• gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Proof that protest works.

    Go ahead, downvote because you’re mad that I’m right.

      • gregorum@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        2 months ago

        Even if you could ever provide evidence to back up your claim, which, historically, you never could, protest voters always signify a tiny block of voters, none of whom could ever hope to sway any kind of national election vote. Your point is moot.

        • Pronell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m so confused.

          Aren’t you two agreeing with each other, that protests work and protestors vote?

          A protest vote is something else entirely.

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            2 months ago

            You are confused because you think that there is one solution that always works for every situation. There is not.

            Every situation requires a nuanced and particular approach. This is again one of those times.

            • Pronell@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              2 months ago

              I’m only confused because I can’t understand the conflict between the two statements. I certainly don’t disagree with your second paragraph.

              If you think he was saying the protesters will not vote for Biden, I kind of understand your point but that is also part of why Biden may be making the changes he is, which means again that you are both right - assuming the protesters decide Biden is worth voting for.

        • zigmus64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well, it was an admittedly flippant comment done in passing in an effort to highlight the fact that regardless of any perceived proximal effect, protesters are still part of the electorate. What’s more though, is the effect the protest has on opinions of the wider electorate, which is where I would wager we move from a protest vote and into the area where major change can occur.

    • 3volver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Upvoted because I’m happy you’re right. Biden will lose to the orange criminal if he doesn’t stand up and stop money and weapons to Israel. America is fucked if it keeps supporting Israel.

      • recapitated@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think you’re overestimating how many voters are deeply against Israel’s assault on Palestine, while also underestimating the ability of those virtuous people to understand the landslide of harmful outcomes that would come with another trump presidency.

        • 3volver@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Trump won without the popular vote. He won Michigan by ~10,000 votes in 2016. I’m not the one who decided this system, but this system doesn’t give a shit about the majority. It doesn’t take much to sway the balance.

          • modifier@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You’re the one making the extraordinary claim that this decision had ‘nothing’ to do with massive, nation-wide, broadly covered protests occurring in a hotly contested election year amongst a key demographic.

            So, prove it.

            • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Ahh. So when one person makes a claim that’s unproven, but you believe it- the onus is on the person that asks it to be proven to prove it isn’t?

              Sorry, but that’s not how it works…

              There is zero evidence to support the statement that this has anything to do with protests. ZERO. you cannot prove it.

              • modifier@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                I’ll save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.

                • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I’ll also save us both a lot of frustration and wasted time and simply refer you back to my first comment.

        • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Can’t prove a negative. Prove it was a result of protests. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Also… I asked first.

          I’ll be waiting.

          • gregorum@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Can’t prove a negative.

            Nobody asked you to.

            I asked first

            No, you didn’t.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Same interview… “US is committed to Israel’s defense and would supply Iron Dome rocket interceptors and other defensive arms, but that if Israel goes into Rafah, we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells used”. Defense secretary Austin Lloyd reiterated that same point

    • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ok, good? All you can do with Iron Dome is shoot down mortar rounds and slower-moving rockets (and maybe drones?) - it really only works for defense. I don’t see the problem.

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        In general I love the idea of the US moving more and more towards only supplying defensive munitions to countries (such as the long list of really fucked up countries we deal arms to that would surprise most people).

        We could always take special action to supply offensive arms in response to justified conflicts such as in Ukraine, but let’s not let authoritarians build up a stockpile of offensive capabilities from US sweat during times of peace. That’s a recipe for less peace.

        But by all means we should let allies buy as much defensive capabilities as they desire.

        Being an ally to the US should be more associated with the benefits of protection from bullies than capacity to bully.

        (And most important IMO is that we don’t allow selling tech officially or privately by US corporations to enable authoritarians to abuse their own citizens. Something we very much do and I really wish we didn’t.)

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      US worded its statements carefully. They’ll still provide support for all the other parts of Israel’s military operations, just not for the Rafah invasion. Israel is free to shuffle things around so that it won’t make a difference.

  • meleecrits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is a good move. He’s doing what he can to temper Netanyahu’s attempts at genocide, while still protecting Israel.

    I just hope it’s enough to stop the killings. That monster will sacrifice every man, woman and child to stay in power (and out of prison).

    • cyd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Just like all the other things Biden has done in this conflict, this is merely a symbolic gesture to say “don’t blame us if Israel flattens Rafah”.

      The US has already provided huge amounts of unconditional military aid to Israel, and remains committed to continuing to do so. So Israel is free to shuffle around their ample resources internally to reach the same outcome.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      AFAIK Other stuff has gone forward but they’re specifically holding back the large bombs that caused so much death in the rest of Gaza.

      Now though we have the problem of Israel holding all but one border crossing closed. (Unless they’ve reopened some in the last 24 hours) Aid is not getting through at all right now. The single border crossing is in the North of Gaza where they’re already in a Famine. The With now has no aid access by ground. It’s all ship stuff, but the ground access is actually far better. There’s also the problem that Israel will not let aid groups import fuel and with the borders closed they can’t drive trucks in to unload the ships.

      So the new position has to be either Israel lets aid in or the US steps out of the way in the UN security council.

  • oakey66@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    This should have been the move on day 10 of the invasion. And a white house insisting on peace negotiations and the release of hostages on both sides. He would have instantly been viewed favorably on this issue and likely wouldn’t have tanked his polling.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      He would have instantly been viewed favorably on this issue and likely wouldn’t have tanked his polling.

      1. His polling didn’t tank in tandem with the Gaza genocide.

      2. Most Americans are either in support or ambivalent towards Israel in this conflict.

      3. Every poll I’ve seen asks the most important issue to voters, and it’s always the economy, with the Israel-Palestine conflict coming in near the bottom.

      Israel is committing a genocide, to be clear. The moral thing is to, at minimum, stop supporting their genocide. But that’s not the same as saying that the Palestinian genocide is what brought Biden’s poll numbers down, or that it’s a silver bullet (or even an unambiguous net gain) electorally speaking.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I literally quoted your words right there: “Most Americans are either in support or ambivalent towards Israel in this conflict.” Solid attempt at moving the goalposts though.

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

              Do you… do you NOT know that 22% is less than 78%?

              Or do you think that “Biden is doing just the right amount of help towards Israel” means… support for Palestine?

              The 52-22 you cited was whether Israel’s conduct was too far, not whether they supported Israel or Israeli aid in the conflict - as the other charts clearly demonstrate. But uh, you have fun disproving yourself with your own source.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                You literally didn’t read anything I wrote. Your chart is for a different thing than you claimed. You claimed most Americans support or don’t care, I gave you two polls, one where that exact question was asked and it was just flat out untrue (which you ignored completely), and a second one to demonstrate that even in more favorable splits it was only true if you care what Republicans think. You apparently weren’t put off by a direct poll answering the direct question you asked and figured digging into a related question in the poll that at least gave you a shot at sticking to your wrong statement was a totally important thing to do.

                “Do you support the president’s actions” is different than “do you approve of Israel in the conflict” with a whole lot of partisan defaulting and nothing in your wrong statement was about the president or about aid, not to mention “not sure” being an entirely different thing than “I don’t care”. This follow up trying to pretend people who think Israel is “going to far” isn’t the same as not supporting Israel in the conflict is just pathetic. Just fucking accept you were wrong and move on with your life rather than dedicating yourself to these sad follow-ups.

                This could have been a one line “oh, I guess it’s changed from when I last looked”. Or even nothing at all.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  You have fun in the world where “Do you support Israel’s current offensive” is the same as “Do you support Israel” or “Do you support continued aid to Israel”

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Wednesday that he would not supply offensive weapons that Israel could use to launch an all-out assault on Rafah — the last major Hamas stronghold in Gaza — over concern for the well-being of the more than 1 million civilians sheltering there.

    It also comes as the Biden administration is due to deliver a first-of-its-kind formal verdict this week on whether the airstrikes on Gaza and restrictions on delivery of aid have violated international and U.S. laws designed to spare civilians from the worst horrors of war.

    Biden’s administration in April began reviewing future transfers of military assistance as Netanyahu’s government appeared to move closer toward an invasion of Rafah, despite months of opposition from the White House.

    The decision also drew a sharp rebuke from House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who said they only learned about the military aid holdup from press reports, despite assurances from the Biden administration that no such pauses were in the works.

    “If we stop weapons necessary to destroy the enemies of the state of Israel at a time of great peril, we will pay a price,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., his voice rising in anger during an exchange with Austin.

    The State Department is separately considering whether to approve the continued transfer of Joint Direct Attack Munition kits, which place precision guidance systems onto bombs, to Israel, but the review didn’t pertain to imminent shipments.


    The original article contains 1,417 words, the summary contains 245 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Agent Provacateurs Left Confused After Biden Does What They Want - “How do we make Biden look bad now?”

  • Silverseren@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    So, since they’re attacking Rafah right now, that means you’re going to stop giving them weapons right now, right? Right?

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Literally yes. There was a weapon shipment of bombs that was scheduled last week and they withheld them.

      Biden’s comments and his decision last week to pause a shipment of heavy bombs to Israel are the most striking manifestations of the growing daylight between his administration and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Biden has said that Israel needs to do far more to protect the lives of civilians in Gaza.

      The shipment was supposed to consist of 1,800 2,000-pound (900-kilogram) bombs and 1,700 500-pound (225-kilogram) bombs, according to a senior U.S. administration official

      • Silverseren@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        I knew about that, but that action was taken a couple of days ago before the Rafah attack started. I remember the news articles about it then. Hopefully the above indicates this stoppage will be true for any and all weapons shipments, not just those bombs.