Summary

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich endorsed President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, stating it’s “time” to extend full Israeli sovereignty over the occupied West Bank.

This comes as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu highlighted his alignment with Trump on the “Iranian threat.”

Tensions in Gaza and Lebanon have escalated following recent Israeli airstrikes, with regional leaders gathering in Riyadh to address Israeli actions.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog is set to meet President Biden, though Biden’s influence on Israel may be limited following Trump’s win.

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    while youre busy opposing genocide, you got someone significantly worse elected instead. Well done.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Why do so many “moderates” insist on acting like the politically engaged people they run into online are the same people who are were so politically disengaged this year that they just didn’t vote?

      Like, could you please explain the thinking that someone wouldn’t vote and then keep spending free time talking about it?

      It’s not just you, and you’re not the first one I asked.

      But everyone else just down votes me for asking and never respond.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Well here’s a comment from someone I was talking to that was politically engaged yet arguing that folks might as well not vote.

        I’m not going into the thinking behind it, but it’s certainly happening.

        Being politically “engaged” on Lemmy doesn’t mean much in terms of ensuring voter participation. I’ve seen plenty of folks with a “democrats have to earn my vote” sentiment. That very much seemed to play out given the much lower voter participation for Democrats this year.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Did you link the wrong comment?

          What you linked is just someone saying they can understand why someone who thinks both party’s won’t help, won’t be likely to vote.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            someone who thinks both party’s won’t help

            I don’t read it this way all - there was no conditional on party efficacy and it in fact was an assertion that their lives won’t change due to who was elected, which changed the overall statement to read like the working class shouldn’t vote.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              So, the issue is you’re not understanding what people are saying…

              You’re thinking they said something they didn’t and you’re getting upset about nothing.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Can you point out where they say “if wage earners think both parties won’t help”?

                If not, then you’re the one selectively interpreting this…

                • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Can you point out where they say “if wage earners think both parties won’t help”?

                  To avoid confusion because it seems likely:

                  If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point

                  A more indepth response:

                  What you linked:

                  Weird. A bug in the app switched up my replies.

                  What I intended to say was:

                  I can understand. If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

                  And when you point this out to other people, all you get in response are excuses.

                  They’re explicitly saying that the people whom didn’t vote, didn’t vote because both parties are too similar and won’t help. They’re saying those people need more than “not trump” to vote D.

                  I’m struggling to see where your confusion is coming from.

                  If this still doesn’t make sense, can you try asking for clarification in greater detail?

                  It just seems so obvious to me.

                  And this isn’t a new conversation, we’ve been having it since 2016, it’s been 8 years man… Hell, really 12 because we started seeing the drop in 2012 when we realized Obama wasn’t who he said in 08

                  What aren’t you getting about this?

                  Like, this is the bare bones basics of modern political history in America… Go back decades and the most likely response from a non voter about why they didn’t vote is “neither party will actually help”.

                  You never learned any of this stuff, like, ever?___

                  • papertowels@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    If you’re a wage earner in this country, your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

                    You’ll notice that’s different from

                    If you’re a wage earner in this country and you think your life does not change in any significant way based on who we elect, so why skip a badly needed day’s pay to vote? There’s just no point.

                    The former is an assertion that all wage earners lives aren’t affected by voting therefore they shouldn’t bother voting. IF you’re a wage earner THEN there’s no point in voting".

                    The latter is understanding a scenario from a potential perspective of a wage earner who doesn’t see change being discouraged.

                    Like you said in your own post,

                    someone who thinks both party’s won’t help

      • Zorque@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Probably for the same reason so many terminally online “politically engaged” people insist that they’re clearly morally and intellectually superior to everyone else despite the fact that all they do is whine about how the “lesser evil” (in just one of thousands of elections, no less) isn’t good enough for them.

        Maybe if you stopped focusing so much on the negatives, and started promoting positive change, people wouldn’t argue with you so much.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I think you’re confusing me for someone else

          I voted D like I always do, so have most progressive on here from what I’ve seen them say.

          What me, and them, have been saying is that Biden and Harris had our votes, but every indication show d they wouldn’t get enough to beat trump.

          It’s fine to be upset about that, we are too. Probably more than any moderate, we’re literally losing more than you all, that’s why we care.

          But what’s scary is this has all happened before. Moderates refuse to acknowledge they’re unpopular with Dem voters, and rather than reach out to progressives for help reaching non-votera…

          You all just seemed obsessed with turning more Dem voters away from the party.

          Maybe if you stopped focusing so much on the negatives, and started promoting positive change, people wouldn’t argue with you so much.

          The change we need is better Dem candidates, how the absolute fuck will that happen if we’re not allowed to acknowledge we keep running shitty candidates?

          Do you even remember how a fair and open primary is supposed to work?

          How is one of those ever possible if no one is allowed to criticize the party’s favorite?

    • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I really didn’t.

      Edit: meaning I am not American and if I was I would have voted Harris, not that Trump is not significantly worse.