this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
149 points (79.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43678 readers
1608 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
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.
So you do believe that Biden/Kamala are holding Israel back in their genocidal efforts and not fully on board? Well then this is the core of the disagreement.
I believe we are giving Israel whatever they need and to the degree they even posture towards "holding back" it's done, not to protect Palestinians, but to protect the apartheid entity from overextending and overexerting itself.
No. You don't stop genocide by hoping that the ones doing the genocide have a sudden change of heart and turn nice. This is actually a ridiculous thought.
You're again basing this on the belief that the current speed of Genocide is only because Kamala and Biden are slowing Israel down, and not because it's been determined to be the most effective strategy.
Biden and Kamala are actively engaging genocide. They WILL NOT stop the genocide out of kindness or because of "public opinion". The public already dislikes genocide, yet are willing to vote for the ones carrying one out...what will actually change?
Yes, it can be stopped not by the well wishes of the ones carrying out the genocide, but by strategic failures and overplaying of the aggressors hand.
A faster genocide is more likely to fail as a faster genocide would be a poor strategic decision and rushed actions would more likely lead to bitxhed results and miscalculations.
Again, you're parroting a very common Israeli genocide denial/justification narrative that Israel isn't going as hard on Palestinians as they could.