[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

What do you mean?

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Literally. Many people seem to have forgotten all the lessons from 9/11 and the clusterfuck that followed

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 4 points 8 hours ago

The genocidiers have us by the balls, folks. Nothing you can do but voice your full throated support for one of them.

Not only that, you must also shout down anybody who says they don't want to support genocide. Only full loyalty is acceptable.

Oh so you're likely voting dem anyway because you aren't stupid and/or racist but you also say Harris should abide by US law and stop arms sales to Israel? WOW LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A TRUMP SUPPORTER HERE BOYS

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago

You will likely get the accusations anywhere you are omitting the part about voting for Harris despite opposing an endorsement.

Yeah absolutely. But I don't really see why anyone should need to add a voting disclaimer if they are criticising the government's support for a genocide. People can downvote all they want, some things are just more important than party politics.

That is due to the prolific MAGA campaigners on here urging people to vote third party and using this issue as the reason.

Yeah I'm sure there are such people and they can get fucked. But in my experience the people receiving these accusations mainly just don't want the government to support Israel unconditionally. But as you said, without the disclaimer, these people are accused of a bunch of stuff.

Is it really so hard for people to believe that others actually just care about preventing mass murder? The fact someone can say something like that and get many responses talking about Trump and the electoral college system rather than acknowledging the legitimacy of the problem being raised is truly disgusting to me.

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

What makes you say that? Is there something I'm missing?

The Uncommitted group “opposes a Donald Trump presidency, whose agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing,” the statement continues. Additionally, the group is “not recommending a third-party vote in the Presidential election, especially as third party votes in key swing states could help inadvertently deliver a Trump presidency given our country’s broken electoral college system.”

I agree with them. Including about this:

Vice President Harris’s unwillingness to shift on unconditional weapons policy or to even make a clear campaign statement in support of upholding existing U.S. and international human rights law has made it impossible for us to endorse her

Although I would say obviously people should still vote for her because the political system is broken.

I was responding to this "news" because it is what many of us have been saying the whole time, only to be met with accusations that this must mean we think trump is better. Obviously he would be much worse for this and everything else. But that doesn't excuse the dems position.

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

Interesting how Hamas not releasing the hostages means that a whole fucking shitload of people who are not in Hamas are purposefully starved. It's like they're being.... collectively punished.

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah I totally understand where you're coming from. The problem is the first past the post system, but changing to another one isn't in the interest of the major parties so it's unlikely they'll do it.

You're right that this kind of thinking is why third parties have a tough time. But if you do vote third party, most other people still won't and you will just take away from your preferred option out of the two main parties. It's a terrible system where the fear of the spoiler effect takes any chance away from other candidates and from the voters who they represent. Ross Perot was the most successful 3rd party candidate in recent memory and he wasn't even close to winning.

Literally the only way out is to force the issue through protest etc.

But honestly I would never criticise you for not wanting to vote for these people. I totally get it. My disclaimer was a semi joke intended to keep people from turning my criticism of the dems into a conversation about Trump and the election

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Thanks! What part do you disagree with? On the merits of 3rd party voting?

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

DISCLAIMER: America has a two party system. In the current political climate, both parties are supportive of Israel and voting therefore offers no way to solve this issue. Trump is also worse than Harris on this issue. Not voting or choosing 3rd party only helps the republicans, and if you don't agree with their platform, the only rational electoral choice is to vote blue. While you may disagree with some policies, one has to make a pragmatic decision on election day. Voting is a chess move not a love letter. The death will continue regardless, we have no power to stop it.

Now that's over....

Wow wouldn't it be nice if the democratic party didn't insist on arming an active genocide and alienating large numbers of would be voters through their uncritical support of an apartheid state.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a candidate who did not support acts which are fundamentally evil

[-] OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I remember the big floppy disks that were actually floppy. But the standard floppy disks were way more common and even they were on their way out

74

Archive: http://archive.today/Zm9yl

One bright day in April 1956, Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), drove south to Nahal Oz, a recently established kibbutz near the border of the Gaza Strip. Dayan came to attend the funeral of 21-year-old Roi Rotberg, who had been murdered the previous morning by Palestinians while he was patrolling the fields on horseback. The killers dragged Rotberg’s body to the other side of the border, where it was found mutilated, its eyes poked out. The result was nationwide shock and agony.

If Dayan had been speaking in modern-day Israel, he would have used his eulogy largely to blast the horrible cruelty of Rotberg’s killers. But as framed in the 1950s, his speech was remarkably sympathetic toward the perpetrators. “Let us not cast blame on the murderers,’’ Dayan said. “For eight years, they have been sitting in the refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we have been transforming the lands and the villages where they and their fathers dwelt into our estate.” Dayan was alluding to the nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe,” when the majority of Palestinian Arabs were driven into exile by Israel’s victory in the 1948 war of independence. Many were forcibly relocated to Gaza, including residents of communities that eventually became Jewish towns and villages along the border.

Dayan was hardly a supporter of the Palestinian cause. In 1950, after the hostilities had ended, he organized the displacement of the remaining Palestinian community in the border town of Al-Majdal, now the Israeli city of Ashkelon. Still, Dayan realized what many Jewish Israelis refuse to accept: Palestinians would never forget the nakba or stop dreaming of returning to their homes. “Let us not be deterred from seeing the loathing that is inflaming and filling the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs living around us,’’ Dayan declared in his eulogy. “This is our life’s choice—to be prepared and armed, strong and determined, lest the sword be stricken from our fist and our lives cut down.’’

On October 7, 2023, Dayan’s age-old warning materialized in the bloodiest way possible.

....

October 7 was the worst calamity in Israel’s history. It is a national and personal turning point for anyone living in the country or associated with it. Having failed to stop the Hamas attack, the IDF has responded with overwhelming force, killing thousands of Palestinians and razing entire Gazan neighborhoods. But even as pilots drop bombs and commandos flush out Hamas’s tunnels, the Israeli government has not reckoned with the enmity that produced the attack—or what policies might prevent another. Its silence comes at the behest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has refused to lay out a postwar vision or order. Netanyahu has promised to “destroy Hamas,” but beyond military force, he has no strategy for eliminating the group and no clear plan for what would replace it as the de facto government of postwar Gaza.

His failure to strategize is no accident. Nor is it an act of political expediency designed to keep his right-wing coalition together. To live in peace, Israel will have to finally come to terms with the Palestinians, and that is something Netanyahu has opposed throughout his career. He has devoted his tenure as prime minister, the longest in Israeli history, to undermining and sidelining the Palestinian national movement. He has promised his people that they can prosper without peace. He has sold the country on the idea that it can continue to occupy Palestinian lands forever at little domestic or international cost. And even now, in the wake of October 7, he has not changed this message. The only thing Netanyahu has said Israel will do after the war is maintain a “security perimeter” around Gaza—a thinly veiled euphemism for long-term occupation, including a cordon along the border that will eat up a big chunk of scarce Palestinian land.

But Israel can no longer be so blinkered.

227
1409
967
Geopolitical rule (lemmy.world)
250
215
view more: next ›

OccamsTeapot

joined 1 year ago