I mean there were Republicans opposed to one of his appointments (don't remember who) and you only need four of them to side with the Democrats to get a majority.
NoneOfUrBusiness
joined 5 months ago
Even if she took zero steps towards the goal, that's infinitely preferable to Trump's pushing for annexation of the occupied territories and dismantling the Palestinian Authority.
Normally I'd agree with that, but in the context of the current Israeli genocide that's straight up untrue, because doing nothing is allowing Israel to annex the occupied territories. That's literally what they're doing right now. You can't say "but the status quo could get worse" when the status quo is the worst things can realistically get. What Trump supports is what Israel is doing and Biden is allowing and Harris promised she'd allow.
Also, Israel wouldn't dismantle the PA until they're finally done annexing the West Bank, because the PA are their convenient puppets who if anything hamper Palestinian resistance. Hell, if they dismantled the PA maybe we'd see real resistance from the West Bank again (hence why they won't do that until they're near the end of their colonial project).
I don't know anything about this so I can't say anything concrete, but see if you can gather community support for the strike. If more people help there's a lot more you can do.
I don't know anything about this so I can't say anything concrete, but see if you can gather community support for the strike. If more people help there's a lot more you can do.
Harris supported a two-state solution with the eventual goal of an independent Palestine.
Yes, she "supported" it. But did she take or promise to take real steps towards that goal? NO. And don't tell me she promised to push for a ceasefire because she was lying.
Nobody thinks he'll be better, but there's literally no way to be worse for Gaza than Biden was and Harris was going to be.
There hasn't been peace in the middle east in what 1-2 thousand years?
Uh... No. For about 60 or 70 years. Maybe 80 tops. The Ottoman empire, the Arab* empires after it and the colonial/post colonial states after it were decently stable. It was neo-imperialist Western interference that fucked everything up.
*gross oversimplification
Just wanna point out that this is racist (????) propaganda meant to give the impression that the current state of the Middle East is anything but directly caused by Western interference. The Middle East was stable under Ottoman rule and Arab (gross oversimplification) rule before it.
This sub will see more activity for a while.
I see the next chapter in the FlyingSquid saga has started.