Trump said to lift all military restrictions on Israel on 1st day in office according to reports

www.foxnews.com Trump said to lift all military restrictions on Israel on 1st day in office according to reports

President-elect Donald Trump’s promise could lead to a 60-day cease-fire, allowing Israel to suspend hostilities until military support resumes under the new administration.

Yeah, both sides amiright?

You're viewing a single thread.

406 comments

Well, to all the folks arguing with me on how voting for Harris was bad because of Gaza: CONGRATULATIONS! You REALLY made a point there. The Palestinians had a chance under Harris. Instead of voting for a chance for the Palestinians, you did nothing or voted for genocide. You did it from the other side of the world, where you won't have to suffer the consequences.
- "A vOTe fOR hARriS iS a VoTE FoR gENociDe"
  Fucking morons
  
  Fucking Russians. Fixed it for you.
  
  "BlUe MaGa"
  
  Yes, we are seeing that in spades in this comment section.
  After 13 months of genocide backed by your candidates, where you were all out here sharing false lesser evil logic and other thought-terminating clichés about how you need to tolerate genocide to win, well, your candidate lost. Your strategy failed. Really, the party's strategy failed, as your political role relative to its decisions is someone who makes no demands and can be largely ignored.
  Are you taking this time to reflect on how you were wrong? That maybe you shouldn't support genocide or project a false pretense of political understanding when what's underneath is really just right wing Democrat Reddit memes?
  Nope, nothing is ever the fault of the party or its most dedicated soldiers. The party cannot fail, it can only be failed, right?
  Blue MAGA.
  
  It's pretty obvious that the Gaza protesters were given disproportionate media coverage because Russia paid for it to be pushed as a wedge issue.
  Even this article is just anti leftist propaganda.
  The actual amount of people that protest voted was a non factor this election. The exact same ratios of Muslims, Jews, and young people voter the same this time as in 2020.
  
  The turnout of Democratic voters was lower than previous elections. There are too many variables at play to claim anything definitively, but it's safe to assume that the number of voters who abstained due to the issue was more than zero.
  If a conclusion is going to be drawn about whether the whole genocide topic had a tangible effect on the outcome, it's important to consider those as well as the protest votes.
  
  I really want to see a credible analysis showing how many of those non-votes were due to abstentions versus voter-suppression mesaures such as electoral-roll purges, overcrowded polling stations, fake challenges at the polls, etc.
  
  Most of it was white and hispanic older men staying home.
  Those were the largest demographic shifts.
  We live in a bigoted country that can not vote for a woman
  
  For something like 30 years running, the real winner of the election was non-voters. When other countries have this level of boycott and the US doesn't like them, they get called "regimes" in need of "democraticization".
  
  I believe there was real, grassroots protests, and the people who were there genuinely, were easily manipulated by those who were there maliciously into literally fighting for the opposite thing that they wanted.
  It would be impressive if it weren't so goddamn depressing.
  Online, on the other hand, agents provocateur everywhere. Plus more useful idiots who are now the ones who will either be an adult and admit they fucked up, or double and triple down on their mistake in order to preserve their ego (somewhat understandably so, as they seem to actually give a shit about Palestinian lives and now have to live with the role they played in escalating the genocide).
  And to be clear, I consider myself an ardent supporter of Palestine in the genocide Israel is perpetrating. Which is exactly why I did the one small thing in my power that could have possibly done something to reduce that damage and not escalate the genocide (btw, a lot of people here are going to find out that genocide ≠ genocide ≠ genocide. In the worst way possible). And that was to vote for Harris.
  If you want to find out what's coming, just pick up a history book for once. A couple weeks too late, but at least you'll learn why you fucked up.
  
  You cannot call yourself an ardent supporter of Palestine while speaking about pro-Palestinian protesters like they are aliens or well-meaning idiots manipulated by unspecified malevolent forces. Anyone that is ardently pro-Palestinisn is at the protests, organizing actions, and speaks as a member of the community, not separate from it.
  Please take some time to ask yourself whether you have the experience and knowledge required to talk on this topic.
  
  This genocide has been carried out with the necessary backinh of the Biden-Harris regime. Harris kept the same line of Biden.
  It is just a basic reality, and no amount of namecalling will change that supporying Harris meant supporting genocide.
- It's not genocide if they aren't people.
  --Trump, Probably
  
  The entire unhinged right wing has been declaring them UnPersons for decades. I remember in the 90s, possibly earlier, hearing wingers saying "Palestine is not even a country, it was made up by the libs/Muslims, using the term 'Palestinian' is talking nonsense", and so on.
  
  The Israelis have used that line since before 1948. Standard colonial cultural erasure.
  
  Just to help illustrate.
  
  "A land without a people for a people without a land" is an old Zionist settler colonial propaganda piece that is supported by Zionist liberals as well. This coincides with Israeli "culture", which is a weird mix of vaguely European, vaguely Jewish-ish, and the appropriation of Levantine culture. For example, going around calling hummus and pita "Israeli foods".
  
  Given the stark difference in how Dems resoonded to the plight of Ukrainians vs. Palestinians, it's clear that this is also the tacit Dem position and what upsets their voters is for it to be explicitly acknowledged.
- The Palestinians had a chance under Harris.
  Doubtful: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/15/biden-israel-gaza-palestine
  
  One mention of Harris to say she's not taking over for Biden
  
  Harris had the exact same line on Israel as Biden and is literally part of the Biden-Harris administration.
  
  There is no reason to think Harris would've been any different than Biden on this issue. She repeatedly said she was in agreement with Biden on this, i don't care if it was during an election people need more to go on than the hope that she really feels different inside
  
  That's cool because Trump stance was even more extreme, but since he's saying insane things every minute, no one batted an eye. But Harris had to be perfect. How do you even reconcile what you say with the reality you have in front of you.
  Trump said in no uncertain terms that he would back Israel, he's confirming it today and you still spout that "both sides" inane shit.
  What more do you need to admit that your point is bullshit.
  With Harris, there was a sliver of hope that there could be change and with Trump it was sure that Israel would do whatever it wanted. You look at that shitty situation all around, and you still think Harris was the worst choice versus the openly fascist dictator?
  There is no sane universe where you can defend that point of view, yet here we are.
  Palestine is fucked, good luck Ukraine, and fuck any American that isn't white, Christian and straight I guess. But hey, both sides, right?
  
  I think many people felt that Harris was a failure, just as they felt Biden was a failure. And she didn't have to be.
  Don't run a bad candidate if you wanna win. This is common sense. And if you try anyway and lose, don't blame others for it.
  
  Yeah, because Trump endlessly said they were failures and the corporate media unquestioningly repeated it.
  
  Why do Democrats have to field the perfect candidate while Republicans can run anyone and still win?
  It fucking sucks that the DNC fielded a mid candidate, but let's not put all the blame on them. It seems like the threat of Trump wasn't big enough for Democrat voters to get out and vote. The guy that said that he would retaliate against his political opponents and would be a dictator from day one.
  You know that you can vote for a candidate and still demand better from them after the election, right?
  At one point, Americans will have to stop taking disagreements personally and unite.
  
  Why do Democrats have to field the perfect candidate
  You mean a genocide supporter?
  
  But Harris had to be perfect.
  You're lying again. No one asked for perfect. They asked for neutral instead of aiding far right wing terrorists. All she had to do was follow our existing laws and stop the shipments. Its not a lot.
  
  The second that Harris breathed wrong, news were all over it, while Trump had the "what he said might put him in trouble" while spouting racist and/or fascist non-stop.
  But now it's futile. You got what you deserve.
  
  as did you.
  
  But Harris had to be perfect.
  Your idea of perfect is to not be a genocide supporter?
  
  Every fucking thing she said was scrutinized, analyzed and critiqued/mocked while Trump would say the heinous unhinged shit and no one batted an eye.
  That's cool, you got what you want now and Gaza is becoming Israel new beach front. I hope you meet a Palestinian that got family killed someday and tell them that you didn't support a genocide supporter. That'll make them feel funny inside.
  
  Every fucking thing she said was scrutinized [...]
  You are saying this in response to people saying they wouldn't tolerate genocide.
  That's cool, you got what you want now and Gaza is becoming Israel new beach front.
  There have been no policy changes. This is your ghouls running the show, 13 months of unconditional support for genocide. If any part of "the electorate" owns this, it is yours. You did not step up and say, "no more, that is too far".
  Though of course the party does not care about you and they are thr ones making these policy decisions with donor input.
  I hope you meet a Palestinian that got family killed someday and tell them that you didn't support a genocide supporter.
  I already know many Palestinians that have lost family. I organize with some of them, their views are my views on this. You clearly aren't embedded in this community because you assume everyone else is just as detached.
  That'll make them feel funny inside.
  Palestinians are not your rhetorical toy to play with when you run out of ways to handle your cognitive dissonance for having sold your soul to support someone that lost anyways. Please take some time to do self-criticism now that you have objective proof that you were not being strategic or smart about this, as you clearly gave up on being morally correct.
- The Palestinians had a chance under Harris.
  based on what data? You're just making stuff up.
  
  based on them trying to feel better about voting for genocide and losing. they got the worst of both worlds instead of doing the right thing and gathering support for a better party
  
  The mighty democratic party ladies and gents, blaming their epic across-the-entire government, across every demographic loss on a tiny minority of voters they explicitely said they'd bomb ---instead of owning the fact that they are out of touch with all of their voters who arent rich people.
- Yeah, but they've stuck to their guns, and now they can stand proud next to the bodies, knowing they never compromised on their moral integrity.
  
  We are not the ones complicit in this genocide. That is, in fact, those supporting the people committing genocide.
  
  Please remember this statement when we see what exactly the Trump admin does to stop the genocide.
- The Palestinians had a chance under Harris.
  No, they didn't.
  
  Whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the night, buddy.
  
  Right back atcha.
- Well, to all the folks arguing with me on how voting for Harris was bad because of Gaza: CONGRATULATIONS! You REALLY made a point there.
  Yes, I hope you can take this time to internalize a lesson: you should not support genocide or genociders. The candidate and strategy that you embraced was a gamble tbat you could support genocide and still win the election if you just recycled enough bad faith talking points at the people who consistently oppose genocide.
  As you can see, you were wrong. And yet here you are trying to blame others rather than learn this lesson. Do some self-criticism instead. I hope you can forgive yourself for supporting genocide for a cynical loser like Harris.
  The Palestinians had a chance under Harris.
  Harris, of the Biden-Harris regime, has had an identical line to Biden's during this 13 months of US-backed genocide. Unconditional material support and some empty rhetoric trying to PR handle their base rather than change policy.
  What do you imagine when you say, "had a chance"? Is it the current mass civilian bombing campaigns? Children burned alive? Mass starvation and malnutrition? Those are the things you've gone to bat for, that is the realized vision of the Biden-Harris regime.
  you did nothing or voted for genocide
  The people voting for genocidal candidates like Harris or Trump voted for genocode. That was something you seem to have done, but not I.
  You did it from the other side of the world, where you won't have to suffer the consequences.
  You cannot make your support for a genocider into an anti-privilege clapback. Do some self-criticism because this is gross.
  
  Yes, I hope you can take this time to internalize a lesson: you should not support genocide or genociders.
  Sorry, what exactly is the lesson to be learned from this election, in which the candidate who more vocally supports the genocide won? As in, showing more support for the genociding party and demonstratively siding in all points with the genociders with not even rhetorical pushback, just pure endorsement of the genocide? Which lesson will analysing this election yield again?
  
  Sorry, what exactly is the lesson to be learned from this election, in which the candidate who more vocally supports the genocide won?
  If it must be fully spelled out, it is that you cannot rope people whose politics is premised on empathy into supporting genocide and you will lose unless you demand better. If you want to fight against the forces of reaction, you cannot triangulate towards them, you have to actually have a semi-principled political program, not one premised on tokenization and "vote for us or the other guy will kill you even more".
  
  You seem to be wrong. Donald Trump didn't demand better and he didn't lose. The more pro-genocide party objectively won.
  
  people whose politics is premised on empathy
  You must not have read this part. Republican politics don’t rely on empathy, but democratic policy supposedly does, thus less turnout for a less empathetic democratic candidate.
  
  That's a very narrow grouping you draw there. Because in that group you are describing, the democrats got the most votes bar none. Nobody in that narrow category got even got close.
  
  Those are the things you've gone to bat for, that is the realized vision of the Biden-Harris regime.
  There's a difference between making the best of a bad situation and going to bat for it. Your choices were someone who there is a chance of reigning in Israel or someone that told them to do whatever they want with weapons we send. The latter is obviously a bad choice unless you agree with Israel.

406 comments