Though the Uncommitted movement is lobbying to get a Palestinian American on the main stage, the Harris campaign has not yet approved one. Will there be a change before Thursday—and does the Democratic party want that?
Each deserves as much voice as it has number of supporters it can bring, and that puts anti-genocide voices somewhere around climate activists and gun control supporters. You’re not the only ones with children dying, you see. We have everyone’s futures to worry about
Behold the Democrats and their inspiring message of “calm down, genocide isn’t that big of a deal”.
If everything around you is always inspiring, it is an excellent sign someone is feeding you horse shit. Real life has difficult parts, that’s all there is to it.
Genocide is one issue. That’s it. It can be someone’s primary issue, that’s fine, but expecting it to be a primary issue of the party is silly. In case you’ve forgotten, we’ve committed more genocides than we’ve stopped. By far. Unfortunately, Americans just aren’t that against it. And we get self-rule, you see, where we are not ruled by holy principles, but the will of the masses. If the masses are cool with genocide, guess what happens?
So what you really need to do, is grassroots engagement, getting out there and appealing to some suburban white folks. But door knocking is too much work I think.
If you don’t think genocide is a dealbreaker, then you lose all rights to criticize republicans for thinking racism and sexism and homophobia aren’t dealbreakers for their candidate.
You’re trying to argue the Trolley Problem but missing the controversy of WHY the trolley problem is problematic in the first place. If I vote for an alternative to Trump, and she kills people in my community, then I have a share of their blood on my hands. “Less blood” is not a comfort or excuse.
I agree, it is not a comfort or an excuse, as is often the case in global politics. It’s merely a necessity if we are to save any of the Palestinian people.
Fundamentally it is impossible to save them all without beginning hostile action against Israel, they are being starved after all. Yet if we withdrew completely, it would merely remove yet another roadblock standing in Netanyahu’s path towards his goals.
It’s merely a necessity if we are to save any of the Palestinian people.
History is littered with people who made that claim. There were Jews who thought that cooperating with Nazis would save some of their community. Black Americans who thought that working with Jim Crow politicians would make a net benefit. It’s wrong, you’re wrong, and Palestinians will tell you they’ve tried this and failed. Abbas offered to go to war against Hamas and did so, in the hopes that Israel would advance his two state solution. They abandoned him and all Palestinians are worse off for the attempt.
Would their fates have been any different if the PA and hamas were united in hamas’ goals?
Would Jews that tried to fight back against Hitler have saved any Jewish lives?
In the Jim Crow example, at least the racist politicians had a significant opposition to their policies in the Reconstruction Era, leaving realistic alternative options. We cannot say the same with your other two examples.
The world is simply uglier than always being able to defeat bad things by outright fighting them. Sometimes you have to scheme and manipulate, the situation the Palestinians have been in. Sometimes you just have to flee and admit the battle is lost, so you survive to fight another day, the situation the Jews under Hitler were in.
Behold the Democrats and their inspiring message of “calm down, genocide isn’t that big of a deal”.
If everything around you is always inspiring, it is an excellent sign someone is feeding you horse shit. Real life has difficult parts, that’s all there is to it.
Genocide is one issue. That’s it. It can be someone’s primary issue, that’s fine, but expecting it to be a primary issue of the party is silly. In case you’ve forgotten, we’ve committed more genocides than we’ve stopped. By far. Unfortunately, Americans just aren’t that against it. And we get self-rule, you see, where we are not ruled by holy principles, but the will of the masses. If the masses are cool with genocide, guess what happens?
So what you really need to do, is grassroots engagement, getting out there and appealing to some suburban white folks. But door knocking is too much work I think.
If you don’t think genocide is a dealbreaker, then you lose all rights to criticize republicans for thinking racism and sexism and homophobia aren’t dealbreakers for their candidate.
Life is not a simple enough thing for absolutes, unfortunately, that just results in greater and greater failure. It’s a luxury we cannot afford.
edit: You could look at it this way: If we vote in Trump instead, will there be less genocide or more genocide?
You’re trying to argue the Trolley Problem but missing the controversy of WHY the trolley problem is problematic in the first place. If I vote for an alternative to Trump, and she kills people in my community, then I have a share of their blood on my hands. “Less blood” is not a comfort or excuse.
I agree, it is not a comfort or an excuse, as is often the case in global politics. It’s merely a necessity if we are to save any of the Palestinian people.
Fundamentally it is impossible to save them all without beginning hostile action against Israel, they are being starved after all. Yet if we withdrew completely, it would merely remove yet another roadblock standing in Netanyahu’s path towards his goals.
History is littered with people who made that claim. There were Jews who thought that cooperating with Nazis would save some of their community. Black Americans who thought that working with Jim Crow politicians would make a net benefit. It’s wrong, you’re wrong, and Palestinians will tell you they’ve tried this and failed. Abbas offered to go to war against Hamas and did so, in the hopes that Israel would advance his two state solution. They abandoned him and all Palestinians are worse off for the attempt.
Would their fates have been any different if the PA and hamas were united in hamas’ goals?
Would Jews that tried to fight back against Hitler have saved any Jewish lives?
In the Jim Crow example, at least the racist politicians had a significant opposition to their policies in the Reconstruction Era, leaving realistic alternative options. We cannot say the same with your other two examples.
The world is simply uglier than always being able to defeat bad things by outright fighting them. Sometimes you have to scheme and manipulate, the situation the Palestinians have been in. Sometimes you just have to flee and admit the battle is lost, so you survive to fight another day, the situation the Jews under Hitler were in.