Warren was asked about a ruling from the International Court of Justice that found it was “plausible” Israel has committed acts of genocide in Gaza, and about her own opinion on the matter. A spokesperson for Warren said in a statement to POLITICO Monday that the senator “commented on the ongoing legal process at the International Court of Justice, not sharing her views on whether genocide is occurring in Gaza.”

Warren has faced pressure from her left flank since the start of the crisis in Gaza. The progressive senator initially voiced full-throated support for Israel in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack. But as international criticism built over Israel’s military response, far-left groups began protesting outside of her offices and Cambridge home, calling on her to advocate for a lasting cease-fire in Gaza and to stop further U.S. military aid to Israel.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    3 months ago

    Things would be so much better if anyone besides Biden had won the 2020 Dem primary.

    Unfortunately he was the pick, so even tho he lost the first primary, for some reason a bunch of other candidates all dropped out immediately and endorsed Biden.

    And all the ones who dropped early got caught admin positions unless they were already senators

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Things would be so much better if anyone besides Biden had won the 2020 Dem primary.

      Anyone? Bloomberg? DeLaney?

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think “former” Republican Bloomberg might have possibly been almost as bad, but you’re otherwise 100% spot on!

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Bloomberg wasn’t running to win, there was no shot of him winning the Dem nomination.

        He was just there so people thought Biden was a moderate and not a right wing conservative by 2020’s standards.

        If Biden was the most conservative option in the Dem primary, it would have helped Sanders and Warren.

        So the party and billionaires made it look like old Joe was actually moderate.

        It was just neoliberals compromising before republicans got to the table again.

        • xerazal@lemmy.zip
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Unfortunately warren also played spoiler to sanders, helping Biden win…

          • TheFriar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            That logic really doesn’t fly. I think sanders’ own fan base turned off so many people, women especially, that Warren’s run made plenty of sense. And she was styling her rhetoric as a watered down version of sanders’, ultimately making her more “electable” than sanders to more establishment-type democrats with some progressive leaning, again making her less of a liability in the general.

            They had similar ideas with different approaches. Warren also would’ve had a better shot if Bernie hadn’t been running. And by your own logic, that makes sanders a spoiler for her. Why would Bernie immediately be the standard bearer of more progressive ideas turning her into the spoiler? Just because he ran the election before?

            One side of a coin does not make the other a “spoiler” side of the coin. It just doesn’t work like that.

            • xerazal@lemmy.zip
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              They spoiled each other, sure. The only reason I state her as the spoiler is because by that primary, sanders had the name recognition from his previous run. He already had a movement behind him. Warren has to build hers from scratch.

              • TheFriar@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                Is disagree. I mean, either of them would’ve had an advantage over trump. But who knows how it would’ve gone, because we’ve never really had a progressive candidate in our lifetimes. Obama’s first run was the closest thing to one, even if it was all bullshit. But that rhetoric got him a lot of excitement. He just went back on it all immediately.

                But a lot has changed since 2008. Progressive ideas are all incredibly popular. But once the spin machine really kicked into gear with either of them “threatening capitalism,” anything could’ve happened.

                But I’d also disagree that Warren was building her movement from scratch. She had built a following ever since she grilled the fuck out of wall at CEOs in 2010. She wasn’t some random person no one had ever heard of. And I’d argue that everything Sanders’ followers did in 2016/2017, how bad of a reputation there was, having that group behind him spoiled his chances more than anything. It wasn’t all of us—I was one of them. But the most vocal and shitty among them were so vicious and annoying that it turned people away from sanders. He literally has his own fans to blame for not having more support.

                I liked both of them, they were the two best candidates of my lifetime, anyway. But the amount of assholes I had to deal with—all of them sanders supporters—online put a sour taste in my mouth. I still voted for him, but I can very easily see how much that was this same exact movement shooting itself in the foot. Shit, plenty of Warren supporters (mostly women) were so adamantly against supporting sanders because of the sexism they had all experienced. That was a terrible look.

                I’m just saying it’s all much messier and uglier than either of us would like.

        • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          He was just there so people thought Biden was a moderate and not a right wing conservative by 2020’s standards.

          The same thing they are doing with RFK Jr

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Things would be so much better if Biden would break with US foreign policy and suddenly start opposing Israel on all their mass murder

      Other than that, he’s great (which is kind of an “Other than that Mrs. Lincoln” type of thing), and I think you’re going to have a hell of a time finding an American politician who might have won the primary who might do anything against Israel. Wishing for Biden to oppose them seems way more realistic.

      • normalexit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Biden is the major player in setting US foreign policy along with his cabinet and congress.

        Bernie Sanders has been vocal about the atrocities committed by Israel, and would have been the nominee twice if he wasn’t fucked over by the party. I feel like he would have done an infinitely better job tackling the problems of the world today.

        I’m glad Biden is talking about student loan relief, but overall he has been the disappointment I expected him to be. Yes he is better than the alternative, but that doesn’t mean he is doing a great job.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Bernie Sanders has been vocal about the atrocities committed by Israel, and would have been the nominee twice if he wasn’t fucked over by the party. I feel like he would have done an infinitely better job tackling the problems of the world today.

          Yeah that’s fair. 100% agreed on all fronts. He’s been talking about this since decades ago, too.

          I’m glad Biden is talking about student loan relief

          You know he’s doing more than talking about it, right?

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Winning Iowa isn’t a great predictor. Biden blew out South Carolina and created a rallying point for Super Tuesday where most voters just wanted a moderate who would compete well in the general.

      I’m not at all convinced any other nom would have defeated Trump.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, a bunch of candidates claimed to be really progressive on just a few issues, got support for that, then endorsed Biden and told their supporters Biden would be just as progressive.

        Super Tuesday was like days away, so lots of people voted Biden without realizing they were being lied to.

        This isn’t ancient history, it’s readily accessible even if you’ve forgotten

        • ccunning@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          No […] you’ve forgotten

          “No” what?

          Biden won SC by nearly 30 points (the last primary before Super Tuesday) and proceeded to win 2/3rds of the Super Tuesday contests.

          Most Democrats didn’t want “really progressive”. They wanted someone who was middle of the road and would be able to beat Trump.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            “No” what?

            All the stuff I explained.

            You guoted the first word and last two words I said, then asked what was in the middle?

            The stuff in the middle champ, I don’t think me repeating it will help you.

            Have a nice life tho

  • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    Of course it will be. The only thing it was possible to doubt was intent and Israel’s government don’t seem to understand that it might be better to keep your mouths shut while you commit a major crime against humanity.

    • Slotos@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Nope, fucking nope.

      It was intent that was really hard to doubt. We saw Israel’s financial minister talk about solving the Arab problem of Gaza by reducing the Arab population in an official interview in the first month or so.

      And you know what? At that point it doesn’t matter how efficient Israel is at implementing the intent, as genocide is not defined by its efficiency.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s their point. If Israel had kept their mouths shut and not screwed with the aid they could still be carpet bombing the place without repercussion. Instead they told everyone what they were trying to do, and took clear actions to make it unnecessarily worse.