this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
-46 points (33.8% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2227 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
-46
Democrats Tuned Out Gaza Protests at the DNC. History Won’t Forget. (truthout.org)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As Vice President Kamala Harris received the presidential nomination at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), thousands of people marched near the convention demanding an end to U.S. arms shipments to Israel and the war on Gaza. The protesters, led by Palestinian and Jewish activists, represented a diverse coalition including anti-war veterans, climate justice activists, and labor organizers. Despite efforts by Democrats to keep the Palestine issue sidelined, the marchers made their voices heard, declaring Harris and President Joe Biden complicit in the genocide in Gaza. The protesters came from communities and movements that are often considered part of the Democratic coalition, warning that their votes could not be taken for granted unless the party takes concrete action to end the occupation and devastation in Palestine. Organizers estimate around 30,000 people demonstrated in Chicago over the course of the week, making Palestine impossible to ignore during the convention. The activists drew connections between the struggle for Palestinian liberation and the fight against racist violence and state repression in the U.S., challenging the Democratic Party's complicity in both. The protests encountered a heavy police presence, with hundreds of riot police surrounding the march at all times. Despite the tension, the demonstration remained largely peaceful as the protesters demanded justice for Palestine. As Kamala Harris prepared to take the stage, the marchers continued their chants and songs, determined to keep the spotlight on the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza and the Democratic Party's failure to address it.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

What people fail to understand about this situation is that the entire situation leaves everybody involved with what are essentially binary choices where everybody loses no matter which one you pick anyway.

Fact: Hamas launched an unprovoked attack on Israel, killing over 1000 people and holding over 200 hostage, some of which are still in captivity to this day.

Fact: Israel had every right to respond militarily and do everything in their power to rescue the hostages.

Fact: Israel's response has gone well above and beyond what is proportional and necessary, and instead has focused on bombings of civilian infrastructure with little knowledge of or regard for the hostages they're stupposed to be trying to rescue, instead focusing on a "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." approach that quickly spiraled into an all out genocide that even the israelis themselves barely bother trying to hide any more.

For simplicity's sake, and because Harris is now the nominee and Biden has dropped out, any time I refer to "Harris", assume I'm talking about the Biden/Harris administration in general.

Harris has two options here. Support Israel, or support the people of Gaza. Whichever one she chooses, she's going to piss the other side off. So far, the administration has tried their best to hide behind the existing political alliance between the US and Israel while sidestepping questions about the war in Gaza. This has led to where we are now, with calling Biden "Genocide Joe", mass protests on college campuses, and a significant amount of political fallout at home. But what would have happened if Harris were to pivot and support the Palestinians instead?

There are just shy of 175,000 people of Palestinian descent living in the US. There's 7.5 million Jews. The fact remains, whatever your personal opinion of the conflict is, there are many, many, many more people in this country who support Israel, and they are significantly more politically active, politically entrenched, and well funded. That's just reality. Any attempt at pivoting would be portrayed by the Jewish population as a betrayal of Jews and an abandonment of Israel.

The college protests we've already been seeing would look like weekend picnics compared to what would happen if we stopped supporting Israel. AIPAC just got finished spending silly amounts of money to have 3/4 of "the squad" primaried for supporting Gaza. I'm not saying they'd go all Trumpy, but they absolutely would be pouring tens of millions into getting their population to vote for a no-hoper like Jill Stein which would have the side effect of Trump getting back into office through the back door.

This is Harris' option now. Stick her fingers in her ears and scream LALALALALALALA in public over the Gaza conflict as it stands now while quietly working behind the scenes to help find a path to a ceasefire, or she could pivot on the issue and continue supporting the people of Gaza during her concession speech in November once support from the Jewish population evaporates overnight. Or having to sit and watch as President Trump essentially nuke-and-paves the entire place and turns it into the Trump Gaza Casino.

This is what people don't get. There is no good option here. Full Stop. Whichever side she chooses, she's going to piss the other side off. And any attempt at just taking a neutral stance would just end up pissing both sides off. Attempting to have "Genocide Joe" cancelled would just lead to the return to power of someone campaigning on "I'll Genocide harder!".

I know it sucks, and I know the hostages shouldn't have to wait that long and all that. I get it. But the best (read: least shitty) option is really to wait until after the election. Get Harris into office, then pressure her into supporting whichever side you're on in the conflict under threat of being primaried by a Democrat challenger in 2028. But these kind of "messages" that they're not going to support Harris will only lead to the rise to power of a man who will gladly thank them by offering them a 5% discount on a VIP package at his new middle eastern casino.

I fully support Palestine. What Israel is doing is the textbook definition of a genocide. And I wish I could wake up one morning and hear the Harris administration is pulling all support from Israel and stands with Palestine. But I'm also aware of the reality of the world we live in at both a national and geopolitical level, and can acknowledge that this is the least bad option the administration can take right now, and that the "Genocide Joe" protests and the demands those protesters are making are a clear example of cutting off your own nose to spite your face, and a clear misunderstanding of what would happen if they actually got what they're advocating for.

I promise you, with every fiber of my being and every breath in my lungs, if you are unwilling to support Harris or are planning to just stay home in protest in November, please reconsider. What you are advocating for will lead to the return to power of someone who absolutely will make the entire situation exponentially worse. Pressuring a future Harris administration with a primary challenge in 2028 is going to get you a LOT further in the long run vs. advocating for something that can only lead to the return of Trump. It is the textbook definition of a pyrrhic victory: You will lose far more than you will gain even if you "win", and that "victory" you'd be celebrating today would be guaranteed to cost you the entire war.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Very well written.

I think what has a lot of people angry isn't just the genocide though. It's how the US can't seem to get a handle on Israel. They exist and continue to exist because of the US. Yet they act like the spoiled child who knows they'll never get in trouble no matter what they do. People want to see their leader actually get a handle on things there.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s how the US can’t seem to get a handle on Israel.

That's because Netanyahu has a handle on the US.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Through AIPAC, yes. It just goes to show how susceptible to lobbying the US. This embarrasses them on the world stage in turn. As they're seen as not being able to keep their attack dog in check.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

They seem to have brought us to heel pretty effectively.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are people who, for various reasons (some well-meaning, some nefarious), put the plight of Palestinians above all other concerns, and decry anyone who doesn't do the same. And they think the solution is to hold the rest of the left hostage by letting Trump win if they don't get their way (though to be fair, I think most of them live in solid blue states where they can do what they want without actually hurting the election, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't do so).

But people will make choices based on their own needs. How many queer folks are going to choose to allow Trump to win for the sake of Palestinians? Some, I've no doubt, but enough in swing states to change the outcome? Seems doubtful.

Israel is the most complicated thing in geopolitics, perhaps ever. It'll never be solved in a way that leaves anyone hands clean. I support the right to protest and solicit money to help civilians in need and get the message out and to lobby politicians. I think anyone in a swing state who lets this dictate their vote is shooting themselves in the foot for no possible gain. I guess it's their vote, but it's just as frustrating watching them as watching poor Republicans vote against their own interests every election.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

(though to be fair, I think most of them live in solid blue states where they can do what they want without actually hurting the election, and I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t do so).

I mildly disagree with this only in the sense that there is a time and place for everything. I completely agree that they should make their voices heard if the administration is doing things they don't agree with. But for those who want to ensure that their protests don't do more harm than good, wait until after the election. Heck, start putting the pressure on the day after she's elected, while she's still making front page news on the daily. Make sure Harris understands "Hey, we got you here, and now this is what we expect of you, or we're going to support a primary challenger for you in 2028, and we're going to make your life difficult the entire time in between."

And I agree with your point about dems in solid blue states protesting without really hurting Harris' chances. It's when they're encouraging those in swing states that actually do matter that it starts getting problematic. Sitting home in protest is one thing if you're in CA, MA, or NY. But doing so in Pennsylvania or Georgia is essentially a vote for Trump.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Voting is transactional. It is a tool. If you're voting without demands is just weird. These politicians are not your friends or family. There is no need for the weird parasocial element to it.

I stand with the protesters. The same thing happened to activists for police reform. They went through every channel and protested just to be used as a set piece and watch the Biden admin increase police funding, and didn't do much of anything. Liberals always disapprove of any form of accountability or protest. You will never please them unless you're mindlessly Blue No Matter Who.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago

These people think haggling starts with a guarantee to buy the product. They get ripped off, then go back for more

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Voting is transactional. It is a tool. If you're voting without demands is just weird. These politicians are not your friends or family. There is no need for the weird parasocial element to it.

Absolutely. But voting is also strategic. I'm not seeing any sense of strategy behind the actions of the protesters now, as other commenters have pointed out. I stand with their goal. But until someone coherently explains how their actions lead to less harm in Gaza I'm not going to support said actions.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

people protesting is supposed to lead to our leaders listening and changing course

women's suffrage

war protests in the 60s

protests to end segregation and demand better rights

list goes on and on

both parties now though have gotten to where they instantly demonize protesters demanding better

for example, pushing out tons of propaganda to the US citizens that enforces division and separation

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

both parties now though have gotten to where they instantly demonize protesters demanding better

Well said!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don't think it's demonization to say "your protests are counterproductive to your cause given the current electoral reality".

Paraphrasing the other commenter, politicians are tools. So are political parties. The Democratic party is the best tool we have right now to preventing the GOP from backsliding not only with Gaza but with a slew of other progressive priorities. I don't see a lot of these protesters being able to recognize that, and it speaks in their strategy.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

given the current electoral reality

Which is never gonna change unless we start supporting parties that actually want that change. And for right now, that's a third party.

How many times have Republicans been in charge enough to change it? How many times have Democrats been in charge enough to change it?

And neither party has. And neither party wants to change it.

And people here on Lemmy keep saying stuff like, "But but THIS isn't the election to work on that. Next time!" Which is what both parties have been saying for the last 50 years.

They've had plenty of opportunity to change things. And they haven't. And they won't.

And I'll never vote Democrat or Republican until one of them actually makes the change.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And I'll never vote Democrat or Republican until one of them actually makes the change.

That's fine, I'm not interested in changing your mind. To everyone else, Socialist's point here is silly. There is no mechanism for obtaining significant legislative power by voting 3rd party in a FPTP system. It might feel good and you can then write a wall of text about how awesome and moral you are, but you can only affect this election in one of two ways by voting for a specific candidate. You are either benefiting the 1st or 2nd place candidate no matter what you do. This is a mathematical fact when dealing with a FPTP system, like ours. I strongly support changing more elections to a RCV (or STAR) style system which would completely change the calculus here, but only one party has even come close to supporting those changes on a wide scale (guess which one).

This fact alone negates everything 3rd party people claim. It's been pointed out so many times on Lemmy it should make you question why they continue to push this stuff while claiming they want the exact change they are knowingly fighting against. The path forward and the power needed to pass real progressive change is through the Democratic party, not against it. I'm not giving up the largest tool we have to stop the GOP because you would rather throw a temper tantrum. If someone has a better strategy than "well if everyone just voted for a 3rd party!" I'm all ears, but I'm not holding my breath.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The idea that voting third-party is a wasted vote in a FPTP system overlooks the broader impact that third-party votes can have on the political landscape.

Every vote sends a message about what policies and values are important to voters, and this can influence the platforms of major parties in future elections.

Sure, it’s true that our system is designed to favor two major parties, but dismissing third-party candidates entirely ignores the historical fact that significant social and political changes often start with minority voices pushing against the status quo.

Counting on the Democratic Party to implement progressive change assumes that the party will prioritize those changes, which history has shown that they are not doing. They've had PLENTY of time where they were in charge to implement major changes, but they so need need to change the status quo.

Voting your conscience isn’t a temper tantrum; it’s a commitment to pushing for a political system that truly represents a wider range of views.

It’s been pointed out so many times on Lemmy it should make you question why they continue to push this stuff while claiming they want the exact change they are knowingly fighting against.

Well, you do realize that almost half of the country won't vote for your candidate, right? Are they ALL wrong and only you are right? The fact that HALF OF THE COUNTRY doesn't want your candidate to be president, should make you question things as well.

Real change requires challenging the status quo, not just reinforcing it.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Real change requires challenging the status quo, not just reinforcing it.

Explain, in detail, how voting 3rd party leads to positive change in this general election for President of the United States. Tell me how "challenging the status quo" here is an effective use of resources and risk when swing states are being declined by 10s of thousands of votes? There's no mechanism for the change you're suggesting will come from voting 3rd party this election.

All you can do is write a wall about how bad the Democrats are, because that's the only message you care about spreading, and why I don't find engaging with you to be worth my time typically. Have a nice Sunday, I'm done with this one!

ETA: Everyone notice below, they just repeat the same exact talking points over and over. They will never backup any of the claims they are making. It's all fluff.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I don't think they have the time as each day more of their family and loved ones are being erased from existence. They're protesting nicely and mostly respectfully considering things and it still isn't good enough. The only resources they have is protests and the uncommitted movement. Outside of money there isn't any other ways to get people in power to keep their word.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›