cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21396125
Stephen Starr in Hamtramck, Michigan
Mon 14 Oct 2024 11.00 EDT
stop paying your taxes too, that shit is funding the genocide
Way ahead of you.
Okay, but, abandon her for whom exactly? Just not vote? Vote 3rd party? I am not going to say Harris is perfect, but this is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
No, it’s cutting off a cancerous growth yourself because you can’t afford healthcare. You might die to metastasis, you might die to blood loss, but if you leave the growth alone it will kill you.
And yes most are planning on voting third party.
I guess that just doesn’t make sense to me in the current political landscape. We know the third party isn’t going to get the votes, and we also know that Trump is not only not going to save Gaza, he’s going to do everything in his power to make this country worse as well. Currently, voting third party is throwing your vote away. I’m not saying I’m in love with the system or that it isn’t fucked, but we have two options this election. Neither of them is going to save Gaza, but I don’t see why damming the whole country, as well as yourself, to a worse existence, is the more sane option.
It’s a basic philosophical question.
Say you find yourself locked in a room with a gun, and two people tied to a chair. A voice announces that if you kill one of them, you and the other go free, if you don’t kill anyone or if you kill yourself, everyone dies.
Your solution to this, voting Harris, is trust the voice is telling the truth and figure out who is the worse person so you don’t feel as bad about being a murderer.
Their solution is not being a murderer.
Maybe the voice is telling the truth, and thus the voice will be a murderer, but they won’t be – you would be though with your choice. Maybe the voice is lying, in which case they made the right choice and you objectively made the wrong one, the worst one.
Most humans, ideally, would choose to not be murderers, even if that means a psychopath does a murder “because” you refused to.
In your example, their solution is absolutely being a murderer. They didn’t pull the trigger, but they condemned those people to death. They know that refusing is killing those people, that their refusal is the cause for those peoples deaths. I’m not saying that I don’t think Gaza is important, or that it’s not worth fighting for, but I extend that same importance to my countrymen as well. I think the woman who may need an abortion is important, even if I never get one. I think that my neighbor’s kids should have a save school, and not be laden I’m debt, even thought I don’t plan to have children.
I cannot stop what’s going on in Gaza. It’s a horrible, terribly bitter pill to swallow, but it is the truth. However, I’m not going to set everyone else on fire so we can all burn together in solidarity. Too many other people’s lives are at stake. And I’m not saying their lives are more important than those in Gaza, I’m saying they’re just as important. Kill one person, or kill everyone. I would rather save someone than no one.
Exactly, you think being a murderer is okay.
That is the core philosophical difference.
You are completely okay with killing innocent people. These people are not, normal people are not.
This difference cannot be reconciled. These people will never think the way you do, and thank every God ever imagined for that, as someone needs to be the moral party if only as an example of how normalized and justified pure evil is.
At this point (3 weeks before elections) if she comes out against the genocide, it’s obvious it’s just a career move and not her actual feelings. It will be business as usual afterward.
Apparently this is what her supporters want. As long as they can convince themselves to FEEL like she didn’t want to aid in genocide, that’s all that matters.
People here are already claiming that she’s secretly against Israel and will flip once she wins, they’re in for a surprise (if they’re even being genuine).
Why would they even vote ?
Both parties are beholden to Israel and the power of AIPAC
Other way around. Both parties support Israel because Israel helps secure the Petro-Dollar, by which the US dominates the Global South with predatory IMF loans.
And it’s the cork on land migration out of Africa into West Asia and eventually Europe.
And it’s strategically important for the Red Sea trade route connecting Asia to the Mediterranean (although they’re having a little trouble with this one lol)
And it’s the laboratory for surveillance and detainment and border walls, where they can live test technology and strategies that get exported to prisons and borders and cities around the West.
And it’s a place for antisemitic governments to send all their Jewish citizens.
And, of course, there’s a large apocalyptic cult of Christians that believe we need to immanentize the eschaton so Jesus can return.
Israel serves so many functions!
Oh they’re really gonna love how Trump handles Arabs
It’s like the trolley problem, except instead of the other track having fewer people, it has more, and it just loops back around to run over the people on the first track anyway. We should have sent the trolley on a completely different route decades ago.
Strawmen belong in fields, not comment sections.
Also: does every ml user have an allergy to pragmatic problem solving?
“pragmatic” problem solving is killing all undocumented migrants to solve the housing and work shortages in the US.
Pragmatic problem solving was the excuse for the necessity of the Holocaust. Pragmatic problem solving is making black people count as two thirds a white person to appease fascists.
Pragmatic problem solving is a liberal appointing Hitler chancellor so commies don’t get power and Nazis stop doing violence.
Pragmatic problem solving is behind the worst human atrocities. Let’s not pretend it’s ever been good.
You think they’re voting for trump? If so, you’re even dumber than you think they are
I mean, it’s not like there’s any other viable candidate. I don’t like the two party system but it’s what we have and by voting any other way than Harris, it gives advantage to Trump.
Her shitty policies and attitude toward the genocide of people in the Levant is what’s giving trump an advantage!
Her shitty attitude towards people calling on her not to support the genocide is what’s giving trump an advantage.
She had it in the bag when she called him weird but you can always rely on a democrat to steal defeat from the jaws of victory!
And you know for sure that democrats are going to turn on minorities and leftists once she loses the election rather than face up to the fact that they did everything themselves to avoid winning it.
She had so many chances to make this election easier. Could have had a Palestinian talk during the DNC, and that would have likely changed this story.
Yeah, earlier in her campaign, I was optimistic that she was just trying not to undermine Biden’s foreign policy, and that she would eventually take an at least slightly more critical position on Israel. So far, though, she’s seems entirely committed to Israel’s escalating violence, and she won’t even make the smallest gesture towards the Palestinian community. I didn’t expect her to denounce Israel, but staying lock-step with Biden on this is looking like political suicide.
You’d have to be an idiot to make another countries conflict an election issue, when neither candidate supports your side. The fact that neither candidate is pro Palestine, it’s a moot point in terms of the election
So, a conflict where USA supply weapons and all other manners of support used for open genocide (btw illegally, US law declare US need to stop in such case, but Blinken and co blocked it) and is even sending US soldiers to serve as a missile bait, isn’t an issue for US voters according to you?
Nice democracy you think they should have there.
You’d have to be an idiot to make another countries conflict an election issue
apply this to Ukraine :)
Sure. Also to every terrorist nation, you murderous fucks supply. Maybe make amends or even so much a apologize for the atrocities and genocides committed by your country before you moralize to the world
This group is the single greatest gift to the 2024 trump presidency and he doesn’t know it yet!
Hamtramck is run by a bigoted shit stain mayor. As welcoming as I want to be to immigrants, don’t bring that sexist, homophobic shit into my neighborhood. Go ahead and vote against Harris, but don’t come complaining when Trump deports your family.
Angry with the Biden administration – and, by extension, Kamala Harris – for its support for Israel, Arab Americans may be willing to overlook Trump’s history of closeness with Israel’s hard-right leaders.
So, these individuals could be described as the common clay of the new West?
these folks are doing logical loop de loops
yeah man, denigrate them more, that’ll surely get them on your side! maybe a touch more smug condescension? anything except engaging with their concerns, of course.
I don’t want them on my side. I’m not running for office, and they’re shitty, stupid people.
(your mask is slipping)
Trump supporters? Yeah, I stand by it.
You see no difference between people put off by settler-colonial genocide and… settler colonists? What?
I’m going to fail at completely or concisely summarize the plot of Blazing Saddles here.
In the movie, there is a deeply greedy railroad tycoon who wants to build a railroad through the desert. The best place to run the railroad through is already occupied by a town of white settlers called Rock Ridge. Meanwhile, a black worker on the railroad becomes both popular and uppity. The harebrained scheme to kill two birds with one stone: Appoint the black man sheriff of Rock Ridge. So the tycoon is relying on the townspeople to be useful idiots and lynch the black man, while simultaneously expecting the insult of a black sheriff to drive the town into chaos so he can break up the town and run his railroad.
There is a scene where the black man, in his capacity as sheriff, greets a little old woman saying “Mighty fine mornin, ain’t it?” She responds “Up yours, N***er!” Upset at this, his friend (a former gunslinger turned drunkard, played by Gene Wilder) to try to cheer him up, saying “these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west.” Gene Wilder ad libbed the line “you know, morons.” which caused Cleavon Little (playing the black sheriff) to genuinely laugh, which made it into the final cut of the movie.
Shenanigans ensue during which a man named Mongo punches a horse to the ground, then Madeline Kahn happens, and it comes out that the tycoon (and the governor in the tycoon’s pocket) is trying to hurt the town and the black sheriff is actually on their side, the townsfolk learn and grow as people and put aside their bigotry, in the words of the mayor “We’re okay, with the ners and the cks, but we DON’T WANT THE IRISH. Ah, prairie shit. Everybody!” meanwhile the tycoon and his cronies are mainly driven by greed and unable/unwilling to grow, accept others or find equitable solutions, and are defeated/humiliated.
=====
So in this context, calling muslim Americans who would vote for the Republicans because the Democrats are in office while Israel is going full Nazi is calling them useful and disposable idiots. Which is exactly what they are. The Republicans actively want to kill muslims. Muslims are black people who aren’t even Christians, the Republicans would exterminate muslims recreationally. They’ll gladly take their votes though, anything for more power. Meanwhile the muslims be over here talking about “The Republicans hate women and jews, I hate women and jews; it’s like they get me, you know?”
Yes I know the reference, parent is just calling them stupid really. Though I appreciate you taking the time to explain it and write it up! I wrote a comment to this effect but explaining what I am saying in regards to it here.
Good movie BTW, everyone should watch it, especially if you have ever seen a garbage chauvinist pop Western like anything with John Wayne in it.
Good movie BTW, everyone should watch it,
Correct.
Western like anything with John Wayne in it.
There’s a movie I would suggest watching called In Harm’s Way. Admittedly it’s a WWII movie and not a Western, but it’s…without wishing to spoil let’s just say it’s the most nuanced John Wayne film I’m aware of.
Thanks for the movie rec! I added it to my queue. There is a lot of overlap between WWII movies at the time and Westerns so if nothing else I will enjoy making comparisons. If you could sum up your takeaway in one sentiment, what would it be?
In Harm’s Way: Not all war heroes deserve medals.
Thanks!
It’s a movie reference. You should watch Blazing Saddles, it’s very funny.
It’s a great movie, I always tell people to watch it!
In the movie, this is a reference to the racist townspeople in the “Western”. It’s poking fun at the Westerns that romanticized allegedly good and pure settlers (colonizers) and to sympathoze with them. You weren’t supposed to think of them as, in Wilder’s terms, “morons”.
Parent was just trying to call people morons. It’s not a clever reference, I got it. But those people are, specifically, Muslims so put off by the genocide of Palestinians that they’d vote against the administration supporting that grmocide. I would say their political acumen is more developed than the genocidal sheepdogging that we see in this thread, people that can’t even say the word genocide trying to imply they’re the adults in the room. At least they can understand basic leverage and independent action.
But I was making note that the “morons” reference in Blazing Saddles is about settler-colonists whereas the people parent wanted to call morons are literally people that are reacting against settler colonists and their supporters. I think that is an oversight that can only be made through chauvinism, personally. The person wants to feel better than those moved by genocide, they want it to be as narrow as “those people are stupid”. They can’t contend with the content.
Removed by mod
I don’t know what you’re referring to.
Removed by mod
You sure they’re feigning?
Removed by mod
I’m not feigning. I don’t know what point you were making. Perhaps you could expound using more descriptive terms?
It seems that you are currently so agitated that my honest statement of not knowing what you mean must actually be a sneaky bad faith strategem.
Removed by mod
Oh, so is it amnesia then? Because you seemed pretty clear on the topic of discussion until I cornered you. Then, magically - or just conveniently - you have forgotten what we’re talking about.
Feel free to rephrase and expound on what you said. I do not see how it applied to what we were talking about, and therefore don’t see its meaning.
And pretending to be psychic and read my mind (or, perhaps, hallucinating) via the internet doesn’t make you right. How is that even rational?
As I said, I recognize behaviors and clichés. And you have not yet contradicted a single prediction and have accidentally confirmed a few.
Why should anyone believe what you say when it’s clearly either a bad-faith argument full of disinformation or evidence of your ignorance and inability to comment intelligently on this topic?
I have made no bad faith arguments nor presented any disinformation. Please do your best to not make things up and to address what I have actually said.
And, of course, you should be against genocide and act accordingly.
Single issue voters, or is this even a single issue because Trump and Harris don’t really have much different on this particular topic? People really have me scratching my head sometimes.
single issue voters
the single issue is the eradication of their families and friends
yeah man I wonder why they don’t support that
If this is a joke, it’s a very bad one. If it isn’t, good luck on pulling your head out of your ass.
There is no difference because Harris knows her good little gooses steppers will vote for her no matter what she does or who she kills.
The single issue: genocide
Why are you sheepdogging for genociders? You have always had the option of saying nothing and educating yourself instead.
I am not a single issue voter and I don’t think that way. There are many important issues on the line and I will vote for the candidate that addresses the most. I am not saying that genocide is unimportant, just that I can’t impact it with my selection.
What is more important than supporting and normalizing genocide?
Preventing someone from gaining power who will continue genocide, find new targets for genocide, and turn the country into a dictatorship? Choosing the lesser of two evils is the way it works. If you want the greater of two evils then it’s your choice to not participate.
Preventing someone from gaining power who will continue genocide
There could not be a candidate this describes more than Harris. You know, from the Biden-Harris administration behind the genocide happening right now. The one supplying bombs to burn refugee children alive. Have you heard their screams?
I am told Democratic voters are empathetic and strategic. But all I see is racist normalization of genocide and toeing the party line.
find new targets for genocide
That’s a Dem specialty! They have a knack for stoking and supporting genocides. Heck, Obama got one started in Yemen. Even NGOs were saying a vhikd was killed every minute for years by this. Why do you think they are so resilient and steadfast against this genocide and Western attempts to free up Zionist shipping lanes? Did you even know what was done to Yemen?
and turn the country into a dictatorship?
Given that the current “system” has you shilling for genocide you should already question whether you live in a democracy.
Though all of this lesser evilism is also premised on nobody remembering that Trump was already president for 4 years and it was basically the same shot as under Biden. In fact, Biden came in from the right, normalizing the pandemic and slashing benefits for the public, then did the usual, “I’m just a widdle president I can’t do nothin’” act when the SC overturned Roe v. Wade. Ah, but now that there is a genocide to support, unlimited billions for Israel, don’t worry he can bypass Congress. Do you see how the system functions? Do you feel enfranchised? How much less enfranchised were you under Trump?
They’re on the same team. Why do you think Harris’ team is celebrate endorsements from Republican war criminals? A human that cared would spit in their faces and announce charges. You are not provided with such an option for your mainstream party “choices”. They laugh at their committed voters, I’ve seen it in person.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is the way it works. If you want the greater of two evils then it’s your choice to not participate.
No, that’s the way you are told it works by your masters so that you work for them instead of against them. You’ll notice that I am not voting for any genociders. Did I break reality!? Or just deviate from a focus group-tested party talking point?
It’s like you’re mentally incapable of reading a comment and responding to the words in it.
I responded directly to what they said re: there being multiple issues they want to weigh. That was their response up me challenging complicity in genocide and asking why the person I was responding to was sheepdogging for genociders. They are trying yo be euphemistic and retreat to the thought-terminsting clichés that reinforce complicity in genocide, which also means avoiding even using the word. So I recontextualized their attempt to decontextualize while still directly addressing it.
Please feel free to tell me which specific parts you would like to see addressed or responded to. I certainly already replied to the first sentence, which was the main point of deflection.
Removed by mod
So, you admit to intentionally mischaracterizing what they said
No? Please do your best to engage with what I say rather than making things up.
Removed by mod
It is not a complex issue. There is a genocide and there are increasing calls to support those genociders electorally. Instead of supporting genociders, you should oppose them.
Liberals call “issues” complex in order to speak euphemistically about the horrible things they support. They do not actually have an understanding of the alleged complexity, it is just a lazy thought-terminating cliché. When you do understand something, you can discuss it directly. At the moment, you are apparently more afraid of using the word genocide than actually being complicut in it yourself. Is this the “complexity” you are referring to? Your personal discomfort? I suspect so.
Unless you’d like to explain how it does…
Being consistently against genocide is the first step towards actually fighting against it. I have set the bar very low. Can you clear it?
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
Either you’re obviously too ignorant to hold intelligent opinions on this matter, or you’re clearly arguing in bad faith by stating obvious falsehoods.
Why should anyone take you seriously?
This isn’t a 1,000 year Middle east conflict, it’s a modern-day Western settler-colonialist project. It’s an ~80 year ethnic cleansing project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_as_settler_colonialismRemoved by mod
Dude, Palestinians lived largely in peace with Jews in what was called Palestine until WW2. This is not an ancient conflict unless you believe antisemitic propaganda. The state of Israel is compensation for the Holocaust, paid for with land from the Palestinians.
Well no there were Zionist terrorists killing people in that area before World War II. We tend to gloss that over in history though for some reason, maybe it’s because so many people that were targeting were the British and everyone was just kind of okay with it.
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
Israel as a settler colonial entity is around 100 years old. Before that, Christians, Muslims, and Jews lived in the same area with very little sectarian violence for around 800 years.
Removed by mod
You’d say “its nuanced” about colonizers killing indigenous tribes and the indigenous tribes fighting back.
Calling it a thousand year conflict is Zionist propaganda. Plain and simple.
Removed by mod
Yeah sure you’re not saying you agree with them, you’re just repeating their racist propaganda that’s all. Totally different.
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
I already stated what is not complex. It is that there is an ongoing genocide and that you and others are sheepdogging for the perpetrators. I stated it directly and your response continues this pattern of avoiding even mentioning the term genocide even though it is the topic of this thread and the points I have made.
Re: “1000 year middle east conflict”, this is itself an ahistorical, chauvinist absurdity that papers over the real modern history of colonialism and Zionism and usually has a few dashes of Islamophobia thrown in as well, though yo be honest I would not be surprised if the people sheepdogging for genociders were not particularly familiar with the details of that reference.
More realistically, the “it’s complex” line serves as a way to avoid thinking about or interrogating the topic, it is a way for the ignorant to feel secure despite knowledgeable troublemakers telling them specific but inconvenient things. Like, say, that you should oppose genocide.
Either you’re obviously too ignorant to hold intelligent opinions on this matter, or you’re clearly arguing in bad faith by stating obvious falsehoods.
At the moment I’m trying to navigate middle schooler level chauvinist talking points and asking you to address what I say rather than what you make up. Oh, and to remind you of my main and original point, the one you are afraid to even mention!
Why should anyone take you seriously?
This is Lemmy, there is a limit to which anyone should take anonymous forum comments seriously.
But you should take genocide seriously. If you are not knee-jerk advocating against it, and are instead trying to support its perpetrators, you had better have the very best knowledge and justifications, better than I can even imagine, to make a case for why you support those carrying out the greatest crime.
Everyone should take genocide seriously and that is what people should listen to in my messages. They should also recognize that the responses to my advocacy require dishonest behaviors.
Naturally, as the election approaches, liberals will increasingly panic and try to shut down anything that disagrees with their (pro-genocidal) party line. But I have and will continue to peel those with empathy and honesty off of that track.
Removed by mod
Cherry picking a single detail out of a complex situation doesn’t suddenly make it a simple situation.
Is it a “detail” that fails to include very important context (none of which you can seemingly specify) or is it genocide, something with so much weight that you are afraid to even mention it despite my repeated reminders that it is the topic here?
One of the challenges of evasive and bad faith behavior is that the little quips and pretenses can easily become inconsistent.
Anyways, the actual topic is pretty straightforward. There is a genocide. You should not support those perpetrating it and should instead work against them. So far, you have offered no rebuttal to this outside of straw men and vagaries and posturing.
That is logically fallacious. As is the rest of your argument, which is based on that logical fallacy.
Parrots can repeat many phrases they hear, but they don’t understand their meaning.
Logical fallacies are a set of ways a person can make errors in thinking. The whole point of them is that some nerds thought they were common or important enough to deserve a name. Reflexively accusing me of logical fallacies without naming any, right after I explained how you were using one? Obviously schoolyard “I’m rubber you’re gkue” pantomiming. No understanding, no applicability, just defensive posturing.
And blaming me using disinformation
What disinformation? What did I blame you for?
because I pointed out the fact that your argument is both fallacious and nonsensical, does not make you right either.
Can you tell me when I said or implied, “when I use disinformation against you it means I’m right”? I think you are very confused in both thought and language at this point. You’re relying on quips and phrases that simply do not apply.
No, it’s been a little over a 100 years of Settler Colonialist Zionism. Zionism has not existed for 1000 years.
‘Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History’ by Nur Masalha gives a detailed account of it’s history before British Occupation and ‘A History of Modern Palestine’ by Ilan Pappe gives a detailed account of it’s history since the British Occupation.
Origins of Zionism
Zionism is a settler colonialism project that was able to really start with the support of British Imperialism. Zionism as a political movement started with Theodore Herzl in the 1880s as a ‘modern’ way to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ of Europe.
Since at least the 1860’s, Europe was increasingly antisemitic and hostile to Jewish people. Zionism was explicitly a Setter Colonialist movement and the native Palestinians were not considered People but Savages by the Europeans. While Zionist Colonization began before it, the Balfor Declaration is when Britain gave it’s backing of the movement in order to ‘solve’ the ‘Jewish Question’ while also creating a Colony in the newly conquered Middle East after WWI in order to exhibit military force in the region and extract natural resources.
That’s when Zionist immigration started to pick up, out of necessity for most as Europe became more hostile and antisemitic. That continued into and during WWII, European countries and even the US refused to expand immigration quotas for Jewish people seeking asylum. The idea that the creation of Israel is a reparation for Jewish people is an after-the-fact justification. While most Jewish immigrants had no choice and just wanted a place to live in peace, it was the Zionist Leadership that developed and implemented the forced transfer, ethnic cleansing, of the native population, Palestinians. Without any Occupation, Apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, there would not be any Palestinian resistance to it.
Herzl himself explicitly considered Zionism a Settler Colonialist project, Setter Colonialism is always violent. The difficulty in creating a democratic Jewish state in an area inhabited by people who are not Jewish, is that enough Palestinian people need to be ‘Transferred’ to have a demographic majority that is Jewish. Ben-Gurion explicitly rejected Secular Bi-national state solutions in favor of partition.
Quote
Zionism’s aims in Palestine, its deeply-held conviction that the Land of Israel belonged exclusively to the Jewish people as a whole, and the idea of Palestine’s “civilizational barrenness" or “emptiness” against the background of European imperialist ideologies all converged in the logical conclusion that the native population should make way for thenewcomers.
The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat.
An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem ”-the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land" and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.
Visualizing the Ethnic Cleansing
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
Historian Works on the History
-
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History - Nur Masalha
-
The Concept of Transfer 1882-1948 - Nur Masalha
-
A History of Modern Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine - Rashid Khalidi
-
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine - Ilan Pappe
-
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences - Avi Shlaim
-
The Biggest Prison on Earth: A History of the Occupied Territories - Ilan Pappe
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development - Sara Roy
-
10 Myths About Israel - Ilan Pappe (summery)
🏆
Removed by mod
A 1000 year Middle East conflict “isn’t a complex issue”?
This is what you said in the context of the current conflict, which is Israel engaging in Genocide of Palestinians. That is a result of Zionism, which is fundamentally a Settler Colonialist Ideology that has only been around for a little over a hundred years, not a thousand.
-
Stupid motherfuckers.
Oh look, anti-Arab racism from liberals already
Do you think a Trump win will end better for them? Shit, do you think a Trump win will end better for anyone?
Go fuck yourself. People like you will hand him a victory.
I think calling Arab-Americans stupid for refusing to vote for genocide is racist. Harris is handing Trump a victory because she can’t cease US support for Israel.
I don’t think anyone is calling anyone stupid for calling for an end to the genocide. But what’s stupid is when people think that Trump will somehow stop the genocide.
Oh and btw… I was banned from world news. LOL.
But what’s stupid is when people think that Trump will somehow stop the genocide.
No one thinks this
There was a commenter calling Arab-American voters stupid for abandoning Harris.
Well that is stupid. People can be stupid from all corners of the globe.
deleted by creator
You know, one of the big third party candidates is Jill Stein. If you are one of those pro Palestine supporters who hates Israel… Stein is Jewish. She might be one of those Jews who hates Israel, but she’s still Jewish. I don’t mind her being Jewish, but I do mind her being vaccine skeptical, a Kremlin devotee, among other things.
Good!
