• Phoenixz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    13 hours ago

    If you just had said that two months ago, it would have saved me so mando idiotic conversations…

  • vatlark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    I’m sure Netanyahu also wants it to end right after he gets his sadistic goals.

    As of mid 2024 the lowest estimate I found was >7000 Palestinian children dead, as compared to a highest estimate of <100 Israeli children dead. Any child dead is too many but it shows that this is not a war, it’s a slaughter.

    I voted for Harris because any alternative is asinine, but we should expect that the arms shipments to Israel will continue unless we pressure our politicians.

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 day ago

    Kind of a day late dollar short scenario

    I mean I already voted for Harris because I don’t wanna die in a Trump Brand Concentration Camp, but, she really couldn’t have said this any fucking sooner?

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      19 hours ago

      She had to wait until the day before the election so that AIPAC doesn’t have enough time to ratfuck her for it.

      Unfortunately, that’s how things work here if you’re critical of Israel in any way.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Instead the majority of people who oppose genocide have seen how she has continued to pledge her support. They have seen how children, women and men have been blown to shreds and burned alive with weapons the Biden-Harris administration has sent.

        This reeks more of a desperate attempt to peddle to voters now that she realizes genocide is indeed a red line for some voters

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          I really don’t want you people to have to find out the hard way just how fucking stupid all of this anti-Harris shit is so close to the election.

          Because that would mean that millions of Palestinians would be killed when the current genocide is turned up to 11 after President Trump gives Netanyahu a blank check. I really don’t want that. Stop trying to get Trump elected please.

          • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Not to mention the fact that a Trump win would be catastrophic to climate action. The actual number of lives on the line here is in the hundreds of millions. Anyone who can’t decide to vote for Harris just simply cannot be trusted. They are not our allies, and we should remember who they are long after this election is over, regardless of who wins.

            • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              13 hours ago

              With AMOC collapse happening actively, she is probably our last hope. We don’t have more time to “protest” vote or whatever. We need her now.

              8 billion people and all megafauna and megaflora and pretty much everything in the ocean is relying on this election. Gaza is sad, but those people will die to horrific climate change anyway if Trump is elected.

            • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              17 hours ago

              I’m not voting for Israel, I’m voting against the guy who is trying to prevent a ceasefire.

                • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  That’s because ending weapons shipments is something we can objectively do, and should do.

                  It’s not like the president can just say “I declare a ceasefire between Israel and Palestine” and it magically happen. All we can do is advocate for it.

                  Harris has been clear in her commitment to doing whatever it takes to reach a ceasefire. Trump has been having multiple calls a week with Netanyahu trying to prevent a ceasefire.

                  There are only three options in this election:

                  • Harris: Support of a ceasefire.
                  • Trump: Support of genocide.
                  • Anything else: You don’t give a shit.
          • Saleh@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            19 hours ago

            We demanded for almost a year that the Democrats need to stop supporting genocide. Instead Biden, Harris and the other party elites would rather hand the US to Trump than to stop more Arabs being murdered. Maybe she proves us wrong and actually puts Israel in check. But everything action so far has been the opposite of that.

            • _stranger_@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              17 hours ago

              Answer one simple question: Do you honestly believe Trump will be better for Palestinians?

              • Saleh@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                17 hours ago

                I believe the US is a white supremacist empire, founded on a settler colonial genocide, which is part of why it now supports another settler colonial genocide.

                There will be no change to that in the current political system. It requires a fundamental political change, probably revolution, but certainly the dismantling of the current political parties to change that.

                Maybe Trump will speed up the genocide of Palestinians, but the Democrats are equally committed to it, as they have thrown away every chance to end it, while taking every chance to perpetuate it.

                • _stranger_@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  16 hours ago

                  So your floor here is “throw gas on the fire”. Got it. You admit at best he’ll be the same, and you’re advocating for it. Your stance doesn’t seem sane for someone who wants less pain and suffering.

                • _stranger_@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  16 hours ago

                  Didn’t answer the question. The choice is binary at this point. You can support the one person who’s actually said they’ll try and stop it, or you can throw your support in the trash and help the opposition that’s said “Finish the problem” when referring to the people of Palestine.

    • Randelung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Trump Brand Concentration Camp is very apt. It succinctly expresses that the whole thing exists only for his personal monetary gain and he’s escalating to extremes for his grift.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t know. Election day is tomorrow (Technically today as I’m typing). For sure late, but maybe not too late.

  • g1ya777@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 hours ago

    She will do that by giving Israel more money. Soon Palestinians will be all genocided. Then the war will stop; because there will be no one else to fight against.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    Trump would do the same thing but in his case it means letting Bibi level Gaza and then buying some land to build a tacky resort on it.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      It won him some Muslim voters though. Yesterday, I saw one interviewed on TV, paraphrasing: “He withdrew troops from Afghanistan, started no wars and promised to end the war in Gaza.”

      Is it stupid? Yes. Is it what a potentially tipping demographics thinks? Yes.

      Source:

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Apparently no one in the comments has been paying attention. She’s been saying these same lines about Gaza since the convention speech.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s been a lot of FUD about it and .ml has been running wild denying anything even remotely pro peace from her.

      At any rate literally all we need at this point is a president that tells Netanyahu he either accepts a negotiated return of remaining hostages and withdraws or he loses our weapons support.

      But Biden is also doing his best to pump up their ammo supply so the next president actually doesn’t have the influence Biden could have had. It’s 2024 and I’m ashamed we didn’t learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames. They’ve been shamelessly giving Israel our best military technology with no regard to their political situation. College students called this as the most likely path 2 decades ago, and here we are appearing to be caught by surprise.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Fun fact, there’s a 2008 law that specifically forces the president to give Israel all the best military hardware.

        It was passed by W on his way out the door, and due to the Democratic party being compromised as hell, there’s never been enough votes to get rid of it, and any time the president might want to hold things back, they get sued under that law.

        • nednobbins@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Fun fact, there’s a 2008

          What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can’t find that law.

          I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.

          • LePoisson@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.

            https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf

            There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.

            So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.

        • LePoisson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.

          https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf

          There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.

          So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Biden and Obama both could have used the leahy law on day one. We have evidence going that far back that Israel systematically commits war crimes, including occupying Palestine in an illegal manner. To be clear there is a way they could have done it legally. But things including extending their own, civilian, legal system into the occupied areas preclude it being legal.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s 2024 and I’m ashamed we didn’t learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames.

        We did learn. Just all the wrong lessons. Iran taught us that you can ride a wave of hate for 50 years. South Africa taught us that you crack down on the BDS movement day one and keep the media on lock for your Apartheid friends.

  • RalphFurley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    We’re not in a vacuum. Two things can be true. She can honestly be pro Israel but also hope the turds that are the Likud Party lose power, work to end the genocide, and find a two-state solution - that is, if Hamas and Bibi will allow it, which they won’t.

    This binary all-or-nothing, zero sum bs is just toxic and ignorant.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      She can honestly be pro Israel but also hope the turds that are the Likud Party lose

      I’m not invested in the Likud Party losing if the war continues to expand and drag on.

      The issue isn’t with her “pro-Israel” policy, it’s with her “pro-Genocide” policy. That’s what’s driving the protests.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        19 hours ago

        it’s with her “pro-Genocide” policy

        What pro-genocide policy? Name one Kamala Harris, pro-genocide policy.

        Because it seems to me that she just stated that her goal is to end the genocide. Seems like a pretty counterintuitive way to be “pro-genocide”…

        And if you knew anything about politics in Israel, then you would 100% be invested in the Likud Party losing.

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Sending weapons to the army committing the genocide is a very clear endorsement of it. Judge politicians by their actions, not by their promises.

          And not only was sending those weapons a clear endorsement of the genocide, it is illegal by US law. The whole administration and majority of congress should be under investigation and in jail.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            19 hours ago

            And who is the current President of the United States?

            Is it Kamala Harris? No?

            So my question stands: one “pro-genocide policy”

            • Saleh@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Who is current vice-president?

              Her entire campaign was based on the fact that she is the continuation of Biden. Having proper primaries after Biden dropped out was argued against, saying she is already on the ticket. Her team is largely Bidens team. Distancing her from the administration she currently serves in and saying she is the continuation of that doesn’t work.

              Frankly if she was opposed to genocide the only decent thing would have been to resign from her position in the current administration. You cannot be against genocide while serving a genocidal president.

              • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                19 hours ago

                Then stop serving Trump. You can’t be against any of the things he stands for, including genocide, if you’re trying to swing this election in his favor.

        • Saleh@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          19 hours ago

          “Hey, i have murdered some 40.000 people, most women and children. Can you send me more weapons?”

          “Well sure, here ya go. Need any more troops deployed with it, so no one in the region can try to stop you?”

          More clear of an endorsement isn’t possible aside from going there personally to murder the women and children herself.

          • JonEFive@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            16 hours ago

            But the question remains, will things be better, worse, or the same under Trump?

            Like it or not, at this stage of the game there are effectively two candidates. To paraphrase South Park, you can vote for the douche bag or the turd sandwich. Neither is a very good option but one is certainly worse than the other if you’re paying any attention at all. Abstaining from voting for Harris in a swing state is tantamount to a half vote for Trump.

            So sure, continue letting everyone know what the current administration is doing wrong. I’m all for valid criticism of our government. Post facts, link sources, and post ways that people can voice their displeasure to their elected officials.

            Trying to sway votes away from Harris is not the answer. Because again, like it or not, the shitty choice that we’ve been handed in this scenario is bad or worse. Please stop advocating for worse.

            • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              16 hours ago

              Left-wing accelerationists will always vote for the worse result, because they’re convinced the only route to the world they want requires burning society down. That Queer and PoC communities will be exterminated in the process is of no concern to them, because they don’t actually care about real human outcomes, they just want their fantasy Communist society to emerge from the ashes of fascism’s cremated victims.

              They literally think that letting Fascism win and destroy society will open the door to a communist revolution. At best they are stupid, at worst they are malicious and explicitly want Fascism. Regardless, they are enemies of progress, friends to Fascists and Christian Nationalists, and have no problem throwing marginalized people to the wolves in a bid to accomplish nothing.

              • JonEFive@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                15 hours ago

                I don’t even know how to respond to this. It’s filled with so much hyperbole that there’s nothing factual to refute or discuss. All I can say is that I vehemently disagree with your opinions on the matter.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      It is not useful for Harris to call the genocide a genocide because it would hurt her chances of being elected. If Trump is elected instead of Harris, the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are dead.

      Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide because that hurts the chances of the genocide ending while Palestinians are still alive.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        Since we want the genocide to end before all Palestinians are dead it is not useful to demand that Harris calls the genocide a genocide

        Fucking liberalism in a nutshell.

          • Juice@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            18 hours ago

            So you’re looking at a criticism of liberalism, from the left of liberalism. Namely the socialist left, I am assuming. Socialists can be very critical of liberals, as liberalism is a part of the establishment, and has a long history of caving to right wing framing of issues (since the right wing is also (largely) liberalism, albeit “classical liberal.” In this case critical of the “its not practical” preconception that gives ground (literally) to the perpetuators of this genocide.

        • JonEFive@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          16 hours ago

          As opposed to? Conservatism? How do you expect that to be different? Because in terms of president, those are your two options right now.

          • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            How do you expect that to be different?

            State level electoral reform to replace first past the post voting. Introduce competition into the voting system.

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          No, it’s utility. The idea that we can achieve our goals despite not currently having leftists and socialists in power. Not wanting to get your hands dirty isn’t even a political position.

      • Juice@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I understand how politics works, and I can understand some of the many complications and consequences involved, but words have meaning, and meaning conveys truth.

        So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise. “in my power” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, especially since she’s committed to, let’s say, bend the truth quite a bit with this sentence.

        But skepticism alone isn’t analysis. I think by saying this she is trying to lure over “Uncommitted” conscientious objectors who are on the fence and may withhold their vote. But by not speaking strongly enough, she will never reach the vast majority of those people. This assurance feels empty to me. She’s not an ardent supporter of Palestinians, but who can see the future? Events are rapid and things change, "We exist in a context, all that.

        But there are disadvantages to people only taking political action by way of their votes, and maybe this is one of them.

        I hope she wins. But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings over the last 8 - 10 years.

        • JonEFive@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          But if she doesn’t the dems will blame those same voters, along with Greens (which, whatever) and any other third party voters instead of coming to grips with their many many failings

          This is something that a lot of people don’t think critically about. The republican party is largely homogonized. There isn’t much diversity to their demographic at all. I had great hopes that Trump would fracture the republican party, but they’re even more spineless than I realized. For all the “Trump isn’t fit” gnashing that came before his win, even from the republican party, they sure fell in line behind him real quick. Republicans are all about party over country. They don’t care about compromise, and in fact they don’t want compromise. They will tank their own bills if they think the bill will serve any benefit for democrats. Party above all else, and that’s what gives them so much power.

          On the opposite side, democrats are in many ways a coalition of various groups of non-republican voters, each group with their own desires and priorities, some in opposition to others who fall under the same umbrella. If the democrats lose support from one of their many sub-groups, that leads to a loss at the polls, which is a win for conservatives and the country gets pulled Evac further to the right. So democrats constantly have a very fine line to walk to pull voters to their side without pissing off another of their constituent groups.

          It sucks, it’s not the way things should be, but it is the reality of our current situation. I’m not advocating for feckless Democrat leaders, rather, I am advocating against conservatives who will absolutely move the country in a direction away from my desired outcomes.

          • Juice@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            I agree with a lot of your analysis, but I think a lot of these conclusions are highly contingent on historical circumstance. For example, I think Trump is a lot more unpopular than the current narrative regarding Trump. The Dems do not want to be so wrong about Trump’s chance of winning as they were in 2016. A dynamic that could play out in this election is that many of the groups you identified (and were right to do so) feel so threatened by a Trump presidency (in part because of Dems successful and good organizing against him) causes those groups to unite and keep him out of office. This could lead to a split between the pragmatic republican movement concerned with maintaining the status quo, and the pro-Trump MAGA militants who are not as homogenous of a group as may first appear.

            But feel free to “neener neener” about it if I end up being wrong in a few hours. My point is, things change, a disparate group of different interests can unite into an unbreakable bloc, and vice versa, in a traumatizingly short amount of time if recent years can be a teacher

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          So if you want to represent the nuanced, complex (one sided) world of real politik, then that is certainly a good exercise.

          No, unlike your argument, I’m not arguing we split hairs over semantics.

          she will never reach the vast majority of those people.

          Unless.

          She committed to ending the war in Gaza. If the war ends, the genocide ends. Tell people.

          • Juice@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            No she committed to do everything in her power to end the war. Very different. Sometimes “splitting hairs” isn’t just semantically, especially when it is political. Tell People.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 day ago

              Your argument is splitting hairs. If you care about the Palestinian people then tell people the truth. Harris wants to end the war in Gaza. Trump wants Israel to finish the job. Tomorrow is election day. It’s time to help the Palestinian people in the most useful way we can. By getting Kamala Harris and Tim Walz elected. Splitting hairs over Harris’ words is not useful.

  • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ve already voted for her, but I don’t believe her.

    This is a vague plea for peace without any indication of what things she believes (and more importantly, publicly acknowledges) would be “in her power”. Is the limit of her power sternly worded letters, arms embargoes, or intervention? Because I’m pretty sue she’s not opening the door for US peacekeeping troops in Gaza, though that would be in her power (at least for a short term).

    But like, with Harris we get to see if she’s willing to do anything meaningful, and maybe as public sentiment continues to turn against Israel she’ll be embarrassed enough to do something. It’s not a hopeful position to shoot for, but it is technically better than the alternative, and there other issues at play where the difference is not so limited.

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience. In places like Michigan they’re doing this, but outside seing districts they’ve been banging the war drums for Israel.

      So the lack of faith in the messaging isn’t without warrant.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        The campaign has been changing its tone depending on audience.

        Yes, it’s this shady practice called, “campaigning”.

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          No disagreement that the campaign is, in fact, doing the campaigning thing.

          A good campaign presents their intended policies consistently and favorably. It sells the electorate on casting their vote.

          A poor campaign favorably presents inconsistent policies in a vague manner. It erodes faith in what the electorate is voting for.

      • Doorbook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yes specifically when they think her ads in different states with different messaging are not going to be shown around.

        https://www.foxnews.com/video/6364100748112

        She represent the regular two faced career politician, which should work in regular election, but the Israel genocidal work in Gaza and war crimes expose these politician.

        • Breezy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          You linked to faux news. So i will not click the link nor does anything that you said have any meaning.

          • Doorbook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            2 days ago

            This is just a stupid take because almost all news agency are own by someone trying to push different agenda.

            • Empricorn@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              19 hours ago

              No other “news agency” had to legally argue in court that they are an entertainment-only product and no reasonable person would take their “reporting” as fact. Like a broken watch, they might sometimes be correct, but they are literally propaganda.

            • Breezy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Yes okay a biased “news agency” would be fine. But faux news is just that, fake news.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s completely in her power to stop whitewashing a genocide and creating false equivalences by calling it a “war”.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not if she wants to get elected. I’ve said since the convention that they’re trying their best to not piss off either side and that’s mostly been their strategy. Even when she’s releasing statements on the death of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders she’s very careful to say, as an American leader, I’m glad this dude, who killed Americans, is dead.

      Of course that was evidence of her being a flaming Zionist to people who want Trump elected.

        • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          You may already be aware that tone policing is a major component of .world moderation, so incivility is liable to get you censored or even banned. But it also creates a lot of user reports which fill up our report queue, even though we don’t admin .world.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          Yeah, no. Just not true. 6 point bump lol you fucking clown. I don’t think you understand how much power the Israel lobby has here. She would 100% lose if she came out strong against the genocide.

          Wait until she is elected, then criticize her if she refuses to call it a genocide.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          Most of those Democrats aren’t campaigning on BDS either and the polling is inconclusive. It turns on how exactly the questions are asked. The only concrete thing we’ve actually seen from them is that Americans want their president to negotiate a peace as soon as possible.

          She’s not negotiating anything yet. She’s working with cards dealt by someone else. And she will be doing so as President too because that’s the life of a third party mediator.

          If you want someone who will wave a magic wand and expect results, vote for Trump.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              17 hours ago

              I don’t know what country you think she’s running to be president for, but Netanyahu is not going to be her subordinate. She cannot simply order the end of the Gaza war. She also doesn’t get to choose the representatives in Congress. This isn’t a party system where representatives are pre-approved and seated in order. She gets the representatives that each district sends. Obviously there’s some influence there but there’s also limits, as the entire ordeal of being primaried shows.

              So I don’t know what else to say except welcome to American Civics 101. Pocket constitutions are on the table on the right, and political sports regalia on the left table.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  15 hours ago

                  I really hope you aren’t American because you don’t actually have the first clue as to how we elect Congress. She can’t even refuse to seat representatives. There’s 435 districts that elect their own representative, and they’re the only ones that can fire that representative. She could remove support for their next election but the party would need to make sure to line up a replacement and gear up to support their replacement in the inevitable primary fight. They cannot do that 215 times. They can’t do it 4 times. It took AIPAC to unseat one of the 4 left most Democrats. Their entire attention is on districts that are threatened by Republicans. And if you think they’re going to primary a proven winner in a purple district then you’re really smoking something.

                  So when the House party leader speaks. The President listens.

                  Nor have you considered that Israel could easily continue the food blockade under the guise of a continued war, without American bombs. It doesn’t take the US to manufacture bullets. That’s why the end of the war, and not just weapon shipments is desirable.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Not until after the election. She’s walking a wire trying to get nonMAGA republicans to vote for her in order to save Democracy. They need to at least pretend to believe she won’t completely abandon Israel. If she can beat Trump, she’ll then be free to call a genocide a genocide. In any case, Trump wants to end the war by letting his buddy Bibi nuke Gaza and just fucking kill all the Palestinians. A “final solution” as it were.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    Seems a little too little too late for it to move the needle much, especially given how much early voting has happened. Harris’s position on Israel has been so bizarre, pretty sure Israel has even been actively working against Democrats this whole time anyways.

    • Krauerking@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Way to late and it’s ridiculous she waited till desperation to take a good stance.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s basically the same pattern Biden followed. Even when he did fits and starts of good things, it was way too late and only felt like he was doing it for political reasons, not because he had a change of heart.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          Biden very clearly was saying things to try and keep a lid on domestic unrest. He literally parroted, (and still does) whatever Netanyahu says. Then he always blames Hamas for Netanyahu tossing in a known deal breaker at the last minute, (occupation of Gaza), even though Biden said he doesn’t want that either.

          Biden’s entire conduct over Israel has been in bad faith.

          Harris could not possibly have the same line as Biden so far because she doesn’t have control over weapons shipments or negotiations. All she can do is call for peace, and yeah those calls get tainted when your boss is saying the exact same stuff in bad faith. But if we aren’t smart enough to realize she cannot possibly be operating in bad faith at his level until January 20th, then we deserve everything we get.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        Peace has always been her call. We have yet to see how she would work for it because she isn’t in the hot seat yet. We have a choice between someone calling for peace, but not really pro Palestinian, and someone calling for ultra death squads.

        Grow up.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          With early voting and the roar of everything this is too late to make a huge wave difference I think.

          What’s up with the grow up comment. I’m just talking about the strategy being ineffective. It’s completely random.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Because your comment reads like the standard .ml stuff trying to tie her to Netanyahu no matter what she says.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              20 hours ago

              There is somehow always a moving Boogeyman in here.

              And yet it’s everyone else that has to grow up.

              • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                19 hours ago

                I was told to grow up the other day for simply pointing out why Muslim/Arab voters may be struggling internally with voting for Harris. Just, y’know, applying empathy and putting myself into someone’s shoes who has way more involved in that than I do.

                When I pointed out that this is why Democrats lose voters (they’re condescending and dismissive to their own party because their issues/concerns aren’t “convenient” right now) I’m screamed at for supporting Trump and how much worse it would be.

                100,000 voters cast protest votes during the primaries in just Michigan alone over the Palestinian genocide, it’s clearly an important issue to your constituents and they deserve to be treated with respect. Not condescension and insults, as if they can’t possibly comprehend their choices here.

                • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  19 hours ago

                  If Trump wins, don’t look to the liberals you hate to swing Trump to the left on this one. Eventually, under Christian Nationalism & Fascism, there won’t be any Palestinians or their supporters left, so I guess it’s a self-resolving issue.