As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.
I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.
Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.
Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.
The USA has several legally binding treaties etc promising military cooperation with Israel. Harris isn’t allowed to break them legally. Any change to this would have to be passed by the house and senate. So it genuinely doesn’t matter what Harris or anyone else wants.
This is already missing the point that if Harris is not elected, Palestine will be gone. Hell, everyone everywhere in the world will suffer under Trump
Yeah usa is also not supposed to ship weapons to war criminals. Guess which principle wins out though?
https://www.propublica.org/article/gaza-palestine-israel-blocked-humanitarian-aid-blinken
The definition of genocide is actually extremely strict. Carpet bombing entire cities doesn’t actually count. It has to be a concerted effort to eradicate a people group or culture. Because the IDF has a stated objective of “getting rid of Hamas” and not “murdering all Palestinians” it’s impossible to prove the intent of their actions. If they were, for example stealing Palestinian babies and adopting them out to Israeli parents, ore forcing Palestinians to get Israeli passports, or forcing them to convert to Judaism at gunpoint, or sending people to reeducation camps, that would be a clear case of genocide. But extremely high civilian casualties genuinely doesn’t count no matter how brutal it is.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide
A short list of official allegations of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians (Google):
South Africa’s genocide case against Israel
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to prevent the destruction of evidence and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Israel’s use of the “Hannibal Directive”
Israel has been accused of using its “Hannibal Directive” policy, which allows for the killing of Israeli soldiers and civilians to prevent them from being taken alive as prisoners of war. This policy has been criticized as a form of genocide.
UN reports
UN experts have reported “grave violations” committed by Israeli forces against Palestinians in Gaza, including “genocidal incitement” and the use of “powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts.” They have also cited evidence of Israel’s intent to “destroy the Palestinian people under occupation.”
Special Rapporteur’s findings
The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, has found “reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. She cited evidence of Israel’s intent to destroy the Palestinian group, including causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and preventing births within the group.
Amnesty International’s research
Amnesty International has gathered evidence of unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, resulting in mass civilian casualties. The organization has criticized Israel’s failure to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, leading to indiscriminate attacks that are war crimes.
Other reports and allegations
Various independent reports and allegations have been made about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, including forced transfers, torture, and the destruction of infrastructure. Some have characterized Israel’s actions as genocide, while others have criticized the use of the term without sufficient evidence.
USAID already reported Israel is using hunger as a weapon. Which very much qualifies.
It qualifies as a war crime but not as genocide. But again their involvement is largely preventing aid shipments from entering Gaza. They are, legally speaking allowed to close any port of entry or exit from their country. There are people starving in Russia and Norway has closed the border. Is Norway committing a war crime? Also if that’s the case then why are people not jumping on Egypt? There’s a border crossing to Egypt as well. Is Egypt committing genocide?
Just to be clear, I don’t support either side in this conflict. And I do think the IDF are probably committing war crimes. But I don’t think that it can be proven especially seeing as the official government statistics coming out of gaza are provided by a group that is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation.
Okay… if its a war crime and not a genocide, that still qualifies as a way to stop sending weapons.
Huh wonder if maybe Palestine should be legally recognized as a country to prevent this? Oh well, nothing we can do, since the politicians in power don’t want to do that.
Every organization operating out of Gaza would get called a terrorist organization by Isreal. It is almost as if America is being intentionally obtuse to allow Isreal to carry out a genocide.
Ding! Ding! Here is the correct answer.
I’m beginning to think that liberals and lefties have no clue how government works and they want a strongman/dictator as much as the magahat idiots. They just want one that aligns with their beliefs instead.
The POTUS is NOT all powerful and can make what ever decisions they want. Controlling the house and senate is far more important than whoever is living in the White House. The House and Senate writes the laws and checks to pay for everything. AND they ratify the treaties making them formally binding.
If you want to stop the genocide, elect the people in the house and senate that will effect the actions needed to make it happen.
Waiting several election cycles to end a genocide is insane and there is no world in which that is the moral, ethical, or logical path forward. Hope this helps!
But it IS the process to get it done. I never said it was ideal. If you don’t like the process, then vote for those that WILL change the process. But that takes time. Until then, we ARE stuck with the laws we currently have in place. That is the reality of the situation. I hope this helps you understand representative democracy vs a dictatorship.
You know you can communicate with your current senator and representative right? Representative is literally their name, they represent you, if enough people apply pressure to the point they think their job is at risk, they will often magically have a “change of heart”.
Are you 8 years old?
I’ve actually worked in politics, the amount of people that find it easier to give up because the system is deeply flawed instead of actually doing the hard work of change is astounding. If you want things to change, you have to make your voice heard on something more than lemmy. Representatives nearly all want to keep their jobs. If you show them your motivated enough to contact them, it shows them it’s important enough to you to sway your future vote. I’ve talked to many representatives in my life, at least on the left they generally see their job as representing constituent interests. If enough pressure is applied, they will often change their vote/introduce legislation, etc.
But they are not on lemmy getting the political temperature from keyboard warriors with more snark than braincells.
The thing that keeps their job more than voters is donors. Hope this helps!
They aren’t mutually exclusive and both involve the same thing. The only reason money matters is because it is used to sway voters, people showing they are not swayed by the propaganda invalidates the money.
Are you familiar with the term lobbying and how it shares a bedroom wall with bribery? Individual votes usually matter little to none in the grand scheme of things, and there’s next to no evidence that politicians above the local level give a shit about individuals throughout a huge swathe of the US. Governatorial election promises in the southeastern US are almost universally lies about quality of life improvements, from healthcare changes in florida benefitting no one to roadwork that never happens being promised every election cycle in alabama and mississippi. There is a HUGE disconnect between representatives and their constituents in these states, and they’re not the only ones.
Realistically, that money is not being used effectively to sway anyone, especially when little is actually used for propaganda, and weak vectors are chosen. Many campaigns are still running on outmoded methods of contact, like outdated lists of people for cold mailing, text messages that wind up in your spam filter, and shock value ads that only serve to annoy and change VERY few minds about anything.
You have a very optimistic outlook on how any politician views a letter or email from a constituent. Within my whole lifetime, I cannot name ONE politician in the US that has changed course over constituent contact. Not for any single thing. That’s why someone asked if you were eight years old earlier; most people from 25-40 years of age have, at this point, accepted that the current system does not operate in the way that we were taught in school. Instead, we have this broken system where the cries of the masses enter the void, and MAYBE ONE “representative” echoes them to a person or place where change can begin. The ones that do are decried so unbelievably fast it makes your head spin, and the ones that retain office while doing so are treated like crazy extremists by any media that could inform people of their goals, so there’s no hope of popular/uninformed support.