Oh, listen people. We can’t stop providing aid, or selling arms, or providing intelligence and logistical support, or political cover in the international community or sending carrier group after carrier group in to threaten their neighbors, or else we might lose leverage over them. In short, you’re saying we have to do everything possible to enable their crimes, or we might lose the ability to influence their criminal behavior. Please examine how absurd that sounds. The dynamic you’re describing makes this sound vastly more complex than it is. This approach is frequently used by those on power to absolve themselves from responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Furthermore, if economic pressure doesn’t work, I guess we can go ahead and open up Russia trade again. Right?
Sanctions against Israel would probably be effective, but impractical when they were attacked and still have a significant amount of support in the populace. You could get some Americans behind neutrality, but not helping hamas.
I don’t disagree that it sounds absurd, but global politics just very often is, due to its fundamentally unethical nature. At that scale people are not individuals, they are numbers on a sheet of paper, simply because of the purely mechanical perspective of so many world leaders. At the end of the day, you have to work with what you’ve got, whether absurd or otherwise. It’s not about absolving, guilt is guilt. It’s about there being no guilt-free paths, so this guilt is preferable to the guilt even greater Palestinian casualties. ~50k have died, right? You know that absolutely could be 500k, right?
And if you don’t think the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is genuinely complex, you’re probably buying into someone’s bullshit. It is very complex.
Lastly, it’s a pretty gross exaggeration that we’re doing everything we can to enable their crimes. If we were, there wouldn’t be any Palestinians left anymore. They’re not that hard to kill.
It’s not easy, actually, to kill or cleanse millions of people while maintaining some semblance of legitimacy in the international community.
Leaders don’t craft their ideologies on what they believe Americans will ‘get behind’. Leaders will attempt to steer Americans to the right position. Harris and this community are all proud of what a righteous leader she’s supposed to be. I’m just holding her to the standard set by her own rhetoric.
You underestimate Netanyahu’s pragmatism. He knows full well he can get rid of them all, and take the shame with him when he’s dead. He’s probably correct too. Do people blame Germany or Hitler for the Holocaust? Israel isn’t going anywhere, they have nukes. Even if the US abandons them, there are other global factions.
Good leaders don’t have set ideologies. They deal with realities, not ideals, and shift their opinions and perspectives based on what they learn. This is because they recognize they are humans leading other humans, and capable of making mistakes. No set ideology can keep up with all the varied circumstances that real life can throw at a country. Then in our country, we run them, not the other way around. They are always at our mercy. FDR knew this, and despite greatly wanting to help Britain in WW2, had to remain very careful about it until Pearl Harbor.
Also, I think you overestimate Harris’ righteousness, I do not see what you are describing. I think most dems realize she’s a pragmatist, she was a prosecutor after all. Throwing folks in prison is not a very idealistic job, that would be more public defender. Prosecutor is messy. What she absolutely is is several times better than her opponent, and something new, being a woman.
