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!”
But there is a huge difference between intervention and stopping support for an ally that is RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA. Like do they even think that it’s not a strategic decision? Is it the best take? No. Is it the best place to be in? No. But pissing off an ally we have had for 50 years is also a bad decision. Maybe weigh the options here.
Except Israel has been talking about starting another invasion against Hezbollah…
Who have a defensive treaty with Russia, Iran, and a couple others.
An ally that starts wars isn’t a good ally.
They’re not providing a strategic advantage, they’re dragging us into large scale multi-country war.
It would likely get tied up with Ukraine as well, and get us to a legit WW3.
Because Biden won’t cut weapons to Israel and has spent 50 years saying there’s no line that Israel could cross
Edit:
RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA.
I googled it…
Israel is 3,700 some miles away from Russia. That’s wider than America
Unnm hezbollah is launching rockets at Israel
If one of those rockets hits the chemical plant in Haifa the whole city could go up. Pretty sure that’s valid provocation
But folks like to pretend Israel has no valid reason to protect itself, despite being under constant attack for the past 80 years
It’s on the same continent. And a big reason why Russia is where they are with the Middle East. My point is that it’s not so simple to just stop with someone who is in the area against our biggest enemy. As well as another nuclear power. Pissing them off may not be a good formula. Even if they are doing shitty things. It’s not a black and white decision to stop helping when they have been receiving it for 50 plus years.
It’s on the same continent
Just about 50% further away than America is wide…
Like, did you think putting something in all caps meant sarcasm?
Usually people do it to show that they’re being literal.
Did you just not know and instead of admitting it you’re trying to say that you knew it was 3,700 miles away and intentionally said that was close?
Pissing them off may not be a good formula. Even if they are doing shitty things.
-
Genocide that we’re violating international law to supply munitions for is not “shitty things”
-
Pissing them off? By telling them to stop the current genocide or not to attack another foreign government at the same time that’s allied with multiple nuclear powers?
It’s not a black and white decision to stop helping when they have been receiving it for 50 plus years.
Well, that’s sunk cost fallacy… And over those 50 years almost every US president has had to threaten to cut off aid to prevent it from progressing to this. It wasn’t till Biden came into office after 50 years of saying he’ll always support Israel for them to take it this far. Biden isn’t going to stop, and neither is Israel
I’m just trying to get your pov, but I can’t follow it logically
But there is a huge difference between intervention and stopping support for an ally that is RIGHT NEXT TO RUSSIA.
I really should start keeping a list of the reprehensible justifications for continued support for Netanyahu’s genocide.
Yes. Because I am justifying killing people by saying it’s more complicated than people like you are making it. Dumb take.
You’re making excuses for genocide.
And nothing else.
Hell, you’re even downplaying it by referring to it as just “killing people.” Though I’m glad you refer to Palestinians as people.
