this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
321 points (81.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43937 readers
370 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In so far as it being a reflection of his intentions when otherwise entirely plausible? Yeah, sure. This isn't him drawing on a hurricane map with a pen.
Fifty thousand dead Palestinians is fifty thousand too many - or however many the real number is by now - but there are two million Palestinians in Gaza, and three million in the West Bank. Despite how bad it already is, this can still get so, so much worse.
Your claim to not choose genocide is, in fact, a choice to let the rest of the country decide without your input. If Harris' lukewarm opposition saves literally any Palestinian lives whatsoever relative to the alternative, that's worth more than someone feeling smug about not voting. I don't know about you, but I think that the most ethical choice, if you are voting solely on the matter of Palestine, is whichever option is materially best for actual Palestinians even if that option is still horrible
Are you suggesting it is not reasonable to judge a politician based on the things they say?
But don't worry, because I'm also judging him on his actions when he was president last time. Like pardoning American war criminals, massively increasing the amount of drone strikes conducted, assassinating an Iranian general, recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, attempting to extort Ukraine for his own political gains, and actively backing the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen. And as a reminder, even the Biden administration dropped support for that last one. He's as belligerent as any American president and no hypotheticals are needed to demonstrate that. So when he says he wants Israel to do more in Gaza? Yeah I consider that a genuine and meaningful threat to the millions of Palestinians that haven't been killed yet, and I will absolutely take Harris' nothing response over that.
So on what basis do you think that Trump is the preferable option?
50k is not a true figure, it's confirmed deaths. most are stuck in rubble and israel destroys all of their heavy machinery they have no way to dig up the bodies. and no, Harris nor Biden are holding Israel back. what a joke. I hope you're a paid poster and not a real person because that's a real dumb opinion. I don't care if you read it in MSM and for some reason believe it. It was such a blatant attempt at damage control. If you're a real person I recommend you get your news from sources such as the grayzone, mintpressnews, mondoweiss, the electronic intifada, etc
I know 50k is the confirmed number, that's why I specifically made an aside about the real number
I'm not even saying Biden or Harris are holding Israel back. I'm saying Trump has openly stated that he wants to push Israel even further than it is already going.
Considering you apparently didn't read what I actually wrote and instead chose to insult me over something you made up, I'm hardly about to take your news recommendations. I'm even less inclined to do so when the first one is the Grayzone.
Hi i am a different person and just read thru your convo there. I wanna chime in and ask you a genuine question that hopefully you will think over.
If right now as we speak Israel is being given unlimited material support for their genocide and actively killing as many Palestinians as they materially can (They only have so much bomb dropping capacity) No matter what Trump might say in what way do you think he would make it worse? Like what actual material steps would he take to kill more Palestinians? Because short of just nuking the Gaza strip over and over again(They wont do this since they want to take the land and Israel is too close anyway would be radiation issues) i struggle to see how he could. Especially considering the articles coming out recently about how the US is running out of surplus equipment to send Ukraine and Israel.
I think that despite the appalling amount of equipment already being sent to Israel, a country with the resources of America can absolutely send a fucktonne more if it chooses to. Or it could start actively bombing in its own right, like it did in Yemen.
Also if they start bombing on their own (maybe they already do we dont know. They do lie about these things) What does it really change? Different flag on the plane? Israelis use American equipment anyway and the pilots are probably American anyway since its an American Colony.
It changes, yes, because it would be America and Israel doing it. I don't think "more bombs falling on Gaza than before is worse" should be a complicated stance
How is it more? Where are these more bombs coming from? The Pentagon already admits they are using too many and cant keep up.
Apart from the ability to increase production, I did literally just answer this in our other chat
But the goal is already kill every palestinian and they are 100% behind that goal, and sending so many bombs that the defense department is expressing concerns about it effecting US readiness for other conflicts. So materially they are already approaching their limit to how many Palestinians they can kill in a given time frame. And even if they werent you cant really kill more than 100% of the Palestinians anyway.
Plus you could argue that it being a democrat doing it makes it easier for them to pull this off. Trump would be a lot less effective at international diplomacy in general and a big part of what America is doing for Israel is stopping other nations from intervening.
It only results in 100% of the Palestinians dying on the assumption that there is enough time to do that. The longer it takes them, the more Palestinians are still alive if and when it is stopped.
Trump wants to stop supporting Ukraine. That frees up a huge amount of resources that could be sent to Israel without changing the total balance compared to today at all.
America doesn't stop other countries from intervening by deft diplomacy, it does it by military power. Trump is perfectly capable (and fond) of threatening countries with the American military.
So trying to break this down. All ive heard from you so far thats materially possible is, Trump may divert Ukraine aid to Israel instead. But thats already happening. Thats why Ukraine has been freaking out lately and why aid to Ukraine is steadily decreasing. Its being diverted to Israel instead. Trump may say it out loud but Biden is already doing it.
I'm quite comfortable saying that the ~$4 billion a month that the US sent to Ukraine in this summer would be enough to be meaningfully harmful if redirected towards Israel
If your theory that America is currently bombing Palestine in secret is wrong, then it can actually start. The navy parked offshore can start doing bombardments, they're not doing a lot right now. America can decide to substantially increase military spending to increase production for Israel; as a proportion of GDP, spending hasn't changed significantly despite the war in Ukraine and what Israel is doing. Fuck it, maybe it's boots on the ground. Wouldn't exactly be the first American adventure in western Asia. I do not for a second think that America's ability to blow people up is currently stretched to breaking point.
This isnt about being stretched to a breaking point. America has an empire to maintain. It cant do more than it already is in Gaza without putting its empire at risk. Thats what the internal reports show. Yes America could move all kinda of resources to bear but if it does so then it leaves itself defencless elswhere. This is just a material reality. Carrier strike groups if engaged in the genocide would need to return to port for refit more frequently and would require more to be dedicated to the region for example.
So no matter what rhetoric Trump might use if he wins and gets in he cant just magically create more aircraft carriers. or more planes, or more bombs. He can divert resources but it isnt gonna do anything but amount to a strategic blunder by the global US Empire. And allow other nations to breathe more freely and perhaps even step in to help Palestine. If the ships monitoring Iran go try to bomb Palestine Iran can turn around and put more pressure on Israel for example.
The current American stance is the most effective genocide machine they could come up with while not risking their empire crumbling. Its already in 100% genocide mode.
You don't think a Trump administration would ditch America's position in Europe if that was what was needed to do what he wanted to do? In light of how he acted throughout 2016-2020?
We've already seen in the Red Sea that America is quite capable of using its naval and aerial assets without shifting the budget. They aren't magically crushing the Houthis because yeah, of course bombarding people from offshore doesn't make them want to fight you less, but I sure as fuck don't want to see what America is doing to Yemen also done to Palestine on top of what's already being done to it. Especially since Palestine is far denser with civilians.
And, of course, they absolutely could just spend more. That would not be even slightly unprecedented. The budget is currently close to the smallest as a percentage of GDP that it has been since before 2001.
Spending more doesnt create more resources magically. Money only goes so far. Also this isnt just about Europe its not even mainly about europe. Its mostly in relation to the pacific. The US is gearing up to fight China it cant afford to divert resources. Doesnt really matter what Trump wants to do. The reality is that theyre already doing everything they can afford to. Trumps just a dumbass more than likely he would fuck it up and end up helping Gaza accidentally lol.
Alright, look, I appreciate the back and forth but I don't think we're going to get anywhere here. We do both, at the very least, agree that minimising Palestinian deaths is the goal. I'm not persuaded by your analysis of much of this, and you're not persuaded by mine. Hopefully things go the way that whichever one of us is right wants
America absolutely has the capacity to supply far more equipment than it already is, and it has a track record of engaging in bombing campaigns in its own right in similar situations. Like in Yemen, under Trump. I do not want America to start bombing Palestine directly as well
If they get to finish the job. The less quickly they can finish it, the more of a chance there is of Israeli and/or international public support turning against it enough to actually change it. The American election is not going to do that by itself because both realistic candidates are pro-Israel, so there is no point in making decisions that only work if they completely stop the genocide by voting or not voting.
You clearly also think that there is a chance of it being stopped since that's your foundation for saying faster genocide is preferable. I don't think your logic holds there, because I don't see why a faster one would be likely to fail faster. On that basis, slower means fewer dead Palestinians.
Literally every point I made was explicitly rooted in what I believe will result in the fewest Palestinian deaths.
I accused them of not reading because they started off by trying to nitpick me by restating the exact same thing I pointed out literally in the same sentence.