• nurple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The line he’s walking right now definitely isn’t working but saying that cutting support to Israel and sanctioning them “would pretty much guarantee” him the election just is not true at all (unfortunately). It’s not even close to true.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      You’re right and that was an exageration.

      That said, given the polls I saw mentioned here a few weeks ago, a majority of American is against what Israel is doing in Gaza, especially amongst Democrats.

      Surelly a strategy of “ultimate neutrality” would do a lot more to hold Democrat and Democrat-leaning votes than a strategy of “Zionist all the way plus symbolic things like holding a single ammo shipment for a few days” (especially considering that every symbolic act that innevitably turns out to be bullshit slowly but surelly undermines trust in Biden, not just for this but for all messaging from him and his campaign, which whilst not affecting tribalists - who are true believers no matter what - most definitelly affects people for whom “I’m a Democrat” is not at the level of personal identity).

      That would mean the first part of what I suggested: “announcing that it has been determined that Israel is indeed committing war crimes, followed by cutting support for them as per the Law when the recipient of help is committing such crimes”. I confess I tackled sanctions there out of wishful thinking (hence prefixing it with “ideally”).

      Please help me understand how “keep sending Netanyahu 2000lb bombs which he is using to kill children, doctors and journalists” is supposed to secure more votes than it loses. Which votes exactly does he expect to get from it that would otherwise not vote for him or vote Trump and how exactly are those such a huge fraction of votes that they can offset the votes he risks losing from people with even just some basic human empathy (they don’t even need to be lefties)? Does the Biden Campaign team actually expects that Republicans will vote for him instead of Trump if he’s pro-Genocide or that people’s revulsion at seeing pictures of dead children will be easily forgotten at the pools and they’ll vote for a guy helping it happen?

      Rationally, is it really the strategy that maximizes the chances of “Stop Trump” (as everybody else is being told by Biden they have to do) to keep on sending Weapons & Ammo to Israel and providing them with Intel whilst they keep on murdering civilians shamelessly and the cabinet members over there utter some of the mosts vile ultra-racist Nazi-like stuff since, well, the actual Nazis, and relying on an astroturfing campaign to convince the people with more Humanist leanings to overcome outright disgust and revulsion to vote for the guy helping the murders murder more?

      In my opinion, the safest strategy for a Democrat is then one I called above “ultimate neutrality”. That being so, the possible reasons for Biden to do otherwise would be all kinds of shady (one can even say “sociopath” and maybe even “evil”) and in direct confrontation with the stated objective of “Stop Trump”, which is why I started my original post by pointing Biden and his peon’s hypocrisy why demanding that others swallong their principles and vote for him to do just that.

      Does Team Biden really expect that fear for LGBT people being treated like second class citizens in America will be a stronger emotion for most people than images of little corpses wrapped in sheets amongst the bigger corpses after Israel bombed a refugee camp lilke I saw yesterday on TV???!

      • nurple@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Please help me understand how “keep sending Netanyahu 2000lb bombs which he is using to kill children, doctors and journalists” is supposed to secure more votes than it loses.

        I definitely do not think it does, and I agree with the rest of your post that neutrality would be a better path forward