Considering she stated she would do nothing different than Biden, yes it is another vote for genocide. The only difference offered between the 2 political parties on this issue is, lip service and ‘another month to leave’. To say the dems were seriously offering a different stance here is cope
Trump is literally doing something different than Biden. He literally wants Palestine cleared of Palestinians. Biden never even approached saying something like that.
No one is claiming Biden or Harris would be good for Palestine. This is far, far worse.
Or is this is one of these “what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes” things?
The something different is, trump is not providing lip service and expediting what is already being done. It was gonna happen either way. If you’re kill them torturing with false promises seems just as cruel. Biden just sent another 8billion in arms at the beginning of this month. I mean c’mon
Trump is about to delete Gaza and the West Bank off of the world map. Biden was far from perfect but verbally was never in support of that.
The more I engage with “protest voters” the more I wonder if, for whatever reason, they are actually accelerationists at heart. Which is ethically dubious as their action (or lack thereof) has accelerated a genocide.
On Monday, Trump signed an executive order nullifying sanctions targeting dozens of far-right Israeli settlers and organizations accused of violence against Palestinians. The Treasury Department officially terminated these sanctions on Friday, unblocking their US assets and financial access. This action reverses Biden’s February 2024 executive order that had sanctioned Israeli settlers for violent actions in the West Bank, signaling a significant shift in US policy towards Israeli settlements.
In his interview with Time magazine:
Do you still support a two-state solution?
I support whatever solution we can do to get peace. There are other ideas other than two state, but I support whatever, whatever is necessary to get not just peace, a lasting peace. It can’t go on where every five years you end up in tragedy. There are other alternatives.
If you really think Harris would have done anything significant to restrain Israel I envy your optimism. Voters’ only realistic choices for Palestine this election were for furrowed brows or enthusiastic cheerleading, but Israel was getting weapons and political cover for whatever it wanted to do either way.
If you really think Harris would have called for a total ethnic cleansing of Palestine, you paid zero attention to anything she ever said.
How many Palestinians did you ask about who to vote for? Because the Palestinians I talked to before the election were not fans of Harris, but rightfully far more terrified of Trump. I actually go out of my way to talk to Palestinians, and so many people berating me for not caring about genocide or whatever, when I ask them how often they talk to Palestinians, they don’t answer.
Like I said, we would have gotten furrowed brows out of Harris, but their wouldn’t have been any substantive action to restrain Israel. I voted for her and wished she would have won for a variety of reasons, but trying to guilt trip people who didn’t over this particular issue is just completely hollow given the choices we actually had here.
Who am I guilt tripping? How am I guilt tripping them? If you feel guilt about Trump getting elected, that’s on you, not me.
Also, I notice you didn’t tell me how many Palestinians you talked to about who they would want as president, so I am going to have to assume it’s zero and you just think you know what’s best for them.
And now the conflict is winding down just in time for the new presidency. Both parties have reached an agreement and Trump is now fanning the flames again. It wouldn’t have happened with Harris.
This “Harris wouldn’t have done anything different” is moot.
Recent history has shown that Harris was the correct choice with the power of 20/20 vision. That is the only takeaway. I’m not sure what you’re arguing.
Sure, it’s sucks that Harris’ inability to campaign and commitments to bad policy put the rest of us in this situation for a bunch of reasons, I’m just saying for Palestine in particular isn’t really one of them because her track record in office and behavior on the campaign trail made it clear she was always going to let Israel do whatever it wanted, so the “look what Israel’s doing now, don’t you protest voters feel silly” arguments just aren’t gonna land with anyone who didn’t already agree with you
I think it’s a bit unfair to criticize her like that considering she entered the race quite late but had pretty good plans all around vs none from the other guy. But that’s not the point.
But, like, don’t you feel silly? This is worse, no? Lol
Is forcefully displacing a million people less worse than murdering a million people? Yes. Objectively it is.
It should be obvious that being alive is better than being dead. Again this is not to defend Trump. Ethnic cleansing is a tremendous and outrageous crime.
But genocide is a worse crime, and claiming that voting the genociders over the ethnic cleansers is in any way ethically defensible is absurd.
The only acceptable ethical position is to oppose both and to remove anyone who commits or lets these crimes happen from power. It is a moral imperative to do so, even if other people did not. Anyone who voted for a D or R is ultimately complicit in these crimes too. If the US wasn’t morally bankrupt, people would have voted a third party to power. Any form of compromise with genocide is complicity. Fucking WW2 and Holocaust should have taught as much.
Where did i defend Trump? Also do you think it is an acceptable way to discuss to make such insincere personal attacks?
Why do you think, there is distinct categories? Why do you think genocide is singled out and is not equated with ethnic cleansing, like for instance “racial segregation and apartheid” are put together as one crime?
I understand that people are very emotional about Trump right now, but it is dangerous to use this as an excuse to defend the indefensible positions and crimes committed by the Biden administration. Gaslighting people into defending and supporting the “lesser evil” has been used successfully by the Democratic party to prevent sustained progressive and ethical politics.
Where did you defend Trump? You defended him by suggesting that this “ethnic cleansing” plan of his is not a big deal like genocide is and suggested that it might even be a good thing because it will get Democrats to go against Zionism. Which is really fucking sick.
Again this is not to defend Trump. Ethnic cleansing is a tremendous and outrageous crime.
You know it is possible for two (supposedly) opposed politicians to be bad?
If you don’t accept that two opposed politicians can be bad at the same time, you would in turn defend the genocide as good, as Biden and Harris must be the good guys then. I know you don’t, so it would be nice if you give the same respect to me.
I do think so. What I don’t think is that the one you think is worse is actually worse because your argument for their being worse is built upon the idea that ethnic cleansing isn’t fucking horrific and might be a good thing.
When you talk about the good aspects of ethnic cleansing, you’ve already lost the argument.
The main problem seems to be that people think i am wrong with acknowledging that genocide is worse than ethnic cleansing. So please give me some actual arguments why i am wrong in considering genocide worse than ethnic cleansing, which does not mean either to be acceptable.
I have pointed this out repeatedly, but people seem to struggle with the concept that two things can be bad at the same time, with one being worse. But maybe i am wrong in think, that. Maybe there is arguments as to why one thing being bad must mean the other thing to be good. I would love to hear the arguments for that.
Ethnic cleansing is a synonym for genocide. You may be under the impression that genocide by modern definitions does not include forced relocation, or that ethnic cleansing necessarily can not include killing. You are wrong. What you probably meant was that forced relocation is a less severe form of genocide than extermination. You didn’t say that though.
Genocide does not necessarily have to be annihilation. Per definition it is the destruction of a people. This does not have to be accomplished through murder.
It is the same proposal that was negotiated in Spring already. It only now came moments before Trump took office. What changed between Spring and now? How could Biden exert pressure on Israel as he was leaving office that he couldn’t in Spring already?
The reality is that Biden was unwilling to put any pressure on Israel to agree to any sort of deal and instead kept sending them more and more weapons, no matter how atrocious their crimes. Also Bidens team was eager to emphasize how they worked together with Trumps team in making it happen now.
This was not something Biden achieved or wanted to achieve.
Voting for either is wrong. Vote for a party that wants to commit neither.
If you hate brussel sprouts more than cale, but you hate both of them, the logical choice is to eat neither. Doesnt mean that the one cant be worse than the other.
Or to put it in mathematic terms:
-2 is a negative number. -3 is a smaller negative number. Both are negative numbers. You can acknowledge that -2 is larger than -3 without having to claim either to be a positive number.
And if you are getting either kale or brussel sprouts put in your mouth whether you want either of them or not, it makes sense to choose the one you dislike less.
But the winner in the general was going to be either the D or the R regardless. Seriously, fewer than 1% of state and federal legislators are 3rd party. It’s been 1 presidential election shy of 60 years that a third party candidate has received a single electoral vote, even including Perot with almost 19% of the popular vote. Third party isn’t happening without election reform. So I’m always going to vote for least harm in the general. I’ll vote for progressives in the primary.
So Biden gets no credit for negotiating a ceasefire. For… reasons. But Trump suggesting ethnic cleansing is better because it doesn’t meet your definition of genocide.
To be fair most political analysts are giving Trump much of the credit. Biden didn’t bring anything new to the table except for allowing Trump and his envoy to participate.
The envoy set the tone early with Netanyahu, making him break Sabbath to attend their meeting. Netanyahu was not in Trump’s good graces to begin with so some feel that he went forward with the cease-fire as a ‘down payment’
A down payment for what you ask? Well I guess we just found out.
Yes, both parties doing bad thing makes bad thing okay. Make sense. If my neighbors all decided we can blow up the next block over for reasons, it definitely makes it very cool and very legal for me to help.
This is the dumbest take I’ve ever seen in my life.
If my neighbors all decided we can blow up the next block over for reasons, it definitely makes it very cool and very legal for me to help.
My entire point is that it is not. In your example the Democrats want to blow up the next block over and the Republicans want to beat everyone out of their houses. Both are wrong. The murder is still worse.
Saying that voting for the ones who want to blow things up is somehow justifiable is exactly what you are joking about. You cannot legitimize helping your neighbors who want to blow up the next block over by voting them onto the neighborhood council. But you cannot do the same either for the one who want to beat people up instead of blowing them up.
The only ethical choice was a third party vote and if the majority of people in the US had ethics, they would have done so. As you said yourself, other people voting for genocide or ethnical cleansing does not justify you doing it yousrelf.
“Both parties are the same.”
“A vote for Harris is a vote for genocide.”
Considering she stated she would do nothing different than Biden, yes it is another vote for genocide. The only difference offered between the 2 political parties on this issue is, lip service and ‘another month to leave’. To say the dems were seriously offering a different stance here is cope
Trump is literally doing something different than Biden. He literally wants Palestine cleared of Palestinians. Biden never even approached saying something like that.
No one is claiming Biden or Harris would be good for Palestine. This is far, far worse.
Or is this is one of these “what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes” things?
The something different is, trump is not providing lip service and expediting what is already being done. It was gonna happen either way. If you’re kill them torturing with false promises seems just as cruel. Biden just sent another 8billion in arms at the beginning of this month. I mean c’mon
Biden and the democrats supported a two state solution. Trump is going give the West Bank and Gaza to Israel.
Biden’s actions don’t seem to agree with that…
Trump is about to delete Gaza and the West Bank off of the world map. Biden was far from perfect but verbally was never in support of that.
The more I engage with “protest voters” the more I wonder if, for whatever reason, they are actually accelerationists at heart. Which is ethically dubious as their action (or lack thereof) has accelerated a genocide.
Aiding the genocide has accelerated the genocide. No gymnastics to see that
Dude…. Just take the mask off and be done with it. It’s not like everyone doesn’t already know.
As Trump has shown he will do. Above and beyond anything Biden has said or done.
Prove it.
Can you prove it wasn’t? c’mon Edit: Jan 4, 2025 Joe Biden sent another 8 billion in arms. He didn’t have to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy_Law
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You made the claim, it’s up to you to show it wasn’t a lie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
It’s also a bad faith question to prove someone’s thoughts.
Let me ask you this, what proof would you accept?
Not the person your arguing with.
How can I know what I would accept unless I saw it?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/biden-administration-notifies-congress-of-planned-8-billion-weapons-sale-to-israel
That is not in any way, shape or form proof that Biden would want Gaza emptied of Palestinians like Trump.
No one is denying he sold arms to Israel. No one is justifying it.
That was not what you claimed. You claimed he would have done exactly what Trump is doing.
Prove it.
In his interview with Time magazine:
Today’s headline: Trump says he wants to ‘clean out’ Gaza and move Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt
All in one week. No difference, right?
If you really think Harris would have done anything significant to restrain Israel I envy your optimism. Voters’ only realistic choices for Palestine this election were for furrowed brows or enthusiastic cheerleading, but Israel was getting weapons and political cover for whatever it wanted to do either way.
If you really think Harris would have called for a total ethnic cleansing of Palestine, you paid zero attention to anything she ever said.
How many Palestinians did you ask about who to vote for? Because the Palestinians I talked to before the election were not fans of Harris, but rightfully far more terrified of Trump. I actually go out of my way to talk to Palestinians, and so many people berating me for not caring about genocide or whatever, when I ask them how often they talk to Palestinians, they don’t answer.
Good on you. 🙌
Thank you.
Like I said, we would have gotten furrowed brows out of Harris, but their wouldn’t have been any substantive action to restrain Israel. I voted for her and wished she would have won for a variety of reasons, but trying to guilt trip people who didn’t over this particular issue is just completely hollow given the choices we actually had here.
Who am I guilt tripping? How am I guilt tripping them? If you feel guilt about Trump getting elected, that’s on you, not me.
Also, I notice you didn’t tell me how many Palestinians you talked to about who they would want as president, so I am going to have to assume it’s zero and you just think you know what’s best for them.
If the Democratic party wanted us to hear Palestinians voices so badly why didn’t we hear any at their convention?
I’m not talking about the Democrats, I’m talking about you.
It’s very obvious that you have never even attempted to talk to a Palestinian. How Great White Savior of you.
And now the conflict is winding down just in time for the new presidency. Both parties have reached an agreement and Trump is now fanning the flames again. It wouldn’t have happened with Harris.
This “Harris wouldn’t have done anything different” is moot.
This whole thread is moot but the top level comment was the exact wrong lesson to learn from recent history imo
Recent history has shown that Harris was the correct choice with the power of 20/20 vision. That is the only takeaway. I’m not sure what you’re arguing.
Sure, it’s sucks that Harris’ inability to campaign and commitments to bad policy put the rest of us in this situation for a bunch of reasons, I’m just saying for Palestine in particular isn’t really one of them because her track record in office and behavior on the campaign trail made it clear she was always going to let Israel do whatever it wanted, so the “look what Israel’s doing now, don’t you protest voters feel silly” arguments just aren’t gonna land with anyone who didn’t already agree with you
I think it’s a bit unfair to criticize her like that considering she entered the race quite late but had pretty good plans all around vs none from the other guy. But that’s not the point.
But, like, don’t you feel silly? This is worse, no? Lol
Removed by mod
Are you seriously calling what Trump wants here “less severe” than genocide?
Also, quibbling about the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing is fucking sick.
Is forcefully displacing a million people less worse than murdering a million people? Yes. Objectively it is.
It should be obvious that being alive is better than being dead. Again this is not to defend Trump. Ethnic cleansing is a tremendous and outrageous crime.
But genocide is a worse crime, and claiming that voting the genociders over the ethnic cleansers is in any way ethically defensible is absurd.
The only acceptable ethical position is to oppose both and to remove anyone who commits or lets these crimes happen from power. It is a moral imperative to do so, even if other people did not. Anyone who voted for a D or R is ultimately complicit in these crimes too. If the US wasn’t morally bankrupt, people would have voted a third party to power. Any form of compromise with genocide is complicity. Fucking WW2 and Holocaust should have taught as much.
I think you need to do some reading if you think this is somehow some sort of low-death event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Walk_of_the_Navajo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march
But sure, keep defending your hero. His hero Andrew Jackson is on your side too.
Where did i defend Trump? Also do you think it is an acceptable way to discuss to make such insincere personal attacks?
Why do you think, there is distinct categories? Why do you think genocide is singled out and is not equated with ethnic cleansing, like for instance “racial segregation and apartheid” are put together as one crime?
I understand that people are very emotional about Trump right now, but it is dangerous to use this as an excuse to defend the indefensible positions and crimes committed by the Biden administration. Gaslighting people into defending and supporting the “lesser evil” has been used successfully by the Democratic party to prevent sustained progressive and ethical politics.
Where did you defend Trump? You defended him by suggesting that this “ethnic cleansing” plan of his is not a big deal like genocide is and suggested that it might even be a good thing because it will get Democrats to go against Zionism. Which is really fucking sick.
You know it is possible for two (supposedly) opposed politicians to be bad?
If you don’t accept that two opposed politicians can be bad at the same time, you would in turn defend the genocide as good, as Biden and Harris must be the good guys then. I know you don’t, so it would be nice if you give the same respect to me.
I do think so. What I don’t think is that the one you think is worse is actually worse because your argument for their being worse is built upon the idea that ethnic cleansing isn’t fucking horrific and might be a good thing.
When you talk about the good aspects of ethnic cleansing, you’ve already lost the argument.
Removed by mod
Christ, you people will justify anything to avoid saying you were wrong.
So explain to me please, where am i wrong?
The main problem seems to be that people think i am wrong with acknowledging that genocide is worse than ethnic cleansing. So please give me some actual arguments why i am wrong in considering genocide worse than ethnic cleansing, which does not mean either to be acceptable.
I have pointed this out repeatedly, but people seem to struggle with the concept that two things can be bad at the same time, with one being worse. But maybe i am wrong in think, that. Maybe there is arguments as to why one thing being bad must mean the other thing to be good. I would love to hear the arguments for that.
ETHNIC CLEANING IS GENOCIDE
The UN considers them related but distinguishes them.
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
Claiming they are always equated contradicts the UN and other experts categorization.
It’s just splitting hairs. What do you think happens to Palestinians who refuse to leave their homes?
Removed by mod
Ethnic cleansing is a synonym for genocide. You may be under the impression that genocide by modern definitions does not include forced relocation, or that ethnic cleansing necessarily can not include killing. You are wrong. What you probably meant was that forced relocation is a less severe form of genocide than extermination. You didn’t say that though.
Removed by mod
Genocide does not necessarily have to be annihilation. Per definition it is the destruction of a people. This does not have to be accomplished through murder.
The cease fire was literally agreed upon while Biden was still president. It was Biden’s diplomats working to make it happen.
It is the same proposal that was negotiated in Spring already. It only now came moments before Trump took office. What changed between Spring and now? How could Biden exert pressure on Israel as he was leaving office that he couldn’t in Spring already?
The reality is that Biden was unwilling to put any pressure on Israel to agree to any sort of deal and instead kept sending them more and more weapons, no matter how atrocious their crimes. Also Bidens team was eager to emphasize how they worked together with Trumps team in making it happen now.
This was not something Biden achieved or wanted to achieve.
Watching the switch from “I can’t possibly vote for the lesser of two evils” to “ethnic cleansing isn’t as bad as genocide” is morbidly hilarious.
Voting for either is wrong. Vote for a party that wants to commit neither.
If you hate brussel sprouts more than cale, but you hate both of them, the logical choice is to eat neither. Doesnt mean that the one cant be worse than the other.
Or to put it in mathematic terms:
-2 is a negative number. -3 is a smaller negative number. Both are negative numbers. You can acknowledge that -2 is larger than -3 without having to claim either to be a positive number.
Starve?
And if you are getting either kale or brussel sprouts put in your mouth whether you want either of them or not, it makes sense to choose the one you dislike less.
Nobody forced you to vote D or R
But the winner in the general was going to be either the D or the R regardless. Seriously, fewer than 1% of state and federal legislators are 3rd party. It’s been 1 presidential election shy of 60 years that a third party candidate has received a single electoral vote, even including Perot with almost 19% of the popular vote. Third party isn’t happening without election reform. So I’m always going to vote for least harm in the general. I’ll vote for progressives in the primary.
So Biden gets no credit for negotiating a ceasefire. For… reasons. But Trump suggesting ethnic cleansing is better because it doesn’t meet your definition of genocide.
What a bunch of disingenuous bullshit.
To be fair most political analysts are giving Trump much of the credit. Biden didn’t bring anything new to the table except for allowing Trump and his envoy to participate.
The envoy set the tone early with Netanyahu, making him break Sabbath to attend their meeting. Netanyahu was not in Trump’s good graces to begin with so some feel that he went forward with the cease-fire as a ‘down payment’
A down payment for what you ask? Well I guess we just found out.
Ah yes, synonym is less severe than synonym.
Very good argument. Very good point.
Yes, both parties doing bad thing makes bad thing okay. Make sense. If my neighbors all decided we can blow up the next block over for reasons, it definitely makes it very cool and very legal for me to help.
This is the dumbest take I’ve ever seen in my life.
My entire point is that it is not. In your example the Democrats want to blow up the next block over and the Republicans want to beat everyone out of their houses. Both are wrong. The murder is still worse.
Saying that voting for the ones who want to blow things up is somehow justifiable is exactly what you are joking about. You cannot legitimize helping your neighbors who want to blow up the next block over by voting them onto the neighborhood council. But you cannot do the same either for the one who want to beat people up instead of blowing them up.
The only ethical choice was a third party vote and if the majority of people in the US had ethics, they would have done so. As you said yourself, other people voting for genocide or ethnical cleansing does not justify you doing it yousrelf.
This is genocide. Jesus Christ…