219
kamala would never do israels bidding
(quokk.au)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
219 points (94.7% liked)
Memes of Production
1581 readers
311 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
Kamala would have continued suport for Israel, including arming and funding them, just like Biden. But starting literal war with Iran? Bombing school girls? I kinda doubt it. Biden didn't.
What about firing all the senior generals and burning 14 years of missiles in 1 month or turning Hurmuz into a reparations toll booth?
IMO the lefty "own the libs" mentality is indistinguishable from maga's brain rot. Like congrats your mom smoked weed instead of taking you to church I guess.
America is cooked because the people most dialed into what's going on all have goldfish brains apparently.
Bold of you to assume I’m a leftist because my mom told me to be one and not from all the bigoted shit I saw at church.
My thought exactly. Nothing dissuades people from being xtian than being around other xtians long enough.
Removing seniors generals make the chance of the usa winning the war lower. Israel will always get prioritized so the same amount of interceptors would have been used. The west should finally pay the price of hurting Iranians wirh sanctions by paying fortheir ships to pass from the straight
What about.....
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/14/the-jerusalem-u-s-israel-strategic-partnership-joint-declaration/ (because the WH direct link memory holed' it)
Its the same doctrine that the Trump whitehouse is following. Biden supported the genocide of Palestine, under this doctrine. Do you think Kamala would have been to stop the 12 day war? Or would have even been interested in stopping it?
I don't. At least not with the level of support to Israel you describe, a level of support almost certainly she would have maintained or at least increased. It would have been more polite. Probably more competent. Maybe they would have built a coalition first. Maybe they spend 6 months sane-washing it so that BlueMAGA supports it.
But this is what Israel wanted. And the Biden Whitehouse and the Harris candidacy ran on a policy of giving Israel everything they wanted.
Eh. For decades US Presidents have given full-throated support to Israel. For decades they have hugged Israel's PM and invited them to Congress. For decades Israel has asked US Presidents to bomb Iran to dust. And for decades US Presidents said no. Until Trump.
It's fair to say that Israel has wanted to push out or kill all the Palestinians for decades, yet no POTUS before Biden gave them carte blanche to do so. Going on that standard there's no telling what Biden's actual red lines were. Especially since reducing Iran to reinforce the stranglehold of the global north's oligarchs has long been a goal of the Pentagon too.
Did you not notice the Gaza genocide? Whose presidency did it start under?
i didn't say anything about Gaza. We're talking about Iran
Well no shit.
You don’t see a pattern?
ETA:
Thousands dead and neighbourhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
Do you want to go "Uhm, ackshually" man-splain to The Independent that Lebanon isn't Gaza?
DO YOU SEE A PATTERN? If not, why not?
I think you accidentally posted this twice.
I mean, I did post it twice to two separate people saying the same thing.
This may come as a bit of a shock, but Gaza is not Iran.
Well no shit.
You don’t see a pattern?
ETA:
Thousands dead and neighbourhoods razed to the ground: Aid agencies fear southern Lebanon is becoming the new Gaza
Do you want to go "Uhm, ackshually" man-splain to The Independent that Lebanon isn't Gaza?
DO YOU SEE A PATTERN? If not, why not?
Please tell me you didn't vote third party in November...
You keep following me around, straw-manning me, derailing the conversation, making ad hominem attacks. Get lost
Right ...so anyways. Did you vote for Jill or not?
So you've moved on from bullying cross-dressers to bullying… people who ask why we're bullying cross-dressers?
Really selling me and everyone else on how totally justified you were in your bullying.
Right. No anwser suggests you either voted third party, or you're not even American anyways and your opinion on this matter does not matter.
Want to provide any input?
Pathetic.
I mean if they, did, I'm sure you'll see the point in advocating full-throatedly to their demands, since you couldn't stop fascism without them.
That's only a valid argument if you assume more votes would be gained from acceding to their demands than not. Otherwise you still end up with a loss, only now you're looking at the fucking Zionist 'moderates' being the missing piece that we have to accede 'full-throatedly' to, since we can't 'stop fascism' without them.
Yeah this was the hand-wringing the trope they rolled out during the elections. Considering that the majority of Zionists are republicans already, at least in the form of Cristian zionists, we (both now and should have then) can readily dismiss this. It gets the Democratic candidate bupkis.
And a miscalculation (or, depending on your point of view, throwing the game for the opposition) does not mean that the idea is inapplicable.
"They should have leaned more towards anti-Zionists to win" does not equate to "Completely acceding to anti-Zionists in a coalition which includes a large number of Zionists would have brought victory."
Okay, it doesn't fucking matter that most Zionists are Republicans. What matters is that a sizable percentage, even if a minority, of Democrats are Zionists.
Using the term Zionist as you would on here, on Lemmy/the Fediverse, what percentage of Dem voters - who make up a good 1/3 of this country's electorate - do you think are Zionists? How many do you think we can lose? How many dedicated anti-Zionists are out there in the electorate, willing to vote for the Dems if they change position on just this one issue?
I want to push back on this, because I think it does matter, because it speaks to Democratic strategy for the election. Who are you doing a thing for? Its not any different than them heading hard right with their campaign post/ during the convention: Who is the thing for?
And what percentage are Muslim? Or are Palestinian? Or from Mexico? Or.. or.. or... and I can go on, for all the groups Democrats lost with how they approached both governance and the election.
The argument I saw out there was that Harris couldn't break with Biden on Palestine, or else she would lose Pennsylvania. Well she lost Pennsylvania. And in her effort to not lose Pennsylvania, she also lost Michigan. And Georgia and Nevada. Calling it a miscalculation is like.. its a gross understatement.
I can't believe we have to relitigate all of this because Booker has decided that he, one of the least popular Democrats in history, has decided he doesn't want the left to have a roll in the Democratic party.
Its basically political fact that Harris blew it with her support of Israel, and by not campaigning to her base. Instead of pre-blaming voters, the blueMaga contingent should have been actively advocating for policy changes instead of defending positions the voters had made loud and clear, that they would not vote for.
And if you are ABWD/ BlueMAGA, we don't need to worry about your perspectives, because your vote is a forgone conclusion. You aren't gaining voters catering to the sensibilities of privileges liberals. You win elections growing coalitions into groups of voters you either lost or didn't have.
No, it doesn't matter because of what I laid out below - that a sizable percentage, even if still a minority, of Democrats are Zionists.
Less than 5%, on both counts. And with considerable overlap rather than adding up to nearly 10%.
Do you know what percentage of Muslim and Palestinian voters voted for Trump? Apparently, the single issue was not quite the dealbreaker for their vote you're implying it is. I specified Zionist precisely because it is a policy position, and I specified, for that matter, how many anti-Zionists would be gained and how many Zionists would be lost (or rather, asked to consider whether the gain would outweigh the loss, not demanding you to have a specific number ready off the top of your head).
I didn't realize Zionism was such a hot topic for Mexican-Americans.
Man, I don't give a fuck what you call it, I went ahead and fucking specified that you could say it was deliberate for all the choice mattered to the point being disputed.
... and you think people you characterize as "BlueMAGA", especially as such a label is often combined with criticism of party elites who push harder against the left wing of their party than against the GOP, will actually vote blue no matter who?
Just.. Just read through your response. You are arguing that because there is some slight minority of Democrats who identify as Zionists, we have to cater to their views; that they were the electoral segment the Dems could not lose less they lose the election. My point in bringing up Mexico and Muslims is that they too are a segment of the vote Dems could not lose less they lose the election. But because liberal moderates, the BlueMAGA coalition, insists that their identity and sensibilities be centered in democratic politics, the Democrats lost the election. They ran a campaign focused on appealing to white moderates and it fucking lost. The lost ground with Muslims because of how they campaigned. They lost ground with Mexican voters because of how they governed. And they LOST! Thats the entire point. Your argument only holds up if Democrats had actually won with the strategy they used. Pennsylvania was the "could not lose state" that Dems claimed they NEEDED to maintain support for Israel to get, and they lost that state too.
The point is that there was either a) not enough appeal among zionist voters with Democrats or b) that zionist voters weren't sufficient to get Democrats elected: Regardless of the mechanism, it was a losing strategy.
I think it needs to be put to a test and that White Liberals have shown themselves to a net drag on the parties elect-ability when its their approach to politics, when its their identity which gets centered in campaigns. We can't hand-wring about ABWD when the "no-confidence" vote is out there specifically telling you they won't vote D if they support a genocide. They told you what their requirement for voting D was. You should have just fucking listened.
I think a big part of "why now" is that the decades of propaganda painting Israel as the "good guys" of the region have really frayed. I believe that this was basically the last-ditch effort by Israel to meet it's most desired strategic objectives before it loses its remaining political cover. There may have been more pushback from a less incompetent military under Harris, but I'm not at all confident that she wouldn't have been sold on it anyway.
ftfy.
Biden didnt seem to care about Israel using bombs he supplied to kill plenty of school girls.
But you see, it's different because the US is only supplying the orphan crushing machine, keeping it running, and making more. It's okay as long as we aren't actually throwing the orphans in ourselves!
Start a war, probably not
Let Israel start a war and follow in after, probably
Maybe she wouldn’t, but Bibi would. Then what?
Then Iran and Israel trade shots a few times, like happened the past dozen fucking times Israel attacked vital Iranian infrastructure.
I don’t think we are dealing with the same Israel we were before October 7th.
And I don’t think Harris has some secret way to handle Bibi that neither Joe nor Donald have.
Bibi would have dragged her along just like he has the other two.
I think we're dealing with the exact same Israel we were before October 7th.
No, but only Trump has been shitwitted enough to crater his own domestic approval rating and long-term US interests for Israeli asspats on his diaper.
Except Bibi's strikes on Iran literally were not accompanied by American intervention in Iran during the October 2024 Israeli attacks on Iranian soil.
So clearly there is a difference between now and then.
Oooookay, we are totally dealing with pre-October 7th Israel. The one that knowingly attacked a US ship in 1967: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
The US had to cover up the attack and still supports Israel to the hilt.
Yeah. It's horrific. And the reluctance to confront Israel only gotten worse since then. Especially since AIPAC gaining a death grip on domestic US politics in the 1980s (it had been around since the 50s, but didn't control discourse on Israel quite so totally), and then intensifying again with the heightened Islamophobia and evangelical millenarianism of the "War on Terror" in the 2000s.
This is correct, mostly because apparently they already knew Strait of Hormuz was an issue. War is off the table if it hurts economically.
But bombing school girls? I could see it not stopping them. They just wouldn't be as inept to waste missiles on it; it wouldn't stop them if there was a strategic reason. They're not much better than Israel, if our actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria are any indication.
Yeah, but Kamala and Biden ~~were~~ were not flitting off to fiddle kids with Epstein, so Israel didn't have leverage.
What would Kamala do after Iran closes the strait in response to Israel's actions?
Why would Iran close the strait in response to Israel's actions?
Same reason they're doing it now, to stem the flow of arms into Israel and make everyone enabling America and its attack dog choose between enabling us and having oil.
Jesus fucking Christ, you can't be serious.
So why didn't they do this the last dozen times they were attacked by Israel?
Because those were much more limited strikes. Why exactly do you think Iran closed the strait?
They eradicated most of Iran's air defenses, which is kind of pertinent to the situation they find themselves in now.
... because the US joined an all-out fucking war on Iran, and increased oil prices weaken the domestic position of the American president to maintain the war.