WAY too many reports. Locking down.
Lemmy: bOth PArTiES ARE zIoniSt gEnociDERS!
To hear the tankies on Lemmy:
OnLy DEmoCraTs aRe ZiOnisT GeNOCiderS! VotE fOr RepUBLicaNs!
What fucking tankies are you listening to? Brother I'm tankie as shit and we don't support Trump, we merely point out the uncomfortable truth that on this issue there is no meaningful difference between the Dems and the Reps, and so anyone voting for them is a genocide supporter.
Jesus, I've had this argument recently. Pointless, they are just on some crusade.
They both are objectively Zionist genocide supporters. The only difference is the tone of their rhetoric, the children will die all the same.
Even if that were true, there's a value proposition to work through here. Like most sane people, I typically prioritize my own children and the children of people I know over people in a country on the other side of the planet I will never interact with and whose fate will never affect in the slightest. That's just basic triage.
This is not to say I don't care about them, but looking at it from a purely pragmatic stance, it's not an issue that's going to change my position am inch on who to vote for in this election.
All these people are convinced that Trump would be worse for Palestinians.
And maybe they're right, maybe Trump will send in straight up death squads. Maybe he'll build vans that pipe the exhaust into the cargo area and ship them to tel Aviv. Maybe he'll start sending the Israelis Zyclon b.
But the fact remains. The last year has been the most deadly for Palestinians. Ever. More Palestinians have been killed in the last year than died during the formation of the state of Israel. More Palestinians have had their homes destroyed in the last year, then ever before in modern history.
At this point, saying Trump would be worse for Palestine is like saying that Himmler would have been worse for the Jews. Possibly technically correct, but also a poor attempted genocide denial.
Trump feels the only thing Israel is doing wrong is not killing Palestinians fast enough.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-israel-pr-hugh-hewitt-21faee332d95fec99652c112fbdcd35d
Worse, if Trump wins, he will bring the worst Israeli policies to the United States.
- He will take Israel's policy of illegally invading Lebanon as a "security zone" and apply it to Mexico:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_Southern_Lebanon
- He will set up internment camps in the United States for immigrants and others classed as "undesirable":
- He will purge the government of any and all opposition:
- He wants to arrest journalists:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/politics/kash-patel-trump-administration/index.html
To be clear here, if Harris does not win, Trump will. Those are your two choices. You can choose to vote for Harris or you court disaster. There is no viable 3rd choice.
you realize trump genuinely considered using a nuclear bomb during his office term right?
What do you mean "he might be worse"
But the fact remains. The last year has been the most deadly for Palestinians. Ever.
also i feel like there was probably at least one famine that killed significantly more people at one point in history.
Biden says the same stuff as Kamala...
I'm sure she'll handle it better than Biden, and absolutely better than trump would.
But I just don't think she'll do enough, which is disappointing because "enough" is just cutting off aid money and weapons sales until they stop actively committing a genocide.
If they need aid to defend against Lebanon or Iran in an actual war, maybe they should stop committing a genocide at the same time?
Really seems like if Israel was actually concerned with defense, they wouldn't spend so much time bombing refugees.
cutting off aid money and weapons sales
I don't understand this line of thinking.
First, Israel doesn't need top-tier modern weapons to attack a defenseless civilian population. If Israel's goal was outright genocide as it's being put, they could buy mid-tier weapons from any manufacturer for that purpose.
Second, if the US stops selling US-grade weapons to Israel, that will signal to the region that Israel is open to military attacks, which might result in a larger scale multi-country war that would dwarf the Gaza conflict.
Those that care about the lives of innocent civilians in the region should prefer that the weapons sold to Israel come with Western strings attached and conditions as part of the weapons agreements, and should also care that the region doesn't descend into another 1960s-70s war era but with more modern and powerful weapons.
See on US weapons:
The U.S. expects every country receiving its military assistance to use it "in full compliance with international humanitarian law and the laws of war, and Israel is no exception," State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told a news briefing on Monday.
Enforcing the Western weapons rules is politically complex, but not having any rules on those weapons would only embolden Israel's operation in Gaza. I hope people around here will come to understand that every time you call for the US to pull out of weapon deals in Israel, what you are advocating for is to remove the weapons restrictions the West imposes on Israel.
Israeli has been a belligerent country who has not stopped terrorizing their neighbors since their formation. Zionists created Israel through a campaign of terror against British mandate Palestine and continue it to this day against Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iran.
Why are we supporting a country who does not want peace with their neighbors? They claim to be defending themselves by preemptively attacking any country that so much sneezes on them. Israel has even attacked the United States on many occasions.
If they want to be belligerent bullies in the region, they should have to do it on their own without dragging the US and it's allies into yet another middle eastern conflict.
They even assassinated the leader Hamas while they were negotiating a ceasefire. Does that sound like a peaceful country?
-
Israel primarily needs bombs, and lots of them. No other country could provide Israel with bombs and planes on the scale that the US currently supplies them. A US arms embargo would force Israel to use up its current stockpiles, and could seriously affect their war effort.
-
Israel has initiated all of the recent military strikes in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon and despite this, none of Israel's neighbors, not even Iran, want escalation to a full scale conflict. The idea that they would all suddenly attack Israel following a US arms embargo is sheer fantasy.
-
The US State department is imposing restrictions on Israel's use of US weaponry? Uh, since when? They are not currently imposing any restrictions, even though they should be under the Leahy Laws, so imposing an embargo would not change Israel's behavior in this regard whatsoever. All this talk of being "in compliance with international humanitarian law" when it comes to Israel is a total PR farce.
-
It is not just money and sale of weapons. US has been using veto power in support of Israel. Out of 89 uses of veto in the security council about 45 have been in support of Israel. US vetoed the Dec 8 resolution calling for a humanitarian aid. Givven how israel is conducting its war, how is own ministers are calling for murder and the reports from UN observers it is boggling to my mind how you can still have doubts and say "if they wanted to commit genocide". The restrictions you are so adamant will save the Palestinian people are Flagrantly being disregarded by Israel and the US has in it's own report said that Israel's use of US weapons is inconsistent with humanitarian law, but since the US lacks specific evidence of specific weapons bring used so Israel is being given the benefit of the doubt. This is so bafflingto me, you don't give benefit of the doubt to the person who is killing, you give it to the person being killed.
Finally someone on here is actually talking about the complexities that are actually present and not just “MURDER IS BAD, DONT GIVE MURDERER GUN”
People will just ignore this and say your pro genocide because a lot of that "stop the genocide" people don't seem to understand what nuance is.
Also, in case the nuance is getting lost since we don't all get our information from the same sources,
When the US sells weapons to Israel, the purpose is to ensure peace in the region by helping them hold a line of defense against military attacks from antagonistic countries; and in the case of Hamas, for the anti-terrorism operation of removing Hamas from power in Gaza, so that Palestinians can pursue self-determination free from terrorist rule.
Also, because around these parts the echo chambers are deafening,
Most Americans are against the suffering of civilians in Gaza, but understand that under Hamas rule the Gaza people are screwed, and long-lasting peace is impossible, so there's significant value in removing Hamas from power so that we can drive towards a better future. This is the purpose for which we continue to sell any weapons to Israel that may be used in the Gaza operation, and we use the agreements to enforce guardrails to minimize civilian casualties.
In summary, If you think the Biden admin is supporting genocide, I wanted to point out that as far as the US leadership understands it, the weapons sales are intended for the purpose of driving towards peace, minimizing civilian casualties, and improving conditions for people in the region in the long-term. Whether you agree with that vision or not.
What's unclear is the alternative long-term solution that the "stop supporting Israel" crowd have mapped out for the region. What exactly is supposed to get better if the US pulls out and washes its hands of peace deals and weapons agreements, so that Israel and Hamas can double down on bombing each other to the last drop of blood?
Someone explain to me the 10 year plan that the "stop selling weapons" side has envisions for the Gaza region. Because I know Harris wants to end the war, rebuild Gaza, and force a permanent peace by leading international negotiations for Palestinian statehood. I cannot imagine a workable pathway that's more pro peace and pro civilians.
I think the real talk is that she's a little better than Biden, but Biden is pretty bad. It's hard to say what she would be doing because i get the feeling she's holding back out of desire to not undermine Biden's policies. I'm not anticipating much change overall, though. Sadly, we're all left watching the genocide.
I’m sure she’ll handle it better than Biden, and absolutely better than trump would.
Hoped that, but DNC killed that hope :(
If you think there's even a chance of Kamala being as bad as Biden in this regard, you haven't been paying attention to just how bad Biden is with Israel.
He literally has no line, and has been publicly saying for 50 years absolutely nothing would ever make him lessen his support for Israel.
And he fucking means it.
can you guys do me a favor real quick? I want to all google the word fascism, and do a little bit of precursory study into what the nazi fascist regime was like. Think about it for a few days.
And then come back and tell me that the democratic party is EQUAL to or WORSE than the republican party.
Trump literally fired chris krebs after he stated that the election was "the most secure in history" and then his personal attorney said he should "get taken out and shot at dawn"
he fired the guy heading the FBI over the russia election interference which he wasn't even found to be responsible for? Though a few of his campaign members were, and they were served with felony sentences for that one. He LITERALLY LIES ABOUT THIS ENTIRE THING REPEATEDLY.
literally all the democrats are doing is supporting a country who aligns with US values. That's objectively not fascism, and if you think it's fascism, you should probably consider not using the internet anymore. Maybe move to russia and see how "nice" it is over there.
Translation:
I will send Israel more bombs.
America was locked into that in the Obama era. Israel gets massive amounts of aid.
There is more than enough legal reason to justify stopping sales to Israel but the rules are not applied equally: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240857410/how-do-leahy-laws-apply-to-u-s-support-for-israel
So it seems like they choose not to and I'm not sure if there's a justification for that which isn't fucking atrocious
At the end of the day israel is openly fucking bombing humanitarian aid at this point and we all know neither is gonna stop them when elected. The ceasefire bullshit is getting as old as the „two state solution”
Yeah, they both like their wars, and the military industrial complex has far too much power in this country. And good luck to all of us, because we need to stop these hawks from pushing their deadly agenda. They won't give up voluntarily.
(And I'm not just referring to both candidates here.)
At least you'll be able to protest without getting slaughtered ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
are they bombing humanitarian aid regularly now? I know that it happened at least once, with a few possible instances of it in total.
But I thought bOtH sIdEs ArE jUsT aS bAd.
Where are we supposed to deport American citizens to, exactly?
At the time he was saying to Gaza. He was saying to take Americans citizens who disagree with murdering innocent's, and put them in the place the innocent's are being murdered. As if that somehow would teach them something... All it would do is murder the Americans.
Edit: it was another one of those times he was showing how anti America he was
It's a classic dog whistle. He knows exactly what he's saying. He's just disguised it to appear so stupid that no one will hold him accountable for it.
WISCONSIN.
No please I'll be good
Appreciate the effort but this has too many words for a braindead felon-supporting fascist.
Has she promised to stop sending bombs?
She promised to not stop.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-walz-hold-first-joint-network-tv-interview-cnn-2024-08-29/
People selling weapons are supporting our party and don't want to have any pangs.
If you want to make a “harm reduction” argument, don’t do it this dishonestly. You know this “heartbreaking” comment is nonsense because she has clearly said she won’t condition US support for Israel. As for “ceasefire,” she’s talking about a temporary pause, as proven by her previous “ceasefire” comment people appealed to. She does not believe in the self-determination of the Palestinian people nor a two-state solution, and to act like she does is to pure nonsense.
All you care about is words and appearances. Well, alright, where are Kamala’s words from the end of August spouting Oct. 7th atrocity propaganda and extolling Israel’s “right to defend itself”?
We get Trump’s stance on protestors, but not Kamala’s? Wondrous! If you recall, Harris put out a statement against the anti-genocide protestors in Washington (along with numerous anti-genocide protestors being arrested throughout these months) when her supporters were embarrassing themselves by saying she was against Netanyahu’s visit despite her scheduling a separate meeting and her campaign confirming her absence wasn’t a political statement.
To predict responses if they come, the flaws with the image will be ignored, and people will repeat: “do you think Trump will be better?” Probably not, but if you have to resort to genuine idiocy to say the inverse, then it seems like you truly don’t believe Trump will be much worse, and all we can take as proof is vibes and intuition. Kamala has repeatedly emphasized that she will be harder on immigration than Trump, but here of course her words can’t be believed!!
Kill everyone now.
Advocate first degree murder.
Condone cannibalism.
Eat shit.
i was right with you until that last part
“You are supporting a genocide from a war criminal, your stance is the bare minimum of human decency, just to win an election”
“yEa BuT wHat AbOuT OrANge MaaN?! hE mOrE bAd”
I’m here just harvesting downvotes, don’t mind me.
“…but but she picky promised us! She even said the P word!” 🥺
A topic guaranteed to bring out the fringe wackos and helplessly naive single-issue voters. I wish OP had used "gaza" or "hamas" or something along those lines so that my keyword blocker would have caught this.
