Harris Would Continue Genocide in Gaza
Harris Would Continue Genocide in Gaza
You're viewing a single thread.
Um. Why does this article say nothing about the fact that she was one of the first politicians to call for a Ceasefire in Gaza? Asking Israel to give aid to the people of Gaza is significant.
Otherwise, this article seems to also just repeat itself saying a whole bunch of nothing. Look, I'm from Oakland, Kamala isn't ideal in so many ways. But let's not start calling people genocidal maniacs and ignoring the actions people have made, and judge them for those accordingly.
In the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, Harris was initially a strong supporter of Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas -- knocking down a suggestion that the Biden administration might condition aid to the country in November, saying "we are not going to create any conditions on the support that we are giving Israel to defend itself."
But by December, Harris began wading deeper into Middle Eastern diplomacy during a trip to Dubai for a United Nations climate conference where she also met with leaders from the region; she took a more forceful tone with Israel than many other senior administration officials had done at the time -- declaring "too many innocent Palestinians have been killed" and saying the administration believes "Israel must do more to protect innocent civilians."
But yeah I guess we can easily assume she'll just fully continue the war machine because of her LE-sided history despite how heavily against the death penalty she is to the point where she fought for a cop killer against the death penalty. The stepping stone from death penalty to genocide seems relevant here, I would guess that senseless death is something she doesn't agree with.
She may not be ideal in a lot of ways, but Kamala has shown that she has personal convictions and has stuck to them in the past. Will that remain true? Who knows. But I do know that her calling for Israel to give aid to Gaza is LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE of Donald Trump telling Israel to "Finish the problem".
In the future, for articles like this maybe the authors can do a comparison of our candidates to see how they shape up. Because quite frankly, this seems like nothing more than trying to dissuade from a candidate without saying much of anything other than "Biden's Presidency bad, Kamala will continue it".
She did not call for a permanent ceasefire
If she thinks that genocide is self-defense, then she's a supporter of genocide. Israel does not have a "right" to commit genocide in "self defense".
There are definitely candidates that are opposed to the genocide. Let's hope we put them at the top of the ticket. Otherwise, there was no point in Biden stepping aside as people want someone who will unapologetically stop funding the genocide and join the rest of the world in condemning Israel and giving Statehood to Palestine
I agree with you. This nuance here is that don't we want a candidate who has a chance of moving towards peace?
Yes, it was a temporary ceasefire, worse so, directed towards Hamas so they wouldn't fire upon aid given by Israel. Still, calling for Israel to give aid matters.
Trump will not. Biden would not. We are just assuming that Harris will, with little evidence to support it other than that she has been part of Biden's Cabinet, while her actual actions have been attempting to mitigate more death.
We have an empty seat now. We could fill it with someone who actually has called for solidarity with the victims of Israeli genocide.
Now is the time to speak out and say "no" to Harris and others who support genocide. Better options are Sanders ,West, AOC, etc.
We have dozens of other options to put on the top of the ticket that are better than Harris and will actually get people to come out to vote.
I think Sanders is too old since that's the issue with Trump and Biden. AOC isn't 35 yet and young people in politics are heavily discriminated against so I have a feeling she would be hard to get. I'm hoping her for 2028 though, as our landscape has changed and I want younger people in politics so, so desperately.
Believe me, I would love to get Sanders, AOC, Warren, West, that dem Arizona guy even. I think we are just in a situation where we're too close to have someone else - from my understanding, aren't there a number of states that currently wouldn't be able to replace a nominee? If so, wouldn't that effectively be splitting the democratic vote between states that had the new nominee and states that didn't?
FWIW - full Gaza supporter here, I do not want their blood on our hands.
I don't understand this logic. We can't afford some centrist genocide supporter. People won't go vote if we just get someome who doesn't meet the demands of the left.
Only someone like Sanders, AOC, or West can defeat Trump. Don't make the same mistake they did by picking Hilary. She lost because she wasn't a progressive.