After seeing incumbent Democratic Representatives successfully primaried due to calling out Israeli atrocities, I worry about the impact that a statement like that could have, even though it’s a moral stance. The zionists have a lot of money and power, as we’ve recently seen. I hope she will keep it vague until after she’s elected, then do the embargo.
Primaries are a lot different from general elections. Harris has hundreds of millions of dollars; aipac is just a drop in the bucket comparatively (and I’m sure they’re giving trump money anyway.)
The AIPAC-backed primaries are very odd things. They're *spurred* by Democratic Reps being pro-ceasefire, but that's not what actually drove most voters, nor was it what AIPAC spent most of its money talking about, nor (I suspect) was it the primary motivator for a lot of the right-wing big-money investments. AIPAC of course wants a narrative of "if you're pro-ceasefire, that position loses you your primary," when it's more like "if you're on the left flank of elected Democrats in a safe Dem seat, right-wingers will look for an opportunity to dump millions into a moderate primary challenger if they judge you to be electorally vulnerable enough for a few percentage points to make a difference, and being pro-ceasefire is one such opportunity."
As much as I agree with the reject-AIPAC type strategy of trying to make AIPAC toxic in Democratic circles, I worry that we overstate their power by implicitly acknowledging them as being an independently powerful force, rather than a convenient vehicle for existing anti-progressive forces.
I think you misread the politics on almost every front. Harris isn't actually showing deference to Biden, she's using him as an excuse to avoid having to work out a complex new policy on the fly when she's busy trying to win an election. If Harris were to verbally throw Israel under the bus now, when she has no power to do anything, it could have a lot of impact. The one I'd be most worried about in her shoes is that it would provoke greater violence on all sides in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel as all sides tried to gain what ground they could under Biden's policies before facing Harris's policy changes. And given that the entire region is currently teetering on the brink of a wider war, this could lead to wider war. She's probably also worried the move might cost her more votes than it would gain in what is still a very close election, it may be cynical but she'd be a fool not to worry about that. On Biden's policy being a failure, he's had three goals: avoiding a wider war, getting more aid to Gaza, and negotiating a cease fire. He's achieved the first so far, had a mixed record on the second, and failed at the third. It's not great but it's not abject failure. I continue to think that Biden pursuing the vague pronouncements coming from protesters would have left more dead on both sides and I continue to have no idea how one could develop those vague pronouncements into a policy that didn't do that. Maybe Harris will find someone who is smarter than I am and manage it, but I think she's absolutely right not to make that her primary goal for the next 100 days.
My main point remains: the US can pull support from Israel. We can all then feel better about ourselves and our virture. And the right wing government in Israel can then feel totally free to go entirely rogue and kill a lot morethan 40,000 civilians.
You and all the protesters don't seem to even have a clue that this could be the outcome. You despite my having said it here many times. Do you actually have an argument for why it wouldn't be the outcome? Israelis I know who have no sympathy for Netanyahu
or his cronies think it would be the outcome.
And humanitarian aid to Gaza that has gotten through due to Biden's efforts has almost certainly saved many lives. You want to care about the 40,000 dead but not about the lives saved.
Shouting over and over about 40K dead is fine, it is horrifying fact. Not actually caring about lives saved and not actually thinking through whether an action will save or cost lives because it sounds virtuous strikes me as hopelessly wrongheaded and foolish. Harris doesn't strike me as hopelessly wrongheaded or foolish, so she won't make you happy.
yeah,the idea that we're an effective break on Netanyahu seems like it's a desperate effort to pretend that liberal zionism remains a moral position right now. To look at the carnage in Gaza and say US policy has been successful in any way is really pernicious nonsense, imo.
"Harris should abide by the consensus of basically every other country in the world" is hardly a radical or nonsensical position.
Netanyahu has done whatever he wants through all of this. He is a monster. We are giving that monster weapons and ammunition, making us complicit in the carnage. If Israel is truly alone, maybe the people of Israel will demand something different.
The people of Gaza are stuck between the horror of Hamas and the genocidal tendencies of the hard right Israeli government. We haven’t been able to moderate either group. We should work with partners in the Middle East to help the people of Gaza, not put our thumb on the scale for Netanyahu and his conspirators.
I hadn't heard this theory before - that our support for Israel is somehow preventing its government and military from behaving even worse. This seems equivalent to saying "don't take away that mass-shooter's AR-15, he might start firing his pistol indiscriminately if we do that."
I'm OK with defensive arms for Israel but with strict conditions. Ok to buy tanks--but if one from us is found over the actual border with Gaza or Lebanon in particular, automatic half billion deducted from the total. Let them buy all they want to support the Iron Dome. Let them spend what they want in training whatever the Israeli equivalent of the National Guard is, but not to be deployed offensively.
They can spend what they want of their own money for the rockets and shells and hit squads and forays into neighborhoods. I don't know what the tax burden is usually on Israeli people. But doubling or tripling it might dampen some of the support for revenge that permeates Israeli news.
Had Netanyahu showed ANY signs of resolving this without the mass slaughter--almost 40 times the slaughter of October 7--I might feel differently. But he continues on with his obstruction. In any event, the whole concept of bipartisanship is compromise. As was lore in my law firm a truly good settlement is one that leaves both sides mildly unhappy. The Israeli über alles lobby is the antithesis of this. My way or the highway. We need to STOP this attitude from permeating our politics, from both left and right.
The Israeli public (not all, of course--I read Haaretz daily) are taking the same stances that the right did on Vietnam. Believe the military implicitly (yeah, right! But See: Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). Call dead women and children "collateral damage" justified because they DARED let a few Hamas members into their apartment building or refugee schoolhouse. Spoiler Alert: Remember who won in Vietnam. It wasn't us.
This is long but terrifying: a major display of delusion and revenge:
After seeing incumbent Democratic Representatives successfully primaried due to calling out Israeli atrocities, I worry about the impact that a statement like that could have, even though it’s a moral stance. The zionists have a lot of money and power, as we’ve recently seen. I hope she will keep it vague until after she’s elected, then do the embargo.
Primaries are a lot different from general elections. Harris has hundreds of millions of dollars; aipac is just a drop in the bucket comparatively (and I’m sure they’re giving trump money anyway.)
The AIPAC-backed primaries are very odd things. They're *spurred* by Democratic Reps being pro-ceasefire, but that's not what actually drove most voters, nor was it what AIPAC spent most of its money talking about, nor (I suspect) was it the primary motivator for a lot of the right-wing big-money investments. AIPAC of course wants a narrative of "if you're pro-ceasefire, that position loses you your primary," when it's more like "if you're on the left flank of elected Democrats in a safe Dem seat, right-wingers will look for an opportunity to dump millions into a moderate primary challenger if they judge you to be electorally vulnerable enough for a few percentage points to make a difference, and being pro-ceasefire is one such opportunity."
As much as I agree with the reject-AIPAC type strategy of trying to make AIPAC toxic in Democratic circles, I worry that we overstate their power by implicitly acknowledging them as being an independently powerful force, rather than a convenient vehicle for existing anti-progressive forces.
I think you misread the politics on almost every front. Harris isn't actually showing deference to Biden, she's using him as an excuse to avoid having to work out a complex new policy on the fly when she's busy trying to win an election. If Harris were to verbally throw Israel under the bus now, when she has no power to do anything, it could have a lot of impact. The one I'd be most worried about in her shoes is that it would provoke greater violence on all sides in Gaza, the West Bank and Israel as all sides tried to gain what ground they could under Biden's policies before facing Harris's policy changes. And given that the entire region is currently teetering on the brink of a wider war, this could lead to wider war. She's probably also worried the move might cost her more votes than it would gain in what is still a very close election, it may be cynical but she'd be a fool not to worry about that. On Biden's policy being a failure, he's had three goals: avoiding a wider war, getting more aid to Gaza, and negotiating a cease fire. He's achieved the first so far, had a mixed record on the second, and failed at the third. It's not great but it's not abject failure. I continue to think that Biden pursuing the vague pronouncements coming from protesters would have left more dead on both sides and I continue to have no idea how one could develop those vague pronouncements into a policy that didn't do that. Maybe Harris will find someone who is smarter than I am and manage it, but I think she's absolutely right not to make that her primary goal for the next 100 days.
Protestors have a pretty specific goal; stop funding as long as Israel is committing war crimes. It’s not vague.
I didn’t say this was the reason Harris was not making a statement? I said it was not a convincing excuse.
I think 40k civilians dead is a failed policy. The idea that humanitarian aid to Gaza has been in any way successful is ludicrous.
My main point remains: the US can pull support from Israel. We can all then feel better about ourselves and our virture. And the right wing government in Israel can then feel totally free to go entirely rogue and kill a lot morethan 40,000 civilians.
You and all the protesters don't seem to even have a clue that this could be the outcome. You despite my having said it here many times. Do you actually have an argument for why it wouldn't be the outcome? Israelis I know who have no sympathy for Netanyahu
or his cronies think it would be the outcome.
And humanitarian aid to Gaza that has gotten through due to Biden's efforts has almost certainly saved many lives. You want to care about the 40,000 dead but not about the lives saved.
Shouting over and over about 40K dead is fine, it is horrifying fact. Not actually caring about lives saved and not actually thinking through whether an action will save or cost lives because it sounds virtuous strikes me as hopelessly wrongheaded and foolish. Harris doesn't strike me as hopelessly wrongheaded or foolish, so she won't make you happy.
yeah,the idea that we're an effective break on Netanyahu seems like it's a desperate effort to pretend that liberal zionism remains a moral position right now. To look at the carnage in Gaza and say US policy has been successful in any way is really pernicious nonsense, imo.
"Harris should abide by the consensus of basically every other country in the world" is hardly a radical or nonsensical position.
Netanyahu has done whatever he wants through all of this. He is a monster. We are giving that monster weapons and ammunition, making us complicit in the carnage. If Israel is truly alone, maybe the people of Israel will demand something different.
The people of Gaza are stuck between the horror of Hamas and the genocidal tendencies of the hard right Israeli government. We haven’t been able to moderate either group. We should work with partners in the Middle East to help the people of Gaza, not put our thumb on the scale for Netanyahu and his conspirators.
I hadn't heard this theory before - that our support for Israel is somehow preventing its government and military from behaving even worse. This seems equivalent to saying "don't take away that mass-shooter's AR-15, he might start firing his pistol indiscriminately if we do that."
I'm OK with defensive arms for Israel but with strict conditions. Ok to buy tanks--but if one from us is found over the actual border with Gaza or Lebanon in particular, automatic half billion deducted from the total. Let them buy all they want to support the Iron Dome. Let them spend what they want in training whatever the Israeli equivalent of the National Guard is, but not to be deployed offensively.
They can spend what they want of their own money for the rockets and shells and hit squads and forays into neighborhoods. I don't know what the tax burden is usually on Israeli people. But doubling or tripling it might dampen some of the support for revenge that permeates Israeli news.
Had Netanyahu showed ANY signs of resolving this without the mass slaughter--almost 40 times the slaughter of October 7--I might feel differently. But he continues on with his obstruction. In any event, the whole concept of bipartisanship is compromise. As was lore in my law firm a truly good settlement is one that leaves both sides mildly unhappy. The Israeli über alles lobby is the antithesis of this. My way or the highway. We need to STOP this attitude from permeating our politics, from both left and right.
The Israeli public (not all, of course--I read Haaretz daily) are taking the same stances that the right did on Vietnam. Believe the military implicitly (yeah, right! But See: Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). Call dead women and children "collateral damage" justified because they DARED let a few Hamas members into their apartment building or refugee schoolhouse. Spoiler Alert: Remember who won in Vietnam. It wasn't us.
This is long but terrifying: a major display of delusion and revenge:
https://zeteo.com/p/israel-documentary-social-media
What a nice historical parallel!
An inspiring comparison.