Activists from around the country told The Intercept that they will advocate for an anti-war agenda at the convention in August and withhold their vote in November unless an adequate candidate steps up, listing policy priorities such as support for a permanent ceasefire and standing up to the pro-Israel lobby as it intervenes in Democratic primaries. Even as the Biden campaign insists that he will not step aside, many Democrats appear to be lining up behind Vice President Kamala Harris as an alternative candidate, with some Democratic governors being floated as well.
“My number one criteria for any candidate is opposing the genocide in Gaza,” said Saad Farooq, an uncommitted voter in Massachusetts. Farooq said it was unlikely that the Democratic National Committee would select any candidate who took a stance against Israel’s ongoing war, and that he would support Green Party candidate Jill Stein if she were to appear on the ballot in Massachusetts.
Will Dawson, an uncommitted voter in Washington, D.C., named several factors that could get him to switch his vote from the Green Party’s Stein to another politician. First on his list is a promise to call for an immediate ceasefire and fighting the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Congress.
“This candidate would also ideally work toward pulling further away from the Israeli colonial project over time, with the goal being repealing our absurd financial support, ending the foreign interest agency of AIPAC, and pushing for a nation-wide boycott a la [South Africa] during their apartheid,” Dawson wrote.
The candidate would also have to push to reform the Supreme Court, he added. “The candidate would have to promise to both push for justice impeachment, and expand the courts,” Dawson said.“If a replacement candidate met both of these requirements, I would absolutely consider switching my vote from Jill Stein. Hell, I might even knock doors/canvass for them!”
Do you think Palestine is in Europe?
And why are you calling a genocide a war? Because the victims have been resisting?
And you’re ignoring literally everything else I said, which is exactly my point.
And you’re ignoring literally everything else I said
I mean, when talking about geopolitics, the “geo” part is fundamentally important…
It would have been nice if you apologized, but fine we’ll move on to the next sentence:
Meanwhile in Sudan, Ukraine, China, Myanmar, etc. there are millions more people being killed/impacted by genocidal governments and these don’t even make the list of anyone giving a shit when it comes to presidential choice.
In which of those is the US providing munitions to the attackers against international and domestic laws for them to carry out a genocide?
Quick edit:
Were you going to answer this:
And why are you calling a genocide a war? Because the victims have been resisting?
There’s just so much wrong with your first comment, it’s hard to address it all.
But I’m willing to help explain it so you can understand. This is pretty important stuff. We cleared up that Israel isn’t in Europe pretty quickly. So I’m optimistic on the rest.
The US could stop what’s happening in multiple of those countries. Does non-action not count towards death tolls? If you have the ability to pull a level that lets 20 people live, is it not your fault if you choose not to pull that lever and they die?
Also, what level of support matters? What if instead of sending munitions they only sent money, would that be a problem? What if instead of money they only sent food, which frees up their own money to buy munitions? The fun thing about the global economy is that almost anything is fungible at scale. Hell, if you look behind the curtains there are US goods and services being used in Russia to attack Ukraine right now, it’s just flowing through third parties first to obscure the transactions. The government may not be sending it directly, but America is benefiting from it.
The US though has provided both direct and non-direct support causing genocides in multiple places even in the last 20 years. George W Bush got re-elected while the Iraq war was happening, and that killed a couple hundred thousand civilians, which is what… 6 times the current Gazan death toll? Not to mention Afghanistan which was it’s own problem on top of that.
Yes, Palestine vs Israel is a war. It’s not automatically a genocide just because one side is absolutely wiping the floor with the other. It’s been a war since literally the day after Israel was founded, FIVE arab countries invaded Israel the moment the British Protectorate ended because they didn’t like the UN agreed upon borders. People seem to ignore this fact for some reason because it’s inconvenient to their “truth”.
You’re smart, so I’m hoping you’re smart enough to follow the money. The US and the west are funding Israel. Why? I’ll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with Palestinians, and everything to do with who is funding the Palestinians.
The truth behind of all of this is that both the Israelis and the Palestinians are mostly just being used by others in a proxy war, Hamas is fully funded and armed from outside of Gaza by foreign groups, they have effectively no local income or production related to the fighting other than supplying the people to die.
So why would the US and allies care? Because if Iran and group take out Israel (as is their stated goal) the US ability to control Iran will be diminished and Iran can then become a bigger threat to the western world.
And that’s how Geopolitics work.
Sorry, I haven’t heard anything about civilian deaths so far. I’m pretty sure everyone that’s died in Gaza so far has been Hamas.
Innocent aid workers are Hamas?
Kids?
If you’re legitimately unaware of the war crimes being committed in Gaza, you might want to run some Google searches.
