The US primaries and the general election are two different things. Voting uncommitted in the primary expresses support for the Palestinian plight and does not give Republicans any ground.
The uncommitted movement presents a safe and effective avenue for voters to voice dissatisfaction with President Biden’s policies, particularly with the Israel-Hamas conflict. By doing so in the primary, voters can signal discontent without risking a Republican victory in the general election. The purpose is to send a wake-up call to the Biden administration that it is failing to address issues and effectively engage with the party, vis a vis that Biden is enabling a genocide.
That being said, anyone who calls for an uncommitted or third-party vote in the general election i will personally kick in the gender neutral balls (in Minecraft).
If the conclusion translates to way stricter conditions for aid (rolling back settlements, carving out pathways for aid, etc.) you won't get called fascist. If your conclusion is to let Trump into office, you are.
The first take is also a problem.
Genocide has a specific definition. The term is probably not applicable to Gaza, and doesn't have to be. A humanitarian crisis also leads to the above mentioned conclusion. Starting to call everything a Genocide that is nowhere near that level primarily has two effects:
First it shuts down any debate about what is happening and what actions to take as a consequence. People who don't agree with the application of the term "genocide" will see you conspiracy theorists or similar. People who agree will write off all arguments as genocide denial. Stunlocking all processes that could lead to action.
Secondly, and most importantly, it muddles the term. Genocide doesn't seem that bad if Israel is doing one or even Canada. While it does draw attention to your current issues, it simultaneously downplays actual recognized genocides.
An example of the second Point is, that a lot of people calling it a genocide are calling for aid to stop and NOT immediate intervention in the ONGOING genocide. Which would be a more appropriate reaction to genocide.
It honestly feels like a psy-op by Trumpels. How is your solution to this Conflict getting Trump - who is all the way on Israels side - into office? The man is one of the reasons for this situation, by cutting aid, by initiating the Abraham Accords, where "The plight of the Palestinians was an afterthought, if even that."
Genious idea, I see no way that can go wrong.
Tell me you don't understand the extent of what Israel is doing without telling me you don't understand the extent of what Israel is doing.
spoiler
I'ma head out tho so I don't get another strongly worded message in my inbox from the modsPlease do a small service for yourself and educate yourself on what's going on in Gaza. Actual fucking Holocaust survivors have spoken against it. Israel is trying to get rid of Palestinians, and every day the already thin veil comes off more and more.
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Israel is definitely complicit in genocide
The intent is probably the most important part of this definition and I don't believe that Israel fulfills that part. There are extensive measures taken to prevent civilian deaths. However this is still a war, in which civilians die.
There are also rules about human shields which defines using human shields as "... intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians ...". Which Hamas has undeniably been doing.
The burden to keep civilians out of military targets falls to the governing authority, which is Hamas.
It is important to recognize, that all these rules around war are designed to protect some groups (civilians) while still allowing for military operations. The problem is, that if these rules were to prevent nations from pursuing military objectives, because the other party commits war crimes (such as using human shields) nobody would follow these laws.
For that reason civilians kind of loose most protections when used as human shields (§3). As well as proportionally laws taking effect, that permit civilian harm to an extend if it is necessary to pursue proportionally valuable military objectives.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT BAD, just probably not illegal under international law. It is reasonable to demand change and to condemn Israel on moral grounds however. Personally I also believe Israel needs to do some big changes in regards to settlements and humanitarian aid. But also the status quo needed to change. I don't understand Hamas' goal, they obviously will never win. Idk why they are refusing ceasefire agreements etc. I understand resentment against Israel, but let's be real, their negotiating power just becomes less and less.
And obviously everything needs to be investigated, but I don't know if any damming convictions actually come from this.
Blocking food aide at the borders and targeting hospitals with precise missile strikes isn't intentional? That's a stretch.
The more I read it, the more I agree with you. The other part of genocide is you must prove intent to eliminate more than just a political group. Right now the Israeli are killing a lot of innocent people, but they keep saying their goal is to eliminate Hamas, not Gaza. They know what they're doing, and likely chose that language to avoid being accused of genocide.
You could take that to mean that Ukraine is committing genocide against the Russians because they are "destroying a national group in part" by "killing members of the group." Literally any warfare would be defined as genocide under this. It's utterly meaningless and needs to be better defined.