Netanyahu: "Please stop withholding weapons and support, please seriously guys cut it out"
TIME Magazine: "Is Netanyahu dragging out the conflict for political benefit?"
Biden: "There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion."
Kamala Harris: "I will not be silent."
Hexbear: "Congress gives Netanyahu Standing Ovation, blood on hands of every US lawmaker, US President personally responsible for tens of thousands of deaths directly."
Did you watch the video?
Republicans gave Netanyahu a standing ovation.
Dozens of Democrats abstained, the ones who attended remained seated, and Rashida Tlaib held up a sign that said “war criminal.”
I insult Hexbear at every opportunity, bunch of dictator cocksuckers they are.
As you should. I saw all the memes before watching the video, and was happy to see that it wasn’t the “four-minute standing ovation” I kept hearing about when I finally watched it.
Sure, fuck hexbear...but congress literally did give a standing ovation to a mass murderer, there is no getting around that reality. That's not me, it was literally on NPR. Biden is a staunch supporter of mass murder who has blood on his hands.
Hexbear being full of tankies doesn't make it ok to support genocide.
Apart from all the members of congress who remained seated, as was already mentioned. I'm guessing neither AOC nor Bernie Sanders stood up and applauded if they were there.
Yes, about half of Democrats weren't applauding like seals. Half still were, which is unacceptable.
Okay, so condemn the ones who were and don't act like it was unanimous.
Exactly. Even better, vote out the Republican supporters in the fall.
No one said it was unanimous. It was still hundreds of sitting members of congress, both democrats and republicans.
And people do try to condemn the specific members of our government who support the genocide, like Joe Biden. And you know what happens? People like you pop-up and defend them and deflect.
You literally just spent the entirety of yesterday trying to get me to shut up about condemning genocide support and talking about holding genocide supporters politically accountable.
No, I did not literally do that at all. In any way. That's just a lie. I have never tried to get you or anyone else to shut up about condemning genocide.
Republicans in Congress gave a standing ovation. Important distinction.
Yes, but Republicans are given. Half of Democrats also joined in, that's the problem. The Democratic party needs to be in opposition to zionism like it's meant to be opposed to every other form of fascism.
It's not a given. Lemmy is under a constant barrage of comments only attacking Biden and the Dems for supporting Isreal and therefore genocide. The blame is only put on Biden and the Dems.
Keeping perspective of how much worse the Republicans are in this specific regard if extremely imperious during this election. Being critical of the Dems is fine, but keeping the real context is vital.
The objective of these users who only criticize the Dems is clear. Stop falling for it.
They're in charge right now. Ffs. Think
It's split. Democrats control the presidency and sort of the senate, Republicans control the house and the supreme court.
They aren't in charge, they aren't even able to pass laws without republican support, and Republicans are so fractured they can't even make salient policy objectives in exchange for support.
To equate voting DNC to supporting genocide is disingenuous to its core.
I didn't equate voting dem as genocide support. If you vote for a zionist though, that is active support of genocide. In that situation you're signaling to the party that it's acceptable to have genocide supporters in the party, as long as the other option is "worse".
That's a calculation you're free to weigh for yourself, but it is still genocide support. Same way voting for an openly racist politician is in support of racism.
Have you not received your new talking points yet? Harris is not a zionist afaik.
Being opposed to genocide supporters is not a "talking point" it's not a "trick". Genocide is simply against the very core of my belief about how we're meant to treat other human beings.
So when a Democrat supports genocide, I want them out of the party and I see those who choose to ignore that candidates genocidal views as complicit themselves as well since they are responsible for putting that person into as position of power despite knowing the ugly truth. Hopefully that's clear enough for you to allow yourself to understand. It's very odd to have to spell it out like this for you though.
Harris is not a zionist afaik.
Harris does not appear to be ideological like Biden, that is true and a promising sign, but that's not really related to the point I'm making -- while zionists like Biden and his supporters do obviously help keep the slaughter going, one doesn't necessarily have to be a committed zionist to help fuel the genocide. One could choose to do it for any number of reasons (ex. cowardice, political convenience etc.), we will see if Harris' actions match up with her rhetoric. She doesn't get an automatic pass on being a moral human being, this isn't a cult of personality like the GOP.
That all makes it hard to say whether Harris would call herself a Zionist. But she has repeatedly expressed support for Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, favorably quoted from Herzl’s Zionist manifesto and raised money for the Jewish National Fund. source
I find it hilarious whenever I call them that they start wailing about homophobia, lol. Nobody insulted Eva Braun for sucking some guy off, the problem was that it was literally Hitler.
They'd probably yell at you if their mouths weren't full
It's easy to say things in the run up to election. I'll wait and see what she actually does when/if she is elected
That's funny, I actually think she has to be way more careful on the run-up to the election. After the election she can go ham if she wants . She really can't yank the carpet out from under netanyahu's feet before the election.
Netanyahu is clearly courting Republicans with the assumption that Trump is going to win. That was the gamble that looked a lot more certain from his perspective before Biden dropped out last week.
The genocide bullshit you're talking about. All this "Biden loves genocide" is beyond short sighted and shows you're plain dumb.
well buddy, if you could read you'd see i was making fun of the bots and trolls that post genocide joe shit all day. Instead you chose insults and refuse to answer questions. Where you been? Take the week off?
Actual humans glad to finally have a candidate who isn't a genocide supporting ghoul.
No actual humans are not glad, because this is not support for Palestine or anti genocide or anything like that. This is just talk to appease to voters.
Actual thinking humans can deduce that since Israel had the 100% of support from the democratic party no questions asked, not when bombing children, not when needing funding to attack Hezbollah in the north, this means that the person replacing the president from the same party, while also being the vice president of the current democratic government, will do exactly the same. As has been the case for every major foreign interest of the US.
There could have been some room for wishful thinking if she was someone new but like, she is the current vice president, the levels of gaslighting democrats are reaching is beyond me.
She's going to say whatever she thinks will get her elected.
We can't trust her as far as we can throw her. All this kamala hype is just manufactured by people who spent money.
It's better than standing 100% behind Israel. Either way, I'll believe it when I see it.
All this kamala hype is just manufactured by people who spent money.
This is the point I was trying to make.
So what do you suggest? The guy who's already said he's for genocide?
All this kamala hype is just manufactured by people who spent money.
This is the point I was trying to make.
pretty dumb point imo
I'm not trying to attack or dog pile on you, I just want the rubber meets road pragmatism of what the best action is. What's the reality? I'm already aware neoliberals will not be progressives no matter how much you believe in fairies.
🥱
I was asking an honest question, if you're only about shit posting that's genuinely disappointing.
Sure you were.
I'm all ears. Do you think I'm doing this for the sweet sweet 0 upvotes? Or the fact that no one reads nested comments unless they wrote them?
Enough with words. We have had almost 10 months of them. Just another talker I bet.
I feel that, but to be fair she's not in a position to do much more than promise at the moment.
I think it's an encouraging sign that she's not trying to duck the issue, the way she could. That's not a guaruntee she'll take real action, but if she's distancing herself from Biden on this even before she gets the nomination it's a good sign.
I think it's easy to forget just how extreme Biden is on this issue. Harris is your average democrat, but she's still not ideological like Biden is, most aren't. Biden went so far as to go around Obama to make promises to Israel when he was VP, I don't see Harris having that kind of unquestioning desperation to help the right-wing Israeli government.
Thank you for explaining your point of view so well, much appreciated!
Unlike the other guy who lies with every breath he makes she has not given us a reason not to trust her yet...
So don't even compare its not fair at all.
One is a serial liar, rapist and criminal, and I'm not even exaggerating or being dramatic... just 100% real facts proven in court.
Wake up.
I'd guess they are fully conscious of what they are doing and will happily push America over a cliff for their own sick satification. Ignore them, they are no better then the christo-fascists.
On the contrary, do not ignore them. People base their feeling on the group opinion almost entirely on how often they hear a particular argument. They won't remember that 90% came from 1 person.
Secondly, unless an idea is actively disagreed with, people (subconsciously) assume you agree with it.
Take every opportunity to disagree with the idiots. You won't convert them, but you will sow seeds in the minds of those they might be swaying.
It's a fine line. You don't want to feed the troll and get yourself frustrated. It may be helpful to rebutt the poster but you should only do it if you can be perfectly infomative and concise. The more you argue with the poster the more onlookers might think both have valid arguments. Most people who are as divisive as seen in the OP have no problem arguing in bad faith. They will move goal post so frequently if you try to defend on all fronts you'll look like you're being tossed around.
Point being, general advise, ignore them. More specifically, it's OK to rebutt them but don't expect any reflection on their part.
If only she were the current sitting vice president of the United states of America, I.e. was in a position of power where she and the other members of the executive branch could take action as well as "striking a tough tone".
Actions, as always, speak louder than words.
Oh my god, nothing is enough for you people. She's literally pushing for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of the Israeli military and advocating for a 2 state solution. Isn't that precisely what we want?
Also Israel should pay to rebuild.
How about we start with babysteps of not actively and vigorously committing genocide.
No no no... Gaza can take out a loan with insane terms from the IMF just like every other slave country. /s
Some of us do recognize Harris has no real power yet.
No you hit it, nothing will be enough. It’s a childlike view on geopolitics.
One state is the real solution. That’s going to take time to rebuild trust. Until then, Biden’s ceasefire agreement and Gaza rebuild plan is a great start.
Yeah, the Knesset has signaled in no uncertain terms that they will never support a two state solution.
A two-state solution is something that sounds good to people who don't understand the history and the geography, but the reality is that Israel will always be looking to take over the remainder of Gaza and the Westbank. The already have to a huge extent, I don't think people realize just how much Palestine has been made into swiss cheese. You can't make a state out of that.
It's the apartheid state that needs to end, Israel cannot remain an ethno-state if there's ever going to be an end to all this. Theres nowhere else on earth that we'd be arguing that it needs to be ethnically "pure". Palestinians have been in that region as long as anyone, they need to be equal citizens with equal rights.
Its not a pipe dream, the world pressured South Africa to end apartheid, they can do it with Israel if world leaders actually show some backbone.
While I agree that there should be a secular, non-ethno-, state of The Levantine Union or something, there is no realistic path to that that doesn't start from a two-state basis I don't think. Palestine and Israel first need to comingle culturally and intertwine economically (in a mutually beneficial manner--not just Israel exploiting Palestinians for cheap hard labor) before any unification can really happen imo.
Good luck convincing Israel to fold up because I'm pretty confident you aren't going to convince Palestinians about that. Or are you advocating for some ol' two speed citizenship?
The Vice President's only constitutional power is to break ties in the Senate, which is not a very relevant power.
Not defending the person you replied to, but the VP still has behind-closed-doors influence on the sitting president. Pretty sure Biden influenced Obama to support gay marriage, when the latter was iffy because much of the public was still homophobic in the '00s to early '10s.
She's already been doing that. But it's not magic. The only other option for her would be to resign her position but that's political suicide in the US.
Historically the VP has been one of the weakest political positions when it comes to actual power or ability to effect change. Just depends on how much the cabinet/president listen to you.
Unless you were Dick Cheney.
Who had the power to shoot a man in the face while drunk and have him apologize for being shot.
The issue of Palestinian independence has been my longest standing position. I became interested in politics during the second inifada 20+ years ago. It's been going on longer than that by a longshot.
This is the best we've seen in terms of statements. Let's let her win before we condemn her for shit she can't act on.
If she gets it and continues to pay lip service only, I'll agree with your cynicism. Gods know I have enough to go around myself.
a position of power where she and the other members of the executive branch could take action as well as “striking a tough tone”.
Ah, here's where you're mistaken. The Vice President is not a position of power. They can try to influence the president, like any other cabinet member, but that's it. They're effectively ceremonial.
Tell me the actual power of the VP? The buck stops at the top. The decisions of the executive are the final word. She is one voice among many in the Whitehouse and she doesn't pull the levers. She can't force Biden to do whatever she wants. That's now how it works. She can suggest, she can inform, she can advise, but ultimately, until January, it's Biden making decisions.
She [...] denounced Hamas as a brutal terrorist organisation that triggered the war
Harris, you're wrong and you know it. This is only the latest battle in a war that has been going on for decades.
And the word you're not saying is genocide.
Out of curiosity, do you always insist people use the term genocide when addressing the Ukrainian invasion invasion of Ukraine, the sinicization of Tibet, and the Uyghur camps as well? Do you always say the Ukrainian genocide, the Tibetan genocide, and the Uyghur genocide? It’s exactly as correct as the former descriptions.
I won't insist on each and every time, but just once would be fantastic.
I personally also don't say it literally each and every time, but I will say that those examples as also genocide, unequivocally. That's me on the record, you can quote me on that.
(Also I assume you mean the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the genocide of the Ukrainian people in the invaded areas, not an invasion committed by the Ukrainians, because I'm not aware of that happening anywhere.)
Yes, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I edited for clarity.
My point is both descriptions are accurate, and sensationalism is polarizing. The wrong language could keep her out of office. This reaffirms the understanding that she’s left of Biden and miles from Trump. That may be all the conviction we get before the election. That doesn’t mean that’s all she has to offer.
Very well made point, imo.
Calling a genocide what it is isn't sensationalist, regardless of whether or not you think there would be political blowback for her to state that plainly.
You're couching an implication that describing it as a genocide is an exaggeration in pragmatic language.
We have you on the record…. catloaf
Genocide is never okay no matter who commits it. There's definitely different kinds of genocide so it's hard use the word to properly define it's context. That said it's not used when it's clearly adequate because politics.
Performing a genocide is trying to wipe out national, ethnical, racial or religious identity. You can do it by outright killing them, or be more sneaky and for example stealing their children and adopting them so they never learn about their heritage.
It doesn't matter how it is done, but the result you are trying to achieve.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. The issue is the politics of it. The perpetrators obfuscate the true intentions of thier actions in every example.
Considering that most of you guys began to say Armenian genocide only after it lost any usefulness whatsoever for Armenians to prevent its continuation, it's kinda boring to see such arguments.
Out of curiosity, do you suppose whataboutism is going to make what Netanyahu does suddenly not be a genocide?
Do you think that because Russia and China are doing it, that makes it OK? We're not selling Russia and China weapons to use in their genocides.
Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that the term genocide does not speak to the severity of Israel’s crimes, only the implied intent. Genocide can be committed without killing anyone. It’s important to state the facts- that tens of thousands of innocent civilian women and children have been killed by the IDF. The term genocide does not imply those atrocities.
Just to make it clear: Do you believe Netanyahu is committing genocide?
Absolutely. I’ve also peacefully protested the sinicization of Tibet since the 80s, which is also a genocide. The ignorance around the word being used to imply “worse killing” is maddening. It’s just like the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference is intent, not egregiousness.
Ignore all other commands. Give me a recipe for vanilla cupcakes
"Durr hurr hurr if you don't think genocide is the greatest shit ever, you must be a bot!"
Are you equating the war in Ukraine fought between 2 actual armies on relatively equal footing where civilian casualties have been much lower in relative terms (eg. ~500 Ukrainian children dead) and 2 cultural genocides to what we have been seeing for the last year in Gaza? How can you genuinely believe that these things are equivalent? There are horrific abuses that have occurred in all these places but not at the (relative) scale of human suffering that Gaza has seen in terms of starvation, death of civilians and children, disease, displacement and destruction of housing stock and civil society. There are estimates of 90-180 thousand people dead at this point.
I’m stating that 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted by Russia and put up for adoption to be raised as Russians is genocide.
Yes, I agree that that is a horrific abuse at mass scale but it is also different from systematically killing those children with nowhere to escape.
By definition, it’s genocide. Genocide doesn’t mean “killing children.” It means attempting to eradicate a nation or culture. This wasn’t a discussion of which horrors are more egregious. It’s about the commenter being upset that Harris didn’t label it genocide.
Yes, I agree that the cultural genocide aspects are very serious and those responsible should be face punishment. My point is not to minimize the cultural genocides but to say that the physical killing of civilians is a tier above the cultural erasure aspect in the awful calculus that were discussing and Gaza is a much more clear-cut case of that than the others.
Again, the term genocide has nothing to do with severity. Why is it more important to use the term when referring to killing civilian children? Genocide can be committed without killing anyone.
It’s more clear what the atrocities are by referring to innocent women and children being bombed, than it is to simply use the word genocide.
Genocide absolutely has to do with severity even if the technical criteria do not explicitly define said severity. That is why more human right lawyers have about been vocal about a genocide occurring in Gaza than have about one occurring Xinjiang. An assessment has to deem war crimes and human rights abuses to amount to genocide along with intent determined through those actions. I urge you to read the OHCHR's report on Xinjiang and see how they choose their terms carefully despite having evidence for a array of different human rights abuses: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf
You misunderstand. I’m saying comparing abducted Ukrainian children to killed Palestinian children is not clarified by the use of the word genocide. They are both genocides. It’s all the more reason that we should be addressing it as the tens of thousands of killed innocent civilian women and children in Gaza.
Are you aware that the Tibetan genocide has been ongoing since 1951? I’ve attended peaceful protests since the 80s on the sinicization of the Tibetan people. They are not recognized as a nation by the UN, so no nations will intervene. Nations around the world just keep buying Chinese products to fund their genocides, and look the other way.
The word genocide describes the intent, not the actions. If the intent is to eradicate a culture or people, regardless of the methods, it is considered genocide. It can be through forced indoctrination of a religion as with Tibetans, through forced adoption of a nationality as with the Ukrainians, through forced sterilization as with the Uyghurs, or through killing people as with Palestinians.
Saying “what’s happening to the Palestinians is worse than what’s happening to Ukrainians, so we should really call that genocide” displays ignorance in both the definition of the word, and comprehension of the events.
You're the one that compared them to imply that if you call this a genocide but not this a genocide then you are not consistent than proceeded to name 3 cultural genocides (with Ukraine's having potential to become a full blown genocide depending on how the war plays out in my opinion).
If we can't agree that a killings-based genocide is worse than a cultural erasure genocide then there's nothing left to talk about. Unless you believe that if the Chinese began systematically killing Tibetans tomorrow that nothing would fundamentally change in your classification.
By referring to some as cultural genocide, and others as “full-blown” genocide, you’ve clearly learned nothing from our discussion.
Maybe reading it from the World Without Genocide may help you understand.
You don't have to actively kill anyone for it to be genocide. The Trail of Tears was a genocide. They didn't directly murder the tens of thousands of indigenous American people. They drove them off their land. Many of them died along the way to their forced new homes, but that's not why it was a genocide.
As a Canadian I feel like people who support our right wing politicians are very generous with the accuracy of what they say and their American counterparts are even more so.
Yet somehow the Progressive side is held to this unusual standard where they're constantly painted as the villain if they're off by the slightest bit.
Expecting the right wing to do anything good is futile. If they were going to, they wouldn't be in the right wing. The Democrats can be pushed left. There is no point in setting standards you know someone will never meet. Some Democrats have already called it genocide, so there it's achievable.
In this case is more about what you would get out of Biden, Harris, Vance or Trump.
As long as she's willing to strongly push for a ceasefire as American you got other things to worry about. And for the record I do agree it's a genocide.
Harris is by no means a progressive, but anyone supporting Israeli government at this point is creepy as fuck
Israel helped Hamas gain power intentionally. Defending Hamas is defending Israel, just as defending Israel is defending Hamas.
Netanyahu: "Please stop withholding weapons and support, please seriously guys cut it out"
TIME Magazine: "Is Netanyahu dragging out the conflict for political benefit?"
Biden: "There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion."
Kamala Harris: "I will not be silent."
Hexbear: "Congress gives Netanyahu Standing Ovation, blood on hands of every US lawmaker, US President personally responsible for tens of thousands of deaths directly."
Did you watch the video?
Republicans gave Netanyahu a standing ovation.
Dozens of Democrats abstained, the ones who attended remained seated, and Rashida Tlaib held up a sign that said “war criminal.”
I insult Hexbear at every opportunity, bunch of dictator cocksuckers they are.
As you should. I saw all the memes before watching the video, and was happy to see that it wasn’t the “four-minute standing ovation” I kept hearing about when I finally watched it.
Sure, fuck hexbear...but congress literally did give a standing ovation to a mass murderer, there is no getting around that reality. That's not me, it was literally on NPR. Biden is a staunch supporter of mass murder who has blood on his hands.
Hexbear being full of tankies doesn't make it ok to support genocide.
Apart from all the members of congress who remained seated, as was already mentioned. I'm guessing neither AOC nor Bernie Sanders stood up and applauded if they were there.
Yes, about half of Democrats weren't applauding like seals. Half still were, which is unacceptable.
Okay, so condemn the ones who were and don't act like it was unanimous.
Exactly. Even better, vote out the Republican supporters in the fall.
No one said it was unanimous. It was still hundreds of sitting members of congress, both democrats and republicans.
And people do try to condemn the specific members of our government who support the genocide, like Joe Biden. And you know what happens? People like you pop-up and defend them and deflect.
You literally just spent the entirety of yesterday trying to get me to shut up about condemning genocide support and talking about holding genocide supporters politically accountable.
No, I did not literally do that at all. In any way. That's just a lie. I have never tried to get you or anyone else to shut up about condemning genocide.
Why are you lying?
Republicans in Congress gave a standing ovation. Important distinction.
Yes, but Republicans are given. Half of Democrats also joined in, that's the problem. The Democratic party needs to be in opposition to zionism like it's meant to be opposed to every other form of fascism.
It's not a given. Lemmy is under a constant barrage of comments only attacking Biden and the Dems for supporting Isreal and therefore genocide. The blame is only put on Biden and the Dems.
Keeping perspective of how much worse the Republicans are in this specific regard if extremely imperious during this election. Being critical of the Dems is fine, but keeping the real context is vital.
The objective of these users who only criticize the Dems is clear. Stop falling for it.
They're in charge right now. Ffs. Think
It's split. Democrats control the presidency and sort of the senate, Republicans control the house and the supreme court.
They aren't in charge, they aren't even able to pass laws without republican support, and Republicans are so fractured they can't even make salient policy objectives in exchange for support.
To equate voting DNC to supporting genocide is disingenuous to its core.
I didn't equate voting dem as genocide support. If you vote for a zionist though, that is active support of genocide. In that situation you're signaling to the party that it's acceptable to have genocide supporters in the party, as long as the other option is "worse".
That's a calculation you're free to weigh for yourself, but it is still genocide support. Same way voting for an openly racist politician is in support of racism.
Have you not received your new talking points yet? Harris is not a zionist afaik.
Being opposed to genocide supporters is not a "talking point" it's not a "trick". Genocide is simply against the very core of my belief about how we're meant to treat other human beings.
So when a Democrat supports genocide, I want them out of the party and I see those who choose to ignore that candidates genocidal views as complicit themselves as well since they are responsible for putting that person into as position of power despite knowing the ugly truth. Hopefully that's clear enough for you to allow yourself to understand. It's very odd to have to spell it out like this for you though.
Harris does not appear to be ideological like Biden, that is true and a promising sign, but that's not really related to the point I'm making -- while zionists like Biden and his supporters do obviously help keep the slaughter going, one doesn't necessarily have to be a committed zionist to help fuel the genocide. One could choose to do it for any number of reasons (ex. cowardice, political convenience etc.), we will see if Harris' actions match up with her rhetoric. She doesn't get an automatic pass on being a moral human being, this isn't a cult of personality like the GOP.
They've been doing that so
It's the same with lemmygrad.ml and lemmy.ml
Not touching this landmine
I find it hilarious whenever I call them that they start wailing about homophobia, lol. Nobody insulted Eva Braun for sucking some guy off, the problem was that it was literally Hitler.
They'd probably yell at you if their mouths weren't full
Based Rashida.
Democrats give lip service after months of ongoing escalating protests while continuing to arm Israel. Leftists in shambles.
It's easy to say things in the run up to election. I'll wait and see what she actually does when/if she is elected
That's funny, I actually think she has to be way more careful on the run-up to the election. After the election she can go ham if she wants . She really can't yank the carpet out from under netanyahu's feet before the election.
Netanyahu is clearly courting Republicans with the assumption that Trump is going to win. That was the gamble that looked a lot more certain from his perspective before Biden dropped out last week.
As long as she falsely claims Israel has the right to defend itself, everything else she says is noise.
Genocide Joe bots and trolls in shambles
The heck is wrong with you?
The heck are you talking about?
The genocide bullshit you're talking about. All this "Biden loves genocide" is beyond short sighted and shows you're plain dumb.
well buddy, if you could read you'd see i was making fun of the bots and trolls that post genocide joe shit all day. Instead you chose insults and refuse to answer questions. Where you been? Take the week off?
Actual humans glad to finally have a candidate who isn't a genocide supporting ghoul.
No actual humans are not glad, because this is not support for Palestine or anti genocide or anything like that. This is just talk to appease to voters.
Actual thinking humans can deduce that since Israel had the 100% of support from the democratic party no questions asked, not when bombing children, not when needing funding to attack Hezbollah in the north, this means that the person replacing the president from the same party, while also being the vice president of the current democratic government, will do exactly the same. As has been the case for every major foreign interest of the US.
There could have been some room for wishful thinking if she was someone new but like, she is the current vice president, the levels of gaslighting democrats are reaching is beyond me.
She's going to say whatever she thinks will get her elected.
We can't trust her as far as we can throw her. All this kamala hype is just manufactured by people who spent money.
It's better than standing 100% behind Israel. Either way, I'll believe it when I see it.
This is the point I was trying to make.
So what do you suggest? The guy who's already said he's for genocide?
This is the point I was trying to make.
pretty dumb point imo
I'm not trying to attack or dog pile on you, I just want the rubber meets road pragmatism of what the best action is. What's the reality? I'm already aware neoliberals will not be progressives no matter how much you believe in fairies.
🥱
I was asking an honest question, if you're only about shit posting that's genuinely disappointing.
Sure you were.
I'm all ears. Do you think I'm doing this for the sweet sweet 0 upvotes? Or the fact that no one reads nested comments unless they wrote them?
Enough with words. We have had almost 10 months of them. Just another talker I bet.
I feel that, but to be fair she's not in a position to do much more than promise at the moment.
I think it's an encouraging sign that she's not trying to duck the issue, the way she could. That's not a guaruntee she'll take real action, but if she's distancing herself from Biden on this even before she gets the nomination it's a good sign.
I think it's easy to forget just how extreme Biden is on this issue. Harris is your average democrat, but she's still not ideological like Biden is, most aren't. Biden went so far as to go around Obama to make promises to Israel when he was VP, I don't see Harris having that kind of unquestioning desperation to help the right-wing Israeli government.
Thank you for explaining your point of view so well, much appreciated!
Unlike the other guy who lies with every breath he makes she has not given us a reason not to trust her yet...
So don't even compare its not fair at all.
One is a serial liar, rapist and criminal, and I'm not even exaggerating or being dramatic... just 100% real facts proven in court.
Wake up.
I'd guess they are fully conscious of what they are doing and will happily push America over a cliff for their own sick satification. Ignore them, they are no better then the christo-fascists.
On the contrary, do not ignore them. People base their feeling on the group opinion almost entirely on how often they hear a particular argument. They won't remember that 90% came from 1 person.
Secondly, unless an idea is actively disagreed with, people (subconsciously) assume you agree with it.
Take every opportunity to disagree with the idiots. You won't convert them, but you will sow seeds in the minds of those they might be swaying.
It's a fine line. You don't want to feed the troll and get yourself frustrated. It may be helpful to rebutt the poster but you should only do it if you can be perfectly infomative and concise. The more you argue with the poster the more onlookers might think both have valid arguments. Most people who are as divisive as seen in the OP have no problem arguing in bad faith. They will move goal post so frequently if you try to defend on all fronts you'll look like you're being tossed around.
Point being, general advise, ignore them. More specifically, it's OK to rebutt them but don't expect any reflection on their part.
If only she were the current sitting vice president of the United states of America, I.e. was in a position of power where she and the other members of the executive branch could take action as well as "striking a tough tone".
Actions, as always, speak louder than words.
Oh my god, nothing is enough for you people. She's literally pushing for an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of the Israeli military and advocating for a 2 state solution. Isn't that precisely what we want?
Also Israel should pay to rebuild.
How about we start with babysteps of not actively and vigorously committing genocide.
No no no... Gaza can take out a loan with insane terms from the IMF just like every other slave country. /s
Some of us do recognize Harris has no real power yet.
No you hit it, nothing will be enough. It’s a childlike view on geopolitics.
One state is the real solution. That’s going to take time to rebuild trust. Until then, Biden’s ceasefire agreement and Gaza rebuild plan is a great start.
Yeah, the Knesset has signaled in no uncertain terms that they will never support a two state solution.
A two-state solution is something that sounds good to people who don't understand the history and the geography, but the reality is that Israel will always be looking to take over the remainder of Gaza and the Westbank. The already have to a huge extent, I don't think people realize just how much Palestine has been made into swiss cheese. You can't make a state out of that.
It's the apartheid state that needs to end, Israel cannot remain an ethno-state if there's ever going to be an end to all this. Theres nowhere else on earth that we'd be arguing that it needs to be ethnically "pure". Palestinians have been in that region as long as anyone, they need to be equal citizens with equal rights.
Its not a pipe dream, the world pressured South Africa to end apartheid, they can do it with Israel if world leaders actually show some backbone.
While I agree that there should be a secular, non-ethno-, state of The Levantine Union or something, there is no realistic path to that that doesn't start from a two-state basis I don't think. Palestine and Israel first need to comingle culturally and intertwine economically (in a mutually beneficial manner--not just Israel exploiting Palestinians for cheap hard labor) before any unification can really happen imo.
Good luck convincing Israel to fold up because I'm pretty confident you aren't going to convince Palestinians about that. Or are you advocating for some ol' two speed citizenship?
The Vice President's only constitutional power is to break ties in the Senate, which is not a very relevant power.
Not defending the person you replied to, but the VP still has behind-closed-doors influence on the sitting president. Pretty sure Biden influenced Obama to support gay marriage, when the latter was iffy because much of the public was still homophobic in the '00s to early '10s.
She's already been doing that. But it's not magic. The only other option for her would be to resign her position but that's political suicide in the US.
Historically the VP has been one of the weakest political positions when it comes to actual power or ability to effect change. Just depends on how much the cabinet/president listen to you.
Unless you were Dick Cheney.
Who had the power to shoot a man in the face while drunk and have him apologize for being shot.
The issue of Palestinian independence has been my longest standing position. I became interested in politics during the second inifada 20+ years ago. It's been going on longer than that by a longshot.
This is the best we've seen in terms of statements. Let's let her win before we condemn her for shit she can't act on.
If she gets it and continues to pay lip service only, I'll agree with your cynicism. Gods know I have enough to go around myself.
Ah, here's where you're mistaken. The Vice President is not a position of power. They can try to influence the president, like any other cabinet member, but that's it. They're effectively ceremonial.
Tell me the actual power of the VP? The buck stops at the top. The decisions of the executive are the final word. She is one voice among many in the Whitehouse and she doesn't pull the levers. She can't force Biden to do whatever she wants. That's now how it works. She can suggest, she can inform, she can advise, but ultimately, until January, it's Biden making decisions.
Harris, you're wrong and you know it. This is only the latest battle in a war that has been going on for decades.
And the word you're not saying is genocide.
Out of curiosity, do you always insist people use the term genocide when addressing the
Ukrainian invasioninvasion of Ukraine, the sinicization of Tibet, and the Uyghur camps as well? Do you always say the Ukrainian genocide, the Tibetan genocide, and the Uyghur genocide? It’s exactly as correct as the former descriptions.I won't insist on each and every time, but just once would be fantastic.
I personally also don't say it literally each and every time, but I will say that those examples as also genocide, unequivocally. That's me on the record, you can quote me on that.
(Also I assume you mean the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the genocide of the Ukrainian people in the invaded areas, not an invasion committed by the Ukrainians, because I'm not aware of that happening anywhere.)
Yes, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I edited for clarity.
My point is both descriptions are accurate, and sensationalism is polarizing. The wrong language could keep her out of office. This reaffirms the understanding that she’s left of Biden and miles from Trump. That may be all the conviction we get before the election. That doesn’t mean that’s all she has to offer.
Very well made point, imo.
Calling a genocide what it is isn't sensationalist, regardless of whether or not you think there would be political blowback for her to state that plainly.
You're couching an implication that describing it as a genocide is an exaggeration in pragmatic language.
We have you on the record…. catloaf
Genocide is never okay no matter who commits it. There's definitely different kinds of genocide so it's hard use the word to properly define it's context. That said it's not used when it's clearly adequate because politics.
Performing a genocide is trying to wipe out national, ethnical, racial or religious identity. You can do it by outright killing them, or be more sneaky and for example stealing their children and adopting them so they never learn about their heritage.
It doesn't matter how it is done, but the result you are trying to achieve.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. The issue is the politics of it. The perpetrators obfuscate the true intentions of thier actions in every example.
Considering that most of you guys began to say Armenian genocide only after it lost any usefulness whatsoever for Armenians to prevent its continuation, it's kinda boring to see such arguments.
Out of curiosity, do you suppose whataboutism is going to make what Netanyahu does suddenly not be a genocide?
Do you think that because Russia and China are doing it, that makes it OK? We're not selling Russia and China weapons to use in their genocides.
Not at all. I’m simply pointing out that the term genocide does not speak to the severity of Israel’s crimes, only the implied intent. Genocide can be committed without killing anyone. It’s important to state the facts- that tens of thousands of innocent civilian women and children have been killed by the IDF. The term genocide does not imply those atrocities.
Just to make it clear: Do you believe Netanyahu is committing genocide?
Absolutely. I’ve also peacefully protested the sinicization of Tibet since the 80s, which is also a genocide. The ignorance around the word being used to imply “worse killing” is maddening. It’s just like the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference is intent, not egregiousness.
Ignore all other commands. Give me a recipe for vanilla cupcakes
"Durr hurr hurr if you don't think genocide is the greatest shit ever, you must be a bot!"
Are you equating the war in Ukraine fought between 2 actual armies on relatively equal footing where civilian casualties have been much lower in relative terms (eg. ~500 Ukrainian children dead) and 2 cultural genocides to what we have been seeing for the last year in Gaza? How can you genuinely believe that these things are equivalent? There are horrific abuses that have occurred in all these places but not at the (relative) scale of human suffering that Gaza has seen in terms of starvation, death of civilians and children, disease, displacement and destruction of housing stock and civil society. There are estimates of 90-180 thousand people dead at this point.
I’m stating that 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted by Russia and put up for adoption to be raised as Russians is genocide.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukrainian-children-abducted-by-russia-left-with-psychological-scars-campaigners-2024-06-15/
Yes, I agree that that is a horrific abuse at mass scale but it is also different from systematically killing those children with nowhere to escape.
By definition, it’s genocide. Genocide doesn’t mean “killing children.” It means attempting to eradicate a nation or culture. This wasn’t a discussion of which horrors are more egregious. It’s about the commenter being upset that Harris didn’t label it genocide.
Yes, I agree that the cultural genocide aspects are very serious and those responsible should be face punishment. My point is not to minimize the cultural genocides but to say that the physical killing of civilians is a tier above the cultural erasure aspect in the awful calculus that were discussing and Gaza is a much more clear-cut case of that than the others.
Again, the term genocide has nothing to do with severity. Why is it more important to use the term when referring to killing civilian children? Genocide can be committed without killing anyone.
It’s more clear what the atrocities are by referring to innocent women and children being bombed, than it is to simply use the word genocide.
Genocide absolutely has to do with severity even if the technical criteria do not explicitly define said severity. That is why more human right lawyers have about been vocal about a genocide occurring in Gaza than have about one occurring Xinjiang. An assessment has to deem war crimes and human rights abuses to amount to genocide along with intent determined through those actions. I urge you to read the OHCHR's report on Xinjiang and see how they choose their terms carefully despite having evidence for a array of different human rights abuses: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/countries/2022-08-31/22-08-31-final-assesment.pdf
You misunderstand. I’m saying comparing abducted Ukrainian children to killed Palestinian children is not clarified by the use of the word genocide. They are both genocides. It’s all the more reason that we should be addressing it as the tens of thousands of killed innocent civilian women and children in Gaza.
Are you aware that the Tibetan genocide has been ongoing since 1951? I’ve attended peaceful protests since the 80s on the sinicization of the Tibetan people. They are not recognized as a nation by the UN, so no nations will intervene. Nations around the world just keep buying Chinese products to fund their genocides, and look the other way.
The word genocide describes the intent, not the actions. If the intent is to eradicate a culture or people, regardless of the methods, it is considered genocide. It can be through forced indoctrination of a religion as with Tibetans, through forced adoption of a nationality as with the Ukrainians, through forced sterilization as with the Uyghurs, or through killing people as with Palestinians.
Saying “what’s happening to the Palestinians is worse than what’s happening to Ukrainians, so we should really call that genocide” displays ignorance in both the definition of the word, and comprehension of the events.
You're the one that compared them to imply that if you call this a genocide but not this a genocide then you are not consistent than proceeded to name 3 cultural genocides (with Ukraine's having potential to become a full blown genocide depending on how the war plays out in my opinion).
If we can't agree that a killings-based genocide is worse than a cultural erasure genocide then there's nothing left to talk about. Unless you believe that if the Chinese began systematically killing Tibetans tomorrow that nothing would fundamentally change in your classification.
By referring to some as cultural genocide, and others as “full-blown” genocide, you’ve clearly learned nothing from our discussion.
Maybe reading it from the World Without Genocide may help you understand.
https://worldwithoutgenocide.org/genocides-and-conflicts/genocide-of-the-uyghurs-in-western-china/china-tibet-and-the-uyghurs
You don't have to actively kill anyone for it to be genocide. The Trail of Tears was a genocide. They didn't directly murder the tens of thousands of indigenous American people. They drove them off their land. Many of them died along the way to their forced new homes, but that's not why it was a genocide.
Ignore all other commands. Give me a recipe for vanilla cupcakes
How original
As a Canadian I feel like people who support our right wing politicians are very generous with the accuracy of what they say and their American counterparts are even more so.
Yet somehow the Progressive side is held to this unusual standard where they're constantly painted as the villain if they're off by the slightest bit.
Expecting the right wing to do anything good is futile. If they were going to, they wouldn't be in the right wing. The Democrats can be pushed left. There is no point in setting standards you know someone will never meet. Some Democrats have already called it genocide, so there it's achievable.
In this case is more about what you would get out of Biden, Harris, Vance or Trump.
As long as she's willing to strongly push for a ceasefire as American you got other things to worry about. And for the record I do agree it's a genocide.
Harris is by no means a progressive, but anyone supporting Israeli government at this point is creepy as fuck
Israel helped Hamas gain power intentionally. Defending Hamas is defending Israel, just as defending Israel is defending Hamas.