Israel

[Tuco 5,076]

12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The group pushing for this speaker has very publicly announced that they are “Uncommitted Delegates.” That is, they are not willing to commit to the Democratic nominee and Vice President.  Are you all insane?  Do you know what the convention and all the speeches are for?  On what planet would anyone agree to give space to someone who is uncommitted to the candidate? 
 

 

They publicly said they would pledge their support if they got a few minutes at the convention.  The lack of support wasn't the issue.  

[chainsaw 9,859]

2 minutes ago, VivaNaranja said:

because they committed to voting for Harris/Walz

And?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2024/08/21/abbas-alawieh-delegate-gaza-dnc/

Quote

Alawieh will be voting for Harris in the fall.

 

[VivaNaranja 466]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

And?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2024/08/21/abbas-alawieh-delegate-gaza-dnc/

 

Thanks to you and Tuco for this. I assumed that because he chose to be uncommitted in the primary that he wasn't committed to any candidate in the general.

I don't have an issue with a pro cease fire candidate speaking. I just think it is completely counterproductive to refuse to commit your primary vote and demand a spot at the convention anyway. That's simply not how this works.

[Tuco 5,076]

Just now, VivaNaranja said:

Thanks to you and Tuco for this. I assumed that because he chose to be uncommitted in the primary that he wasn't committed to any candidate in the general.

I don't have an issue with a pro cease fire candidate speaking. I just think it is completely counterproductive to refuse to commit your primary vote and demand a spot at the convention anyway. That's simply not how this works.

Do you think they would have gotten the attention from the party, campaign, or media if they didn't say they were uncommitted? 

[VivaNaranja 466]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Do you think they would have gotten the attention from the party, campaign, or media if they didn't say they were uncommitted? 

is the goal to get attention or get a cease fire?

[Huckleberry 32,849]

3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Do you think they would have gotten the attention from the party, campaign, or media if they didn't say they were uncommitted? 

What has the attention gotten them? 

[Tuco 5,076]

2 minutes ago, VivaNaranja said:

is the goal to get attention or get a cease fire?

Attention is the currency of politics.  Lobbying groups spend millions of dollars to get attention from politicians.  Politicians spend orders of magnitude more to get attention from the public. 

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

What has the attention gotten them? 

Not sure, but I guess if they didn't get any, then it didn't do any harm, right.  

[Brian Fantana 6,681]

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

What has the attention gotten them? 

Well shit we hit the nail on the head. Better give up, what's a little genocide funded by our government after all?

[Huckleberry 32,849]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Attention is the currency of politics.  Lobbying groups spend millions of dollars to get attention from politicians.  Politicians spend orders of magnitude more to get attention from the public. 

Not sure, but I guess if they didn't get any, then it didn't do any harm, right.  

You're very close to getting it. 

In this scenario they're the lobbyists. But they're getting attention from the public, not the politicians. They're doing it wrong. So yes, their tactics are absolutely doing them harm if the goal is a cease fire. If the goal is just being a little more famous without advancing their claimed cause at all then they're doing it right. 

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Well shit we hit the nail on the head. Better give up, what's a little genocide funded by our government after all?

Extremely dumb post. People who agree with their goal are pointing out that their tactics are terrible. 

[Brian Fantana 6,681]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

You're very close to getting it. 

In this scenario they're the lobbyists. But they're getting attention from the public, not the politicians. They're doing it wrong. So yes, their tactics are absolutely doing them harm if the goal is a cease fire. If the goal is just being a little more famous without advancing their claimed cause at all then they're doing it right. 

Extremely dumb post. People who agree with their goal are pointing out that their tactics are terrible. 

Can you explain to me what exactly about their tactics is wrong? It seems like their request is a very reasonable one. How exactly are they harming the goal of a cease fire?

[Tuco 5,076]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

You're very close to getting it. 

In this scenario they're the lobbyists. But they're getting attention from the public, not the politicians. They're doing it wrong. So yes, their tactics are absolutely doing them harm if the goal is a cease fire. If the goal is just being a little more famous without advancing their claimed cause at all then they're doing it right. 

Ok, so now they are getting attention.  But, it's only attention from the public, and politicians don't pay attention to what the public is paying attention to.  Do you maybe want to take a few minutes to construct a post that isn't complete bullshit?  

 

 

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

37 minutes ago, Tuco said:

They publicly said they would pledge their support if they got a few minutes at the convention.  The lack of support wasn't the issue.  

But usually you pledge your support first and then ask for time.  Which is what happened here, they believed their endorsement was going to be more valuable than it is. 
 

The goal here was to use the platform to criticize the administration and then box in a potential Harris administration on a thorny and incendiary foreign policy issue.  The tactics pursued shifted from threatening to throw the primary or even general, to protests, and then to bargaining for airtime. No candidate is going to agree to that, because why would they? They want cheerleaders up there.

There’s a lesson here about aligning tactics to capabilities that is relevant beyond the DNC. 

[Tuco 5,076]

Do you honestly believe they would have received a speaking slot at the DNC to criticize Israel and current US policy towards Israel had they just pledged their support ahead of time?  Really?  I think y'alll are just writing bullshit down because you think it supports some argument that they are dumb or naive. 

[Brian Fantana 6,681]

Their goal is to put a voice and a face to the Palestinian cause. Right now there isn't one in America, and that's by design. We censure Palestinian-Americans here, we don't platform them.

I challenge any of you to to listen to Abbas Alaweih speak just once and then come back and tell me that he's some kind of threat to Harris' campaign. It's laughable. He's the poster child for Midwestern blue public health nerd. He just wants their story to be heard, and deservedly so.

That said, I agree with @956 Worldwide in that it's laughable to think that they would allow anyone that may voice a dissenting thought up there. It sucks, but it's reality. Especially when it's an all-out love fest right now that is entirely strategic and making the RNC look like sad old sacks of shit in comparison. It's incredibly obvious why it's not being allowed and while I want them to be heard, I understand it.

The notion that their tactics are wrong or bad or that they're hurting the ceasefire cause/anyone at all is completely laughable, though. Anyone that spouts off that ChatGPT ass shit should be embarrassed.

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Do you honestly believe they would have received a speaking slot at the DNC to criticize Israel and current US policy towards Israel had they just pledged their support ahead of time?  Really?  I think y'alll are just writing bullshit down because you think it supports some argument that they are dumb or naive. 

It’s a “yes and” thing. Harris is the Vice President.  She’s going to stake out her own ground on this, maybe, but like any candidate it will for sure be on her own terms. 
 

It’s contained within your post. Harris IS the administration.  And her coronation party is not the place to criticize any policy that she is currently implementing.  It’s a place to stay on message.  And refusing to commit in advance does precious little to convince people you are going to do that. 

[quigley 1,562]

18 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Their goal is to put a voice and a face to the Palestinian cause. Right now there isn't one in America, and that's by design. We censure Palestinian-Americans here, we don't platform them.

I challenge any of you to to listen to Abbas Alaweih speak just once and then come back and tell me that he's some kind of threat to Harris' campaign. It's laughable. He's the poster child for Midwestern blue public health nerd. He just wants their story to be heard, and deservedly so.

That said, I agree with @956 Worldwide in that it's laughable to think that they would allow anyone that may voice a dissenting thought up there. It sucks, but it's reality. Especially when it's an all-out love fest right now that is entirely strategic and making the RNC look like sad old sacks of shit in comparison. It's incredibly obvious why it's not being allowed and while I want them to be heard, I understand it.

The notion that their tactics are wrong or bad or that they're hurting the ceasefire cause/anyone at all is completely laughable, though. Anyone that spouts off that ChatGPT ass shit should be embarrassed.

 

18 hours ago, Tuco said:

Do you honestly believe they would have received a speaking slot at the DNC to criticize Israel and current US policy towards Israel had they just pledged their support ahead of time?  Really?  I think y'alll are just writing bullshit down because you think it supports some argument that they are dumb or naive. 

 

18 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Extremely dumb post. People who agree with their goal are pointing out that their tactics are terrible. 

 

19 hours ago, chainsaw said:

And?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2024/08/21/abbas-alawieh-delegate-gaza-dnc/

 

 

This is a classic case of the "iceberg principle", we aren't seeing most of what's going on. All the Democratic actors here are playing their roles, no one is an idiot. We need to let it simmer and play out.

Fact: Foreign policy doesn't drive election results.

Fact: Bibi and Hamas have vested interests in continuing the conflict.
Fact: Both the Israeli people and Palestinians are pressuring their leaders to resolve the situation, unsuccessfully.
Fact: US influence here is limited but the interests of the leaders of the conflicting groups.
Fact: Harris needs voters sympathetic to Palestinian cause in MI and Israeli cause in PA and FL to win.
Fact: Jews donate a lot to Democratic presidential campaigns.
Fact: Since Oct 7th and the Israeli response, there has been a split along generational lines between older Jews (more pro-Israel) and younger Jews (more pro-Palestinian).
Fact: Younger voters, in general, are more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective.

Fact: Foreign policy doesn't drive election results.
There's no benefit to Harris to elevating this topic at this time.

If events demand it, she can retreat to a position broad, established policy that isn't currently being enforced in the Israeli-Palestinian context: US military aid cannot be used against civilians.

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

44 minutes ago, quigley said:

 

 

 

 

This is a classic case of the "iceberg principle", we aren't seeing most of what's going on. All the Democratic actors here are playing their roles, no one is an idiot. We need to let it simmer and play out.

Fact: Foreign policy doesn't drive election results.

Fact: Bibi and Hamas have vested interests in continuing the conflict.
Fact: Both the Israeli people and Palestinians are pressuring their leaders to resolve the situation, unsuccessfully.
Fact: US influence here is limited but the interests of the leaders of the conflicting groups.
Fact: Harris needs voters sympathetic to Palestinian cause in MI and Israeli cause in PA and FL to win.
Fact: Jews donate a lot to Democratic presidential campaigns.
Fact: Since Oct 7th and the Israeli response, there has been a split along generational lines between older Jews (more pro-Israel) and younger Jews (more pro-Palestinian).
Fact: Younger voters, in general, are more sympathetic to the Palestinian perspective.

Fact: Foreign policy doesn't drive election results.
There's no benefit to Harris to elevating this topic at this time.

If events demand it, she can retreat to a position broad, established policy that isn't currently being enforced in the Israeli-Palestinian context: US military aid cannot be used against civilians.

Kamala delivered an elegant summary of the current administration policy and goals, and was perhaps a bit more rhetorically forward leaning on Palestinian self-determination although a two-state solution has been policy for several administrations.  She noted Israel’s right to defend itself, she highlighted the administration’s push for a ceasefire, and the unacceptable loss of civilian life. That IS the administration policy.

There was no way that anyone inside the DNC was going to open up the main stage to debate foreign policy even at the nuanced level at the convention. It’s all downside. 

[chainsaw 9,859]

  

  Since I was asked in another thread, here is the part of Harris's acceptance speech about Gaza

Quote

With respect to the war in Gaza. President Biden and I are working around the clock. Because now is the time to get a hostage deal and ceasefire done.

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. Because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that the terrorist organization Hamas caused on October 7th.  Including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival.

At the same time, what has happened in Gaza over the past 10 months is devastating. So many innocent lives lost. Desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, over and over again. The scale of suffering is heartbreaking.

President Biden and I are working to end this war such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity. Security. Freedom. And self-determination.

The first caveat is that this speech is not about me or what I want. Her objective was to make her case for the American people, and by and large I think she did. We saw that with the CNN panel of so-called "undecided voters."

But since I was asked, I will share what I thought of the Gaza portion of the speech. Then I'll share my concerns.

What I liked:

• The progress reflected by even mentioning Palestinian people and acknowledging they deserve dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination
• The clear support for a ceasefire now.
• The acknowledgement of the suffering and devastation in Gaza.

What I disliked:

• The structure of this section sends the message that Palestinian people are still a secondary concern. Notice how every time the Palestinian people are mentioned in a list, they are never first ("hostage deal and ceasefire" or "Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends"). That's deliberate, and the purpose of framing the issue that way is to assure the listener that Israel is still more important to her. I won't say that she thinks Palestinians are unimportant (after all, she did acknowledge them) but I will say it's clear what she's saying her priorities are.
• The contrast in how the first tragedy is recounted (active voice, a named perpetrator) and how the second tragedy is recounted (passive voice, anonymous perpetrator). A prosecutor knows exactly what they are doing when they say "Hamas caused" in the first story but omits any mention of the responsible party in the second story.
• The use of absolutes like "always" to describe US policies favorable to Israel, which signals an unwillingness to place reasonable conditions on the support we are providing and is yet another big contrast, bringing me to my next point.
• No concrete promises of any kind that would benefit the Palestinian people. The implication is that, unlike Israel, they don't "always" have the right to defend themselves, which is why the concrete promises (of "always" support from the US) only go one way. Which I understand from a geopolitics standpoint but at the very least there could be a concrete, measurable commitment to provide aid or to consider an arms embargo when there is clear evidence that international law has been violated. Like, you're a prosecutor. The rule of law should matter to you. The bar is so low, all I'd want is for our aid to be conditioned on observing the same laws that every other nation is expected to follow.

Like I said at the beginning, what I think don't matter. Texas isn't a swing state, and I'm voting for Harris no matter what.

Michigan on the other hand is a swing state and it has a large population of over 100k people aligned with the Uncommitted movement. These people are extremely politically engaged, and they are high-information voters.

They are not the type of people to be swayed by lip service. What concerns me is not so much the speech but the apparent lack of interest in doing anything more than talk about the issue. She's still much better than Biden was, and that gives me some relief that enough Michigan voters will overcome their reservations and get out and vote for her. The best way to take action would be for her to accomplish the nigh impossible task of persuading Biden to force a ceasefire by playing hardball with Netanyahu. For many voters in the Uncomitted movement, our unwillingness to use the only effective tactic in our arsenal is basically the same thing as admitting Biden isn't really interested in a ceasefire and doesn't really care how long it takes to accomplish a ceasefire. It's like having a healthy DJ Monroe on the sidelines and claiming you are "working tirelessly" to convert a third down. High-information voters are too smart to believe it, which is why I'm concerned.

[Brian Fantana 6,681]

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Kamala delivered an elegant summary of the current administration policy and goals, and was perhaps a bit more rhetorically forward leaning on Palestinian self-determination although a two-state solution has been policy for several administrations.  She noted Israel’s right to defend itself, she highlighted the administration’s push for a ceasefire, and the unacceptable loss of civilian life. That IS the administration policy.

There was no way that anyone inside the DNC was going to open up the main stage to debate foreign policy even at the nuanced level at the convention. It’s all downside. 

On the flip side, there's also the very real risk that the speaker would go on stage, not say anything the DNC would find objectionable, and get booed by the crowd anyway. Either way it's a bad look and not worth the risk for the campaign.

There are other places they can more safely platform these guys if they want.

[Tuco 5,076]

10 hours ago, chainsaw said:

  

  Since I was asked in another thread, here is the part of Harris's acceptance speech about Gaza

The first caveat is that this speech is not about me or what I want. Her objective was to make her case for the American people, and by and large I think she did. We saw that with the CNN panel of so-called "undecided voters."

But since I was asked, I will share what I thought of the Gaza portion of the speech. Then I'll share my concerns.

What I liked:

• The progress reflected by even mentioning Palestinian people and acknowledging they deserve dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination
• The clear support for a ceasefire now.
• The acknowledgement of the suffering and devastation in Gaza.

What I disliked:

• The structure of this section sends the message that Palestinian people are still a secondary concern. Notice how every time the Palestinian people are mentioned in a list, they are never first ("hostage deal and ceasefire" or "Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends"). That's deliberate, and the purpose of framing the issue that way is to assure the listener that Israel is still more important to her. I won't say that she thinks Palestinians are unimportant (after all, she did acknowledge them) but I will say it's clear what she's saying her priorities are.
• The contrast in how the first tragedy is recounted (active voice, a named perpetrator) and how the second tragedy is recounted (passive voice, anonymous perpetrator). A prosecutor knows exactly what they are doing when they say "Hamas caused" in the first story but omits any mention of the responsible party in the second story.
• The use of absolutes like "always" to describe US policies favorable to Israel, which signals an unwillingness to place reasonable conditions on the support we are providing and is yet another big contrast, bringing me to my next point.
• No concrete promises of any kind that would benefit the Palestinian people. The implication is that, unlike Israel, they don't "always" have the right to defend themselves, which is why the concrete promises (of "always" support from the US) only go one way. Which I understand from a geopolitics standpoint but at the very least there could be a concrete, measurable commitment to provide aid or to consider an arms embargo when there is clear evidence that international law has been violated. Like, you're a prosecutor. The rule of law should matter to you. The bar is so low, all I'd want is for our aid to be conditioned on observing the same laws that every other nation is expected to follow.

Like I said at the beginning, what I think don't matter. Texas isn't a swing state, and I'm voting for Harris no matter what.

Michigan on the other hand is a swing state and it has a large population of over 100k people aligned with the Uncommitted movement. These people are extremely politically engaged, and they are high-information voters.

They are not the type of people to be swayed by lip service. What concerns me is not so much the speech but the apparent lack of interest in doing anything more than talk about the issue. She's still much better than Biden was, and that gives me some relief that enough Michigan voters will overcome their reservations and get out and vote for her. The best way to take action would be for her to accomplish the nigh impossible task of persuading Biden to force a ceasefire by playing hardball with Netanyahu. For many voters in the Uncomitted movement, our unwillingness to use the only effective tactic in our arsenal is basically the same thing as admitting Biden isn't really interested in a ceasefire and doesn't really care how long it takes to accomplish a ceasefire. It's like having a healthy DJ Monroe on the sidelines and claiming you are "working tirelessly" to convert a third down. High-information voters are too smart to believe it, which is why I'm concerned.

My thoughts are vary similar to chainsaw. 

Politically, I get it.  I'm maybe less worried about losing votes in Michigan.  I am a little worried about sapping enthusiasm from the youth vote.  But I am not a pollster, I don't do focus groups, and certainly Harris's team are professionals who know their shit.  My only credible argument, or fear, politically is that polling younger generations has gotten tougher and sometimes professionals mess up. 

I am more concern from a policy standpoint.   And the sentence that bothered me was "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 have generally always been pro-Israel.  I remember a camp survivor coming to my grade school to show his number tattoo.  I get that Israel isn't just some restitution for WW2, but a safe haven for a minority that has had to deal with similar shit for centuries. But, somewhere along the line, I realized there was a difference between "supporting Israel" and "supporting Israel no matter what."  And, I think that distinction gets lost.  I saw Kamala's statement as "no matter what."  And what's more, we all know Bibi watched it.  So did all the Likud leaders who might come later.  And what they just watched is Kamala Harris demonstrating that military support of Israel is a political necessity.  They don't need to do anything for it.  So, yeah, I'm disappointed in that sentence. 

[Brian Fantana 6,681]

She can't really say anything else this close to the election. Doesn't matter what she herself believes, the Israeli lobby is very powerful and unconditional pro-Israel sentiment has been baked into every aspect of our government and public life. Hell, in the state of Texas, you'd likely lose your job in the blink of an eye if your employer's HR department found out that you expressed even a mild anti-Israel sentiment publicly, especially if you are a state employee.

She and her campaign are smart enough to know that if she expresses anything but unconditional support at this time then she is fucked. The attack ads and pro-Trump campaigning from the AIPAC side of things would turn on like a light switch. This also likely would have happened (perhaps to a lesser degree) had they allowed a Palestinian-American to speak. Israeli lobbyists would go absolutely apeshit in either case.

Honestly I think about the fact that the likely next President of the United States is powerless to even hint that Israel could be even somewhat in the wrong at her own god damn nomination and it's extremely depressing. I'm not making the assumption that she would even be inclined to, I'm just saying that if she was, she legitimately 100% would not be able to. I think about that and the fact that Bibi has more power over Congress than any actual sitting Congressperson and it depresses me.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,393]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

My thoughts are vary similar to chainsaw. 

Politically, I get it.  I'm maybe less worried about losing votes in Michigan.  I am a little worried about sapping enthusiasm from the youth vote.  

 

If youthful voters don't vote for Kamala because of her stance on this issue, they certainly won't vote for Trump, either. 

[Tuco 5,076]

If youthful voters don't vote for Kamala because of her stance on this issue, they certainly won't vote for Trump, either. 

Yeah, but we need them to vote for Harris.

If youthful voters don't vote for Kamala because of her stance on this issue, they certainly won't vote for Trump, either. 

Yeah, but we need them to vote for Harris.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,393]

19 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Yeah, but we need them to vote for Harris.
Yeah, but we need them to vote for Harris.

Both candidates needed the young woman's vote. Neither one got it.  Advantage: Harris.

[chainsaw 9,859]

10 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

She can't really say anything else this close to the election. Doesn't matter what she herself believes, the Israeli lobby is very powerful and unconditional pro-Israel sentiment has been baked into every aspect of our government and public life. Hell, in the state of Texas, you'd likely lose your job in the blink of an eye if your employer's HR department found out that you expressed even a mild anti-Israel sentiment publicly, especially if you are a state employee.

She and her campaign are smart enough to know that if she expresses anything but unconditional support at this time then she is fucked. The attack ads and pro-Trump campaigning from the AIPAC side of things would turn on like a light switch. This also likely would have happened (perhaps to a lesser degree) had they allowed a Palestinian-American to speak. Israeli lobbyists would go absolutely apeshit in either case.

Honestly I think about the fact that the likely next President of the United States is powerless to even hint that Israel could be even somewhat in the wrong at her own god damn nomination and it's extremely depressing. I'm not making the assumption that she would even be inclined to, I'm just saying that if she was, she legitimately 100% would not be able to. I think about that and the fact that Bibi has more power over Congress than any actual sitting Congressperson and it depresses me.

Netanyahu hated Obama, even though Obama said all the things and kissed the AIPAC ring on the campaign trail. The Iran deal was the best thing he ever did and I don't think Biden would ever have dared to do it.

My point being, there is precedent for not always giving Bibi what he wants. Maybe it's the downballot races they are worried about AIPAC ratfucking us in, but Trump is already defined in the minds of the electorate.

[chainsaw 9,859]

Meanwhile:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/22/muslim-women-kamala-harris-disbands

Quote

Muslim Women for Harris disbands and withdraws support for candidate

Group says Harris campaign denying a Palestinian speaker at the Democratic convention is a ‘terrible message’

 

[Goofyboy 3,269]

Meanwhile:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/22/muslim-women-kamala-harris-disbands

Muslim Women for Harris disbands and withdraws support for candidate

Group says Harris campaign denying a Palestinian speaker at the Democratic convention is a ‘terrible message’

 

So, they are just staying home because Trump will deport them or at least try to - regardless of citizenship.

[chainsaw 9,859]

11 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

 

So, they are just staying home because Trump will deport them or at least try to - regardless of citizenship.

I'm sure most of them will still vote Harris if they're in swing states, but I completely understand why they wouldn't waste their time volunteering or raising money for a campaign that has demonstrated a lack of respect to them.

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

Checking in to see how big of a blow this is going to be. 
 

[NAVY 6,740]

6 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Checking in to see how big of a blow this is going to be. 
 

 Ballgame 

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

18 minutes ago, NAVY said:

 Ballgame 

An announcement that “Muslim Women For Harris Walz” is not actually “For Harris Walz” got by far the most digitally and traditional media attention of anything the group did.  The cynical among us might think the group was created to unendorse. 

[chainsaw 9,859]

2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

An announcement that “Muslim Women For Harris Walz” is not actually “For Harris Walz” got by far the most digitally and traditional media attention of anything the group did.  The cynical among us might think the group was created to unendorse. 

I think you're paranoid about Zionism dude. One day you'll have to face the fact that you've been on the wrong side of history.

Facebook has been a dying social media platform for years. The bare minimum was evidently too much for the DNC, and I understand why that disrespect shown has had predictable consequences. But, no, this was all just an antisemitic conspiracy.

[chainsaw 9,859]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/noa-argamani-abuse

Quote

An Israeli woman kidnapped by Hamas militants on October 7 and held hostage for 245 days before being rescued lashed out on Friday at Israeli media outlets that twisted her words to make it seem as if she was wounded by her captors when in reality she was injured in an attack by the military in which she once served.

Responding to reports in outlets including The Jerusalem Post—which on Thursday ran the headline "Hamas Beat Me All Over"—Noa Argamani said on Instagram that "I can't ignore what happened in the media in the last 24 hours."

"Things were taken out of context," the 26-year-old navy veteran from Be'er Sheva said of her earlier comments to Group of Seven diplomats in Tokyo. "I was not beaten... I was in a building that was bombed by the Air Force."

"I emphasize that I was not beaten, but injured all over my body by the collapse of a building on me," Argamani added. "As a victim of October 7, I refuse to be victimized once again by the media."

Quote

Freed hostages have recounted being fired upon by Israeli aircraft as they were being taken by Hamas militants to Gaza. One former captive said in December that "every day in captivity was extremely challenging. We were in tunnels, terrified that it would not be Hamas, but Israel, that would kill us, and then they would say Hamas killed you."

 

[bluto 4,914]

Blowing up hezbollah now

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,867]

anyone solve this thousand-year quagmire yet?

[BrickHorn 18,217]

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

anyone solve this thousand-year quagmire yet?

The first step would be to understand that this issue is not even remotely 1,000 years old. A solution is only possible if we can get past propagandists myths. 

[Brian Fantana 6,681]

5 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

anyone solve this thousand-year quagmire yet?

Same energy as conservative dipshits popping in Trump threads to say "gottem yet?"

[F250 28,764]

6 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

anyone solve this thousand-year quagmire yet?

The issue of racial segregation in the U.S. is older than the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hell, my grandparents were born around the time this quagmire started.

[chainsaw 9,859]

Joe Biden is older than Israel.

[immamac 42,838]

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-strikes-hezbollah-targets-lebanon-military-says-2024-08-25/

Don't even update this thread with relevant shit. This thread fucking blows. 

[chainsaw 9,859]

29 minutes ago, immamac said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-strikes-hezbollah-targets-lebanon-military-says-2024-08-25/

Don't even update this thread with relevant shit. This thread fucking blows. 

Reuters doing some gymnastics to hide the fact that Israel instigated by firing the missiles first. Impressive.

[Brian Fantana 6,681]

2 hours ago, immamac said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-strikes-hezbollah-targets-lebanon-military-says-2024-08-25/

Don't even update this thread with relevant shit. This thread fucking blows. 

Bluto posted about it without including a link, and then a shitposter decided to immediately do a "thousand year old conflict" meme derail, so the discussion never got started. That kind of occurrence is about par for the course in this thread, but since this thread exists in an alternate universe where you guys [the mods] just get enraged every time someone calls the drive by shitposter out, which is the literal opposite of what happens in every other thread, there's really not much we can do about it is there?

The funny part is, you can literally scroll up on this very page we're on and see a perfectly fine discussion about the Harris campaign but I guess you just decided to delete that from your brain and get mad about the last few posts in the thread instead.

Also, there have been a shit ton of current event updates here, but this thread is usually dead on the weekends. Likely someone would have posted it tomorrow.

[tx 3 putt 76,874]

 

[bolverk 29,656]

Unvaccinated 10-month-old baby contracts first case of polio (spread through sewage and contaminated water) in 25 years, resulting in partial paralysis.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cevjz7zreyxo

[hpslugga 4,058]

On 8/18/2024 at 2:25 PM, Loch Ness Monster said:

Is it wrong to think Netanyahu is a gigantic piece of shit?

No, but it is wrong to think he’s the only piece of shit in the Israeli government…or Israel in general.

 

[Brian Fantana 6,681]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

No, but it is wrong to think he’s the only piece of shit in the Israeli government…or Israel in general.

 

I'm never quick to dismiss Prof. Finkelstein's assertions because he's up there among the most learned scholars on Earth with regard to Israel, but something in me just automatically rejects the notion that Israeli society is as far gone as he thinks it is, i.e. as far gone as their government. He is certainly much more educated on it than I am, so it's hard to reconcile, but I suppose I maybe just believe in people a little too much.

e: grammar

Edited August 26 by Brian Fantana

[linux 1,660]

8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm never quick to dismiss Prof. Finkelstein's assertions because he's up there among the most learned scholars on Earth with regard to Israel, but something in me just automatically rejects the notion that Israeli society is as far gone as he thinks it is, i.e. as far gone as their government. He is certainly much more educated on it than I am, so it's hard to reconcile, but I suppose I maybe just believe in people a little too much.

e: grammar

Its 60-65% MAGA-like right now there will NEVER be a Palestinian state unless Apartheid South Africa sanctions/pressure is applied.

[hpslugga 4,058]

8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I'm never quick to dismiss Prof. Finkelstein's assertions because he's up there among the most learned scholars on Earth with regard to Israel, but something in me just automatically rejects the notion that Israeli society is as far gone as he thinks it is, i.e. as far gone as their government. He is certainly much more educated on it than I am, so it's hard to reconcile, but I suppose I maybe just believe in people a little too much.

e: grammar

The thing that you need to consider is the 90%+ approval of the IDF’s actions. Like he says at the end, they’re aware. And yet, 90+% of the population does not say that the IDF has gone too far. Well over 90% of their population either outright approved of what the IDF has been doing, or even more shockingly, they don’t think the IDF is being harsh enough. That’s a problem. It’s one of the leading reasons that saying “if Bibi and/or his policies were seen as so horrible in the country, why has there been no effective opposition?” is a valid argument. 

We also need to remember something else: when Labour was that equal counterweight to Likud, their policies in the Occupied Territories were not all that different from Likud. In fact in a lot of ways, they were worse.

The only time Israel ever suspended the use of torture as being a legal tactic for the IDF used was by Begin (only for two years, but a suspension nonetheless). Labour never had a P.M. that suspended torture.

Prior to his death, Yitzhak Rabin used to brag that he’d demolished more houses than any Likud leader.

And speaking of Rabin, his record of settlement expansion in the West Bank was worse than that of Shamir.

Housing permits and constructions went up faster during Barak’s tenure than under Bibi’s first regime in the 90’s. Of course Netanyahu is now clear in the lead on most of the aforementioned issues because he’s the longest serving prime minister in Israel’s history…but that also bolsters what Finkelstein says about him being a reflection of the society: he’s the longest serving P.M. in history.

So it’s not like Bibi is facing a formidable counter from the Knesset or from the population in general. Israel’s record in the OT on human rights has been atrocious in generals. We are not living in a reality where any of us can paint a rosie red picture of “well the United States and the more-left parties in Israel could achieve a settlement, but it’s just those damn Likudniks with their right wing Barbarism.” To me, that’s every bit as reality-optional as this notion of blaming everything on the Palestinians.

[chainsaw 9,859]

The most telling thing is they had a J6-style siege of some military jail to try and free soldiers who raped Palestinians. But the bright side is there's a vocal and growing anti-apartheid, anti-genocide movement within Israel and with international pressure I am optimistic we will see positive change.

[956 Worldwide 34,704]

Hezbollah has been launching projectiles at Israel more or less constantly over the past months (including one that hit a soccer field and killed Arab-Israeli citizens).  There are some fairly obvious indicators of preparations, particularly when a major attack is planned and underway.  The idea that Israel “instigated” by destroying tubes and infrastructure left-of-launch is a fairly laughable assertion. You’re allowed to attack missiles and bombers on the ground.