“Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has ordered preparations for the annexation of the occupied West Bank ahead of US President-elect Donald Trump taking office in January 2025.”
“Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has ordered preparations for the annexation of the occupied West Bank ahead of US President-elect Donald Trump taking office in January 2025.”
Wow, they are really going to do it, aren’t they?
Are you surprised?
They’ve already BEEN doing it. And this was the critical failure of all those who argued that Trump would be better for Palestine than Harris. I voted for Harris, but I am not at all surprised this cost her the election.
Israel doesn’t need to do ANYTHING differently to complete its genocide of Gaza and the West Bank. It is already on that road, actively engaging in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. And the Biden/Harris team have, through their inaction, fully endorsed this genocide.
Kamala was so comically bad on Palestine that the only hair-brained thing they could come up with to defend her stance was, “well…well…Trump will let the Israelis do a genocide EVEN FASTER!”
Kamala’s campaign slogan was, “a vote for Mussolini is better than a vote for Hitler!”
And then she was surprised when enough liberal voters in swing states stayed home to cost her the election. It turns out, there are plenty of people who will NOT turn out to vote for Mussolini just because Hitler is also on the ballot. They won’t vote for either of them; they’ll just say “a pox on both your houses!” and stay home.
Is a vote for Mussolini better than a vote for Hitler? Objectively, probably yes. Hitler objectively did a lot worse harm than Mussolini. But you also can’t be shocked when people refuse to hold their noses and vote for Mussolini, just because Hitler might be objectively worse. Ultimately, it’s your fucking fault for expecting people to vote for Mussolini.
I can’t speak for the nuances w.r.t Harris, Trump and US foreign policy in Israel/Palestine.
I can with full confidence say that not voting is definitely not going to achieve anything. The only justified case would be an attempt to highlight the illegitimacy of the voting process if there are no options at all. It’s relatively common for people to vote tactically on a consistent basis, although of course it’s understandable when people lose motivation to vote when they feel there are no good options.
You are ignoring how people actually think and live. You view voting as a utilitarian choice. Utilitarianism is not the only ethical system in existence. In fact, utilitarianism is exactly how histories worst autocrats justified their atrocities. Hitler himself ran on a platform of doing painful things that, he at least claimed, simply had to be done. The Holocaust itself was justified entirely from a “lesser of two evils” perspective. Hitler just had to convince the broader German populace that killing all the Jews was a necessary evil. Kill all the Jews or have the world taken over by godless Communists. That was Hitler’s central “lesser of two evils” message.
This is the fatal flaw of appeals to the lesser of two evils approaches. Yes, you “achieve more” by picking the lesser evil. But from many ethical perspectives, if both choices are objectively evil, and you can’t stop either, your only ethical choice is to not support either side. You’re still supporting evil, even if it’s the lesser evil.
No, I am basing this on real life experience. I.e. How I and many people vote and voted in my country, as well as other European countries that I follow.
This is a very practical matter. You feel like voting, you pick either your candidate or the best option that works. You’re not happy with that, don’t vote; but then you take responsibility for your (lack of) action. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t know where you are going with the utilitarianism and Hitler example. This is a massive stretch bordering on being rather insulting.
That is how YOU vote. A lot of people do not view it as a practical matter. They view their vote as an endorsement.
It really isn’t when we’re discussing fascists coming to power in the US. Godwin’s Law is dead. It is not a stretch when the reason Kamala lost is for literally supporting a genocide.
Kamala’s message was, “yes, I support a genocide overseas. But, my opponent supports it even more, and he will support crimes against humanity at home, while I will only support them overseas.”
Not just me. This is common in other countries. People most definitely do not treat their vote as an endorsement. You can believe me or not or say I am bad, but this is a matter of fact.
I was refering to your claim that tactical/pragmatic voting is somehow related to a deep philosophical commitment to utilitarianism which in turns is how you get Hitler. People don’t vote tactically out of some deep commitment to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism of course has its own set of problems, the stuff about Hitler in context of tactical voting is a ridiculous stretch; very condescending as well.
I don’t deny the possibility of US turning into a essentially a non-democratic oligarch state. If anything, research suggests authoritarians who come to power via somewhat democratic means, tend to solidify their rule in their second term if there is no pushback from society. So in a sense I agree with you.
Where I don’t agree with you are your justifications for not voting. As I said originally, I think the only fair reasoning is if there is nationwide protest to highlight the illegitimacy of an election/regime. Otherwise, there is no point in not voting.
Being from an “other” country, having lived in another 3 of said “other” countries, an even having been involved in politics in 2 of them, what you wrote is complete total bullshit.
Plenty of people do indeed have an utilitarian view of their vote, but lots of people, maybe even most, treat their vote as an endorsement.
In fact from my own experience in various countries the utilitarian view is more common in countries with less Democratic voting systems with few actually electable choices, similar to the US (so, for example, Britain) whilst the endorsement view is more common in countries with highly Democratic voting systems with lots of choices (such as The Netherlands, which has Proportional Vote).
I’m sorry but whilst you having an utilitarian posture is perfectly valid, your idea that it’s the only valid posture and other people don’t have different postures is complete total mindless self-centred bollocks.
I never said anything about validity. Let me quote myself:
I didn’t mean to imply all people treat their vote as an endorsement. That’s my mistake, I wasn’t clear. I was saying that a lot of people vote tactically and do not treat their vote as an endorsement.
You can have a different posture, but the fact remains that people are complex and they can (and should) switch between committed voting and tactical depending on the situation. If you don’t take the tactical approach, then it is reasonable to hold one responsible not taking part in the voting process.
They’ve been signaling it for more than a year now.