US ambassador to Israel says US no longer pursuing goal of independent Palestinian state
-
Thank God we saved Palestine from Biden, right protest voters?
Right?The majority of white women voted for Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
"White women are still voting for the Republican candidate
Although women as a whole have historically voted for Democrats, white women have not. Instead, over the last 72 years, a plurality of white women have voted for the Democratic candidate only twice, in 1964 and 1996."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/06/election-trump-harris-women-voters
-
Mike Huckabee suggested any future Palestinian state should be carved out of ‘a Muslim country’
Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, has said that the US is no longer pursuing the goal of an independent Palestinian state, marking what analysts describe as the most explicit abandonment yet of a cornerstone of US Middle East diplomacy.
Asked during an interview with Bloomberg News if a Palestinian state remains a goal of US policy, he replied: “I don’t think so.”
The former Arkansas governor chosen by Donald Trump as his envoy to Israel went further by suggesting that any future Palestinian entity could be carved out of “a Muslim country” rather than requiring Israel to cede territory.
So much to unpack here.
First of all, when asked, he said "I don't think so." He should have a definitive answer to that question, not some weasely equivocation.
The fact that we aren't supporting a PLACE for them to live as an independent nation, signals that America has embraced the genocide option.
This is entirely about developing a Jewish Dubai, so they don't have to spend their money with Muslims. HitlerPig's Spiritual Advisor has already come out to say that Christians won't be able to enter heaven unless they make a pilgrimage to Israel, the way Muslims make their pilgrimage to Mecca. Of course, for the MAGA Nazis, it's not about spiritual fulfillment, it's about making Christians spend their money in their hotels and restaurants.
-
Thank God we saved Palestine from Biden, right protest voters?
Right?wrote on last edited by [email protected]Look, I was the first person in threads to call these people out back in February. And March... But it's June. This shit accomplishes nothing now beyond creating more unnecessary division.
I don't even disagree, it's just not productive to constantly harp on this when we've all heard it a million times
-
I doubt that anyone ever claimed Trump would end the genocide on Palestinians from outside a troll farm in St. Petersburg.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]People on this very site did, absolutely, and some of them were definitely Americans
-
As a lib I am deeply ashamed that we have missed a historic opportunity of electing a black woman to unquestioningly, unequivocally and fully support the destruction of Palestine all the while lying about "working round the clock to stop the Israel-Hamas war".
Well, you got a orange man who wants to accelerate the destruction, ethnically cleanse the population and build a hotel on the ashes. At least he's too dumb to lie about it. Yay?
-
I vote this as the default slogan for all Western Civ history classes
Yes and Eastern civilizations would do it too if they had the power. This is a human problem, not just a western problem.
-
Mike Huckabee suggested any future Palestinian state should be carved out of ‘a Muslim country’
Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, has said that the US is no longer pursuing the goal of an independent Palestinian state, marking what analysts describe as the most explicit abandonment yet of a cornerstone of US Middle East diplomacy.
Asked during an interview with Bloomberg News if a Palestinian state remains a goal of US policy, he replied: “I don’t think so.”
The former Arkansas governor chosen by Donald Trump as his envoy to Israel went further by suggesting that any future Palestinian entity could be carved out of “a Muslim country” rather than requiring Israel to cede territory.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Decades of broken promises and bad-faith negotiations prove that the U.S. has never had a "peace process" for the Mideast. Our process has always been, "Israel always gets whatever it wants and fark everything else. "
-
So much to unpack here.
First of all, when asked, he said "I don't think so." He should have a definitive answer to that question, not some weasely equivocation.
The fact that we aren't supporting a PLACE for them to live as an independent nation, signals that America has embraced the genocide option.
This is entirely about developing a Jewish Dubai, so they don't have to spend their money with Muslims. HitlerPig's Spiritual Advisor has already come out to say that Christians won't be able to enter heaven unless they make a pilgrimage to Israel, the way Muslims make their pilgrimage to Mecca. Of course, for the MAGA Nazis, it's not about spiritual fulfillment, it's about making Christians spend their money in their hotels and restaurants.
Israel has a very successful gamble in showing they are the white man's key to the Middle East. For as long as no one wills to find another ally in the region, Israel oversells itself as a one. And as any other bad example of putting all eggs in one basket, Israel felt the dependency other states have in it, and now tests it, tests it, tests it with no negative response.
Palestine and Gaza are just them dipping their toes to know, if they can get scots-free from shooting weak HAMAS and civs and get into a real war Netanyahu's cabinet already planning. It's 2025 and in the coming years we'd see even more violence from that beloved partner if no one pulls the stop lever.
-
You got worse than what you were protesting. Good job. Huge success!
Congrats to the democrats for prioritizing genocide over beating trump, I guess.
-
She would have been better for the world as a whole than Trump. If you truely think that things would have played out exactly the same in Gaza with Harris as POTUS, then it still comes down to two candidates last November, and every person knew that one of them would win. So a vote for Trump, a non vote, or a third party vote directly benefited Trump.
"Oh but I voted against genocide", fuck no you didn't. You voted in a manner that directly put Trump in charge, which was the worst possible outcome.
It could be argued that trump is actually better for the world (but not for the US) since he's ruining the US's soft power by tearing up alliances and expressing blatant corruption, making the US look incompetent and completely untrustworthy. Now other countries are finding alternatives, making the US not as central as it used to be. He is perhaps the most effective tool in helping the US empire fall.
You could also argue that this is accelerationism, but to be fair, democrats take advantage of accelerationism all the time (e.g. "republicans have repealed reproductive rights, donate even more money to us so we can fight it" while letting things get worse and worse, barely putting up a fight to make long-lasting changes and indeed letting things get this bad so they can position themselves as the only "solution").
-
Ok, so assume all things equal, everything happens the same in Gaza... Trump is still significantly worse in every other facet. So yea, all third party voters and non voters are fucking moronic Trump supporters. A bunch of ignorant fuckwits that think that they made a difference by standing up against the establishment. Congrats, we got Trump.
There's only so many ways to say that there were two outcomes last November, and everyone knew that. If y'all can't wrap your head around that reality 6 months later, then that says everything about your ability to reason.
The most basic job responsibility of a politician is to get elected. Democrats' only platform is "at least we're not as bad as the other guys" but the other guys only get worse and worse while democrats follow along, making sure to be just different enough to make people think they have a choice, but not different enough to change the course of our country and its servitude to the ultra-rich.
You're arguing with people on here who most likely voted for Harris. I know I did. However, who I vote for doesn't matter when democrats are so bad at looking appealing and fighting for a winning chance that my vote is drowned out by others not paying attention or who are gerrymandered away (or otherwise suppressed).
-
The argument has always been, of the two candidates, one of which will win, which is less bad? People that voted third party or didn't vote decided that Trump is less bad.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]No it wasn't. That's disregarding a heap of systemic criticism and historical and moral considerations.
-
Thank God we saved Palestine from Biden, right protest voters?
Right?What are you accomplishing here?
-
Plenty of people in Michigan did.
I meant people who aren't right-wing idiots cheering on the fascist takeover. Thought that was clear from context, my bad.
-
Some of them I'm sure thought it, but definitely a minority. It's the fact that Gaza was used as a means to target Harris, and against all evidence suggesting it would be the same or worse, didn't do the same to condemn Trump.
Or she could’ve just not had a genocidal platform. That would have made things much easier.
-
She would have been better for the world as a whole than Trump. If you truely think that things would have played out exactly the same in Gaza with Harris as POTUS, then it still comes down to two candidates last November, and every person knew that one of them would win. So a vote for Trump, a non vote, or a third party vote directly benefited Trump.
"Oh but I voted against genocide", fuck no you didn't. You voted in a manner that directly put Trump in charge, which was the worst possible outcome.
To be clear, I voted for Harris, and I implored everyone I know to vote for Harris, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I will always vote for the farthest-left candidate in the general, full-stop. I'm not arguing that both sides are the same, or that Harris wouldn't have been a better choice for 100 reasons outside of the genocide issue. I'm arguing that Harris gave no indication that she would defend Palestine or even recognize the genocide at all. She might well have done those things, but she didn't campaign on that, so I don't know why anyone is defending her on the issue. Establishment Dems can't seem to get it through their heads that progressive policies are popular, so we keep getting general elections between an absolute monster and a neolib Dem saying, "Vote for me or you'll get the monster!" That might be the reality, but it's not a platform.
I live in a blue state, and I had people around me arguing that whether they voted third-party or didn't vote at all, they would be able to sleep at night knowing that A. they didn't vote for genocide and B. the state would go blue anyway. I don't agree with that position at all. I want third parties to be represented in the US, but that starts at the local level and in the primaries. By the general election it's too late and we realistically have two options. I also believe that shutting down any criticism of the Dem candidate (e.g. a now-banned user told me to kill myself) is a good way to alienate people and discourage them from engaging with the process at all. The right has banned nuance from their discourse, and I refuse to allow the same thing to happen around me.
-
It could be argued that trump is actually better for the world (but not for the US) since he's ruining the US's soft power by tearing up alliances and expressing blatant corruption, making the US look incompetent and completely untrustworthy. Now other countries are finding alternatives, making the US not as central as it used to be. He is perhaps the most effective tool in helping the US empire fall.
You could also argue that this is accelerationism, but to be fair, democrats take advantage of accelerationism all the time (e.g. "republicans have repealed reproductive rights, donate even more money to us so we can fight it" while letting things get worse and worse, barely putting up a fight to make long-lasting changes and indeed letting things get this bad so they can position themselves as the only "solution").
wrote on last edited by [email protected]All, unfortunately, true.
Edit: Unfortunate for us in the US, not necessarily unfortunate for the rest of the world in some aspects. I still think as a whole his influence and other actions probably still make him worse for the world, but there is a valid argument about nations growing less dependent on the US.
Hopefully in 3.5 years (or please God, less), the US will be knocked down a peg on the world stage, other nations have a more diverse and stable trade relationships, and maybe Trump's actions will help spark other countries into action against hard right politics to prevent the same thing from happening to them. Ideally, this could be a catalyst for positive change, but I'm not holding my breath.
-
The most basic job responsibility of a politician is to get elected. Democrats' only platform is "at least we're not as bad as the other guys" but the other guys only get worse and worse while democrats follow along, making sure to be just different enough to make people think they have a choice, but not different enough to change the course of our country and its servitude to the ultra-rich.
You're arguing with people on here who most likely voted for Harris. I know I did. However, who I vote for doesn't matter when democrats are so bad at looking appealing and fighting for a winning chance that my vote is drowned out by others not paying attention or who are gerrymandered away (or otherwise suppressed).
I'm specifically arguing with/against non voters, 3rd party voters, and Trump voters. I also pinched my nose and voted for Harris in November. I'm not going to argue for the democratic party, because it's the second worst major party in the US, and they suck. Unfortunately, we are a FPtP nation, so in the general we get two options and get to pick who's less bad. Lot's of people that voted for Harris did so with that in mind.
-
No it wasn't. That's disregarding a heap of systemic criticism and historical and moral considerations.
It was, because that's reality. It does disregard a lot of criticism, because again, at the end of the day, there were two candidates, and one was going to win. Harris wasn't, imo, a good candidate, but Trump was a far worse.
In the US, it's been that way for the better part of the past century, because FPtP always devolves to a two party system. This past election was no different.
-
Or she could’ve just not had a genocidal platform. That would have made things much easier.
You're right, it would have, but the reality was Trump or Harris. It was still an extremely easy decision, but it would have been better if the less shitty candidate was even less shitty.
