this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
-9 points (40.0% liked)
Palestine
824 readers
164 users here now
A community to discuss everything Palestine.
Rules:
-
Posts can be in Arabic or English.
-
Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”
List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]
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
Well actually, while the binary choice is almost the norm in US, it quite often happens everywhere else in the world on all levels of governance.
To your second point: the apathy you are feeling is normal when staring into a big machinery of a huge party systems in such a huge country. Lobbyists are strong, but defeatist attitude is the only reason they have the strength they do. Big changes can happen when participation is high.
In normal circumstances I would agree with you about applying pressure during the elections. But in the current situation when the candidates are so far apart on the subject, but so very close in the polls, I don't see logic in undermining the chances of the only candidate who might be considering a change of politics.
Although a protest here and there isn't a big issue.
But not nearly to the same extent. Even in countries like the UK, which have historically been dominated by two main parties, members of smaller parties still win elections and hold seats in the national legislature. When was the last time a member of Congress represented a party that was not either Democrat or Republican?
Uh no. The actual reason is money and political capital.
Such as?
Except she isn't. Her strategy is to appear sympathetic in public but maintain the status quo regarding Israel in terms of policy.
I disagree on many of your points, I think your perspective is very....binary. Politics is mainly shades of grey.
You don't know if kamala wants to appear sympathetic or actually is. If you think there is no difference why protest at all, or why not protest at trumps rally. I think there is a big difference worth fighting for, or at least worth not sabotaging.
I have no idea how this relates to my previous comments, and as you don't seem inclined to elaborate I guess we'll move on.
The issue isn't whether Kamala is genuinely sympathetic or not; it's whether or not she has the will and political capital to take action on a view that is so politically controversial. Not only would she have to stand up to the entire Republican party in the House and the Senate , she would have to deal with backlash from Pro-Israel Democrats and from military and pro-Israel lobbyists. Kamala is a pretty typical corporate Democrat and has done nothing to suggest that she is willing to deviate from Biden's policy except in terms of PR. If you want to argue that she is, you'll need something amazing to back it up.
I didn't say that protests don't make a difference -- they certainly can, given the right circumstances. The key is the public applying pressure at the right place and the right time -- when is typically when politicians are seeking election, as Kamala is now.
And what would be the point in that? Trump certainly doesn't care, nor has he a vested in interest in paying attention to pro-Palestine protesters, unlike Kamala.
My point was that there is a significant difference worth something. When you are dissecting text like your are, you miss all of the points.
Well you haven't provided any solid evidence or reasons to believe that, so your arguments come across as pretty empty.
Ah, sorry, I'm not looking for a competition, I'm more interested in taking to people in good faith.
The irony.