Not a great sign, if she’s going to go out of her way cozy up to him it’s back to Uncommitted for me. Certainly don’t want to, but I guess we’ll see if Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with this.
You want to believe that the IDF is held back by lack of personnel, but they’re not. They are not being held back from anything they want to do. Putting US soldiers in Gaza does not add to their capacity to continue the genocide exactly as they wish.
Zionists keep trying to convince everyone that Trump would be worse on this, which is simply a way of refusing to accept the reality of just how bad it really is.
This is exactly why Netanyahu is doing what he is doing. He wants Trump. He knows the US doesn’t/can’t lose an ally in the region and he forces the administrations hand, which makes them look bad to their supporters. Those supporters stop supporting… and then Trump gets elected.
Don’t let Netanyahu play you. Don’t fall into his trap. Vote in local elections for people opposed to the genocide. Reach out to them and express it is a huge, maybe the only, concern of yours. That is how you bring change.
Removing yourself from the conversation doesn’t make the problem go away.
There are millions that just don’t vote. Never have, never will. So their stance has no impact. It is worse to be willing to use that vote and then throw it away on a single issue that won’t change, no matter the candidate (and honestly in this case one candidate there is a chance vs one where there is zero chance for Gaza and things get worse for Ukraine).
We’ve effectively been given the Trolley Problem and, instead of playing, you’re choosing to walk away and whatever happens, happens, as long as you feel good.
It can be endorsing, yes. There’s a reason so many democrats are not attending – going to Netanyahu’s speech lends him legitimacy and a greater perception of support.
World politics is about negotiation.
Stopping the genocide doesn’t require negotiation, you withhold aid until they stop.
But as I keep saying, Harris will need to find way to signal that her meeting isn’t in support of Netanyahu. If she goes in and is giving him hugs and holding his hand up in unity and that kind of bullshit, that’s a really bad sign. It can go either way, I’m just stating that I won’t support genocide just because it gets a fresh face on it, Harris needs to prove her commitment to holding Netanyahu to account in a real, material way.
Anything but voting for Harris would be supporting Trump, an even worse pro-genocide candidate. You can’t equate Harris, who’s calling for a ceasefire, with Trump, who gave Israel Jerusalem and is telling Israel to keep going with the genocide.
“Anything but voting for Trump is supporting Harris.”
Nonsensical, right?
Biden and Trump are equally bad on genocide, there is no “worse”. If Harris chooses to signal she’s continuing Biden’s genocide support I’m out again. I’m willing to compromise on Harris’ generally but nothing has changed in my tolerance for pro-genocide candidates, and nothing ever will.
Luckily not funding genocide is an easy hurdle to cross. We’ll see if Harris manages to do it.
Nope. I’ve been supportive of Harris up to this point since her stepping forward as potential nominee. I genuinely hope she can demonstrate that she’s against the genocide.
There will be two candidates to choose from who are going to collectively get 90+ percent of the vote. You can vote for the lesser of 2 evils or waste your vote on third party.
There’s no such thing as “ultra genocide” and if there was, it’s already happening in Gaza and it’s being fueled by a Democratic administration, not a Republican one.
Uh huh, and how realistic do you actually think that is? Israel is going to allow Trump to drop a nuclear bomb on their border…
The fact that the retort is “It could be worse, they could drop a literal nuke on Gaza” should be an indicator that what you’re arguing as an acceptable alternative is indefensibly extreme.
Do you know nothing about Project 2025? It will cause more genocide. Genocide in your country.
Do you want to see Latinos carted away and queer kids committing suicide after being forced into “conversion therapy?” Because that’s exactly what Trump will bring.
How about all the other people? Millions of people. Fuck them? Because she’s just having a meeting with the perpetrator of a different genocide on the other side of the planet? A genocide that Trump will also perpetuate and has already said he would make worse?
So essentially your refusal to “support genocide” in another country will make that genocide worse and add more genocide to the mix.
But hey, this is all about sparing you from potential harm, right? Fuck all those illegals and homos.
You dismiss the idea that the humanity of Palestinians is equal to your own. Its ok for them to die under the bombs and weapons we supply to Israel, as long as it allows us to avoid our own domestic discomfort. We differ on this fact.
I’m part of the groups that will probably be most immediately effected by a Trump admin. That fear will not push me to support a genocide.
If the American system is broken and corrupted then we as Americans should be facing and reconciling those problems ourselves, not transferring our own potential discomfort and suffering overseas to kids that are out of sight and out of mind.
It’s about millions of other people. People whose lives you apparently don’t care about. I guess they’re too brown or too queer to be part of that whole ‘humanity being equal’ thing.
Yes, it is. It’s cowardice and self-interest. You’re not going to be able to flip this.
You can’t on one hand claim you care about the hypothetical suffering millions while arguing for ignoring a very real on-going genocide funded by your representatives.
“Just let Democrats get away with funding the slaughter of Gazans as long as we can skirt around the consequences of our corrupt politics here.”
Maybe this will help; imagine the Gazans are white Americans. Ignore that they’re brown and live behind some imaginary line “somewhere else” in the world and instead pretend you see them as equal to you.
When you take the perspective that they’re just as human and deserving of life as any of the other domestic groups you’re talking about, you realize that Biden is, at this very moment, doing a “Project 2025” of his own. It’s just against human beings who happen to be 7,000 miles away instead of closer to you.
If Harris chooses to continue Bidens policy on this, I can’t vote for her, exactly the same as I can’t vote for Trump or Biden or any other zionist.
I am just so relieved that most people seem capable of understanding nuance.
By all means figure out if you can somehow give us a better candidate. But when it’s time for you to actually do something real, remember to play the hand you have.
Having different values from you does not mean they don’t understand nuance. They’re not stupid. They just have a moral boundary that they refuse to cross: supporting genocide. If the lesser evil involves voting for a politician who provides military and financial assistance to a genocidal regime, then I would say that the only morally correct course of action is revolution.
No, a working class revolution. A general strike. Whatever you want to call it when the working class refuse to capitulate to the demands of the ruling class. And if necessary we will defend ourselves, but violence is not the goal. The goal is to remove the ruling class from power, by any means necessary. By refusing to provide for them, and to follow their demands, they lose their power, and alternative structures for society without imbalances of power or systems of oppression can be formed.
I hear you. I feel that. But just remember to play the hand you actually have as best you can. Sometimes the situation sucks but it’s still up to us to make decisions.
I support your diversity of tactics, I just don’t think the American people are there with you yet… So keep on pushing us.
Sure, I get that too. I completely understand why people would’ve voted for Biden, despite all of the glaring reasons not to. I sympathise entirely with your situation, it’s really a shitty decision to be left with. I just think it’s unfair to say that people who disagree with your decision are, necessarily, not understanding the nuance of the situation. They probably all understand why you’d make your decision and for the most part don’t really have a problem with it. Most of us just want an acknowledgment and an understanding that both sides are fucking horrible and that we need to find a third solution, whatever that may be, in the long run, because voting for the least worst option will only work for so long, and we’re rapidly running out of road.
I’m anti-genocide. Biden’s policy on Gaza is fascism. It’s the same at its core as Project 2025 or any other far right agenda. He’s funding the slaughter of innocent human beings.
I’m not far-right, so I won’t support it. Hopefully Harris chooses not to as well.
You’re not dumb and you’ve heard it a thousand times I’m sure, but you live in a country with FPtP voting and is therefore a two party system. You know that not voting or voting third party in the general election only benefits Trump. The ONLY chance of things getting better in Israel is if Kamala wins, even if she doesn’t do anything, because the alternative is things get worse. Those are facts.
Damn near everyone is anti-genoocide, but most of us realize the reality of the situation. Kamala may make it better over there, Trump will make it worse, and there is no third option. As mentioned there’s one option for your vote that isn’t pro Trump. Voting for Kamala is the best option for Israel regardless if you think she’s doing good enough for your beliefs.
If you disagree, tell me how you think any other vote will help Israel. If it’s purely a moral choice, explain how you think it’s morally better to turn your back on the problem knowing full well the facts of FPtP, vs voting for the best option that may make things better. The possibility of betterment is better than no possibility at all.
In the worst case scenarios, personally I would rather say, “I voted for Kamala hoping she would improve the situation in Israel which didn’t happen” instead of, “I voted third party / didn’t vote at all, and Trump made it worse in Israel”. At least in one situation, there’s a chance.
I’ll jump in here, though I know that everybody is dug in, and this is akin to poking the hornets’ nest. Anyway, it’s a matter of differing ethical calculations. On one side is utilitarianism, which says that if your choice is between Nazis who will murder 5,000,000 Jews, and worse-Nazis who will kill 5,000,001 Jews, then it’s a moral imperative to support Hitler for the sake of that one person.
And that’s… not wrong. I can imagine that many people would make that call, if it were some sort of send-a-time-traveler-to-kill-Hitler-or-not scenario, when the outcomes are fixed. But imagine deciding to support Hitler and personally aiding the systematic murder of 5,000,000 humans when the alternative is speculative, still in the future, when it’s not assured. I think a lot fewer people would be willing to do it. How many more people would the hypothetical worse-Nazis have to kill to make that an appealing choice?
Everybody has got a moral line after which we can’t abide cold, utilitarian calculations. Maybe some people would help produce the Zyklon B on the prospect of saving one life. Maybe some would only do it if it was required to save humanity from extinction. Probably a lot of people would do it to save themselves. (Hello, 1930’s Germans!) That’s getting off-topic, the point is that everybody has a line, and some of us would just refuse to aid the Holocaust.
Furthermore, the reality is not nearly so black and white as it is usually framed here on Lemmy. We don’t actually know what a future dementia-addled President would do. He has the attention span of a toddler. He’s not a strong manager and has a lot of power-hungry underlings (like Vance); his administration might resemble a bucket of rats each scrambling for the top. We don’t know how the world would react to anything he’d do. Bottom line, it’s speculative at this point.
And on the other side, the usual framing casts Democrats as fixed in their positions and imperturbable as the faces on Mount Rushmore, or at least boxed-in politically. They’re not. President Biden has already felt the heat and slightly altered his position on Israel in a couple of instances. In fact, while we could change and abide their support of genocide, they too could change at any time to just simply not support genocide. They could even frame it (accurately, as I see it) as tough love, protecting Israel from itself and assuring its survival long-term.
That’s why we pressure the people actually in power now, who are the ones supporting genocide right now, because that’s democracy in action. Yes, to be fair, it might result in a worse outcome later, but that’s far from assured, and in the mean time, you’re telling people not to even try to stop evil.
The election system is first passed the post, that doesn’t mean that’s where our political agency and influence ends – we just proved that with Biden stepping down. We created a third option.
A large enough number of people said “We will not vote for a zionist” and it had a real world effect on the behavior of the party. That never would’ve happened if people just accepted that Biden was running again and there was nothing we could do.
Damn near everyone is anti-genoocide
This is not true. There are many Israel supporters, even here on this thread.
If you disagree, tell me how you think any other vote will help Israel.
I’ll assume this was a freudian slip and you meant help Gaza.
The only hope Gaza has in regards to the US is if we actually work to hold our own politicians to account. Republicans are a write-off, but Democrats are suppose to be the more moral party that has a baseline on human rights.
That notion needs to be enforced by voters, Democrats need to be held to at least the most basic of standards.
When we vote for an out and proud genocide supporter we move the Democrats further from reform that would help Gaza. If we vote for a pro-genocide dem it’s the exact same to the people in Gaza as us voting for a Republican, and it has the added effect of signaling to the party that voters will accept genocide support from Democrats.
It should be unacceptable.
In the worst case scenarios, personally I would rather say, “I voted for Kamala hoping she would improve the situation in Israel which didn’t happen” instead of, “I voted third party / didn’t vote at all, and Trump made it worse in Israel”. At least in one situation, there’s a chance.
And if she signals support for Netanyahu during the visit, I would rather say that I voted against a future of continued genocide support for the Democratic party.
You’re correct, I meant Gaza, or improve the situation in Israel.
It wasn’t pro Palestine protestors that got Biden to step down. It was the pressure from his declining mental state. Policy didn’t have anything to do with.
I do stand by my comment that the majority of people are anti-genoocide. If every Jewish person in America was pro genocide, that would still be a minority of people.
I still don’t understand how with all of those facts, you could possibly justify not voting Kamala when it seems your single issue is this particular issue, not that it’s not significant. There will be one of two outcomes in November, Dem or Rep. Unless Kamala does something exceptionally unhinged before the DNC, the candidates will be Trump or Kamala. One will 100% be worse for Gaza. Not voting, voting third party, or voting Trump are all the same thing in reality.
All of this ignores the fact that it’s a much more complex issue than yes or no.
100% pressure from the debate. I didn’t hear a peep from the Palestine vocalists for weeks leading up to his announcement, only his debate performance.
So the fact that Uncommitted votes across multiple swing states added up to more than the margins he won by in those states in 2020 had no influence.
I think you know that’s not true. His debate performance was the final straw but wouldn’t have been enough on its own. The dems were calculating (wrongly, I think) that they could ignore the anti-genocide demographic as long as they made up for it with right-wing independents. The debate happened and the combination of losing both groups of voters made it impossible to ignore reality, even for the neoliberal establishment.
Biden being ousted was a referendum by voters on his support for the genocide as much as it was about age.
In her place, Trump would be lauding how great he thinks the US-Israeli alliance is and commit twice as many resources to Israel in the process. Acting like Harris is anywhere near as bad as Trump on the issue of Palestine is either being grossly naive or intentionally deceitful, while not voting for her just because she isn’t pro-Palestine enough is counter productive when Trump is far less so.
Again, we haven’t seen if she is as bad as Trump yet. Biden is, we know that, and it’s a large part of what made him unelectable. If Harris picks up the genocidal mantle she’s inheriting that same unelectability as far as I’m concerned, it would be a politically stupid move.
We have to see now if Harris will take deliberate steps to distance herself from the genocide support of Biden. Meeting with Netanyahu is not a good indication, but it’s yet to be seen how it plays out.
Wow, seems like that crystal ball of yours is in excellent working order still. How do you keep it working so consistently for so long? Is it the rock polish?
Genocide is not a “single issue”. It’s every issue. No, I will not “come on” and accept it as part of the party platform.
If Dems can’t stop themselves supporting an active genocide they’re politically and morally useless.
Not a great sign, if she’s going to go out of her way cozy up to him it’s back to Uncommitted for me. Certainly don’t want to, but I guess we’ll see if Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with this.
“She might meet a foreign leader who is doing bad things, so I’m not decided between her and Project 2025.”
Really?
I won’t support pro-genocide candidates. Yes really.
She really should not be meeting with right-wing fascists.
Meeting with someone ≠ Endorsing them
World politics is about negotiation. I’d rather she tucked into the conflict and tried to improve the situation than ignoring it.
You’re talking to someone who just told me that it wouldn’t even make a difference if Trump marched U.S. troops into Gaza.
You’re deeply dishonest.
And yet that’s almost literally what you said.
https://lemmy.world/comment/11358062
So it’s weird that you’re calling me deeply dishonest.
Trying to cut out context is dishonest.
You want to believe that the IDF is held back by lack of personnel, but they’re not. They are not being held back from anything they want to do. Putting US soldiers in Gaza does not add to their capacity to continue the genocide exactly as they wish.
Zionists keep trying to convince everyone that Trump would be worse on this, which is simply a way of refusing to accept the reality of just how bad it really is.
There is no context in which “more dead people is not a worse outcome” is a moral answer.
And the context in which you said that saving one life during the Holocaust didn’t matter?
I’d say most people here would be absolutely willing to save a single person’s life from genocide.
You’re deeply misguided.
This is exactly why Netanyahu is doing what he is doing. He wants Trump. He knows the US doesn’t/can’t lose an ally in the region and he forces the administrations hand, which makes them look bad to their supporters. Those supporters stop supporting… and then Trump gets elected.
Don’t let Netanyahu play you. Don’t fall into his trap. Vote in local elections for people opposed to the genocide. Reach out to them and express it is a huge, maybe the only, concern of yours. That is how you bring change.
Removing yourself from the conversation doesn’t make the problem go away.
There are millions that just don’t vote. Never have, never will. So their stance has no impact. It is worse to be willing to use that vote and then throw it away on a single issue that won’t change, no matter the candidate (and honestly in this case one candidate there is a chance vs one where there is zero chance for Gaza and things get worse for Ukraine).
We’ve effectively been given the Trolley Problem and, instead of playing, you’re choosing to walk away and whatever happens, happens, as long as you feel good.
It can be endorsing, yes. There’s a reason so many democrats are not attending – going to Netanyahu’s speech lends him legitimacy and a greater perception of support.
Stopping the genocide doesn’t require negotiation, you withhold aid until they stop.
But as I keep saying, Harris will need to find way to signal that her meeting isn’t in support of Netanyahu. If she goes in and is giving him hugs and holding his hand up in unity and that kind of bullshit, that’s a really bad sign. It can go either way, I’m just stating that I won’t support genocide just because it gets a fresh face on it, Harris needs to prove her commitment to holding Netanyahu to account in a real, material way.
Anything but voting for Harris would be supporting Trump, an even worse pro-genocide candidate. You can’t equate Harris, who’s calling for a ceasefire, with Trump, who gave Israel Jerusalem and is telling Israel to keep going with the genocide.
“Anything but voting for Trump is supporting Harris.”
Nonsensical, right?
Biden and Trump are equally bad on genocide, there is no “worse”. If Harris chooses to signal she’s continuing Biden’s genocide support I’m out again. I’m willing to compromise on Harris’ generally but nothing has changed in my tolerance for pro-genocide candidates, and nothing ever will.
Luckily not funding genocide is an easy hurdle to cross. We’ll see if Harris manages to do it.
Yes but that’s the “things are bad (Harris), so might as well make them worse (Trump)” attitude.
No. This is about Democratic support of genocide. I simply won’t support any candidate willing to help kill and starve children.
If Dems want my vote the price is the same as it’s been; don’t support far-right fascists committing genocide.
Very, very low bar.
Bullshit. You’d find some other reason to whine and discourage others from voting. No one’s buying your both sides shit.
Nope. I’ve been supportive of Harris up to this point since her stepping forward as potential nominee. I genuinely hope she can demonstrate that she’s against the genocide.
There will be two candidates to choose from who are going to collectively get 90+ percent of the vote. You can vote for the lesser of 2 evils or waste your vote on third party.
“Genocide is bad, so I’m going to support the candidate who supports ultra genocide with extra genocide at home instead”
There’s no such thing as “ultra genocide” and if there was, it’s already happening in Gaza and it’s being fueled by a Democratic administration, not a Republican one.
I would consider calls to nuke Gaza ultra genocide
Uh huh, and how realistic do you actually think that is? Israel is going to allow Trump to drop a nuclear bomb on their border…
The fact that the retort is “It could be worse, they could drop a literal nuke on Gaza” should be an indicator that what you’re arguing as an acceptable alternative is indefensibly extreme.
Do you know nothing about Project 2025? It will cause more genocide. Genocide in your country.
Do you want to see Latinos carted away and queer kids committing suicide after being forced into “conversion therapy?” Because that’s exactly what Trump will bring.
I won’t support genocide in another country to spare myself from potential harm, no, that would be morally bankrupt.
I don’t vote based on fear. I can’t be threatened in that way.
Yourself? This isn’t about you.
How about all the other people? Millions of people. Fuck them? Because she’s just having a meeting with the perpetrator of a different genocide on the other side of the planet? A genocide that Trump will also perpetuate and has already said he would make worse?
So essentially your refusal to “support genocide” in another country will make that genocide worse and add more genocide to the mix.
But hey, this is all about sparing you from potential harm, right? Fuck all those illegals and homos.
You dismiss the idea that the humanity of Palestinians is equal to your own. Its ok for them to die under the bombs and weapons we supply to Israel, as long as it allows us to avoid our own domestic discomfort. We differ on this fact.
I’m part of the groups that will probably be most immediately effected by a Trump admin. That fear will not push me to support a genocide.
If the American system is broken and corrupted then we as Americans should be facing and reconciling those problems ourselves, not transferring our own potential discomfort and suffering overseas to kids that are out of sight and out of mind.
For fuck’s sake, it’s also not about me.
It’s about millions of other people. People whose lives you apparently don’t care about. I guess they’re too brown or too queer to be part of that whole ‘humanity being equal’ thing.
Yes, it is. It’s cowardice and self-interest. You’re not going to be able to flip this.
You can’t on one hand claim you care about the hypothetical suffering millions while arguing for ignoring a very real on-going genocide funded by your representatives.
“Just let Democrats get away with funding the slaughter of Gazans as long as we can skirt around the consequences of our corrupt politics here.”
Maybe this will help; imagine the Gazans are white Americans. Ignore that they’re brown and live behind some imaginary line “somewhere else” in the world and instead pretend you see them as equal to you.
When you take the perspective that they’re just as human and deserving of life as any of the other domestic groups you’re talking about, you realize that Biden is, at this very moment, doing a “Project 2025” of his own. It’s just against human beings who happen to be 7,000 miles away instead of closer to you.
If Harris chooses to continue Bidens policy on this, I can’t vote for her, exactly the same as I can’t vote for Trump or Biden or any other zionist.
I am just so relieved that most people seem capable of understanding nuance.
By all means figure out if you can somehow give us a better candidate. But when it’s time for you to actually do something real, remember to play the hand you have.
Having different values from you does not mean they don’t understand nuance. They’re not stupid. They just have a moral boundary that they refuse to cross: supporting genocide. If the lesser evil involves voting for a politician who provides military and financial assistance to a genocidal regime, then I would say that the only morally correct course of action is revolution.
What kind of revolution? The kind that involves more soldiers and cops raping citizens here? Because as far as I know that’s the only type there is.
No, a working class revolution. A general strike. Whatever you want to call it when the working class refuse to capitulate to the demands of the ruling class. And if necessary we will defend ourselves, but violence is not the goal. The goal is to remove the ruling class from power, by any means necessary. By refusing to provide for them, and to follow their demands, they lose their power, and alternative structures for society without imbalances of power or systems of oppression can be formed.
I hear you. I feel that. But just remember to play the hand you actually have as best you can. Sometimes the situation sucks but it’s still up to us to make decisions.
I support your diversity of tactics, I just don’t think the American people are there with you yet… So keep on pushing us.
Sure, I get that too. I completely understand why people would’ve voted for Biden, despite all of the glaring reasons not to. I sympathise entirely with your situation, it’s really a shitty decision to be left with. I just think it’s unfair to say that people who disagree with your decision are, necessarily, not understanding the nuance of the situation. They probably all understand why you’d make your decision and for the most part don’t really have a problem with it. Most of us just want an acknowledgment and an understanding that both sides are fucking horrible and that we need to find a third solution, whatever that may be, in the long run, because voting for the least worst option will only work for so long, and we’re rapidly running out of road.
Ah, so you’re pro fascism and Trump. Got it.
I’m anti-genocide. Biden’s policy on Gaza is fascism. It’s the same at its core as Project 2025 or any other far right agenda. He’s funding the slaughter of innocent human beings.
I’m not far-right, so I won’t support it. Hopefully Harris chooses not to as well.
You’re not dumb and you’ve heard it a thousand times I’m sure, but you live in a country with FPtP voting and is therefore a two party system. You know that not voting or voting third party in the general election only benefits Trump. The ONLY chance of things getting better in Israel is if Kamala wins, even if she doesn’t do anything, because the alternative is things get worse. Those are facts.
Damn near everyone is anti-genoocide, but most of us realize the reality of the situation. Kamala may make it better over there, Trump will make it worse, and there is no third option. As mentioned there’s one option for your vote that isn’t pro Trump. Voting for Kamala is the best option for Israel regardless if you think she’s doing good enough for your beliefs.
If you disagree, tell me how you think any other vote will help Israel. If it’s purely a moral choice, explain how you think it’s morally better to turn your back on the problem knowing full well the facts of FPtP, vs voting for the best option that may make things better. The possibility of betterment is better than no possibility at all.
In the worst case scenarios, personally I would rather say, “I voted for Kamala hoping she would improve the situation in Israel which didn’t happen” instead of, “I voted third party / didn’t vote at all, and Trump made it worse in Israel”. At least in one situation, there’s a chance.
I’ll jump in here, though I know that everybody is dug in, and this is akin to poking the hornets’ nest. Anyway, it’s a matter of differing ethical calculations. On one side is utilitarianism, which says that if your choice is between Nazis who will murder 5,000,000 Jews, and worse-Nazis who will kill 5,000,001 Jews, then it’s a moral imperative to support Hitler for the sake of that one person.
And that’s… not wrong. I can imagine that many people would make that call, if it were some sort of send-a-time-traveler-to-kill-Hitler-or-not scenario, when the outcomes are fixed. But imagine deciding to support Hitler and personally aiding the systematic murder of 5,000,000 humans when the alternative is speculative, still in the future, when it’s not assured. I think a lot fewer people would be willing to do it. How many more people would the hypothetical worse-Nazis have to kill to make that an appealing choice?
Everybody has got a moral line after which we can’t abide cold, utilitarian calculations. Maybe some people would help produce the Zyklon B on the prospect of saving one life. Maybe some would only do it if it was required to save humanity from extinction. Probably a lot of people would do it to save themselves. (Hello, 1930’s Germans!) That’s getting off-topic, the point is that everybody has a line, and some of us would just refuse to aid the Holocaust.
Furthermore, the reality is not nearly so black and white as it is usually framed here on Lemmy. We don’t actually know what a future dementia-addled President would do. He has the attention span of a toddler. He’s not a strong manager and has a lot of power-hungry underlings (like Vance); his administration might resemble a bucket of rats each scrambling for the top. We don’t know how the world would react to anything he’d do. Bottom line, it’s speculative at this point.
And on the other side, the usual framing casts Democrats as fixed in their positions and imperturbable as the faces on Mount Rushmore, or at least boxed-in politically. They’re not. President Biden has already felt the heat and slightly altered his position on Israel in a couple of instances. In fact, while we could change and abide their support of genocide, they too could change at any time to just simply not support genocide. They could even frame it (accurately, as I see it) as tough love, protecting Israel from itself and assuring its survival long-term.
That’s why we pressure the people actually in power now, who are the ones supporting genocide right now, because that’s democracy in action. Yes, to be fair, it might result in a worse outcome later, but that’s far from assured, and in the mean time, you’re telling people not to even try to stop evil.
The election system is first passed the post, that doesn’t mean that’s where our political agency and influence ends – we just proved that with Biden stepping down. We created a third option.
A large enough number of people said “We will not vote for a zionist” and it had a real world effect on the behavior of the party. That never would’ve happened if people just accepted that Biden was running again and there was nothing we could do.
This is not true. There are many Israel supporters, even here on this thread.
I’ll assume this was a freudian slip and you meant help Gaza.
The only hope Gaza has in regards to the US is if we actually work to hold our own politicians to account. Republicans are a write-off, but Democrats are suppose to be the more moral party that has a baseline on human rights.
That notion needs to be enforced by voters, Democrats need to be held to at least the most basic of standards.
When we vote for an out and proud genocide supporter we move the Democrats further from reform that would help Gaza. If we vote for a pro-genocide dem it’s the exact same to the people in Gaza as us voting for a Republican, and it has the added effect of signaling to the party that voters will accept genocide support from Democrats.
It should be unacceptable.
And if she signals support for Netanyahu during the visit, I would rather say that I voted against a future of continued genocide support for the Democratic party.
You’re correct, I meant Gaza, or improve the situation in Israel.
It wasn’t pro Palestine protestors that got Biden to step down. It was the pressure from his declining mental state. Policy didn’t have anything to do with.
I do stand by my comment that the majority of people are anti-genoocide. If every Jewish person in America was pro genocide, that would still be a minority of people.
I still don’t understand how with all of those facts, you could possibly justify not voting Kamala when it seems your single issue is this particular issue, not that it’s not significant. There will be one of two outcomes in November, Dem or Rep. Unless Kamala does something exceptionally unhinged before the DNC, the candidates will be Trump or Kamala. One will 100% be worse for Gaza. Not voting, voting third party, or voting Trump are all the same thing in reality.
All of this ignores the fact that it’s a much more complex issue than yes or no.
Yes, it was. There were multiple swing states that he simply couldn’t win due to the Uncommitted vote and the party knew it. Don’t gaslight.
100% pressure from the debate. I didn’t hear a peep from the Palestine vocalists for weeks leading up to his announcement, only his debate performance.
So the fact that Uncommitted votes across multiple swing states added up to more than the margins he won by in those states in 2020 had no influence.
I think you know that’s not true. His debate performance was the final straw but wouldn’t have been enough on its own. The dems were calculating (wrongly, I think) that they could ignore the anti-genocide demographic as long as they made up for it with right-wing independents. The debate happened and the combination of losing both groups of voters made it impossible to ignore reality, even for the neoliberal establishment.
Biden being ousted was a referendum by voters on his support for the genocide as much as it was about age.
In her place, Trump would be lauding how great he thinks the US-Israeli alliance is and commit twice as many resources to Israel in the process. Acting like Harris is anywhere near as bad as Trump on the issue of Palestine is either being grossly naive or intentionally deceitful, while not voting for her just because she isn’t pro-Palestine enough is counter productive when Trump is far less so.
Again, we haven’t seen if she is as bad as Trump yet. Biden is, we know that, and it’s a large part of what made him unelectable. If Harris picks up the genocidal mantle she’s inheriting that same unelectability as far as I’m concerned, it would be a politically stupid move.
We have to see now if Harris will take deliberate steps to distance herself from the genocide support of Biden. Meeting with Netanyahu is not a good indication, but it’s yet to be seen how it plays out.
You guys are just scrambling to throw stuff at the wall just to see what sticks, aren’t you? Nothing but F.U.D
Wow, seems like that crystal ball of yours is in excellent working order still. How do you keep it working so consistently for so long? Is it the rock polish?
What crystal ball? “I guess we’ll see.” is fortune telling to you?
we criticize the Republicans for being single issue voters, yet we’re doing this? come on. people’s lives are at risk here at home too.
Genocide is not a “single issue”. It’s every issue. No, I will not “come on” and accept it as part of the party platform. If Dems can’t stop themselves supporting an active genocide they’re politically and morally useless.