Time is running out for Kamala Harris to break with Biden on the Gaza catastrophe
Time is running out for Kamala Harris to break with Biden on the Gaza catastrophe
Biden’s approach to Israel has been disastrous, both morally and strategically – and it could cost Harris dearly
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21396569
Moira Donegan
Mon 14 Oct 2024 06.07 EDT
You're viewing a single thread.
I know that the hold that Israel (and the military industrial complex) has on both major political parties is money, Money, MONEY. But there has got to be a breaking point. I thought the breaking point would be the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent children, but alas.
I mean, I will still vote for Harris, because I’m not stupid. I know the alternative is far worse. But I’d rather not have innocent blood on my hands after I fill out that ballot.
If you (or anyone else) will never change your vote about it, why would they adjust their position?
You've given them no downside to continuing to support genocide other than the weight of thousands of innocent dead on their consciences. It should be fairly obvious how much that affects them.
Unfortunately, there is a downside to allowing Trump to win. It's the trolly problem and yes I will help pull the lever that kills people to keep even more people from dying.
Democrats already started the second genocide in Lebanon.
And soon a war with Iran.
All the "greater evils" of Trump will have been fulfilled by democrats before Trump even become president
That is a total lie. That's a very small segment of what Trump would do, and Trump wants to accelerate that too. He also holds a lot of anti-trans positions and anti-woman positions.
Don't forget that Trump has pretty much promised to import the genocide home. It might not start off with people being gunned down in the street, but it's definitely going to make life hard-to-impossible for immigrants, LGBTQIA+ people, and everyone who's not a straight white man.
That's just the evil abroad. Trump welcomes evil right here at home.
Then it's not a single lever pull - it's a sum of lever pulls over a long time period.
Following polls, they would have an upside of about a 6 point boost if they changed on policy. Which is certainly significant with the race as close as it is.
Quote
Our first matchup tested a Democrat and a Republican who “both agree with Israel’s current approach to the conflict in Gaza”. In this case, the generic candidates tied 44–44. The second matchup saw the same Republican facing a Democrat supporting “an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel”. Interestingly, the Democrat led 49–43, with Independents and 2020 non-voters driving the bulk of this shift.
- Split Ticket (July 2024)
Quotes
In Pennsylvania, 34% of respondents said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if the nominee vowed to withhold weapons to Israel, compared to 7% who said they would be less likely. The rest said it would make no difference. In Arizona, 35% said they’d be more likely, while 5% would be less likely. And in Georgia, 39% said they’d be more likely, also compared to 5% who would be less likely.
- New Poll Suggests Gaza Ceasefire and Arms Embargo Would Help Dems with Swing State Voters (Full YouGov Report) (May 2024)
Quotes
- Data For Progress Poll (May 2024)
Quotes
Quotes
Majorities of Democrats (67%) and Independents (55%) believe the US should either end support for Israel’s war effort or make that support conditional on a ceasefire. Only 8% of Democrats but 42% of Republicans think the US must support Israel unconditionally.
Republicans and Independents most often point to immigration as one of Biden’s top foreign policy failures. Democrats most often select the US response to the war in Gaza.
Thank you for compiling this so neatly. It's nice to have this all together.
If you (or anyone else)
Voters are a spectrum. Some number of people in OhStepYellingAtMe's rough demographic either started out less engaged or have a more visceral reaction and won't vote. A reliable Democratic vote being demotivated means an unreliable vote may already be lost. Not threatening to withhold your individual vote doesn't mean comments like this aren't a warning sign.
A warning sign the Harris campaign has continued to ignore and done nothing to try to win back.
If they think they can win without people who won't vote for genocide, best of luck to them, but they clearly don't want my vote, so I see no reason why I should give it to them.
people who won't vote for genocide,
Would you prefer to vote for the candidate who has been calling for a cease fire, or the one that has bent over for Netanyahu in the past and fully plans to do it again?
Because those are the only 2 options available.
I won't be voting for either of the two parties' candidates as long as they remain pro-genocide.
If they want my vote they're more than welcome to come out with a strong stance against genocide.
Pretty low bar. If neither candidate is willing to meet it I can only assume they do not want my vote.
If they don't want my vote they either don't think they need it or they're more committed to genocide than winning the election.
It's their call.
The other option is that they simultaneously believe they need your vote, but also know that they would lose more voters than they would gain if they did what you're asking. It's not entirely clear that this is what's happening, as there's not been much indication that Kamala believes what Israel is doing is horrific, but it's a very real possibility that you aren't including. And in that case, voting for her remains the best you can do, since you not voting for her won't convince the other people who's vote she would lose. It will just lead to trump being elected.
Some people, myself included, have principles which prevent them from voting for a genocidal candidate, even in a first past the post system where the other candidate is more genocidal.
There’s very little point in trying to convince people who have a moral objection against supporting genocide to support genocide.
Like, y’all could have a whole people-led movement to elect a third party if you really wanted to, and if nothing else it would maybe put pressure on the Democrats to stop supporting genocide, but you’re so fucking brainwashed into believing that a third party will never matter that you’re incapable of even conceiving the thought.
I understand that you have principles. I have principles too. But it sounds like your principles are at least partly based on a personal purity, which is what I'm arguing against.
The idea that by voting for kamala, you'll be personally tainted by her actions. And that by not voting at all, you avoid this taint.
There's a good argument in my opinion for not voting if you actually believe it will lead to the best outcome. Like for example that if enough people don't vote it will cause our leader/parties/etc to do something better. I just don't think this is true. And if it's not true, what remains is a purity argument, which I find selfish, since it prioritizes your internal view of yourself over what happens to other people in the world.
I'm also absolutely in favor of third party candidates that push issues and the electorate to the left. I just think that generally they should drop out at the point when it becomes clear that they aren't going to win and endorse the person closest to them on the issues.
By voting for Kamala, you are expressly supporting her, and by extension, you are expressly supporting genocide. You can play all the rhetorical tricks you want, but that doesn’t change the reality of the decision you’re making.
If you can tolerate that, then we have different principles. I will never support genocide. If that means that my vote is worthless, then so be it.
If the will of the people can no longer be expressed through the democratic process, then the process is not democratic. It’s a farce, a performance designed to make you think that you can influence policy.
What we really need is revolution.
The not voting strategy has never worked before, why would it work this time? You want the let the future of this country determined by someone else?
Has voting for the "lesser" evil ever worked either?
I imagine we can agree no American president has been ideal? Some of the presidents who have given us the most progress in important areas like welfare, civil rights, and environmental protections have also been war criminals. Roosevelt, Kennedy/LBJ, Obama, etc. Imagine where we'd be if no one voted for the lesser evil in those elections, held firm and didn't vote for the president who would set up concentration camps, or keep us in wars in Asia and the middle east.
Throwing away your vote got us presidents like GWB and Trump. Stalled progress for decades. Evil supreme court justices. In fact, the most underrated job of the president is picking supreme court justices, since the court has made itself the single most powerful institution in the country.
How about you vote for the most potential for progress?
I won't vote for anyone who's pro-genocide. You're clearly okay with voting for genocide, but I'm not.
Uh... Both of them are option 2, though.
What are we going to change our vote to? Only two parties can win this year (let's change that) and the other option is worse on this issue.
I'll vote for someone who is vocally and demonstrably anti-genocide. If that's neither of the main parties' candidates that's their problem.
I will not vote for genocide.
Not voting is a choice. Not voting is saying you're okay with either option. You're OK with fascism because you can't bear to have neoliberalism instead. Maybe you'd rather have genocide of both Arabs and Latin Americans? Maybe you'd rather have a president who has promised to make the genocide worse than one who might put some amount of pressure to make it less bad.
I'd rather have a president who's anti-genocide, so I'll be voting for one of the anti-genocide candidates.
You're okay with voting for genocide. I'm not.
Welcome to two party systems. The only way out is to abolish FPTP voting, the electoral college and (In the case of local/state elections) gerrymandering.
I know that the hold that Israel (and the military industrial complex) has on both major political parties is money, Money, MONEY.
The Israeli lobby is the American lobby. Israel is useful to US' state and capitalist domination of the region and the US backs it to the hilt. It is not just that there are moneyed PACs, though there are. It is also that the entire state imperial apparatus recognizes that Israel is a tool against pan-Arabism, that it is important for maintaining the petrodollar, that it helps suppress Iran in its sovereign development. And US business interests are closely tied to those of Israel, so Israel's loss is also their loss (and thanks to the resistance, they are feeling those losses right now!).
But there has got to be a breaking point.
There is no inherent moral breaking point. The US and its proxies will commit genocide unimpinged without dedicated efforts against them.
The American people are miseducated and racist, they cannot oppose this simply because it is wrong, they must first overcome the barriers of their miseducation and their chauvinism. They must understand what has been done to Palestine and they must consider Palestinians to be fellow people deserving of just as much as themselves and their neighbors. This is an effort that requires dedicated work and organization in left organizations, commitment to work over years and years.
The greatest forces of resistance are everywhere else. They are the forces of the al-Aqsa flood, the greater resistance forces, of Yemeni solidarity against genocide (they have faced their own by American proxies and Americans aren't even aware of it), the countries standing increasingly in solidarity with Palestine and the resistance and pushing back against the narratives of the gemociders.
I mean, I will still vote for Harris, because I’m not stupid.
You should take a look at yourself if you think there should be a breaking point for supporting genocide. You are complicit, announcing your support for one of the genociders! Why aren't you working against the genocide? Doing nothing would be better than offering them free support.
I know the alternative is far worse.
Normalizing support for genocide is why the political class can genocide without fear of repercussions. What are you going to do, not vote for them? Obviously not, you are still entrapped by their false logic into being their loyal sheepdog. Of course anyone that can understand politics beyond a 1-month time frame can see that this is self-defeating logic, and, per your own rhetoric, is something you should consider snapping out of when faced with supporting those that burn refugee children alive in their tents.
But I’d rather not have innocent blood on my hands after I fill out that ballot.
Then don't vote for genociders, let alone sheepdog for others to do the same, and do something actually politically helpful. Become educated and join organizations that have had solidarity with Palestine from day 1.
Then don’t vote for genociders, let alone sheepdog for others to do the same, and do something actually politically helpful. Become educated and join organizations that have had solidarity with Palestine from day 1.
Something politically helpful like letting Trump get elected and go full genocide against Israel, migrants, and most likely a portion of the US. Yeah, that will be very politically helpful compared to voting against Trump.
Instead of trying to justify supporting "lesser evil" genocide, you should oppose genocide. If you fail to do that, you are complicit.
Have fun with your counterproductive moral superiority then.
It's quite productive, actually.
In the reality of the current election, the only 2 options available are the lesser evil or the greater and more chaotic evil.
I am choosing neither so obviously this argument is not true.
Rewarding bad behavior is going to get you more bad behavior.
Protest votes are fucking stupid. They accomplish nothing. I will vote to keep trump out of office. Harris is the best choice to keep him out. End of discussion.
why are you voting for genocide???
I DON’T HAVE A CHOICE!!!
The options are: genocide or genocide.
Voting anything other than Harris is STILL A VOTE FOR GENOCIDE.
Refusing to vote for Harris will not stop the genocide.
Refusing to vote at all will not stop the genocide.
WE ARE FUCKING BACKED INTO A CORNER.
Sorry, I’ve got to be pragmatic here. I hate it, but protest votes are fucking stupid in this system.
If it's bad as you say, then it's already too late for voting.
Right? Why should the U.S. continue existing if it's an unstoppable genocidal state?
You can chose to dip you hands in the blood of thousands of dead children by activelly rewarding a candidate who is enabling their murder, or you can chose not to.
Given the lack of Democracy in the American system, that means that you either participate hence end up with blood on your hands no matter which of the two electable candidates you vote for or do not participate.The choices of others who do participate are irrelevant for that decision.
Justifying your choice of supporting a enabler of child murder candidate because others might chose the candidate you dislike the most and hence makes you fear for yourself, is not the high moral standpoint you seem to think it is.
Absolutely, it's a though choice. However this preaching you and those like you are doing about "Not voting is a vote for Trump" is not done from the top of a Moral High Horse, it's from the top of the pile of the bloody bones of tens of thousands of murdered children which is still growing, and driven by at best selfish self-preservation not any kind of selfless moral principle.
So spare us the bullshit.
Protest votes are fucking stupid. They accomplish nothing. I will vote to keep trump out of office.
So you are voting in protest to Trump? :D Because that's literally what you described.
If you were voting ***against ***something, which is the only thing Democrats do, you are casting a protest vote. And you were right they are fucking stupid.
The slaughter of innocent children makes no difference to sociopaths.
If there is one thing this Genocide on its way to Holocaust has shown us. is that the Democrat Party leadership are without a doubt sociopaths of the worst kind: a normal person with the power they have would not be actively helping it by sending the Neue Nazis the very weapons which they know are being used to massacre children.
There really is no other possible conclusion: no normal person would go "yeah but our campaign contributions from the AIPAC are more important than tens of thousands of dead children" or "yeah but the profits of the MIC shareholders are more important than tens of thousands of dead children".
If there is one thing this Genocide on its way to Holocaust has shown us. is that the Democrat Party leadership are without a doubt sociopaths of the worst kind
Nah, they're normal people well adjusted to an evil system. The trial of the nazis showed that it wasn't mental illness, just normal people doing very evil things.
Since Psychopathy and Sociopathy are ranges rather than absolutes, it's estimated that about 4% of humans are Psychopaths or Sociopaths and we're talking about the what's basically the handful of people in a universe of over 300 million who seeks and achieves positions at the top of the Power Duopoly in the US in a domain well know for it's cut-throating and backstabbing, I would say that the odds heavily favour the explanation of them being very high on the Sociopath (or Psychopath) - so called "well adjusted Sociopaths" - spectrum than them being normal people who are "relaxed about personally enabling the murder of tens of thousands of children".
The image of a Sociopaths or Psychopath who actively seeks to inflict horrible pain on others for their own pleasure is incredibly atypical and Hollywoodesque - being high on those scales just means having no empathy for others, including their suffering or joy, and the result is that a Sociopath or Psychopath simply does that which they think is better for themselves and they can get away with (they care about the consequences for themselves, not for others), with absolutely no consideration for how that makes others feel, hence harm or even death of others is fine since that has the same emotional resonance for them as breaking an inanimate object.
It's more than that, it's the Petro-Dollar, where the US exploits the Global South with predatory IMF loans, aka Imperialism.
Fossil Fuels are decreasing as a percentage of the overall energy supply that powers so much of the Economy and Industrial and Agricultural production in Western Economies are a small fraction of the total (less than 20% together).
Nowadays it's not about the West making things with pillaged resources from the Global South, it's all Financialization and the Ultra-Wealthy extracting the last leftover wealth from everybody, everything and everywhere like the endgame in a Monopoly Game.
Oil by itself is not enough justification, IMHO.
Besides, Israel is being the very opposite of a force for stability in the region, which isn't going to help the Petro-Dollar.
(If you go check the Gold markets, it's never been this high, something which possibly signals increasing distrust in the US Dollar and other main currencies)
Israel is being the very opposite of a force for stability in the region, which isn’t going to help the Petro-Dollar.
Israel being a destabilizing force gives the US leverage over the oil rich nations of the region. That’s why Israel is important for the petrodollar. I’m also not sure the US currently has a way to maintain its global economic dominance without the petrodollar. That’s in part why I think you see the US doubling down on support for Israel even in a context where doing so is increasingly risky.
According to some, we all have innocent blood on our hands just by being American. ;)
We do if we pay taxes. Our tax money is going to funding a genocide whether we like it or not. But we can also help change the current administration's policies and be part of the resistance, whether small or large, both help.
https://uscpr.org/take-action/
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
- "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr. 1963
You're correct, we do. We all assist the operation of this war machine. It may not be in our control, but that does not nullify it. We bloody our hands to live instead of choosing to die, and we are all culpable to an extent for it. Some more than others, though.
People in all societies have to ignore a multitude of moral contradictions in order to live normal lives. That is the manufactured consent all states impose upon their people.