How Chase Oliver would handle Israel | Centre Stage shorts
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ZUKEznaw8aU
Oh, and the USSR—under Stalin—was the first country to recognize the Zionist state of Israel.
Liberals: but what if we compromised, how about only some genocide? What if Israel only tortured half as many babies? What if Israel only illegally annexed half of the West Bank instead of their current plan to annex the entire thing? What if people were able to afford 50% of rent and 50% of all bills? What if we only cut Medicare and Medicaid by 50%?
What if Netanyahu put pronouns in bio?
Don’t be silly, liberals aren’t offering to spare half the Palestinians, there offering “killing all of them, but with a troubled expression on our face.”
Removed by mod
I voted third party for Claudia de la Cruz. There were options on the ballots that were against genocide.
Democrats sued to keep her off the ballots in
systemstates it would have mattered. They knew the stakes and guessed voters would crawl back after the current administration.I personally voted Kamala (yes I know and it was a deeply painful decision). Looking back im not quite sure why, she never really had a chance and she certainly wasnt a good candidate. I suppose its because I genuinely don’t care about electoral politics. Workers liberation can only come from revolution.
She lost by one of the slimmest popular vote margins in history. But other than that, yeah, are never really had a chance
Popular vote doesn’t determine who’s president; Harris got washed in the election.
It and it ALONE determines the successfulness of a campaign in converting hearts and minds.
so like getting the citizenship award on your 4th grade report card
Yeah, like how in 2016 Trump lost the popular vote and we never heard from him again
Ok. Not what we were talking about.
Damn, really? Maybe the Democrats shouldn’t have put up a doddering, old, dementia-addled, genocide-enabling maniac for President, then, so that there wasn’t the whole candidate-switcheroo last second. Let me go blame myself for this.
deleted by creator
Your anger about a genocide enabler wrought a genocide enjoyer. Well played
Lol. “I’m ok with committing genocide, so long as its done solemnly and not gleefully.”
Though so far, Trump has been more willing to break from Israel than Biden ever was.
You’ve been playing genocide enabler since before the inception of your country. Maybe, if you’d have thought enabling genocide enablers leads to people who might enjoy genocide sooner, the whole moral dilemma might not have happened in the first place?
But no, it’s the people with a conscience to blame for this.
You played yourself.
Since selectability doesn’t matter, I think everyone should just vote for their grandpa. Nearly all grandpas would be a good president. When the fascists win, it doesn’t matter. We voted for the best candidate. We can rest easy.
My comment was removed by the mods… probably because I let my rage show. Though the mod log shows rule 2 instead of rule 1 :P
Here’s a longer and nicer version:
I’m a (US) liberal, and I don’t approve of any of the views described by kittenzrulz123. Lumping half the country into a single bucket is not going to give you a good overview of the myriad ideals we might have individually.
You have a choice. You can look at the political landscape at the moment of the election and choose one of four options:
- vote for the guy who will absolutely fuck over everyone he can for his own profit. We knew what he was back in 2016 and he isn’t going to change.
- vote for the lady who has a chance to win, is probably still crappy for some demographics, but is miles better than #1 and not likely to declare war on a random country because she’s hungry.
- vote for someone who has a 0% chance of winning, effectively throwing the vote to the rest of the population.
- abstain, also throwing the vote to the rest of the population.
At this time, our election system really only works for two parties. Any third-party vote is useless, if not counterproductive. If you can’t understand how that math works, let me know and I’ll break it down for you. I’d love to change that, but the process is by using our ability during primaries to put forward more liberal candidates that support election reforms, not by putting our heads in the sand and voting 3rd party hoping that we will make people notice… hint: they will not.
If you don’t like your choices when you go to the voting booth in November, the solution is to get involved in late November and make things better next time. Join a local democratic organization and become part of the solution. Complaining online about how your choices suck is something we can fix if we all jump in. If you’re not doing that, then you are abdicating your responsibility and allowing others to make the choice of who represents us instead. If you choose not to be part of the selection process, the very least you can do is vote for the ‘lesser evil’ and not make things worse.
Side note: the Primary election is the end of that selection process, not the start. Putting your values on the primary ballot is where you should spend your energy if you’re mad at the status quo.
I will admit that I’m angry that we didn’t get a Democratic primary and that Harris was ordained as Biden’s successor without any popular input. The DNC is to blame for that fuck-up. It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine, the US economy, US healthcare, foreign relations, and dozens of other topics than trump is.
Would Claudia de la Cruz have been better? Sure. Her platform looks awesome. Did she have even a chance of winning? no.
I’m no longer at my computer where typing is easy. I thank all of you for responding in good faith, and I’ll be reading the various links. Thanks for engaging with me.
It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine
Nope, this is just your wishful thinking, and also why the ‘lesser evil’ pitch isn’t compelling, because the people making it are unwilling to be honest about the evil that they’re supporting.
I’m confused, when you talk about voting “Democrat,” do you mean, for the Democratic-Republicans? I was thinking of voting Federalist, personally.
Since our system makes it impossible to change from the two currently existing parties, it follows that the two parties we have now must be the ones we started with.
But regardless, this is typical shortsighted liberal (i.e. capitalist) analysis that only looks at the immediate outcome and only at electoral politics. If a significant portion of the electorate can make a credible threat to sit out if their demands are not met, then they can leverage that threat to get what they want. The right is much more willing to do this because they put their values above reason, and it works - many Republican candidates understand that if they look soft on things like abortion or guns, a sizable portion of their base will defect, even if it means voting for a crank and throwing the election. Democratic voters are much more committed to being “reasonable” and so refuse to set any red lines anywhere, and the results are clear: the right successfully shifts the Republicans to be more extreme, the Democrats follow, and the left falls in line and accepts it. We are desperately overdue to start learning from their successful tactics and from our own failures, setting down red lines, and thinking beyond the current cycle. And we can debate where exactly red lines should be set, but if genocide doesn’t deserve one, nothing does.
Moreover, the facts of physical reality, the material conditions, and the myriad of crises we’re facing demand radical changes beyond what we are told are possible in the existing system. But those things are physical, natural, immutable facts, while our political system is, on a fundamental level, manmade. We do not have to abide by its rules and what it tells us is and isn’t possible - but we do have to do that regarding the laws of nature, which tell us about things like climate change. Monarchy had no mechanism built into the system to transform into liberal democracy, and yet, here we are. That’s because there are fundamental mechanisms for change that exist within every political system, whether the system wants them to or not, and I don’t just mean revolutions, but demonstrations, strikes, etc. And so, the party I voted for, PSL, participates in electoral politics for the express purpose of building organization beyond electoral politics. Helping a candidate who I see as fundamentally unacceptable win an election is less important that helping to promote that sort of organizing.
In this post: making a case against electoralism without realizing they’re making a case against electoralism…
Liberals occasionally come to the correct conclusion that the game is rigged. But then they still inevitably spend hours telling us how important it is to play it, and vote for their genocidal parties anyway.
It’s like banging your head against a brick wall inevitably causes you to see the truth, but at that point your brain is so addled that you are hallucinating the truth, despite your best tries at avoidance.
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let’s define words: I’m assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That’s my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for ‘hurt the other people more.’
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I’m offline for the day, but I’d be happy to continue this conversation.
Heres how I define Liberal:
People who follow the Liberal ideology, this mostly involves “free market” capitalism as defined by classical liberal thinkers. Today its a violent imperialist ideology that supports the US status quo. Both parties in the US are Liberal as are the Libertarians, simply different flavors of liberal.
Now as for me, im a Syndicalist. If you want to learn more about my beliefs read these: One Big Union and Think it Over
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
You are correct, you are using different terms because in the US liberal is used to talk about the Democrats. Everyone else in the world, including here on Lemmy, uses liberal as in Liberalism. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberals, both defend the status quo and wants capitalism to continue.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
Both Republicans and Democrats wants that. They are both funded by US’s billionairies, they both attend to their interests and want this system to continue. I’m not gonna deny that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, but they are both still right wing parties in a two-party system.
In this post: not realizing that the ideal solution is not a single step away, but rather multiple steps – and they will not be simple to sell to a general populace.
I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the term. ‘Electorialism’ seems to be, according to Wikipedia, a ‘half-way step’ between Authoritarianism and Democracy.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US. We are more likely to be headed in the opposite way from Electorialism; where we are transitioning from what is a democratic process to one where oligarchs have consolidated enough power and influence that they can just say, ‘fuck it, we win.’ In that case, yes, I do want to make a case against Electorialism.
In Electorialism, the dominant party, presumably the authoritarian one, conducts elections that allow their opponents a stage and promises to be free and fair while still controlling the levers of power. What we have seen in the last 8 years is a party, republicans, that are throwing every possible strategy at the wall in the effort to undermine and discredit elections with the end result that if they win, the election will be seen as fair and, if they lose, the election will be seen as unfair.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
Mine is to help elect people to local, state and federal offices that want to make life for everyone better.
As far as I know, we are still not quite in an Authoritarian state here in the US.
Just wanna drill into this; the United States has been an authoritarian state for as long as I’ve been alive. Deporting people without due process is not new. Supporting genocides is not new. The police state we live in is not new. The rule of law has been a joke for so long zoomers have internalized it. There is a reason why most of the governments we have overthrown have been democracies, and there is a reason the US has mostly replaced those democracies with dictatorships. We are the evil empire, and we have been for decades at this point.
Electoralism in this context means the idea that elections are the solutions to the political issues of our time, that the primary focus of energy from the left should be in winning elections so the elected officials can do as they were selected to do and solve societal ills.
Many Marxists and other leftists ideologies disagree and feel that the four options you’ve given show that electoralism is a trap for the political energy to change.
I understand your frustration as the entire thread is strawmanning liberal positions.
Essentially, capitalism coopts movements. Liberalism is an ideology which exists and has values, but since this is the primary vehicle for left leaning politics on a national level, companies spend a lot of lobbying effort stuffing liberalism with stuff that helps them.
Conservative have has gone through similar changes, stuffing a fiscal conservative viewpoint with bullshit culture war stuff as the primary vehicle for right wing politics.
When people critique electoralism, they see liberals as unable to organize because the movement has been cooped by big money and liberals refuse to admit they aren’t in control of their own party.
When you campaign for liberal values, critics see you as providing ethical cover for the promises to lobbyists that had already been made behind your back which secured their campaign donations enabling them to run in the first place.
Things like funding Israel.
You can discuss being anti Israel, you can rally behind someone like John Fetterman or Krysten Sinema who promises to be a progressive, but the thing about electoralism is you can just lie and turn heel.
Help me out. What’s our next step?
This is where I agree with you.
There are steps inside electoralism and steps outside.
If you’re saying “just vote Democrat and wait 4 years for things to get better” I agree that’s naive and there’s action we can take outside of electoralism.
If they’re “stay home and don’t vote” I agree with you that’s nauve and we can take action inside of electoralism too. It’s just gonna be inherently pretty ineffectual.
Currently, when candidates we elect take big money and vote against our interests we can’t do anything for 4 years about it. But because we have our “I voted” sticker it acts as a balm to the consciousness and deluded is into believing our fellow countrymen actually agree with the direction it takes.
All concepts of what are optimal democratic processes are going to be just that: concepts. We live in the real world. There are millions of people you have to convince to move to your desired method of representation. I think we agree on the end-goal, I just disagree on how to get there and think we can’t jump from a Trump presidency directly to a worker-owned utopia.
Again, this is where I fully agree with you.
Protesting Kamala from my university campus seems like a better alternative to protesting Trump from El Salvador, even if the genocide is happening in both cases.
I haven’t heard a compelling argument staying home and not voting is better.
I’m now mobile, so my formatting will suffer.
Capitalism = bad. I’m fully behind that, and see it as the root of the problem. What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
I think this is where we disagree, but I might still be missing something.
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I want a progression where we work towards owning that power. We had it partially when unions were still strong, but it was undermined. In my mind, the solution is education, but I have no power to enact that directly. My ability to influence is limited to my local org and voting.
A green party, socialist party, etc, will never win an election in our current environment. Votes there are literally useless, if not spoiling a candidate that has at least some if your views. The system is rigged, sure, but you can’t flip this table and walk away.
Can we separate this discussion into talking about politics and elections and eliminate Israel/Palestine? I’m a-religious, pro Palestine, pro humanitarian, but having that angle seems to quickly degenerate every conversation into ‘both sides are genocide’ and avoid the’how do we move forward’ question. I think these can be separated, but maybe that is also a place we disagree.
No, you can’t “eliminate palestine”
What I don’t see is a path forward that doesn’t involve incremental progress, even if not all demographics are served. At least not without violence that will be disrupt even more.
But do you actually see a path forward that does involve incremental progress?
I’ve watched politics incrementally change from Clinton’s Third Way to Bush’s War on Terror to McCain/Palin and the Tea Party to Trump.
I’ve watched Fox news incrementally change, I’ve watched print media incrementally be bought up.
I’m hearing about abortion getting banned, hate crimes going up, school shootings, people being abducted and sent to death camps in El Salvador.
When does this incremental change move us forward instead of backwards?
You (assorted folks responding to me) want an epoch change where we rise up and take back the power we have. We have it right now, but the price to pay to enforce that is too high for me.
I’m not the assorted folks responding. What I personally want is a reform. I like the idea of democracy. I do not think we have it.
I think the system we currently have is rigged and not capable of producing the incremental change you ask of it.
Where I agree with everyone else, is that if we have to resort to revolution just to get the slightest pedestrian changes to the electoral system to let incremental change takeover (repeal citizens united, disband both parties, disallow “parties” to subvert primaries, remove big money, etc)… why set it back up more or less the same?
When those other leftists accept revolution as inevitable they can dream bigger beyond the current system.
The more liberalism is cooped by capitalists to resist the reforms liberalism itself demands, the less liberalism as a coherent movement can thrive.
This leaves actual liberals like you and me disenfranchised and without a party. A further leftist might describe that as defeatist.
It’s irrefutable, though, that Harris would have been better for Palestine
Biden, a Democrat, started the genocide, KKKamala said that she vows unwavering commitment to Israel’s existence and have multiple times stated support for Israel. Genocide is genocide, there’s no making it better mf. Both Democrats and Republicans are half the face of the same side of a coin, they both want the genocide of the Palestinians, because that’s what the USian bourgeoisie wants. You’re literally doing the 50% genocide meme.
Also, here’s Joe Biden’s long history of pro-Israel statements.
foreign relations
KKKamala said that she would make sure the US military is the most lethal force in the world.
Other than that, you just showed how electoralism under capitalism literally doesn’t work, but somehow think you can reform the system? Just how? Y’all spent decades fighting for the bare-minimum of woman’s rights and public health, that being the right of abortion, all to have it taken away in the blink of an eye and you genuinely think the system can work?
Its wild how liberals are memory-holing Copmala’s entire history.
Okay. My method doesn’t work. We can’t reform the system from within.
What does?
What’s your perfect solution? How do we get there?
I’m honestly curious. I’m pissed at the status quo, and don’t know how to make things better with my limited personal power.
Full scale invasion. Liberating the world requires destroying the global oppressor.
Revolution is the only solution. Even if USians managed to elect a really good reformist, the dominant class will not take lightly to that. We take the path of revolution not because we want it, but because it’s the path the bourgeoisie forces us to take, they will simply not allow you to meddle too much with their system without consequences, and will fight to keep it in place, just like the monarchies of the past fought these same bourgeoisie that violently took the power away from them to establish themselves as the new status quo.
Also, the US is a constant threat to leftists abroad, just need to look at Chile on 09/11/1971, when democratically elected Salvador Allende was killed in a US-backed military coup that installed Pinochet into power, which is further proof of the problems of electoralism, but on an international scale.
You genuinely should read marxist theory. Comrade Cowbee have a great starting guide.
The answers to this comment reveal why I disagreed with the rest of these folks when I originally responded to you.
As a liberal, I don’t think voting once every 4 years and hoping things get better is a great strategy.
But reading a bunch of theory until I accept Russia is amazing and wait for them to invade me doesn’t feel particularly better.
If this were posted on reddit, I feel like you would’ve got more upvotes. I always wondered what type of people were here before the reddit protests. They do say Russia sows discord on both the left and the right, but I don’t think this is their doing. There is no listening going on and people are unempathically hyperfocused on just their topic of choosing. I’m checking out some subreddits…
Nooooo guys!!! Biden genocide was better than Trump genocide! 😡😡 You don’t understand, he said he was trying not bomb children!!! 😢
I mean it is though, at least from a numbers perspective.
Neither should happen but since i don’t get that choice, I choose the option that saves millions of lives.
Not to mention the US is now party to the Ukraine genocide too.
not to mention the real threat to foreign born citizens and LGBTQ people in the United States itself.
So yes Biden is better even if we are dealing with shades of black
I mean it is though, at least from a numbers perspective.
And which numbers are those? Oh, you meant vibes.
This is also false. Biden drastically upped the military aid to Israel after Trump left office.
The US democrats are a vicious, genocidal party.
We need a party that is actually anti-oppression and doesn’t just pay it lip service.
he isn’t even lip service, never once has he acknowldged there being a genocide in Gaza
Its also one we have a better chance to influence. What serious organization for progressives is there?
Its also one we have a better chance to influence.
Lol. LMAO, even. We can’t get them to lift a finger against fascism, dude
You had a zero percent chance of influencing the Democrats, as evidenced by over a year of complete failure to do so. So no, you didn’t have a better chance to influence them
What serious organization for progressives is there?
If you don’t have an answer for this you are just trolling and not serious about any matter.
You can’t answer it either, lol, that’s why you’ve been reduced to pretending you can influence the Dems when you’ve conclusively demonstrated that you can’t.
But that makes sense, given that you admitted to being a troll.
You can’t answer it either, lol, that’s why you’ve been reduced to pretending you can influence the Dems when you’ve conclusively demonstrated that you can’t.
I did answer it and you are making fun of my answer right there. Fair enough, but I have asked you what your ideas are, and all you can say is to twiddle your thumbs.
Voting dem and making it more progressive is an actionable item. What is your alternative that is so much better?
Except now Trump is starting to play hardball with Netanyahu, and is distinctly unhappy with the the U.S. taking so much flak while being treated as a money fountain.
There is a much more real world where Trump gets sick of Bibi and pulls his support than Harris pulling support from Israel. A fully isolationist U.S. is better for Palestine.
You did not have to preface it with pretending to save anyone. You simply care only about yourself and you do not care about anyone else.
❌ Please try again
What the actual fuck ? Unhinged
Removed by mod
Stop pretending to allow a genocide because you are trying to save other people. When this doesn’t cross your red line you have no empathy.
Okay, but then if we point our finger at your face and call you a genocide supporter, you shut up and take it right?! Right?
no i wouldn’t because i don’t support it and your inability to see shades of gray will paint darker and darker paths
When people start talking about “shades of gray” with regards to genocide, they 100% support genocide
Ahahah sure brother sure. Keep saying this to yourself.
‘I don’t support it but I directly cast my vote for the people responsible’.
You leftist rabble-rousers with your lofty ideals of “not doing a genocide” don’t know anything about getting elected and getting things done
*loses 2 elections to the most disliked president in history*
DAMN YOU PUTIN!
You gotta understand, we only had three months to distance ourselves from Biden but also didn’t want to. It was the only way to make sure the donors were happy. You understand right? Stop blaming us for taking no positions and blame yourself for demanding us to take a position to secure your vote. It was a completely unreasonable ask and you knew it!
What next, you’ll demand to be able to afford rent AND food on the average wage? Pick one and be grateful
No one said it was fine that Harris supported Israel.
What we all said was there are only two candidates who could win the election, and they both support the genocide. We condemned the one-sided criticism, not the facts.
Actually a huge number of people said it was fine that Harris supported Israel, as well as a huge number who engaged in heavy denialism about Harris’ support of genocide.
Since we are in a post election situation, by constantly scape goating voters, you are doing one sided criticism.
Trump helps genocide and he is a bad guy, Biden and Harris help genocide but the voters should have accepted it essentially.
If we refuse to hold the dems accountable for their actions which directly led to Trump winning, they will plot the same course for the next election.
Am I? More people voted against Trump than for him. If the third-party voters accepted that they can’t change the rigged system by voting third-party, Harris would’ve won.
If the dems had catered to voters instead of kneeling in front of a foreign apartheid state and its genocide, Harris would have won.
Politicians can choose what they represent and the platform they put forward. I don’t want to have to vote for genocide so democracy can live again, I want the dems to drop their pro-genocide stance. Blaming voters is the opposite of asking for change.
Be glad those third parties exist. Those people would have spite voted for Trump instead, not for Harris.
At least they’d be forced to own their complicity instead of hiding behind a pointless action.
At the moment of voting there was only one choice which had been complicit in genocide up to that point.
Are you for real?
Trump repealed restrictions on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory. Netanyahu was so grateful, he named a settlement after him in occupied Golan Heights. He also said Israel needs to “finish the job” and stop recording their atrocities because they’re “losing the PR war.”
What we all said was there are only two candidates who could win the election
Yeah, Joe Biden and Donald Trump, I remember.
A Democrat or a Republican. Welcome to the United States. Select one of the two or one will be selected for you.
*Select one and one will be selected for you anyway
It’s that type of flawless disengaging though that brought you the Trump administration. Twice. Maybe try something different to get the 90M eligible voters to show up?
Shocking idea but I do not give a shit about the Democrats, maybe they should be trying to appeal to voters rather than the other way around? Oh wait, they cant because as the saying goes your vote doesn’t matter unless you buy it in advance.
“It’s the voters vault we ran a terrible right wing candidate.”
I’ve already run into this today and been accused of alienating “Palestine supporters” for suggesting that Joe Biden deserves a bomb dropped on his head.
Fucking civility perverts…
I’d imagine if one genuinely cares about stopping the genocide they’d be exactly as civil as they’d strategically need to be.
If your excitement in the cancer diagnosis of a old man is more important to you I get why people are weirded out.
Whilst you are bending over to be polite to people, they are responsible for a genocide. But yes, go you for your brave stance with being civil.
they are responsible for a genocide
So then shouldn’t we do everything strategically possible to oppose the genocide?
Why is “we should adopt the best strategy possible to stop genocide” so offensive to you?
The strategically needed civility is zero
Civility is oppression
I wish you luck in the war on manners.
I’m sure you’ll be as magnanimous when Trump dies.
I’m sure as well. I don’t want the guy to die, I want him to stop doing harm.
If death is how that happens I could take that. If death isn’t necessary I’d prefer it.
Ideally we could try people who commit war crimes publicly.
Well good luck trying to persuade people not to celebrate his death in the spaces that are currently banning you for celebrating Biden’s.
I’m not going to be trying to persuade anyone about culture war bullshit that doesn’t matter.
The original guy was talking about strategy. Is there a strategic reason to try to persuade those people not to celebrate Trump’s death?
its so funny seeing all the libs seething that many people think biden got what he had coming if not got off extremely easily considering the evil shit he’s done. they dont see the evil tho. they just see that he’s a democrat so surely that must mean he’s good.
when brandon dies the universe will be righting a wrong. fuck him. no sympathy or empathy for him or his fucked up family who have neither for any of us or our families or especially those in palestine or otherwise exploited oppressed nations
Buuut it’s your guy’s fault, if only you’d have voted for the less evil of the two evil guys we’d have a waaaay less evil guy doing less evil guy shit and being waaaay less evil-y obvious about their evil shit. Don’t you see? You made it obvious that the evil guy is an evil guy, instead of the less evil of the evil guys, damnit!!!
They see Biden like he’s their dying racist grandpa
I was kind of surprised they are batting this hard for Genocide Joe when he already lost them the election. You’d think that after Biden screwed their winning chances they would have slightly more disdain for him.
Not because of the genocide of course, they don’t care about that because it doesn’t affect them.
They will die on this hill, they don’t have the balls to face the reality that the US is a genocidal nation.
This is because the DNC doesn’t actually want to win, that’s why they ran him in the first place, but frustratingly failed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2020
Which one though? Is it Xi Jinping? Putin? Charles Taylor? Bush? Blair? Netanyahu? Ratko Mladic? Jean Kambanda? Samphan? Assad (not that old I suppose)?
There are so many of them
ETA: I see the downvotes. I truly have no fucking clue who you are talking about. Duterte? Lukashenko?
typical American playing dumb and projecting their crimes on others.
Most of those names wouldn’t make sense for this meme
I think it’s Biden
Don’t forget Germany, Italy, Canada, UK, and India. They also provided munitions to Israel after October 7th.
And prior.
Thanks. Fair enough.
Removed by mod
You mean the vast majority of Europeans. Not that we didn’t know that Europeans and Americans are inherently genocidal here in the rest of the world.
Proud of you for maxxing out your moms credit card but Eurovision is not political right?
At this point it’s more of an ethnic cleansing.
It’s a genocide.
Israel's Genocide on Occupied Palestine
- De-Gaza: A Year of Israel’s Genocide and the Collapse of World Order - Euro-Med Monitor Report see Chapter 2 and 3
Our first-hand observations of the medical and humanitarian catastrophe inflicted on Gaza are consistent with the descriptions provided by an increasing number of legal experts and organizations concluding that genocide is taking place in Gaza.
- Doctors Without Borders: Life in the death trap that is Gaza
It examines the killing of civilians, damage to and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, the obstruction or denial of life-saving goods and humanitarian aid, and the restriction of power supplies. It analyses Israel’s intent through this pattern of conduct and statements by Israeli decision-makers. It concludes that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
- Amnesty: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza Revealed Through Evidence and Analysis Video and Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory: ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza Report
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ said that it was plausible that Israel had breached the Genocide Convention. As an emergency measure, it ordered Israel ensure that its army refrained from genocidal acts against Palestinians.
The ICJ reported, as part of its decisions in March and May, that the situation in Gaza had deteriorated and that Israel had failed to abide by its order in January.
So, when we look at the actions taken, the dropping of thousands and thousands of bombs in a couple of days, including phosphorus bombs, as we heard, on one of the most densely populated areas around the world, together with these proclamations of intent, this indeed constitutes genocidal killing, which is the first act, according to the convention, of genocide. And Israel, I must say, is also perpetrating act number two and three — that is, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and creating condition designed to bring about the destruction of the group by cutting off water, food, supply of energy, bombing hospitals, ordering the fast evictions of hospitals, which the World Health Organization has declared to be, quote, “a death sentence.” So, we’re seeing the combination of genocidal acts with special intent. This is indeed a textbook case of genocide.
More than 800 scholars of international law and genocide have signed a public statement arguing that the Israeli military may be committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as the total siege and relentless airstrikes continue to inflict devastation on the occupied territory.
An independent United Nations expert warned Monday that “Israel’s genocidal violence risks leaking out of Gaza and into the occupied Palestinian territory as a whole” as Western governments, corporations, and other institutions keep up their support for the Israeli military, which stands accused of grave war crimes in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Our documentation encompasses over 500 incitements of violence and genocidal incitement, appearing in the forms of social media posts, television interviews, and official statements from Israeli politicians, army personnel, journalists, and other influential personalities.
I, Lee Mordechai, a historian by profession and an Israeli citizen, bear witness in this document to the situation in Gaza as events are unfolding. The enormous amount of evidence I have seen, much of it referenced later in this document, has been enough for me to believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. I explain why I chose to use the term below. Israel’s campaign is ostensibly its reaction to the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, in which war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed within the context of the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that can be dated back to 1917 or 1948 (or other dates). In all cases, historical grievances and atrocities do not justify additional atrocities in the present. Therefore, I consider Israel’s response to Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 utterly disproportionate and criminal.
🤓 akshually its an ethnic cleansing not a genocide.
As if that makes it any less atrocious.
libs really see themselves as valiant heroes when they needlessly play semantics on the topic of genocide.
yea, arguing semantica is the only thing left to do when you have no argument at all
This comment is funny because I don’t even know what you’re trying to say, but it’s so wrong anyway. It used to be a genocide? It’s never been a genocide? “At this point”?
It’s an overt genocide
