“We understand that some Muslim voters, any voter, may feel a moral dilemma voting for [Harris]. I do. My family does,” said Wa’el Alzayat, the CEO of Emgage Action. “But a vote for a third-party candidate is the road to victory for Donald Trump.”
Imagine instead of spending money and effort to create a “Arab Americans for Harris-Walz” propaganda group, that they listened to their voters and made it policy to stop supporting genocide.
Half the voters want to nuke the Middle East. Most voters are stupid and too focused on a single issue.
Not Democratic voters. What would please Republican psychopaths is irrelevant to the political positions of a Democratic candidate.
They’re about to bomb iran on behalf of Israel so this will need to be some pitch.
Some Sunni may even cheer Iran getting bombed. Sunnis and shiites really hate each others guts.
All Sunnis and all Shiites hate each other? Even unto death?
Well then they must be truely barbaric and therefore deserving of the decades of avarice inspired wrath meted out upon them by successive US governments and their proxy settler colony.
Without excusing western societies, at all, it’s a fact that many Muslim, not all, countries that use the Sharia as a basic legal framework, in literal interpretations, are fucking barbaric. So yes. And let me repeat, not excusing western societies. One thing doesn’t excuse the other.
Western “society” and Muslim “barbarians” which need to taught how to be “civilized”. Where have we heard this rhetoric before
Where have we heard this rhetoric before
.ml
Not all of them all the time. Hamas are a bunch of radical Sunnis, who like Iran for example. However Al Qaeda and the Taliban really do hate Iran. Iran even told the US were to bomb Taliban positions, which was a big reason why the US could invade Afghanistan as easily as they did. Both Iran and the Taliban also fight the Islamic State.
The entire region is really complex and yes some Sunnis are going to cheer Iran being bombed, like the Saudis for example, others will not.
The most fundamentally disappointing aspect of Harris is that she’s had all the room in the world for ambiguity and platitudes to sweep the problem under the rug. She doesn’t need to even promise anything, just indicate she’s concerned about the motivations of the far right Israeli government and will look at all options to promote a just and peaceful Middle East. Expressing the vague potential to confront a far-right Israeli government isn’t going to lose her any Democratic votes, at least not in places as important as Michigan where not doing it is a potentially campaign defining choice.
It’s like the centrist establishment has some inherent desire to force that “you have to vote for us” choice on disgruntled Democratic factions even though they could just solve the disagreement. If they start acknowledging the left side of the party as being worth listening to, even if doing so is trivially easy, then it sets a bad precedent.
“At the same time what has happened in Gaza in the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking,”, “Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self determination.”
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/23/g-s1-19232/kamala-harris-israel-gaza-dnc
So, she is saying that what is happening in Gaza is wrong(this was before the recent attacks in Lebanon) and is for a two state solution, which is about as far as you can go.
Harris said she told Netanyahu “it is time to get this deal done.”
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/25/nx-s1-5048285/harris-gaza-war
Hence direct claims to actually push for a ceasefire.
There are a few problems. First of all she is not president right now, so she can not stop Biden from sending bombs to Israel. Biden is about as bad as they get for Democrats. At the same time, her openly going against it is a big problem, as she is part of the administration. Secondly Trump already made a deal with Netanyahu, that they are not going to agree to a ceasefire until the election, to help Trump win. That alone should be a big endoresment of Harris.
That she’s not president right now is the benefit. She can say whatever she wants and skeptical people have no way of testing her sincerity. The problem with your examples are that they’re entirely content free wishes for a better world. Those statements don’t imply she might do something to try to enact this ideal world where the heartbreaking thing doesn’t happen or that she would even consider doing anything to incentivize Netanyahu to make a deal.
The key to my proposed ambiguity is that there is an explicit acknowledgement that Netanyahu’s far right government might be not only an obstacle to peace, but an obstacle that she might confront. Current statements are just the same things Biden is already saying.
She uses passive language when talking about the devastation in Gaza but direct language when talking about october 7. Even her ‘concerned’ language avoids even the implication that part of the suffering in Gaza is a direct result in Israel’s extreme response and reckless bombing campaigns, let alone any indication that the ceasefire talks are stalling because Israel refuses to make any commitments to lasting peace.
Hell, even the US has said that they have had no intention of diplomacy with Hamas, affirming Israel’s desire to eliminate them completely. It doesn’t take a genius to see why there’s been no ceasefire deal when the US and Israel both have publicly stated their intention to eliminate their negotiation partner.
No, Harris doesn’t earn credit for sending thoughts and prayers like it’s some unavoidable weather disaster.
It worked for LBJ, however.
deleted by creator
well, the worst people in israel are all gunning for trump. When there is no option for victory sometimes denying the most evil people on earth a win is the best we can do.
@Zaktor@sopuli.xyz and this is why ambiguity does not work in this case.
You don’t need to please every skeptic, but most just want to remove the thing that makes them uncomfortable with the candidate they otherwise want to support and ambiguity with an acknowledgement about the role and power of the president and that an Israeli government might need confrontation does that.
Expressing the vague potential to confront a far-right Israeli government isn’t going to lose her any Democratic votes
No, but it would cost her millions in donations and support from Zionist lobbies. It would also push those same lobbies to more heavily donate and support the GOP. Not to mention the millions that would be at stake from weapons manufacturing lobbies who would see any wavering on Israel support as potential to lose one of their biggest buyer. All that lost money would lead to a loss in votes.
The world is complicated and a tangled mess.
AIPAC is “only” responsible for around $20 million in fundraising this cycle, I think it’s more that she needs the support of her actual elected party members who are pro-israel
You can talk about money equals votes all you want, but right now there’s very direct evidence that her position is losing votes. No speculation on the power of ad campaigns or which wedge might be effective. There’s an issue that’s already losing votes and already being targeted by conservative money. And this whole premise of “do nothing, they’ll come home” is based on everyone being able to recognize she’s better for Palestinians except the Zionists. Because if they’re not the lone idiots in this whole game, they already have reason to want her to lose. And the only reason they wouldn’t already be putting all those resources against her is if THEY don’t believe their money can win the election for Trump.
And even past all that, arguing “Democrats gotta do what the lobbyists want even if the party doesn’t agree” is a position that itself is going to lose even more votes. It’s feckless neoliberalism and “don’t bother, the system is beyond the voters” all tied together with a nice little bow, presented as if that was supposed to motivate voters to knuckle-down and engage with a system you’re claiming doesn’t care about them and is incapable of acting in their interest. Because there’s still going to be a weapons lobby and a Zionist lobby post election, and under this philosophy she’s going to be beholden to them indefinitely because there’s always going to be a next election for her or the party.
deleted by creator
And money wins elections in the US.
I’m not nearly as confident about that as you are. Hillary had the money advantage. Elections are won in swing states, by voter turnout, and while money can encourage or discourage voting, it does so by highlighting (or lying about) policy. You’re not coming out ahead if you just save them the effort of lying by sticking with a policy that turns away voters (or more realistically, is already being further enhancement by political spending).
People have to hope Harris willing to change her mind after praising Dick Cheney and ass kissing Israel every time she is near a mic. I don’t see that happening at all.
The difference is that even if Harris continues the policies of the Biden administration, the American citizens should feel safe enough to protest those policies and maybe something will change?
Under a trump administration the idea of people being able to protest safely is less certain.
Protesting is becoming more criminalized under this admin. We just witnessed state violence against college students and protesters are getting hit with Rico charges. I wouldn’t say they are more safe protesting under either admin.
You’re right there has been some shitty things happening to protestors that for the most part have shown great restraint with the way they’re protesting. But an honest question, is this a feature of the Biden administration or are the crack downs happening at a more local level?
Because what I have seen and heard about from trump and his lessor demons is the desire to make protests illegal on a Federal level and to uphold that idea with state sponsored violence.
There is an argument to be made that Biden, as President to all Americans, should be making a statement to condemn these violent acts against mostly peaceful protestors at the very least and I have not seen that from him which is disappointing. But yet he and his administration have not in any way pushed for legislation to outlaw the protests. Nor has he tried to coerce the media from reporting on it. I don’t have faith that a trump administration would do that.
I also understand why people are frustrated that the best we have is “well we will let you protest (with a little violence), but we will not really listen to you.” But at least we get to stay on the path of democracy and hopefully there can be better candidates that can start to shift the focus in a different, better direction. As much as people want big changes to happen right now, unfortunately the country is too big and too entrenched for that to be reality. BUT it can change if we can keep it from becoming a dictatorship.
“The American citizens should feel safe enough to ignore the issue because they are not impacted by it”.
The fact that so many people refuse to recognize the chilling effect and implicit threat of AIPAC in the context of the election vis a vis “what you say about supporting Israel” continues to baffle me. Like, if any candidate says anything sharply critical of Israel, they’ll take their dump truck of money and just give it to the other candidate. That’s the game. That’s it.
Being reticent/“status quo” about Israel in the context of the campaign is (tragically, but also directly due to Citizens United and effectively uncontrolled political spending) is the best play here, and I hope her actual policy is materially different from the status quo. But I recognize she simply can’t say that unless she wants to score a campaign finance own-goal on herself.
They can maybe singlehandedly win some House races. $14M is a lot of money there. You’ll notice however that Ilhan Omar is still in Congress despite their opposition and Bernie Sanders, who’s much more influential, has nothing at all to worry about. They accomplish a lot more by targeting a couple of already weakened reps and others getting scared than they ever could if they actually had to directly confront them. Their money isn’t endless and is kind of an irrelevant amount when talking about the scale of a presidential race.
The fact that so many people refuse to recognize the chilling effect and implicit threat of AIPAC in the context of the election vis a vis “what you say about supporting Israel” continues to baffle me.
Oh, we’re not. We see that the centrist wing of the party is fucking delighted to support genocide in exchange for AIPAC shoveling money at centrist challengers to progressive incumbents.
It’s good to hear that the campaign is engaging with these folks now.
The pitch is pretty good too. Some choice quotes:
a distinction between Harris and Biden that Harris has been reluctant to draw herself. [VP] Harris … cannot decide for President Biden” he said, noting her limited powers under the Constitution.
Harris has made some comments seen as more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than Biden has
Harris is a good listener who is “able to change her mind.”Basically trying to say that a vote for Harris opens the possibility of a President who backs away from a Middle East war, while not overtly stepping on Biden’s toes.
NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for NBC News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
deleted by creator
Some speakers on Thursday’s call with Walz made it clear that their support for Harris comes with reservations, with one prominent Muslim Democrat saying voting for her was the “least bad thing.”
Surely there will be no negative effect on turnout from forcing people into picking the “least bad” option. Very safe and sensible strategy.
Every election is the least bad option every time. Anyone who thinks different lives in a fantasy world. Real life always disappoints.
This is genocide, not just healthcare policy or something
Centrists successfully fought against the public option but refuse to oppose genocide.
I also particularly enjoy the insinuation that expecting a candidate to oppose or at least not actively support genocide is “living in a fantasy world.”
I remember back not that long ago when any democrat would have proudly told you that they would never support genocide under any circumstances. For some of them it turns out there’s a clause of “unless our ally is doing it and there’s an election coming up”
Yes, they would have told you that. But when it came down to it they’d prevaricate and allow it. Just like drone strikes. Or the Iraq War, which most of the Democrats supported.
I’m not happy about it, but reality has disappointed me way, way too many times to expect anything better.
The fact that we need a government at all is a failure of our species IMHO. We can’t be trusted not to be assholes.
Agree 100%. It’s sad
This is America. Genocide has been our policy for hundreds of years.
Its going to take hundreds of elections to vote your way away from the genocide country, founded by genocide, built by genocide and stopping them from participating in genocide. You’d have to run the pro genocide people out of every dime they have by supporting their opponents. And they’re spending money to defeat democrats right now.
A general strike could do it sooner, but it would be brutal, painful and require a level of solidarity above and beyond lecturing people on an online forum
Also Tim: the expansion of Israel is a fundamental necessity
