Well, now you're saying that's counter to the available evidence, but you didn't actually give evidence that without precision munitions they would cause fewer civilian casualties, only that they aren't using them as well as they could.
How about you provide any evidence at all for your speculation that "civilian deaths might be higher" if US didn't provide weapons.
And when doing that remember that how weapons are actually used is more relevant than any fantasies about how they could possibly be used if the IDF had completely different targeting procedures and policies regarding civilian deaths.
From the reporting I linked before:
Quote:
“There was a completely permissive policy regarding the casualties of [bombing] operations — so permissive that in my opinion it had an element of revenge,” D., an intelligence source, claimed. “The core of this was the assassinations of senior [Hamas and PIJ commanders] for whom they were willing to kill hundreds of civilians. We had a calculation: how many for a brigade commander, how many for a battalion commander, and so on.”
“There were regulations, but they were just very lenient,” said E., another intelligence source. “We’ve killed people with collateral damage in the high double-digits, if not low triple-digits. These are things that haven’t happened before.”
Quote:
“There was a dissonance: on the one hand, people here were frustrated that we were not attacking enough,” B. continued. “On the other hand, you see at the end of the day that another thousand Gazans have died, most of them civilians.”
“There was hysteria in the professional ranks,” said D., who was also drafted immediately after October 7. “They had no idea how to react at all. The only thing they knew to do was to just start bombing like madmen to try to dismantle Hamas’ capabilities.”
Quote:
The sources who spoke to +972 and Local Call explained that there was sometimes a substantial gap between the moment that tracking systems like Where’s Daddy? alerted an officer that a target had entered their house, and the bombing itself — leading to the killing of whole families even without hitting the army’s target. “It happened to me many times that we attacked a house, but the person wasn’t even home,” one source said. “The result is that you killed a family for no reason.”
Well, now you're saying that's counter to the available evidence, but you didn't actually give evidence that without precision munitions they would cause fewer civilian casualties, only that they aren't using them as well as they could.
How about you provide any evidence at all for your speculation that "civilian deaths might be higher" if US didn't provide weapons.
I think the mechanism behind "being able to more precisely target enemy combatants results in fewer civilian casualties" is fairly straightforward. I'm definitely open to this not being true, despite it being counterintuitive.
Maybe you don't think that's sufficient, but it does not follow that thereby eliminating precision munitions will make civilian casualties go down without any additional argument.
Quote:
And when doing that remember that how weapons are actually used is more relevant than any fantasies about how they could possibly be used if the IDF had completely different targeting procedures and policies regarding civilian deaths.
From the reporting I linked before:
Quote:
“There was a completely permissive policy regarding the casualties of [bombing] operations — so permissive that in my opinion it had an element of revenge,” D., an intelligence source, claimed. “The core of this was the assassinations of senior [Hamas and PIJ commanders] for whom they were willing to kill hundreds of civilians. We had a calculation: how many for a brigade commander, how many for a battalion commander, and so on.”
“There were regulations, but they were just very lenient,” said E., another intelligence source. “We’ve killed people with collateral damage in the high double-digits, if not low triple-digits. These are things that haven’t happened before.”
These are indeed very bad behavior and procedures.
But none of that leads to the conclusion that they would therefore kill fewer civilians without precision munitions! They might be willing to destroy a building with civilians in it to get to a Hamas commander, ok, that's bad. But with less precise munitions, they might destroy an adjacent building instead and then try again and destroy the targeted building.
Perhaps it doesn't make that much difference. But the mechanism behind it isn't mysterious.
You said it was "counter the available evidence". If you wanted to say "we don't know that it makes any difference" that would be another matter, but that's not what you said. So I ask again what's the evidence that civilian casualties would be higher absent these?
Kamala Harris explained this week that the extraordinarily high turnover in her staff is due to people just not being able to handle the sheer amounts of joy she exudes in her office.
"They quit because they are literally overdosing on joy," Harris explained. "Almost no one on earth can stand being around this much joy for more than a few weeks. It's my cross to bear."
Despite her proclamations, anonymous reports have surfaced that Harris actually has a tendency to be viciously hostile and impossible to work with. "That's just how some people describe joy," explained Harris. "It's so much joy, they don't even know how to express it. There is just this giant ball of overwhelming joy and it creates a joyful work environment full of joyous joy. Some people's brains don't know how to handle it."
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
This race is close enough that anyone who said they would [stop sending munitions to Israel] would unequivocally lose.
According to a recent Gallup poll, only 23% of Democrats approve of Israel's military action in Gaza, and another poll from back in May indicated that more than half of Democrats believe Israel is conducting genocide in Gaza. Neither of these stats suggest to me that someone who opposed supplying the bombs they're using to conduct this genocide would "unequivocally lose".
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
The existence of a thing that could theoretically be done by "the US" given an absolute god-king whose word is law and who cannot be gainsaid is not relevant to a discussion of US politics. To do things here, you have to win an election, and in the current climate, the Dems can't do that while making it easy for the Republicans to accuse them of anti-semitism.
What are you even on about here? We have a Democratic president in office who, even without being a god-king whose word is law, could immediately stop sending weapons to Israel. He proved it when he paused shipments of 2,000 lb bombs back in May (which had the knock-on effect of pausing 500 lb bombs, since resumed).
In fact Biden's own policy suggests that he should stop it. In this interview with the former US State Dept official Josh Paul, he explains that the Biden admin raised the bar on the "conventional arms transfer policy" to the tough standard of prohibiting transfers of weapons to any state that is "more likely than not" to use them to commit human rights violations. "The independent Commission, established by the UN Human Rights Council, also concluded that, in relation to Israel’s military operations in Gaza, Israel committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and violations of international humanitarian and human rights laws." -source
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
There is a huge portion of the country who, even if they strongly support the ideal of a ceasefire in Gaza, are unshakably opposed to any reduction in support for or protection of Israel.
Can you share some polling that supports this claim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
It's not enough to say "a lot of people want a ceasefire". You have to find the "a lot" of people who want a ceasefire strongly enough that they will be comfortable with ceasing to support Israel, and many of these people firmly believe (possibly correctly) that without support from the US, Israel would be wiped out and the Israelis would be genocided.
"Possibly correctly" is doing a lot of work here. I mean sure, it is "possibly correct" that China is going to genocide all Americans before the end of the year. The probability is vanishingly low. Besides that, you seem to be weirdly waffling between "Israel doesn't need US weapons" and "Israel cannot surive without US weapons", which is confusing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
So "let's stop supporting Israel" isn't realistically an available option; a supermajority of people who will actually bother to vote are opposed to it.
Nobody has suggested "let's stop supporting Israel", they are saying stop sending them weapons. Maybe the demand should be clarified to allow weapons of actual self-defense, i.e. rockets for the Iron Dome, but there is absolutely no justification for sending them bombs as they conduct a genocide with them and I think most Democrats would agree with that.
Kamala Harris explained this week that the extraordinarily high turnover in her staff is due to people just not being able to handle the sheer amounts of joy she exudes in her office.
"They quit because they are literally overdosing on joy," Harris explained. "Almost no one on earth can stand being around this much joy for more than a few weeks. It's my cross to bear."
Despite her proclamations, anonymous reports have surfaced that Harris actually has a tendency to be viciously hostile and impossible to work with. "That's just how some people describe joy," explained Harris. "It's so much joy, they don't even know how to express it. There is just this giant ball of overwhelming joy and it creates a joyful work environment full of joyous joy. Some people's brains don't know how to handle it."
“At what point does this desperation to eliminate the last members of Hamas get overtaken by the sheer volume of civilians being killed in the process, which I cannot believe will do anything longer term than ferment the ideology that drove Hamas in the first place,” Morgan said.
Kennedy responded by detailing an argument between the United Kingdom’s Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944.
“Roosevelt said we have to denazify Germany and if we don’t denazify Germany … the Nazis are gonna rise up and do the same thing again. Churchill did not want an unconditional surrender for the Nazis. He said, ‘We’re gonna have to kill too many civilians to do that and everybody will fight for the death,’ but Roosevelt won that argument,” Kennedy said.
“We killed about 2 million Germans during World War II in order to get to Berlin and denazify it,” he continued. “Today, Germany is the richest country in Europe, it’s one of the most powerful economies in the world. I think it’s the fourth most powerful and nobody’s scared of Germany because it’s a peaceful country.”
RFK is also, of course, opposed to aid for Ukraine. So, siding with both Israel and Russia.
Anyway, just things I thought of when I saw the word "genocide" in this tweet.
Thank you my dear brother @RobertKennedyJr - we must fight against all forms of corruption, greed, hatred and genocide! God bless you and your precious family! https://t.co/Dnmrs8RzNt
Click through and you'll see RFK is responding to a post where Brother West seems to be at minimum flirting with anti-vax positions: "we will establish a Vaccine Safety and Utilization Panel to restore trust in our public health institutions through science, transparency, and community engagement."
Click through and you'll see RFK is responding to a post where Brother West seems to be at minimum flirting with anti-vax positions: "we will establish a Vaccine Safety and Utilization Panel to restore trust in our public health institutions through science, transparency, and community engagement."
West and Brainworm jerking each other off + West hiring a GOP lawyer to pursue a federal lawsuit to get him on the ballot in North Carolina + West's performative hand-wringing over whether the Arizona GOP's frantic efforts to get him on the ballot in that state are or are not a good thing settle quite conclusively for me the whole "person of conscience acting in good faith v. grandstanding piece of shit ratfucker" thing.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
This race is close enough that anyone who said they would [stop sending munitions to Israel] would unequivocally lose.
According to a recent Gallup poll, only 23% of Democrats approve of Israel's military action in Gaza, and another poll from back in May indicated that more than half of Democrats believe Israel is conducting genocide in Gaza. Neither of these stats suggest to me that someone who opposed supplying the bombs they're using to conduct this genocide would "unequivocally lose".
I don't think either of those numbers seems relevant at all.
Like, I don't know how to explain this, but political stances are not always consistent, coherent, or desireable, or whatever.
The US has a very large pool of people who are convinced that, if we don't unconditionally support Israel, all the Israelis will be killed, and that after the Holocaust, there is simply no moral standard that outweighs "prevent that".
Quote:
What are you even on about here?
You're asking Harris to commit to a policy. For that policy to become effective, she has to win an election.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
There is a huge portion of the country who, even if they strongly support the ideal of a ceasefire in Gaza, are unshakably opposed to any reduction in support for or protection of Israel.
Can you share some polling that supports this claim?
I don't think anyone polls on or near this topic because it's a third rail. You can't do or say anything about it without it being a nightmare.
Quote:
"Possibly correctly" is doing a lot of work here. I mean sure, it is "possibly correct" that China is going to genocide all Americans before the end of the year. The probability is vanishingly low. Besides that, you seem to be weirdly waffling between "Israel doesn't need US weapons" and "Israel cannot surive without US weapons", which is confusing.
I am not sure how to explain the concept of "different things are different from each other".
There are degrees and kinds of support. Not all of them are 100% interchangeable in all ways.
There's certainly been times in history when other countries wanted to wipe out Israel, and might have been able to pull it off if Israel hadn't had allies.
In the short term, I don't think our support makes a difference, because stockpiles exist. In the medium term, if you take away all their support, it's unclear what happens. Possibly nothing! Possibly they get wiped out! No one fucking knows.
But lots of people appear to believe that if we don't support Israel, They All Get Killed, and that this is bad.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
So "let's stop supporting Israel" isn't realistically an available option; a supermajority of people who will actually bother to vote are opposed to it.
Nobody has suggested "let's stop supporting Israel", they are saying stop sending them weapons.
I don't know if you've ever met US voters, but they do not do nuance, especially during campaign seasons.
If you say "there is a thing, somewhere, that Israel shouldn't have", you have just done a thing which is for purposes of an election campaign identical to saying "we should just withhold any support of any kind whatsoever and let them die". It will be quoted out of context and used extensively and have the same effect on the election, pretty much.
Quote:
Maybe the demand should be clarified to allow weapons of actual self-defense, i.e. rockets for the Iron Dome, but there is absolutely no justification for sending them bombs as they conduct a genocide with them and I think most Democrats would agree with that.
Given that someone somewhere seems to think we should do it, probably there exists a justification that you disagree with. I think that if you try to develop a model that includes the fact that people genuinely disagree on this, you'll have a much easier time explaining what's happening.
Like, I also think it's obviously genocide and should stop. I just don't think that, if Biden took steps to stop it, any force available to us would keep Trump out of office next year, because I've been watching US voters absolutely lose their shit about anything related to Israel for like 35 years now and I don't think it will be easy to change that. Can Biden reduce the number of Palestinians dying next week? Probably, if he's willing to accept an absolutely enormous increase in the number of Palestinians dying in 2025.
To get past that, you have to deal with the weirdness of US electoral politics and big tents and interest groups and all that, and it is a fucking nightmare.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I'm not going to spend any more time dredging up polls and reports to support my arguments when your only counterargument is entirely based on your gut feelings about what American voters believe and want. Re-read my last post and actually read the links if you want to know why I disagree.
I mean, "gut feelings", but also spending a lifetime watching people absolutely lose their shit any time someone suggests that maybe not everything Israel does is good.
Like, I do see the polls, but they are on fundamentally different questions. You can't substitute somewhat-related terms for each other on things like this.
At this point, more Americans say Israel's response has been about right — 44% said so.
About a quarter said, though, that it's been too much and roughly another quarter said it's been too little.
Democratic men were the most likely to say that Israel's response has been too much (44%), followed by those who live in big cities (41%), those under 45 (37%) and Biden supporters (37%).
On the other hand, white men without college degrees (45%), Republican men (44%), white evangelical Christians (40%) and Donald Trump supporters (39%) were the most likely to say it's been too little.
I did see one recent poll saying that, for the first time ever, a majority of US citizens didn't support sending troops to help Israel... but that's a really high standard of involvement compared to "sending weapons".
So, yeah, I think a lot of people would prefer that Israel stop being horrible, but the polling is mostly not actually addressing the specific question "should we withhold arms", and a lot of people get really mad any time someone suggests that.
As a secondary consideration: "how people feel about this particular issue" does not necessarily translate well into "how much it will affect their voting". Some people will vote for Literally Anyone But Trump pretty much no matter what, for instance. Some people will vote for Trump pretty much no matter what. The biggest interesting thing is, I think, not in "changes who they would vote for" but "changes how likely they are to bother to vote".
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Yeah, I think we just have a fundamentally different perception of what is happening in this country around this issue. I've heard countless academics and activists who have been in the pro-Palestine fight for decades say that there has been a dramatic paradigm shift this time around, and my own anecdotal experience (as well as the polling data I cited) reinforces that.
Remember that just a year ago it would have been career suicide for a politician or pundit to say a critical word toward Israel. Now John Oliver and random CNN hosts are throwing around the word 'apartheid' to describe the Israeli policy in the West Bank, and half of the squad won their primaries after accusing Israel of conducting genocide.
I concede that there may still be a majority of voters who would balk at the prospect of an arms embargo, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't support Harris coming out and saying that we will follow the Biden admin's own policy and enforce conditions on support. You seem to be saying that any hint of opposition to genocide from Harris, even rhetorically, would lead to her certain defeat. I just don't think the evidence supports that.
I mean, keep in mind that the status quo ante was that Americans were very supportive of Israel and very few were sympathetic to the Palestinians. So I do think there has been a big shift, and the gap between sympathy towards Israel vs. Palestine has definitely narrowed a lot.
But I don't believe it has reversed, and I'm very skeptical that the shift is enough to support instituting sanctions prohibiting US companies from selling weapons to Israel, (i.e., an arms embargo).
The polls I've seen on that have tended to use vague wording "withhold arms" that don't ask specifically about banning private companies from selling to Israel. There's a lot of misconceptions on who is doing what, some of which have been encouraged by the pro-Palestinian side. For example, up until that Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan bill passed in April, there hadn't been any additional aid for Israel passed after 10/7. "The US" had been sending weapons, but those were mostly sales of weapons to Israel (some might have been aid previously passed by Congress, but there were no new aid bills between October and April). The US government monitors and approves sales of weapons to foreign countries of certain types and above certain amounts, but I would guess that a lot of people would hear "the US is sending weapons" and assume it means the government sending aid, not US companies sending purchases. I definitely have seen lots of posts online where people thought that Biden had been sending lots and lots of aid to Israel, new aid, and that the US government was supplying all those weapons, and not so much that American-made weapons may have been merely purchased by Israel. The people who don't care that gun companies sell AR-15s to school shooters and don't blame them for what happens with the guns are not necessarily going to blame US companies for selling to Israel.
So when people hear "withhold arms" a lot of the time they're going to think we're talking about military aid, not sales. So I would want to see a poll asking the question in a way that specifically describes an arms embargo (which is a form of sanctions). Because the GOP is going to describe it in worse terms than that, but to the extent they describe it as "sanctions prohibiting US companies from selling weapons to Israel", the media is going to respond by saying "That's an accurate description." You won't get exclusively the wording you want, activists won't be able to maintain the conflation of government aid and weapons sales once you ban sales and the GOP starts attacking.
I understand that the US doesn't allow sales of every type of weapon in any amount to every country and we are treating Israel nicely when we allow sales, I get the point that activists are making, but I'm guessing the American public is not likely to see merely allowing weapons sales as going too far in support of Israel.
I did see one poll that asked about whether they'd be more likely to vote for a Rep/Dem Congressional candidate when both "agree with Israel's current approach to the conflict in Gaza" vs. a Rep who agrees and a Dem "who calls for an immediate ceasefire and a halt of military aid and arms sales to Israel".
But in that case, the question has some serious issues when claiming this means Harris should advocate an embargo.
For one, it isn't asking specifically asking about an arms embargo. The contrast is between "agree with Israel, full stop" and "calls for a ceasefire" AND a "halt of military aid" AND an embargo. But while many pro-Palestine activists don't like her position, Harris has definitely called for a ceasefire and criticized Israel (whether you think directly or strongly enough or not), so she isn't running on "I agree with Israel's current approach". So the baseline of comparison is wrong.
And because it's conflating those things, that question doesn't demonstrate that this is more popular than "call for a ceasefire" and say, halt only offensive military aid but not defensive aid such as Iron Dome-related systems. Or that plus delay offensive weapons sales shipments. Or various other in between positions.
For another, it wasn't asking about Harris (or Biden) and Trump, but about generic congressional candidates. You know who polled amazingly well against Donald Trump? "Generic Democrat." You know who always polled worse? Any specific Democrat. And the generic Congressional ballot was more favorable to Democrats than presidential polling was for Biden at the time of that poll. When you ask about generic candidates and an issue, they're going to prioritize the issue talked about more because they don't know the specifics of the candidates. But for Harris (or Biden) and Trump, they already know a lot (especially with Biden and Trump) and so there's a lot of other issues that they might prioritize.
I think there's definitely room for being less pro-Israel, but I don't think Democratic politicians are going to be too convinced by people who think it's irrelevant how Republicans respond to the positions they take. If you can't show that it's still a winner after the GOP responds and the media "adjudicates" the issue, they're not going to agree that "most Americans" want this.
Harris has definitely called for a ceasefire and criticized Israel (whether you think directly or strongly enough or not), so she isn't running on "I agree with Israel's current approach".
So? How is running on "I disagree with Israel's current approach but will support them unconditionally" any better? Biden has also called for a ceasefire and criticized Israel while promising unconditional support, which Harris echoed when she said: "And let me be clear. And let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself".
I believe Biden/Harris' committment to unconditional support for Israel is out of step with the majority in this country who disapprove of how Israel is conducting its war on Gaza.
Quote:
For example, up until that Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan bill passed in April, there hadn't been any additional aid for Israel passed after 10/7.
We already provide $3.3 billion a year (more than half of all military aid we provide globally) before that additional $17 billion passed in April (more than 6 months into the genocide). I think that is something the average American voter can understand and might take issue with.
The question of whether the weapons are coming from US stockpiles or weapons manufacturers is just a red herring. All weapons transfers to foreign governments require US government approval, so whether we frame it as "stop sending them weapons" or "stop letting them use our aid to buy weapons" is irrelevant. I think most people are smart enough to understand that 'embargo' covers both cases, and to the extent they care about whether the US is enabling a genocide they would support either.
Harris has definitely called for a ceasefire and criticized Israel (whether you think directly or strongly enough or not), so she isn't running on "I agree with Israel's current approach".
So? How is running on "I disagree with Israel's current approach but will support them unconditionally" any better? Biden has also called for a ceasefire and criticized Israel while promising unconditional support, which Harris echoed when she said: "And let me be clear. And let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself".
I believe Biden/Harris' committment to unconditional support for Israel is out of step with the majority in this country who disapprove of how Israel is conducting its war on Gaza.
Quote:
For example, up until that Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan bill passed in April, there hadn't been any additional aid for Israel passed after 10/7.
We already provide $3.3 billion a year (more than half of all military aid we provide globally) before that additional $17 billion passed in April (more than 6 months into the genocide). I think that is something the average American voter can understand and might take issue with.
The question of whether the weapons are coming from US stockpiles or weapons manufacturers is just a red herring. All weapons transfers to foreign governments require US government approval, so whether we frame it as "stop sending them weapons" or "stop letting them use our aid to buy weapons" is irrelevant. I think most people are smart enough to understand that 'embargo' covers both cases, and to the extent they care about whether the US is enabling a genocide they would support either.
In her acceptance speech, Kamala gave some standard boilerplate about standing behind Israel, but then devoted a long passage to lamenting the plight of Gazans and calling for a cease-fire. FWIW, Michael Moore reports that Harris behind the scenes has been working hard to press Biden to do something to end the suffering of the Palestinians.
She’s not even the president. We do know that the other option for president, Felonious Gunk, will probably nuke Gaza if he gets a second term.
While I share your frustration over U.S. complicity in the ongoing Gaza genocide, Kamala Harris is not president. We know the alternative is much worse. Let’s get her in there and see what she does with respect to Israel, and then we can complain if she doesn’t do the right thing. Recall too that she refused to attend Bibi War Criminal’s recent address to Congress. That ought to be a huge signal right there of her intentions if elected.
Harris has definitely called for a ceasefire and criticized Israel (whether you think directly or strongly enough or not), so she isn't running on "I agree with Israel's current approach".
So? How is running on "I disagree with Israel's current approach but will support them unconditionally" any better?
I'm talking about whether the polling data supports the idea that proposing an arms embargo would help or hurt Democrats.
I understand the criticism of the position. I do think there is a meaningful difference between calling for a ceasefire and saying you agree with Israel's current approach, but even if you don't think there is, for the political question, your position would have to be that persuadable American voters don't make a distinction between those, which I don't see any reason to think is true.
It's just not the case that Harris's stated position is "I agree with Israel's current approach". As I said, you can take issue with it and whether it's just lip service or what have you, but if you want polling evidence about the benefit of her changing her position, the comparison point has to be what she's actually running on.
Quote:
Biden has also called for a ceasefire and criticized Israel while promising unconditional support, which Harris echoed when she said: "And let me be clear. And let me be clear. I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself".
Well there's always wiggle room there. That certainly wouldn't be compatible with e.g. not allowing Israel to replenish the Iron Dome. On the other hand, you could say that what Israel is doing in Gaza isn't necessary for self-defense.
Quote:
Quote:
For example, up until that Ukraine/Israel/Taiwan bill passed in April, there hadn't been any additional aid for Israel passed after 10/7.
We already provide $3.3 billion a year (more than half of all military aid we provide globally) before that additional $17 billion passed in April (more than 6 months into the genocide). I think that is something the average American voter can understand and might take issue with.
Theoretically, yes, they can understand that.
In practice, most Americans have wildly inaccurate ideas about all sorts of things, with a common example being "how much foreign aid does the US give?" (the average American thinks about a quarter of the budget, when it's actually 1%). I think the average American is probably not aware of how discussion about the US "sending weapons" usually refers to the US government approving sales by US companies and so on.
Quote:
The question of whether the weapons are coming from US stockpiles or weapons manufacturers is just a red herring. All weapons transfers to foreign governments require US government approval, so whether we frame it as "stop sending them weapons" or "stop letting them use our aid to buy weapons" is irrelevant.
I don't think the distinction is irrelevant. I think people can think "we don't agree with everything Israel is doing and at any rate they don't need our help or for the US to be funding their activities" without then following that with "we should refuse to even do business with Israel."
The argument is probably a lot stronger for not sending more aid. But if Israel wants to buy US weapons with their own money and not US aid money, it's a much harder lift politically to tell Americans that we're going to pass that up.
If the distinction is irrelevant, it should come out in the polls if they actually ask about it explicitly.
Quote:
I think most people are smart enough to understand that 'embargo' covers both cases
I don't. Or rather, even the ones who are smart enough probably don't take nearly as much of an interest as you or I do, and don't know what an "embargo" means precisely and don't care enough to find out.
(Also, as mentioned above, an embargo also covers the case of Israel buying US weapons with their own money, which is not irrelevant.)
Quote:
and to the extent they care about whether the US is enabling a genocide they would support either.
Then someone should poll asking it the way I suggested, because as I said, if it's not a distinction that matters to people, the polls will reflect that.
You said it was "counter the available evidence". If you wanted to say "we don't know that it makes any difference" that would be another matter, but that's not what you said. So I ask again what's the evidence that civilian casualties would be higher absent these?
Sigh. The evidence I posted counters the proposition "civilian deaths might be higher".
It's pretty sad to see you so completely twist words and abandon charity in argument.
You said it was "counter the available evidence". If you wanted to say "we don't know that it makes any difference" that would be another matter, but that's not what you said. So I ask again what's the evidence that civilian casualties would be higher absent these?
Sigh. The evidence I posted counters the proposition "civilian deaths might be higher".
Not using precision weapons precisely would certainly reduce the difference between the two, but I don't see how it leads to the conclusion that there would be no difference, or that it would reduce casualties for the US to withhold precision weapons.
It also rightly would change your evaluation of the casualties - it means that they have the capability to be more precise and simply aren't using it.
Quote:
It's pretty sad to see you so completely twist words and abandon charity in argument.
You just posted some excerpts man. And now, instead of actually laying out your argument, you're whining I'm not being charitable enough.
While I share your frustration over U.S. complicity in the ongoing Gaza genocide, Kamala Harris is not president. We know the alternative is much worse. Let’s get her in there and see what she does with respect to Israel, and then we can complain if she doesn’t do the right thing. Recall too that she refused to attend Bibi War Criminal’s recent address to Congress. That ought to be a huge signal right there of her intentions if elected.
I probably don't say it enough but you're preaching to the choir. In related threads on LinkedIn and my Substack I have been called a Democrat shill and genocide lover for such bold claims as Harris appears to be better than Biden on Israel.
However I am fully immersed in (so called) pro-Palestine advocacy so I hear the whole range of complaints and criticisms the activists have and I can say with confidence that the subtle hints Harris has been putting out are nowhere near enough to convince people who have heard roughly the same thing from every presidential candidate (and president) for decades. Unfortunately a lot of people don't think "wait six months" is a reasonable response under the circumstances. Most people also know that even if they agree to shut up about the genocide and help Harris get elected, then it will be "it's her first 100 days, what do you expect?" then "she has to think about the midterms", then ... etc.
I know the consensus in the Democratic party is that they don't need the Arab-American community or the anti-genocide college students to win and I hope they're right, but it is a gamble beyond stupid, in my opinion, for the Harris team to stand by Biden's policy when the largely uncontroversial act of distancing herself a bit by coming out more firmly in support of stopping an ongoing genocide could cinch a significant number of votes.
While I share your frustration over U.S. complicity in the ongoing Gaza genocide, Kamala Harris is not president. We know the alternative is much worse. Let’s get her in there and see what she does with respect to Israel, and then we can complain if she doesn’t do the right thing. Recall too that she refused to attend Bibi War Criminal’s recent address to Congress. That ought to be a huge signal right there of her intentions if elected.
I probably don't say it enough but you're preaching to the choir. In related threads on LinkedIn and my Substack I have been called a Democrat shill and genocide lover for such bold claims as Harris appears to be better than Biden on Israel.
However I am fully immersed in (so called) pro-Palestine advocacy so I hear the whole range of complaints and criticisms the activists have and I can say with confidence that the subtle hints Harris has been putting out are nowhere near enough to convince people who have heard roughly the same thing from every presidential candidate (and president) for decades. Unfortunately a lot of people don't think "wait six months" is a reasonable response under the circumstances. Most people also know that even if they agree to shut up about the genocide and help Harris get elected, then it will be "it's her first 100 days, what do you expect?" then "she has to think about the midterms", then ... etc.
I know the consensus in the Democratic party is that they don't need the Arab-American community or the anti-genocide college students to win and I hope they're right, but it is a gamble beyond stupid, in my opinion, for the Harris team to stand by Biden's policy when the largely uncontroversial act of distancing herself a bit by coming out more firmly in support of stopping an ongoing genocide could cinch a significant number of votes.
Well, fwiw, it’s only four and a half months until the next president is inaugurated, but insofar as the presidency is concerned, wait is all we can do. Palestinian advocacy should continue, of course, but it’s not going to affect Biden’s policies one iota, particularly since he is not running for re-election. Attacking Harris is counterproductive, mainly because she is not president and does not make policy, but also because it could turn off some people from voting for her who otherwise would, and in a close race that could hand the job to Trump who would exterminate ever last person in Gaza if he thought he could personally profit from doing so.
I just saw Harris' interview with Dana Bash yesterday where she promised there will be no change in policy when she takes office, so like I said, godspeed. We'll see how far that gets her.
in a close race that could hand the job to Trump who would exterminate ever last person in Gaza if he thought he could personally profit from doing so.
Kushner has come right out and said that the beachfront property in Gaza would be worth a fortune if they got all the poorzies out. The sociopathy knows no bounds.
On an unrelated note, and as seen on the internet, Republicans are against all abortions except as needed to save the life of the PAB campaign.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
I just saw Harris' interview with Dana Bash yesterday where she promised there will be no change in policy when she takes office, so like I said, godspeed. We'll see how far that gets her.
Can you quote the relevant bit? In any case, I’m willing to wait and see what she does in office, not what she says during a campaign. Beyond that, it’s quite obvious that Trump would be much worse for Palestine than would Harris, so I think it would be wise for Palestinian supporters to take a flyer on Harris, even if they think it’s a “lesser of two evils” deal. Sometime the lesser of two evils is the best you can get in life.
Bash: "President Biden has tried unsuccessfully to end the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, he's been doing it for months and months, along with you. Would you do anything differently? For example would you withhold some US weapons shipments to Israel? That's what a lot of people on the Progressive left want you to do."
Harris: "Let me be very clear: I'm unequivocal and and unwavering in my commitment to Israel's defense and its ability to defend itself and that's not going to change."
[...]
Harris: "[...] as I said then I say today, Israel had a right, has a right to defend itself, we would, and how it does so matters. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed and we've got to get a deal done [...] let's get the hostages out let's get the ceasefire done."
Bash: "But no change in policy in terms of arms and and so forth?"
Harris: "No. We have to get a deal done."
I don't know how to impress upon you or anyone else here that "we hate your kind and will support your extermination at every turn but Trump hates you more" is simply not a compelling sales pitch to many people.
Bash: "President Biden has tried unsuccessfully to end the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, he's been doing it for months and months, along with you. Would you do anything differently? For example would you withhold some US weapons shipments to Israel? That's what a lot of people on the Progressive left want you to do."
Harris: "Let me be very clear: I'm unequivocal and and unwavering in my commitment to Israel's defense and its ability to defend itself and that's not going to change."
[...]
Harris: "[...] as I said then I say today, Israel had a right, has a right to defend itself, we would, and how it does so matters. Far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed and we've got to get a deal done [...] let's get the hostages out let's get the ceasefire done."
Bash: "But no change in policy in terms of arms and and so forth?"
Harris: "No. We have to get a deal done."
I don't know how to impress upon you or anyone else here that "we hate your kind and will support your extermination at every turn but Trump hates you more" is simply not a compelling sales pitch to many people.
I don’t see how you derive “we hate your kind and will support your extermination at every turn” from “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed and we’ve got to get a deal done.” It’s a total non sequitur.
This is politics, not a college ethics seminar, and I would not expect Harris to say, “I will change Joe Biden’s policy if I am elected.” She may indeed want to change that policy, but deems it too politically risky to say it during a close election campaign. Perhaps she should — it might win her more votes than her current tack — but, otoh, it might lose her votes. Politicians are risk-averse.
On the other other hand, Humphrey broke with Johnson’s Vietnam policy in 1968 and called for a bombing pause. When he did he began rising in the polls, but still felt short by a whisker to Nixon.
As I noted upthread, Michael Moore claims, without naming his sources, that behind the scenes Harris is pushing Biden to actually change his policy toward Gaza. If true, it would not be surprising, to advocate privately for a policy change while publicly supporting the policy you want to change. Biden himself did it with respect to Afghanistan, privately urging Obama to pull out all troops after Bid Laden was killed. Publicly, though, he supported Obama’s policy of keeping troops there. When Biden became president, he did indeed pull out all the troops.
Re: 2024 Presidential Election Shittastic Shittacular
Linear Mode
