I don’t care what others believe, they’re voting to support genocide. The only control I have in this situation is to not actively support those commiting genocide. Everything else is out of my control.
Your options are “Genocide, but might be talked into dialing it back if politically viable” vs “More genocide, for genocide’s sake”
All you achieve by not supporting the first is making the second more likely. If you think Bibi’s dictator-loving buddy is better for Gaza than the career politician doing career politician things during a close election, you are an enemy of Palestine.
After the election when AIPAC loses their leverage, Harris could come around. Trump will double down. I’m voting against doubling down, are you?
Genocide is going to happen regardless, the only option I see as viable is to not throw my support behind the parties pushing for it. Harris could come around, sure, but I’m not going to bet on it and I refuse to support it.
You do realize that “Palestine’s fucked anyway, it’s more important to impotently virtue signal that I’m upset about it than to do something which might actually help them in any way” is absolutely sociopathic take that cements you as an enemy of Palestine, right?
This is about voting for genocidal candidates, and has nothing to do with private donations or contributions to the Palestinians. I can donate to the cause to help them with food, water, and medical supplies and not vote for genocide.
Uh huh, which won’t matter much if Harris loses and Trump gives Bibi the all clear to nuke Gaza. If you actually cared, you’d consider the material conditions of others and the actual consequences of your vote. But the rational and compassionate choice feels icky, so you’d rather polish your halo while Bibi finishes the job.
I don’t care what others believe, they’re voting to support genocide. The only control I have in this situation is to not actively support those commiting genocide. Everything else is out of my control.
Your options are “Genocide, but might be talked into dialing it back if politically viable” vs “More genocide, for genocide’s sake”
All you achieve by not supporting the first is making the second more likely. If you think Bibi’s dictator-loving buddy is better for Gaza than the career politician doing career politician things during a close election, you are an enemy of Palestine.
After the election when AIPAC loses their leverage, Harris could come around. Trump will double down. I’m voting against doubling down, are you?
Genocide is going to happen regardless, the only option I see as viable is to not throw my support behind the parties pushing for it. Harris could come around, sure, but I’m not going to bet on it and I refuse to support it.
You do realize that “Palestine’s fucked anyway, it’s more important to impotently virtue signal that I’m upset about it than to do something which might actually help them in any way” is absolutely sociopathic take that cements you as an enemy of Palestine, right?
This is about voting for genocidal candidates, and has nothing to do with private donations or contributions to the Palestinians. I can donate to the cause to help them with food, water, and medical supplies and not vote for genocide.
Uh huh, which won’t matter much if Harris loses and Trump gives Bibi the all clear to nuke Gaza. If you actually cared, you’d consider the material conditions of others and the actual consequences of your vote. But the rational and compassionate choice feels icky, so you’d rather polish your halo while Bibi finishes the job.
He’s finishing the job anyway, both Harris and Trump will continue support to Israel.