this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024

-4 points (0.0% liked)

politics

24747 readers

3030 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

-4

Democrats Tuned Out Gaza Protests at the DNC. History Won’t Forget. (truthout.org)

submitted 10 months ago by verdantbanana@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As Vice President Kamala Harris received the presidential nomination at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), thousands of people marched near the convention demanding an end to U.S. arms shipments to Israel and the war on Gaza. The protesters, led by Palestinian and Jewish activists, represented a diverse coalition including anti-war veterans, climate justice activists, and labor organizers. Despite efforts by Democrats to keep the Palestine issue sidelined, the marchers made their voices heard, declaring Harris and President Joe Biden complicit in the genocide in Gaza. The protesters came from communities and movements that are often considered part of the Democratic coalition, warning that their votes could not be taken for granted unless the party takes concrete action to end the occupation and devastation in Palestine. Organizers estimate around 30,000 people demonstrated in Chicago over the course of the week, making Palestine impossible to ignore during the convention. The activists drew connections between the struggle for Palestinian liberation and the fight against racist violence and state repression in the U.S., challenging the Democratic Party's complicity in both. The protests encountered a heavy police presence, with hundreds of riot police surrounding the march at all times. Despite the tension, the demonstration remained largely peaceful as the protesters demanded justice for Palestine. As Kamala Harris prepared to take the stage, the marchers continued their chants and songs, determined to keep the spotlight on the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza and the Democratic Party's failure to address it.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Voting is transactional. It is a tool. If you're voting without demands is just weird. These politicians are not your friends or family. There is no need for the weird parasocial element to it.

I stand with the protesters. The same thing happened to activists for police reform. They went through every channel and protested just to be used as a set piece and watch the Biden admin increase police funding, and didn't do much of anything. Liberals always disapprove of any form of accountability or protest. You will never please them unless you're mindlessly Blue No Matter Who.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Voting is transactional. It is a tool. If you're voting without demands is just weird. These politicians are not your friends or family. There is no need for the weird parasocial element to it.

Absolutely. But voting is also strategic. I'm not seeing any sense of strategy behind the actions of the protesters now, as other commenters have pointed out. I stand with their goal. But until someone coherently explains how their actions lead to less harm in Gaza I'm not going to support said actions.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

people protesting is supposed to lead to our leaders listening and changing course

women's suffrage

war protests in the 60s

protests to end segregation and demand better rights

list goes on and on

both parties now though have gotten to where they instantly demonize protesters demanding better

for example, pushing out tons of propaganda to the US citizens that enforces division and separation

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

I don't think it's demonization to say "your protests are counterproductive to your cause given the current electoral reality".

Paraphrasing the other commenter, politicians are tools. So are political parties. The Democratic party is the best tool we have right now to preventing the GOP from backsliding not only with Gaza but with a slew of other progressive priorities. I don't see a lot of these protesters being able to recognize that, and it speaks in their strategy.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago

These people think haggling starts with a guarantee to buy the product. They get ripped off, then go back for more

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

These protests make little sense to me. I fully support the goals of the protesters. I am opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza that are clearly aimed at a Palestinian genocide. However, I don't see how these protests are supposed to help achieve the goal of ending the violence and suffering of the Palestinian people. In fact, if they do anything at all, they will only help Trump get elected.

These protesters should be going after every member of congress that has supported the continued shipment of weapons to Israel, republican and democrat alike, but where have they been? They should have been out supporting democrats like Jamaal Bowman who lost his primary to a moderate, pro-Israel democrat because of AIPAC. AIPAC who has spent more than $15 million dollars this season to try and unseat progressive democrats who have supported their cause. These protesters should have been out protesting AIPAC but haven't heard a peep from them.

Now, here they are harassing the only presidential candidate on the ballot that might possibly support them if she wins, but who cannot say that now because if she does, AIPAC will drop $10s of millions of dollars to oppose her and potentially cost her the election. And that is the only thing these protests can accomplish. If protesters succeed in turning voters against Harris, where are those votes going to go? Either to a man who has stated that he fully supports Israel's actions and that he just wants them to hurry up and get it done, or to a third party candidate who cannot possibly win but could siphon enough votes from Harris so that Trump could win anyway.

I can't help but think that these well meaning protesters are being manipulated by the powers that be to undermine their own goals. Stop attacking democrats in general and start supporting progressives who support your cause.

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I said roughly the same thing, while pointing out that the OP has pushed anti voting agenda in the past and got my comment removed (I did use the word idiot). ~~The mods are not allowing discourse here.~~

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Meh, it's rule three. You can say that OP's ideas are idiotic, but you can't say OP is an idiot. They are allowing discourse but not ad hominem attacks. It's really a good thing for the level of discourse in a sub.

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fair enough. I didn’t call the OP an idiot, but suggested that if they believe not voting will help the Palestinians they were an idiot. But I’ll refrain in the future.

[–] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

You also accused OP of being a troll. Which is also not allowed.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, even if they have a history of that, doesn't make them a troll.

It means they have different opinions than you. And that's ok. You don't have to get personal and accuse people of stuff though.

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

My comment wasn't based on our differing opinions, but rather the OP's post/comment history. However name calling isn't cool and as I said in a reply a few hours back, I'll refrain from that in the future.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The better alternative is to abandon the duopoly completely

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

My question to the people withholding their vote because of Gaza is: what is your plan to support the Palestinian people when Trump gets in? How will you be supporting them when Trump starts calling for nukes? What will you be doing when Trump decides to use the US military to suppress protests?

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I'll stand proud that I didn't vote for the people who were already complicit in genocide

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fat load of good that'll do for the remaining Palestinians after Trump helps Netenyahu finish the job. Why would you be proud of such a monstrous thing?

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I'm "monstrous", but not the Democrats who have happily supplied Israel with weapons to commit their genocide.

Your moral compass is broken.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Never said they weren't, but you're helping the even more monstrous Republicans nuke Palestine. Your moral compass is missing.

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Who is going to nuke Palestine? That's pure speculation.

Meanwhile, the current administration is ACTUALLY actively helping Israel starve, maim, and kill children

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna145752

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

OK again, it's pure speculation. First, that's a Senator, who doesn't even have the authority to use nuclear weapons. Second, the Democrats have shown that they love Netanyahu and will do whatever he wants. If he calls for nukes, maybe a Harris administration will consider it. After all, the party all enthusiastically clapped for the genocide

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like speculation to me. On the other hand, Trump said Netenyahu to finish the job, and called him as a private citizen to tell him not to agree to the Democrats ceasefire because it would help the Harris campaign.

You need to consider actually learning about what's going on instead of clutching your pearls over politically impotent purity tests. Gaza is a wildly complicated geopolitical situation, as the top comment pointed out. You just come across as naive and uninformed.

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry what's speculation on my part???

Second, Trump said that? Oh yeah, he means whatever he says all the time. He never lies, he never talks out of his ass, he ever makes promises he won't keep

Meanwhile, the current administration has failed to act at every "red line" crossed by Israel and continues to ACTUALLY SUPPLY Israel with weapons to continue its genocide.

Sorry that my "purity test" is "no complicity in killing children".

And I'm sorry to see you feel that killing children is "a complicated situation".

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

the Democrats have shown that they love Netanyahu and will do whatever he wants. If he calls for nukes, maybe a Harris administration will consider it.

Speculation.

Second, Trump said that? Oh yeah, he means whatever he says all the time. He never lies, he never talks out of his ass, he ever makes promises he won't keep

The mental gymnastics here is too much for me to believe you're sincerely suggesting this excuse. The Republicans are far more favorable to Netenyahu. To suggest otherwise is laughably out of touch.

Meanwhile, the current administration has failed to act at every "red line" crossed by Israel and continues to ACTUALLY SUPPLY Israel with weapons to continue its genocide.

Say you didn't read the to comment without saying it.

1, that stuff is appropriated by Congress, the administration legally cannot deny supplying what was voted on. Legally, Israel is our ally, and our actions are limited, unless you prefer that American hegemony was entirely unchecked and the President could just do whatever they want regardless of how Congress votes? Maybe if leftists voted lesser evil instead of clutching their pearls, we'd have a Congress that would change things by now, but at least you get to be proud of inaction as the world passes you by.

2, as noted above, AIPAC is a powerful force in our elections, and there are more Zionists in this country than you think; this should be the case, it's terrible, but it's true and pretending it isn't relevant does not achieve useful goals. A hard-line stance at this point will mobilize them and possibly cost Dems the election.

3, as noted above, Republicans would be objectively worse for Gaza, they're open about that fact. The administration has been trying to broker a ceasefire for months, Trump has personally taken action to sabotage that same ceasefire.

Long term, the best strategy is voting Dem and applying pressure immediately after the election, when they can safely take action. Voting Republican is the worst strategy if you care about Palestinians; not voting is the second worst strategy, and ultimately achieves the same thing. When you can understand why careful deliberate action is necessary in complex and delicate political situations, you will be mature enough to have a potentially valuable opinion on geopolitics. If you think abstention is ever an effective strategy, then you are not yet mature.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Long term, the best strategy is voting Dem and applying pressure immediately after the election, when they can safely take action.

Actually, the best strategy is to tell people you won't vote for genocide before the election. Whether you do end up voting or not is immaterial to the pressure that can be applied when the party is at its most influencable, but telling people to wait until after the election to try and move the party is telling them to wait until their influence is at its minimum.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nope. That validates progressives not voting, which can convince the progressive you're talking to to not vote, which results in a Republican victory and more support for Netenyahu. That strategy hurts Gaza, we've been over this. It's like you totally ignored all the logic in favor of repeating the same geopolitically ignorant taking points you've been fed by right-wing stooges trying to sabotage the neoliberal party in favor of the fascists.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Sorry I don't feel represented by a political party that aids and abets genocide. Democrats have a chance to earn my vote and continue to squander it.

The logic is that if the party doesn't have an incentive to change then it won't.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Totally irrational. It's not about who represents you most, they aren't on the ballot. It's about which of the two represents you more than the other. What incentive does the party have to sabotage their races (AIPAC influence is real) to court an uninformed bloc that's unlikely to vote in the first place? Your abstinence is not incentive, no logic whatsoever.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's not about who represents you most, they aren't on the ballot.

I already know America is not a democracy, that's why I don't feel the need to vote in support of a corrupt system.

What incentive does the party have to sabotage their races (AIPAC influence is real) to court an uninformed bloc that's unlikely to vote in the first place?

Depends, do they need our votes to win the election or not?

If they need our votes, they should start acting like they're trying to earn them.

If they don't think they need our votes, then they don't have to represent us. And since they don't represent us, we shouldn't vote for them.

Totally irrational. Your abstinence is not incentive, no logic whatsoever.

It's perfectly logical, you just don't like the conclusion that the logic points towards, because it betrays the party leadership as being self-interested, cynical, and willing to aid and abet genocide to preserve their bloody campaign funding.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I don't feel the need to vote in support of a corrupt system.

Do you... do you think that if enough people don't vote that the government will say "Shucks, guess we have to redo the election with better candidates"? If only one person in the whole country votes, they decide the winner. You gain absolutely nothing by not voting, all you're doing is shifting power to those who disagree with you the most. This is just plain idiotic.

If they need our votes, they should start acting like they're trying to earn them.

They need enough votes. If they think pandering to your demographic will cost them other demographics, they will not pander to you. Despite your claims, America is a democratic republic, granted with it's own peculiarities in determining electoral votes. The candidate who wins the most votes wins the state. You will be left in the dust as irrelevant noise in the flood of people who know how to use their vote, and you will get zero representation. Congratulations.

It's perfectly logical, you just don't like the conclusion that the logic points towards, because it betrays the party leadership as being self-interested, cynical, and willing to aid and abet genocide to preserve their bloody campaign funding.

Nope, there is no logic. It's based on nonsense feelings with no correspondence to the functional mechanism of our elections. Abstinence has no effect, and in fact will probably push the party farther right to scoop moderates because they actually vote. Congratulations.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

do you think that if enough people don't vote that the government will say "Shucks, guess we have to redo the election with better candidates"?

I wish. A sane electoral system would declare a redo if the abstains win. No, I simply don't consider how other people will be voting to be a factor. I'll base my decision not on the promises they make, but the ones they have already fulfilled.

You gain absolutely nothing by not voting, all you're doing is shifting power to those who disagree with you the most.

What I gain from not-voting is a clear conscience.

And if I'm the deciding vote in my solid-blue state then power has already shifted so far that my one vote won't hold it back for long.

This is just plain idiotic.

The only idiotic part is how much time you're wasting trying to convince a disillusioned old anarchist to pick between the negative peace that is a false promise of a "reasonable" politician and an increasingly demented madman who stands out as the greatest living example for why the management of our lives can't be trusted to a political party.

They need enough votes. If they think pandering to your demographic will cost them other demographics, they will not pander to you.

Then they should stop pretending that they're on my side. They aren't "the left", they're liberals who can abide by genocide so long as it's happening somewhere else. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.

Despite your claims, America is a democratic republic, granted with it's own peculiarities in determining electoral votes. The candidate who wins the most votes wins the state. You will be left in the dust as irrelevant noise in the flood of people who know how to use their vote, and you will get zero representation. Congratulations.

Make up your mind, is it "democratic" or does everyone's vote not count?

Abstinence has no effect, and in fact will probably push the party farther right to scoop moderates because they actually vote. Congratulations.

Of course, they were going to do that anyway, especially if we live in the good timeline where the Republican party collapses under the weight of its impending electoral failure. Democrats will keep triangulating towards the right to pick up the mythical "moderate" and become the new right-wing party while some new group starts to pick up the pieces on the Left. Probably the greens.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'll base my decision not on the promises they make, but the ones they have already fulfilled.

Not sure what promises the Harris administration have fulfilled, since it hasn't existed yet.

how much time you're wasting trying to convince a disillusioned old anarchist

That might be a point if I was trying to convince a disillusioned old anarchist. What I'm actually doing is publicly debunking your public nonsense so that impressionable onlookers in swing states don't try to emulate that nonsense.

Make up your mind, is it "democratic" or does everyone's vote not count?

Votes count. Non-votes don't. There is no conflict in logic here.

Democrats will keep triangulating towards the right to pick up the mythical "moderate" and become the new right-wing party while some new group starts to pick up the pieces on the Left. Probably the greens.

All the more reason to entice them further left now so that the future landscape, in the good timeline, rests further left. I'm all for that future, and want it to start off as far left as possible.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

All the more reason to entice them further left now so that the future landscape, in the good timeline, rests further left. I'm all for that future, and want it to start off as far left as possible.

And how, precisely, is a promise that they don't have to move further left to earn your vote supposed to entice them into anything?

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A party with a comfortable margin can embrace less centrist policies when their voters ask for them (write to your representatives everyone). A party with an uncertain margin has to calculate their platform to target the largest demographics. Using your vote + using your voice = representation.

How, precisely, does a promise that you won't vote for them unless they alienate a larger demographic entice them into anything?

[–] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

A party with a comfortable margin can embrace less centrist policies when their voters ask for them (write to your representatives everyone). A party with an uncertain margin has to calculate their platform to target the largest demographics.

They must have a very comfortable margin if they can ignore the majority of Americans and instead embrace less centrist policies like helping Israel bomb schools and hospitals.

Using your vote + using your voice = representation.

You should be happy, you can safely ignore my vote and my voice because the Democrats will be winning this election regardless.

How, precisely, does a promise that you won't vote for them unless they alienate a larger demographic entice them into anything?

The segment of Americans that oppose genocide are the majority, the smaller group that the Democrats are trying not to alienate is AIPAC. The only things that could entice them to change are an even larger quantity of campaign financing, or electoral consequences.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They must have a very comfortable margin if they can ignore the majority of Americans

Unfortunately, I don't think that's the majority. I think the majority either support Israel without really thinking about it, or don't care.

you can safely ignore my vote and my voice

Your vote I can ignore, your voice muddying the water for other impressionable voters I cannot

[–] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately, I don't think that's the majority. I think the majority either support Israel without really thinking about it, or don't care.

Unfortunately, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Polls show an overwhelming majority of Democrats disapprove of Israel's military adventurism in Gaza:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx

It’s not just the Gallup polling about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but also surveys that ask about what’s going on in Gaza today showing this sea change. In a May Data for Progress survey, 83 percent of Democrats supported a “permanent cease-fire and de-escalation of violence” in Gaza. A March Gallup poll found that a clear majority of all respondents, as well as 75 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents, now oppose Israeli military action in Gaza, although those numbers were a little bit lower in the most recent survey. Gallup polling also found that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s net favorability among all respondents in July was down 10 points, with just 12 percent of Democrats saying they support him. And in a March Pew study, 44 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents opposed U.S. military aid for Israel, with just 25 percent in favor.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/08/kamala-harris-dnc-israel-palestine-polls-voters-ceasefire-arms.html

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Of poll respondents. There's a large overlap between people who don't care, and people who don't answer polls. And oh yeah, Harris has been calling for a ceasefire

And disregarding AIPAC is stupid. Picking up the single issue voters by overtly pissing off AIPAC during the election will unleash a multimillion dollar ad campaign. Look at what happened to the squad.

There's no good reason to do that now. A smart candidate would stay relatively quiet until the election, and then go full bore on the offensive. Especially since, y'know, the vice president doesn't even have authority here so it's stupid to blame it on her. Especially when the other candidate is actively sabotaging ceasefire negotiations.

There's just no logic here.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Of poll respondents. There's a large overlap between people who don't care, and people who don't answer polls.

"Of voters. There's a large overlap between people who don't care and people who don't vote."

If you're going to argue that polling isn't an effective means of determining public sentiment then you probably shouldn't pretend to care about voting.

And oh yeah, Harris has been calling for a ceasefire

Wake me up when there's some action behind those words.

And disregarding AIPAC is stupid. Picking up the single issue voters by overtly pissing off AIPAC during the election will unleash a multimillion dollar ad campaign. Look at what happened to the squad

Indeed, look at what this foreign influence campaign did to our precious American democracy. But hey, we're not ready to talk about it because the parties want to have their cake and eat it too.

There's no good reason to do that now. A smart candidate would stay relatively quiet until the election, and then go full bore on the offensive.

You said "smart" but you appear to have meant "complicit".

Especially since, y'know, the vice president doesn't even have authority here so it's stupid to blame it on her.

Since when did they abolish the bully pulpit? A lack of authority only means she couldn't change national policy unilaterally, it doesn't mean she can't actively work against arms deals and for an embargo.

Especially when the other candidate is actively sabotaging ceasefire negotiations.

Thus, the obvious move is to make the ceasefire negotiations a fait accompli by refusing to reload the aggressor's weapons. Even Trump can't sabotage a ceasefire if there's no fire left to be ceased.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I dunno what to tell you. My heart aches, aches for Palestine. More than you know. But I'm not a politician, I don't have tangible power to improve things for them directly. And none of the politicians seem particularly bothered. They're focused on their campaigns, maintaining the status quo, all of it. Like you said, complicit. It would be great if any of your strategies, or the strategies of the protesters, if anything helped. Actually made a difference. It might assuage some of the dread implicit to our daily lives as profoundly privileged and comfortable citizens of the West.

But it's resoundingly obvious that's it's just another minor calculation that gets rolled into the other calculations to win elections. People are dying. Innocent people. It eats me alive. But I'm a privileged , comfortable westerner. My ethical inclinations don't mean shit at best, and soothe me into thinking my compassion is valuable in and of itself at worst.

But I know what backwards looks like. And backwards is bad for everyone, Palestine included. Ukraine too. All the disenfranchised minorities in this country too. I can't just revel in my irrelevance, exercise my privilege by tapping out because no one on the ballot has the perfect platform. I'm afforded the opportunity to slow the backslide. And maybe slowing the backslide isn't enough for you.

But it's something tangible, and I'm going to do it. I'm going to vote lesser evil. Not like my life depends on it, because for all my troubles it's been a blessed life compared to others. If I die tomorrow, I've had a better go than most. I'm voting lesser evil to slow the backslide to mitigate damage for others, because that's what I can do.

I don't live in a clear blue state. Lots of other people don't live in clear blue states. Lots of them identify as leftist. Many of them are here. I'm begging you, don't project your exceptional privilege as a clear blue citizen as universal. This is serious, backsliding is bad for everyone. Carelessly fomenting apathy in people who could actually help is horrific. This isn't just Internet arguments. Innocent people are dying. Stop this. The Dems are garbage neo-libs, but the opposition is tangible evil. Enabling genocide is horrific, but it's marginally better than acceleration of genocide. The opposition is worse. Anything I, and the millions in swing states, can do to mitigate that horror is better than apathy.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This isn't just Internet arguments. Innocent people are dying. Stop this.

That's what I keep begging for, but instead I keep getting shouted at by Democrat sycophants who want me to vote now and fix the party never.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You really don't get it. This is just politics to you. Find. Just please, for the love of God, stop trying to drag others down with you. That's all I have to say.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

What people fail to understand about this situation is that the entire situation leaves everybody involved with what are essentially binary choices where everybody loses no matter which one you pick anyway.

Fact: Hamas launched an unprovoked attack on Israel, killing over 1000 people and holding over 200 hostage, some of which are still in captivity to this day.

Fact: Israel had every right to respond militarily and do everything in their power to rescue the hostages.

Fact: Israel's response has gone well above and beyond what is proportional and necessary, and instead has focused on bombings of civilian infrastructure with little knowledge of or regard for the hostages they're stupposed to be trying to rescue, instead focusing on a "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." approach that quickly spiraled into an all out genocide that even the israelis themselves barely bother trying to hide any more.

For simplicity's sake, and because Harris is now the nominee and Biden has dropped out, any time I refer to "Harris", assume I'm talking about the Biden/Harris administration in general.

Harris has two options here. Support Israel, or support the people of Gaza. Whichever one she chooses, she's going to piss the other side off. So far, the administration has tried their best to hide behind the existing political alliance between the US and Israel while sidestepping questions about the war in Gaza. This has led to where we are now, with calling Biden "Genocide Joe", mass protests on college campuses, and a significant amount of political fallout at home. But what would have happened if Harris were to pivot and support the Palestinians instead?

There are just shy of 175,000 people of Palestinian descent living in the US. There's 7.5 million Jews. The fact remains, whatever your personal opinion of the conflict is, there are many, many, many more people in this country who support Israel, and they are significantly more politically active, politically entrenched, and well funded. That's just reality. Any attempt at pivoting would be portrayed by the Jewish population as a betrayal of Jews and an abandonment of Israel.

The college protests we've already been seeing would look like weekend picnics compared to what would happen if we stopped supporting Israel. AIPAC just got finished spending silly amounts of money to have 3/4 of "the squad" primaried for supporting Gaza. I'm not saying they'd go all Trumpy, but they absolutely would be pouring tens of millions into getting their population to vote for a no-hoper like Jill Stein which would have the side effect of Trump getting back into office through the back door.

This is Harris' option now. Stick her fingers in her ears and scream LALALALALALALA in public over the Gaza conflict as it stands now while quietly working behind the scenes to help find a path to a ceasefire, or she could pivot on the issue and continue supporting the people of Gaza during her concession speech in November once support from the Jewish population evaporates overnight. Or having to sit and watch as President Trump essentially nuke-and-paves the entire place and turns it into the Trump Gaza Casino.

This is what people don't get. There is no good option here. Full Stop. Whichever side she chooses, she's going to piss the other side off. And any attempt at just taking a neutral stance would just end up pissing both sides off. Attempting to have "Genocide Joe" cancelled would just lead to the return to power of someone campaigning on "I'll Genocide harder!".

I know it sucks, and I know the hostages shouldn't have to wait that long and all that. I get it. But the best (read: least shitty) option is really to wait until after the election. Get Harris into office, then pressure her into supporting whichever side you're on in the conflict under threat of being primaried by a Democrat challenger in 2028. But these kind of "messages" that they're not going to support Harris will only lead to the rise to power of a man who will gladly thank them by offering them a 5% discount on a VIP package at his new middle eastern casino.

I fully support Palestine. What Israel is doing is the textbook definition of a genocide. And I wish I could wake up one morning and hear the Harris administration is pulling all support from Israel and stands with Palestine. But I'm also aware of the reality of the world we live in at both a national and geopolitical level, and can acknowledge that this is the least bad option the administration can take right now, and that the "Genocide Joe" protests and the demands those protesters are making are a clear example of cutting off your own nose to spite your face, and a clear misunderstanding of what would happen if they actually got what they're advocating for.

I promise you, with every fiber of my being and every breath in my lungs, if you are unwilling to support Harris or are planning to just stay home in protest in November, please reconsider. What you are advocating for will lead to the return to power of someone who absolutely will make the entire situation exponentially worse. Pressuring a future Harris administration with a primary challenge in 2028 is going to get you a LOT further in the long run vs. advocating for something that can only lead to the return of Trump. It is the textbook definition of a pyrrhic victory: You will lose far more than you will gain even if you "win", and that "victory" you'd be celebrating today would be guaranteed to cost you the entire war.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

not sure you fully understand the whole history and entirety of this situation

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago

They think everything started on October 7, 2023...

They sure typed a lot of words to show that they don't know shit about fuck

load more comments