Many voters believe, with good reason, that none of this would have happened without Biden’s assent. Biden has continued to speak of Israel’s attack on Palestinian civilians using the absurd language of “self-defense”. He has insulted Jewish Americans and the memory of the Holocaust by invoking them to justify the slaughter. And though his White House repeatedly leaks that he is “privately” dismayed by Israel’s conduct of the war, he has done little to stop the flow of US money and guns that support it.

Even after the US state department issued a vexed and mealy-mouthed report on Israel’s conduct, which nevertheless concluded that it was reasonable to assess that Israel was in violation of international humanitarian law, the Biden administration has continued to fund these violations. That state department report was published on 10 May. The Biden administration told Congress that it intends to move forward with a $1bn arms sale to Israel. “OK, [Israel] likely broke the law, but not enough to change policy,” is how one reporter summarized the administration’s judgment. “So, what is the point of the report? I mean, in the simplest terms, what’s the point?”

Meanwhile, Biden has expressed public disdain for the Americans – many of whom he needs to vote for him – who have taken to protest on behalf of Palestinian lives. Speaking with evident approval of the violent police crackdowns against anti-genocide student demonstrations, he said coolly: “Dissent must never lead to disorder.”

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m sure Trump will be much better for those people who refuse to vote Biden solely because of his involvement with the Gaza situation. /s

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The reason Republicans become president is low turnout

      So Dems running a candidate that voters don’t want to vote for, is a bad thing.

      What works better, is running a candidate like Bill Clinton or Obama. Someone who is under 40 in their 40s says progressive things, and is charismatic.

      Regardless of how they govern, that’s how you prevent Republican president.

      With the current state of Dem primaries, it’s hard to blame voters for who makes it to the general.

      And if you’re looking for someone to blame when that unpopular Dem can’t even beat someone like trump, blame the people who get paid millions to decide how to spend billions to convince voters that the Republican is even worse than the Dem so we have to vote for someone not as bad, but still not what we want.

      We could just run popular candidates and easily beat trump, but that’s just not an option apparently

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        What works better, is running a candidate like Bill Clinton or Obama. Someone who is under 40, says progressive things, and is charismatic.

        Nitpick: Obama was 47 when he was elected. Clinton was 46. The youngest President ever was Theodore Roosevelt at 42 (when William McKinnley was assassinated), and the youngest president to ever be elected was JFK at 43. No person under the age of 40 has ever served as President.

        “Under 50” would probably be more accurate for the point you’re trying to make. We’ve had several good Presidents in the 40-50 age group.

        </nitpick>

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          No worries, I meant “in their 40s” but if you wouldn’t have said anything, I wouldn’t have known I fucked up.

          Nitpicking is always valid, details are important