Joe Biden will not be the Democratic nominee in November’s presidential election, thankfully. He is not withdrawing because he’s being held responsible for enabling war crimes against the Palestinian people (though a recent poll does have nearly 40 percent of Americans saying they’re less likely to vote for him thanks to his handling of the war). Yet it’s impossible to extricate the collapse in public faith in the Biden campaign from the “uncommitted” movement for Gaza. They were the first people to refuse him their votes, and defections from within the president’s base hollowed out his support well in advance of the debate.
The Democrats and their presumptive nominee Kamala Harris are faced with a choice: On the one hand, they can continue Biden’s monstrous support for Netanyahu, the brutal IDF, and Israel’s genocide of Palestinians. That would help allow the party to cover for Biden and put a positive spin on a smooth handoff, even though we all know this would mainly benefit the embittered president himself and his small coterie of loyalists. Such a choice would confirm that the institutional rot that allowed the current situation to develop still characterizes the party.
Removed by mod
Umm…lol no. I think the world is run by military forces and their obedient governments.
Vaporize civilians for peace!
If by America you mean imperial warmaking and profits then yes, “they” have, would, and will continue.
This point is really confusing but…yay America?
Wow what a take. Other countries support Cuba, so the USA gets to perpetuate invasions, assassination attempts, terrorism and eternal economic warfare. The Cubans have no autonomy but also they brought this on themselves.
What happened the next day?
There would certainly be peace the day after a nuclear apocalypse too
Oddly enough, there wasn’t after the bombing of Pearl harbor.
Tit for tat. Sorry our tat was bigger.
Ahh, of course, I forgot that might makes right
I don’t recall ever saying that.
I apologized our boom was bigger. It was genuine. Should never have happened.
I would, however, argue that a blow designed to end combat is more ethical than one intended to wound and mame.
If you want to compare casualties then you need to compare the same periods. The average monthly casualties for the period we had data was far higher than the war on Iraq. Which is kind of to be expected since we were there for 10 years. It’s also a much larger country with more people exposed to proportionally larger forces fighting.
So let’s do this the right way. According to the Iraqi Body Count project around 200,000 civilians were killed. Or 0.8 percent of civilians in Iraq. In Gaza that number is 2 percent. More than double. And that’s just the bodies that made it to a morgue while the health ministry was still capable of accurately counting bodies. Estimates of people who are missing, presumed dead, under the rubble are in the six figure range. So let’s be generous and set the total at 100,000, so 60k under rubble, far below the estimates. That’s 5 percent of the civilian population dead.
This is not a road you want to go down. Any analysis beyond the most shallow reflects extremely poorly on Israel.
Removed by mod
Right. Those two ratios are clearly the mark of countries with the same attitude towards civilian deaths.
Removed by mod
Ahh yes we’re all in hell so why not commit a little genocide? As a treat!
Removed by mod
Just how would there be more? What evidence do you have for that?
Removed by mod