Trump win means ‘time has come’ to annex parts of West Bank, Israeli minister says
Trump win means ‘time has come’ to annex parts of West Bank, Israeli minister says
Summary
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich endorsed President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, stating it’s “time” to extend full Israeli sovereignty over the occupied West Bank.
This comes as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu highlighted his alignment with Trump on the “Iranian threat.”
Tensions in Gaza and Lebanon have escalated following recent Israeli airstrikes, with regional leaders gathering in Riyadh to address Israeli actions.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog is set to meet President Biden, though Biden’s influence on Israel may be limited following Trump’s win.
You're viewing a single thread.
bUt hArRiS sUpPoRtS gEnOcIdE
Both can be true, that she supports genocide but that Trump will be worse.
I really hated all the moaning about people calling out that both are shitty options. The Overton window is so far to the right. Like, yeah Harris is clearly the better option but neither represent any positive moves forward.
For Palestine? Probably. In so many other options? It's laughable that people think that the two candidates were in any way similar.
Biden, and by extension Harris, have not waved their hands and saved the country (even if they could, which they can't, because we elected politicians not magicians), but they have done leagues more for people than anything the Trump crowd has.
Being ignorant of that is dangerous, but spreading that ignorance is borderline manslaughter for all the people who are going to be hurt because millions of people decided not to show up for this election that did for the last.
Oh both can be true, but in this case they are not.
There has always been valid reason to give arms to Israel, and there continues to be today. If you think that alone amounts to "supporting genocide" you're about to be pretty upset when you watch the actual genocide that unfolds in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank over the next 4-8 years. Trump and Netanyahu are about to go scorched earth on Palestine like never in the history of the ~80 year war.
Bernie fuckin' Sanders could be POTUS today and he'd still send weapons to Israel, because they are our main ally in the region who also happens to under near-constant threats and attacks from multiple angles. The absolute best we can reasonably ask for is that weapons are sent on a conditional basis, but nobody wants to talk about that reality.
The Harris campaign made the decision to not break from Biden on Israel, at the cost of a +6 points gain. That's the fault of the campaign's calculations to ignore those voters, take them for granted, and instead run to the right with Liz Cheney and having the most lethal Military.
I voted for Harris and told others to do the same. It's still on the campaign. Blaming voters is just sowing division when we need unity and solidarity to fight against Fascism.
Quote
Our first matchup tested a Democrat and a Republican who “both agree with Israel’s current approach to the conflict in Gaza”. In this case, the generic candidates tied 44–44. The second matchup saw the same Republican facing a Democrat supporting “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”. Interestingly, the Democrat led 49–43, with Independents and 2020 non-voters driving the bulk of this shift.
- Split Ticket (July 2024)
Quotes
In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
- New Poll Suggests Gaza Ceasefire and Arms Embargo Would Help Dems with Swing State Voters (Full YouGov Report) (May 2024)
Quotes
- Data For Progress Poll (May 2024)
Quotes
Quotes
Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.
Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.
There's no one issue that, independently, could have change the outcome that no other could have as well. Blaming it on just one thing is just as ignorant as blaming it just on voters.
It's as much on the Harris campaign as the American people who didn't fucking show up, despite all the evidence that it's going to be so much worse with Trump.
Trying to say "It's anyone's fault but mine" at this stage is pointless, though... because what's done is done. We're fucked. Doing nothing but point fingers only damages us in the long run, because it's that much more energy not spent on fixing it in the future.
I agree that pointing blame is not useful. Understanding the reasons for why voter output for the Democratic Party was depressed by over 10 million voters is in order to find a path forward.
It's ultimately on the campaign to earn those votes, they failed to with their campaign strategy. People are being squeezed with high costs of living and low wages. Business as usual is not appealing to people who want real change. The data is clear that progressive policies are popular with everyone, that includes Republicans and independents on top of Democrats. The decision to take those voters for Granted without offering them enough on the policy front, and instead move to the right, was a calculated decision by the campaign that failed. Instead, the campaign could have ran boldly on progressive policies. Especially with the Walz pick. They could have hemorrhaged the Republican base by running on policies that will improve their lives too. Such as universal healthcare, affordable public housing / housing first, increasing federal minimum wage and eliminating subminimum wage, free collage, etc. Her policy of taking on Price gouging was great, we needed a lot more of that and a lot less of things like moving to the right on immigration while campaigning with Liz Cheney.
Polls on campaign messaging
How to Win a Swing Voter in Seven Days
“The View” Alternate Universe: Break From Biden in Interviews, Play the Hits in Ads
Polls on policy
How Trump and Harris Voters See America’s Role in the World
Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college
Democrats should run on the popular progressive ideas, but not the unpopular ones
Here Are 7 ‘Left Wing’ Ideas (Almost) All Americans Can Get Behind
Finding common ground: 109 national policy proposals with bipartisan support
Progressive Policies Are Popular Policies
Tim Walz's Progressive Policies Popular With Republicans in Swing States
I see a lot of people preferring to blame voter demographics over recognizing how the Campaign failed to earn those votes. Now more than ever we need solidarity to protect ourselves and our communities from this rise in Fascism.
With Harris you had someone at least you could work with, she reacts and actually suffers political damage. Trump doesn't give a single shit what anyone wants and gets away with everything.
Over 50% of the god damn country voted for a man who has so many major, should-be career ending flaws we don't even need to list them anymore. If he kicked a puppy it wouldn't even make the top 10 worst things he's done. The democrats lost to the stupidest president of all time, a man who's entire economic policy revolves around tariffs that he fundamentally doesn't even understand and who cannot seem to open his mouth without lying.
....and you're here dunking on the people trying to oppose America's blatant complicity in genocide. Well, you sure showed them.
Tbf the 50% that voted for trump aren't here, plain and simple, so that's why you don't see engagement with them.
The only political engagement you'll see here on Lemmy shifts overwhelmingly left for all parties, so you'll see mostly squabbling between various left factions.
while youre busy opposing genocide, you got someone significantly worse elected instead. Well done.
Why do so many "moderates" insist on acting like the politically engaged people they run into online are the same people who are were so politically disengaged this year that they just didn't vote?
Like, could you please explain the thinking that someone wouldn't vote and then keep spending free time talking about it?
It's not just you, and you're not the first one I asked.
But everyone else just down votes me for asking and never respond.
Well here's a comment from someone I was talking to that was politically engaged yet arguing that folks might as well not vote.
I'm not going into the thinking behind it, but it's certainly happening.
Being politically "engaged" on Lemmy doesn't mean much in terms of ensuring voter participation. I've seen plenty of folks with a "democrats have to earn my vote" sentiment. That very much seemed to play out given the much lower voter participation for Democrats this year.
Did you link the wrong comment?
What you linked is just someone saying they can understand why someone who thinks both party's won't help, won't be likely to vote.
someone who thinks both party's won't help
I don't read it this way all - there was no conditional on party efficacy and it in fact was an assertion that their lives won't change due to who was elected, which changed the overall statement to read like the working class shouldn't vote.
So, the issue is you're not understanding what people are saying....
You're thinking they said something they didn't and you're getting upset about nothing.
Can you point out where they say "if wage earners think both parties won't help"?
If not, then you're the one selectively interpreting this...
Can you point out where they say “if wage earners think both parties won’t help”?
To avoid confusion because it seems likely:
If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point
A more indepth response:
What you linked:
Weird. A bug in the app switched up my replies.
What I intended to say was:
I can understand. If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.
And when you point this out to other people, all you get in response are excuses.
They're explicitly saying that the people whom didn't vote, didn't vote because both parties are too similar and won't help. They're saying those people need more than "not trump" to vote D.
I'm struggling to see where your confusion is coming from.
If this still doesn't make sense, can you try asking for clarification in greater detail?
It just seems so obvious to me.
And this isn't a new conversation, we've been having it since 2016, it's been 8 years man... Hell, really 12 because we started seeing the drop in 2012 when we realized Obama wasn't who he said in 08
What aren't you getting about this?
Like, this is the bare bones basics of modern political history in America.... Go back decades and the most likely response from a non voter about why they didn't vote is "neither party will actually help".
You never learned any of this stuff, like, ever?___
If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.
You'll notice that's different from
If you’re a wage earner in this country and you think your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.
The former is an assertion that all wage earners lives aren't affected by voting therefore they shouldn't bother voting. IF you're a wage earner THEN there's no point in voting".
The latter is understanding a scenario from a potential perspective of a wage earner who doesn't see change being discouraged.
Like you said in your own post,
someone who thinks both party's won't help
Probably for the same reason so many terminally online "politically engaged" people insist that they're clearly morally and intellectually superior to everyone else despite the fact that all they do is whine about how the "lesser evil" (in just one of thousands of elections, no less) isn't good enough for them.
Maybe if you stopped focusing so much on the negatives, and started promoting positive change, people wouldn't argue with you so much.
So your solution is less criticism of the party? No wonder the Dems never learn.
I think you're confusing me for someone else
I voted D like I always do, so have most progressive on here from what I've seen them say.
What me, and them, have been saying is that Biden and Harris had our votes, but every indication show d they wouldn't get enough to beat trump.
It's fine to be upset about that, we are too. Probably more than any moderate, we're literally losing more than you all, that's why we care.
But what's scary is this has all happened before. Moderates refuse to acknowledge they're unpopular with Dem voters, and rather than reach out to progressives for help reaching non-votera...
You all just seemed obsessed with turning more Dem voters away from the party.
Maybe if you stopped focusing so much on the negatives, and started promoting positive change, people wouldn’t argue with you so much.
The change we need is better Dem candidates, how the absolute fuck will that happen if we're not allowed to acknowledge we keep running shitty candidates?
Do you even remember how a fair and open primary is supposed to work?
How is one of those ever possible if no one is allowed to criticize the party's favorite?
I really didn't.
Edit: meaning I am not American and if I was I would have voted Harris, not that Trump is not significantly worse.
For some reason they still think they can bully people into voting for their guy. This has been thoroughly disproved but still they persist.
She does, so does Biden, just not to the extent trump will.
It's fucked up the DNC insisted on taking support of genocide as a binary topic out of this election.
Just think, if they cared more about votes than dark money from a foreign government, trump might not be president elect right now. That was always an option you know? Giving Dem voters what they wanted, not just on this issues but multiple others.
Do you think the gamble was worth it now?
Are you willing to do anything different in four years?
These people will blame us for the next 4 years and then blame us when the next neoliberal party darling loses in 2028. Anything they can do to deflect responsibility, hold anyone accountable, and prevent disrupting the status quo in this great race to the bottom.
Biden and Harris already openly pledge unconditional material support to Israel in its genocide, organize Europe in this same direction, and go after anyone opposing them on this. Israel receives what it materially needs to do all pf this. Any further escalation in the West Bank will be done with materials, funds, and diplomatic cover provided by the Biden-Harris administration.
Biden and Harris feign empathy and try to run little games around redefining what a ceasefire is for PR purposes. But in terms of the basic reakity of supporting Israel to do whatever it wants to Palestinians, as in providing them the means they would otherwise nit have to do it, there is no sense in which they are less bad than Trump.
There's a lot of stupidity reflected in these elections.
I've said before (and will say again) that US elections are like our national-scale county fairs: idiots that your normally never see come out of the woodwork.
Yes she does
Harris did and does support genocide and if you tolerated that you should do some self-criticism.