Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in November’s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because he’s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying they’re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet it’s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the “uncommitted” movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the president’s base hollowed out his support well in advance of the debate.
The Democrats and their presumptive nominee Kamala Harris are faced with a choice: On the one hand, they can continue Biden’s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. That would help allow the party to cover for Biden and put a positive spin on a smooth handoff, even though we all know this would mainly benefit the embittered president himself and his small coterie of loyalists. Such a choice would confirm that the institutional rot that allowed the current situation to develop still characterizes the party.
Just how would there be more? What evidence do you have for that?
The evidence is 9/11, the US got attacked, lost almost 2000 people, and they killed around a half million civilians during the resulting fighting.
Oh you think we’re far enough down the thread, I forgot we covered this already?
0.8 percent. Versus between 2 and 5 percent, generously. I can put it into per 100,000 for you if you like.
So 1% is okay for civilian deaths but 2-5% is not?
That’s a pretty arbitrary cutoff.
It’s a pretty huge difference in how militaries fight. For example we didn’t carpet bomb entire neighborhoods in Iraq.