this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024

-2 points (49.1% liked)

politics

19125 readers

4235 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

-2

First Harris-Walz events leave Gaza advocates unconvinced. (prismreports.org)

submitted 2 months ago by ModerateImprovement@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] sxan@midwest.social 38 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Yeah. And they're going to continue to be, unfortunately. No pro-Palestinian person is capable of being elected president.

If Harris were willing to be a 1-term president, she could try to force a policy change after she was elected, but even so she'd be constantly fighting congress, who would probably just override whatever veto she threatened. Congress is bought and paid for (with very few exceptions).

It's a little older, but Pew did a fairly comprehensive survey back in March, and public opinion in the US still favored Israel. So Harris would have to buck not only majority public opinion, but it she did it now, she'd give Trump an enormously effective weapon to attack her with, something the Trump campaign is still struggling to find.

I honestly don't know what a practical answer is. Even if she privately disapproves of Israel's actions, I don't think she has any alternative of she wants to stand a chance at being elected.

[–] HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

One thing Harris can do without consulting congress is supporting full Palestinian membership at the UN.

She just has to instruct the state department to instruct the US ambassador to the UN to vote for Palestinian membership. Palestine would be an international recognized state within a week.

It would be the first substantial progress on the Israel-Palestine situation since 1967.

She can do this while continuing to provide military support for Israel. But it would increase legal and diplomatic pressure on Israel.

Perhaps more importantly, it would send a message to Israel: We are willing to depart from the status quo. Don’t take our protection for granted.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

This would be great. She needs these voters and her current approach of calling the people asking for an end to the genocide of the Palestinian people Trump supporters has and will continue to backfire. I think we could all agree that the Walz pickup seemed like a step in the right direction, but her rhetoric has signaled more of the same. There is some argument saying that this is triangulating around AIPAC, but she also needs to recognize that neither AIPAC or Israel want her to win this election, so you don't gain an ally by capitulating to them or their rhetoric,

I think if she did what you suggest, she would stoke their ire, but honestly, I don't think they have the influence they're claimed to. If Democrats had actually stood behind the incumbent squad during those primaries, they would have won. The problem was that D's were all too eager to throw them under the bus. If they had, they would have shown AIPACs weakness in the ability for money to control outcomes, which itself is extremely valuable. Harris needs to be setting up for a wave election and that makes the influence of AIPAC relatively moot. I think she should do what you suggest.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

I didn't know that. It'd still cost her AIPAC support, which could be devastating in the next election, but that would be fantastic of she could pull it off and stay in the running.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I also struggle to see what she can do. She cannot break with the current administration on foreign policy, given that she is the VP. Simply put, we don’t really know her position, and she can’t reveal it either. Dissatisfying? Sure. Understandable? Definitely.

[–] sxan@midwest.social -3 points 2 months ago

I have no doubt she'll continue current policy. Honestly, it's not a conspiracy theory to claim Israel has a tight grip on American politics, in a number of ways, and has had for decades. Even if you discount the vast sums of money they contribute to political campaigns at all levels, and the voting blocks they control, they've been our strongest - and only really constant - regional ally in the Middle East. And there's that public sentiment to consider.

It's an uphill battle, and you're right that at the moment she's shielded by her position; however, I doubt she'll shift position is elected. She's shown no sympathy for Palestinians, has shut down protesters, and is still talking the support-Israel even as they commit gross war atrocities.

But regardless of her personal feelings, which we can't know, I think she's going to toe the line Israel draws for her. Like any US President.

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No pro-Palestinian person is capable of being elected president

This is such a weird assumption. Americans support a ceasefire. Why do we think Kamala will lose the election if she says "Weapon transfers will stop until a ceasefire is reached"? She will instantly gain the rabid support of progressives who will fight tooth and nail to get her elected.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Did you just skip over the Pew study?

For that rabid support, she'll lose far more support from pro-Israel PACs, and pro-Israel communities. These losses would far outweigh the gains she'd get from progressives, none of whom are going to vote for Trump anyway. Trump's even more pro-Israel than Kamala; a pro-Palestine voter would have to be a utter moron to not recognize that Kamala is a better option for Palestinians than Trump. She may keep sending Israel money, but at least she's not actively telling Israel to go ahead and start building gas chambers.

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Which one? I see one study saying only 13% of dems have any confidence in Bibi.

To be clear. I'm not suggesting Biden should turn on Israel, he won't. I'm suggesting he threaten to cut support to Israel unless Bibi stops doing a genocide. If you can find me a study that says most americans don't support a ceasefire then maybe I'll change my position.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah, fair. There are a lot of data points in there, and it really depends on how you squint at the results.

Maybe you're right about public opinion. I do still believe that if the AIPAC decided to, say, throw their weight behind Trump, and withdraw contributions to Democrats who sided with cutting support, that it would be a huge advantage to the GOP. They've spread something like $24M in this 24 election cycle, alone; they have an outsized influence on local elections, backing pro-Israel candidates in primaries. With such a tight race, that's a dangerous gamble.

But perhaps I'm overestimating their influence. I know the Jewish community in the US is more divided on Israel's invasion than they usually have been. Still, this election is the most important in my long lifetime, and I'm being quite risk adverse.

[–] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The comments that are in this thread. Blue MAGA….. yall single issue voters (who will probably be downvoting me here) are worse than the “silent majority” republicans. Harris is surging in polls and doing fabulous. She’s also not ignoring campaigning around the country which is what setup 2016…. You’re also delusional if you think you’d be voting or campaigning for Harris if she about faced on current Israel policy. You’d just find another single issue to bring up so she’s not good enough for you.

Edit: were to that are

[+] Moneo@lemmy.world -11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You’re also delusional if you think you’d be voting or campaigning for Harris if she about faced on current Israel policy

This is a strange assumption. I don't fault anyone for refusing to vote for a party that is complicit in genocide.

I used to agree that people should vote blue if they are pro-Palestine, because Trump will obviously be worse, but I no longer think that. If democrats can rely on simply being better than republicans to win elections, what motivation do they have to shift to better policies? If americans will elect democrats despite them supporting a genocidal dictator, what motivation do they have to stop supporting that genocidal dictator?

What's the use of having a vote if politicians don't have to earn it?

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

what motivation do they have to shift to better policies?

Midterms and protests. We already know for a fact that abstaining just pushes them further right as they try to scoop up more of the center. They won't go further left unless we shove them that way.

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

They won’t go further left unless we shove them that way.

We have very different opinions on how best to accomplish that. Voting for them unconditionally seems like a bad strategy.

[–] JackiesFridge@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Not voting for them only "sends the message" that you are not their constituents, not engaged, and/or comfortable with the status quo. If you are not engaging, you literally have no say.

And all voting is of course conditional. If you help get them in office, you have more clout when you call their office and say "I knocked on doors and volunteered and worked to get you in office so you could convince Congress to stop funding genocide. Now get moving." If they don't, THEN vote them out.

Speaking of which, the president's hands are tied by decades of deals, agreements and other (largely misled) laws passed by Congress to support "our ally" Israel. It's a stupid, massive tangle that can't be easily undone, and Congress is not interested in changing anything because it'll make Jesus cry or something. We need better representatives AND a more progressive president before anything will move.

And finally I do agree with you - coming out and actually saying "hey I don't support genocide" is the bare minimum she can do and it's frustrating that she's not.

[–] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Cause and effect doesn't care what your opinion is.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 19 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

"I live in a must-win swing state, and I'm going to hold back my vote for the only candidate that won't make things worse."

Big picture, people. My god. See it.

Edit: I may have been confusing the people in this article with the PA group in this one. Still, Harris getting elected is the only chance of things not becoming way worse.

[+] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You know, for a lot of people, those in palestine, their families here, and muslims across the world, there isn't a difference between the current administrations policy and what Harris is proposing.

The big picture, you need to see it.

And like we had to tell Blue MAGA over and over again, its not the voters job to come to the politicians position. Its the politicians job to go get the voters. And if the voters position is "I'd rather not have my people genociced" or "I'd rather my ethnic minority not be considered less valuable than goats compared to other ethnic minorities", well then, as a reasonable person, I'm sure you can understand why they and others in solidarity with them would continue to withhold their votes.

And on withholding your vote, it is quite literally the only thing that has given us a snow-balls chance at hell in actually beating Trump. Any one putting out rhetoric to the otherwise, in the form of voter shaming, any blue will do, or blue maga, is one full step down the road into fascism. They need to be named, shamed, and ignored. They worked to give us Trump by trying to vote shame an entire nation into supporting Biden, a failed candidate who by all objective metrics had never been even competitive in his 2024 bid for president.

Kamala signaled with her Walz pick up that she would do better on Israel Gaza. Its her time to show the voters she is better, and no voter's owe her a vote either way.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Bullshit. You can vote for Harris or you can vote for Trump. Are you REALLY going to vote for Trump and think things will get better?

[–] Guy_Fieris_Hair@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Well, Trump will be much much worse? I get putting political pressure on her to take a hard stance on the issue, and don't compromise on your values, but the blue MAGA shit is absurd. She can't take a hard stance on it, she has to play politics. She is definitely better than the alternative, although I hate the idea of voting for the less evil, evil is evil. There is no middling.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Without the US breaking off all relations with Israel and Israel ceasing to exist there will be those Gaza advocates left unconvinced.

Here's the real question: Do they really think they would be better off with Trump? (Answer: No, they would be much worse off.)

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand what you're saying. Just days ago the US sent weapons and money to Israel. Within a day Israel used american bombs to kill 93 palestinians while they prayed.

Just off the top of my head, within the past few weeks: Israel assasinated the Hamas negotiator in the midst of negotions. An IDF soldiers raped a palestinian prisoner to death and when they were arrested there were literal riots demanding their release.

Why the fuck is the american government supporting a genocidal dictator like Bibi? It's actually fucking insane. All Biden needs to do is threaten to stop sending weapons and the genocide ends.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

And you think Trump isn't going to cater to Bibi? Voting for Trump won't fix the problem. Not voting for Harris is the equivalent of voting for Trump. You're going to get fucked either way... the question is who do you want to do it and which will leave you worse off.

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I no longer agree with this argument. Dems told voters to vote for Hillary in 2016 to avoid Trump and look what happened. Stop blaming voters and hold dems responsible for their shitty politics. If they want to win the election they need to earn the votes.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yes - a whole bunch of people voted for the 3rd party or for Trump because, Oh My Fucking God - It's a Clinton! We should totally repeat that disaster by withholding votes from the only other person who can possibly win and let Trump get elected again. Brilliant!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Shut up or you love trump."

[–] echo@lemmings.world 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

No. Nice try.

There will be one of two candidates elected POTUS. Harris or Trump. Which one do you (more) want to be elected to POTUS - Trump or Harris?

That is your decision. Blather on all you want. Hurt Harris all you want. That won't change reality. You're going to have to face reality whether you like it or not.

[+] Moneo@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Copy pasting a previous comment:

What’s the use of having a vote if politicians don’t have to earn it?

[–] echo@lemmings.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What’s the use of having a vote if politicians don’t have to earn it?

Yes, we need to change the voting system because it's difficult to get anything even close to what we want with the existing system. However, we have the system we have for this election so your only actual choice for this election is to continue to vote for the lesser of the two evils. What you're proposing is nihilistic. That's fine if that is how you feel, but be transparent and say that instead.

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not being nihilistic. Voting for the lesser of two evils is a short sighted strategy that results in politicians like Hillary, Biden, and Harris. I'm arguing that withholding your vote until it's earned is an effective strategy to bring about change.

Before Biden dropped out everyone on this website was repeating this point over and over, "vote for Biden or we get Trump". The average voter is not going to respond to that argument, and we know this because the polling for dems skyrocketed when Biden dropped out. Look at Walz's polling compared to Harris. Despite all the right wing fear mongering, people like and respond to a progressive politician. Stop enabling the dems and hold a fire to their feet. Show them that if they want to get elected all they need to do is put forward policies that actually help people.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Democrat or the Republican is going to be the next POTUS regardless of whatever fantasy you have going on in your head... which of those two will do the least harm to your cause this time around? Absolutely, we need to change the FPTP election system so that we're not forced into this situation, but it is the situation and you're going to have to face that reality.

[–] Moneo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're not engaging with what I'm saying in the slightest.

[–] echo@lemmings.world 0 points 2 months ago

Because I don't engage with delusional bullshit. Your 'strategy' of not voting for Harris won't change the fact that either the Democrat or the Republican will win and that you're helping the Republican win. You might as well go piss directly into a fan.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

this post has around 1/4 of the comments that it does on the lemmy.word version; did .world defederate somehow?

UPDATE: nope, i can see this post there so that implies no defederation. i wonder how the votes and the comments that are present in the .world version are not in the version that the rest of the lemmyverse sees.

[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm a lemmy.world user reading this, so I don't think so?

I think people are just tired of the same people pushing the same links all over the place, so they are ignoring them.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml -4 points 2 months ago

that doesn't explain why the votes and comment are missing

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago

Prism - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Prism:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://prismreports.org/2024/08/12/first-harris-walz-events-gaza-advocates-unconvinced/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

load more comments