Activists from around the country told The Intercept that they will advocate for an anti-war agenda at the convention in August and withhold their vote in November unless an adequate candidate steps up, listing policy priorities such as support for a permanent ceasefire and standing up to the pro-Israel lobby as it intervenes in Democratic primaries. Even as the Biden campaign insists that he will not step aside, many Democrats appear to be lining up behind Vice President Kamala Harris as an alternative candidate, with some Democratic governors being floated as well.
“My number one criteria for any candidate is opposing the genocide in Gaza,” said Saad Farooq, an uncommitted voter in Massachusetts. Farooq said it was unlikely that the Democratic National Committee would select any candidate who took a stance against Israel’s ongoing war, and that he would support Green Party candidate Jill Stein if she were to appear on the ballot in Massachusetts.
Will Dawson, an uncommitted voter in Washington, D.C., named several factors that could get him to switch his vote from the Green Party’s Stein to another politician. First on his list is a promise to call for an immediate ceasefire and fighting the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Congress.
“This candidate would also ideally work toward pulling further away from the Israeli colonial project over time, with the goal being repealing our absurd financial support, ending the foreign interest agency of AIPAC, and pushing for a nation-wide boycott a la [South Africa] during their apartheid,” Dawson wrote.
The candidate would also have to push to reform the Supreme Court, he added. “The candidate would have to promise to both push for justice impeachment, and expand the courts,” Dawson said.“If a replacement candidate met both of these requirements, I would absolutely consider switching my vote from Jill Stein. Hell, I might even knock doors/canvass for them!”
And you're ignoring literally everything else I said, which is exactly my point.
I mean, when talking about geopolitics, the "geo" part is fundamentally important...
It would have been nice if you apologized, but fine we'll move on to the next sentence:
In which of those is the US providing munitions to the attackers against international and domestic laws for them to carry out a genocide?
Quick edit:
Were you going to answer this:
There's just so much wrong with your first comment, it's hard to address it all.
But I'm willing to help explain it so you can understand. This is pretty important stuff. We cleared up that Israel isn't in Europe pretty quickly. So I'm optimistic on the rest.
The US could stop what's happening in multiple of those countries. Does non-action not count towards death tolls? If you have the ability to pull a level that lets 20 people live, is it not your fault if you choose not to pull that lever and they die?
Also, what level of support matters? What if instead of sending munitions they only sent money, would that be a problem? What if instead of money they only sent food, which frees up their own money to buy munitions? The fun thing about the global economy is that almost anything is fungible at scale. Hell, if you look behind the curtains there are US goods and services being used in Russia to attack Ukraine right now, it's just flowing through third parties first to obscure the transactions. The government may not be sending it directly, but America is benefiting from it.
The US though has provided both direct and non-direct support causing genocides in multiple places even in the last 20 years. George W Bush got re-elected while the Iraq war was happening, and that killed a couple hundred thousand civilians, which is what... 6 times the current Gazan death toll? Not to mention Afghanistan which was it's own problem on top of that.
Yes, Palestine vs Israel is a war. It's not automatically a genocide just because one side is absolutely wiping the floor with the other. It's been a war since literally the day after Israel was founded, FIVE arab countries invaded Israel the moment the British Protectorate ended because they didn't like the UN agreed upon borders. People seem to ignore this fact for some reason because it's inconvenient to their "truth".
You're smart, so I'm hoping you're smart enough to follow the money. The US and the west are funding Israel. Why? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with Palestinians, and everything to do with who is funding the Palestinians.
The truth behind of all of this is that both the Israelis and the Palestinians are mostly just being used by others in a proxy war, Hamas is fully funded and armed from outside of Gaza by foreign groups, they have effectively no local income or production related to the fighting other than supplying the people to die.
So why would the US and allies care? Because if Iran and group take out Israel (as is their stated goal) the US ability to control Iran will be diminished and Iran can then become a bigger threat to the western world.
And that's how Geopolitics work.
Well, with the genocide in Gaza, Israel literally would have ran out of munitions and would have had to stop months ago...
If Biden hadnt kept giving them.
But Israel is in no way a "proxy" they should be, but Biden lets them drive the car all the way to Genocide town.
Bibi wants to genocide Palestine, and take their land.
He ain't exactly subtle about it, members of his government keep saying it out loud even.
You're obviously very opinionated about this, you're just wrong...
About almost everything you said so far I'm honestly curious. Where are you getting your information to form these opinions?
Even that.
If Iran attacks Israel, it's going to be because Israel keeps attacking Hezbollah, and Iran is one of the country's they have a defensive treaty with
Israel is the one starting shit in the Middle East
No, not Biden, the USA. Where’s your critical commentary against the GOP who overwhelmingly supports Israel’s actions? Your one note anti-Biden posts are tiring.
Go plant some sunflowers.
"I'm just wrong"
Israel does want the land. So does Palestine and the supporting countries, they're also on record stating they want to eliminate Israel.
That's kind of what defines a war most of the time.
"If Iran attacks Israel" You say that like it's a hypothetical, have you already forgotten the 100+ drones and missiles they lobbed at Israel on April 13th?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel
As I said before, and as you completely ignored. The British protectorate ended on May 14th, 1947 and on May 15th a coalition of Arab states invaded Israel. They did so because they did not like the borders set by the UN and wanted more territory. Tell me again how it's Israel that started this shit?
What?!
Palestine wants the land inside Palestine's borders?!
You're right, that totally warrants a genocide y
/s
A) They don't just want it inside Palestinian borders, they have actually stated they want to eliminate Israel.
B) There are no Palestinian borders, it's not a country, it's never been a country. There have never been agreed upon borders by all interested parties.
C) For Gaza specifically, it was occupied by Egypt for almost a couple decades in the middle of all this mess. So who's borders are they again?
Far as most of lemmy's centrists are concerned, genocide is its own reward.