this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
589 points (93.6% liked)
Political Memes
5510 readers
1249 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Biden says the same stuff as Kamala...
I'm sure she'll handle it better than Biden, and absolutely better than trump would.
But I just don't think she'll do enough, which is disappointing because "enough" is just cutting off aid money and weapons sales until they stop actively committing a genocide.
If they need aid to defend against Lebanon or Iran in an actual war, maybe they should stop committing a genocide at the same time?
Really seems like if Israel was actually concerned with defense, they wouldn't spend so much time bombing refugees.
Israeli has been a belligerent country who has not stopped terrorizing their neighbors since their formation. Zionists created Israel through a campaign of terror against British mandate Palestine and continue it to this day against Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iran.
Why are we supporting a country who does not want peace with their neighbors? They claim to be defending themselves by preemptively attacking any country that so much sneezes on them. Israel has even attacked the United States on many occasions.
If they want to be belligerent bullies in the region, they should have to do it on their own without dragging the US and it's allies into yet another middle eastern conflict.
They even assassinated the leader Hamas while they were negotiating a ceasefire. Does that sound like a peaceful country?
Bar Palestine, where they want to annex the West Bank, Israel would be more than happy with a live and let live relation. The entire reason Hamas wanted to escalate hostilities was because Israel was succeeding in just that, and they couldn't stop it otherwise.
The other player is Iran. You should think about whether it's right you included Jordan in your list and then why they'd help intercept Iran's missile strike some months ago...
Israel primarily needs bombs, and lots of them. No other country could provide Israel with bombs and planes on the scale that the US currently supplies them. A US arms embargo would force Israel to use up its current stockpiles, and could seriously affect their war effort.
Israel has initiated all of the recent military strikes in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon and despite this, none of Israel's neighbors, not even Iran, want escalation to a full scale conflict. The idea that they would all suddenly attack Israel following a US arms embargo is sheer fantasy.
The US State department is imposing restrictions on Israel's use of US weaponry? Uh, since when? They are not currently imposing any restrictions, even though they should be under the Leahy Laws, so imposing an embargo would not change Israel's behavior in this regard whatsoever. All this talk of being "in compliance with international humanitarian law" when it comes to Israel is a total PR farce.
Finally someone on here is actually talking about the complexities that are actually present and not just “MURDER IS BAD, DONT GIVE MURDERER GUN”
It is not just money and sale of weapons. US has been using veto power in support of Israel. Out of 89 uses of veto in the security council about 45 have been in support of Israel. US vetoed the Dec 8 resolution calling for a humanitarian aid. Givven how israel is conducting its war, how is own ministers are calling for murder and the reports from UN observers it is boggling to my mind how you can still have doubts and say "if they wanted to commit genocide". The restrictions you are so adamant will save the Palestinian people are Flagrantly being disregarded by Israel and the US has in it's own report said that Israel's use of US weapons is inconsistent with humanitarian law, but since the US lacks specific evidence of specific weapons bring used so Israel is being given the benefit of the doubt. This is so bafflingto me, you don't give benefit of the doubt to the person who is killing, you give it to the person being killed.
People will just ignore this and say your pro genocide because a lot of that "stop the genocide" people don't seem to understand what nuance is.
It seems to me like you are trying to make people be pro Harris. It is not a question, ah least for me, between the two options for us president Harris to my mind is the clearly better one. Your entire argument on weapons assumes that Israel is defending itself when it is not and that somehow the "guardrails" are going to keep the weapons from being used offensively. Unfortunately Israel has been using the weapons offensively, the US has been supporting them knowing the weapons are being used offensively. What did the US invasion of Afghanistan achieve? When US went out of Afghanistan dis they leave a paradise behind? It is the same here, US' presence in this conflict is empowering one party and that needs to stop. You talk about a future plan while disregarding the present. Israel's actions need to be condemned, the war on Palestinian people stopped. Who gives a flying fuck about 10 years down the road when you are killing an entire generation, starving am entire generation.
This might be, in truth, one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever seen.
“Genocide on the people of Israel”? The entire “Israeli” identity is based on settler-colonial genocide. You might as well speak of the American native resistance’s “genocide on white settlers.” Just beyond idiotic. The reason, as though you seem not to know, that this “terrorist group” (Israel’s bombing not being “terrorist” of course!) constantly launches rockets at them is due to the settler-colonial occupation of their land and the war of extermination against the Palestinian people.
“We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture” — Moshe Sharett, second PM of Israel
What Leading Israelis Have Said
It’s a completely ridiculous and absurd idea that Israel simply has this belligerent neighbor who attacks them for no reason.
Israel has the choice not to accept US weapons deals. If there were better deals on the table, they would be taken, so it’s complete nonsense to act as if conditional deals are some hamper on Israel’s genocide when, so too, we have seen them routinely violate int. law and be protected against repercussions by the US. Truly harm reduction in the extreme!
What came first was Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing. This is the father of Hamas, and to act like this is some tumor that must be cut out for “peace” ignores that it is only a reaction to this “tumor cutting.” The US is not working towards peace. See:
1998: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/53/42) | In Favor: 154 // Against: 2 (Israel & U.S.) 2000: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/55/55) | In Favor: 149 // Against: 2 (Israel & U.S.) 2021: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/76/10) | In Favor: 148 // Against: 9 (Israel & U.S., Australia, etc.) 2022: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/77/25) | In Favor: 153 // Against: 9 (Israel & U.S., Canada, etc.)
Ignorance of history in the extreme. Again, Israeli colonialism came first. Hamas is only a reaction.
This is wondrous! Israel backing off is when they enforce a total blockade and control travel! Who knew? As for human shields, you’ve revealed yourself as a complete charlatan, as there is simply no evidence of this practice being used by anyone other than Israel itself. [1] [2] [3]
We might be reminded of the case of Israel killing a Palestinian medic and then dishonestly editing a video of her to be used as “proof” that she was being used as a human shield by Hamas.
I think the real talk is that she's a little better than Biden, but Biden is pretty bad. It's hard to say what she would be doing because i get the feeling she's holding back out of desire to not undermine Biden's policies. I'm not anticipating much change overall, though. Sadly, we're all left watching the genocide.
Hoped that, but DNC killed that hope :(
If you think there's even a chance of Kamala being as bad as Biden in this regard, you haven't been paying attention to just how bad Biden is with Israel.
He literally has no line, and has been publicly saying for 50 years absolutely nothing would ever make him lessen his support for Israel.
And he fucking means it.
Kamala will be the same as Biden on practically every issue
Which overall, is fine.
But on this issue of genocide, is damning
what exactly do you mean by "damning"? Like you're not going to vote for her? Because the alternative is Trump who will be even worse.
I don't see her changing what's currently policy, so status quo will continue.
She can't do anything until/if she assumes office as president.
Especially with Biden as president, literally nothing else matters. He literally went around congress to avoid like a week delay.
Now she could say she's going to be stricter on Israel, and it would probably gain some votes in the right states to have an effect.
But what would definitely happen is AIPAC would give just an unthinkable amount of money to trump.
That would 100% happen if they have the slightest doubts in the Dem party.
So like I've said:
She won't be great. But she's better than trump or Biden and we frankly have no option other than voting for her and hoping public opinion affects her position more than donor money immediately after an election.
Like I said, can hope but not that hopeful.