this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024

315 points (81.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43889 readers

958 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

315

Why are so many Pro-Palestine (I am pro-Palestine and anti-genocide) Americans refusing to vote for Harris due to her stance on Israel? (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

651 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 22 points 2 weeks ago (25 children)

The USA has several legally binding treaties etc promising military cooperation with Israel. Harris isn't allowed to break them legally. Any change to this would have to be passed by the house and senate. So it genuinely doesn't matter what Harris or anyone else wants.

[–] Cleggory@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Under federal laws, the US Department of State has a policy prohibiting weapons transfers when it’s likely they will be used to commit genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or other violations of international humanitarian or human rights laws.

In February 2024, Veterans for Peace sent an open letter to the State Department and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, invoking these laws and policies, urging the termination of provision of military weapons and munitions to Israel.

[+] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee -15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

USAID already reported Israel is using hunger as a weapon. Which very much qualifies.

[+] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee -9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

No. They are absolutely not allowed to stop food and aid into the combat zone they created. They are absolutely not allowed to prevent Egypt from sending aid in. They are absolutely not allowed to conduct a naval blockade.

Russia is food secure and has trade access all along Central and East Asia. Norway's closure is in no way the same thing.

When the professional aid distribution people who work for the United States Agency for International Development tell you it's happening, then it's happening.

[–] macabrett@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago

It qualifies as a war crime but not as genocide.

Okay... if its a war crime and not a genocide, that still qualifies as a way to stop sending weapons.

They are, legally speaking allowed to close any port of entry or exit from their country.

Huh wonder if maybe Palestine should be legally recognized as a country to prevent this? Oh well, nothing we can do, since the politicians in power don't want to do that.

But I don’t think that it can be proven especially seeing as the official government statistics coming out of gaza are provided by a group that is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation.

Every organization operating out of Gaza would get called a terrorist organization by Isreal. It is almost as if America is being intentionally obtuse to allow Isreal to carry out a genocide.

[–] Cleggory@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

The acts that constitute genocide fall into five categories:

Killing members of the group
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide

A short list of official allegations of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians (Google):

South Africa's genocide case against Israel

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to prevent the destruction of evidence and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel's use of the "Hannibal Directive"

Israel has been accused of using its "Hannibal Directive" policy, which allows for the killing of Israeli soldiers and civilians to prevent them from being taken alive as prisoners of war. This policy has been criticized as a form of genocide.

UN reports

UN experts have reported "grave violations" committed by Israeli forces against Palestinians in Gaza, including "genocidal incitement" and the use of "powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts." They have also cited evidence of Israel's intent to "destroy the Palestinian people under occupation."

Special Rapporteur's findings

The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, has found "reasonable grounds" to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. She cited evidence of Israel's intent to destroy the Palestinian group, including causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and preventing births within the group.

Amnesty International's research

Amnesty International has gathered evidence of unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, resulting in mass civilian casualties. The organization has criticized Israel's failure to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, leading to indiscriminate attacks that are war crimes.

Other reports and allegations

Various independent reports and allegations have been made about Israel's treatment of Palestinians, including forced transfers, torture, and the destruction of infrastructure. Some have characterized Israel's actions as genocide, while others have criticized the use of the term without sufficient evidence.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (21 replies)