President Joe Biden says he will not supply offensive weapons that Israel can use to launch an all-out assault on Rafah — the last major Hamas stronghold in Gaza — over concern for the well-being of the more than 1 million civilians sheltering there.
Proof that protest works.
Go ahead, downvote because you’re mad that I’m right.
Upvoted because I’m happy you’re right. Biden will lose to the orange criminal if he doesn’t stand up and stop money and weapons to Israel. America is fucked if it keeps supporting Israel.
I think you’re overestimating how many voters are deeply against Israel’s assault on Palestine, while also underestimating the ability of those virtuous people to understand the landslide of harmful outcomes that would come with another trump presidency.
Trump won without the popular vote. He won Michigan by ~10,000 votes in 2016. I’m not the one who decided this system, but this system doesn’t give a shit about the majority. It doesn’t take much to sway the balance.
Yeah but the Dems will always lose without the majority
Why is there a “but” in your statement? You’re effectively agreeing with my sentiment. The Democrats will indeed always lose without the majority.
Because I misunderstood where you were going with it
https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
Yeah I mean I could have qualified my statement better but you know if they are voters, and they go to the polls, and Palestine is on their mind instead of domestic matters, they’re not going to pick the other guy.
Protesters vote…
deleted by creator
I’m so confused.
Aren’t you two agreeing with each other, that protests work and protestors vote?
A protest vote is something else entirely.
deleted by creator
I’m only confused because I can’t understand the conflict between the two statements. I certainly don’t disagree with your second paragraph.
If you think he was saying the protesters will not vote for Biden, I kind of understand your point but that is also part of why Biden may be making the changes he is, which means again that you are both right - assuming the protesters decide Biden is worth voting for.
Removed by mod
That’s funny, I don’t remember them saying that part. My memory must be slipping.
Well, it was an admittedly flippant comment done in passing in an effort to highlight the fact that regardless of any perceived proximal effect, protesters are still part of the electorate. What’s more though, is the effect the protest has on opinions of the wider electorate, which is where I would wager we move from a protest vote and into the area where major change can occur.
Well some protests. Did anything really happen at all after the BLM protests? Cops are still able to get away with murder and have very little oversight.
The BLM protests did work, they exposed that the US is a violent police state where voting doesn’t actually do anything to change whether we live in a violent police state because both the Republicans and centrist Democrats will collaborate as much as needed to betray their voters in order to sustain the system of policing and prisons.
The fact that in the wake of George Floyd a lot of cities and municipalities actually went more draconian with their policing laws in backlash is only an indicator of a failure of the BLM protests if you don’t look closer, step closer and you see the truth is far scarier, the BLM protests did massively change the psyche of America, it’s just that actually has no effect upon policy making because democracy is so broken in the US to the extreme point where many city governments chose to actively do their opposite of the will of the people as a show of force and a chilling warning to leftists.
In particular, I witnessed ACAB go from something that when I would say it would be nearly impossible to defend to many people, to something almost everyone (with some lefty tendencies ofc) immediately understands and agrees with. The first shift was BLM, the second Uvalde.
Agreed, and the important thing to remember is that the shift in police to seeing the population they are policing as their enemy, and as universally dangerous in black and poor areas, has been accelerating for decades.
The other side (police, the prison industrial complex and the 1% who employs these thugs) is already very clear about this this being Us vs Them, but the general US population was still pretty heavily in denial about it up until BLM.
Yup, and after BLM they would say “but who do you call if there is a shooter?”, until Uvalde disproved that idea.
I’m mostly with you, but if I tried to exercise and my legs broke, it’d be kinda wild to say the exercising “worked” because it exposed my shitty, unhealthy knees
That said, I’m all for changing up the narrative and using practical propaganda to expand support for protesters!
I mean I think where I disagree with this mapping of the metaphor is that it isn’t a personal failing or problem, BLM was one of the biggest protest movements around police violence ever.
You’re completely right.
I think framing the success in terms of awareness raised is likely the best way to demonstrate the impact of a protest/movement.
It depends on what kind of effect you’re expecting. Did the US state and federal governments suddenly defund the police and start sending reparations to black Americans? No, not exactly. But Derek Chauvin was convicted and sent to prison for 20+ years. Different municipalities did reform their police departments and even implemented things like unarmed crisis response units. BLM has helped introduce policy discussions that would not otherwise be on the table.
The effects of a protest aren’t always direct or immediate, their benefit is as much about changing the national narrative on any given issue than it is just achieving a primary goal by the time the protesrs end, and also it’s a way to learn what’s effective and what’s not.
For example, part of why these recent protests were effective and why they illicited such a desperate response from authorities and the media is because the young people looked at the failed tactics from protests like the Occupy movement and adapted.
One if the weaknesses of Occupy was that there was no unified voice, instead the media would walk up and find some random individual, get them to make some unflattering soundbyte and then put that on blast on their networks. By contrast, the students anti-genocide protests designated a spokes person, and when the media approached random protestors they would just direct the media to that spokes person.
It’s really smart and that kind of tactical refinement is arguably a result of the failures of Occupy. It made it difficult for the media to fool the public as to what these protests are really about, and you see that born out in people’s growing awareness of how fucked up the situation in Gaza not only is right now, but has been for decades.
Protesting and social justice is iterative and experimental, it’s about making it more difficult to just continue with business as usual going forward.
we have to keep fighting back against this genocide
Ok, so will the protests stop now?
Has the genocide actually stopped or did Genocide Joe just move the goalposts?
I’m confused. The protests worked, right?
Could there be an entire election on the line here with the possibility of all this back firing?
Or are we just going to get ourselves more worked up?
And let’s be clear. Joe didn’t move the goal post, he ran right through the one Palestine supporters had erected.
(I’m not good at sports ball)
Has the genocide of Palestinians stopped?
I will vote for Biden when he genuinely stops the genocide, until that point I really don’t care what silly political posturing and shuffling around of bombs in warehouses and on logistics sheets Biden does. Even if we stop providing weapons right now of any kind, the entire apparatus of the IDF and indeed Israel itself is dependent on the US military industrial complex, the fact that Biden has not used that leverage to stop this genocide of Palestinians means he is complicit.
Genocide is my red line, and if Biden is going to be windy washy about coming back over that red line don’t blame people like me for not being satisfied.
It’s possible to be right about something (your take on the US complicity in Israel’s genocide") but also be completely wrong about how to stop it and the consequences of your response.
Because if you want the killing to stop sitting out an election or refusing to vote for Biden is not going to work out for you. You will be complicit in the killing of women, transgender people, brown people and more. Because - and I really don’t think I’m being hyperbolic here - those are the consequences of a Trump administration.
Far far worse is the simple fact that our chances of stopping Israel’s genocide go to zero under Trump. You think a Republican administration will stop it if you protest? At least with Biden you know it works and you know you can make a dent.
Why are you lecturing me about this? Stop wasting your breath on me.
It is very simple, if Biden wants my vote and votes from people like me, he can stop the genocide in Palestine.
Period.
You have a peculiar conception of “lecturing”.
But do you want me to stop saying these things because you are immune to reason? You cannot possibly change your mind, no matter the argument or facts presented? No matter that Biden is himself simply does not have the power to unilaterally stop Israel’s actions?
I do have one simple question for you: What about the genocide that will happen under Trump? Do you prefer that? Do you prefer the murder of women, transgender people, gays and brown people over Palestinians?
Because the choice is incredibly binary: Less killing under Biden or more killing under Trump.
He literally does, Israel cannot function as a state without an immense amount of US diplomatic cover, weapons, and fucktons of money.
Biden can stop it right this genocide in a matter of minutes by calling up Netanyahu and telling him it is over, full stop. I am sorry but I will not vote for a candidate that behaves this way.
I’m sure many people will tell you the same: not voting for Biden is the equivalent of voting for Trump. Play it out in your minds eye; explaining to your children why you voted for Trump.
So you’ll do what instead? Vote for Trump? Not vote? Throw away your vote to a 3rd party? What a naive and dangerous viewpoint.
Sad to see your “red line” isn’t electing a dictator, because that’s what will happen if Trump wins. Spare me any twisted logic of how that’s not what would happen in your scenarios.
Isn’t this situation exactly when you should look to third parties? There is a large group of people who are dissatisfied with the policies of Biden and who absolutely do not want another term of Trump.
If you vote for either of them, it sends the message that you condone their presidency. If you abstain from voting then it sends the message that you don’t care about government policy and therefore, policy won’t care for your interests.
If you are a third party voter, aren’t the big parties incentivized to try and win your vote over for themselves?
I’m probably going to vote for Biden, but you have to wonder at what point does this diametric system break down.
I am not the naive and dangerous person here, there isn’t anything I have to do or have to stop doing.
Biden is the one who is directly enabling a genocide being committed by an “ally” that the US has an immense amount of material and political leverage over. Biden is the one throwing away his campaign because Israel getting unilateral ability to do and say whatever it wants is apparently more important to centrist democrats than winning elections (even though Netanyahu has continually spit in Biden’s face).
Spare me your liberal crocodile tears about how this is all progressives fault for having a red line at “genocide”. It is the job of a presidential candidate to convince voters to vote for them, in a normal election with a normal shitty centrist democrat candidate I would be fine helping them win even though they always shit on progressives helping get them elected the entire time.
Nah, I’ll sit this one out, I’ll call Biden “Genocide Joe”, this has gone wayyyy too far and honestly the coalition of progressives with centrist democrats is kind of dead at this point. Y’all think we are going to show up to make the DNC’s grassroots fundraising and key canvassing in important states work? We are the ones with energy, with ideas, with policy knowledge, and Biden just put us in a position where we have to violate our morals at a serious level to do the work to get Biden elected and guess who’s fault that is?
Guess who has the power to remedy this schism among Democratic voters?
It isn’t me.
AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!! COMING TO SAVE THE MOTHER FUCKING DAY, YEAH!
Classic.
deleted by creator
Yo check your tether, friend. Reality can get away from you quick.
He’s gonna start calling you a propagandist soon.
deleted by creator
You’re the one making the extraordinary claim that this decision had ‘nothing’ to do with massive, nation-wide, broadly covered protests occurring in a hotly contested election year amongst a key demographic.
So, prove it.
deleted by creator
I’ll save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.
deleted by creator
That’s just it though. Neither of us can point to a causal chain of events conclusively proving or disproving our belief.
The difference is, my belief is fully compatible with the mountain of circumstantial evidence mentioned in my above comment, whereas your belief requires one to completely ignore all of it.
So you’re going to look at a decision in the heat of an enormously momentous election year, made by a president who is running for reelection, amidst numerous, widespread, widely covered protests made largely by a demographic that is absolutely critical to this candidate-president winning said election…You’re going to look at all that and say it had ‘nothing to do’ with those same protests.
Not, ‘there were other factors’, nope, you confidently assert the protests had nothing to do with it and demand proof of a suggestion to the contrary.
Once again, check your tether.
You start distorting reality, and it gets tough to stop, by nature.
You sure are dumb. You’ve provided enough evidence for that to be fact.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Nobody asked you to.
No, you didn’t.
deleted by creator
you said:
Where is the proof. Provide it.
I asked first…
deleted by creator
Nobody asked you to.
You should prove that This had nothing to do with the protests… Provide it or walk away.
Would you like protests to stop?
Of course he would. They work.
Biden’s actions are pretty clearly NOT a reaction to the protests.
We know this because the protests have been going on for a while now and Biden took no action whatsoever.
It DOES immediately follow THIS news, and my suspicion is this is what caused the change in policy.
March 27th - Israel uses US supplied bombs to illegally attack Southern Lebanon, killing seven aid workers:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/05/07/israel-us-arms-used-strike-killed-lebanon-aid-workers
April 2nd, Biden reportedly “outraged” over the attack that killed seven members of World Central Kitchen.
https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-outraged-by-israeli-airstrike-that-killed-aid-workers-gaza-2024-04-02/
Now he’s saying no, we aren’t giving you weapons for Rafa. The last thing he wants is more dead civilians with US supplied bombs.
deleted by creator
That’s a tough statement to back up. Especially considering the scale of the protests, and Biden’s refusal to speak against isreal until this point.
deleted by creator
Prove it
You aren’t claiming a negative.
Logically, it was caused by something. You are claiming that the something that caused it was not the protests.
The only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
If you don’t do that, you’re admitting to arguing in bad faith.
deleted by creator
Again, the only way you can accurately make that claim is with the knowledge of what did cause it.
So prove your claim that the thing that caused this was not the protests, but something else instead.
Agreed. And what you should have said was “There’s no evidence that the protests caused his actions.” But you didn’t, you instead made a falsifiable claim, and refuse to back it up with proof. Making you a hypocrite.
Better luck next time, then.
What caused it?