There’s around 2 million Gazans still alive. That’s a lot of ethnicity still to be cleansed if cleansing is the goal.

On the arms shipments, we may try lawsuits via the Leahy Law if the ethnic cleansing ramps up. The way the law is written, it actually looks at arms shipments all the way down to the granular level of individual military units. It does not say arms cannot be exported to countries engaging in war crimes, it specifically says individual military units that commit war crimes cannot receive arms. If they choose to engage in a broader campaign of organized displacement out of Gaza or starvation in places where combat has largely died down, a larger number of military units could potentially become implicated, which could maybe make a lawsuit more feasible. We’ll have to see.

Regarding AIPAC, since Citizen’s United determined that monetary donations are a form of speech, this requires either an amendment or recapture of the Supreme Court. Otherwise Americans are allowed to lobby the government for whatever they wish, even if they are doing so at the behest of a foreign government. They have to disclose that, but so long as they do, they are simply exercising their Constitutional rights as perceived by the current Supreme Court. This isn’t going away any time soon, the current law is very clear and pretty much ironclad, rooted in the Constitution itself via the Bill of Rights.

Some good answers already. To add, in the media sphere Pod Save America and their related branches is a liberal progressive media organization that tries to run counter to the conservative media ecosystem, trying to ride the line between policy wonkery and approachability.

I kind of understand Bush vs Kerry. Bush had a vision. It was a crazy neocon vision, but it was a vision and he used it to communicate effectively enough that we still occasionally meme about bombing people into freedom.

Obama had a clear vision, and communicated it well. Hope, prosperity for the middle class, international leadership. Biden had a vision, a less divisive America where we came together and worked on overdue problems. Hilary didn’t really, nor did Kerry or Gore. They were more policy administrator types who focused on specific policies and administration, and the idea of incremental improvement just didn’t resonate with people.

Trump, for all his failings, does have a vision he is capable of communicating to the American people. Harris did too, better than Hilary anyway, but it didn’t really come online until fairly late into the campaign and stayed a little too nebulous. I do think she was hurt in this regard by getting such a short campaign with no real prep time, she was evolving in the right direction.

I think we need a Bernie or AOC, someone with a powerful vision and ability to clearly communicate it, to the point of literally cudgeling people over the head with it. And we need to vote them in during the primary, over any competent administrator types, despite the fact that we are fully aware of how effective and necessary those policy administrators can be. Our valuing of them is a place where we’re out of touch with the broader American electorate though.

edit: MLK Jr was good at this. He had a dream, and it was a simple one that any person could visualize in their head. It didn’t require any policy expertise to understand it. We need that.

Actually that was a JD Vance quote. Harris kept it more classy.

Either way, he’s more of a Mussolini type. Less vision, more opportunism.

I think you were really lucky, a pocket knife is a lot riskier than a can of mace or taser or something. Easy to take away. But if it’s what you got, then it’s what you got. Also should’ve aimed a little lower.

Yes, he took all our guns, too. Look, there’s none to be found anywhere.

No, they’ve been getting progressively crazier since 2016.

2000 was fairly divisive, it went to the Supreme Court after all. But it wasn’t even a fraction this dramatic, people mostly shrugged and figured GWB would be like his father, which was unfortunate, but sane at any rate. Nobody was really predicting 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

2004 was pretty dull. John Kerry challenged GWB but felt sort of like an empty suit.

2008 was nice, Obama was a strong and exciting candidate vs the very known quantity of McCain, who was a moderate repub known for bipartisanship. Sarah Palin provided for hours of entertaining impersonations by people like Tina Fey, but since she was the VP candidate nobody really cared.

2012 was dull. Romney was a strong candidate, another moderate repub. But Obama was fine, he hadn’t broken the country or anything. Brought us out of a recession, even if people were upset about bank bailouts and stuff. Lot of people got health insurance.

Then it starts getting spicy.

Honestly for a portion of the ones here online, I don’t think they actually care that much about Gaza except as a convenient tool to attack Americans. It’s academic to them. I don’t expect it’ll stop once Trump is in, they’ll just switch to criticizing Americans overall. They’re mostly leftist agitators, and I honestly think they hate moderate progressives the most, since we’re trying to improve capitalism which makes it harder to undermine and destroy.

For people that actually do care, it’s a personal, emotional argument about not being able to feel good about it, which I understand. It’s a sort of trolley problem. If they don’t vote, they kinda just walk away and the trolley runs over a bunch of people, but they don’t have to watch and bear a sense of personal responsibility at that emotional level for being a part of it. It doesn’t actually benefit Gaza, but there’s only so much they could really do anyway.

Who was I pointing a finger at?

I think this is fairly accurate. Only major disagreement is on Ukraine, where Trump can cut off our aid, but cannot actually force the Ukrainians into any sorts of negotiations. As European production continues to increase, it’s not a foregone conclusion that US withdrawal will necessarily result in Ukrainian defeat. Lost ground, certainly, but Ukraine has quite a lot of ground and could continue to make Russia pay for their gains.

If you reread what I wrote, you’ll see that I was not saying the international community was responsible for the genocide.

Israel would quickly go the way of south africa without US support.

This is nothing more than faith. Israel trades with many countries, including India, where anti-Muslim sentiment is very strong among the ruling Hindu nationalists. US contributions are only a small fraction of their total annual budget. All they would really lose irreplaceably is advanced weaponry.

Actually, 90 dems boycotted that speech. This also deflects from my argument that the situation in Gaza is going to become far more dire in a few months.

To answer your question, though: You know how there’s around 2 million Gazans still alive? Starving and desperate, but still alive. It’s not just us, but the whole international community that is responsible for that, otherwise Netanyahu could’ve implemented his “General’s Plan” six months ago. Nothing except international leverage can maintain those lives. Leverage is not free, though, it must be purchased somehow. People do not just listen to you otherwise, unless they get something from it. While it would be theoretically possible to attempt sanctions, doing this to an ally during war would be political suicide domestically, resulting in a different administration and reversal of the policy. This would result in their eventual deaths anyway, simply after a delay.

Not that our current timeline is looking any differently, admittedly. But actually saving them is not nearly as simple as everyone seems to think, as if some total boycott of arms to Israel would somehow quickly lead to an Israeli military defeat. Advanced munitions are not necessary for a genocide, it can be done with napalm and the withholding of food. This would not be expensive. Nor are advanced munitions necessary for the continued survival of the IDF, which numbered around 400k strong in the initial stages of the war.

Defeating this genocide is unfortunately far, far harder than people make it out to be, due to a powerful faction of domestic support among American citizens and AIPAC lobbyists.

You ain’t seen nothing yet. Trump’s most loyal base is Evangelical Christians, and they widely believe in Greater Israel. They also tend to dislike nonwhites. He may not give a rats ass about Israel, but his advisors do, and he personally likes Netanyahu.

No, not yet. Every service member of our military forces takes a personal oath to defend the Constitution. That is the final guardrail. There are still a couple other, weaker ones as well, we’re not done yet

edit: I do feel bad for the young people that are new to this experience, it does hurt. This’ll likely be the strongest assault we’ve been forced to endure yet. But having lived through GWB and Trump’s first term, this fight is not yet over. Not even close. Their side is not unified in its goals, it’s a coalition just like ours. That’s a vulnerability that can be exploited, just as ours was.

Yes, that’s called a general strike. Fairly common tactic for independence movements and workers rights movements, you still see them in South America sometimes. They’re not easy to organize, you need a lot of pissed off people.

Very convenient when you’re the one making strong claims with no evidence or sourcing. I suppose I don’t really expect you to do anything asides blame someone else for all your problems though. That’s much easier.

Nope. Going ice skating and then out for sushi.

You yourself mentioned “fundamental truths”, not me. It’s not lies to call you out on it.

You don’t know why I ask for them, you’ve failed to provide a single one. This is likely due to you knowing they’re political in nature.

You know my point. Seeing the border kibbutz as armed jailors (and thus combatants) is ludicrous. While arms were certainly present, and local security forces certainly returned fire, a heavily armed, fortified camp would have provided heavy resistance. Instead, the attack swept through them quickly, killing many in their shelters. There is significant video evidence of this.

There you go again with “inarguable fact”. No fact is inarguable, that’s not how facts work. Proper intellectual rigor allows the challenging of even the most deeply-held belief, otherwise Einsteinian gravity would have never overtaken Newtonian gravity. In your case, you even misapply it, taking a very natural human reaction against security threats to an illogical conclusion that if those security threats escalate to a certain severity, then the Israelis will lose somehow. This makes no sense.

More cute deflections out of you. But no, again, your materialist philosophy does not actually provide for a concrete path to victory. Your long studies on the psychology of settlers is missing a whole bunch of psychology if all you can focus on is material security. Hate, for instance, is an emotion that can be taught generation to generation, and can motivate independently of material conditions.

Do you think 20somethings cannot be trained to be good soldiers? Do you think the IDF is smaller than 400k? Be clear. And no, you did not mentioned specific examples, except to repeat this claim that they “fall apart” in ground combat. That is not a specific example.

Has there been a widespread invasion into Lebanon that faltered? Or are you arguing they are too scared and weak to even try?

In the 1948 war, Israel had no air force. The Arab countries did. They still lost.

Quoting wastes space. I can recall our previous discussion, if you can’t it’s not hard to scroll back a little. Their goal of ethnic cleansing.

There’s still no path to victory described here. Israel does not have the world against them, because genocide just isn’t that big a deal across the world. You know India still trades with Israel, and has its navy active in the Red Sea area? Israel’s credit rating is still in the A range, it’s not being knocked down “every few months”. I don’t think you should be accusing me of being locked in a box of propaganda when your statements are this exaggerated and untrue.

So, you think Major Generals can frequently be found at checkpoints then…?

Routinely lose to the guerillas where? Using bombardment to prepare for an assault is nothing new, that’s pretty standard going back centuries. Losing the ground assault is notable though. Guerillas popping back up is just guerillas fighting a guerilla campaign, I assume you understand how that’s supposed to operate, and how it isn’t reflecting the IDF being defeated in a pitched battle.

More nitpicking details. Being crushed does not have to mean no longer present. The point remains that the ANC would have never accomplished their goals without international pressure. Had the international community not cared about Apartheid, it would have continued despite ANC resistance, into the foreseeable future.

Actually you did, right here:

otherwise you will be correctly recognized as someone that plays with fairy tales and seems to even believe them!

You could have easily checked this, but I guess you’re not putting much effort in.

You brought up materialism several paragraphs up, around 3 posts ago. You seem to want to give credit for expanding freedom movements solely to violent combatants, while saying nonviolent methods are ineffective. This is simplistic. You are ignoring other factors present.

I see, you cannot remember well. Sorry, but if I quote everything too, for your convenience since you are reluctant to reread I suppose, then these replies will simply get longer and longer as yours have. You’re now up to two full size comments, all because you are wasting space quoting me when I can fully remember what I said. You don’t have to. I won’t start.

We were discussing whether American nonviolent protest was a significant factor in ending the war. I said yes, you said no.

Most of the rest of that looks like trolling and more nitpicking pointless details like me saying “hamas” instead of “Palestinian resistance”. I suppose your rigid mind might actually lack the flexibility to bridge the two, though. You also seem to blame me for confusion when you cannot remember or reread and thus need me to provide quotes for your convenience.

No, not everyone engages in propaganda. It is possible to analyze factual events without applying value judgements, which are a necessary component of propaganda. We are engaged in a propagandistic discussion, certainly, that’s unavoidable I think, but it is not some unavoidable thing.

One minor, but important detail: The First Aliyah began in the 1880s, a decade before Herzl’s work. Land was purchased for settlements, and a few tens of thousands came, mostly from Eastern Europe. Within a couple decades the kibbutz system was established, small socialist communities where it was decided, unfortunately, to try to rely exclusively on Jewish labor and economy. This led to the first significant frictions between the settlers and the Palestinians, setting the stage for our situation today.