A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
The lawmakers pointed out that only an arms embargo to Israel — as has been ordered by international and domestic law — can result in the de-escalation of tensions that the Biden administration has claimed that it supports.
It's fucking insane that Dem leadership is acting the same with Biden that Republicans did with trump.
The Squad + Bernie is the only redeemable part of US politics.
there are a few other good ones like elizabeth warren.
Honestly she's the only other one I can think of.
The last article I read said that they were going to support an evacuation of Americans from Lebanon. But why let that get in the way of a good story?
But yeah we should stop arming the genocider too.
Yeah this is dumb, multiple countries are deploying troops to Cyprus in case an evacuation from Lebanon needs to happen
I'm convinced Israel is pushing as hard as they can because they know they'll either 1) continue getting the weapons and, therefore, tacit endorsement of their actions from/by the US, or 2) Biden actually tries to embargo arms to Israel, thereby losing the election for Harris, and then they'll get the weapons and explicit endorsement from Trump in a few months.
Politically, the only way they lose is if they stop being aggressive and genocidal, because that would increase the chance of a Harris victory, which means they then might not get to keep picking fights and a Harris administration with four years in front of them might very well enact an arms embargo, hurting Israel's military in the much longer term.
Sadly, the only long-term chance of the US doing something about Israel will need to be a) after the election, and b) only if Harris wins. Otherwise Trump will basically allow them to double down on everything they're doing with even less outcry. Standing on principle here actually increases the harm to Lebanon and Palestine in the long term.
The US will be busy dealing with mass deportations, the carving out and amputation of many federal departments, and the jailing of opposition politicians. And that's before it possibly gets worse. So even the limited outcry and opposition in the US will decrease with a Trump victory.
Public polling is showing that Harris would get a big boost in voter support if she and Biden went for a weapons embargo.
Netanyahu wants Trump as President. If the Biden Administration keeps giving Israel a Carte Blanche as they step it their crimes against humanity, which most democratic voters see as a failure of the Biden Administration, that continued support is much more likely to be a spoiler for Harris.
The best course of action would have been to pivot many months ago, the next best is to pivot now.
Public polling is showing that Harris would get a big boost in voter support if she and Biden went for a weapons embargo.
Source?
edit: It's absolutely amazing to me what y'all will downvote.
Thank you.
This has been true for over half a year at this point.
It is a very well known fact of polling right now.
Asking for a source at this point is more likely to be a bad faith attempt to throw doubt on a well known true thing then it is to be an actual request for information.
I'm working from the premise that I think everyone can agree with: a Trump presidency will be disastrous for Palestine and Lebanon. With that said, while polls from the IMEU suggest that Harris could gain support from progressives and Independents by endorsing an arms embargo on Israel, these findings largely reflect voters who are already inclined to support her. The polling indicates that those who already lean toward Harris would be even more motivated by such a stance, but it overlooks the potential backlash from other critical voter groups.
An arms embargo risks alienating moderate Democrats, segments of Jewish voters, and security-conscious Independents who see U.S.-Israel relations as crucial to national security. These groups could view Harris’s support for an embargo as undermining a long-standing alliance and weakening U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Republicans would likely capitalize on this policy shift, using it to energize their base and paint Harris as weak on national security.
In a national election, the net effect would likely be a loss of support in a race where she already has a roughly 50% chance of losing. The enthusiasm gained from progressives would likely be significantly outweighed by defections from moderates, the mobilization of well-funded, Israel-aligned PACs, and the energizing of conservative opposition.
The IMEU polling appears to oversample individuals who are already inclined to support an arms embargo on Israel, such as progressives and some Independents. This skews the results by amplifying the potential enthusiasm from voters who are already in Harris's camp, while under-representing moderates, Jewish voters, and security-focused individuals who might defect if she adopts this position.
Unfortunately, the pool of voters who would vote for her only if she supports an arms embargo is much smaller than the larger, more diverse groups that could shift away from her if she takes this stance. But, it would be a calculated risk that maybe she should take. No one knows exactly how this would shake out in the election. Based on a broad examination of multiple polls, I'm inclined to believe this will lose her the election.
I think that the fact one element of Russian disinformation campaigns has been to amplify the question of Gaza in political discourse points to the fact that it's a "loser" issue for Harris, where she loses if she doesn't do anything and she loses if she does. But opinions and sentiment change, and maybe there has been enough of a shift in public sentiment that it won't mortally wound her campaign anymore, but it's a gamble anyway you slice it. If she takes the risk and loses the election, all of this is moot. Trump will arm and give full-throated support to Israel without regard for what they do.
An arms embargo risks alienating moderate Democrats, segments of Jewish voters, and security-conscious Independents who see U.S.-Israel relations as crucial to national security. These groups could view Harris’s support for an embargo as undermining a long-standing alliance and weakening U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Republicans would likely capitalize on this policy shift, using it to energize their base and paint Harris as weak on national security.
This is not true, there is no polling to suggest this. In fact, multiple polls suggest otherwise. I don't know where you are getting the evidence for this other than just vibes
I get being skeptical of any one poll, but when there is multiple, it becomes evident what the stance of voters are
I'm not basing it on vibes, I'm basing it on a plurality of polls that have been done around this issue over the last six months, which have consistently shown there is only downside risk for Harris for something like supporting an arms embargo. These recent polls are considered low-quality polls by low-rated pollsters.
That said, I do hope you and these recent polls are right, but I'm dubious about it until we get more data. My inclination is to trust the preponderance of polls heretofore until there is more confirming data. It's ugly, but because I see the election of Trump as existential for Palestine, stability in the middle east, and because there are nuclear weapons at play, I'm very keen to think first about Harris's ability to win at this point in the election cycle than immediate action against Israel.
I don't like how it is at all, but I recognize that what is already an atrocity will get significantly worse if Trump wins. When the downside risk is four years of unmitigated disaster home and abroad, and with the election only weeks away, I think it's reasonable to be cautious. I'll also add, however, that public support of Israel has been consistently eroding for months now, so it's quite possible sentiment has changed enough that it would have a negligible or positive impact on Harris's campaign, but the consequences if the polling is wrong or fails to account for knock-on downsides are extreme.
Then link the polls, please
So If I want to help the people being genocided, I have to vote for the person doing the genocide and just hope that she has the Intention of changing things in the future even though she has shown zero signs of having that intention.
This "democracy" isn't worth saving
Life isn't simple or easy.
Supporting genocide is a pretty good black and white line.
Not recognizing it as such says everything about how important the lesson of 'never again' was to you.
Our senators are worthless leeches that only exist to argue over problems that will never get solved.
Let's see them implement policies that actually benefit the average American instead of just their ruling class.
They all wear nice suits.
True, Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush should be taking action like....
Hmmm...
Progressive politicians like them are the exception to the rule when our politics is dominated by neoliberalism and corporate interests
Ngl, I thought “Talib Slams” was an autocorrect misfire on “Taliban”