So all weapons sales to Israel must be halted?
Including ones already agreed to?
Not including those?
Future sales only?
All money to Israel has to be halted?
The US does not block any international action targeting the state of Israel?
I need specifics.
What will be acceptable?
Do all these have to happen before the election?
Does she have to say she will do them?
Does she have to say she will consider them?
What, exactly, is the ask, here?
You 'need' specifics?
I need the US to abide by its own laws and not sell/gift weapons to countries committing war crimes.
You seem to be trying to figure out how much genocide support is acceptable.
Like, is it ok if Harris just sends drones and smart bombs, can we send those knivey missiles, is it ok if we just block the 2,000 lb bombs they use on tents?
Why are you trying to figure out how much genocide is ok?
If you aren't going to read what I say, why should I bother engaging with you?
I read it and responded, you posted as if there were only one option, I called you out on it.
Now you're trying to argue that's not what you meant.
Specifically, voting third party or not voting to protest the US position.
Hoping that if the Democrats lose due to a margin that you could say is because of the Gaza war, the party would fundamentally rethink its approach to Israel/Palestine.
Ideally that's the electoral nuclear option. Ideally Harris, unlike Biden, listens to protesters, her party and the rest of the world and stops the US from aiding genocide. Otherwise you are expecting people to just support genocide because you don't like rump. If Harris loses Uncommitted that's her choice and her problem. If rump is elected because she doesn't listen that's her bad tactics, not mine.
So you either didn't read the dissent article or you didn't understand Shahid's comments in it.
Or you've been misunderstanding and misrepresenting my views here for months.
Your views have been clear that you don't support uncommitted or pressuring Biden/Harris in any form that might risk rump winning. That you consider it pragmatic to accept voting for genocide to keep rump out of office.
Not once in any of these threads have you suggested you support any action to end the genocide. From street protests, to university protests to uncommitted to third party votes.
You don't distinguish between these things when you post.
Is it your view that all weapons bought in the US by Israel are actually paid for by the US?
Now you're back to black and white, false arguments. If you want to go through the amount of aid vs weapons 'sold' to Israel and figure out what percentage that is, have at it. You suggested the US just 'sells' weapons to Israel, now mentioning that they also give the aid that Israel uses to buy most of those weapons has turned your argument back into a binary choice.
How is that a response to my comment?
If your point is "the pressure of withholding our votes will get them to change their positions" then you have to present yourself as gettable votes that can be convinced by a change in position.
If your point is "you have failed morally and must be removed" then no change in position will win your vote. At that point, the proper reaction of an elected official is to ignore you, since you have made it clear your vote isn't gettable.
Which does it appear this poster represents?
Have I not been posting since Harris became the candidate that I was waiting for her to make her position clear? Have I not said that now is the time to pressure her to change her position so she can regain Uncommitted votes?
Biden was another issue, people tried to pressure him, the party pushed, protesters pushed, international pressure pushed. Biden didn't respond. Now the fact that a large enough sections made it clear to Biden that the polls said he would lose have lead to him resigning. You're going to argue that it was his senility or some other issue, I'm going to argue that the genocide was one of the issues where people stating they wouldn't vote for him aided in him resigning as a candidate. That's a win for uncommitted and the arguments I've been making here.
So far my tactics looks smarter than yours on this issue.
Please elaborate. This is an interesting approach you're trying here.
We've been over this before.
Excusing Biden for aiding genocide is a clear example of you excusing backing your definition of conservatism by refusing to act on international law applying to Palestinians and Israelis. If you refuse to hold dems and Biden to the same laws you claim to support, your position becomes very much like MAGA supporters.
"There must be in-groups whom the
law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the
law binds
but does not protect."
Either you back the law and the law protects Palestinians as well or you back the dems regardless of aiding genocide because the other tribe might win.
morningstarnews.org
www.theguardian.com
