First Harris-Walz events leave Gaza advocates unconvinced.
First Harris-Walz events leave Gaza advocates unconvinced.
prismreports.org
First Harris-Walz events leave Gaza advocates unconvinced
64 comments
-
-
The comments that are in this thread. Blue MAGA….. yall single issue voters (who will probably be downvoting me here) are worse than the “silent majority” republicans. Harris is surging in polls and doing fabulous. She’s also not ignoring campaigning around the country which is what setup 2016…. You’re also delusional if you think you’d be voting or campaigning for Harris if she about faced on current Israel policy. You’d just find another single issue to bring up so she’s not good enough for you.
Edit: were to that are
-
You’re also delusional if you think you’d be voting or campaigning for Harris if she about faced on current Israel policy
This is a strange assumption. I don't fault anyone for refusing to vote for a party that is complicit in genocide.
I used to agree that people should vote blue if they are pro-Palestine, because Trump will obviously be worse, but I no longer think that. If democrats can rely on simply being better than republicans to win elections, what motivation do they have to shift to better policies? If americans will elect democrats despite them supporting a genocidal dictator, what motivation do they have to stop supporting that genocidal dictator?
What's the use of having a vote if politicians don't have to earn it?
-
-
"I live in a must-win swing state, and I'm going to hold back my vote for the only candidate that won't make things worse."
Big picture, people. My god. See it.
Edit: I may have been confusing the people in this article with the PA group in this one. Still, Harris getting elected is the only chance of things not becoming way worse.
-
You know, for a lot of people, those in palestine, their families here, and muslims across the world, there isn't a difference between the current administrations policy and what Harris is proposing.
The big picture, you need to see it.
And like we had to tell Blue MAGA over and over again, its not the voters job to come to the politicians position. Its the politicians job to go get the voters. And if the voters position is "I'd rather not have my people genociced" or "I'd rather my ethnic minority not be considered less valuable than goats compared to other ethnic minorities", well then, as a reasonable person, I'm sure you can understand why they and others in solidarity with them would continue to withhold their votes.
And on withholding your vote, it is quite literally the only thing that has given us a snow-balls chance at hell in actually beating Trump. Any one putting out rhetoric to the otherwise, in the form of voter shaming, any blue will do, or blue maga, is one full step down the road into fascism. They need to be named, shamed, and ignored. They worked to give us Trump by trying to vote shame an entire nation into supporting Biden, a failed candidate who by all objective metrics had never been even competitive in his 2024 bid for president.
Kamala signaled with her Walz pick up that she would do better on Israel Gaza. Its her time to show the voters she is better, and no voter's owe her a vote either way.
-
“I live in a must-win swing state. If you promise to end a genocide I will 100% vote for you”
If democrats want to win the election they need to earn votes, it's as simple as that. If all dems have to do to win elections is not be republicans they will have absolutely zero motivation shift policy and earn votes. Withholding votes is a very powerful tool to make political changes happen and berating people for doing so is ridiculous. You're criticizing people for exercising their democratic right.
People were saying the exact same thing when Biden was running. Everyone on this website shat on the opinion that dems needed to swap out Biden. "Not voting for Biden is like voting for Trump" etc. Lo and behold, Biden drops out and there is a massive swing in momentum.
The narrative that Biden should stay in the race was literally hurting the democrats chance at winning. Despite everyone's insistence that Biden was the best chance at beating Trump, it just wasn't true. Why do operate under the assumption that americans want their leader to suckle Bibi's balls? Blocking weapons transfers until a ceasefire is the right thing to do and is not going to lose democrats the election.
-
-
Well, Trump will be much much worse? I get putting political pressure on her to take a hard stance on the issue, and don't compromise on your values, but the blue MAGA shit is absurd. She can't take a hard stance on it, she has to play politics. She is definitely better than the alternative, although I hate the idea of voting for the less evil, evil is evil. There is no middling.
-
Without the US breaking off all relations with Israel and Israel ceasing to exist there will be those Gaza advocates left unconvinced.
Here's the real question: Do they really think they would be better off with Trump? (Answer: No, they would be much worse off.)
-
I don't understand what you're saying. Just days ago the US sent weapons and money to Israel. Within a day Israel used american bombs to kill 93 palestinians while they prayed.
Just off the top of my head, within the past few weeks: Israel assasinated the Hamas negotiator in the midst of negotions. An IDF soldiers raped a palestinian prisoner to death and when they were arrested there were literal riots demanding their release.
Why the fuck is the american government supporting a genocidal dictator like Bibi? It's actually fucking insane. All Biden needs to do is threaten to stop sending weapons and the genocide ends.
-
"Shut up or you love trump."
-
No. Nice try.
There will be one of two candidates elected POTUS. Harris or Trump. Which one do you (more) want to be elected to POTUS - Trump or Harris?
That is your decision. Blather on all you want. Hurt Harris all you want. That won't change reality. You're going to have to face reality whether you like it or not.
-
-
-
this post has around 1/4 of the comments that it does on the lemmy.word version; did .world defederate somehow?
UPDATE: nope, i can see this post there so that implies no defederation. i wonder how the votes and the comments that are present in the .world version are not in the version that the rest of the lemmyverse sees.
-
I'm a lemmy.world user reading this, so I don't think so?
I think people are just tired of the same people pushing the same links all over the place, so they are ignoring them.
-
that doesn't explain why the votes and comment are missing
-
-
64 comments
Yeah. And they're going to continue to be, unfortunately. No pro-Palestinian person is capable of being elected president.
If Harris were willing to be a 1-term president, she could try to force a policy change after she was elected, but even so she'd be constantly fighting congress, who would probably just override whatever veto she threatened. Congress is bought and paid for (with very few exceptions).
It's a little older, but Pew did a fairly comprehensive survey back in March, and public opinion in the US still favored Israel. So Harris would have to buck not only majority public opinion, but it she did it now, she'd give Trump an enormously effective weapon to attack her with, something the Trump campaign is still struggling to find.
I honestly don't know what a practical answer is. Even if she privately disapproves of Israel's actions, I don't think she has any alternative of she wants to stand a chance at being elected.
One thing Harris can do without consulting congress is supporting full Palestinian membership at the UN.
She just has to instruct the state department to instruct the US ambassador to the UN to vote for Palestinian membership. Palestine would be an international recognized state within a week.
It would be the first substantial progress on the Israel-Palestine situation since 1967.
She can do this while continuing to provide military support for Israel. But it would increase legal and diplomatic pressure on Israel.
Perhaps more importantly, it would send a message to Israel: We are willing to depart from the status quo. Don’t take our protection for granted.
This would be great. She needs these voters and her current approach of calling the people asking for an end to the genocide of the Palestinian people Trump supporters has and will continue to backfire. I think we could all agree that the Walz pickup seemed like a step in the right direction, but her rhetoric has signaled more of the same. There is some argument saying that this is triangulating around AIPAC, but she also needs to recognize that neither AIPAC or Israel want her to win this election, so you don't gain an ally by capitulating to them or their rhetoric,
I think if she did what you suggest, she would stoke their ire, but honestly, I don't think they have the influence they're claimed to. If Democrats had actually stood behind the incumbent squad during those primaries, they would have won. The problem was that D's were all too eager to throw them under the bus. If they had, they would have shown AIPACs weakness in the ability for money to control outcomes, which itself is extremely valuable. Harris needs to be setting up for a wave election and that makes the influence of AIPAC relatively moot. I think she should do what you suggest.
I didn't know that. It'd still cost her AIPAC support, which could be devastating in the next election, but that would be fantastic of she could pull it off and stay in the running.
I also struggle to see what she can do. She cannot break with the current administration on foreign policy, given that she is the VP. Simply put, we don’t really know her position, and she can’t reveal it either. Dissatisfying? Sure. Understandable? Definitely.
I have no doubt she'll continue current policy. Honestly, it's not a conspiracy theory to claim Israel has a tight grip on American politics, in a number of ways, and has had for decades. Even if you discount the vast sums of money they contribute to political campaigns at all levels, and the voting blocks they control, they've been our strongest - and only really constant - regional ally in the Middle East. And there's that public sentiment to consider.
It's an uphill battle, and you're right that at the moment she's shielded by her position; however, I doubt she'll shift position is elected. She's shown no sympathy for Palestinians, has shut down protesters, and is still talking the support-Israel even as they commit gross war atrocities.
But regardless of her personal feelings, which we can't know, I think she's going to toe the line Israel draws for her. Like any US President.
Fair, fair. Although, some of us also believe that Palestine has a right to exist as a sovereign state, same as Israel. That goes beyond anti-genocide.
This is such a weird assumption. Americans support a ceasefire. Why do we think Kamala will lose the election if she says "Weapon transfers will stop until a ceasefire is reached"? She will instantly gain the rabid support of progressives who will fight tooth and nail to get her elected.
Did you just skip over the Pew study?
For that rabid support, she'll lose far more support from pro-Israel PACs, and pro-Israel communities. These losses would far outweigh the gains she'd get from progressives, none of whom are going to vote for Trump anyway. Trump's even more pro-Israel than Kamala; a pro-Palestine voter would have to be a utter moron to not recognize that Kamala is a better option for Palestinians than Trump. She may keep sending Israel money, but at least she's not actively telling Israel to go ahead and start building gas chambers.