Biden’s approach to Gaza isn’t just immoral, it’s incoherent. A new candidate could break with his confused course for good.

Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in November’s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because he’s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying they’re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet it’s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the “uncommitted” movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the president’s base hollowed out his support well in advance of the debate.

The Democrats and their presumptive nominee Kamala Harris are faced with a choice: On the one hand, they can continue Biden’s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. That would help allow the party to cover for Biden and put a positive spin on a smooth handoff, even though we all know this would mainly benefit the embittered president himself and his small coterie of loyalists. Such a choice would confirm that the institutional rot that allowed the current situation to develop still characterizes the party.

    • subversive_dev@lemmy.mlEnglish
      11·
      2 years ago

      Now it seems we’ve reached a “verbal argument” where it’s just an argument over definitions, which I’m not interested in.

      This is where I’m personally going to leave this:

      Some people see the 70 -year genocide of the Palestinians as an unspeakable atrocity that plainly justifies violent and non-violent resistance.

      Some people want to center the fears of the occupiers in the discussion, and use that to throw up their hands and shut down any action or solution that isn’t on the occupiers’ terms.

        • subversive_dev@lemmy.mlEnglish
          11·
          2 years ago

          assault with intent to annihilate

          So we’re just making up serious sounding phrases to try and balance the scales? Which side is bulldozing houses and stealing land? Which side is practicing brutal apartheid? Which side FUCKING BOMBS SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS?

          Jesus fucking Christ get outside of your media bubble every once in awhile.

          I suspect that you can’t because you have built a comfortable occupier existence for yourself, so you can’t look at the pile of bodies forming the foundation of your existence.

            • subversive_dev@lemmy.mlEnglish
              11·
              2 years ago

              I don’t really give a shit if resistance fighters check all the right civility boxes. The occupiers were already given most of the land in 1949, but that just wasn’t enough. Fuck genocidal setters. Fuck false equivalence. Fuck apartheid. The PLO has played the civility game all these years, how has that worked out for them? Israel is an evil and corrupt society (the US is too).

                • subversive_dev@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  11·
                  2 years ago

                  Ahhh, of course, we are going to reach for the “Anti-Zionism = Anti- Semitism” defense. For the record, I make common cause with any Jewish people who oppose colonialism and genocide, like these honest and noble folks: https://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

                  Interesting, I wonder what happened immediately before the state of Israel declared Independence? Funny how you and the other occupiers never want to talk about the Nakba. Funny how you want to talk about declaring independence but not about displacing hundreds of thousands and destroying or colonizing hundreds of villages and towns.

                  How about this: return all the land that was taken in the Nakba, then we can stop talking about the destruction of the occupier state. Is that civil and fair enough for you? Or was it always about stealing the land from the beginning?