Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in November’s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because he’s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying they’re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet it’s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the “uncommitted” movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the president’s base hollowed out his support well in advance of the debate.
The Democrats and their presumptive nominee Kamala Harris are faced with a choice: On the one hand, they can continue Biden’s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. That would help allow the party to cover for Biden and put a positive spin on a smooth handoff, even though we all know this would mainly benefit the embittered president himself and his small coterie of loyalists. Such a choice would confirm that the institutional rot that allowed the current situation to develop still characterizes the party.
Definitely a false choice, right off the bat.
The USA could impose a no-fly zone based on the 1949 borders.
The settlers could be rightly expelled from the West Bank.
Palestine could be recognized as an independent state.
None of that requires any cooperation from the right-wing death cult currently controlling the occupiers.
None of that requires a genocide, just the long overdue abandonment of illegal settlements.
‘Just’. Green Line didn’t work in 1949. Why would it work now? You really think anything but Israel ceasing to exist would stop this nonsense?
Was there a no-fly zone and recognition of an independent state in 1949? Why are you treating right-wing genocidists as though they are a force of nature?
Seems like quick work for the armored bulldozers so beloved by the occupiers, if karma is a real thing…
Oh! A no-fly zone! Of course! THAT is what would have solved it all. My bad.
The solution is not enabling the settlers and ultra-orthodox.
Another option is destroying / blockading the last functioning Zionist port, I expect that will get results real quick. They have decided to build their civilization inspired by the worst excesses of the West, so it will quickly collapse in the absence of endless imports.
Once you turn the grim logic of destroying houses and resource starvation back on the occupiers, you don’t have to keep pretending that they are mysterious, incomprehensible, and immovable.
So you agree then. It’s one genocide or another.
If you want to really squint and generously apply false equivalence, you could compare the decades-long ecocide, driving indigenous people off the land, deprivation of rights, apartheid and more to the possibilities I outlined I guess.
Funny how the supposed theoretical genocide of an extremely militarized society somehow justifies the continued perpetuation of a genocide against an impoverished society and people.
The occupier is always the victim in the eyes of the media they control.
Or, I could read about that impoverished society’s goals Right column, first new paragraph.
One side getting it worse than the other doesn’t matter. It’s the zero wiggle room either side provides that does.
That’s it? Your big trump card is that they call for the destruction of the occupier state? After 70 years of land theft and genocide, wouldn’t you? Would you call for ‘civility’ and ‘dialogue’?