agree with everything, although I appreciated the simplicity of the previous version ;)
except... isn't Kamala also effectively pro-zionist (maybe just not quite as explicit with the endorsements)? haven't heard her do that much condemning (maybe I just missed it)
She's not explicitly pro-Palestine but has expressed more emotional and rhetorical support to the Palestinian cause, while Trump has expressed almost purely support of Israel in a more jingoistic way. No when we start using the term "effectively" we get into the same sort of water is where we begin to equalize the two positions even though one is less evil. as mentioned, less evil does not equal less good due to politics' sensitivity to initial states.
Yes, good point. But what I mean is 'in reality exactly the same will probably be done for the Palestinians whoever wins the US elections: nothing'. In other words it looks better to express support but not back it up with any action.
Harris warned of 'consequences' if Israel attacked Rafah, but in reality there were none. Netanyahu would have understood it as political grandstanding and that there wouldn't be any, otherwise he wouldn't have gone ahead: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/06/world/israel-gaza-war-hamas
I agree with your 'lesser evil' point in general but on this particular case it's all hot air until there are consequences for Israel.
Thank you for historical reference. I agree wholeheartedly and have been mumbling these sentiments to myself whenever I read the views of extremist anti-Zionists proclaim that Harris is just as awful as Trump. And yes I am anti-Zionist.
agree. i have to do the same also in relation to her friendship and funding by people who want to take out Lina Khan. for the first time we are actually beginning to deal with the overarching power of monopolies and now this. Nevertheless, objectively, so many reasons to choose one over the other. I am reminded of people i know who don't vote because "nothing ever changes" and my answer is to tell a story of my gardener friend who one was almost fired by a client because her garden always stayed the same. My friend just looked at her and said "plants grow." It actually takes some effort to keep any reasonable stability. Just because you don't get everything you want from an administration doesn't mean they weren't trying. Activists become so focused on the idea that the only right thing is to make what they want in the world happen, and anything short of that is just not acceptable. Never mind that historically that rarely works out well and in fact creates similar problems to what they were fighting against (Israel is a good example of that, actually) We do actually live in the world with many people who want a lot of different things than we do, and this is supposed to be a country where the people get a say. not just the people we agree with.
The Lincoln analogy would be more apt if Lincoln had been actively arming the slavers and enabling and encouraging the territorial expansion of the slave states, while espousing the slavers inalienable right to slavery and defending their extreme violence as self-defense. In other words, as Palestinians and many others have been saying, the notion that Harris is actually a “lesser evil” is up for debate, since there is in fact no “greater evil” than genocide.
agree with everything, although I appreciated the simplicity of the previous version ;)
except... isn't Kamala also effectively pro-zionist (maybe just not quite as explicit with the endorsements)? haven't heard her do that much condemning (maybe I just missed it)
She's not explicitly pro-Palestine but has expressed more emotional and rhetorical support to the Palestinian cause, while Trump has expressed almost purely support of Israel in a more jingoistic way. No when we start using the term "effectively" we get into the same sort of water is where we begin to equalize the two positions even though one is less evil. as mentioned, less evil does not equal less good due to politics' sensitivity to initial states.
Yes, good point. But what I mean is 'in reality exactly the same will probably be done for the Palestinians whoever wins the US elections: nothing'. In other words it looks better to express support but not back it up with any action.
Harris warned of 'consequences' if Israel attacked Rafah, but in reality there were none. Netanyahu would have understood it as political grandstanding and that there wouldn't be any, otherwise he wouldn't have gone ahead: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/06/world/israel-gaza-war-hamas
I agree with your 'lesser evil' point in general but on this particular case it's all hot air until there are consequences for Israel.
Thank you for historical reference. I agree wholeheartedly and have been mumbling these sentiments to myself whenever I read the views of extremist anti-Zionists proclaim that Harris is just as awful as Trump. And yes I am anti-Zionist.
agree. i have to do the same also in relation to her friendship and funding by people who want to take out Lina Khan. for the first time we are actually beginning to deal with the overarching power of monopolies and now this. Nevertheless, objectively, so many reasons to choose one over the other. I am reminded of people i know who don't vote because "nothing ever changes" and my answer is to tell a story of my gardener friend who one was almost fired by a client because her garden always stayed the same. My friend just looked at her and said "plants grow." It actually takes some effort to keep any reasonable stability. Just because you don't get everything you want from an administration doesn't mean they weren't trying. Activists become so focused on the idea that the only right thing is to make what they want in the world happen, and anything short of that is just not acceptable. Never mind that historically that rarely works out well and in fact creates similar problems to what they were fighting against (Israel is a good example of that, actually) We do actually live in the world with many people who want a lot of different things than we do, and this is supposed to be a country where the people get a say. not just the people we agree with.
The Lincoln analogy would be more apt if Lincoln had been actively arming the slavers and enabling and encouraging the territorial expansion of the slave states, while espousing the slavers inalienable right to slavery and defending their extreme violence as self-defense. In other words, as Palestinians and many others have been saying, the notion that Harris is actually a “lesser evil” is up for debate, since there is in fact no “greater evil” than genocide.
He was a Senator before president so the argument was made that he was complicit in not actively pushing legislation that would ban slavery.
It seems still pretty apt. It's not like Trump is any less pro Israel.