It altered voting intent by both Jewish and Islamic groups in ways which were net negative for Harris. The margin of error in voting was less than the number of votes swayed.
All of this is out weighed by the "didn't vote" but democrat didn't vote was larger than before. If this issue stimulated a vote boycott it could have affected democrat voters more.
That argument is not really credible to me, saying that democrats did not vote or voted republican because Harris (and Biden before her) were too favorable towards Israel, ignores the fact that it was glaringly obvious that trump would be even more favorable towards Israel.
I have certainly heard people say that they couldn't support Harris because the Biden administration was too close to Israel, so instead didn't vote at all. I know it doesn't make sense to hand the election to somebody objectively worse on an issue they claim to care about, but there it is.
I suspect that whole thing was driven by some clever folks trying to get Trump into power.
Trump was an isolationist in his first term, and his campaign used this to convince muslim voters that he'd continue this in his second term and withdraw support for Israel.
Instead, he announced a US funded ethnic cleansing campaign in the region, and the cornerstone of his budget is funding to illegally deploy the US Military in the US. One of their main goals is rounding up "anti-semetics" which seems to mean anyone that's against genocide, especially this exact group of Trump voters.
My suspicion is that they fell for it because they're less familiar with US politics, either due to a language barrier or due to being 1st and 2nd generation immigrants without grandparents that remember the McCarthy trials, or the US deporting jews back to Nazi Germany.
Whether Trump would continue it was an unknown. Whether the Democrats would continue it was a known. And they wanted to punish people who were supporting a genocide. It's a fairly rational choice. My entire family didn't vote because of this and the friendliness with Cheney and neocons.
Neutral I suppose. I think it was good that Democrats were not rewarded for supporting a genocide. No, Harris was a bad candidate in many other respects too, and even considering just this issue, I think it was the right decision.
I think this take comes from a place of western privilege. Biden has always been extremely pro Israel, more than even the average politician here. Biden refused to recognize the ICC war criminal ruling's on Bibi and Israel and also gave them whatever weapons they wanted. It doesnt really make a difference if Trump is more rude and annoying about it, neither of them like Alive Palestinians.
I mean, the whole thing went down under the Biden Presidency. If he thought getting those votes was important he couldve shut it down, it wouldnt even be the first time a president did that. Reagan reigned them in all the way in the 80s.
Some fantasy about how millions of leftists voters either boycotted the election or voted for Trump because of Biden’s position on Gaza. Complete nonsense of course, but it’s a popular conspiracy theory among certain democrats circles.
It was also funny to see democrats suddenly realizing that Arab Americans vote republican. They always have and they always will. Just like how Latino Americans, and generally most immigrants, will always vote republican too. Arab Americans are very culturally conservative. They would rather see a 100 Gazas than accepting that 2 gay men can get married.
The left pretty much falls into the same trap all around the world. Its almost funny to watch when a leftist realises that immigrants are right-leaning. The typical reaction is to fall back to elitism and claim those immigrants must be stupid somehow.
I don't think you mean leftists you mean liberals. Leftists ostensibly have a materialist understanding of the world, not idealist. Of course many immigrants are right-wing, the US exported counter-revolution globally during the 20th century.
I went to eat out at a Guatemalan restaurant the other day and they had a poster for a right-wing ultranationalist paramilitary group.
Is it shocking? Not at all. I have heard the same violent rhetoric from petit bourgeois in Colombia and in the USA because the exact same forces of reaction in the USA have been at work globally for decades.
> Its almost funny to watch when a leftist realises that immigrants are right-leaning
The claim that all immigrants are right-leaning is a generalization.
> The claim that all immigrants are right-leaning is a generalization.
Yes, agreed. I probably saved a few words too much on that sentence. I should have thrown a "some" or "many" in there. OTOH, as a non-native speaker, I will loose every argument that ends up in native-speaker pedantery, so I am kind of unimpressed.
I would appreciate a broader examination of how this site politics function because no one here seems to understand the difference between liberals and leftists.
This site is mostly wealthy and older who have benefitted from the neoliberal status quo. It's why many commenters can shrug off the insane shit happening like opaque deportations of random people to a fucking concentration camp in El Salvador, it only affects people on the margins who they think they are very far removed from.
In wealthy urban areas there are a lot of liberals who don't have a materialist basis for their views and are hypocritical, so the more reactionary on this site think that these pearl-clutching libs are the end all be all of left-wing politics. Meanwhile actual leftists dont really differentiate between ethnic supremacists and YIMBY liberals because they both ultimately support the same outcomes.
I am also from a petit bourgeois background but being younger I think it was very clear that the direction we were heading in was not sustainable. There is no path that allows for me to have stable finances (enough money to buy a house and pay for my parents retirement) and also be spiritually fulfilled. The only way I can save up the money to take care of the people around me is to sell my mind, body, and soul to the machine (even then who says the current administration wont tank the stock market and erase all my savings). I think even for Gen X'ers this was the case, it was just easier to keep their heads down since the polycrisis was still a few decades out and would not yet seem "real".
Even as a relatively successful zoomer I have to walk a fine line of grinding away at my day job, and doing the community-oriented work that fulfills me spiritually. The market signals that stuff like home ownership and having a family is not "efficient", so I don't bother.
Anyways, there's a real disconnect and I'm not sure what it would take for the older and wealthier folks on here to open their eyes. If history is anything to go by they most likely never will.
> I'm not sure what it would take for the older and wealthier folks on here to open their eyes.
I think there are plenty of wealthy folks who understand the benfits of living in a more equal society, and that would gladly pay their fair share to live in such a society. The problem is they are not enough, and worse yet the middle class and what remains of the working class are actively pushing propaganda that goes directly against their own interests (perhaps because they think that one day they will too be millionaires).
Of course wealthy or "petit bourgeois" can be leftists or Marxists or whatever, they have typically made up the intelligentsia of most left-wing revolutions historically.
But the material interests of the wealthy align with the status quo that allowed them to acquire their wealth. This becomes less true as the "polycrisis" of climate change intensifies, since at some point there will be no future to enjoy, regardless of how much money you have.
Also I will argue that the reactionary propaganda comes from the top-down, not the bottom-up.
The wealthy are not trying to maintain the status quo though, they are actively trying to dismantle the remnants of the social/welfare state. I would argue that it is exactly that social system that allowed them to become wealthy, and they want to hold and hoard the wealth, stifling economic mobility and increasing the divide. This is stupid though as it increases social tensions and IMO puts them even more at risk of losing their wealth.
The reactionary propaganda does come from the top. Case in point: Elons “X the everything app” and him promoting afd - one has to wonder why he cares so much about immigrants. The answer seems simple, if they are not the target, he is.
> The wealthy are not trying to maintain the status quo though
I agree with everything you said, of course there are factions among the wealthy. Some want to keep doing business as usual liberalism, I think others anticipate climate change and want to pivot to a more violent system that allows them to horde even more wealth.
At the end of the day though, all factions of the wealthy have solidarity with each other when it matters.
I would love if the public discourse would allow for more diversity of opinions. Unfortunately, where I come from, the left has simplified the rhetoric to "If you are of a different opinion then we are, you are either badly educated (read, stupid) or a nazi." Unfortunately, this elitist attitude has only contributed to the divide of the people.
I don't know what to tell you, I'm never going to be happy about people voting against my rights or about secret police disappearing people and ignoring the court system
You seem to be completely ignoring lynx97's actual point.
If you're not happy about those things, stop telling everyone who disagree with you how stupid they are and how they're literal Nazis. Then at least some of those who disagree with you on some issues will be less driven to vote for the people whose positions appall you.
Yes. If you pretend to be the better person, you better make sure you act like it. If you give up and fall back to name calling, people will judge you based on your actions. "But I used to be the good guy" doesn't count at all.
> If you are of a different opinion then we are, you are either badly educated (read, stupid) or a nazi
Depending on where you are from, this could absolutely be true, as "elitist" and insulting as it might be. Well, fascist is more appropriate than Nazi because Nazi is superset of fascism with a heavy anti-semitic element, and I'm not aware of many rabidly anti-semitic parties in the mainstream in many countries.
No. Just because a conservative is not willing to support a liberal position, that doesn't make them automatically a fascist. In fact, thats the core of my criticism. Political views are a spectrum, and you can't just push someone to the far right just because you disagree with them. This black-and-white thinking is doing far more harm then you might imagine.
> Just because a conservative is not willing to support a liberal position, that doesn't make them automatically a fascist
Their methods and their positions make them fascist, not their support or lack thereof for opposing positions.
Say, a coup attempt. Or someone in power talking about ignoring term limits. Or getting bribes and favouritism for corporations (corporatism is a heavy component of fascism). Or silencing opposition with brutal and illegal methods (such as kidnapping in the middle of the night by unmarked and masked men). Those all scream fascism, regardless of the fact that e.g. the person in charge of healthcare is an antivaxxer.
> Well, fascist is more appropriate than Nazi because Nazi is superset of fascism with a heavy anti-semitic element, and I'm not aware of many rabidly anti-semitic parties in the mainstream in many countries.
Scratch a little deeper on the things popular Republican politicians and members of the current administration have been saying and promoting for the last few years.
Conspiratorial movements almost always end up at "it's The Jews", and so do theirs.
If you see talk about their opponents engaging in dark "rituals" involving child murder or abuse, you can be 100% sure you've found one that'll get you there. It's just blood libel, keeping reading and listening and you'll see that they're fully at that point before you've had to do much work. It's tedious.
sure this sounds bad, but we also currently have, in the USA, and administration who deports student protestors and does Nazi salutes. Ive been hearing about how "oh, the left just calls us Nazis for any opinion that differs from them" and now they are in power doing Nazi salutes. They were Nazis the whole time. No one is getting called Nazi for their opinions on tax rebates.
I agree, it's a huge trap. The right exploits leftists who insult normal people as dumb. It worked when they insulted George W Bush, who people identified with and found likeable, and was probably coached to bungle sentences despite likely not talking that way at Yale and Harvard; and when they insult Trump and his ideas, though he's perceptive and effective.
Many say it works because liberals now represent the professional-managerial class, who often come across to workers/poor as infuriatingly patronizing, slick and humiliating. Whereas many don't know who owns their big corporation, so they don't inspire such visceral feelings.
While some may argue that liberals aren't leftists (but are rather good-cop), nevertheless many leftists do this too. The dynamics are explained in Thomas Frank's book "Listen, Liberal", David Graeber's essay "Army of Altruists: On the alienated right to do good", and Participatory Economics's coverage of the coordinator class.
Class consciousness is entirely too intellectual and nerdy to ever be popular, you'll never convince someone swayed by bumper stickers to read and thoughtfully consider your 500-word ultra-concise argument for it.
"Vibes" and populism drive voter behavior. Cheap populist messages will always resonate at least as well as even an ultra-simplified "it's all of us versus the owners of capital". Us vs. Them is what populism is, but getting the right Them according to class consciousness is really hard (and it'll constantly be at risk of someone subverting it to something else, probably "the Jews and other child-sacrificing Evil Cultists in their sway" because it's usually that for some stupid fucking reason).
Even Bernie had to settle for the shitty and inaccurate "the 1%" to get even a little traction with class consciousness on a mass scale.
Right now outright conspiratorial thinkers are ascendant and doing the usual thing of being some of the elites (the capitalists) we should all be against, while painting everything as the fault of other elites (how are they differently elite? Well, follow their stupid threads of "evidence" and you always end up at blood libel, truly, it's so consistent that it's boring)
> Class consciousness is entirely too intellectual and nerdy to ever be popular,
well yea, and Marx is a taboo, nothing new there. Those ideas can be repackaged though, in a way that won't make people foam at the mouth because of the "communist sounding words" (thinking of gary's economics for example). I agree with what you said, it's easier to package an "Anti-something" message, as we see with all the anti-immigrant messaging in the US and Europe, the Anti-Billionaire movement still has not gained even a fraction of the traction though.
Well, I dont remember any "immigrants for the poor" movements. But I know from personal experience that Lions Club and Rotary people actually sometimes do something useful for the poor with their money...
Given that context, do you really not understand that you shouldn't bite the hand that might feed you?
Immigrants are never going to feed the poor and disadvantaged.
The oh-so-bad-and-evil rich people might at least sometimes.
Immigrants are a net positive contributor to the welfare and pension system in the EU, they are statistically very likely to be the literal hand that feeds you when you will be old and in need of care.
I never said rich people are bad and evil, just that they should pay their fair share. For their own good too, to live in a more harmonious society, but maybe this is better.
Let me expand a bit on this. I personally think it is a very bad sign for our society that we are about to outsource the responsibilities around caring for the elderly to (mostly) female workers from neighboring countries to save a few bucks. Personally mostly because I find the prospect of a language barrier in care horryfing. I don't want to imagine how it must feel for those we already subject to this treatment to be cared for by someone who barely understands your language. In that context I find it hard to feel cozy about the future of care being "solved" by using immigrant workforce. Regarding pensions, all I can do is hope the statistics you are refering to are actually true. The cases I know about are heavily blocked on the language barrier when it comes to finding a "good" job. The best positive example I can think of are construction workers where it seems to work quite well that one or two guys speak the local language well enough to translate/coordinate with the rest of the crew. But most other cases of immigrants I know are actually pretty much blocked on the language issue. Only some are talented enough to learn a new language fluently in a few years, and some languages are actually pretty hard to learn. I count me in on that group. If I had to learn a new language at my age, I would probably do very badly. I didn't even pick up enough spanish during a 2 month trip through south america to do any interesting conversation. It would probably take me years to be able to respond to a random sentence from a native speaker of anything other then english and my native language. You might be able to survive with just English in the tech industry. But in pretty much every other industry, especially service, it is hard to find a job without good language skills. So most of the examples in that area that I am currently thinking of actually ended up depending on the welfare state for income instead of contributing to the pension system.
Nothing to feel cozy about, that was just an example of how immigrants do in fact help the poor and disadvantaged. In the same way that you mention how working class jobs are now also increasingly done by immigrants. Now if the rotary clubs want to donate money that’s great, but the fact remains that there is a redistribution of wealth happening before our eyes, and the direction is not wealthy -> immigrants, it’s middle class and below -> ultra rich. We are effectively subsidizing the profits of billionaires, while they skirt taxes and lobby for cutting even more funding to the welfare system. The economic divide between the super wealthy and the ever fading middle class is increasing year by year. How is this supposed to function?
I think they don't fall into the trap, and their position on migrants is formed not from the assumption that migrants have leftist views, but from the assumption that it is easier to make migrants dependent. And when someone is dependent, it doesn't matter what cultural views they are inclined to.
This is, of course nonsense. The data is clear that Latinos vote majority Democrat, though it was a smaller majority in this election than the previous.
Citation needed. A lot of the Latinos I know in NYC voted Trump. A few were Democrat voters who grew tired of being insulted by Democrats who casually lump Latinos into a big "left loving Latino pool" when they are Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Chileans, Ecuadorians, etc; Individuals with distinct cultures and backgrounds. Latinos are also heavily religious which is very influential as well.
it was a huge anchor around the dem's neck, it was a huge conversation during the entire election. They were unable to convince people that Trump would be worse for Gaza than them.
When Biden 2020 voters cast a ballot for someone besides Harris in 2024 were asked “Which one of the following issues was MOST important in deciding your vote?” they selected:
29% - [■■■■■■■■■■]
24% - The economy
12% - Medicare and Social Security
11% - Immigration and border security
10% - Healthcare
9% - Abortion policy
5% - Don’t know
So a country with 3% of the population of the US can throw the US into lawlessness or transform the US into a dictatorship? Pretty weak structure if that actually works.
It's more about how the US handled the situation in a country with 3% of the population and the impact of that on either marginal voters or voters for whom this was a major issue.
In this case, it wasn't for lack of action. The US is actively funding one side's dominance and hindering others from helping the other side.
I think most people who are complaining about this are not expecting the US to be responsible for anything and would be pretty happy if the US just sat out.
Looking at those graphs I think one sees a war started by the weaker force and losing badly. A genocide in the same way as a bully being smacked in his face is bullying.
You realize genocide has nothing to do with graphs? It has to do with the leaders of the army accused saying they want to use starvation of the civilians of their own country as a tool of war among various other things. Since Israel does not recognize any Palestinian nation, and is the de facto occupier of the land the Palestinians live on, they are effectively civilians in the Israeli state
The author collected the reasons why Americans did not vote and analyzed all the not-about-genocide reasons, topics deemed inappropriate for discussion were self-censored by the author
that's a very interesting phenomenon, in Westworld, the hosts defensively disregard any evidence that challenges their true existence to prevent their worldview from collapsing:
Genocide is a crime that consists of the combination of other crimes and a particular intent. Israeli politicians routinely declare this intent in mass media while they are committing actions that are listed in the description of the crime of genocide.
Russia has a tentative, informal truce with Israel on this issue, a 'you get atrocities in Palestine and we get atrocities elsewhere' kind of deal, and China aims to look neutral while supporting Israel for profit, e.g. in the Haifa harbour.
3% of israeli jews would consider it immoral to ethnically cleanse the Gaza strip according to recent polls. It's a thoroughly genocidal society, as is obvious to anyone looking at israeli press and television. The israeli state is also very, very aggressive towards its neighbours, occupying parts of several of them, acting in breach of a peace agreement with another, participating in military exercises as a threat to yet another, and so on. It can do this due to US bullying of allies and enemies alike.
Soldiers in the IDF publicly admit to and document atrocities they're committing, voluntarily, which is well known and easy to confirm. I usually recommend looking through material collected by ytirawi and ireallyhateyou on xcancel.com, because it only takes a few seconds to start seeing photos of inexcusable acts and rhetoric.
> the genocide contributed to bringing Trump to power
Only because folks who refused to vote for Kamala said they could not stand her support of Israel policies :-) Like poor voters in the Midwest, you can always count on a certain electorate, to vote against their own interests and what they care about...
As if Israel was the only reason to not vote for Harris. I dont remember much of her "platform" that actually would be in my interest. Make-believe-minority-politics isn't for the masses.
to be honest i only remember the supposed $20000 subsidy for first homebuyers, but how was the alternative in your interest, and is it working out as expected?
That's just it though, the democratic and republican parties ran on Israel apartheid maintenance since the end of the second world war. And even in the face of a genocide, the democrats as a national party held the line and refused to consider the crime against humanity unfolding before them. How is electing them supposed to be taken? Should they continue to ignore human rights violations? There was no other way to signal to democrats, as they would rather lose to fascist dictators.
20% of the population of Israel are Palestinians with full rights. Some were killed 7/10. There's a muslim party in the Knesset.
Remind me again: how many black parties had representation in apartheid South Africa?
You are confused because Israel HAS A apartheid state: the settlements (a small part of Israel in total). But that's not the same as Israel IS A apartheid state.
If you can't separate HAS A from IS A you will fail your Object Oriented Programming 101 course, but no one seems to notice it when talking politics :P
The real Apartheid is not the israeli citizens. It's the people in the West Bank and Gaza. All of them should be israeli citizens too. Either that, or half a million settlers should get out. Can't have it both ways.
It's just settler colonialism. This is what it looks like, it's the same patterns and attitudes, complete with every act of resistance justifying further dehumanization and taking even more. Hell, the map of the West Bank even looks like it, it's just entirely that, top to bottom. The only difference is we're 80ish years past the point when nobody (except the colonized) minded if you were doing settler colonialism, so there's a little push-back.
> complete with every act of resistance justifying further dehumanization and taking even more.
"Resistance" oh please. Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization. DESPITE this Israel gave them Gaza to rule over themselves. What did they do? Steal from their own people, fire missiles weekly. And STILL Israel showed patience. There was a one-sided cease fire before 7/10, Hamas kept firing. Then after 7/10 the patience with Gaza came to an end.
As was suffrage, the bantustans were in large part a solution to the risk that voting would change the balance in the national parliament. What you could vote for and what the dominant group could do to your candidates was used to reproduce and reinvent apartheid, similar to how it is used in Israel.
Another similarity is that the dominant groups in both societies are propped up by protestant christians. Yet another is using colonial practices in other countries to fund the local economy, like emerald mines in Zambia in the case of South Africa and diamonds being a main export of Israel.
Legally Israel is engaged in apartheid, which is a crime. I'd argue this in itself makes the state of Israel illegitimate, i.e. armed and other resistance towards it is either a moral obligation or at least permissible, that is, the mainstream position of early liberalism.
That's all cool. But it's just standard deflection from the tens of thousands of deaths that the Biden administration directly enabled. And Arabs living in Israel doesn't magically make all the very public statements that Israel made (like that they wanted to level the city to the ground, and displace its population once and for all), repeatedly and throughout the entire Gaza operation just go away.
Israel didn't make those statements. Specific members of radical parties did. Imagine judging a country by their worst people. I bet your country would fare quite badly.
IDF generals did. Who else would you consider credible in representing what the IDF intended to do? Regardless I wasn't trying to make this about Israel's actions. But rather about what Biden (and didn't do) with Israel.
He didn't even go as far as condemn the radical parties that you mentioned. Absolutely no red line, or anything. Just complete carte blanche. Again, even Bush or Reagan didn't let Israel do whatever they want with no political repercussions. Israel knew back then that some lines couldn't be crossed without losing American support. With Biden, they did whatever they wanted, said whatever they wanted and took advantage of that.
Likud is a mainstream party in Israel. Their prime minister has been making genocidal and atrocious statements for a very long time. Mainstream television in Israel has been in overdrive to secure popular consent for absolutely obscene crimes for more than one and a half year.
80% of israeli jews in Israel approve of genocidal treatment of palestinians in the Gaza strip in the form of ethnic cleansing, while 14% believe the public statements about this from world leaders to be a distraction and 3% consider it immoral.
The broad israeli opposition, i.e. the large demonstrations in Tel Aviv and elsewhere and the politicians that support them, disagree with the government in which order to do things, not on whether the palestinians should be treated genocidally. They want to make the palestinians 'freyer', suckers, by signing any deal that brings israeli prisoners and hostages back and then continuing the genocidal process anyway. Meanwhile the government considers the prisoners and hostages better positioned in captivity, hence why they have been refusing negotiations, and then broke the ceasefire deal they went into earlier this year.
> genocidal treatment of palestinians in the Gaza strip in the form of ethnic cleansing
Well that made no sense. Genocide is killing people. Ethnic cleansing is moving people. Those are extremely different things. The entire Muslim world has already done a 99% ethnic cleansing of Jews, and where is the outrage? That's 10x the number of people that live in Gaza.
No, the crime of genocide can be perpetrated through non-fatal means, through "serious bodily or mental harm" as the convention puts it. Displacement, starvation, the eradication of homes and records, and so on, are common tactics applied by genocidal regimes.
The state of Israel systematically destroys educational institutions, libraries, archives, historical monuments and buildings, cemeteries, homes, hospitals, agrarian land, and more, according to leading politicians and pundits with the explicit intent to erase the palestinians from the land they're indigenous to. Israeli palestinians are called "arab" as part of this policy.
The ambition to establish a zionist colony and move the region's jews there caused a lot of outrage at the time, in part because the zionist movement had engaged in terrorism and other atrocities for decades already and wasn't exactly received as a welcome innovation in western antisemitism. It also came right after the influence of the previous innovation had subsided, i.e. nazi antisemitism.
US and british planes moved most of the jews from Iraq, Yemen and so on, so claiming that is was done by "the entire Muslim world" is blatantly false. In Indonesia the plight and flight of the jews was mainly caused by imperial Japan, who put pretty much the entire jewish community in labour camps. Today indonesian antisemitism is strongly connected to israeli atrocities and the antisemitic conflation of judaism and the state of Israel that zionists insist on.
Huh? I don't think it's the Muslim world that did the cleansing lol. At least in morocco most of the Jewish population left after Israel was founded, after the actual Holocaust in Europe. Not because of ethnic cleansing (though I agree they were treated badly, and I understand why they left).
But according to you the ethnic cleansing of the Jews was okay because it somehow wasn't a genocide right? Otherwise why would you be okay with what Israel is doing right now after saying that what israel is doing is
just like the cleansing of the Jews?
And going back to the original point, are you saying that voting against the administration that enabled the gen- I mean ethnic cleansing of your population is somehow voting against your self interests? Talk about complete partisan blindsidedness.
You don't believe that Jews were ethnically cleansed from Muslim countries? Considering Egypt for example, what else would we call the expulsion of 25,000 Jews?
Morocco in particular didn't have an explicit state policy of ethnically cleansing Jews, but "treated badly" is a bit of an understatement, considering the pogroms and the government policy of essentially holding Jews for ransom.
Actually you are right, I was wrong about that. I was thinking about before Israel's foundation (as in, Jews lived in the Muslim worlds for a long time without ethnic cleansing).
As for morocco, yes they were very much treated as worse than second class citizens.
So yeah, I agree that Jews were basically pushed to leave, and at some point were just directly kicked out and cleansed out of a lot of Muslim countries.
I just find it weird to justify Israel's actions by saying that what they are doing is "just ethnic cleansing" which is basically what the comment I was replying was doing. Not only is it super weird, but it's also telling to only apply that logic to Muslims. Can Jews just go and massacre Germans and Europeans because of the Holocaust? Then why justify the wholesale destruction of a Muslim city with that?
I didn't say "just" ethnic cleansing. I said that ethnic cleansing is different from genocide. Because it is. We should be careful to use the correct words.
In the sense mass murder is different from genocide, sure. It can be an expression of a genocidal regime but in some case it might not be.
But since you refuse to explain why you want to make this distinction and how it applies to the treatment of the palestinians it doesn't seem like care, it seems more like you want to bikeshed.
The jews in Egypt didn't have much problems with their neighbours until nazism and zionism arrived.
'The bad muslims mistreated the jews when they came under influence of german thought, typical muslims, a european would never'.
Jews lived in Morocco since the first century AD, with the exception of the Fez massacre in 1033, mainly in peace. It's where jews could find immediate refuge when the christians drove them out of al-Andalus. 1948 onwards there were anti-jewish riots in Morocco, in response to jews leaving to presumably take part in the zionist atrocities in Palestine and the state of Israel.
Today anti-jewish and anti-zionist sentiment in Morocco is typically tied into anti-monarchist views, the king is perceived to be a traitor and possibly controlled by some supposed jewish conspiracy. You'll find a rather clear expression of this in e.g. Ahmed Rami, the infamous exiled antisemite, who combines distinctly nazi antisemitism with a moroccan muslim nationalism.
I take it you wanted to start your list after islam arrived, but failed and doesn't know the muslims didn't arrive until 639 or so? And that's why you left out the roman pogroms?
It's for good reason sharia prescribes legal protections for jews, christian romans and byzantians persecuted jews incessantly.
Edit: Zionism is mainly a protestant christian movement, it's a lot about historical revisionism regarding christian antisemitism. Most of the members are christians, the funding comes mainly from christians, the weapons are provided by christian countries, it's based on a naive distinctly protestant (i.e. 'literal' and cherry picked) reading of the Bible, and so on.
But you didn't, you showed some examples of christians massacring jews and didn't explain in any of the examples how it was islamic religion rather than e.g. politics that caused the murder.
I still have the impression you just Ctrl-F:ed 'egypt' in a random list of supposed muslim on jew violence without looking into whether it was truthful or the historical context.
What do you think the significance of Khaybar is? Are you unaware that the story goes something like this, Muhammad and his group were established in Medina, and had peace treaties there except for a group of medinese jews in Khaybar, which they besieged for some time, until they signed a treaty with them where they left them in peace in exchange for a tax in the form of dates? This is roughly at the same time as the first muslims got a peace treaty with the meccans and were allowed to begin with pilgrimage.
Usually these events are retold as evidence of Muhammad's ability to quickly resolve violent conflict and enter into diplomatic relations with their neighbours without a lot of bloodshed, but you don't seem to be aware of this. The battle of Khaybar saw something like fifteen thousand from jewish tribes in Khaybar against a tenth of that in a very brief siege and some skirmishes, with only like a hundred dead and fifty injured. Quick and relatively bloodless, and other peace treaties were also negotiated as a result.
It's also very weird to recall battles in the early 600s to excuse more than a century of terrorism and other atrocities in recent times. Roughly as absurd as the serb nationalist cult of the battle of Kosovo Polje. Are you into that stuff as well?
How is not voting for the administration that enabled and did absolutely nothing to stop the genocide of their relatives or community in Gaza voting against their self interest?
You realize that the deaths that happened in Gaza are probably more important than whatever grievances you have against Trump for some people? We are talking about tens of thousands of deaths, directly enabled by the previous administration (not only politically but with direct military shipments of the bombs that killed said people). But Muslim lives are typically completely worthless for a large part of the American population so your comment doesn't really surprise me.
No, that's not what I said. But that doesn't mean that people would actively vote for the previous administration. They just won't vote at all.
And I'm not sure what you mean by doubling down. Biden was basically letting Israel do whatever it wanted to do. Absolutely did nothing for more than a year of bloodshed. Doing anything (like direct discussions with Hamas, bypassing israel) is better than just doing nothing. Even if Trump is a drooling, die hard supporter of Israel.
Like if Trump did what Biden let Israel do, I don't think the Muslim population would've been surprised. But even the reddest/war hawks of presidents(Reagan, Bush) never let Israel just have a complete carte blanche. Yet Biden, a supposed ally of the community, did.
Yes, Democrats have been historically seen as the party that cared the most about Muslim interests in the US. Just like it is the party that traditionally gets the most support from the black community for example.
Again, this complete disregard for Muslim life could've been expected from Bush or whatever. But even he wouldn't have let Israel go this far without some sort of faint condemnation or call for restraints. Biden didn't. Especially since Biden wasn't some sort of toothless president, we saw how he reacted to the Russian invasion, and how firm he was against Russia. I guess it showed how Ukrainian lives seemed to be worth much more for his administration, whereas the lives of Gaza civilians wasn't even worth a stern condemnation.
Catering to a population doesn't inherently means that you push for all of its beliefs.
Is any politician that supports Israel to gain support from Jewish voters pushing for Judaism or Jewish (religious) values? Do you think that Judaism, the actual religion, is any more progressive with say, feminism, than Islam?
Why does it matter? Wr are discussing religious groups in the US. The comment I replied to said that catering to American Muslims doesn't make sense if you are a progressive because Islam isn't. But somehow catering to Jews (which I know isn't just a religious group) is different. So I'm asking, do you actually think that Judaism is more progressive than Islam? Again, the comment I replied to explicitly said that the community somehow equals the religion and its beliefs.
And I don't know if women have it particularly worse in Turkey than in Israel. Same goes for gay people, though I'd agree that I'd rather be gay in Israel that in Turkey or any other Muslim country. Not sure why that matters in the context of comparing the religions themselves though.
> I guess it showed how Ukrainian lives seemed to be worth much more for his administration, whereas the lives of Gaza civilians wasn't even worth a stern condemnation.
Biden is a self-described Zionist, so his politics in that regard are crystal clear.
Biden was in charge the entire time if he wanted people to think his party was better on Gaza he shouldve been better on Gaza. They dealt with a massive protest wave in blue staes and they told everyone who cared about Gazans to get fucked, then they lost. Its not hard to understand.
