fought in urban wars). Israel performs precise attacks on Hamas combatants and military facilities. It sends communication before performing attacks though radio, leaflets, "sound bombs", etc, to allow civilians to escape even though this obviously hinders the effectiveness of its operations because this allows Hamas to change the location of its combatants and weapons. Israel even flat out cancels some operations on valid military targets (such as Hamas weapon deposits and launchers) in order to save civilian lives. In short, Israel seeks to MINIMIZE collateral damage to Palestinian victims while achieving valid military objectives.
Saying Israel seeks to kill Palestinian civilians is as absurd as saying that the US Federal Highway Administration seeks to kill American civilians in car accidents.
Saying Israel seeks to kill Palestinian civilians is as absurd as saying that the US Federal Highway Administration seeks to kill American civilians in car accidents.
Does Egypt have a border with Gaza?
Yes. That is how these patients were being evacuated in the first place before traveling to the US for treatment.
Why not treat them in Egypt?
Because there is a charitable organization offering to treat them for free in the US. Is there something wrong with doing good?
Isn't medical care less expensive in other countrues than the U.S.?
Wouldn't they be able to treat more children if they didn't have to spend money on transportation, and paid cheaper healthcare costs in Egypt?
Wouldn't they be able to treat more children if they didn't have to spend money on transportation, and paid cheaper healthcare costs in Egypt?
1. If a US based charity finds a hospital and doctors that are willing to treat these children for free, why would you look for alternatives?
2. Some of these are likely complex cases in children that cannot easily be handled elsewhere. The US has some of the best hospitals and doctors in the world.
2. Some of these are likely complex cases in children that cannot easily be handled elsewhere. The US has some of the best hospitals and doctors in the world.
> free
Free to whom? These arrangements invariably turn into immigration vectors. Data show that refugees and low skill/education emigres are multi-generational net takers from government social programs. They also tend to not assimilate.
Free to whom? These arrangements invariably turn into immigration vectors. Data show that refugees and low skill/education emigres are multi-generational net takers from government social programs. They also tend to not assimilate.
> These arrangements invariably turn into immigration vectors.
Quite the leap. Do you have data to back this claim, or are you just making it up as you go?
Quite the leap. Do you have data to back this claim, or are you just making it up as you go?
I take as evidence that the involved charities make no claims about when, how, and where their beneficiaries will go upon completion of medical treatment. I would be glad to see evidence to the contrary.
I'll say it. Yes, why shouldn't the US offer asylum to children who have been attacked by American made munitions?
These immigration scares are getting pretty thin. If anyone needs an escape hatch, it's kids in Gaza. And yes, the US shares some complicity in their plight.
These immigration scares are getting pretty thin. If anyone needs an escape hatch, it's kids in Gaza. And yes, the US shares some complicity in their plight.
And there we have it. You have said the quiet part out loud, which every participant in this discussion knew all along: this is an immigration ploy.
> These immigration scares are getting pretty thin
Europe would like a word.
> These immigration scares are getting pretty thin
Europe would like a word.
It's a consequence for taking people's homes and livelihoods. Framing that passive state as an active scheme is ridiculous.
Europe —generally— isn't starting wars in the Middle East every few years, displacing millions. They rightly feel aggrieved that they have to burden the legitimate asylum claims caused by US action or US weapons.
Europe —generally— isn't starting wars in the Middle East every few years, displacing millions. They rightly feel aggrieved that they have to burden the legitimate asylum claims caused by US action or US weapons.
How specifically do medical visas invariably turn into immigration vectors?
Once a person sets foot in the US, they get the benefit of US law, thereby allowing the nonprofit-legal complex to activate on their behalf. You think the lawyers and activists won’t instantly start to advocate for granting these people refugee status or jump to some other lane on the basis that these patients cannot safely return to Gaza? Better to not let them in, full stop. Plenty of stable third countries much closer where relief can be provided.
Why do you think that lawyers are not able to provide support for refugee applicants prior to setting foot in the US?
Do you have data demonstrating that a significant number of people end up with successful refugee status applications that would have failed had they not come here for medical purposes and where their case is abusive? Or do you consider all refugees coming to the country for any reason to be bad?
Should all medical visas be stopped? Just those for Gazans? Just those for countries that you don't like?
Do you have data demonstrating that a significant number of people end up with successful refugee status applications that would have failed had they not come here for medical purposes and where their case is abusive? Or do you consider all refugees coming to the country for any reason to be bad?
Should all medical visas be stopped? Just those for Gazans? Just those for countries that you don't like?
Maybe. That'd require significant additional international coordination.
Is running an inefficient charity so bad that the government needs to step in and stop it?
There could be an entirely different conversation about whether this particular group is effective. I really don't care about that. What I care about is that an organization is trying to do something nice to suffering people and then decision makers within the Trump administration decided that this was unacceptable and used an extreme legal hammer to put a stop to it where their only possible motivation is simply rage at Gazans.
Is running an inefficient charity so bad that the government needs to step in and stop it?
There could be an entirely different conversation about whether this particular group is effective. I really don't care about that. What I care about is that an organization is trying to do something nice to suffering people and then decision makers within the Trump administration decided that this was unacceptable and used an extreme legal hammer to put a stop to it where their only possible motivation is simply rage at Gazans.
There's something wrong with that if you wanted to do the most good per unit of pretty much any kind of resource, yes.
I give at lot of money annually to a local food bank. This is less efficient in terms of fighting hunger than giving to an international organization by virtue of the higher cost of food here.
Should the government stop me? Am I a bad person for doing this?
Frankly, it is absolutely fucking insane to me that people somehow think that this decision is somehow based in the Trump administration's desire for maximally efficient charitable giving.
Should the government stop me? Am I a bad person for doing this?
Frankly, it is absolutely fucking insane to me that people somehow think that this decision is somehow based in the Trump administration's desire for maximally efficient charitable giving.
moi2388(1)
Are Jordan, Saudi Arabia, all of Europe, etc closer to Gaza than the U.S.?
Full title: US state department stops issuing visas for Gaza’s children to get medical care after far-right campaign
They have a point in that Israel should be forced to take care of those children, also to stop the genocide. Taking in displaced only serves Israels interests
Since Israel is not going to do either, and the US is not going to try and make them, I think we should at least save the lives we can. Imagine asking Germany in the 40s to take better care of Jewish children to turn away refugees, right?
Hard agree. I am highly sympathetic to the numerous tragedies that have afflicted the modern Palestinians. They have only knowing suffering at the hands of overwhelming adversaries from the British colonial rule to the rule of western armed Eastern European terrorist gangs.
That being said if we take in Palestinians we are effectively advancing the self proclaimed objective of the Israeli government: ethnic cleansing. The west should not take them in and the west should instead sanction Israel to the point of crippling their economy. Only then will the Israelis stop the abuse.
That being said if we take in Palestinians we are effectively advancing the self proclaimed objective of the Israeli government: ethnic cleansing. The west should not take them in and the west should instead sanction Israel to the point of crippling their economy. Only then will the Israelis stop the abuse.
In this case, we're talking about a small number of people who need specialized medical treatment. Denying medical care for people who need it based on some principle is inhumane.
I don’t think you realize how this works in practice.
In theory it will be for highest need. In practice various parties will find ways to make sure every applicant meets the bar.
In theory it’s temporary. In practice majority will find ways to stay.
It will a sudden exodus of 100.000 Gazans to the US. Israel wins as they will probably in the end kill 10-20% of the population (we know that they’ve killed 5% but many organizations estimate that at least as many are under the ruins and there are excess deaths to count too eg those starved because of Israel’s blockade), they will maim 10-20-%, and finally find ways to expel most of the remaining to various countries.
In theory it will be for highest need. In practice various parties will find ways to make sure every applicant meets the bar.
In theory it’s temporary. In practice majority will find ways to stay.
It will a sudden exodus of 100.000 Gazans to the US. Israel wins as they will probably in the end kill 10-20% of the population (we know that they’ve killed 5% but many organizations estimate that at least as many are under the ruins and there are excess deaths to count too eg those starved because of Israel’s blockade), they will maim 10-20-%, and finally find ways to expel most of the remaining to various countries.
These are visitor visas. We’re not “taking in” the recipients.
Do you have any doubt that they will strive to go from visitor to permanent? It’s not as hard as you think.
Bottom line: why can’t we compel Israel to meet their medical needs? Or for example to stop bombing hospitals in Gaza so they don’t have to come here for need?
Bottom line: why can’t we compel Israel to meet their medical needs? Or for example to stop bombing hospitals in Gaza so they don’t have to come here for need?
Do you have any evidence they’re staying?
Israel’s responsibility isn’t really relevant to visas being issued for medical care being paid for by private charity.
Israel’s responsibility isn’t really relevant to visas being issued for medical care being paid for by private charity.
> western armed Eastern European terrorist gangs
The majority of Israelis (45%) are Mizrahi or Eastern Sephardi [0] - primarily Moroccan, Iraqi, Yemeni, Syrian, Algerian, Iranian, Kurdish, Azeri, Tajik, and Egyptian in origin. The rest are Arab (20%) or Ashkenazi (33%) but these are overwhelmingly Soviet-era Jews who faced antisemitism during the Soviet era. You also have 1% who are Ethiopian in origin and 1% who are Indian (primarily Marathi) in origin.
The most rightwing Israelis are themselves 1.5 generation Mizrahi, such as Ben Gvir (Kurdish) and Karhi (Tunisian).
The same way Palestinians made homeless due to the 1948 war continue to resent Israel, similarly Mizrahi families continue to resent and distrust the Muslim countries their parents and grandparents were forced to leave from their mohallas.
Assuming Israel is overwhelmingly Ashkenazi is itself white normative and neocolonialist in nature.
> colonial rule
Same for plenty of Jews in Eastern countries.
For example, the Farhud [1] in Iraq as Iraqi Sunnis viewed Iraqi Jews as collaborationists with the British (this was also caused by Nazi propaganda during WW2) and the 1945 Libyan Riots [2] instigated by British occupation forces to coopt Libyan Sunnis.
[0] - https://people.socsci.tau.ac.il/mu/noah/files/2018/07/Ethnic...
[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud
[2] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Tr...
The majority of Israelis (45%) are Mizrahi or Eastern Sephardi [0] - primarily Moroccan, Iraqi, Yemeni, Syrian, Algerian, Iranian, Kurdish, Azeri, Tajik, and Egyptian in origin. The rest are Arab (20%) or Ashkenazi (33%) but these are overwhelmingly Soviet-era Jews who faced antisemitism during the Soviet era. You also have 1% who are Ethiopian in origin and 1% who are Indian (primarily Marathi) in origin.
The most rightwing Israelis are themselves 1.5 generation Mizrahi, such as Ben Gvir (Kurdish) and Karhi (Tunisian).
The same way Palestinians made homeless due to the 1948 war continue to resent Israel, similarly Mizrahi families continue to resent and distrust the Muslim countries their parents and grandparents were forced to leave from their mohallas.
Assuming Israel is overwhelmingly Ashkenazi is itself white normative and neocolonialist in nature.
> colonial rule
Same for plenty of Jews in Eastern countries.
For example, the Farhud [1] in Iraq as Iraqi Sunnis viewed Iraqi Jews as collaborationists with the British (this was also caused by Nazi propaganda during WW2) and the 1945 Libyan Riots [2] instigated by British occupation forces to coopt Libyan Sunnis.
[0] - https://people.socsci.tau.ac.il/mu/noah/files/2018/07/Ethnic...
[1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farhud
[2] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Tr...
Now do Christians in the Middle East--they have been practically exterminated out of existence everywhere.
The population has decreased significantly due to religious fanatics, but you should also give credit where credit is due.
Sisi has protected the Coptic community and Lebanon continues to have an active and prominent Christian community (which is split 50-50 between supporting Saudi and supporting Iran)
Morocco has also continued to protect the Jewish community there due to clan, tribal, and Berber ties trumping Arab or religious ties.
Sisi has protected the Coptic community and Lebanon continues to have an active and prominent Christian community (which is split 50-50 between supporting Saudi and supporting Iran)
Morocco has also continued to protect the Jewish community there due to clan, tribal, and Berber ties trumping Arab or religious ties.
I wonder how upset those Mizrahi Jews should be with the Ashkenazi Jews that worked to promote their exodus by conspiring to create the conditions to push them out of Iraq and Egypt.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230619-undeniable-proof-...
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230619-undeniable-proof-...
Plenty are annoyed with shenanigans like those in Egypt in the early 1950s, but denying the Farhud or the Shagabh Tarabulus is just as bad as denying the Nakbha.
Yemeni Jews didn't ask to be genocided out by Imam Yahya's Ghazis, just like an Arab families in Galilee didn't ask to get forcibly removed from the Levant during the same year.
Plenty of people did bad things - evil knows no border.
The kisas has been paid. Let them deal with it. This is a problem that can only be resolved by regional players acting in good faith.
Alternatively, the Enlightenment never happened in Baghdad, Aleppo, Oujda, etc. If Hamas and factions of the PA can argue for Shariat, then factions in Israel can argue for Halakha.
Of course, this is unrealistic, so the only answer is to nut up and negotiate. Reality is, the politicians and governments are in constant contact based on personal experience.
The moment Israel makes a sweetheart deal with Qatar instead of the current one with the UAE and the previously planned one with KSA, all of the Hamasniks would be in Ramla in hours.
The Thanis (whose country funds and owns the MEM like AJ) still haven't forgiven the Nahyans and al-Sauds for considering invading them if Tillerson didn't intervene.
Yemeni Jews didn't ask to be genocided out by Imam Yahya's Ghazis, just like an Arab families in Galilee didn't ask to get forcibly removed from the Levant during the same year.
Plenty of people did bad things - evil knows no border.
The kisas has been paid. Let them deal with it. This is a problem that can only be resolved by regional players acting in good faith.
Alternatively, the Enlightenment never happened in Baghdad, Aleppo, Oujda, etc. If Hamas and factions of the PA can argue for Shariat, then factions in Israel can argue for Halakha.
Of course, this is unrealistic, so the only answer is to nut up and negotiate. Reality is, the politicians and governments are in constant contact based on personal experience.
The moment Israel makes a sweetheart deal with Qatar instead of the current one with the UAE and the previously planned one with KSA, all of the Hamasniks would be in Ramla in hours.
The Thanis (whose country funds and owns the MEM like AJ) still haven't forgiven the Nahyans and al-Sauds for considering invading them if Tillerson didn't intervene.
No disagreements there!
I guess in the end: people are predictability and the predictability of masses makes them vulnerable to manipulation. What we get out is endless cycles of rule by the zero-sum cynical.
I guess even the faithless will end up resigning to pray for peace.
I guess in the end: people are predictability and the predictability of masses makes them vulnerable to manipulation. What we get out is endless cycles of rule by the zero-sum cynical.
I guess even the faithless will end up resigning to pray for peace.
>> western armed Eastern European terrorist gangs
> The majority of Israelis (45%) are Mizrahi or Eastern Sephardi
That's irrelevant to the OP's point. Mizrahi Jews only started arriving after Israel was founded. The people who founded Israel were almost 100% Ashkenazi Jews, mostly from Central and Eastern Europe.
> The majority of Israelis (45%) are Mizrahi or Eastern Sephardi
That's irrelevant to the OP's point. Mizrahi Jews only started arriving after Israel was founded. The people who founded Israel were almost 100% Ashkenazi Jews, mostly from Central and Eastern Europe.
> The people who founded Israel were almost 100% Ashkenazi Jews, mostly from Central and Eastern Europe.
Israelis like Geulah Cohen, Moshe Barzani, Eliyahu Hakim, Shimon Tzabar, Eliyahu Bet-Zuri, Mordechai Alkahi, Avshalom Haviv, Meir Nakar, Eliezer Kashani, and Shmuel Tankus were all prominent Mizrahi leaders and commanders in Lehi, Irgun, and the Haganah.
Kurdish, Iraqi, Levantine, and Turkish Jews had been a prominent demographic in what became Israel well before 1948 due to it's former Ottoman status along with communal incidents in Kurdistan, Iraq, Syria, and Turkiye well before 1948.
In addition, in the late 19th and early 20th century, most of the Ashkenazi who arrived in the Levant at the time aligned with "Ottomanization" [0] or assimilating into Ottoman Turkish culture and dropping any trappings of European culture, hence David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi becoming students at the Dârülfünûn-ı Şâhâne in Istanbul and assimilating into Turkish culture during their formative years.
The Labor Zionist movement tended to be primarily Ashkenazi, but they were not alone in founding Israel. Mizrahis were overrepresented in the Irgun and Lehi, both of who's political wings became the Likud.
[0] - https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/16111/13/16111%20TALBOT_Jew...
Israelis like Geulah Cohen, Moshe Barzani, Eliyahu Hakim, Shimon Tzabar, Eliyahu Bet-Zuri, Mordechai Alkahi, Avshalom Haviv, Meir Nakar, Eliezer Kashani, and Shmuel Tankus were all prominent Mizrahi leaders and commanders in Lehi, Irgun, and the Haganah.
Kurdish, Iraqi, Levantine, and Turkish Jews had been a prominent demographic in what became Israel well before 1948 due to it's former Ottoman status along with communal incidents in Kurdistan, Iraq, Syria, and Turkiye well before 1948.
In addition, in the late 19th and early 20th century, most of the Ashkenazi who arrived in the Levant at the time aligned with "Ottomanization" [0] or assimilating into Ottoman Turkish culture and dropping any trappings of European culture, hence David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi becoming students at the Dârülfünûn-ı Şâhâne in Istanbul and assimilating into Turkish culture during their formative years.
The Labor Zionist movement tended to be primarily Ashkenazi, but they were not alone in founding Israel. Mizrahis were overrepresented in the Irgun and Lehi, both of who's political wings became the Likud.
[0] - https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/16111/13/16111%20TALBOT_Jew...
The existence of individual Arab Jews in Israel in 1948 does not change the point that the founders of Israel were almost all Ashkenazi Jews.
Almost every important Israeli politician in the founding years was Ashkenazi (and to this day, every prime minister has been Ashkenazi, surprisingly enough). Yes, you can name various individual members of the pre-state militias / terrorist groups who were not Ashenazi, but they were a tiny minority in a movement dominated by people from Central / Eastern Europe.
Almost every important Israeli politician in the founding years was Ashkenazi (and to this day, every prime minister has been Ashkenazi, surprisingly enough). Yes, you can name various individual members of the pre-state militias / terrorist groups who were not Ashenazi, but they were a tiny minority in a movement dominated by people from Central / Eastern Europe.
This is a huge aspect of the conflict that the left doesn't want to understand, because it doesn't fit the narrative of colonialism.
And it doesn't fit with the conservative Christian view of the nation consisting purely of those that fled Germany. The truth is simply more complicated than either extreme is comfortable with.
That being said, the ancestry and the history doesn't change the actions being committed today.
That being said, the ancestry and the history doesn't change the actions being committed today.
I don't think it changes the facts about what is happening, but I do think it changes how we think about the roots of the conflict, and about how (if) it gets resolved in the long term.
> That being said, the ancestry and the history doesn't change the actions being committed today
Yep. But it adds nuance, which has been lost in discourse.
This is fundamentally an Eastern conflict that can only be resolved by Mizrahis and Arabs.
Westerners converting Israel-Palestine into a culture war are doing more harm than good, because it breeds resentment from both sides, as both view the West as the lackey of the other.
Yep. But it adds nuance, which has been lost in discourse.
This is fundamentally an Eastern conflict that can only be resolved by Mizrahis and Arabs.
Westerners converting Israel-Palestine into a culture war are doing more harm than good, because it breeds resentment from both sides, as both view the West as the lackey of the other.
This framing is an American culture war topic that has morphed into a global culture war.
In most Western countries (except France), the Jewish community is overwhelmingly Ashkenazi in origin, and that is what sets the tone for how these countries view the conflict.
Mizrahi Jews have significantly different practices, and Israel is fundamentally their state, as Mizrahi culture has become the default culture in Israel. Even pop Hebrew music is overwhelmingly Arab in musical style now (eg. Daniel Saadon) and Arabic, Farsi, and other Mizrahi languages terms have become a major part of colloquial Hebrew now (יאללה anyone).
IMO, I think Israel becoming culturally Mizrahi is what is causing Israel to lose it's clout. Israeli and (non-religious) American Jews are increasingly separated from each other as they consume different media, speak different languages, and don't even go to the same Synagogues (or Temples as Ashkenazim call them). Israel has become much more insular as it has also become a richer country (it's not like 30 years ago when Israelis had to immigrate to the US to get paid a real salary).
In most Western countries (except France), the Jewish community is overwhelmingly Ashkenazi in origin, and that is what sets the tone for how these countries view the conflict.
Mizrahi Jews have significantly different practices, and Israel is fundamentally their state, as Mizrahi culture has become the default culture in Israel. Even pop Hebrew music is overwhelmingly Arab in musical style now (eg. Daniel Saadon) and Arabic, Farsi, and other Mizrahi languages terms have become a major part of colloquial Hebrew now (יאללה anyone).
IMO, I think Israel becoming culturally Mizrahi is what is causing Israel to lose it's clout. Israeli and (non-religious) American Jews are increasingly separated from each other as they consume different media, speak different languages, and don't even go to the same Synagogues (or Temples as Ashkenazim call them). Israel has become much more insular as it has also become a richer country (it's not like 30 years ago when Israelis had to immigrate to the US to get paid a real salary).
How many German children did the allies take to provide medical care to in WWII?
Israel used to provide advanced medical care to gazans.
One day women that was treated for cancer (and iirc was healed) arrived to follow up checkup in suicide vest.
Gaza borders many kibutzim (kind of socialistic communal settlement) which are very left leaning, pro peace, 2 state solution, etc, etc. People from those kibutzim used to pick up sick gazans from border crossing and drive them to hospitals in Israel for treatment and back. On Oct7 those kibutzim were hardest hit with some of them I think loosing 50% of members.
One day women that was treated for cancer (and iirc was healed) arrived to follow up checkup in suicide vest.
Gaza borders many kibutzim (kind of socialistic communal settlement) which are very left leaning, pro peace, 2 state solution, etc, etc. People from those kibutzim used to pick up sick gazans from border crossing and drive them to hospitals in Israel for treatment and back. On Oct7 those kibutzim were hardest hit with some of them I think loosing 50% of members.
yes_really(1)
worldsavior(2)
Just for context, because sometimes we need to remind basic facts.
The Geneva Conventions are international laws that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war since 1864. They extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners, civilians and military personnel.
A war crime is a violation of the laws of war. War crimes include shooting on disarmed civilians, denying medical treatment, food or water to captive wounded soldiers from the enemy, or deliberately starving people to death.
Israel MUST provide reasonable medical care to civilians wounded by its army, because this is required by the international laws and treaties signed previously by Israel.
The Geneva Conventions are international laws that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war since 1864. They extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners, civilians and military personnel.
A war crime is a violation of the laws of war. War crimes include shooting on disarmed civilians, denying medical treatment, food or water to captive wounded soldiers from the enemy, or deliberately starving people to death.
Israel MUST provide reasonable medical care to civilians wounded by its army, because this is required by the international laws and treaties signed previously by Israel.
FYI, taking hostages is prohibited by Geneva Conventions. Firing of thousands of rockets basically only at the civilian targets too.
And actually, Geneva Conventions don't really apply to a military action against a Gazan terrorist organisation that is committed to genocide.
And actually, Geneva Conventions don't really apply to a military action against a Gazan terrorist organisation that is committed to genocide.
Two wrongs don't make a right
The second claim is interesting because avoiding to declare formally a war has been a common trick for decades to bypass the Geneva Conventions. The legal category of Crimes against humanity still apply in those cases.
The second claim is interesting because avoiding to declare formally a war has been a common trick for decades to bypass the Geneva Conventions. The legal category of Crimes against humanity still apply in those cases.
Most probably not - but there is also absolutely no need for chivalry if your opponent doesn't stick to any rules.
The point was not the war declaration or the lack of it - the point is - if someone announces he's going to kill you and then does basically everything to prove that it's not a bluff and no one else is stopping him, then you're allowed to do whatever it takes to save your life.
The point was not the war declaration or the lack of it - the point is - if someone announces he's going to kill you and then does basically everything to prove that it's not a bluff and no one else is stopping him, then you're allowed to do whatever it takes to save your life.
> You're allowed to do whatever it takes to save your life.
Not. Individuals and countries work in a different way. Humanitarian International laws are not optative if you want to be accepted by the international community. The "convenience" of assassinating journalists, physicians or nurses routinely is not debatable.
The new generations breastfeed with videogames and blockbusters forget sometimes that war has rules and laws. Created for the benefit of ALL parts involved. To follow this laws is good for you. Ignore them at your own risk.
Israel in my stupid opinion should erase this silly smirks on TV, show some humility and stop pretending that they live in an alternate reality. Their bad choices and reckless behaviour had destroyed lots of sympathy all around the planet, and this is not wise.
Not if you still want tourism. Not specially when you depend on a protector that is driving directly towards an economical recession; and could find more and more difficult to justify the need to allocate precious resources to support you, while their own citizens struggle to survive.
They should work hard to rebuild the broken relationships. Smiling because you bought the big politicians only works while they remain in power. European politicians are slowly waking up to the fact that supporting a genocide is expensive and a fast path to the unemployment queue. The people is really furious about this.
Not. Individuals and countries work in a different way. Humanitarian International laws are not optative if you want to be accepted by the international community. The "convenience" of assassinating journalists, physicians or nurses routinely is not debatable.
The new generations breastfeed with videogames and blockbusters forget sometimes that war has rules and laws. Created for the benefit of ALL parts involved. To follow this laws is good for you. Ignore them at your own risk.
Israel in my stupid opinion should erase this silly smirks on TV, show some humility and stop pretending that they live in an alternate reality. Their bad choices and reckless behaviour had destroyed lots of sympathy all around the planet, and this is not wise.
Not if you still want tourism. Not specially when you depend on a protector that is driving directly towards an economical recession; and could find more and more difficult to justify the need to allocate precious resources to support you, while their own citizens struggle to survive.
They should work hard to rebuild the broken relationships. Smiling because you bought the big politicians only works while they remain in power. European politicians are slowly waking up to the fact that supporting a genocide is expensive and a fast path to the unemployment queue. The people is really furious about this.
The most important thing is why they stopped:
> The US state department announced on Saturday that it would stop issuing visas to children from Gaza in desperate need of medical care after an online pressure campaign from Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer close to Donald Trump who has described herself as “a proud Islamophobe”.
> In a pair of posts on the social network on Friday, Loomer had shared video of badly injured Palestinian children and their family members arriving in Houston and San Francisco this month, along with false claims that their shouts of joy were “jihadi chants” and that they were “doing the HAMAS terror whistle”.
...
> After misrepresenting the children, including amputees arriving to get prosthetic legs, as “Islamic invaders from an Islamic terror hot zone”, Loomer demanded to know “who at the US State Department under @marcorubio signed off on the visas for Palestinians from a HAMAS hot zone”.
> “Is Rubio even aware of this?” Loomer wrote, in reference to the secretary of state who was at the time in Alaska meeting Vladimir Putin.
> “Why would anyone at the State Department give visas to individuals who live in Gaza, which is run by HAMAS?” Loomer wrote, before falsely stating that “95% of GAZANS voted for HAMAS.”
(The articles notes that in fact Hamas got 44% of the votes, not 95%, and only won 2 of the 5 districts, and that the last election in Gaza was in 2006).
> The US state department announced on Saturday that it would stop issuing visas to children from Gaza in desperate need of medical care after an online pressure campaign from Laura Loomer, a far-right influencer close to Donald Trump who has described herself as “a proud Islamophobe”.
> In a pair of posts on the social network on Friday, Loomer had shared video of badly injured Palestinian children and their family members arriving in Houston and San Francisco this month, along with false claims that their shouts of joy were “jihadi chants” and that they were “doing the HAMAS terror whistle”.
...
> After misrepresenting the children, including amputees arriving to get prosthetic legs, as “Islamic invaders from an Islamic terror hot zone”, Loomer demanded to know “who at the US State Department under @marcorubio signed off on the visas for Palestinians from a HAMAS hot zone”.
> “Is Rubio even aware of this?” Loomer wrote, in reference to the secretary of state who was at the time in Alaska meeting Vladimir Putin.
> “Why would anyone at the State Department give visas to individuals who live in Gaza, which is run by HAMAS?” Loomer wrote, before falsely stating that “95% of GAZANS voted for HAMAS.”
(The articles notes that in fact Hamas got 44% of the votes, not 95%, and only won 2 of the 5 districts, and that the last election in Gaza was in 2006).
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/16/nx-s1-5504634/state-departmen...
Are there similar organizations operating in other countries?