this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
312 points (97.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7214 readers
530 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
get in front of a camera and say "what israel is doing is wrong. when I am president I will ban all weapons deliveries to israel."
And that would likely severely impact her chances at the presidency. The attack ads practically write themselves. Trump would just bring up the October 7 attacks, opine that how dare she side with Hamas, and promise to not to abandon Israel. As horrified as many people are by the current war, most aren't ready to completely cut Israel off, especially if it can be framed against Hamas.
One of the reasons Biden was losing was his support for Israel. Supporting Israel does not win elections.
No, politicians have to walk a fine line. Biden hadn't put much of a restriction on use of US weapons and his sanctions against violent settlers in the West Bank are ineffective. Israel has mostly ignored efforts to reign it in. Kamala could lay out some far more concrete measures that would get certain weapons revoked if civilian deaths remain high. At the same time, keeping Patriot missiles well stocked would not impact Palestinians at all.
Bullshit. America holds Israel's leash. Israel would be nothing without American weapons.
Kamala also has to win an election. Straight up abandoning Israel is nowhere near as popular as Lemmy's echo chamber would have you think.
American elites love Israel. Billionares, CEOs, Celebrities... The voters on the other hand do not care much about it. Israel vs Palestine divide is very much and elite vs ordinary folks divide. Supporting Israel does not bring votes.
That just sounds like more talk. Your standard of comparison isn't talk vs action, it's talk vs more blunt talk. Not really saying you're wrong, but wouldn't somebody be able to comment on an article reporting your ideal headline "talk is cheap"?
It commits her to a specific action
I mean, talk that puts something of hers at stake, theoretically (hardline "we must support israel" voters, which I don't think really exist in the democratic party, israeli funding, military industrial complex funding, etc.), is talk that is, in and of itself, an action. It could still be a lie, sure, but then it's a lie that she's gonna get called out on later and then that's politically damaging, at least theoretically, especially because it ostracizes her from both the hardline group that wants to support israel and it ostracizes her from the people that actually wanted to do that. Most politicians won't lie so handily unless they're real pieces of shit, or unless they think people will just forget. Most politicians will instead try to waffle and weasel and say that oh well I tried to do that guys but it was just too hard! I tried but I couldn't do it! They try to save face. Taking a hard stance, making a strong commitment, that ensure that you're sacrificing your ability to save face later on to your voter base, which indicates that you might actually do something.