People either don’t seem to understand, or are pretending not to understand for political purposes, that Harris has a very thin line to toe until the election. If she says anything strongly in either way regarding Israel/Palestine, she will lose.
Anyone telling you that she is worse than Trump on the issue is a goddamn liar
Harris started her political career by condemning Obama for not perfectly obeying Israel. She votes for Israel every time. She even tells a story how she planted trees for Israel as a child.
The only fine line she is trying to walk is keeping her pro-Palestine voters while doing everything Israel is asking of her.
The only fine line she is trying to walk is keeping her pro-Palestine voters while doing everything Israel is asking of her.
I’m curious what you think Israel is asking of the Vice President of the United States? What is it that you think the VP does?
No one is asking her to do anything as VP, this person is saying harris is committed to enabling israel’s genocide and has a history of supporting israel unconditionally. we want her to commit to upholding american laws around not supplying arms genocidal regimes as president; which israel categorically is currently. literally every organization that has investigated israeli conduct in Gaza and now Lebanon has come to the same conclusion. The UN, WHO, our own internal analysis.
They’ve gone way past self defense and managed to kill more of the hostages than hamas has.
They’ve gone way past self defense and managed to kill more of the hostages than hamas has.
How many of the dead hostages would you say Hamas is responsible for?
I’d probably lay the majority at their feet. between turning the region into a war zone, starvation etc, the chances of them surviving the situation is close to zero. as far as wikipedia is concerned out of the 251 hostages…
- 117 were returned by hamas in a prisoner exchange.
- 4 were released unilaterally by hamas.
- 8 were rescued by IDF.
- 34 bodies have been retrieved (likely dead due to the war zone)
- 3 bodies returned through unspecified means.
so frankly Israel’s track record here for ‘rescuing’ the hostages is pretty abysmal. and I can’t think of a worse way than to turn a region into a war zone to rescue them. so far it looks like hamas has been fairly willing to negotiate prisoner releases. who knows if thats still the case though. since you know we killed off the leader who was looking to get a peace deal. but I doubt many more are going to be returned alive after this. I feel for those families and its unfortunate their countries leadership is going to get most of them killed.
but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter who killed those hostages. they’re dead and nothing will change that. all I know is turning the region into a blood bath didn’t help their chances.
How many of these people do you think would be dead if Hamas hadn’t kidnapped them?
How many people was Israel holding prisoner indefinitely and without charge or access to any representation? I’ll answer that for you, a bit over 12000.
How many of those killed on Oct 7 were killed by Israeli forces?
How many innocents have been raped or murdered in isralei custody?
How many dead journalists? Doctors? Aid workers? How many utilities workers (6 more mudered yesterday). Say what you want, each and every one of those deaths is a war crime.
How many attacks on the UN and UN workers?
Israel has far far dirtier hands than anyone else so I dont think you get to self righteously open with, “How many of these people do you think would be dead if Hamas hadn’t kidnapped them?”.
Ridiculous nonsense.
I’m curious what you think Israel is asking of the Vice President of the United States? What is it that you think the VP does?
She’s a candidate talking about what she’ll do in her term. Stop playing dumb.
She votes for Israel every time.
[citation needed]
Here is a good compilation
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/can-kamala-harris-wipe-the-blood
“Soon after being elected to the Senate in 2016, Harris earned a reputation as an ardent defender of Israel. She spoke two years in a row at AIPAC conferences and co-sponsored legislation aimed at undermining a United Nations resolution condemning Israel’s illegal annexation of Palestinian land. One of her first international trips as a senator was to Israel where she met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2017. “I support the United States’ commitment to provide Israel with $38 billion in military assistance over the next decade,” Harris told an AIPAC conference that year. “I believe the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and we can never let anyone drive a wedge between us. … As long as I’m a United States senator, I will do everything in my power to ensure broad and bipartisan support for Israel’s security and right to self-defense.” Harris has compared building support for Israel to the coalitions forged during the U.S. civil rights movement”
Exactly this.
People are upset because of the fine line she has to walk, but I have always figured that once she wins the election she’d do the right thing, and this event makes me believe I’m right to have faith.
If centrists don’t like that they don’t get 100% of everything they want, in this case unconditional support for genocide, they can vote blue no matter who.
I’m not sure you even understood my comment. And yet at least 10 other people read this and were like “yup, that sounds right.”
Suspect.
People generally have really poor reading comprehension. I’ve been surprised by how bad it is here on lemmy. I’ve had folks argue against things not even remotely close to what was said, and then other morons will come along to dogpile.
people are scanning, it happens, done it myself. the problem is people are so scared of harris losing they’re attacking people who have no interest in supporting harris as a result of this issue and think that will somehow get them to vote harris. shrug
if harris loses she loses and thats on her. she wants to play the law and order candidate while simultaneously not committing to upholding the laws we have on the books and enabling a genocide well thats on her.
Can’t help that shes committing the same errors of judgement that biden did and we didn’t support him either after he started breaking strikes and enabling genocide.
the problem is people are so scared of harris losing they’re attacking people who have no interest in supporting harris as a result of this issue and think that will someone get them to vote harris. shrug
The people you describe attack Harris voters too. They attack anyone with misgivings about genocide support.
They’re a troll. Somehow everyone who disagrees with them even slightly is a centrist who wants the war to happen.
Somehow anyone who disagrees with the genocide even slightly must be a trumper in all cases.
If you’re not voting Harris, you’re a Trump supporter, yes. Regardless of how you feel about it, that is literally just how our voting system works. We all need to push for a system where third parties matter, but until that actually happens, please live in reality.
If you’re not voting Harris, you’re a Trump supporter, yes.
And I am voting Harris. No reason for any of you to start paying attention to this now, though. You have your single talking point and you’re going to repeat it regardless of the actual positions of the person you’re talking to.
Lol there’s that hyperbole
If it’s not the case, maybe centrists can come up with a new thing to say to people who disagree with genocide.
I’m not sure you even understood my comment.
No, I did. You were saying that her hands are tied because the pro-genocide centrist wing of the party is so fickle that they will stay home or vote Trump if Harris starts disagreeing with you about genocide.
So, if centrists don’t like that they don’t get 100% of everything they want, in this case unconditional support for genocide, they can vote blue no matter who.
Now make up some more conspiracy bullshit about me running a botnet of sockpuppets or whatever it is you do when you can’t accept that more than one person is opposed to genocide.
Now make up some more conspiracy bullshit about me running a botnet of sockpuppets or whatever it is you do when you can’t accept that more than one person is opposed to genocide.
Holy victim complex, batman
I mean, it’s what he was saying in the comment I replied to.
the pro-genocide centrist wing of the party
Yeah that’s where I’m gonna stop reading.
Have a nice week.
You certainly remain unburdened by an overabundance of reading, yes.
edit: I scanned over the she modifier sorry. yes that would be true. but shes no better either.
— remains relevant to others in the thread.
She may lose either way; and you’re an idiot if you think people who are disgusted by us supplying weapons to the genocidal regime in israel are worse than trump.
- if you’re in a swing state vote harris
- if you’re in a democratic bastion feel free to vote third party, dont worry the majority of the liberal lemmings will vote for harris.
- let your reps know you don’t support arming israel while they’re actively committing a genocide and refusing to commit to a cease fire which is against our laws and harris if she wants to claim is in favor of upholding the law needs to back.
I’d rather put boots on the ground to defend israel than let them continue a genocide of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
I’d add 2a: Even if you don’t vote for president be sure to vote down-ballot. You can just leave the president section blank. But don’t be tempted to write in someone because that may invalidate your entire ballot.
Writing in a name won’t invalidate a ballot, at least not in any state i’m aware of, what lead you to say that? genuinely curious.
In some states a write in has to be registered as a candidate for the write in to work.
At least that’s how it worked when I lived in MD.
lol wow thats nonsense. (that such a rule exists) =)
I love how you’re carefully avoiding the Abilene effect and how it could lose the election in even strong states.
Yes, lose. Because
- it’s a binary choice
- non-participation benefits the crueler conservatives
- everyone votes in isolation while cognizant of others and assuming their intent
And even if we declare the two viable options - note I said viable there - to be guaranteed as equally detrimental for Gaza when we all know it’s not, it simplifies the equation. If we cannot appreciably affect the outcome in our election choice we move to the choice which has the most potential for effect after the election. CLEARLY
And that’s the programme. It’s been explained so many fucking times that I’m not sure how “but her emails” you need to be not to get it.
This is as clear the nose you sever to spite your face, and it’s truly sad to see such cognitive dissonance in someone not voting conservative out of greed or gambler’s mindset.
Try to clue in before voting, okay?
it’s a binary choice
its not, as evidenced by the fact there are 5 options, now as we both obviously know FPTP is a horrible system and leads to a collapse of viable parties, but even in that situation you have 3 options. A,B, Neither. and I’m nethier. neither kamala nor trump have policies that i support. and trump can’t impact the larger scheme of things i care about my local government prevents that.
non-participation benefits the crueler conservatives
no its a neutral stance, and you’re upset that people dont care about your prefered candidate because she doesn’t bring anything to the table that my state doesn’t already have. if i lived in texas/florida the equation would be different but i don’t and harris will easily win in my state.
And that’s the programme. It’s been explained so many fucking times that I’m not sure how “but her emails” you need to be not to get it.
but you don’t get it. harris doesn’t bring anything to the table. if i was an arab in michigan right now i’d be looking at her ticket and going:
- nothing to help with inflation.
- nothing to help with labor rights.
- nothing to help with corporate corruption (see above two issues).
- and shes literally willing to support killing my family and friends in the middle east.
If voting 3rd candidate gets that person to the poll booth and they vote 3rd party/blank/etc and down ticket dems vs not showing up at all. I take that as a win. Its not our fault harris, the alleged law and order candidate, wouldn’t commit to enforcing the law on arms sales. if the zionists have a problem with that, well thats on them, maybe you should bitch about them being intransigent about fucking genocide.
Try to clue in before voting, okay?
already voted mate, maybe get a clue in the future on the entire system before opening your mouth. you’re position only is rational by assuming there is only one office on the ballot. sadly harris didn’t turn it around in time to win my vote. but thats her fault not mine. I have a laundry list of issues that if she ticket any of them personally I would have voted for her. she didn’t. not my fault. genocide was just one of the ones where the ask was so small it should have been a no brainer. If the majority of the zionists are willing to support trump if harris won’t sell israel weapons I don’t particular care and think you should save your ire for them not me.
I’m not preventing harris from not being genocidal thats on her, I’m not stopping zionists from recognizing that israel’s behavior is unconscionable, thats on them. If harris loses because of israel’s behavior feel free to bitch at those voters they’re the ones who caused the loss by not supporting their brothers and sisters of another faith from being subject to a genocidal war.
I’m not the one preventing us changing our voting system to ranked choice. that’s on the DNC/GOP. Hell I’ve canvased and gathered signatures for the damn thing in my state what have you fucking done to kill the spoiler effect?
I’m simply not going to give my vote to a candidate who won’t commit to supporting labor and won’t commit to not committing a genocide; especially when it won’t change the outcome in any manner.
Abilene effect
also what makes you think we’re part of the same group? This simply doesn’t apply.
edit: changed jews -> zionists, because its not the jews in america causing this problem.
I dont think you understand much either, if she doesnt make a stand she will lose
Aaaaaaaaaand immediately gets called antisemitic…jesus christ these people…
Guess what Israel? Semites include Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians. So you’re being antisemitic by killing all of them!
Pretending that you don’t know the meaning of ‘antisemitic’ is only slightly less annoying than pretending that criticism of israel is antisemitic.
Semitic is a term with two main uses - 1) to mean ‘jews’ in the term ‘anti-semitic’. 2) to refer to a particular branch of the afro-asiatic language family. No one is using ‘semite’ to mean all speakers of semitic languages and even if they did the meaning of the term antisemitic is clear and well understood.
Please, please just stick to pointing out how dumb it is to pretend that criticizing the genocidal actions of a nation state is somehow hatred of jews. This overplayed piece of feigned linguistic ignorance is doing nothing for no one.
I reject Israel’s modification of semitic to only refer to themselves. It originally meant the inclusion of Arabs, and I’m going to continue using it that way, regardless of it’s “obsolete” designation.
It is still used to this day in linguistics to refer to the same thing, and I’m going to use it more broadly to ensure that Israel can’t gatekeep its usage, and utilize it in a way to harass others and as a universal cover-all any time anyone criticizes them for anything.
I am not ignorant of its linguistic origins, I am purposely reappropriating it. It seems fitting, especially in this case, to be able to turn the word on them.
It’s not a conspiracy of the israeli government to modify english words to exclude arabs.
Semitic was a termed coined by a german academic in the late 1700s, to mean semitic languages. Antisemitism was being used to mean hatred of jews by the mid to late 1800s, mostly by german and prussian nationalists describing their own hatred of jews as antisemitism. When english borrows the term from german in 1881, it already meant hatred of jews.
I’m using it in this context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages
If they speak a Semitic language, and they’re being targeted, I’m calling it Anti-Semitic. I reject your reality, and substitute it with my own. It removes the power of the claim that Israel uses it for. I could think of no better way to reappropriate the power of a word to claim victimization. It’s used to deflect criticism and push blame onto the person criticizing.
Hi, I heard you like to cite Wikipedia.
Antisemitism[a] or Jew-hatred[2] is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against, Jews.[3][4][5]
Due to the root word Semite, the term is prone to being invoked as a misnomer by those who incorrectly assert (in an etymological fallacy) that it refers to racist hatred directed at “Semitic people”
Homo means same. So homophobia means hatred of people like oneself. No one can change that.
Using antisemitic to mean hatred of speakers of semitic languages doesn’t make sense because no one groups all speakers of semitic languages together. Hatred of jews and hatred of arabs are two very different phenomena with vastly different sets of prejudices and stereotypes, each deserving of their own term.
The point is to remove the air from the sails of the word “antisemitism”. Much like many groups who have adopted slurs against them, and turned their meanings around.
We can have a new word for hatred of the jewish people that doesn’t connotate back to the incidences of WWII that Israel uses to shield against criticism every single time.
If you want one for Arabs, or whatever other division of people you go ahead and do that.
But including semitic speaking people under the umbrella of antisemitism serves to relinquish the power it has over people when Israel uses it as a mallet to deflect criticism. Quite literally, nothing you say will cause me to change my viewpoint on this.
I am not arguing this to discuss and enlighten my viewpoint. My viewpoint is already the enlightened one in my eyes. Call me wrong, call me whatever you will - but I’m going to continue to push the term antisemitism to include the cultures which speak semitic languages.
We both know why the definition is being muddied. I completely agree with you. It’s a pretty common tactic. It’s just like DEI and CRT actually encompassing many things, but now only being used as a way to claim “reverse racism.”
Only a “certain type” of person can be a victim. The others are just too brown and oooobvioisly deserve all the hate they get!
The state of israel is already doing more than enough to "remove the air from the sails of the word “antisemitism”.
Antisemitism is real and a real threat and it deserves a term that reflects the level of horror that it has inflicted. Minimizing the horrors of the holocaust against the jews does nothing to combat the holocaust israel is conducting. You can’t draw attention to a genocide by minimizing a different genocide. That’s not how horror at human barbary works.
No one is happy that israel is abusing the term antisemitism but the solution is to point that out. Or just laugh at israel when they make obviously untrue claims, as most people do.
Are you familiar with the concept of reclaiming and reshaping terms?
Why should the term stay the way it was coined
by the mid to late 1800s, mostly by german and prussian nationalists describing their own hatred of jews as antisemitism.
Especially as it is clearly an euphemism to sound more sophisticated and give it some sort of “scientific” sound. Also nowadays fascists and other far-right arseholes have shifted their target on mostly Arab Muslims (or anyone looking “brown” really) even instrumentalizing the term and “support for Israel” as they cheer on the killing of Arabs. Of course that does not stop them from also hating Jews, but they are very happy with focusing that on “leftist” Jews for now, which Jewish pro Israeli lobbies are often also happy with.
It is long overdue to seize the control of the term from the fascists.
The term was coined by an academic and then claimed by fascists to describe their own hatred of jews. If anything, the current meaning as something to be reviled is the reclaimed version.
Antisemitism is a word that a historically oppressed group uses to defend itself. Others taking that away from jews is not the same thing as the reclaiming of queer or the n-word by their communities .
The word is being misused by israel and that’s truly appalling, but there is still a valid use case for it’s current meaning.
I don’t think including other semitic people is “taking it away” from Jews. Also i don’t think think that bigots are well differentiated in who they target. Mostly it boils down to “looks brown” or “looks asian”. So Arabs are targeted in Anti-Jewish attacks too, as well as Jews are targeted in Anti-Muslim attacks too.
You dont get to reassign the definition to fit your purpose and agenda .
If no one is using semite that way, then dont falsely accuse people of being antisemitic. You dont get to falsely accuse people of that and then cry about definitions, what a load of bs
You dont get to reassign the definition to fit your purpose and agenda
Yes, I’m saying that we shouldn’t be reassigning the meaning of antisemitism.
"Many, including myself, always suspected that she held this warped, antisemitic view of Israel’s self-defense against Hamas barbarism. But the cat is now out of the bag,” he said to the US outlet on Saturday.
“Her view is as ignorant as it is malign. … To give credence publicly to this disgusting blood libel disqualifies Harris from holding any public office, let alone the presidency,” he added." (He then did a little happy jig and said to himself “we got 'er! Antisemitic married to a Jew, people are too dumb to realize I’m a lying sack of shit!”)
Heeeeereeee we go with this bullshit…
Harris lifts up the voice of the anti-Zionists by having them escorted away by security
I mean tbf even if we agree with his opinion he’s heckling. Getting escorted by security seems like a natural consequence of that.
No! When it’s someone we agree with, they should let them continue to heckle for as long as they’d like before continuing the event.
see she could also have said: I’ll happily address your concerns at the end, please feel free to stay until then. and then done so. instead they’re escorted away and she never mentions the issue again. shes trying to ignore the issue and its going to cost her, maybe it costs her the election, maybe it doesn’t we wont know until the votes are in. sadly it cost her my vote, but im not in a swing state.
“To give credence publicly to this disgusting blood libel disqualifies Harris from holding any public office, let alone the presidency”
Is it? 🤔
Does that mean people under criminal charges should be disqualified as well, right?
I guess that only leaves that other anti semite, Dr Jill Stein.
Seems a bit of a stretch that that was her intention.
Just say it
We all know she would never actually do that.
Meanwhile Bernie says in interviews that Netanyahu is backed by racists. Very accurate take. But Harris can’t exactly say it outright as she may lose the Zionist (zealot) Jew vote (money). After the election all bets are off though. The palestinian backers who think they need to get the promise to embargo Israel before the election are delusional and have no sense of strategy beyond their own. Which is basically play chicken with fascists. Its a losing strategy. They are between a rock and a hard place so it makes sense as there is no other actual strategy to be had. But we’re not going back to Trump I am sorry.
We’re are not backing trump either. you just have to live without our support. if you have enough votes great. meanwhile many of these people may vote third party and vote for dems down ticket; as I did. which is still a win overall for dems, just means harris might have less votes. which if they’re in a state like i am that is 20+ lean dem a non-issue for harris.
while we like bernie he doesnt control our votes. harris can re-earn our votes if she wins and about faces on the issue. if she doesnt win, well thats on her for her decisions on a number of issues that would have personally caused my vote to be cast for her. none of which she was willing to give.
Jerusalem Post - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Jerusalem Post:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - Israel
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
