I mean, it has more bearing on whether Palestinians who can vote in US elections should vote for Harris than requesting that I tell them that they should. And I wasn't even looking for it - the video popped up on a search for Jill Stein apropos of @Obelisk's query above. It also appears to make a good point that one of the two candidates is able to be held accountable.
You won't tell them who to vote for but you obviously have strong opinions on who they should vote for.
Let me know when Biden is held accountable, then I will believe that Harris is able to be held accountable.
Perhaps you could cover, in a few sentences or less, for those of us who don't seem to get how it's controversial that a woman with no current power to arm Israel says that Israel needs to be mindful of how it "defends itself" in not killing Palestinian civilians in anticipation of her gaining that power
Why would I find that controversial?
- or why a Harris White House would be so much worse for Palestinians than a Trump White House which very definitely already did send weaponry to Israel and which a simple search appears to show Israeli newspapers absolutely stanning for (and Iran appears to be bricking it about).
I don't think it would be worse.
I don't get how Trump > Harris for Palestinians.
Me neither. That's a big part of the reason I didn't vote for Trump, and don't want him to win.
I don't think that's true. She has expressed great concern about the acts Israel is perpetuating, and while she hasn't called out Biden explicitly, I think she has made it clear that her stance is less permissive than his. That's just based on speeches, she has not had real power to act on it to date.
Can you give an example of a speech so we can talk about something concrete, please?
Nevermind, we agree on what she says, just not the interpretation (covered below)
See above.
Joe does have integrity and a big heart. And he has expressed interest in pushing back, but not so much interest that it took precedent over other matters, such as aid to Ukraine.
Okay, so here's a good example of why I take issue with your thinking. You think Biden is only sending weapons to Israel because he has to in order to accomplish other things, such as sending aid to Ukraine.
I remember we talked about this before, but I can't remember if you agree with Biden (or what you presume Biden's goals are) or not.
To me, sending weapons to Israel (knowing that Israel is likely to kill civilians with them), in order to send aid to Ukraine, requires one to think that it's acceptable to sacrifice Palestinians in order to (help Ukrainians, preserve the balance of power, whatever). And as far as I'm concerned, that just isn't acceptable. If Palestinians chose to sacrifice themselves for some greater good, that would be one thing. But we have no right whatsoever to sacrifice other people against their will for the benefit of any other group, whether it's Ukrainians, or the stability of the whole world. It just isn't for us to do.
We have a responsibility to not kill civilians, to not commit war crimes. It doesn't matter what the consequences are, that fact is absolute. And we have a responsibility not to arm those who are killing civilians and committing war crimes. Because if we knowingly provide the means for violations of human rights, for killing of civilians, there is no justification at all which makes it ethical.
Russia may do terrible things, they may kill civilians, they may bring on nuclear winter, and it still wouldn't be ethical to arm war criminals in order to stop Russia. And the reason for that is that Russia's actions are not our responsibility. When bad people do bad things, it is not our responsibility to stop it. It is not our responsibility to sacrifice ourselves to stop it. And it is definitely not our responsibility to sacrifice other innocent lives in order to stop it. But because we are not evil, we still want to stop it, so we are within our rights to sacrifice ourselves to stop bad things, if we so choose. As individuals, we can choose to sacrifice our time, money, even our lives to stop others from doing evil things. But we are never within our rights to sacrifice other people's lives to stop another entity.
So to me, it doesn't matter if Biden needs money to aid Ukraine, to fund hospitals, to prevent economic collapse, etc. Those would all be terrible tragedies, but they are not causes that justify the killing, or the arming of the killers of Palestinians or anyone else. Because there is no tragedy so great that it is ethical to sacrifice unwilling people for it.
So maybe you think Biden doesn't want to arm Israel, but is doing it for the greater good. And that argument doesn't work for me. It doesn't matter how many people he's benefiting, it's evil to sacrifice people and he must be held accountable for it. And this is also why the idea of integrity or a big heart doesn't fit for me. Arming a military which repeatedly kills civilians, for any reason, no matter how important, does not show integrity. It does not show heart.
And by extension, I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who is willing to sacrifice others for causes I believe are important.
Congress can halt other money that the president is counting on. The president can temporarily halt some shipments, but not forever. Trump ran afoul of this when he tried to fleece Ukraine.
If Biden tried to stop weapons shipments, and the Supreme Court overruled him and forced them through, at the very least it would be the Supreme Court who were complicit in the crimes, not Biden. That would be true integrity and principle. Doing something immoral because it's going to happen anyway is not really justifiable.
I need more information on exactly what you're talking about. Whether it's anti-missile defense, or whether it was early in the conflict, or whether that was in any way connected to Ukraine. It's so difficult to assess this as you've presented it.
It was December, and it was artillery shells and tank rounds
This was after Amnesty International accused Israel of war crimes committed in October, and after reports of Israel targeting civilians.
Permissive airstrikes on non-military targets and the use of an AI system have enabled the Israeli army to carry out its deadliest war on Gaza.
www.972mag.com
Sounds like a law we should be following.
Glad you agree.
The Biden admin and the congressional representatives responsible for any insistence on Israeli aid should be held responsible.
Glad you agree.
She has always been very careful with this statement. It's right to exist and its security, not its right to lay waste to its surroudings. And she has called that out specifically, during her DNC speech and elsewhere. If you're going to continue down this path, I'm not really interested in this conversation. I've pointed out to you that you're inappropriately cutting this sentiment off.
Oh, so when she says one thing it's platitudes that need not be taken seriously, and when she says something else it's to be taken seriously. Cherry picking.
No, you yourself just acknowledged it. You just don't take it seriously and then pretend it wasn't said.
Absurd.
Harris is not Israel. She is not making Israeli military decisions. She is not president. Accept these facts.
She has not been explicit in her plans to end the genocide OR her plans for support. She has not been explicit on Israel, intentionally, and likely she does not know what she can get from them and at what cost... because she is not president.
I fully acknowledge that Harris says things about Israel needing to respect human rights and prevent civilian casualties. She notably doesn't say what the consequences would be if they don't. Because it's not a policy position. But yes, she says it.
For now we may have to agree to disagree on Harris' statement of support. It is intentionally vague, and I guess I understand why you don't take it as a definitive intention of sending weapons. But is that really all we can judge her by? Because I think that sets a bad precedent. You don't have to read into it very far to take it as a continuation of Biden policy. I believe that Harris intends to continue sending weapons to Israel, because I think would be the most consistent with everything she has said and done so far. I can't prove it, because I can't read her mind, but can you admit it's a reasonable suspicion that she would continue sending weapons?
I use that phrase for a reason.
The International court of Justice ordered the US to stop sending weapons to Israel because it found the risk of genocide in Gaza "
plausible"
Is it so wrong for me to withhold my vote because I find it plausible and likely that the candidate will arm a genocide?
It does not make you inherently culpable to give a gun to a serial killer. If you know that they intend to use it to kill someone innocent, it might. The US should not be supplying Israel with weapons in light of their actions, and I support your call for the US to stop doing this. I do not support it over all else. I do not support it over a Trump win. I do not support it over the fall of Ukraine. I'm on your side for your issue. But I think you've inappropriately branded Harris, and you're not not on my side for my issues.
I went over this above, but the key here is that I probably feel the same way about all these issues as you, with the difference being that I'm unwilling to be complicit in one problem in order to prevent the others. I am not responsible for the actions of Trump or Trump voters. I would love to stop them, and I hope they lose, and I cast my vote today knowing it wouldn't have the slightest affect on a Trump win or loss. I am at least somewhat responsible for the actions of someone I vote for, if I had a reasonable suspicion that they would take those actions.
To be clear, I don't think everyone who votes for Harris or who voted for Biden is a war criminal themselves. I think it's ethically dubious, based on my own philosophy, but I also understand the decision because I don't think you or anyone else here actually wants to hurt Palestinians. Of course you don't.
That's why I don't understand the anger towards me for my vote. I've laid out repeatedly why my vote is unlikely to do any harm, and why it was not an easy decision, and how it's based on a desire to not personally be responsible for harm. Not out of a desire to get Trump elected just to screw the Dems.
I think they would kill civilians just fine, or maybe even at greater more reckless pace. And I agree that it's a good idea to stop aiding them. But not at every cost.
See above.
Lots of reasons. It's the clearest way to get your voice heard and your concerns addressed. It puts unrest and issues squarely on the front page. It puts it in the mind of others, and spreads throughout the voter base. Withholding your vote is not nearly as effective as spreading your position to many others.
Again, not withholding my vote.
What is the point of spreading ideas throughout a voter base, if those voters aren't supposed to vote against the Dem candidate, regardless of policy?
Protesting gets your voice heard, sure, but what pressure is there to actually get the concerns addressed if you are committing to voting for a candidate regardless of their positions?
I'll keep in mind that when push came to shove, you tried to shove my country off the cliff.
Because I voted third party in Massachusetts? I'm trying to destroy the country?
By the way the AP has called Massachusetts. Harris is at 63% currently. Guess I failed in my quest to end Democracy....
Because she says it's support for their security and existence only. And she's careful to follow that with saying they do not have support to erase the surrounding region. How does this require explaining.
We just deployed anti missile batteries over there.
I'm fairly disgusted that you couldn't bring yourself to see how important it is that Kamala wins here in the US. Not just for Israelis and Palestinians, but for many other countries and this one. Trump is a way bigger threat than Israel, even to Palestinians.
Again, I want Kamala to win. I want Trump to lose. I'm watching the results come in hoping desperately that Harris wins. My vote has absolutely nothing to do with that.
So do you think Donald Trump is better for Palestinians than Kamala Harris? Because that would be...remarkable.
No, as I've said before, I don't.
I correctly predicted that Massachusetts would easily go to Harris, so I used my vote to do something other than turn her 34.1% lead into a 34.1000001% lead, or whatever it ends up being.
