As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.
Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.
I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.
Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.
Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.
Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.
Losing the election is the only kind of accountability Harris and the Democrats are likely to face for their part in the genocide. Otherwise, what incentive is there for either party to ever oppose it? What message would Americans be sending to the world that we would keep in office someone who’s been actively supporting a genocide?
Do you think electing Trump will be read as “wow, the US is taking a principled stance on Palestinian rights” by the world?
Electing Trump means Harris loses, which means that enough voting Americans believe that genocide is unacceptable to have held her as accountable as our system allows. It will be read as better than the alternative. Electing Harris means that we’ve been sold on genocide by a campaign that has embraced the Cheneys of all people.
… Or more likely, when the guy who was even more anti-Palistine manages to win the election, their takeaway will be to adopt some of those more-anti-Palistine policies and sentiments because they were apparently more popular. You’ve got the overton window backwards
That certainly seems to be the thinking of the Harris campaign.
A third party becoming relevant, if not actually winning, could do.
Of course, the last time that happened in the USA they imprisoned the leader.
What message would we be sending if our replacement for them is a guy that wants Isreal to “finish the job” with it? Killing fewer people matters more than accountability
There is not a big difference between one who say finish the job and one who doesn’t say it but give every resources for Israel to finish the job
The message would be that voting Americans are not okay with genocide. Harris is actually culpable, while the idea that Trump would be significantly worse for the Palestinians and Lebanese is just hypothetical. Trump is actually the lesser of two evils this time. The allegations against him don’t amount to genocide by a long shot.
The message will be that Americans chose the guy who is complaining that the massacres are going too slowly
Remember that he was ardently supportive of the Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen when he was president. We have seen how he handles this situation. He is absolutely not a lesser evil here.
can you describe this in Marvel or Harry Potter terms though?
He’s got a ways to go to prove himself more evil than Harris.
Why is his backing of the Saudi campaign in Yemen not enough to you? The war has a far higher civilian death toll than Israel’s current actions do, the Saudi forces in the area have a long record of likely war crimes including bombing a school bus full of children in Dahyan and declaration of an entire city of 50,000 people as a military target, Trump actually vetoed congress to prevent them from stopping arms sales to SA, and dozens of actual direct American drone strikes were carried out under Trump’s presidency.
Over a period of about six years and three US presidential administrations, the death toll in the Yemen war is estimated to have reached 377,000. In just over a year, solely under the Biden-Harris administration, 335,500 are estimated to have died in Gaza. Based on the death rate and the relative sizes of the affected populations, it’s clear who has more blood on their hands. Furthermore, support from the Biden-Harris administration has continued even though Israeli leaders have come right out and admitted their genocidal intent. The MBS regime certainly did commit atrocities in Yemen with catastrophic effects, but in that case at least there’s a shred of deniability regarding complicity to genocide. Harris has no excuse for continuing to support Israel, but the weapons and financing keep flowing. Therefore we have no excuse for supporting her.
So is your position that if the Saudis had killed Yemenis at the same rate as Israel is killing Palestinians, Trump would have reversed course? Bearing in mind that the war crimes weren’t enough, and he supported it significantly more actively than Biden and Harris are supporting Israel
My position isn’t based on counterfactuals. It is that Harris and the Democrats need to be held accountable, by at least losing the election, for complicity to the Palestinian genocide; that it is unconscionable to reward them with another term in the White House.