this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
495 points (86.0% liked)
Political Memes
5287 readers
5 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You don't need to, I already understand the US's interest in Israel. The problem is that none of the interests the US has in the ME are worth enabling a genocide against a colonized people, and I suspect that is exactly why nobody actually wants to spend the effort explaining it in defense of the US's diplomatic stance toward Israel. When it comes to international conflict and hostile action around the world, the democrats are just as bad or worse than their republican counterparts, and having that highlighted by making a case for keeping diplomatic ties with a nation conducting a genocide would make that abundantly clear.
That region is hostile toward the US and western alliance for very valid reasons.
Israel benefits greatly from US support and defense, so much so that any replacement wouldn't be the same (especially when both Russia and China are involved in other conflicts already). I don't think this line of reasoning is particularly convincing. But even then, there are also sanctions and the ICC to put pressure to put an end to the genocide, it isn't limited to defense aid.
Worse, he openly denies it's even happening even though he knows full well Israel has been conducting war crimes in Gaza. I don't think it's bad faith to accuse him of endorsement when he continues defending Israel when he knows full well they've been breaking international law (as well as butchering palestinian children), but I'll admit he hasn't said those words out loud.
You're not seriously suggesting that modern Republicans are going to handle this situation better? Aside from the very obvious point that they stated their intent about Israel just finishing them off, the only perspective that Republicans are better at foreign relations at all is from that of an isolationist, which is not what we are.
I didn't say we aren't at fault for that hostility, I meant to express that the middle east is hostile in general, to each other, particularly to Israel and especially to western nations.
It doesn't have to be the same to build relationships that would effectively seek to cut the US from the process altogether. Otherwise the US would have much more influence over situations like this and a magic stop button might actually exist.
This is simply not true and a manipulative way of framing the diplomacy that goes into maintaining relationships between nations. It's completely dishonest to decide that Biden is pro genocide because he won't say the word genocide. It took 7 years for the US to officially recognize the Chinese genocide, and they are our enemies. It took a year and a half for the US to file war crime charges against Russia, and we sent Ukraine several billion in aid during that period. And those are just recent examples. Genocides typically take decades to be recognized by the US regardless of what the relationship is between the countries.
The hard truth is that it's completely irrational to throw away any influence the US might have and burn those bridges for the singular purpose of a actioning a label that has no tangible effect by itself. It's essentially virtue signaling on a national level.
I think personally that Israel shouldn't see a red cent from the US until they at least cease hostility and come to the negotiation table, and demanding that probably won't be a deal breaker for our alliance. But I also don't have several decades of experience dealing with this exact conflict from the perspective of the US.
Basing your entire political opinion on a conceptual label that historically doesn't happen quickly is rash at the very least, and damaging on a national level when you consider what the alternative is.
Conservative voters don't care about this shit show. They will turn out to vote no matter what, and they will vote for war mongers that also actively want to degrade society in the US, and absolutely won't be recognizing the Palestinian genocide.
I'm saying the US has committed atrocities under both parties, and that by some metrics, democratic administrations have engaged in more brutal bombing campaigns than republican led administrations - important to remember Truman was the one who dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Republicans are certainly louder and more blusterous about it, but for any American that is ashamed of our history of violence and subterfuge abroad, they can take no more comfort from democratic leadership than republicans. (I would be wise to point out that is not any kind of endorsement). It isn't just the current conflict in Gaza or Ukraine. Frankly, to their credit, least republicans are transparent about their chauvinism. I could hardly say the same about Biden.
If Americans believe themselves to be arbitors of justice and democracy abroad, then allowing and materially supporting one of the most significant atrocities against Palestinians since the Nakba is a damning counterfactual to that image. If we don't maintain foreign relationships to prevent atrocities like the one we are now participating in (naive to ever think that is the case), then at some point you have to think there is some other morally-abhorrent (or at least morally-unconcerned) interest that should be re-evaluated anyway.
If we align ourselves with nations that brazenly commit genocide without fear of repurcussion, then what does that say about the US?
"Every man is like the company he is wont to keep." - Euripides
You shouldn't be so comfortable with that assumption of innocence.
All the more reason to be screaming at Democrats that they risk losing support if they maintain their diplomatic stances. They've grown too complacent in their support from leftists, and the chickens finally seem to be coming home to roost.
Does it make sense to lower the bar for republicans simply because they are honest about their brutality?
And if we sit out we lose the ability to influence the situation at all to parties who are comfortable just outright killing off entire peoples. Sticking our nose in the air and saying "We won't be part of it" is not the solution you might think it is.
I'm not making an assumption of innocence, I'm acknowledging that without experience my take on the subject should be considered that of a layman, just like any take that isn't born out of a complete picture of the situation. On the contrary to your accusation of a simplistic view that the US has pure intentions, what I'm saying is that short of a degree or several years experience dealing with this conflict first hand, any conclusions a person might jump to about this situation in the first place are going to be simple and incomplete.
I'm not insinuating we should trust the government to handle it in a way that doesn't perpetuate genocide, because they clearly aren't doing that. I'm just pointing out that the public zeitgeist on this conflict is based on knee jerk reactions to complex political moves.
The prime example of that being leftists angry at Biden for not pressing a "stop genocide button" that functionally doesn't exist.
I'm with you on that, but there doesn't seem to be an easy way out that doesn't rely on the democratic platform just magically changing. Is it worth handing over our democracy to a party that might well destroy it just to teach the other party a lesson?
No, but it doesn't increase the material harm they inflict, either.
Are we simply choosing which genocides we're comfortable with according to what material benefits we gain or lose from them? The US doesn't deserve that influence if that's true. I'm of the opinion that the US weilds outsized influence already, and the world would stand to benefit from a bit more multi-polarity.
There's nothing magic about changing any political platform, and it's certainly not about voting it into reality. It takes years of effort and organizing, and at times it requires a willingness to cause discomfort to those who gatekeep progress. I'm not telling anyone to abstain from voting, but Biden should know that's a distinct possibility should he stay on his current course. We'll continue pushing for BDS in the meantime, and hopefully Biden makes a choice so that it doesn't come down to who's taking office come January.
Well yes. That's because the method of decreasing the material harm done by republicans is to make sure they don't come to power in the first place. I understand that we have to hold democrats to a higher standard for that reason, but threatening them with putting republicans back in the driver's seat is creating more harm. It's not a great solution when the goal is ultimately less harm.
Are you suggesting that we as a nation are simply comfortable with genocide? Because enough of us aren't that there are protests and falling approval of democrats in general. The government also clearly isn't comfortable with the ridiculous position it puts them in of aiding both the genocidal nation and the people being killed. The US is trying to stop this without pulling rank and pissing Israel off. They're going so far as to halt shipments of ammunition as of yesterday. I don't think it's fair to say that the US is just doing nothing.
None of us are comfortable with genocide. But it also doesn't take a political savant to understand that just flipping the table and walking away isn't going to solve anything. The problem doesn't go away if we decide not to fund Israel. They will get the funding elsewhere from countries that want the US's seat at the table, and the only net change is that we lose that seat.
Where as it stands, there's a significant chance pressure from the US is going to put a stop to this conflict at some point.
The big question is how do you pressure a platform to change without threatening the level of destruction to our democracy that the other party advertises daily? And without the threat of losing the election, what reason does the democratic platform have to change?
The concept that we are demanding change and threatening the stability of our democracy to achieve that change seems counterintuitive considering that the change will come in the form of actual fascism, not democratic reform.
Hopefully. I think the dissonance that the "vote blue no matter who" people have is that the white house going red is too steep a price, and maybe not something we can recover from. Last time it happened we functionally lost our Supreme Court for the next several decades. Is teaching the democrats this lesson worth the profound structural degredation of the system?
That's not what anyone is suggesting. Stop covering from them at the UN and ICC, sanction officials and settlers in the west bank, implement BDS, publicly condemn their war crimes instead of deflecting and casting doubt on reporting. Nobody is suggesting we flip the table. It isn't just the US's support they risk losing, if the US starts putting pressure the other OECD nations will follow.
Yup.... so what's the disagreement again?
I don't think you do. There's a reason Marxists discuss revolutionary theory: some systems of power are so entrenched that it takes the threat of revolutionary violence to change them. For what it's worth, I don't think this particular issue requires revolutionary violence, but the longer democrats resist taking action the more apparent it becomes that more leverage is needed.
You might have missed the connection. Putting too much pressure on Israel is just going to see Israel cut ties and go elsewhere. If OECD countries begin threatening support, hostile nations will begin shopping to replace them.
It isn't just a function of whether the US decides to exit this conflict. By picking a fight with Israel, there is a distinct possibility that the US gets forcibly removed and replaced. Hence why making a bold and alienating move like condemnation is akin to flipping the table. It's like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Too much pressure is not something that is going to stabilize the situation. Again, that's why a magical stop button doesn't functionally exist. The right amount of pressure will make progress, and is currently doing that.
The problem isn't that the system needs to be replaced, because we've been due for that since Reagan. The problem is that the current active climate of "violent revolutionaries" are right wing fascists, not leftists. If this system topples, it won't be in favor of a better system. In fact, it's so baked into our political climate at this point that Republicans are campaigning on ruining the electoral process so they can sieze power.
The scales of who is willing to take power by force have been tipping to the right pretty hard lately. The thing that's stopping that from becoming reality is the very pretense of the system we are postulating the need to threaten to overthrow.
You don't see how that might be an issue?
I'm not advocating overthrowing the system, I'm pushing for a single change in international policy. I'm not an accelerationist, I don't want violent revolution to happen. All i'm pushing for at the moment is that democrats recognize the landscape has shifted underneath them and react to it, and there's certainly time left to do that.
This claim bothers me, because if it's true and the democrats know this, then they need to be taking more action against it than just running it as a campaign message. If i'm being honest; I think right-ring extremists are too larpy to be effective revolutionaries anyway. They're far more effective as brownshirt-type paramilitaries, aligned with the state and not against it. So creedance to the threat of republicans taking power again (to an extent), but they're already out and in force now against anti-war protestors, and the dems seem all too happy letting them run out in front of the police when it's convenient. I think liberals tend to miss-identify the threat of fascism within their own party, and I think it's definitely present now.
The two silver linings i see right now are:
While I don't know what happens come november, I know that we will be the most organized we've ever been for whatever comes after.
That's not quite what I'm getting at either. It's the threat of bringing dems out of power that, if we successfully carry through, has a real chance at degrading our democracy. Just like it did last time republicans took power.
But the threat of Republicans taking power is necessary to spur change from democrats. If we vote blue no matter what every single time, there won't be a platform change because democrats will do what they've been doing for the last two decades and assume the fear of Republicans is enough to get them elected.
So how do we spur democrats to change without giving republicans an open door to waltz in?
Democrats have lost their teeth. They won't actually do something about it because they're afraid of that Republicans will use whatever is done for retaliation, which they will.
As an aside, I live in Louisiana where the governor's seat turned red for the first time in 8 years. The blue governor was a good temper against the crazier laws our supermajority red congress tried passing.
Now that there's no obstacle, our red congress is revenge passing everything they can to take marginalized groups' rights away and now they're talking about rewriting the state constitution to allow for even more restrictive laws.
And they're doing it to spite democrats who've stopped them for almost a decade.
All this to say that democrats don't do enough where it matters because they have to keep a base happy that actually judges them on their actions. Republicans' conservative base eats up rage bait and cheers for suffering, so they always have the upper hand in that arena.
Oh absolutely. I mean, democrats are responding to nationwide protests by making it a form of hate speech. We're there.
I hope you're right about young people being willing to organize despite the system, because it's gonna be rough if the worst happens in November.
On the side, thanks for actually engaging me and discussing my thoughts. You could have been an asshole, and I just want to say I appreciate that you weren't.
It's a nice break away from the never ending trolling I seem to encounter. So thank you.
Same to you. Everytime I make a comment on .world I go in with my hair raised, this has been a nice change of pace.
I hope things turn out for the best.