And I’m being serious. I feel like there might be an argument there, I just don’t understand it. Can someone please “steelman” that argument for me?

  • sp3ctr4l
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    So how could she have broken with Biden as the current VP?

    If elected, I vow to cease all offensive arms and munitions shipments and funding for such to the State of Israel on day one.

    What Hamas did on Oct 7th was an outrageous act of terrorism committed against a civilian population, but the response from the Netanyahu administration has caused orders of magnitude more death and destruction against innocent residents of Gaza, and this over zealous military response has enflamed tensions in the region and risks escalation into a much broader conflict.

    I will still supply the Israelis with defensive funds for their Iron Dome, we will send them Patriot missile intercept systems, but we will no longer send artillery shells, bombs, ammunition, anything that can be used to further their wildly mismanaged offensive operations.

    Further, I will actually commit to setting up and operating a temporary harbor for food and medical supplies to enter Gaza.

    … Something like that, blah blah blah, make it clear that all sides in this have some level of culpability for wrong actions and that she will do what she can to minimize the harm the US is culpable for.

    Let’s say she does that. Do you think with the numbers that DJT turned out that she’d have gained so much more than she would have lost that it would have made a difference?

    IMEU polls in July and August showed roughly that 30% to 40% of likely Dem and Indp voters in multiple swing states would be more likely to vote for a Dem candidate if they did what they could to halt the Gaza genocide.

    Would this turn off likely Republicans voters from her? Basically no more than they already were turned off from her. But she would have gained a whole bunch of Dem voters who specifically could not bring themselves to vote for a candidate complicit with genocide.

    Let’s further say that she did, and it was, and she won the election. She’s now thrown a long-term, strategic ally under the bus on the world stage. Not only that, she’ll have to forcibly disarm them, potentially feeding them to the wolves in the Middle East.

    Nope. You can stop enabling offensive action by ceasing to supply offensive systems and munitions, and still maintain your commitment to Israel’s defense by giving them defensive supplies.

    You don’t need to totally disarm the IDF. That would involve going into a ground invasion war against our ally which is obviously insane.

    This would not be throwing an ally under the bus. It would be stomping your foot down and reigning in an ally that’s gone on a mad rampage with bombs you have given them.

    And please don’t mention “genocide” in your reply. That’s already a know variable in play.

    Nah, I’ll use that word, because it is an accurate descriptor. I am not sorry at all if this somehow offends your sensibilities.

      • sp3ctr4l
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I mean we literally just saw the same kind of thing play out with Ukraine.

        The West spent a long time giving them weaponry that could either only or mainly be used defensively, and then slowly over time gave them more and more potent weapons.

        Its not like this is some revolutionary new idea.

        The US could have started doing this after like month two or three of Israel carpet bombing Gaza, shooting up UN food/aid convoys…

        But nope.