The Obamas Endorse Harris: 'This Is Going to Be Historic'
The former president and first lady threw their weight behind the presumptive Democratic nominee
Barack and Michelle Obama have endorsed Kamala Harris for the Democratic nomination for president, sharing the news in a joint phone call.
A video released by the campaign suggests the former president and first lady called Harris on Thursday while the vice president was in Houston, where she addressed the American Federation of Teachers and received a briefing on recovery efforts following Hurricane Beryl.
“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office,” Barack Obama is heard telling Harris in a 55-second video of the call.
“This is going to be historic,” Michelle Obama tells Harris.
You do realize you are utilizing the "both sides" argument about a genocide?
The IDF has killed several times more civilians than Hamas and were still okay associating with them.....
I should have been more clear. I'm talking about what politicians are forced into doing. Not my personal views. We've spent 20 years demonizing the "terrorists". Israel very successfully labeled all Palestinians as terrorists until very recently. Getting Americans to understand that the entire time we've supported Israel they've been doing 10 times worse to the Palestinians is going to take another big push. Understanding Hamas as an embattled resistance movement is a step too far for most voters right now.
So showing up with actual Hamas iconography and flags pretty much requires a statement like this.
Hamas cannot be rebranded like that because that is also not true. They are terrorists.
It would be good to stop with the unconditional support of the IDF because they are an extension of a radicalized government that has settler extremists in it.
So were the IRA under modern standards. So was the French Resistance. So are the Ukrainian stay behind units. So were the American minutemen.
The idea of terrorism being any one that harms civilians for political or religious gain is breathtakingly broad. For example the Taliban had far more in common with the French Resistance than they did with Al Qaeda.
When I said we've had 20 years of labeling people "Terrorists", there's a reason that's in quote marks. It's basically turned into anyone we don't approve of is a terrorist and anyone we do approve of is targeting key government infrastructure in a wartime environment. Which is a really neat way to ignore all of the actual issues and push a conflict into genocide because you've made peace impossible any other way.
Over and over again you find these terrorist groups that are confined to one region or country are actually political entities operating on the same resistance model as the old IRA. Right down to the messaging about generational conflict.
And yes I realize this is incredibly intersectional and isn't something most people are going to realize without a college level political education in conflict or two more large social movements. (One to lay the groundwork, and another to apply it to the region.)
I love how with the closing paragraph you directly call everyone plebs if they don't see it your way.
Yes the conflict is more nuanced but I don't agree to the equivalencies you make with several other organizations. Groups founded for terror might eveolve to do more, but in the case of Hamas that is just to nurture their human shields and keep them alive enough to Garner outrage when they get bombed.
College level is just a way to describe the level. It does not mean you need to sell your kidneys and get a whole degree. Hell in the US 75% of your classes don't have anything to do with your actual field. Which is a rant for another day. I find most people online are capable of college level learning, they just need to find the free or cheap courses and time to do them.
Now here's a fun propaganda bit, "they were founded for terror". Were they though? Not even AQ was founded with the idea of going straight for violence. Let's look at Hamas' origins.
They were founded in 1987 during the first intifada. So right away we have a conflict (or a flare up of the long term conflict) going on. Their name translates as, Islamic Resistance Movement. Their founder had been doing charity work in the occupied territories since at least the six day war in 1967. He was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and according to him the intent of the group was to act as the local political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and to counter the rising influence of the violent PIJ. (Palestinian Islamic Jihad).
That doesn't sound like a group that jumped on the terrorism train from day one to me. It sounds like a reaction to being occupied by a hostile force.
And what did they themselves put in their charter as their reason for Beiing?
Look I understand the situation there is waaayyy more complicated than brown people bad.
The whole region has over the past few millennia been home to people from almost literally all corners of the world. Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and as a passthrough for trade even more.
I don't have an idea how to solve the issue either. I would think that the 2 groups sharing the whole of the Israël and Palestinian territories fairly.. no second class citizens... Open elections. But yeah...
But what I can also see is that the other groups in the region, namely Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are also not interested in really helping the Palestinians. Or at least are willing to let them suffer to make a point. Keeping their side of the borders hermetically sealed.
So what then?
Oh, the destruction of Israel. which people take as a call for killing all jews but that isn't in their charter. And in the update they replaced that with a willingness to settle for a connected Gaza and West Bank Palestinian state. I'm not sure what's so controversial about saying you want to get rid of the country that's occupying you?
The rest of your post is just way of giving up on peace. It's always blowing up, We should do single state instead of the internationally and stakeholder agreed two state, and the neighbors don't care so why should we?
None of that is helpful to the conversation. Some of it's not even true, for example there were plenty of peaceful periods. And in the first half of the 1900's the war that did occur there was brought by outside empires. And again the 1948 conflict was Europeans executing a coup to create an independent settler state. Neighboring countries are always loathe to burden their systems with refugees. And moving to a single state solution is an Israeli propaganda line meant to justify their occupation and settlements.
Nah it's been fairly consistent that groups that use violence against civilian targets to gain political influence are labelled terrorists. What's not been consistent is your personal sympathies towards people that use these tactics.
That's bullshit. People can always negotiate, if they choose leaders that are capable of negotiating in good faith.
I'm not saying everyone loves them. But the IRA was pretty popular in the US, and I'm not sure you could call the minutemen terrorists in an American bar without starting a fight.
The fact that the label is applied more as a political measure than as a fact finding is my point. It's my entire point. Most of what Hamas does the French and Russian resistance units did in World War 2 and they get lauded as heroes. The one exception is the suicide bomb, but that's no less villainous than a briefcase bomb in it's outcome.
It's you trying to both sides Genocide. Hamas committed genocide on October 7. You're trying to normalize it by claiming Israel is also committing genocide.
It's not a numbers game. Israel is conducting a war with the goal to bring back the people Hamas is holding hostage (which is a war crime BTW). Hamas attacked Israelis on October 7 with the goal to kill as many people as they can.
Lol, my dude. An act of terrorism is not the same as a genocide.
I'm pretty sure it's not just me who thinks that, the ICC has warrants out for Bibis arrest.
Yeah.... That's why they've primarily killed women and children? Also, genocide is most definitely a numbers game.
And that was a bad thing..... Right? So doing the same back, but killing several times more civilians is worse....right?