this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
285 points (96.4% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3460 readers
113 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Glad their nominee is doing exactly what he said he would. /s
Right!? I've been so confused by the notion of Trump being the anti-Israel vote. That's not what I heard him say.
I'm not.
A significant percentage of likely Democratic voters in several states voted "undecided" in the primaries with the public, stated purpose of making it clear to Biden/Harris that they wanted changes with regard to US policy on Israel's genocide.
Biden/Harris ignored them.
Of course they didn't get those votes. It's one thing to double-down on bombing kids. It's another to double-down on bombing kids and also tell voters to go fuck themselves.
I hope the decision turns out well for them.
I had someone arguing at me here, with the supreme confidence of the ignorant, that trump and Harris would be the same for Palestineans.
I I genuinely wonder what would change? What's worse than denying and backing the genocide with weapons, soldiers and money under Biden? What worse could Trump do?
The current issues will end, Biden was at least making noises to get it to stop, Biden was trying to prevent the regional war Iran has been working on, and there were decent indications there would be recovery funding.
Trump indicated none of that and all signs point to encouraging more atrocity
Trying to stop a genocide is trying to start a regional war ? You guys have an extremely skewed view of the world.
The West Bank, where roughly half of Palestineans live was more or less left alone as one of yhr administrations red lines (also, Iran's oil/nuclear facilities.)
With trump incoming, it seems Israel feels they have a green light to expand in the West Bank.
Whoever told you that was lying, they've been bombing and expanding settlements in the west bank at an unprecedented rate since Oct 7th. They even bombed Bethlehem on Christmas.
https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+bombs+west+bank
»» They even bombed Bethlehem on Christmas.
WOW! While I am not surprised, I cannot believe that anyone calling themselves a Christian can still throw their support behind that wretched state.
When I mentioned that to one of my republican family, they simply refused to believe it and blamed Hamas.
You uhhh, might want to read some of the articles that pop up under that search:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/11/far-right-israeli-minister-orders-preparations-for-west-bank-annexation
Though yes, Israel has done some bombing in West Bank I don't think anyone who has seriously followed the conflict would say that the actions in the West Bank have been in any way comparable to the scope and devastation in Gaza. (Admittedly, unsure what Tik Tok is saying.)
Here, lets search for Israel ministers saying that shit before the election:
https://www.google.com/search?q=israel+west+bank+annexation&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2023%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F04%2F2024&tbm=
The Biden administration has not placed, nor will they place any limitations on Israel.
Are you reading any of these and actually not noticing the difference between what's being said before and after the election?
They were saying they were going to annex the west bank before the election, they are saying they are going to annex the west bank now. There is no difference.
If you honestly don't understand the difference between saying "Netenyahu must order an annexation" or "our legislators will need to pursue this" and "“I have directed the start of professional work to prepare the necessary infrastructure to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria" well, that's on you kid.
Israel have been aggressively expanding in the West Bank since October 7, and intensified their campaign at around the same time they started the war with Lebanon. There are no red lines.
What new settlements happened thete in the last year? You are conflating an increase in tensions and conflict with expansion.
Uh.... Here you go.
From the article:
Now, I'm no mathematician but surely you understand that's orders of magnitude fewer than have been displaced in Gaza, right? Please?
Yes, because violence in the West Bank has always been lower-level than the violence in Gaza. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make is.
Always does not mean "since I started paying attention" but regardless...
Anyway, you're so close! Let's tey the socratic method, given that the West Bank has been an Israeli target for years, why do you think the violence has been at such a lower level than Gaza since the rapes and murders of Oct 7th?
And why did that coincidentally change days after the election, with Smoterich now directing "the start of professional work to prepare the necessary infrastructure to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria."
If you're ruling out Biden etc, was it just a wild miracle of timing?
Huh? Are we even talking about the same conflict? This has been the case since 2005 when Israel disengaged from Gaza.
Uh... Because there's no resistance worth mentioning in the West Bank? They don't need to do much for their colonial project in the West Bank, but if settlers tried entering Gaza they'd just be shot.
It didn't change, but that aside he might've felt emboldened to say it out loud, but we still don't know if the rest of the Israeli government will allow that. In case they do anytime soon, the only conclusion would be that there were plans for such an action from before the election.
Look, if you understand the simmering West Bank conflict and slow annexation then it's even sillier to try and argue that trump and Harris mean the same thing for Palestinians, which was the entire point of the original comment.
Under trump, it looks like that project might finally get finished, whereas a Harris Biden administration was at the very least basically keeping the status quo intact.
Ideally, as tik tok has taught many progressives that Palestine exists and is worthy of care, you could see progressives voting (okay, but a man can dream) in the Democratic 2026 primaries and moving towards a 2 state solution. That is in now way realistic under a trump administration and once the annexation is finished, there isn't a going back.
Yeah, almost like it was something he wasn't able to say or pursue during a Biden administration. Of course there were plans but being able to act on them required trump to win.
Which is... not exactly something to be proud of since the only difference between what they're trying to do and the status quo is what things are names. It's not exactly a good thing, but also not the gotcha you think it is.
That's an impressively self centered privileged possible view.
"Sure, a lot of you are going to die but I think it would have happened either way so there's no difference between Harris and trump."
Especially when you factor in the Left's newfound support for Palestine and that there would presumably be support to push for changing the status quo, this somehow manages to be an even dumber take.
That's just nonsense. One is likely the end of the road for Palestineans in the West Bank, the other at least has chances for an alternative.
It's as dumb as arguing that climate change would be the same under either President because you don't think things will change.
Uh... Nobody's going to die because of this particular action. They're trying to annex settlements, which are basically already governed as Israeli territory. This is unrelated to the expansion of settlements, which is part of the status quo Harris wasn't going to change.
The left's newfound support that the Democratic establishment has been completely ignoring? There was no changing the status quo under Harris let's not kid ourselves.
These are literally the same statement. In this case the assumption isn't wrong, because while Harris would likely keep Biden's policies Trump is going to change a lot of things for the worse, but if you assume that things won't change under either administration then climate change would be the same under either president.
This might literally be one of the dumbest things I've ever read.
"Sure, things will be different but then if you assume things won't change then they're the same."
I feel dumber for having interacted with you, I'm done.
I mean you're the one who said "this is as dumb as saying things won't change because I think won't change".
I mean, I missed a word but that definitely made it more confusing (even if it was paraphrasing your point.)
Am I understanding your argument is that:
You feel Israel will eventually annex the West Bank so it doesn't matter whether Harris or trump won in 2024?
So first it's not the whole West Bank. If they did that they'd have to follow Israeli domestic law, which would give West Bank Palestinians rights and kind of defeat the point. Instead what Smotrich is pushing for is annexing some West Bank settlements. Now what I'm saying is that if his push for annexation succeeds then it was eventually going to happen (and by eventually I mean within these four years) because I just don't see Harris having enough backbone to stop it, and that even if he succeeds the only thing that changes is what the land the settlements are on is called because they're basically already governed as Israeli territory. The part where people are actually hurt—the expansion of settlements—is no different from before the election.
<(and by eventually I mean within these four years)
Yeah, I think that's pretty nonsensical.
Were that the case, there's no reason for Smotrich to wait until after the election to announce his actual intentions etc. Nor any reason for them to hold back until now. Your take requires some incredibly coincidental timing that I don't think just happened magically.
Like, I get your argument I just think it's more than a little silly but to each their own.
Cheers.
You are arguing with absolute liars. It's like people only thinking this mess accelerated under Biden (who is the most paid politician by AIPAC) is just a coincidence. As if Israel hasn't been expanding into some of the most important Palestinian cities while the world focuses on Gaza.
It's the same people who say what can Biden possibly do while funding their military operations. Trump sees the praise Biden is getting from Congress and actually thinks Biden must have been doing something right. Yet, somehow there was a good choice for people who want to see Palestine prosper (Those who pretend that Harris would do better because she doesn't shout her plans out like some cliché comic book villain).
But let's call Trump a huge liar and let's take his word at face value when it's convenient for us. I'm sure the Democrats who never learn a thing will be excited to lose the next election as well. Obviously, Trump won't be a good president but Democrats lost because they were seen as slightly less evil but with no charisma.
Thank god that the Palestinian that got their land stolen and are living like second grade citizen under apartheid are no touch. All thanks to daddy US !. You and I both know the red line is to not bomb their own Israeli settlers, right? They always had the green light... nothing really changed.
Second Grade citizen would be an improvement over how they're living in now...
I don't think you know what apartheid actually was.
If you deny that they're living under apartheid, the term used by south Africa itself to describe the palestinian situation, then there's need to discuss any further.
With all respect, I had to chuckle at this as it reminded myself of me, a quarter century-ish ago, when after having watched Colin Powell give his speech to the UN about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I confidently supported it. Then, a kind socials studies teacher pointed out the retrospectively obvious, just because a government says it, doesn't make it true. But he did so without making me feel belittled or dumb so I'll try to pass on the favour.
I'd think of it though like when trump as President says there was massive electoral fraud, when Hungary/Belarus argues for denazifying Ukraine etc. Just because a government is saying something does not make it true.
In the case of South Africa, context is huge, so let me share that with you.
Since actual Apartheid, South Africa's been ruled for 30 uninterrupted years by the ANC, which wins largely on the basis of being A) Mandela's party and B) the symbol of anti-colonialism etc. In the last 15 or so years though, progress has pretty much stopped (the stats on indoor plumbing, electricity, youth unemployment etc are heart breaking) and they've started bleeding support especially to harder, more populist, vehemently anti white parties (the two main rivals argue for seizing any white farms) on the one side and the technocratic but "whitey" party, the DA on the other side. Coming into this year, the polls and election results were the worst that the ANC has ever suffered, leading to a humiliating, first ever, coalition government with the ANC and the DA.
Amidst this backdrop, Gaza happened. I cannot imagine an easier symbol of the ANC's anti-colonial roots than lobbying a very anti colonial case at the ICJ. All the benefits of identity politics and symbolism with almost zero cost. Especially when you consider the ANC almost certainly expected they were going to have to form an unpopular coalition government and to avoid burning the country down, would do so with whitey's colonial party. (And yes, Ramaphosa absolutely touted and campaigned on his government's cases at the ICJ.)
Edit: Sorry, Ramaphosa is the president of South Africa and leader of the ANC. Also, even without the domestic backdrop, you might consider their BRICS membership and what that entails.
I thought those accounts went dormant after the election. Maybe there's still some OpenAI credit left on the controller?
One of those dumb fucks already responded here.
But Id like to think they're AI instead of just mind numbingly stupid.
They are trying to foment division among trump's opposition, the disinfo machines never stop until there is a civil war or collapse.
The Harris/Biden comparison was more valid, although we can't be sure she would stay that path once in office and with pressure from Congress and public. But at least there was a chance of both of those. Anyone who thought Trump wouldn't ramp things up or would listen to calls for change...I don't know what they were thinking. He's never done that, never been like that. His history as a businessman and as a President for four years is right there to review.