Oh sure. The whole country is going to be voting based on the Israel/Palestine conflict. That's something every American really has a handle on (eyeroll)

How can you call a group that constitutes just 30 delegates at the DNC out of the available 4,000 and only two of the state’s 111 delegates “the base” of the Democratic Party?

"Gaza Isn’t Driving Votes."

(https://www.thestranger.com/elections-2024/2024/08/07/79637812/seven-takeaways-from-washingtons-2024-august-primary)

Ethnic cleansing is a violation of international law as it is the most heinous crime against humanity.

The United States using hundreds of BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars to arm and fund Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine violates not only United States law, but also international law.

Do you know the one and only president of the United States publicly recognized Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine? President Jimmy Carter.

Democrats are willfully, joyfully, purposefully paying for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine with hundreds of billions of American taxpayer dollars.

Democrats are willfully, joyfully, purposefully paying for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and will continue to do so as they have for decades.

The United States, founded on genocide and all of its wealth built on the enslavement of people stolen from another continent, has absolutely no problem willfully, joyfully, purposefully paying for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Anyone against this ethnic cleansing is on the right side of history and the right side of humanity.

Everyone supporting the continued willful, joyful, purposeful aiding, abetting, arming and funding of this ethnic cleansing is pure fucking evil.

This country deserves everything it gets for its willful, joyful, purposeful depraved indifference to all life.

Humanity deserves everything it gets for its willful, joyful, purposeful depraved indifference to all life, including its own.

Humanity does not deserve to survive and it shouldn't be allowed to cleanse the earth of whatever group it chooses, until the last ones standing are the last to go.

@4 - it’s so shocking that such eloquent rhetoric hasn’t brought about any changes in US foreign policy.

Have you considered blocking a freeway, or occupying a college campus? Maybe that will change their minds…

@5 nothing will change. humanity will eventually cease to exist. the universe will rejoice.

until that happens, guess you just have to hope you're not in any group the rest of humanity is willing to cleanse off the face of the earth. that's the point, right? no one who isn't in the group of human beings being erased off the face of the earth is expected to shrug their shoulders and do nothing.

"listen to your base" = "listen to me me me."

“The United States, founded on genocide and all of its wealth built on the enslavement of people stolen from another continent, has absolutely no problem willfully, joyfully, purposefully paying for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.”

Not to wreck your awesome rant there but you should Google the Trans Saharan slave trade.

re:
Votes

"If Democrats
want to save our
Democracy from Trump,
as they’ve said, MacBale suggests
Harris take up these popular positions."

what
you mean
they gotta Earn 'em?!

but that's just
Backwards!
we OWE
them
our

Votes!
they're
our Leaders!
THEY Decide
We Concur! it's
Easiest, that way.

for
Them.

udder
nonsense.
END the Madness: de-
Fund bibi & off to The War
Crimes Tribunals with bibi el nutnyahoo

@xina ~ humanity
isn't smart enough
to rule this rock ~ I 'spose
we're gonna Hafta give it Back:

the reptilain brainstem
has proven to be too
Much for our mere
"Humanity" to
fucking Deal
with. C'est
la Vie.

so much Promise!
Too much
Toxicity.

"nothing will change. humanity will eventually cease to exist. the universe will rejoice."

xina dear, I would think that you of all people would know that the universe is a cold, uncaring place that doesn't give one care about the fate of some dumb planet.

But by all means, enjoy the luxury of being in your little entitled world of purity, while rational people vote for the most rational candidate out there. Who knows? Your fantasy of being in the second act of "Cabaret" may yet come true!

But the reality of that is much different than what John Kander came up with.

How many blue states would an arms embargo put back in play for the GOP? Serious question.

I hope these people realize what will happen to the people in Gaza if Trump gets in office. Probably some of them do.

US federal law requires the United States to supply military aid to Israel. The President can't simply decide to terminate all military aid to Israel, just because a few protestors don't want Israel to have it.

What's the point of complaining that Trump would become a dictator who breaks the law with impunity, only to demand a President Harris break our laws with impunity?

I love how the new Noisy Creek Hannah is a responsible journalist who says things like: "who some activists refer to as 'Genocide Joe.'"

As opposed to March 2024 Hannah: "Obviously, Genocide Joe and the flop insurrectionist won their respective primaries"

https://www.thestranger.com/slog-am/2024/03/14/79427222/slog-am-nonbinary-teen-nex-benedicts-death-ruled-a-suicide-bernie-sanders-introduces-four-day-work-week-bill-and-frank-chopp-will-not-seek

"Genocide cannot be the lesser of two evils" — You feel free to keep claiming that our governemnt is responsible for genocide (a stance I disagree with), but Trump has promised to create LITERAL concentration camps inside the United States if he's reelected. So, make your choice accordingly.

@Catalina, it's times like now I wish you could hold poor Xina's hand and just say, repeatedly, "There, there, dear."

Also, I set a new personal best time for scrolling past a Kristofarian post. Who knew my later years would prove so dexterous?

Palestinians are not the democratic base, regardless of what a handful of protesters might say.

Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
Malcolm X

I see Catalina’s slide to turn into Raindrip continues unabated.

Just as Kamala Harris and the Dems aren't pulling their punches against the GQP anymore, they aren't pulling punches against the radicals in their own party either. Harris made it quite clear the other day: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/o1n7QBi53Zs

Note to the I/P protesters: Just because someone doesn't do exactly as you want doesn't mean you haven't been heard. Your opinion was noted, and rejected. No is a complete sentence.

Misanthrope dear, just because I say things that hurt your feelings, there's no need to be nasty.

“Harris must earn their votes.”

Ok, how’s this?

Barring unforeseen circumstances, either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will be the next elected President of the United States. Trump has expressed support for sending the US military into Gaza, in support of the IDF.

Either show my facts are wrong, or my logic is wrong, or describe how a President Trump would be not-worse than a President Harris on the issues of Gaza/Palestine.

Good luck with that.

@22, translated:

oh, so You Want "More"?
You'll get NOTHING
and Fucking
LIKE IT.'

--Judge Smalls, 'Caddyshack.'
Just another fucking
fascist & no doubt
a Hero to some

OUR Politicians're
here to Represent
their Constituents
if a few Milions of
Us'd prefer NOT
Genociding a
Captive pop-
ulation it's
their Duty
to Listen

and maybe
END the
fucking
War.

yes
wormmy
once Again
your 'logic' is
Bulletproof. Gazans, how-
ever are definitely fucking NOT.

END THE MADNESS.
before bibi takes
this Planet down
along with him.

Everyone’s vote must be earned in some capacity or another. I’m not convinced Harris needs their votes to win but there is nothing wrong with people making their demands known. If you don’t see any daylight between your only 2 options on the only issue you care about, not voting is also an option and they are probably prepared to do that.

Our electoral system is so poorly designed that people already feel like their vote doesn’t matter anyway. It’s not one person/one vote in a system where every state is winner takes all, so people living in comfortably blue states (or red states for that matter) know their vote doesn’t count. There are only a handful of states where your vote can impact the outcome, so protest is the only way they get to have their voices heard.

@22: Once again: either show my facts are wrong, or my logic is wrong, or describe how a President Trump would be not-worse than a President Harris on the issues of Gaza/Palestine.

@24: "....there is nothing wrong with people making their demands known."

At what point in the past ten months has the Pro-Palestinian side had trouble "making their demands known"? As @20 noted, "No is a compete sentence." Even after getting thoroughly rejected, they keep escalating their demands. The rest of us are free to criticize them, for their showing such unyielding fanaticism.

"If you don’t see any daylight between your only 2 options on the only issue you care about, not voting is also an option and they are probably prepared to do that."

If they honestly cannot see any difference between Trump and Harris, not even on the one single issue they won't stop screaming about, then yes, having them not vote is the best option. For all of us.

As long as their demands are not being met they are free to keep making them. Protest is a great American tradition and it is just as vital to our democracy as voting itself, arguably more so if you live anywhere but the few states whose votes determine the election.

It’s fine if you don’t agree with them because you get to express yourself too but you are clearly not the intended audience and you are free to tune them out just like everyone else. Or you can keep complaining about it I guess, I honestly don’t care. But it’s weird to pretend you don’t understand what they’re doing when you live in a country with a rich and storied history of political protest. Our history books are full of this kind of stuff.

tensora--

As usual, you completely misunderstand popular movements and their impact.

During the Vietnam conflict, the Democratic AND Republican leaders were in favor of continuing the slaughter, even after it was obvious to everyone with brain cells that it was a war of national liberation, and a population that was never going to give up. (Tet offensive, 1968). And it certainly would have continued if it were up to those leaders.

But the popular resistance at home, from the grass roots, just kept getting greater and greater. Even though US forces remained until nearly four years later, the domestic pressure was just too much.

The same will be necessary now. Either Harris wins and she must be pressured to end the unqualified support of Israel, or Trump wins and he must be forced to do the same. Neither are going to do so out of the goodness of their hearts.

@27

or Trump wins and he must be forced to do the same

I'm sorry what? Cult leaders cannot be forced to do anything. They can occasionally be bribed but you cannot afford that. If Trump wins he will allow Israel to do literally anything up to and including carpet bombing the entire of Gaza. I don't think they would but there would also be nothing whatsoever to stop them on the American side.

Those protesting are protesting for genocide in Gaza. Narcissistic bunch of useful idiots the lot of them.

@26: Since you didn't address any of my points, I can't really give you a response. I never claimed the Pro-Palestinian protestors didn't have the right to keep on making demands, and even escalating them. I was merely pointing out the futility of their continuing to do so, and how it could possibly have negative consequences, e.g. that eventually no one will listen to them anymore.

And everyone else has the right to tell them that as well. Their right to speak does not, in any way, inhibit anyone else from speaking.

@27: Even if everything you wrote about the Viet Nam protests in America was true -- and I would dispute most of it -- the situations are not even similar. Back then, the American government hadn't been honest with the voters from the start, young Americans were dying there for no reason, and as you noted (but for different reasons) the war was never going to be "won," no matter how successive administrations defined winning. The expense of American blood and treasure was not going to be worth it, and even Robert McNamara eventually came to that conclusion. The Vietnamese in no way threatened America or American interests, nor did they even want to. They wanted us to stop interfering in their country, and eventually, we did -- to the benefit of both countries.

By contrast, Israel is a democracy and an ally, under attack by jihadi terrorists with an appetite for rape. Hamas' decision to use the bodies of civilians in Gaza as human shields (a per se violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and therefore war crime writ large) has caused almost all of the casualties in Gaza, and we know from the WJS's story on now-leader Sinwar that a high civilian body count in Gaza is part of Hamas' strategy. Hamas is funded by the women-beating regime of Iran, a country dedicated to Israel's destruction.

Furthermore, the Pro-Palestinian protestors have been clear from the start that they do not want peace, they want Israel wiped from the map: '...The protesters made their demands clear in their rallying chants: ... “There is only one solution, intifada revolution,” and, “We don’t want two states, we want 1948,”...' (https://www.thestranger.com/news/2023/10/16/79212000/as-a-ground-invasion-looms-thousands-in-seattle-protest-for-a-free-palestine) It's very hard to see how acceding to their demands will in any way help the United States, and so your analogy is misplaced.

@28: Spot on.

I’m not a single issue voter so you don’t need to explain anything to me but expressing your concerns to the only party that might be willing to hear them is a perfectly rational thing to do. Again we live in a country where your presidential vote only matters in like a half-dozen states and we only have 2 practical options in any election so people already feel disenfranchised.

Protesting is a natural reaction to this shitty system. I don’t believe anyone is changing the way they vote because they heard about a protest on the news, which is how most people experience protests, but you seem to think this actually matters. I just don’t see what the big deal is.

@29, I have no idea what to tell you except that I don’t care how much you complain about people protesting, which I already told you the first time you responded to me. Your right to complain about protesters is just as valid as their right to protest. I just think it’s silly to pretend you don’t understand why they’re protesting when it’s obvious the only reason you’re complaining is because you disagree with them.

@30: "...expressing your concerns to the only party that might be willing to hear them is a perfectly rational thing to do." That's the point here, expressed by others before I did. VP Harris has already told them that she has heard them, and has decided not to accede to their demands. They're continuing to pretend the issue is that she (or any other Democrat) has not heard them, when the reality is, they've already been told no. All they are doing, therefore, is annoying persons who might otherwise be willing to consider supporting them.

@31: I know perfectly well why they are protesting, and I haven't claimed otherwise.

If I agreed with them, then I'd be even more strident in telling them that our protests have all failed, and we need to find something else to do to advance our cause.

(You also seem to have the idea my intended audience is limited to the protestors, or to you. There's recently been a change of ownership at the Stranger, and I'm hoping the new owners will understand the Stranger's "all GENOCIDE all the time" stance is counterproductive, at best.)

Ok cool everyone is just expressing their opinions glad we cleared that up

@27: the difference between Vietnam and Gaza is that it was American soldiers being killed, and only American leaders could decide to withdraw troops and end the war. So, therefore, Americans protesting that war could and did eventually prevail.

AFAIK, no American soldiers are dying in the Gaza war, and except for putting pressure on both Israel and Hamas, American leaders cannot withdraw troops to end the war. Protests won't change that.

So protest all you want, but the alternative to Harris is Trump, and we all know how THAT will go.

@20 "Your opinion was noted, and rejected. No is a complete sentence."

Yes, and arming and providing unqualified support for a colonial state committing ethnic cleansing via genocide is still a violation of international law and ethically not acceptable. Next time you try to invoke international law and morality, it may prove more difficult than you anticipated.

@27 " you completely misunderstand popular movements "

You give him-her way too much credit. They are in full support of Israel stealing all Palestinian land by any means possible as shown by the litany of excuses invoked over the last 10 mos to justify all of Israel's past and present actions, however abhorrent, in Gaza and Palestine but they can say so openly here as it it obviously wouldn't go over too well.

One indicator of the paucity of popular support for the protestors’ position can be seen in the Stranger’s repetitive choice of their spokesperson:

“… Palestinian-American and Seattle resident David McBale.”

Despite being a “Seattle resident,” the Stranger appears to have quoted him in their story about WA-06, https://www.thestranger.com/news/2024/06/28/79578010/congressional-candidate-emily-randall-loses-the-left-after-taking-a-pro-israel-stance

“Progressives are pulling their support for state Sen. Emily Randall, who is running for Congress in the 6th District, after she signaled a strong commitment to Israel in her first public stance on the ongoing genocide in Gaza.”

[…]

‘Of course, homophobia exists in Palestine. As Dave MacBale, a queer Palestinian Washingtonian, said, “There’s homophobia in Palestine because Palestine is on planet earth. If you ask any woman or queer person or trans person if they feel like they have full rights or full liberation anywhere in the world, they will all tell you no.” That includes the United States, MacBale added.’

While an inability to discern between the status of LGBTQ+ persons in
Western Washington, Israel, and the rest of the Middle East would seem to disqualify someone from serious consideration on the topic, the Stranger has apparently decided otherwise.

(An even better indicator of the paucity of popular support for the protestors’ position can be seen in the primary election results. In a crowded field, Randall won a plurality, and will advance to the general election against a pro-Israel Republican.)

"Recent polling from the Institute for Middle East Understanding, or the IMEU, shows that a quarter of swing state voters say the violence in the region is an important issue which will likely factor into their decision.

For these voters, it’s a moral issue. Israel’s bombardment has devastated the Gaza Strip, leaving the death toll at over 40,000 with one study estimating the true number to be upwards of 180,000. [..]

According to the IMEU poll, in Pennsylvania, 36% of Democratic voters say they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if Biden were to secure a ceasefire. Three percen would be less likely.

Asked whether pledging to withhold weapons from Israel would impact their vote, 34% said they would be more likely to vote for a nominee who did. Seven percent would be less likely.

The numbers are even higher in Georgia and Arizona, where 44% and 41%, respectively, would be more likely to vote for the Democratic nominee if Biden were to secure a ceasefire. Thirty-nine percent and 35% respectively would be more likely to vote for a candidate who pledged to withhold weapons from Israel."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/u-s-backing-of-war-in-gaza-sways-swing-state-democrats-poll/ar-AA1oVQmv

@37: “A pro-Palestinian group, the Institute for Middle East Understanding,” (https://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-kerry-apartheid-israel-20140428-story.html)

Please provide a link to their poll’s methodology.

@38 It's a poll conducted by YouGov for IMEU as discussed here: "A significant share of Democrats and independent voters in pivotal swing states Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona are more likely to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee (presumptively Kamala Harris) if said nominee pledges support for an arms embargo to Israel, and if President Joe Biden secures a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The findings come in new polling commissioned by the Institute for Middle Eastern Understanding Policy Project and conducted by polling firm YouGov."

I suspect you can find YouGov polls methodology (YouGov is a major market research and data analysis firm) all by yourself or did you conveniently lose your ability to navigate the internet for that as well?

@39: That’s a lot of words, just to say, “no.”

No one else has to provide evidence to support your claims. As you may have heard somewhere of late, "Gaza Isn’t Driving Votes." If you appear with poll results which contradict that, you need to show the basis for that result.

Also, were the poll’s respondents informed the President of the United States, by law, cannot unilaterally impose an arms embargo upon Israel? Because asking the President to break the law seems like a pretty wild request.

That sounds like a great way to keep an eye on the ball regarding domestic gun violence. These people suck. They are attention seekers that are not serious about making impactful change in their own community but would rather disrupt it.

@19, 21 I have noticed that the Progressive Left of the Democratic Party quickly becomes no different in the eyes of the loony left, any time we disagree with them, and point out they are not being realistic. The Democratic base does support Palestinian statehood and the two-state solution. That doesn't mean that we don't recognize the reality of AIPAC's power in both parties. We also recognize that Joe Biden has been the harshest president when dealing with Netanyahu. Jimmy Carter had the huge advantage of dealing with a sane and reasonable Israeli government at the time.

That said, in this election, keeping Trump out of the White House is the number 1 concern of the Democratic base. Stopping the genocide in Palestine is second to that because Trump will only encourage Bibi to finish it fast. Defeating Trump is the only hope the Palestinians have.

@42 Latest YouGov swing states polls results suggest that stopping the genocide in Palestine may be best to keep Trump out of the White house.

@40 Classic denial of reality when it doesn't conform to ideology. Not the first time, nor the last from you, I am sure.

@43 I think the bigger question is what will they do if Harris doesn't commit to supporting any of their demands. Are they willing to sit out the election and potentially let Trump win or would the set aside their moral misgivings and vote for the candidate more aligned with their cause. That is pretty much how politics works nowadays.

@43: As mentioned repeatedly above, the Democrats have already said no to the protestors' demands. @45 puts it nicely: "Are they [the protestors] willing to sit out the election and potentially let Trump win..." knowing Trump could easily send US soldiers into Gaza alongside the IDF. Are the protestors willing to risk that? Yes or no.

@45 It'd be a mistake to think, like Greenwood Bob above, "they" are the progressive left vote. The progressive left is part of demos in Chicago but a huge fraction of the uncommitted vote in swing states is made up of Arab Americans who aren't necessarily progressive, and may very well not vote at all if they feel there is no change in policy toward Israel and Palestine in the works. Progressives by and large recognize the danger represented by Trump and will vote for Harris where they have to (in swing states) but US policy toward Palestine is deeply racist, as in Palestinian lives clearly don't matter to establishment politicians, so Arab-Americans need to see concrete actions (not just words) giving them hope that change is happening and will keep happening.

As the YouGov poll shows there is no downside in swing states to committing to a more balanced policy toward Palestine. For at least 6 mos now, an overwhelming majority of Democrats (>70%) have been for a permanent ceasefire while they believe Israel has gone too far, and now few would support sending troops to defend Israel according to new polling. Voters are on board, current policies have huge costs (undermining of international law, loss of credibility abroad, loss of sovereignty to Israel lobby, ..), we are on the edge of being dragged into a major conflict in the region thanks to the Israeli far right, and on: everything calls for a major revamping of US policy toward Palestine.

@35: Do remind us of the history which assigns sole ownership of this land to the Palestinian Arabs. As I recall, it involves decisions made by external empires, Ottoman and British, correct? And the UN General Assembly's vote to create a Jewish State there means absolutely nothing of any kind whatsoever? Did I get all of that right?

(You know, while meaning the exact same thing, "Blood and Soil" is far shorter to type than "settler-colonist yada yada yada," so you might want to try it instead. You know you want to...)

@48 You want to go back to the pre-1967 borders to conform to international law? Sounds like a great starting point!

As for Trump, he's mavericky enough to stray from US Foreign policy orthodoxy to actually do something like telling Israel to wrap it up, meaning stop the war, or you get no more bombs. Recall that official US policy for decades was no talks with North Korea until North Korea unilaterally disarmed themselves of their nukes. Yet Trump did.

And if the US leaders wanted to, they could stop the genocide in Gaza today at noon. They would simply have to tell Israel that Israel is violating international law, therefore the weapons shipments will stop.

@44: Classic stonewalling when you have no facts. That's your M.O., all right.

@39: "I suspect you can find YouGov polls methodology (YouGov is a major market research and data analysis firm) all by yourself..."

And, as a critical observer of capitalism like yourself certainly knows, money doesn't talk, the identity and agenda of the entity paying for the poll simply doesn't matter, no effect upon the results, etc.

Look, you show up with a poll with results which are greatly at odds with how real voters just behaved in actual elections. ("Gaza Isn’t Driving Votes.") You don't identify the poll's commissioners for the advocacy group they are -- in fact, their name has a very neutral sound, almost as if to fool outsiders into thinking they are not an advocacy group. Then you won't answer any questions about the poll, you just keep reciting the poll's contrary-to-recent-elections results as gospel truths. You're not fooling anyone except yourself.

@48: "You want to go back to the pre-1967 borders to conform to international law? Sounds like a great starting point!"

No, that's not what I said at all. Try harder.

"And if the US leaders wanted to, they could stop the genocide in Gaza today at noon. They would simply have to tell Israel that Israel is violating international law, therefore the weapons shipments will stop."

That would violate both the 2008 federal law requiring the US to arm Israel, and the Leahy Law's requirements for per-unit evaluation of the IDF before stopping weapons shipments. In other words, you're saying the US government should ignore laws and behave like a dictator. That's also what the protestors want, and they've already been told they aren't getting it.

@47 its surprising to hear Arab Americans care so deeply about Palestine when Arabs who live in the mideast want nothing to do with them. If they want to be a one issue block that is their choice but I think my comment still stands. Do you sit out the election and invite a more extreme policy or hold your nose and vote for the best of the worst?

"US policy toward Palestine is deeply racist"

No and its not even close. You're losing the plot if you need to resort to that argument.

@48 "Did I get all of that right?"

Very little of it as it were. Anyone interested in the history of the region would be well advised to read from an independent source like, for example, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine Reading from the British Mandate section on should suffice

"Blood and Soil" is far shorter to type than "settler-colonist yada yada yada,"

For the record, almost all of the information I provide that documents Israeli illegal occupation and annexation of Palestinian territories, war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and likely genocide comes from the United Nations, and well known human rights organizations. Nobody should be surprised to see a pro-Israel propagandist like Tensorna attempt to smear his critics by any means possible, however feeble they may seem.

@47 "Arabs who live in the mideast want nothing to do with them"

Demonstrably false. The Arab street cares deeply about Palestinians. Even local dictators have to pay attention to the pro-Palestinians feelings of their people.

I tried to explain to you that there is no greater issue than having one's humanity denied. I cannot think of anything more racist than denying someone's humanity by not caring whether they die under the bombs you provide.

@52: You've made it clear you regard Palestinian Arabs as the only legitimate residents of the land in question. Starting from that point of view, then by definition, nothing the Israelis could do on that land could ever possibly be legal, right, or just. Your "settler-colonialist" theory, which you also apply, but only to the Israelis (because, in your view, their very presence on the land is wrong) results in nothing more than the right-wing "Blood and Soil" mythology, making the Palestinian Arabs sole legitimate residents of the land.

You've somehow picked a region which has been continuously inhabited for ~6,000 years by all manner of persons, ruled by many empires over that time, and you've designated one small modern group as the sole legitimate residents. Of course you're not going to provide justification for that designation, because when you fail, your 'argument' fails as well. (That this is all inherently racist is also not something you'll admit, of course.)

Oh, and referring to Wikipedia as an "independent source" is truly priceless.

@53: "The Arab street cares deeply about Palestinians."

I believe the point there is that Arab governments most certainly do not. For example, Jordan ruled what we now call the West Bank for twenty years, with no effort to create an independent Palestinian state there.

"...racist than denying someone's humanity by not caring whether they die..."

So Hamas is racist against Palestinians? (Well, technically, Sinwar told his fellow leaders they DO care about Palestinian deaths in Gaza -- they want a lot more of them, so folks like you will attribute those deaths to the Israelis, not to Hamas' policy of attacking Israel whilst using Gaza's civilians as human shields.)

@50 The facts that you deny exist are contained in the YouGov poll results: a significant fraction of swing state voters claim that the Gaza issue matters. The polling organization, YouGov, is a major polling outfit. You do not like the results of the poll so you claim that it is faulty without providing any evidence that it is so. Your spin won't work, give it up.

tensora:

US Law prohibits the countries who receive its military aid from using those arms to violate international law. Secretary of State Blinken has to sign off on Israeli assurances.
So yes, they could stop it all today by 12:00 noon, which is why they must be pressured to the maximum limit to do so.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/19/israeli-forces-conduct-gaza

@54 "You've made it clear you regard Palestinian Arabs as the only legitimate residents of the land in question"

You are, once again, lying. I made clear, several times already over the last couple of mos, the population that legitimately owned the land before Zionist mass immigration started, included ~10% Palestinian Jews, a likely smaller fraction of Palestinian Christians, while the balance and overwhelming majority was indeed Arabs. By the time, partition was declared in the late 40's, Jews were ~30% of the pop thanks to immigration yet were unfairly handed over half the land, and most of the arable land. Palestinians Arabs had been revolting for decades already against takeover of the land by immigrant Jews and refused the deal mostly concocted by Western powers. After decades of more conflicts over land, all of Palestine is now illegally occupied by Israel, a classic colonial settler state in violation of international law including the 1948 partition declaration, that is trying to impose facts on the ground via expulsion/killing of Palestinian Arabs. Facts established by the UN, not the nazis as you and the Israel lobby like to pretend.

I simply decided that however many empires ruled over Palestine in the past, I wasn't going to claim that somehow whoever ruled it over 2000 years ago (not 4000 or 1000 years ago, god forbid) had a right to that land. I decided that nobody in their right mind would want to reproduce land ownership as it existed millennia ago without generating endless conflicts the world over (yes, Christian Zionists are that crazy). Now, I am not personally advocating throwing out people who immigrated 100 years ago (or 50 for that matter), I am saying that Palestinians haven't gotten a fair shake (to put it mildly) from the international community. That has to change in major ways and it will surely not be compatible with having an expanding ethno-state like Israel.

"Nobody
should be
surprised to
see a pro-Israel
propagandist like
Tensorna attempt to
smear his critics by any
means possible, however
feeble they may seem." fucking

B.I.N.G.O THANK YOU
averagebob. your
work Here is
both Heroic
and Much
Needed.

fucking
Kudos.

We CAN
End this
Madness.

let's begin
with bibi
nutnya-
hoo's
Israel.

@57: We've been over this already. This situation wasn't organic: "...the population that legitimately owned the land before Zionist mass immigration started, included ~10% Palestinian Jews, a likely smaller fraction of Palestinian Christians, while the balance and overwhelming majority was indeed Arabs."

In what would become the final decades of the Ottoman Empire's rule over Palestine, it imposed ever-more restrictions on Jews. It limited how much land they could own, it limited their travel, it even limited how long Jews could stay in Jerusalem on pilgrimage. (https://ismi.emory.edu/documents/Readings/Mandel,%20Neville%20J.%20Ottoman%20Policy.pdf ) This was not done out of any tender concern for Palestinian Arabs, but purely because the Ottoman Empire believed, rightly or wrongly, that restricting Jews from Palestine would strengthen the Empire's control over Palestine. So you're taking as a valid starting point a very low point in numbers of Jewish residents and land owners in Palestine, a low point intentionally created and enforced by a foreign imperial power, for the purposes of keeping Palestine under control of a foreign empire. Does that sound like a defensible basis for modern policy?

After the British Empire seized control of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, it discontinued the Ottoman Empire's restrictive policy against Jews. You're right, by the time of UN Partition, "Palestinians Arabs had been revolting for decades already against takeover of the land by immigrant Jews," but is that really admirable? Many white Americans of this period were dead-set against Black Americans residing in white neighborhoods, and especially buying land in them. Again, this does not sound like a great basis for a just and fair land-use policy. The British Empire allowed Jews to buy land, where the Ottoman Empire had not. Should there have been restrictions upon Jews buying land in Palestine, just as there were restrictions upon Black Americans buying land and houses in white American neighborhoods?

"...in violation of international law including the 1948 partition declaration,"

I absolutely love how you sailed right past the armed Arab revolt against the UN's 1948 Partition vote, then spun right around and declared that same Partition as valid. The Palestinian Arabs, backed by Arab countries, chose war. (Whether they were justified in doing so is another matter.) When you choose war, you choose to accept the consequences of war, and the major consequence of Palestinian Arabs choosing war in 1948 was those Arabs losing control over most of the land the UN had intended for them to have. The Arab armies which had illegally invaded Palestine, creating huge numbers of refugees, refused to help those refugees re-settle in their own countries' lands. (As mentioned above, Jordan wound up in control of the West Bank. It did nothing to help create a Palestinian state there, even though that is what the UN had envisioned. Apparently, depriving Palestinian Arabs of land is just fine and dandy if other Arabs do it.) The result has been a permanent state of one people living under the nonconsensual control of another, with it going about as well as such arrangements historically do, which is to say very, very badly for the ruled people. David Ben-Gurion himself worried this would lead to modern Israel becoming an "apartheid state," and he wasn't wrong to so worry.

"I am saying that Palestinians haven't gotten a fair shake (to put it mildly) from the international community."

Heck, they haven't gotten much care from other Arab countries, either. It's really convenient for those regimes to have created an everlasting issue from which to deflect attention from their own internal problems, isn't it?

@47- you may be right about Arab-Americans sitting out in swing states. I hope not. But again, how many non-swing states would be back in play for the GOP if Biden did put an arms embargo in place? That is the other side of the electoral calculation.

“There were more reporters than protesters,” observed Bennett Weiss. He was there selling Gaza-related buttons, including one that, he said, describes himself: “Self-Ambivalent Jew Against Zionism.”
...
As the smaller-than-expected group assembled in Union Park near the United Center, hundreds of signs reading “Victory to the Palestinian Resistance” were left stacked and unused. (They were the work of the “Freedom Road Socialist Organization.”) The protesters had their street puppets and their giant bloody hands. They denounced “Killer Kamala” along with Genocide Joe.
...
Only 100 people attended a protest march on the DNC by the “Poor People’s Army,” and that was after they delayed the start by 90 minutes. With Green Party candidate Jill Stein in attendance, their announced intention was to make “citizen’s arrests” of Democrats attending the convention and to charge them with “crimes against humanity.”

https://archive.ph/Ix73g

complicity
oftimes has it's
complications war
crimes just ain't Cool

aiding and abetting
can be Expensive
& bibi's playing
Us for fools.

One
apropos
comment
from the nyt:

@Joseph I'm really tired of Liberals telling progressives to shut up when they point out a bad thing that is happening, only for them to turn around years later and agree that the thing was bad and that they opposed it all along (but oops, it's too late to do anything about it now...)

I support the protesters, because without people making their criticisms heard, nothing would ever change or improve.

Abolitionists were lynched, Suffragettes were mocked and arrested, labor activists were beaten in the streets [and murdered] and civil rights protesters faced all of the above.

Civil minded centrists mocked all of these people in their day, but in the end, it was the protesters who where proven to be right.

AF; MA

tonnes more:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/18/us/politics/dnc-democrats-israel-gaza.html#commentsContainer

history
repeats.
which side
will you be on

@59 Nothing you have said convinced me that Jews have a right to the land in Palestine. Being distantly related to people who lived there millennia ago doesn't trump the right of those who have occupied that land for as long as it is useful to think about. Whether Jews were prevented to immigrate there by the Ottoman empire doesn't change any of the above.

Comparing immigrant Jews in Palestine to the descendants of slaves in North America to justify stealing land from its occupants is ludicrous, and not worthy of any elaboration.

"When you choose war, you choose to accept the consequences of war"

Among children perhaps but in the modern world annexing land conquered during warfare and ethnic cleansing of its inhabitants is against international law and a war crime no matter who and for what reason warfare started. Needless to say that committing genocide is a crime against humanity.

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel but we established a long time ago that little will stop you from spewing pro-Israel propaganda.

@60 I don't know whether any non-swing states would be put back in contention by an arm embargo. You'd have to be more specific.

@65- I don’t know either. Would it cost enough votes in, say, New York to be of concern? Surely someone has done the math or the polling on this. But I am seriously wondering whether an arms embargo would cost the Dems enough support to lose the election?

@64: " Nothing you have said convinced me that Jews have a right to the land in Palestine."

Nothing ever will.

"...who have occupied that land for as long as it is useful to think about."

And how do you define, "as long as it is useful to think about"? You don't. You picked the British Empire's seizure of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire as your starting point, because it allowed you to imply that Jews were naturally a minority in Palestine before the British started allowing them in. You thus defined the current conflict in terms you wanted -- a foreign minority of Jews, imported by an Imperial policy, imposed on the locals (Palestinian Arabs), rendering (in your mind) the Israelis as "settler-colonists," etc.

With your neat explanation in place, you could invoke History to "show" what you wanted. You never checked to see if any history prior to the British seizure of Palestine could explain why there were so few Jews in their ancestral homeland. And yes, indeed there is: an anti-Jewish exclusionist policy, imposed by a foreign imperial power, to keep imperial control over Palestine. Your entire argument rests upon the very basis you claim to despise. Your moral position here cannot exceed the foreign imperial diktats upon which you ignorantly based it.

Informed of this, you simply retreat into denial: "Whether Jews were prevented to immigrate there by the Ottoman empire doesn't change any of the above." Suddenly, imperial exclusionary land-use policies don't even merit your consideration, much less the criticism you blast at anything else you happen not to like. You've picked your arbitrary date in history, and nothing, not even the history which immediately preceded and enabled it, matters.

Then you continue with your denial, this time about how fighting new, undesirable neighbors is somehow virtuous when Palestinian Arabs did it, but not so much when white Americans did it (and at the very same time). Watching your supposedly superior morality simply crumble, hammered by fact after fact after historical fact, must be painful for you. Next time, do some real research. Don't just stop at the point when you've (apparently) justified your predetermined conclusions. (Oh, and BTW: not all Black Americans are descended from slaves, but white Americans discriminated against all Black Americans. History, why does it always do this to you?)

"Among children perhaps..."

So, how's Tsar Paul IV doing in Petrograd? Austro-Hungarian Empire still cranking out Archdukes? Have you visited Strasbourg in Germany? How are Saipan and Guam doing under Imperial Japanese rule? In the adult world, choosing war means choosing the consequences of war. The Palestinian Arabs violently rejected the UN plan for Palestine, and tried to push the Jews into the sea. Their current state is one consequence of their choosing that war.

You may have the luxury of ignoring all of the above history. The persons upon whom you're trying to impose your views do not, and you should not expect them to behave as if they do. Grow up.