Is Lebanon Israeli settlers’ next frontier?
From the blog of James M. Dorsey at The Times of Israel
blogs.timesofisrael.com
Mister "I think War Crimes are a positive good" throwing stones in his glass house here.Valcazar is a right wing war supporter, but does his best to deflect things. A classic corporate Democrat.
Because you have said that the entire point is to punish him.Yet you were the one that brought up this language when you claimed it would be 'punishing' Biden to not vote for him just cuz he's aiding a genocide.
What on earth are you talking about?Yet you also don't propose any change to the system, are lukewarm at best to protests to change the system and seem to be against pressuring the party to back the progressives and enact change.
Right - "Biden must be punished, and then he and the Dems will learn" is your theory (when you aren't just saying it is a pure principle of "cannot vote if X").Biden losing over support for genocide will be part of long term change, you are focused entirely on the next 4 years.
What I have stated is it's an inevitably that the two sides will never make peace. So I chose a side. One I am quite comfortable making.Mister "I think War Crimes are a positive good" throwing stones in his glass house here.
LOL
You are either naive or an unrepentant liar. This is entrenched USA policy to let this happen, use attacks by Palestinians to do military operations via the IDF, with the purpose of complete control of Gaza and the West Bank. Just like the Golan Hights.Because you have said that the entire point is to punish him.
He supported genocide, therefore he cannot be supported, regardless of what else that means.
I could go all Weber and talk about "ethics of conviction" or "ultimate ends" but I'm pretty sure that's a level of discourse that would be wasted here.
What on earth are you talking about?
The Gaza protests aren't going to change the electoral system and have no aim to do so.
They are entirely irrelevant to that point.
When have I been against pressuring the party to enact change?
That's exactly what I say should be done.
Right - "Biden must be punished, and then he and the Dems will learn" is your theory (when you aren't just saying it is a pure principle of "cannot vote if X").
My argument is that you are wrong about the electoral consequences given history. (And because unlike you, I am not focused entirely on the next 4 years.)
I also object - as you know - to the "Everyone must suffer until I get what I want" theory of politics you are espousing here.
Daycare Political AnalysisWhat I have stated is it's an inevitably that the two sides will never make peace. So I chose a side. One I am quite comfortable making.
You, along with the Democratic leadership, continue to gaslight the fact you also realize this, fully support arms shipments, and the long slow inevitably of Israel winning with the Palestinians either surrendering in full or no longer there. It will take decades but this is what is going to happen, with the West's help. Its carried over US policy.
Fence sit and all you get is a piece of wood up your ass. The Dems tried to fool their base and have failed.
If you think war crimes are bad why are you supporting a party that is facilitating them? I just see them as an inevitably of war. The notion civilians won't be killed in a war theatre is ridiculous. So I don't play the fake hand wringing game.
It's either no war, or guaranteed "war crimes". That's the truth.
You have already said that he still couldn't be supported even if that happened.Yet the possibility of Biden losing over aiding genocide might pressure him to stop before the election.
Ahh, we are going to stick to this theory, then?This is about the long game, letting rump win will force change in the dems.
Interesting.This is Biden's last election and watching the AIPAC/Bowman fight is a preview of how that money will look during November.
Even if he stops the war, which you think he can stop?Zionism as a movement must be ended, the leaders taken to court and the occupation ended. That won't happen ever under Biden. He needs to go.
It isn't my sole argument.Your sole argument is that you think rump might be worse for the genocide.
its a genocide, it really can't get much worse.
No, repeatedly voting third party in tiny amounts isn't going to change policy, even long term.Long term it may change that policy. In 2028 its a different discussion.
Ahh, we are back to "It's all right because nothing bad will happen because Trump is incompetent".Trump couldn't enact a Muslim ban and won't be able to enact this, even if its still going on in Nov.
He's senile and more worried about pardoning himself, a nice piece of chocolate cake and cheating at golf.
Are you under the impression these are Federal police and that the US Government is deporting them?You think he'll be worse than this?
Check the threads, I said he shouldn't be supported because of the genocide and that would pressure the dems to eventually change. You interpreted that to mean I wanted to 'punish' Biden. That's been your term and frame of reference all along, which is based on an argument that the vote is already his and its just a 'punishment' to not give it to him. I argue vote third party, or wasted ballet.Because you have said that the entire point is to punish him.
He supported genocide, therefore he cannot be supported, regardless of what else that means.
I could go all Weber and talk about "ethics of conviction" or "ultimate ends" but I'm pretty sure that's a level of discourse that would be wasted here.
I didn't say it would change the electoral system, I only argued that your sole frame of reference is that its a wasted vote, not electoral change and not change to either party.What on earth are you talking about?
The Gaza protests aren't going to change the electoral system and have no aim to do so.
They are entirely irrelevant to that point.
When have I been against pressuring the party to enact change?
That's exactly what I say should be done.
Again, your language, not mine. Votes are not owned by a party and its not a punishment to not give it to them. They must earn that vote.Right - "Biden must be punished, and then he and the Dems will learn" is your theory (when you aren't just saying it is a pure principle of "cannot vote if X").
My argument is that you are wrong about the electoral consequences given history. (And because unlike you, I am not focused entirely on the next 4 years.)
I also object - as you know - to the "Everyone must suffer until I get what I want" theory of politics you are espousing here.
No one should want an escalation of the conflict, but it is pretty clear that there are people who really do.Not good news for POS Nation
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman: US likely unable to assist Israel in war with Hezbollah
Gen. Brown asked Israel to think of how a war would affect the region, as well as the impact it would have on US forces.m.jpost.com
No, no and no.You have already said that he still couldn't be supported even if that happened.
Also that it would have stopped on its own because you don't expect it to continue.
Also that everything will be exactly the same under Trump so in fact none of this has any effect at all no matter what.
Have you looked at US history?Ahh, we are going to stick to this theory, then?
You still think "The pro-Israel side winning the election will teach the opposing party that they should be less pro-Israel"?
Have you... looked at US electoral history?
So to answer this.
1) I don't see any reason to believe your theory of cause and effect should be true.
2) I see even less reason to inflict suffering on people short term in order to get your preferred long-term result.
I do understand that "Look, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" is a thing some people believe and even embrace.
But doubling down on that on the hope - unsupported by evidence - that it will be worth it in the end isn't really my jam.
Whether or not Bowman wins, AIPAC loses as they become the target of everyone not taking their money.Interesting.
So how is it going to look, extrapolating from what you are seeing in that fight?
Biden should end his life in court at the ICC along with Netanyahu.Even if he stops the war, which you think he can stop?
He just needs to go, no matter what?
We're back to "Biden must me made an example of and punished" I see?
Its your sole rationale, dressed up with multiple methods to justify it.It isn't my sole argument.
Are you even reading?
Support for the Vietnam war tanked after Nixon and Humphrey. That changed the system somewhat as did the Pentagon papers.No, repeatedly voting third party in tiny amounts isn't going to change policy, even long term.
You would need impressive numbers.
But even then, you have a serious problem in that you have NOT ONCE proposed what people should do instead.
If they stay home, no one knows why and so they don't get counted.
If they vote for RFK - he is more pro-Israel than Biden and possibly even than Trump.
If they vote Stein in massive numbers, maybe you get a signal.
Or maybe voting West.
But if the idea was to make a serious statement, there would be a coordinated effort to rally behind a pro-Palestinian candidate with it being clear that is why they are getting that support.
Outside of one poll in one state that hasn't been repeated, we haven't seen that and their certainly hasn't been any such attempt to create a coordinated message.
Hell, you - in all your "But We ARE CHANGING THE SYSTEM" hasn't even thought to bring it up.
And you're back to this MAGA like claim that they other party will destroy the US and its perfect democracy.Ahh, we are back to "It's all right because nothing bad will happen because Trump is incompetent".
While I think this is ludicrous wishcasting, at least it is better than "No, everyone SHOULD suffer if they don't agree with me".
This is just "If I wish and pray really hard, I won't have to feel bad about what I helped cause happen! (even if I think it is ok because my hands would be clean because I don't understand voting systems)"
Stupid comment, as straw man arguments that's quite weak.Are you under the impression these are Federal police and that the US Government is deporting them?
Person.No one should want an escalation of the conflict, but it is pretty clear that there are people who really do.
I've assumed they want to go after Lebanon for quite some time..Is Lebanon Israeli settlers’ next frontier?
From the blog of James M. Dorsey at The Times of Israelblogs.timesofisrael.com
You also called on Israel to commit war crimes.What I have stated is it's an inevitably that the two sides will never make peace. So I chose a side. One I am quite comfortable making.
Given your authoritarian tendencies, this doesn't surprise me in the least.I just see them as an inevitably of war.
Ahh, the classic "people get hurt in war, therefore war crimes are bullshit" defense.The notion civilians won't be killed in a war theatre is ridiculous. So I don't play the fake hand wringing game.
Scare quotes around "war crimes" as well?It's either no war, or guaranteed "war crimes". That's the truth.
I see.This is entrenched USA policy to let this happen, use attacks by Palestinians to do military operations via the IDF, with the purpose of complete control of Gaza and the West Bank.
You have argued he has to lose.Check the threads, I said he shouldn't be supported because of the genocide and that would pressure the dems to eventually change. You interpreted that to mean I wanted to 'punish' Biden. That's been your term and frame of reference all along, which is based on an argument that the vote is already his and its just a 'punishment' to not give it to him. I argue vote third party, or wasted ballet.
Because it isn't electoral change.I didn't say it would change the electoral system, I only argued that your sole frame of reference is that its a wasted vote, not electoral change and not change to either party.
You have said "Biden must lose" and the point of him losing is so that the dems will learn their lesson and come over to your position.Again, your language, not mine. Votes are not owned by a party and its not a punishment to not give it to them. They must earn that vote.
Of course where that vote goes is up to the voter.Biden chose genocide and is losing support, where that vote goes is up to the voter, whether or not you think its wasted.
Yes!The idea of democracy is that you get to choose, even if you disagree.
Of course they will!If you have an issue, take it up with the dems themselves for allowing Biden to destroy his reelection and put rump back in power. It is their choice.
Voters will make their own choices in response.
Again, that is your right! (Well, it isn't, you don't vote.)You argue its naive to waste a vote, I argue its more naive to put someone in power who is committing genocide.
Never Again.
Yes, and Jill Stein should win.You have argued he has to lose.
Don't try to weasel out of it now.
The system needs change and the dems need change, well, so does the GOP.Because it isn't electoral change.
And you have been saying the whole time that the point is to change the system. This is what you complain about me not proposing.
If you were talking about shifting the political parties' positions on the issue, you would be talking about that.
Those are completely different things.
Its not 'punishment', Biden needs to earn the chance to win. He could have but instead chose to waste it backing genocide.You have said "Biden must lose" and the point of him losing is so that the dems will learn their lesson and come over to your position.
Yes, that is "Biden must be punished" no matter how often you try to pretend it isn't.
Isn't it already? Isn't voting for rump a choice about morality? Same with voting for Genocide Joe.Of course where that vote goes is up to the voter.
As I have said repeatedly, the voter needs to think about what the purpose of their vote is and what they accomplish by it.
That is the part you and I disagree about.
You seem to want voters to cast it as a sort of statement about their own personal morality instead.
By arguing that its 'accomplish' you are saying voting can only be strategic, which is anti democratic.Yes!
You choose what to vote for based on what you are trying to accomplish.
I'm not sure why you are so violently opposed to that - or worse, insist on denying the things you say you want to accomplish with your vote.
This is back to your view that strategic voting is the only option. That's your view and your metric, just as you are free to argue its naive to vote for what you actually want instead of choosing the lesser of two massive evils.Of course they will!
My issue is that they should choose with intention and not be deluded about what they are choosing and why.
As always, I find it fascinating that you freely admit the point of casting a vote this way is to make Biden lose and then turn around and deny that is what you are doing and instead claim votes should be about personal feelings.
(That you know this not to be true is shown by how hard you try to deny anything bad will happen when Trump wins because it would make you feel bad to have contributed to that, even though you KNOW that is what you are doing.)
Yes, some people have limits to what they will support.Again, that is your right! (Well, it isn't, you don't vote.)
You have decided it is better for Trump to be in power.
Biden's actions are such that you must see him deposed and he must be punished electorally.
Whatever Trump does in the 4 years that follow is justified because hopefully the Dems will learn to be more anti-Israel in the future, then after learning that they will convince the American people to be the same, and after that the Dems will win the election and implement an anti-Israeli policy.
The trade off of all GOP policies and USA actions in the meantime are totally justified by this.
That decision -- that this is a wise trade off -- is absolutely one that any voter is allowed to make.
I'd say at least Bush and the War on Terror.I see.
This has been official US policy for how long, in your opinion?
Wow, you really are naive, or just a blatant liar......You also called on Israel to commit war crimes.
Given your authoritarian tendencies, this doesn't surprise me in the least.
Ahh, the classic "people get hurt in war, therefore war crimes are bullshit" defense.
Scare quotes around "war crimes" as well?
Well, at least you are true to your convictions about this.