this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
197 points (90.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7501 readers
474 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

During negotiations with the DNC and the Harris campaign, we were repeatedly told by interlocutors that Harris couldn’t meet any of our basic requests (a policy shift from Biden, a Palestinian speaker at the DNC, a statement distinguishing herself from Trump on Israel, or even a meeting with Michigan families who lost loved ones to Israeli bombs) because of AIPAC-aligned politicians like Fetterman, who might take to TV, rile up suburban white and Jewish voters, and fracture the party’s coalition in a swing state.

That political calculus alienated a key voting bloc, although likely not large enough to have shifted the ultimate election outcomes, that should be part of a durable Democratic majority. But few will ever be held accountable for that choice.

A Fetterman staffer condemning Uncommitted for not advocating for Palestinians 'the right way' is like an arsonist scolding the fire department for using the wrong hose.

Source

(page 2) 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Intergalactic@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (6 children)

It is truly sad that the Democratic Party has become this incompetent.

I mean, it kinda has been for a while.

[–] lolrightythen@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

I wouldn't think it'd take much to dunk on the current republican party.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] donuts@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (12 children)

a statement distinguishing herself from Trump on Israel

Quoting @jordanlund@lemmy.world again:

Harris stated multiple times that she wanted a cease fire and a two state solution. Polar opposite of Trumps “sweep them out and take over.”

July:

https://www.the-independent.com/tv/news/kamala-harris-says-two-state-solution-is-the-only-path-after-meeting-with-netanyahu-b2586161.html

August:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/23/politics/gaza-israel-harris-convention-speech/index.html

September:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-harris-says-two-state-solution-end-of-israel-hamas-war-is-crucial

October:

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/harris-dodges-direct-question-on-palestinian-deaths-calls-for-2-state-solution-during-cnn-town-hall/3372480

Every month from becoming the nominee until the election: cease fire, hostage release, two state solution.

These are not genocidal statements.

Trump?

https://apnews.com/article/trump-biden-israel-pr-hugh-hewitt-21faee332d95fec99652c112fbdcd35d

“But they’ve got to finish what they started, and they’ve got to finish it fast, and we have to get on with life.”

She did, but you didn't listen.

[–] GlacialTurtle@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The White House routinely makes mutually exclusive statements about its desire to “end the war,” while saying Hamas could “have no role in postwar Gaza.” Yet no mainstream reporter, editor, or opinion writer bothers to reconcile this contradiction. This calculated vagueness is central to why Israel is permitted to continue bombing and killing at will for an indefinite amount of time. How can US officials simultaneously push for an “immediate, lasting ceasefire” while, at the same time, saying the other warring party must be completely defeated before they can support a lasting ceasefire?

This isn’t a call for a ceasefire—it’s a call for, in Netanyahu’s phrasing, “total victory.” The pairing of these two mutually exclusive phrases can only mean one thing: In common usage from the White House and its friendly media, “pushing for a ceasefire” means “continuing to bomb and besiege Gaza while reiterating terms of surrender.”

One linguistic trick that permitted this contradiction to go unchallenged is the sleight-of-hand in what the White House means by “ceasefire.” In some contexts, it means the term as it has been used by the Israelis, namely by Netanyahu: a temporary pause in fighting to facilitate hostage exchanges, followed by a continuation of the military campaign whose goal, ostensibly, is to “eliminate Hamas.” But this is explicitly not an effort to “end the war” as Netanyahu made clear repeatedly throughout the conflict.

The White House’s demand to “end the war,” increasingly popular since the summer of 2024, is just a reiteration of surrender terms. The State Department banned its staff from even using the word “ceasefire” for the first few months of the conflict. But in late February 2024, on the eve of a Michigan primary that was embarrassing then-candidate Biden, the White House, as we noted in The Nation at the time, pivoted to embracing the term. But the Biden administration changed its definition to mean (1) hostage negotiations, but with a firm commitment to continue the “war” once Israeli hostages were freed, and (2) a reiteration of surrender demands, sometimes using both definitions simultaneously.

The concepts of “ceasefire” and “push to the end the war” became, like the “peace process,” a ill-defined, open-ended process for process’s sake that US officials could point to in order to frame themselves not as participants in an brutal, largely one-sided siege and bombing campaign but a third party desperately trying—but perpetually failing—to achieve “peace.”

How the US Media Helped the Biden Administration Distance Itself From the Horrors of Gaza | White House–curated stories of performative outrage and feigned helplessness provided cover for an administration arming death on an industrial scale.

Several attendees at the November meeting — officials who help lead the State Department’s efforts to promote racial equity, religious freedom and other high-minded principles of democracy — said the United States’ international credibility had been severely damaged by Biden’s unstinting support of Israel. If there was ever a time to hold Israel accountable, one ambassador at the meeting told Tom Sullivan, the State Department’s counselor and a senior policy adviser to Blinken, it was now.

But the decision had already been made. Sullivan said the deadline would likely pass without action and Biden would continue sending shipments of bombs uninterrupted, according to two people who were in the meeting.

Those in the room deflated. “Don’t our law, policy and morals demand it?” an attendee told me later, reflecting on the decision to once again capitulate. “What is the rationale of this approach? There is no explanation they can articulate.”

Soon after, when the 30-day deadline was up, Blinken made it official and said that Israelis had begun implementing most of the steps he had laid out in his letter — all thanks to the pressure the U.S. had applied.

That choice was immediately called into question. On Nov. 14, a U.N. committee said that Israel’s methods in Gaza, including its use of starvation as a weapon, was “consistent with genocide.” Amnesty International went further and concluded a genocide was underway. The International Criminal Court also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister for the war crime of deliberately starving civilians, among other allegations. (The U.S. and Israeli governments have rejected the genocide determination as well as the warrants.)

A Year of Empty Threats and a “Smokescreen” Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza

Absolutely wild the apologia for Democrats doing genocide you guys will do to avoid holding Democratic politicians and campaigners to account for their own decisions on policy and how they campaign.

[–] inv3r5ion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Her words are meaningless when her actions are genocide

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So Harris said the same thing as Biden said... while Biden and Harris were complicit in genocide. And this changes anything about the post... How exactly?

Did Harris say no bombs? Did Harris draw red lines? Did Harris to concede any of the demands in the post you are trying to strawman?

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 day ago

The fact that you read "she called for a two state solution" as anything but her endorsing genocide makes you appear to be a fucking moron.

This assessment of you is only reinforced by one of your links literally saying "She dodged the question on Palestinian deaths" in its URL

Of course I don't really think you're an idiot. I think you're a nazi. You don't give a flying fuck except for the fact that refusing to back down on this subject cost you the election. And because you're nothing but a fucking nazi, you will literally say fucking anything. You will insist that the person who refused to budge an inch from Biden's "zero conditions for unlimited support" position was actually the opposite. You're only upset that people got upset at you. You are a nazi.

Are you lost?

[–] zante@slrpnk.net 16 points 1 day ago

She was calling for a ceasefire for at least 6 months. As VP.

And the money and the weapons kept flowing.

So you can see the problem .

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social -4 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Cool that it’s the DNC’s fault. Sucks that anyone who was working towards Palestinian liberation now has to shift their attention to not getting jailed or deported.

I heard the organizers are expanding their strategy to other issues, like protesting capitalism by refusing to buy food or stopping an oil pipeline by refusing to drive to the blockade.

They were quoted as saying “These failures are already guaranteed to be someone else’s fault, and that’s the most important part.”

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›