Sanders Files to Force First-Ever Vote in Congress on Blocking Weapons to Israel

Keeponstalin@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 1386 points – Sanders Files to Force First-Ever Vote in Congress on Blocking Weapons to Israel
truthout.org

On Wednesday, Sanders introduced six resolutions blocking six sales of different weapons contained within the $20 billion weapons deal announced by the Biden administration in August. The sales include many of the types of weapons that Israel has used in its relentless campaign of extermination in Gaza over the past year.

“Sending more weapons is not only immoral, it is also illegal. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act lay out clear requirements for the use of American weaponry – Israel has egregiously violated those rules,” said Sanders. “There is a mountain of documentary evidence demonstrating that these weapons are being used in violation of U.S. and international law.”

This will be the first time in history that Congress has ever voted on legislation to block a weapons sale to Israel, as the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project pointed out. This is despite the U.S. having sent Israel over $250 billion in military assistance in recent decades, according to analyst Stephen Semler, as Israel has carried out ethnic cleansings and massacres across Palestine and in Lebanon.

The resolutions are not likely to pass; even if they did pass the heavily pro-Israel Congress, they would likely be vetoed by President Joe Biden, who has been insistent on sending weapons to Israel with no strings attached.

However, Sanders’s move is in line with public opinion. Polls have consistently found that the majority of the public supports an end to Israel’s genocide; a poll by the Institute for Global Affairs released this week found, for instance, that a majority of Americans think the U.S. should stop supporting Israel or make support contingent on Israeli officials’ agreement to a ceasefire deal. This includes nearly 80 percent of Democrats.

199

Bernie on the right side of history as usual.

Yugoslavia certainly doesn't think so.

Interesting, care to explain?

I was curious as well, so I looked it up. Apparently he grudgingly supported the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, despite firmly opposing a similar action taken in 1995 with Croatia. He called the bombing borderline unconstitutional, but added that such an operation seemed necessary to prevent an ethnic cleansing.

Not sure I would agree with the previous commenter since Yugoslavia doesn't exist any more, so I doubt that a no longer in existence country has strong feelings about anything. I also believe the people would likely not want to reform a country that was created for them, especially since their actions in 1999 led to the country dissolving into two or three countries.

the intervention in the Yugoslavian war in 1999 was the only moral answer. it's like the trolley problem if the 5 people are replaced with several entire ethnic groups

Well, he was also a part of blocking the military aid to Ukraine for all those months. But this one is good

That was also good. America is not the world police.

Hot take: Global geopolitics within the current rules as we understand it don't allow for countries to genuinely respect each other as equals. Might will always be right on the global stage regardless of whether it should be that way. So when it comes to picking a global hegemon, the United States is really not a terrible choice compared with the alternatives.

We are also a part of nato.

Ukraine is not, objectively could not qualify before 2014 when it became good for the US war machine for them to qualify, and most importantly, NATO should've disbanded in 1991 when the sole reason for its existence fell.

Yeah, our country is shitty. I get the main reason the US joined the allies had more to do with politics then ideology. But least some kind of good comes from the US backing ukraine.

1991 when the sole reason for its existence fell

Russia still exists so what are you on about?

The soviet union doesn't, but the power was always concentrated into Russia, and guess what, Russia wants their territory back now. The countries which existed under the USSR and never want Russian rule again? Russia sees them as rightfully theirs. I for one am glad to have NATO protection. And I'm glad something is being done to help our brothers in Ukraine, because they weren't as lucky as we were, to join the EU and NATO.

Putin is running out of money.

Just thought you should be aware.

It's easy to rage against the machine on a moral pedestal. It's harder to actually steer the machine in the right direction.

To be clear, I am supportive of putting things to a vote even if there's no chance it succeeds. Get the votes on record. I think that's an important archive that can be used later in election season to hold politicians accountable for their votes.

I like what Bernie and AOC are doing when they push for these kinds of votes.

But make no mistake. They can only do this from a position of being unable to effect any change. Under normal conditions, moves like this poison the well and make others on both sides less willing to work with you.

They have the luxury of grandstanding specifically because they have zero hope of garnering support.

Someone like a president can't really do something like this without completely burning their political capital.

Someone like a president can’t really do something like this without completely burning their political capital.

If only we had a president who is never going to hold office again and has nothing to lose right now... Damn our current pres is nothing like that

You realize his actions have a direct impact on Harris' campaign... right?

You realise Biden's current stance on Israel is unpopular by a vast majority of the Democratic voter base, right?

I couldn't find much, but this poll seems to suggest the majority supports the US position on Israel. It's surprisingly bipartisan.

Do you have another source maybe? This poll is from June, maybe you found something more recent?

That poll isn't about any specific policy

Polls:

::: spoiler Quotes

In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.

:::

::: spoiler Quotes

:::

::: spoiler Quotes

:::

::: spoiler Quotes

Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.

Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.

:::

That poll is about opinions on the US's role, and says nothing about Israel.

It's an absolutely bonkers result considering the US's decades of destabilizing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets in other countries like Yemen and Syria, alliance/support of terrorist states like Saudi Arabia and Israel, and imperial/extractive attitude that has been the primary force destabilizing the region in my lifetime.

The idea that ANYONE can look at the middle east and have a positive view of America's role is disgusting. America's disastrous 21st century foreign policy is the primary reason that the entire world has become so destabilized. America is a terrorist state and the US military machine is the single biggest threat to human survival. Stopping the US at all costs is the most important thing that we can do to protect the biological experiment of the current ecosystem upon which we depend.

The only reason I am considering voting for Trump in the fall (compared to the handful of reasons why I am considering Harris) is that four more years of chaos may finally destroy the American War Machine and the disaster that is American foreign policy.

Four more years of Trump directly puts my life in danger, but if it leads to this country self-destructing I'm personally willing to make that sacrifice. Anything to cripple our criminal war machine. What good are our rights and liberties if the depend on a war machine that is willing to risk the habitability of our planet? If America collapses, with it will fall the major fuel of the arms race. If the leopards have to eat my face for my country to finally get put in its place, I'll proudly try to pet the kitty.

Ideally, I want America to be a functional democracy that respects and promotes civil rights and liberties around the globe. I have never had the option to vote for such an America. In my lifetime I have never seen America take actions that imply that these are the values of our government. The options are to vote for the competent criminal who will directly and purposefully undermine the habitability of our planet, or the incompetent one who may cause more damage in the short-term due to his bumbling but may be better in the long run by removing America's destructive influence on the world's stage as we turn inwards to fight a civil war. Maybe a civil war will cause us to reassert what we claim are our values, and I'll finally live in a country I can respect,

I'm pretty genuinely torn in this election, because I'm willing to sacrifice my personal safety for what I see as a net positive in the world in the long run. I'd rather be hopeful that we have a path to fix America. I'd rather be hopeful that America could be a country that promotes democracy and civil liberties. America as it stands is not a democracy, and we have no liberty. America is dead. Do we keep voting for the parasites, or do we vote for the incinerator to protect others?

That poll is about opinions on the US's role, and says nothing about Israel.

It's a poll about the US role in the ME w.r.t. Israel, the rest of the poll's questions were also about Israel, this was just the question that I figured best represents how people feel about Biden's handling of it so far.

The only reason I am considering voting for Trump in the fall (compared to the handful of reasons why I am considering Harris) is that four more years of chaos may finally destroy the American War Machine and the disaster that is American foreign policy.

Are you sure about that? Last time Trump was president we got Russia gearing up for an invasion of Ukraine and China posturing regarding an invasion of Taiwan as well. Neither of these conflicts have been or would be beneficial to humanity as a whole. It's destroyed the ecosystem in Ukraine for example.

And suppose Trump does turn isolationist instead of going to war with Iran like he's been trying to do. Do you think the resulting power vacuum will lead American voters to believe that going isolationist was beneficial? We saw the opposite in 2020 happen, where people wanted the US to return to the world stage by electing Biden.

Ideally, I want America to be a functional democracy that respects and promotes civil rights and liberties around the globe. [...] Maybe a civil war will cause us to reassert what we claim are our values, and I'll finally live in a country I can respect,

Have you considered that you might end up on the losing side? Republicans have always been war hawks. Them fully cementing their power through Trump could very well lead to an even more active US war machine. Trump won't be around forever, he's old and these days the target of assassination attempts.

Accelerationism has been tried in the past. It has never ended well. I urge you to really reflect on what it truly means if your envisioned scenario were to happen. I urge you to reflect on the many, many things that have to happen in order to end up somewhere better. And please, consider what happens if you're wrong about what electing Trump will lead to.

I live in a country that's been under the yolk of another whose population thought like you do, that maybe making things worse will make things better. It led to the worst environmental disaster we've ever known, caused the deaths of millions and led to the birth of the US war machine. The scars are still visible today.

I sympathize with you though. The US is in a shit place electorally speaking. Organizing for electoral reform is probably the best shot at fixing things, but that takes incredible time, effort and money to get through. I can see why that feels hopeless. But personally, I find it a more honorable cause. Endangering yourself and many others is in my opinion deeply irresponsible.

Have you considered that you might end up on the losing side?

If Harris wins, I'm on the losing side, as is anyone who cares about civil liberties or democracy. Voting for Harris is voting to lose with complacency and voting for a position of despair that lasts four more years.

If Trump wins, I have high confidence that I won't survive the next four years, but at least I'll be going down fighting, and at least there will be some hope that civil liberties and democracy can be restored in the process. Some hope of rebooting America and to create a nation that values democracy. This is a position of hope. I believe in the American people. We are strong. I would rather see those interested in democracy and human rights unite against the tyrannical government instead of acquiescing to tyranny with a rainbow flag on it.

I want to live in a democracy that promotes liberty. Voting one way has no chance of delivering this, but will be comfortable for me as I watch the destruction the planet. Voting the other way opens up a possibility for democracy to win, even if it's slim. This position of hope is what I am interested in. I see no path to democracy or liberty through the democratic party. Harris is only promising to double down on W's policies of American destruction.

Russia, China

I also strongly detest these authoritarian regimes. America's military spending is orders of magnitude larger than theirs, and America is driving the arms race. Reducing the American military will reduce the need for arms for these countries.

Ukraine has only ever been part of the West when the Ashkenazi Jewish glue acting as transliterators were present in the country. Post nazism and post zionism, the people who could keep Ukraine in the west were removed. As long as the Jews are distracted by their genocidal aspirations instead of going home to defend against Russia, Ukraine is a lost cause.

China and Russia both have disastrous policies in central Asia. Ukraine and Taiwan are small fish. Central Asia is the most sensitive ecological and cultural target of Chinese and Russian interference. The US does not care to protect this region because there is no oil. If America were actually providing a challenge to China and Russia where it matters, I might view things differently. I'd love to see a plan to save the Aral sea and central-asian ethnic populations such as the Uyghurs.

I see some contradictory statements here, perhaps you could clarify those for me.

You believe the Democrats to be unwilling to improve on social matters, be it both domestic and foreign, correct? They may state that they hold these beliefs, but you don't expect them to make a meaningful change, which is why you don't see a path to improvement under Harris. I hope I understood you correctly here.

At the same time however, you seem to believe that electing Trump will lead to a civil war. Who exactly do you expect to start said civil war here? It won't be Trump as he's already in power, and it won't be the Democrats either because they don't genuinely believe in liberty/democracy. If they won't even vote for it, how can you expect them to fight for it? I'd argue electing Trump reduces the chance of a civil war, even according to your own logic. And even if a group other than the Democrats were to take up arms, that group would certainly be smaller than a Trump-led government backed by the US army. Trump would win in that case, and any hopes of progress would be dashed completely.

Any side with a shot at winning a civil war would have to be either the Democrats or the Republicans. Since the Democrats wouldn't start a civil war (too spineless), the Republicans have to. And I'd posit to you that the only way they would do so is if Trump loses the election and contests it, riling up his base. We know that his base is radical enough for it (see Jan 6), and Trump is too much of a narcissist to refuse the chance. In this scenario, Biden/Harris would have to use the army to put down the insurrection, and the political momentum from that might give people a shot at improving things in the way you want. Arguably there's historical precedent for this, with Lincoln having the momentum to ban slavery during the civil war.

You also seem to, and I quote "believe in the American people". But that same people makes up the US army, makes up and and supports both political parties and also seems entirely complacent to keep voting for the same two sets of douchebags and not push for electoral reform in any meaningful way. In fact, you don't even seem to think that the Democrats could be pressured into change, not even on the matter of Palestine. Either the Democrats are unwilling to change a position in exchange for power, or said pressure isn't as big as you seem to think it is, and most Americans just don't care enough (which would also put a pretty big dent in the whole "civil war"-plan.

Frankly, it seems to me that the accelerationist civil war strategy makes more sense when you elect Harris. But I'm not sure if it's worth pursuing at all, since I can't think of any historical precedent where this has worked out.

Social matters

Did I mention social matters? I mention foreign policy pretty exclusively, with a smattering of climate urgency.

Civil war

I'm pretty sure that's inevitable in 2025 regardless of who wins. If Trump wins, most Americans will be upset and will resist, more strongly than last time. Even if the democratic party doesn't want democracy or liberty, many of the people do.

If Harris and the republicans win, the people who want democracy will be on the side of the broken state, fighting a lost cause. If Trump wins, those people will be fighting against the state to build something new.

I'd rather fight for a better system over defending a broken one. I see war and unrest as inevitable.

I don't think that the system will allow us to change the democratic party, not because the people don't want it, but because the democratic party won't allow it while they are in power. The people are NOT represented by any party or any part of our government.

But what if Trump and pals manage to stabilize their fascist state. You will never have another free election (Putin style instead of the propaganda of billionaires and theocrats). The whole world will be fucked and all on your coin toss.

It is for once too dangerous to leave to chance. You need to get Harris in, and Trump and the corrupt supreme justices in jail. THEN from the ground up build a new political party for the people and the planet.

The whole world is already fucked. Trump taking over will only fuck America faster and give the rest of the world a chance to not get fucked by America.

For your optimistic scenario, do we have the time for all of that? Does the middle east? Does the world? Is that even a possible outcome of all this? Or will it all just blow over and we'll pretend like nothing happened (see four years of Biden) while Harris just doubles down on world annihilation? She's promising to be a republican, I'm just taking her at her word.

Worked out really great in 2016, didn't it? Absolutely brainless take with no basis in reality.

It kind of did!

In 2017, people got mad and started taking action and taking to the streets before complacency set in. This unrest kept ramping up and took another big jump in 2020. What took the wind out of the sails of people taking action and demanding change was Biden getting elected, allowing most people to fall into complacency while Biden did nothing to fix our problems and instead got us involved in multiple overseas conflicts.

With Trump in office, the people resist. That's what happened last time, and the people rising up and finding unity through resistance seems to me the only way to overturn America's broken and indefensible systems. The question is who will be resisting/overthrowing, and what will they institute in their place?

If Harris wins and the Trumpers are overthrowing, the options for outcomes of the ensuing war are the mildly fascist status quo, or the super-fascist usurpers. I don't have high hopes that many people will stand up to fight in this case.

If Trump wins then those who love democracy and liberty and equality will be the ones who rise up and resist, fighting for the best of these options.

As I said in my first post, this is the only reason that I consider Trump. I have a whole handful of reasons to consider Harris.

I kinda remember this pandemic response team we used to have... Good thing we didn't and currently still don't have an ongoing pandemic killing people worldwide!

People resisted and got a corrupt Supreme Court, dismantled consumer, environmental, worker, and abortion protections, an attempted coup, and somehow we all treat Covid like it wasn't fucking Trump's fault.

Shut the actual fuck up, you accelerationist piece of shit. Congratulations on your willingness to sacrifice people who didn't agree to be sacrificed, I'd rather keep more people alive, Anerica and the world got pretty fucked by Trump.

3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...
3 more...

You're a weird American and i say that as a compliment. I hope there are more like you.

Please chose the lesser evil in November.

Thank you, and I plan to.

As I said, I have a handful of strong cases to vote for Harris. I also had this one dissenting voice in me that was screaming to get expressed so I could look back at what I said and analyze it. Thanks for analyzing it with me. Doing this in public and with input from others helps me vet my ideas. I don't have a social network anymore to talk about these things with. So much social cohesion broke down during the Trump years, and it hasn't grown back well at all.

We don't live in a unified country, and we need to be willing to say that we are broken so we can fix ourselves.

3 more...
3 more...
3 more...

Yes and Harris complicity in continuing the genocide in Gaza, the ethnic cleansing in the Westbank and now the invasion of Lebanon will be the greatest risk for her election. But they would rather hand over the US to Trump on a silver plate, than to stop killing Arabs.

I think Russian propaganda will be the greatest threat to her campaign, actually

3 more...
3 more...
3 more...

Also just a little slow to come around to reality like always.

Edit... Down vote all you want I'm still a big Bernie fan but the whole US government has been on the wrong side of this war from the beginning. We treat Palestinian lives just like black and brown lives at home like they didn't matter.

Lastly Hamas is not Palestinian I can support Palestinians and condemn Hamas.

He was criticizing the response since the beginning?

Frankly I was initially supporting them, as I am against Hamas but Israel lost the objective, didn't destroy Hamas and didn't get hostages out. So what was all that for?

Frankly I was initially supporting them,

Must be new to the long history of apartheid, genocidal, capitalist project that is "Israel"..

So what was all that for?

Zionists will only stop when they eradicate all Palestinians, because they believe they have a god-given right to be there. For them this is business as usual.

this guy has been saying this literally since the beginning

Incorrect, Sanders has been a Zionist for his career, it's been his one split with the american left wing.

what you said, even if were to be true, does not contradict what I said so your comment does not make any sense

And doing so in a way that is going to accomplish almost nothing while antagonizing and alienating the people who would let him otherwise get positive legislature passed.

3 more...

For those who don’t know (there are probably a few) Bernie is Jewish, and his opinions better reflect the rest of us Jews than the crazies on the right (and left) and in Israel. I don’t have stats, but every American Jew I’ve talked to about this has been morally outraged and frankly mortified by Israel’s actions. We understand how it looks to the rest of the world. Don’t let the antisemitism arguments (usually pushed by Christians btw) fool you. Bernie is on the right side of this issue, as usual.

Fellow American Jew here. Very much agreed. Israel doesn't represent us, even if it tries to say it does.

Texan Jew here. I'm surrounded by a sea of monsters.

I've made documentaries, art projects, and memorials for family members who were in the Holocaust. A few survived (literally, like, 3 of them), but multitudes more were killed. My family and community has praised me for my passionate interest and attempts to teach younger generations the dangers of complacency and compartmentalizing. One of my relatives even helped pass a law adding Holocaust Remembrance Week as part of the curriculum for every grade level in Texas.

We've seen this kind of destruction before, we've lived this oppression and violence before. We have discussed how our family might have changed had over 90% of them not been killed.

HOW THE FUCK IS MY FAMILY AND COMMUNITY OKAY WITH ANOTHER GENOCIDE???

The self-delusion, what-abouts, stereotypes, and straight-up racist insults.

"They'd kill us if given the opportunity"
YOU'RE ALREADY KILLING THEM

"These are really bad, violent people"
THEY ARE CHILDREN AND CIVILIANS AND THEY ARE DYING

"It's not comparable to the Holocaust. Germany killed 6 million..."

THAT’S YOUR FUCKING CUTOFF???

WE GOTTA WAIT FOR 6 MILLION PEOPLE TO DIE BEFORE WE CAN EMPATHIZE WITH VICTIMS OF GENOCIDE??? Where was this sense of calm and nonchalance when Nazis were posting propaganda around town? How many of your kids need to be dismembered and vaporized before you say "this is more than upsetting, this is WRONG"??!

I swear, I'm probably less than a month away from hearing someone I once respected say "the Palestinian cries out in pain as they hit you."

Omfg I feel you so hard on this with a few people, but am fortunate to not be in Texas.

"Never again," my ass. Those types of people mean only "never again for me and mine." Genocide is genocide is genocide, regardless of whether we're the victim or not.

Israel learned the wrong lesson from the Holocaust. They decided that the next time somebody gets stepped on, they're going to be the boot, not the bug.

There are always amoral opportunists. Unfortunately, they are pulling the strings in Israel right now.

If good people don’t vote in the US in November, we will be no better.

“It’s not comparable to the Holocaust. Germany killed 6 million…”

There are fewer than 6 million people in all of Palestine. If that's their cutoff, they can eradicate everyone and "it still wouldn't be as bad." That's probably their thought process.

It wasn't OK when the Egyptians and Germans did it to the Jews, and it's not OK when the Jews are doing it to others too.

Thank you for sharing your experience.

Texan

Well there's your problem

Beau of the fifth column (now it's Belle on cam) is from the south and quite the interesting critter.

I don't discount there being good people in Texas or elsewhere in the south, I just know there are a whole lot of bad people as well, who tend to be more likely to hold political power.

If you like hip-hop, listen to Anne Braden by Flobots

Another American Jew chiming in. Israel has never represented me. I'm from Indiana. I have far more in common with a Palestinian-American from Tuscon, Arizona than I do any Jew in Haifa.

no, you MUST identify with the vision of a Jewish ethnostate, it is after all supposed to be your ethnostate... you know, the one whose existence is, for a lot of people, literally justified by the 14 words (but replace white with Jewish)? /s.

It’s the Christian zionists here in the US that support this genocide because they think it will help expedite the end of the world

For reference, see New Apostolic Reformation and Seven Mountains

Shit is beyond crazy and terrifying.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

https://narconnections.com/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Mountain_Mandate

The (Seven Mountain Mandate) movement was generally supportive of the presidency of Donald Trump, with member Paula White becoming Trump's spiritual advisor. White claimed that Trump "will play a critical role in Armageddon as the United States stands alongside Israel in the battle against Islam."

Fucking crazy shit, these people are insane and are actively trying to destroy the planet.

If you want to get yourself fired from your shit job, remind your co-worker that their religious apocalyptic fantasies should at least lead them to doing the deed out in the parking lot, not in here where we live

****Don't say that.

This makes sense, because this isn’t an Israeli or Jewish endeavor. It’s Benjamin Netanyahu desperately provoking a war to maintain his grip on power, because as soon as he’s out of power he will have to be held accountable for his many crimes. Bibi would rather die in office than face that. It’s truly regrettable that his actions have soured the entire world’s opinion on Israel, but here we are.

Netanyahu is to blame for making the situation worse, and for actively working against a ceasefire, but I think it’s important to point out that the majority of Israelis appear to support his actions in Gaza. It’s definitely an Israeli issue and a Netanyahu issue.

The state of Israel in its inception was colonisation, apartheid, massacre, white supremacy, and genocide. Netanyahu is certainly a monster. But look at the rest of his cabinet. Listen to an interview with Israeli citizens even before October 7th in the way they speak about Palestinians and Arabs.

Israel is thoroughly and consistently sick from beginning to end, top to bottom. It’s a depraved machine of terror that runs on the blood of innocent people.

It seems to me they're a country built on 19th century white colonialist values (Jewish white colonialism is no better than the once much more common Christian kind) and which has never evolved from those values but rather kept going until reaching the natural conclusion: Genocide.

(It's not by chance that Israelis keep claiming that they have "Western Values" - it's really just a politically correct way of saying "white values")

Israel is similar to South-Africa, except that they were never forced to stop and just kept doubling down on the racism and violent oppression of the ethnicity they victimize.

I blame mainly the US and Germany for the continued support of Israel's white colonialism and it's natural outcome of Genocide.

I realize this is very sensitive issue and things have likely changed since april, but the last time I saw this polled Jewish Americans support Israel's response to Oct.7 about 62%, 33% oppose

Granted, since april and just off the top of my head, Israel has bombed a number of Gaza refugee camps, killed the Hamas negotiator, conducted two terror attacks against Lebanon, and now is talking about sending ground troops in across the border,.... so.... yea maybe things have changed

But im glad to have Sanders pushing for this though, I think it carries more weight coming from him.

Ugh that’s shameful, and super disappointing. But thanks, I hadn’t seen a poll on American Jews as recent as April so I’d bet those numbers haven’t changed much. Seems the Jews I’m around have a very different relationship with Israel than the majority.

I'll hazard a guess that your circle is one mainly of highly educated city folk.

Quite independently of Religion, Education and one's level of exposure to all sorts of people and complex social environments (which normally comes with big city life) seem to be the biggest deciding factors about people having or not "traditional values" (read: conservative) and the excessive and blind tribalism that makes them more likely to find excuses to support Genocide along ethnic lines "when our side does it".

The irony is that Israel's actions ultimately make Jews worldwide less safe.

The irony is that what they're doing is holocaust.

We coulda had the OG and instead they chose HRC. SMH

Fun fact: Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary in head-to-head matchups against Trump.

The same establishment that derailed Sanders and propped Hillary up were the same ones trying to force Biden down our throats while castigating any dissent.*

*I know the progressives supported Biden until the end, but this was purely a strategic reason where if anything, their calls for Biden to step aside might've had the opposite effect.

Yes. 2016 was rock paper scissors for elections

How much did Bernie outperform Trump? Do you have links to hand?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your analogy but how was Hillary better than Bernie?

She was in lockstep with the democratic party, whereas Bernie would have been a gremlin in the machine.

Fun fact: your guy lost, get over it

So did Hillary, wasn't her turn I guess

Correct. And we're over it.

IDK man, that comment you made wasn't very high in terms of over it energy.

Hillary is gone, dude, we're not constantly bringing up the glory days of what could have been.

Whew, more salt than the dead sea.

So long as you learned from your mistake, little buddy :)

Say here's another fun fact! More Sanders supporters would go on to support Hillary than did Hillary supporters go on to support Obama in 2008 when she lost the primaries.

Guess they didn't get over it :(

Holy fuck that's a level of disingenuous worthy of Trump himself. You're comparing absolute numbers instead of percentages? Oldest bullshitting trick in the book.

You're saying there were more Sanders supporters in 2016 than Hillary supporters in 2008? Yeah... That's not exactly helping your argument.

But anyway: 15% of Hillary supporters voted for Mccain; 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump.

But don't worry, I'll be voting Harris.

This is the part where I just assume you're lying because I've seen you do it so many times before, then you link an obviously biased article which if I wanted to dig into its methodology I would tear it to shreds. But it's not worth my time. So let's skip that bit and go to the part where you throw out a red herring and/or move the goalposts. Something about Gaza? Or do you want to do the lazy thing and just start chanting "blue MAGA"

This is the part where you deflect away from the substance and attack the person with ever-moving goalposts because you know you have nothing and were proven wrong at every single turn of our little conversation — yet your ego will not permit you to walk away from this. So here, I'll do you a favor buddy and show you how this is the part where I walk away because you bring nothing of value to add to this discussion:

And then I think this is the part where I show how you're a tankie shill arguing in bad faith and then my post gets removed because we're not allowed to call you people out. Good talk.

I don't often downvote comments, as I think that often that's just a censorious way to say "I disagree". But this comment so obviously adds nothing of value to the conversation, and indeed poisons it with petty grievance. So I feel totally justified in downvoting this comment.

Excuse me, we had to go with the obvious choice that would win /s

I won a porterhouse from a steakhouse over Hilary losing.

I’d rather I hadn’t won. The bet was made in primary season, and that Hilary would get the nomination and lose the election. (There was a second part that said if Bernie won the nomination he’d be POTUS)

I'd eat a hundred well-done steaks from Denny's topped with ketchup if it meant we didn't have to deal with Trump again.

I’m in tinfoil hat territory, but it’s logical that Hillary was promised the Sec State position and superdelegate support for conceding to Obama and not making it a convention fight. It explains why the r’s only attacked her for 8 years outside Obama, they knew they didn’t have to attack any other potential candidate.

I don't think that's tinfoil hat at all. I mean it seems like a very logical explanation and the same thoughts I had when I was watching it happen.

I still remember when Hillary went to Obama before conceding and most were speculating it was going to be about a cabinet position and her running after Obama did.

Call your senators. Let them know you support restricting arms to israel

Hello, can you be Bernie sanders please?

Doesn't matter. The lovely Christians where I live would throw a fit because most of them want Israel to do even more damage.

literal death cult, they think killing enough Arabs and Israelis will bring the Apocalypse

Bernie is always on top of these things, and you have to respect him for that.

Polls have consistently found that the majority of the public supports an end to Israel’s genocide; a poll by the Institute for Global Affairs released this week found, for instance, that a majority of Americans think the U.S. should stop supporting Israel or make support contingent on Israeli officials’ agreement to a ceasefire deal. This includes nearly 80 percent of Democrats.

Even though 80% of Democrats are for this kind of bill watch, the majority of Congress vote against it, including the Democrats.

Goes to show Republicans (more so of course) and Democrats represent their donors more than the ppl who vote for them

Good, force them to vote on it so we can see who supports genocide.

We love you Bernie!

Speak for yourself. I don't love nor idolize any politician.

yeah I don't understand why anyone would just comment "Mac loves and idolizes Bernie" unprompted. what a dingus

Big brained independent thinker over here independently thunking away. What kinda ideas will they come up with? None, but he will make it clear he doesn't like yours. Cause if he did then he wouldn't be independent anymore!

I just think idolizing politicians (and people in general (like celebrity worship)) is gross and is how we got to where we're at.

Sorry i offended you.

You realize love can also mean you strongly like it, right? I love pizza and wings. So what's exactly going though your mind when I take it home?

Apparently "i love you" is the same as "i love pizza".

Are they going to call him an "anti-semite" too?

Many comedians have firmly cemented the stereotype of the self-hating Jew. Not that the pro-Israel crowd cares about there being any truth to their accusations.

Good Job Mr Sanders. This took a really long time.

This is still an action of the "we want to influence Israel, but keep them as our ally" kind.

That doesn't work. To make them listen, you must be willing to actually let them die. To drop them under the bus.

Same goes for Turkey, Russia, Pakistan.

Well, geopolitics make this a dangerous approach, but one should remember always than anything short of that readiness is not leverage.

So what they should be voting on is this AND dissolving the alliance. Of course one shouldn't make threats of clearly hostile action while still allied, this bites long-term.

Its pretty fucked up how law seems to mean less and less nowdays. to think there even needs to be such vote about america sending weapons to country breaking international laws and doing terrorist shit.

when exactly did you feel like international law meant something, and what events made you feel so? genuinely would like to know

Growing up in America there's definitely an initial feeling of "law and order" ruling many of America's past with interfering in other countries affairs, eventually you learn about the fucked up shit if you actually start looking though lol.

I remember I did a presentation in middle school about Operation Paperclip and most of the class thought I was making it up lol.

But it isn't even international law, these are domestic laws forbidding sending weapons to nations that interfere with US humanitarian aid that have been flouted repeatedly and with the barest semblance of an excuse made. I can see them not paying attention to UN "laws" but this isnt the same thing.

I thought it meant something, as they bothered to even pretend there is international law by having one in first place.

It's wild to me that Americans are suddenly playing moral police on this. America sells weapons to just about every dictatorship or oppressive government, to this day. Including Saudis, the ones who blew up the trade center. It seems hypocritical how hard Sanders and others are going, demanding the stop of weapons sales to just Israel. Why not the rest of the world?

Have to start somewhere, our military industrial complex isn't going to be stopped all at once. And the genociders are the most obvious evil at the moment.

It’s because the issue is popular/in the news a bunch

We're not the moral police. There are many Americans who are diehard pro-genocide. There are others that are implicitly pro-genocide. They just don't hang out on Lemmy. Also, our media is focused on Israel right now. Most Americans don't know what our military is doing elsewhere in the world and the media doesn't cover it. It's hard for a populist politician to take a stand against our military industrial complex when the population doesn't know what that Complex is doing. That industry fights back.

We could be at the end of Bernie's second term right now if Hillary hadn't staged a hostile takeover of the DNC during the primary.

trump would have been nothing more than a dated joke from TV reruns, Covid would have been handled appropriately, pretty much everyone would be measurably better off.

Dont forget what the moderate branch stole from us, they're still the ones running shit. That's not just an expression, literally the same people from back then are still running the DNC and in the current administration, they're literally still the ones running shit.

Part of the recipe for far right fascists to rise to power requires liberals’ “compromise.”

Liberals are just pro-Oligarchy - they think Money should be above the one power which is led by elected leaders: the State - which is against Democracy just like the Fascists, just with a different and more subtle mechanism determining those whose power is above the power of the vote.

They're just a different kind of Far-Right from the Fascists, which is why it is so easy for them to support Zionists - which are ethno-Fascists, the same sub-type of Fascism as the Nazis - even while they commit a Genocide.

People with even the slightest shred of Equalitarian values wouldn't ever support those commiting ethnic cleansing.

Oh yes, timeline 4861707079. I do enjoy that one, shame about the gazelles going extinct though.

No but vote blue no matter who amirite.

No possible way another lunatic will replace Trump by next election, he's just a one of a kind republican candidate totally nor representative of a systemic problem.

Who do you think people here should vote for in November?

Harris - because Trump is a fucking disaster... that doesn't mean the DNC is beyond criticism though.

The reason HRC won the primary is that she got 17 million votes and Sanders only got 13 million.

....because the media and DNC conspired to make Bernie look like he was a crazy person who had no chance (basically the opposite of what they do for Trump). They used classic "tail wagging the dog" tactics to gaslight the left, downplay Bernie's support, and coronate Hillary.

If they hadn't been actively sabatoging him the entire fucking time he had an excellent chance.

Are you saying that the DNC has mind control powers over 4 million Americans, making them vote for Hillary despite themselves?

Because if that were true, Hillary would be president.

This is such a deeply bad faith argument but, yea, that's what advertising is and several media outlets coordinated with the campaign to box out Sanders and portray his ideas as fringe.

I mean, what you're describing is simply politics. Who gave you the idea that media are supposed to stay neutral in an election?

When the Michigan Chronicle and Houston Defender endorse Harris and say Trump is dangerous to democracy, that's politics. On the opposite side, Fox News has been portraying all Democrats as fringe for decades. They are not merely allowed to do that, that's what we expect the media to do in a democracy.

I don't disagree - the media does have an implicit bias... but rarely do they cooperate directly with a campaign. Donna Brazile was fired over how overt it got.

The Sanders/Clinton primary was an example of how powerful dark money can be in campaigns and is a terrible portent of how centrists can create an uneven playing field where money rather than policy or appeal will dictate the winner.

I'd clarify that nothing the Clinton campaign did was illegal - but they absolutely prevented us from having a fair election.

Media is supposed to be neutral and was until the 90s. Media is not supposed to take any particular side. You're confusing the medias right and responsibility to criticize government with extreme bias against part of government.

Media : plural of medium. The media "are" biased. That's inherent. With the internet, the media were supposed to be infinity minus one. That's probably the 90s you're dreaming of. Look up the history of yellow journalism. There's fantastic journalism out there, and some of it is mainstream.

That's not true. Media have been endorsing and supporting particular candidates since the beginning.

One hundred years ago, the NYT endorsed John Davis for president over Calvin Coolidge. They weren't neutral.

In 1941, following such mistakes that were obviously bad ideas, and following the Nazis ridiculously good use of the media to gain and maintain power, the fairness doctrine was passed in the US. Until Clinton's repeal of the doctrine all media that reported orr discussed politics had to do so with equal weight to all sides of an issue and without bias towards any group.

The media working for politicians or political parties leads to Nazis, every time. Just like liberals compromising or choosing a moderate approach.

all media

Not true. The fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast media on public airwaves. It has never applied to newspapers (the NYT endorsed Eisenhower in 1952) or cable news.

And it was repealed in 1987, under Reagan. However, broadcast media (not newspapers or cable news) are still subject to the equal time rule.

The reason that these rules only affect broadcast media is that there is a limited number of broadcast licenses, but no limit to the number of newspapers or cable channels. It has nothing to do with Nazis, in fact the equal time rule originated in 1927.

And how was it that Hillary and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ensured this was the voting outcome?

Hillary won her voters by campaigning. That is how you win voters.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had nothing to do with it, because she doesn't have a mind control device.

Except she didn't campaign in most states, hence her loss in even democrat leaning swing states in the general election.

Do you truly believe that money has no influence in politics?

Money is a necessary part of politics. Which means that if you want to win, you need donors. And if your opponent wins over more donors than you do, that's on you. Do you think it's unfair that people are way more willing to donate to Harris than Trump?

You literally just said: the people with the most money should control the government.

No, that's not what I said.

Having more money provides an advantage, but so do many other things like media endorsements, union endorsements, incumbency, etc.

Plenty of candidates who outspent their opponents went on to lose their elections.

The resolutions are not likely to pass; even if they did pass the heavily pro-Israel Congress, they would likely be vetoed by President Joe Biden, who has been insistent on sending weapons to Israel with no strings attached.

Yeah, this is an absolute shame. He tried doing something similar shortly after the genocide had started, but everyone else currently in power just shut him down almost unanimously.

If politics and getting into power wasn't 90% based on your wealth and connections, maybe US could have more people like Bernie trying to actually do good rather than trying to enrich or empower themselves.

AIPAC buying American politicians to ensure support for the war continues. Pretty fucked that a foreign nation state can buy US policies like this. Honestly, I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often, and more brazenly - it is “legal” after all.

America has the best politicians money can buy

If that were true, they would cost way more to buy.

the money is a token, you don't have to pay tax on gifts and favors.

If they’re forced to vote on it, at least we’ll know which politicians have a spine and which have a padded wallet.

Just imagine: we could’ve had this guy as president for the last 4-8 years…

File that one behind the what-if of a Gore Presidency. We keep missing the alternate timelines we should have taken. Here's hoping we don't screw up once again.

Imagine a back-to-back two term each Gore then Bernie presidency. We'd be living in a utopia, and I'm not even American

I'm glad he's giving me a chance to have yet another demonstration of how shitty our country is. Can't wait to see this fail miserably and anyone who votes for it lose their re-election.

inb4 AIPAC makes a hit list of everyone who votes for this

He knows it won't pass, the article says it too. That's not the point.

Yes, I know it won't pass, too. I just hate being constantly reminded that this country is ruled by violent idiots.

Israel-fetishizing politicians and media: Hey! That's antisem- Oh wait... Shit.