Blinken told Congress, “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting” aid, even though the U.S. Agency for International Development and others had determined that Israel had broken the law.
When it comes to war America is not a Democracy and it never has been. You are going to get war every time, and when we can’t fight, we will sell weapons to criminals who can.
Funny how once theres a serious slate of the electorate that wants to stop war, things magically change like the Supreme Court handing Bush 2 an underserved victory, and congress somehow no long required to vote before wars. You we’re never supposed to have a real choice on this.
That’s cute and all, but history just doesn’t agree. Vietnam is a good example of a war being stopped by public backlash. Regarding the takeover by the neocons and now attempted takeovers by fascists, yeah, that’s sort of what authoritarians do. That does not reflect the system that continues to resist them though.
Depending on how things fall out in the coming decades, you may see what America under a real dictator is truly capable of, and how markedly different it will look from today.
Vietnam was stopped because the US was getting it’s ass kicked and found themselves unable to unravel the ho chi minh trail. The protests against Bushes war in the middle east were the largest protests in the world at the time they happened and we stayed for another two decades because we were still making money. So if public backlash worked, we would have been out of Afghanistan by 2004. But it doesn’t. Profit works.
See how the largest antiwar protest in US history lines up with Wars being started without congressional approval now? Modern antiwar sentiment started during vietnam, they weren’t a majority until much later.
Getting its ass kicked after halting the Tet Offensive in its tracks, eh?
And comparing that to the tiny protests against the ME wars? You’ve got some funny ideas. Desert Storm was a UN coalition move at the invitation of Kuwait. Iraqi “Freedom” had around 90% support in the immediate post-9/11 era.
I don’t know where you get your information, but I’d be curious to see your sources.
In the United States, even though pro-war demonstrators have been quoted as referring to anti-war protests as a “vocal minority”,[4] Gallup Polls updated September 14, 2007, state, "Since the summer of 2005, opponents of the war have tended to outnumber supporters.
Exactly what I told you, the Bush wars solidified ths anit war electorate as the actual majority. Can you look at the facts now? They stopped voting on war once the antiwar electorate was big enough to stop them.
That 36 million is a global figure. And yes, by 2005, two years after it started, public opinion had turned against it.
Here’s an except from that article with some specific events noted:
On September 12, 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. Outside the United Nations building, over 1,000 people attended a protest organized by Voter March and No Blood for Oil.
On September 24, Tony Blair released a document describing Britain’s case for war in Iraq. Three days later, an anti-war rally in London drew a crowd of at least 150,000.[11]
On September 29, roughly 5,000 anti-war protesters converged on Washington, D.C., on the day after an anti-International Monetary Fund protest.[12
Note how much larger the London crowd was than the Washington DC crowd.
Election campaigning. She’s trying to win over voters, and while we like to think she could do that by just going full-on progressive, it’s just not backed up by the numbers. Suburban moderates are necessary to achieve victory, so she’s courting them, along with any conveniently available gop defectors. They lean more pro-Israel than we do, so, so does her election strategy.
Not everyone in the electorate cares much about the plight of Palestinians, a significant number of people remember the Intifadas not as some sort of just campaign for liberation, but as a widespread rash of suicide bombings on civilians just trying to live their day-to-day. They don’t want to see the US cave to that by turning our backs on an established ally.
This is why it remains important to continue grassroots efforts to bring light to the difference between innocent Palestinians and Jihadists, incidentally. Mainstream America isn’t going to jump on any sort of reclaim-Palestine-from-the-colonial-oppressors rhetoric any time soon. Peaceful co-existence by pressuring the Israeli government, supporting Israeli peace protestors and reminding people not all Palestinians are hostile militants is a different story though, that’s potentially achievable. If the electorate continues to swing, more of the politicians will get room to follow. Especially since we don’t actually need Israel’s geostrategic position any more, as of the past decade or two. We have more leverage than we used to.
You’re right, and none of that gives me hope that Harris will pivot.
The re-elect Harris campaign will start on January 20th, and the political reality you just described will still exist.
Changing stances on Israel’s genocide will take leadership, which is something we haven’t seen from the Harris campaign. It is not Harris leading a campaign on principle, it is the polls leading the Harris campaign, just as you described it.
Those suburban moderates’ views can be changed, they just have never been exposed to an opposing message. The news says Israel is the good guys and Hamas is the bad guys; only those on the fringes say otherwise. If Harris would show leadership and take a principled stance on the side of humanity, she could bring most of these low information moderate voters with her.
This is a false hope every single time. Once she is in office, the structures she will face - Pentagon, Congress, “deep state” (long-standing war-on-terror era bureaucracy) will constrain her even harder. ASSUMING she isn’t another ideological and moral Israeli loyalist, which is a little hard to believe about someone who celebrated Seder in the White House with her Israeli-American husband by serving wine from a West Bank settlement.
It isn’t “Trumpian”, it predates Trump and is an actual phrase that comes from the social sciences and was then adopted and abused by conspiracy theorists. In the American context, it’s a useful concept because it helps to explain the continuity in unpopular or discredited policies between administration that tout different outlooks, but end up railroaded into these policies. It’s just a different name for what Obama called “the blob.”
Yeah, there is a large bureaucracy that implements policy, no question. That policy was initiated democratically though, and can be similarly reversed. Just not unilaterally by a President, who is not supposed to be a king, especially if Congress decided it.
And the blob term to describe the bureaucracy was used by an Obama aide, not Obama btw. Not that I expect honesty out of Trumpets.
I don’t know what you mean by “technical” here. There are several contexts where it is used academically. For example, here in Turkey the term is pretty ubiquitous when discussing the 80s ultranationalist, anti-communist state bureaucracy. It’s certainly in several of the English language political and international relations glossaries I’ve read.
I don’t dispute that US politics is complicated and has many democratically elected players who shape policy. That’s why I put “deep state” in quotations, because the concept fits much more loosely when discussing US foreign policy bureaucracy.
After all, when Trump got in, he fired a whole lot of State Department workers, raising fears that he was crippling it by removing indispensable experts. But what’s interesting is that his move was considered unprecedented, which sort of goes to prove the point that these individuals are embedded into US foreign policy and kept on as a matter of necessity or simplicity even if their overall strategic and moral outlook is detrimental to US interests and the world.
Not that Trump made any improvements, he just replaced them with incompetents, extremists and yes-men.
And you’re right, it was Ben Rhodes who coined “the blob”. No need to be rude, my point still stands. I am not a Trump supporter at all. His administration was a collosal failure for the Mid East’s future, but unfortunately the current crop of Democrats have taken after him on nearly all issues - from JCPOA to normalizing MBS to letting Israel run amok.
But she also didn’t attend Netanyahu’s speech and actually has been quite critical of the war in Gaza. But yes, don’t expect miracles. I still think she will be more critical of the Israelian government and whether this leads to a ceasefire or not is to be seen.
She met with Netanyahu regardless, and did a photo op with him. Every since her poll numbers drastically improved, she has become less and less pensive about her unconditional support for Netanyahu’s Israel.
It’s really silly to point to the provocations and one-sided policy of the Trump administration at this point. Biden not only kept to them, he doubled down on them, and none of them were as monstrously deterimental to the Palestinian people than what Blinken and Biden have done.
They have jettisoned the entire domestic and international humanitarian framework to allow Israel to punish, slaughter, herd and humiliate millions of civilians. And Harris sees no reason to contradict them or abandon this policy. She has made it unequivocally clear that she is with them on this. They’ve really gona above and beyond in doing so. And at the end of the day, a majority of Democratic senators gave Netanyahu a standing ovation in Congress. Her party, her president, her position.
We’ll see. I’m not so sure that 4 years from now the electorate will look just like how it looks today. I also suspect she can make a bolder move in the first year than she can in the latter half. Biden doesn’t draw nearly the level of heat over the Afghanistan pullout as he did a couple years ago, after all. The electorate has a notoriously short memory.
So, she does have some space to demonstrate that exact sort of leadership, and it could very much benefit her in the long run. It’ll have to outweigh all the AIPAC money on the other side, though, that’s another consideration balanced against how successful she has been with small dollar donations. So, remains to be seen how the calculus all falls out.
Better than despairium. lol We’ll see though. Election rhetoric is one thing, policy is another. Biden is from a whole different generation, so there’s an opportunity there.
Really hoping Harris pivots on this once the elections are over.
When it comes to war America is not a Democracy and it never has been. You are going to get war every time, and when we can’t fight, we will sell weapons to criminals who can.
Well, nowadays its become far less common, but we actually used to require Congress to declare any wars.
Funny how once theres a serious slate of the electorate that wants to stop war, things magically change like the Supreme Court handing Bush 2 an underserved victory, and congress somehow no long required to vote before wars. You we’re never supposed to have a real choice on this.
That’s cute and all, but history just doesn’t agree. Vietnam is a good example of a war being stopped by public backlash. Regarding the takeover by the neocons and now attempted takeovers by fascists, yeah, that’s sort of what authoritarians do. That does not reflect the system that continues to resist them though.
Depending on how things fall out in the coming decades, you may see what America under a real dictator is truly capable of, and how markedly different it will look from today.
Vietnam was stopped because the US was getting it’s ass kicked and found themselves unable to unravel the ho chi minh trail. The protests against Bushes war in the middle east were the largest protests in the world at the time they happened and we stayed for another two decades because we were still making money. So if public backlash worked, we would have been out of Afghanistan by 2004. But it doesn’t. Profit works.
See how the largest antiwar protest in US history lines up with Wars being started without congressional approval now? Modern antiwar sentiment started during vietnam, they weren’t a majority until much later.
Getting its ass kicked after halting the Tet Offensive in its tracks, eh?
And comparing that to the tiny protests against the ME wars? You’ve got some funny ideas. Desert Storm was a UN coalition move at the invitation of Kuwait. Iraqi “Freedom” had around 90% support in the immediate post-9/11 era.
I don’t know where you get your information, but I’d be curious to see your sources.
deleted by creator
Largest that ever happened according to what?
Here what I got, asides actually being alive back then and remembering: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/03/14/a-look-back-at-how-fear-and-false-beliefs-bolstered-u-s-public-support-for-war-in-iraq/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War
36 million protested
Exactly what I told you, the Bush wars solidified ths anit war electorate as the actual majority. Can you look at the facts now? They stopped voting on war once the antiwar electorate was big enough to stop them.
Heres a source for the largest demonstration in history. It even won a world record for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_protests
That 36 million is a global figure. And yes, by 2005, two years after it started, public opinion had turned against it.
Here’s an except from that article with some specific events noted:
Note how much larger the London crowd was than the Washington DC crowd.
How do you explain things like her refusal to let a Palestinian speak at the DNC? Or how she re-commits herself to Israel’s “defense” whenever asked?
I want some of that hope, but it seems like facts are pointing in the other direction.
Election campaigning. She’s trying to win over voters, and while we like to think she could do that by just going full-on progressive, it’s just not backed up by the numbers. Suburban moderates are necessary to achieve victory, so she’s courting them, along with any conveniently available gop defectors. They lean more pro-Israel than we do, so, so does her election strategy.
Not everyone in the electorate cares much about the plight of Palestinians, a significant number of people remember the Intifadas not as some sort of just campaign for liberation, but as a widespread rash of suicide bombings on civilians just trying to live their day-to-day. They don’t want to see the US cave to that by turning our backs on an established ally.
This is why it remains important to continue grassroots efforts to bring light to the difference between innocent Palestinians and Jihadists, incidentally. Mainstream America isn’t going to jump on any sort of reclaim-Palestine-from-the-colonial-oppressors rhetoric any time soon. Peaceful co-existence by pressuring the Israeli government, supporting Israeli peace protestors and reminding people not all Palestinians are hostile militants is a different story though, that’s potentially achievable. If the electorate continues to swing, more of the politicians will get room to follow. Especially since we don’t actually need Israel’s geostrategic position any more, as of the past decade or two. We have more leverage than we used to.
You’re right, and none of that gives me hope that Harris will pivot.
The re-elect Harris campaign will start on January 20th, and the political reality you just described will still exist.
Changing stances on Israel’s genocide will take leadership, which is something we haven’t seen from the Harris campaign. It is not Harris leading a campaign on principle, it is the polls leading the Harris campaign, just as you described it.
Those suburban moderates’ views can be changed, they just have never been exposed to an opposing message. The news says Israel is the good guys and Hamas is the bad guys; only those on the fringes say otherwise. If Harris would show leadership and take a principled stance on the side of humanity, she could bring most of these low information moderate voters with her.
This is a false hope every single time. Once she is in office, the structures she will face - Pentagon, Congress, “deep state” (long-standing war-on-terror era bureaucracy) will constrain her even harder. ASSUMING she isn’t another ideological and moral Israeli loyalist, which is a little hard to believe about someone who celebrated Seder in the White House with her Israeli-American husband by serving wine from a West Bank settlement.
I swear this Trumpian deep state crap somehow seeps into everything.
It isn’t “Trumpian”, it predates Trump and is an actual phrase that comes from the social sciences and was then adopted and abused by conspiracy theorists. In the American context, it’s a useful concept because it helps to explain the continuity in unpopular or discredited policies between administration that tout different outlooks, but end up railroaded into these policies. It’s just a different name for what Obama called “the blob.”
Uh, no it’s not a technical term.
Yeah, there is a large bureaucracy that implements policy, no question. That policy was initiated democratically though, and can be similarly reversed. Just not unilaterally by a President, who is not supposed to be a king, especially if Congress decided it.
And the blob term to describe the bureaucracy was used by an Obama aide, not Obama btw. Not that I expect honesty out of Trumpets.
edit for clarity
I don’t know what you mean by “technical” here. There are several contexts where it is used academically. For example, here in Turkey the term is pretty ubiquitous when discussing the 80s ultranationalist, anti-communist state bureaucracy. It’s certainly in several of the English language political and international relations glossaries I’ve read.
I don’t dispute that US politics is complicated and has many democratically elected players who shape policy. That’s why I put “deep state” in quotations, because the concept fits much more loosely when discussing US foreign policy bureaucracy.
After all, when Trump got in, he fired a whole lot of State Department workers, raising fears that he was crippling it by removing indispensable experts. But what’s interesting is that his move was considered unprecedented, which sort of goes to prove the point that these individuals are embedded into US foreign policy and kept on as a matter of necessity or simplicity even if their overall strategic and moral outlook is detrimental to US interests and the world.
Not that Trump made any improvements, he just replaced them with incompetents, extremists and yes-men.
And you’re right, it was Ben Rhodes who coined “the blob”. No need to be rude, my point still stands. I am not a Trump supporter at all. His administration was a collosal failure for the Mid East’s future, but unfortunately the current crop of Democrats have taken after him on nearly all issues - from JCPOA to normalizing MBS to letting Israel run amok.
But she also didn’t attend Netanyahu’s speech and actually has been quite critical of the war in Gaza. But yes, don’t expect miracles. I still think she will be more critical of the Israelian government and whether this leads to a ceasefire or not is to be seen.
But in any case she will be harder on them than Trump, who moved the US embassy to Jerusalem during his presidency and offered the “peace deal of the century”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_peace_plan#:~:text=The stated purpose of the,both parties to the conflict.
She met with Netanyahu regardless, and did a photo op with him. Every since her poll numbers drastically improved, she has become less and less pensive about her unconditional support for Netanyahu’s Israel.
It’s really silly to point to the provocations and one-sided policy of the Trump administration at this point. Biden not only kept to them, he doubled down on them, and none of them were as monstrously deterimental to the Palestinian people than what Blinken and Biden have done.
They have jettisoned the entire domestic and international humanitarian framework to allow Israel to punish, slaughter, herd and humiliate millions of civilians. And Harris sees no reason to contradict them or abandon this policy. She has made it unequivocally clear that she is with them on this. They’ve really gona above and beyond in doing so. And at the end of the day, a majority of Democratic senators gave Netanyahu a standing ovation in Congress. Her party, her president, her position.
We’ll see. I’m not so sure that 4 years from now the electorate will look just like how it looks today. I also suspect she can make a bolder move in the first year than she can in the latter half. Biden doesn’t draw nearly the level of heat over the Afghanistan pullout as he did a couple years ago, after all. The electorate has a notoriously short memory.
So, she does have some space to demonstrate that exact sort of leadership, and it could very much benefit her in the long run. It’ll have to outweigh all the AIPAC money on the other side, though, that’s another consideration balanced against how successful she has been with small dollar donations. So, remains to be seen how the calculus all falls out.
Me not understand. Me single issue Lemmy voter. Why Kamama not shit on own constituency for paltry gesture that change nothing? Why Kamama?! Why?!
Lol no she won’t
Hopium
The kids are using wishcasting now, but it’s still the same thing.
Better than despairium. lol We’ll see though. Election rhetoric is one thing, policy is another. Biden is from a whole different generation, so there’s an opportunity there.
Opportunity, yes. Moral wherewithal, maybe.
ANTIZIONISTS IN CONTROL
HARRIS IS JUST PRETENDING TO SUPPORT ISRAEL TO TRICK THE DEEP STATE
TRUST THE PLAN