We turn to Kamala Harris’s position on Israel’s war on Gaza, which many are calling a genocide. After she was asked about calls to condition U.S. arms shipments to Israel by CNN reporter Dana Bash, Harris refused to consider halting the flow of weapons and instead affirmed her support of Israel. This position violates both federal and international law, argues Palestinian American political analyst Yousef Munayyer, and, coupled with her campaign’s denial of a requested Palestinian American speaking spot from “uncommitted” voters at the DNC, he warns that “Harris could be worse than Biden” when it comes to U.S. support for Israel.
I think genocide is bad. I think Israel is committing genocide against Palestine. It’s absolutely disgusting and I would love if the USA could/would somehow cut the cord on support until they stop permanently. I say “could” because when talking about geopolitics, the world is extremely complicated, and I know that I, and probably every person here, don’t know everything the US government does regarding relations with Israel and the implications of cutting off support. I’m not putting on a tin foil hat or anything, I just know that I don’t know everything, so it would be disingenuous to say that it’s as easy as just saying no to Israel.
The problem I have, is that comments like yours saying that Harris is 100% pro genocide, which is an emotionally charged statement to complex situation. Those types of comments infer information, pass it as facts, and then use that to attack her. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being critical of the situation, and i believe discourse is healthy for growth and betterment, but these are just brute force attacks that don’t help the situation. They don’t leave room for an open dialogue, and are more likely to hurt Harris’s chances of winning in November. I do believe that at the root of of these statements, the intent is to pressure the admin for change, but I think that it has the adverse effect due to the way the argument is presented, especially because currently as VP, she doesn’t have the power to change anything anyway.
I feel like a broken record saying this in Lemmy, but when November comes, there will be two candidates with a chance to be POTUS. Until then, Harris’s #1 goal is to get elected, because if that doesn’t happen then she can’t do anything anyways. Attacking that and turning off voters can end the most important part of change. After the election is complete and if she wins, go to town on the hard protesting when she actually can enact change and Trump is no longer a legitimate threat to the future of the US and likely a much worse situation for Palestine.
To reiterate, I hope Netanyahu faces punishment for the atrocities that he has ordered. I hope that there is a Nuremberg Trials type situation once all of this is resolved, and that people face consequence. I hope that I’m wrong and it’s super easy, and that Harris sees the light and says “no”.
The problem I have, is that comments like yours saying that Harris is 100% pro genocide
I never said that, but you have no issue at all with lying, do you? Just when you take personal offense on behalf of genocide supporters.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with being critical of the situation
Coulda fooled me.
I do believe that at the root of of these statements, the intent is to pressure the admin for change, but I think that it has the adverse effect due to the way the argument is presented, especially because currently as VP, she doesn’t have the power to change anything anyway.
That doesn’t mean there can’t be daylight between her and Biden. She’s not the Secretary of State. She can differ from the president on foreign policy.
After the election is complete and if she wins, go to town on the hard protesting
You’ll find some other excuse to demand silence about genocide at that point.
If you really thing genocide is wrong, you should say something without prompting instead of demanding silence on the flimsy notion that griping about genocide on a tiny fledgling platform is somehow going to make all the dug-in pro-genocide centrists here suddenly drop their support for Harris.
It isn’t just that libs will find another reason to complain about protests after the election, it’s that libs won’t care anymore because they already got what they wanted.
You protest during election cycles because that’s when policy is being negotiated. You don’t go on a labor strike after the union has signed the contract, you go on strike to get them to agree to concessions while the contract is being negotiated
I think genocide is bad. I think Israel is committing genocide against Palestine. It’s absolutely disgusting and I would love if the USA could/would somehow cut the cord on support until they stop permanently. I say “could” because when talking about geopolitics, the world is extremely complicated, and I know that I, and probably every person here, don’t know everything the US government does regarding relations with Israel and the implications of cutting off support. I’m not putting on a tin foil hat or anything, I just know that I don’t know everything, so it would be disingenuous to say that it’s as easy as just saying no to Israel.
The problem I have, is that comments like yours saying that Harris is 100% pro genocide, which is an emotionally charged statement to complex situation. Those types of comments infer information, pass it as facts, and then use that to attack her. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being critical of the situation, and i believe discourse is healthy for growth and betterment, but these are just brute force attacks that don’t help the situation. They don’t leave room for an open dialogue, and are more likely to hurt Harris’s chances of winning in November. I do believe that at the root of of these statements, the intent is to pressure the admin for change, but I think that it has the adverse effect due to the way the argument is presented, especially because currently as VP, she doesn’t have the power to change anything anyway.
I feel like a broken record saying this in Lemmy, but when November comes, there will be two candidates with a chance to be POTUS. Until then, Harris’s #1 goal is to get elected, because if that doesn’t happen then she can’t do anything anyways. Attacking that and turning off voters can end the most important part of change. After the election is complete and if she wins, go to town on the hard protesting when she actually can enact change and Trump is no longer a legitimate threat to the future of the US and likely a much worse situation for Palestine.
To reiterate, I hope Netanyahu faces punishment for the atrocities that he has ordered. I hope that there is a Nuremberg Trials type situation once all of this is resolved, and that people face consequence. I hope that I’m wrong and it’s super easy, and that Harris sees the light and says “no”.
I never said that, but you have no issue at all with lying, do you? Just when you take personal offense on behalf of genocide supporters.
Coulda fooled me.
That doesn’t mean there can’t be daylight between her and Biden. She’s not the Secretary of State. She can differ from the president on foreign policy.
You’ll find some other excuse to demand silence about genocide at that point.
If you really thing genocide is wrong, you should say something without prompting instead of demanding silence on the flimsy notion that griping about genocide on a tiny fledgling platform is somehow going to make all the dug-in pro-genocide centrists here suddenly drop their support for Harris.
It isn’t just that libs will find another reason to complain about protests after the election, it’s that libs won’t care anymore because they already got what they wanted.
You protest during election cycles because that’s when policy is being negotiated. You don’t go on a labor strike after the union has signed the contract, you go on strike to get them to agree to concessions while the contract is being negotiated