this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024

-46 points (33.8% liked)

politics

19090 readers

4542 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

-46

Democrats Tuned Out Gaza Protests at the DNC. History Won’t Forget. (truthout.org)

submitted 2 months ago by verdantbanana@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

103 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As Vice President Kamala Harris received the presidential nomination at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (DNC), thousands of people marched near the convention demanding an end to U.S. arms shipments to Israel and the war on Gaza. The protesters, led by Palestinian and Jewish activists, represented a diverse coalition including anti-war veterans, climate justice activists, and labor organizers. Despite efforts by Democrats to keep the Palestine issue sidelined, the marchers made their voices heard, declaring Harris and President Joe Biden complicit in the genocide in Gaza. The protesters came from communities and movements that are often considered part of the Democratic coalition, warning that their votes could not be taken for granted unless the party takes concrete action to end the occupation and devastation in Palestine. Organizers estimate around 30,000 people demonstrated in Chicago over the course of the week, making Palestine impossible to ignore during the convention. The activists drew connections between the struggle for Palestinian liberation and the fight against racist violence and state repression in the U.S., challenging the Democratic Party's complicity in both. The protests encountered a heavy police presence, with hundreds of riot police surrounding the march at all times. Despite the tension, the demonstration remained largely peaceful as the protesters demanded justice for Palestine. As Kamala Harris prepared to take the stage, the marchers continued their chants and songs, determined to keep the spotlight on the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza and the Democratic Party's failure to address it.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (10 children)

These protests make little sense to me. I fully support the goals of the protesters. I am opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza that are clearly aimed at a Palestinian genocide. However, I don't see how these protests are supposed to help achieve the goal of ending the violence and suffering of the Palestinian people. In fact, if they do anything at all, they will only help Trump get elected.

These protesters should be going after every member of congress that has supported the continued shipment of weapons to Israel, republican and democrat alike, but where have they been? They should have been out supporting democrats like Jamaal Bowman who lost his primary to a moderate, pro-Israel democrat because of AIPAC. AIPAC who has spent more than $15 million dollars this season to try and unseat progressive democrats who have supported their cause. These protesters should have been out protesting AIPAC but haven't heard a peep from them.

Now, here they are harassing the only presidential candidate on the ballot that might possibly support them if she wins, but who cannot say that now because if she does, AIPAC will drop $10s of millions of dollars to oppose her and potentially cost her the election. And that is the only thing these protests can accomplish. If protesters succeed in turning voters against Harris, where are those votes going to go? Either to a man who has stated that he fully supports Israel's actions and that he just wants them to hurry up and get it done, or to a third party candidate who cannot possibly win but could siphon enough votes from Harris so that Trump could win anyway.

I can't help but think that these well meaning protesters are being manipulated by the powers that be to undermine their own goals. Stop attacking democrats in general and start supporting progressives who support your cause.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Absolutely. I 100% agree with their goals. But it's like they couldn't be making worse decisions. Whoever is setting their agenda. It's like they're focusing on sewing chaos and discontent. And not actually getting what they say they want.

I believe the protesters are sincere. But screaming at presidential candidates was never a good idea. Harris or trump will 100% be the winners. Trump will absolutely be worse. So any sane uncommitted protestor can't actually be uncommitted. And those that are truly uncommitted aren't really reachable. It's not a position of strength to negotiate from.

Pro Palestinian voters would have had more success supporting senate and house candidates that support their goals. We actually lost two by slim margins. What's the logic of focusing on nationwide elections that are the most expensive and hardest to influence. As opposed to simple Statewide or District elections. Which are much cheaper, and have a much smaller voter base to influence. It's the house after all that passes and funds the aid they wish to stop. Nothing about this is logical. Well unless the goal really is to so chaos and Division among the opponents of Republicans.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (47 children)

My question to the people withholding their vote because of Gaza is: what is your plan to support the Palestinian people when Trump gets in? How will you be supporting them when Trump starts calling for nukes? What will you be doing when Trump decides to use the US military to suppress protests?

load more comments (47 replies)

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

I said roughly the same thing, while pointing out that the OP has pushed anti voting agenda in the past and got my comment removed (I did use the word idiot). ~~The mods are not allowing discourse here.~~

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Meh, it's rule three. You can say that OP's ideas are idiotic, but you can't say OP is an idiot. They are allowing discourse but not ad hominem attacks. It's really a good thing for the level of discourse in a sub.

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Fair enough. I didn’t call the OP an idiot, but suggested that if they believe not voting will help the Palestinians they were an idiot. But I’ll refrain in the future.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The mods are not allowing discourse here.

Check the modlog for what pro-genocide centrists (there will never be another kind of centrist) consider "discourse."

[–] UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. I was in clear violation of Rule 3. The mods did the right thing as I deserved the delete.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Anyone who checks the modlog can see that you didn't just call them an idiot.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] scarabine@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 months ago

It’s a convenient wedge issue because although no one disagrees, and Harris is the clear choice, people are very upset about it. That allows the topic to steer people away from reason and into raw emotion. That in turn allows the conversation to become a way to subvert the topic into a general negative sentiment that plants itself association with Harris.

It’s a good manipulation tactic, and you can observe that any dissent turns into a pithy back and forth quickly. That’s going to leave it in the conversation for good. Because we’ll get upset every time it comes up.

It’s a very cynical, awful thing to do. To take the genocide of a helpless people and only serve it when convenient as a wedge issue. But it works, so here we are, talking about them but only when people want to take pot shots at specific politicians.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

What people fail to understand about this situation is that the entire situation leaves everybody involved with what are essentially binary choices where everybody loses no matter which one you pick anyway.

Fact: Hamas launched an unprovoked attack on Israel, killing over 1000 people and holding over 200 hostage, some of which are still in captivity to this day.

Fact: Israel had every right to respond militarily and do everything in their power to rescue the hostages.

Fact: Israel's response has gone well above and beyond what is proportional and necessary, and instead has focused on bombings of civilian infrastructure with little knowledge of or regard for the hostages they're stupposed to be trying to rescue, instead focusing on a "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." approach that quickly spiraled into an all out genocide that even the israelis themselves barely bother trying to hide any more.

For simplicity's sake, and because Harris is now the nominee and Biden has dropped out, any time I refer to "Harris", assume I'm talking about the Biden/Harris administration in general.

Harris has two options here. Support Israel, or support the people of Gaza. Whichever one she chooses, she's going to piss the other side off. So far, the administration has tried their best to hide behind the existing political alliance between the US and Israel while sidestepping questions about the war in Gaza. This has led to where we are now, with calling Biden "Genocide Joe", mass protests on college campuses, and a significant amount of political fallout at home. But what would have happened if Harris were to pivot and support the Palestinians instead?

There are just shy of 175,000 people of Palestinian descent living in the US. There's 7.5 million Jews. The fact remains, whatever your personal opinion of the conflict is, there are many, many, many more people in this country who support Israel, and they are significantly more politically active, politically entrenched, and well funded. That's just reality. Any attempt at pivoting would be portrayed by the Jewish population as a betrayal of Jews and an abandonment of Israel.

The college protests we've already been seeing would look like weekend picnics compared to what would happen if we stopped supporting Israel. AIPAC just got finished spending silly amounts of money to have 3/4 of "the squad" primaried for supporting Gaza. I'm not saying they'd go all Trumpy, but they absolutely would be pouring tens of millions into getting their population to vote for a no-hoper like Jill Stein which would have the side effect of Trump getting back into office through the back door.

This is Harris' option now. Stick her fingers in her ears and scream LALALALALALALA in public over the Gaza conflict as it stands now while quietly working behind the scenes to help find a path to a ceasefire, or she could pivot on the issue and continue supporting the people of Gaza during her concession speech in November once support from the Jewish population evaporates overnight. Or having to sit and watch as President Trump essentially nuke-and-paves the entire place and turns it into the Trump Gaza Casino.

This is what people don't get. There is no good option here. Full Stop. Whichever side she chooses, she's going to piss the other side off. And any attempt at just taking a neutral stance would just end up pissing both sides off. Attempting to have "Genocide Joe" cancelled would just lead to the return to power of someone campaigning on "I'll Genocide harder!".

I know it sucks, and I know the hostages shouldn't have to wait that long and all that. I get it. But the best (read: least shitty) option is really to wait until after the election. Get Harris into office, then pressure her into supporting whichever side you're on in the conflict under threat of being primaried by a Democrat challenger in 2028. But these kind of "messages" that they're not going to support Harris will only lead to the rise to power of a man who will gladly thank them by offering them a 5% discount on a VIP package at his new middle eastern casino.

I fully support Palestine. What Israel is doing is the textbook definition of a genocide. And I wish I could wake up one morning and hear the Harris administration is pulling all support from Israel and stands with Palestine. But I'm also aware of the reality of the world we live in at both a national and geopolitical level, and can acknowledge that this is the least bad option the administration can take right now, and that the "Genocide Joe" protests and the demands those protesters are making are a clear example of cutting off your own nose to spite your face, and a clear misunderstanding of what would happen if they actually got what they're advocating for.

I promise you, with every fiber of my being and every breath in my lungs, if you are unwilling to support Harris or are planning to just stay home in protest in November, please reconsider. What you are advocating for will lead to the return to power of someone who absolutely will make the entire situation exponentially worse. Pressuring a future Harris administration with a primary challenge in 2028 is going to get you a LOT further in the long run vs. advocating for something that can only lead to the return of Trump. It is the textbook definition of a pyrrhic victory: You will lose far more than you will gain even if you "win", and that "victory" you'd be celebrating today would be guaranteed to cost you the entire war.

[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There are people who, for various reasons (some well-meaning, some nefarious), put the plight of Palestinians above all other concerns, and decry anyone who doesn't do the same. And they think the solution is to hold the rest of the left hostage by letting Trump win if they don't get their way (though to be fair, I think most of them live in solid blue states where they can do what they want without actually hurting the election, and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't do so).

But people will make choices based on their own needs. How many queer folks are going to choose to allow Trump to win for the sake of Palestinians? Some, I've no doubt, but enough in swing states to change the outcome? Seems doubtful.

Israel is the most complicated thing in geopolitics, perhaps ever. It'll never be solved in a way that leaves anyone hands clean. I support the right to protest and solicit money to help civilians in need and get the message out and to lobby politicians. I think anyone in a swing state who lets this dictate their vote is shooting themselves in the foot for no possible gain. I guess it's their vote, but it's just as frustrating watching them as watching poor Republicans vote against their own interests every election.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

(though to be fair, I think most of them live in solid blue states where they can do what they want without actually hurting the election, and I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t do so).

I mildly disagree with this only in the sense that there is a time and place for everything. I completely agree that they should make their voices heard if the administration is doing things they don't agree with. But for those who want to ensure that their protests don't do more harm than good, wait until after the election. Heck, start putting the pressure on the day after she's elected, while she's still making front page news on the daily. Make sure Harris understands "Hey, we got you here, and now this is what we expect of you, or we're going to support a primary challenger for you in 2028, and we're going to make your life difficult the entire time in between."

And I agree with your point about dems in solid blue states protesting without really hurting Harris' chances. It's when they're encouraging those in swing states that actually do matter that it starts getting problematic. Sitting home in protest is one thing if you're in CA, MA, or NY. But doing so in Pennsylvania or Georgia is essentially a vote for Trump.

[–] BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What pressure is even possible after the election? There is only one legal way to put pressure on a politician, and that is with your vote. If you vote for them despite everything, simply because they're the lesser evil, how do you expect to put pressure on them after? They'll do what they always do, which is whatever the owner class tells them to do, up until a few months before the next election. Then it's not about what they have or have not done in the past four years, it's about defeating the Other Guy. Again.

For the record, I agree with you. There's no good choice here. And I'll be voting for Harris come November, though I don't see it as a vote for Harris particularly, just a vote for the Democratic Party, to reward them for actually listening to ~~the people~~ their primary donors and getting Biden to step down.

[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The community has four years to put pressure on Harris right from day one.

AIPAC, for example, could issue a statement that they are looking forward to supporting "any candidate we feel most meets the needs of the Jewish Community in 2028". Especially after seeing them almost singlehandedly dismantle the squad, their threat of backing another candidate in the Democrat primaries becomes very, very real. And they have four years to hang that around her neck.

And then when 2026 comes along, they can reinforce it by again putting their money into primarying any candidates in the mid-term races not meeting their goals. Harris is no stupid woman. She'd get the message. Especially if the size of the Jewish voting population would be enough to cost her the primaries, or re-election in the general two years later.

(Now, for the record, I am no fan of this kind of bullshit money being allowed in politics at all. But I'm also aware of the reality of the world we live in, and in that reality, AIPAC absolutely can and will do this if given the opportunity. I do not agree with this, but am merely showing an example of how Harris can be put under very real pressure right from day one, from a lobbying group who very well could cost her her political future in a way that doesn't also hand the White House right back to Trump.)

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 2 months ago

The community has four years to put pressure on Harris right from day one.

You can't try and pressure the Democrats after the election, don't you know that defeating the Republicans in 2028 is more important? /s

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Very well written.

I think what has a lot of people angry isn't just the genocide though. It's how the US can't seem to get a handle on Israel. They exist and continue to exist because of the US. Yet they act like the spoiled child who knows they'll never get in trouble no matter what they do. People want to see their leader actually get a handle on things there.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s how the US can’t seem to get a handle on Israel.

That's because Netanyahu has a handle on the US.

[–] Sundial@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Through AIPAC, yes. It just goes to show how susceptible to lobbying the US. This embarrasses them on the world stage in turn. As they're seen as not being able to keep their attack dog in check.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

They seem to have brought us to heel pretty effectively.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] SameOldInternet@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

OP, did you even follow or watch any coverage? This article is a flat out lie. Palestine was brought up by several outlets in one on one interviews. There were some mention in some of the big speeches. Democratic lawmakers were having open discussion about Palestine at the DNC amongst themselves. But here we are again crying because "I didn't see or hear about it so I and those like me were ignored". SMH.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 months ago

They literally brought the parents of one of the hostages on stage at the DNC. This take is bullshit.

[–] unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 months ago

Paragraph breaks, bro

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Voting is transactional. It is a tool. If you're voting without demands is just weird. These politicians are not your friends or family. There is no need for the weird parasocial element to it.

I stand with the protesters. The same thing happened to activists for police reform. They went through every channel and protested just to be used as a set piece and watch the Biden admin increase police funding, and didn't do much of anything. Liberals always disapprove of any form of accountability or protest. You will never please them unless you're mindlessly Blue No Matter Who.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Voting is transactional. It is a tool. If you're voting without demands is just weird. These politicians are not your friends or family. There is no need for the weird parasocial element to it.

Absolutely. But voting is also strategic. I'm not seeing any sense of strategy behind the actions of the protesters now, as other commenters have pointed out. I stand with their goal. But until someone coherently explains how their actions lead to less harm in Gaza I'm not going to support said actions.

[–] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

people protesting is supposed to lead to our leaders listening and changing course

women's suffrage

war protests in the 60s

protests to end segregation and demand better rights

list goes on and on

both parties now though have gotten to where they instantly demonize protesters demanding better

for example, pushing out tons of propaganda to the US citizens that enforces division and separation

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (7 children)

I don't think it's demonization to say "your protests are counterproductive to your cause given the current electoral reality".

Paraphrasing the other commenter, politicians are tools. So are political parties. The Democratic party is the best tool we have right now to preventing the GOP from backsliding not only with Gaza but with a slew of other progressive priorities. I don't see a lot of these protesters being able to recognize that, and it speaks in their strategy.

[–] Suavevillain@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I don't think they have the time as each day more of their family and loved ones are being erased from existence. They're protesting nicely and mostly respectfully considering things and it still isn't good enough. The only resources they have is protests and the uncommitted movement. Outside of money there isn't any other ways to get people in power to keep their word.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments