The Republican presidential candidate ridiculously claimed that Biden is "trying to hold" Bibi back, as the Israeli prime minister continued to ruthlessly bomb Lebanon and Gaza.

“He’s doing a good job,” Trump saidabout the Israeli leader. “Biden is trying to hold him back, just so you understand, Biden is more superior to the VP. He’s trying to hold him back, and he probably should be doing the opposite, actually. I’m glad that Netanyahu decided to do what he had to do, but it’s moving along pretty good.”

  • geekwithsoulOPEnglish
    16•1 month ago

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Not that you’ll read it, but I think this might help explain:

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/09/kamala-harris-israel-policy-palestine-gaza-war.html

    Perhaps Harris’ loudest statement, however, was prefaced by her absence. Shortly after getting the nod from Biden in July, Harris snubbed Netanyahu, skipping his speech to Congress. (She spoke to a Black sorority, instead.) The next day, she met privately with him—later describing their talk as “frank and productive,” words that your boss might use after a performance review goes poorly.

    The reaction to her remarks was underwhelming at the time, but the remarks themselves were extraordinary. “We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering” of Palestinians in Gaza, “and I will not be silent,” she told reporters and cameras. “Israel has a right to defend itself—but how it does so matters.” It was as close as a sitting vice president could possibly come to reading Netanyahu for filth without creating a diplomatic crisis.

    • @[email protected]English
      10•1 month ago

      Her messaging regarding unconditional support for the genocide all centrists love is more convincing than subtle hints that slate has to speculate about.

      • geekwithsoulOPEnglish
        17•1 month ago

        A nuanced take as always /s

        Did you even get to the end of the article or did you just read the headline?

        Harris has very little room to maneuver, however, without losing a huge part of her base and the party machinery that are still deeply attached to Israel. There is only so much a candidate and sitting vice president can do or say to break with the position held by her staunchly Zionist president, a Democratic establishment beholden to the pro-Israel lobby and AIPAC, and a broad swath of her liberal base that strongly supports Israel and its war. If she’s serious about getting elected, she has to withhold the kind of unambiguous statement—or action—that pro-Palestine activists demand. So she’s reduced to tone of voice, oblique gestures, a message hidden between the lines.

        • @[email protected]English
          10•1 month ago

          Did you even get to the end of the article or did you just read the headline?

          I read the article. I don’t buy excuses and apologia when we’re talking about literal genocide. I also regard with earned disgust anyone who makes such excuses.

          The whole “she absolutely can’t differ from Biden in any way except for these subtle hints we speculate about” thing is garbage. She’s not the secretary of state. She’s not running everything behind the scenes like Dick Cheney, though she seems to have garnered his approval, and it speaks volumes that centrists were so goddamned happy about his endorsement. In any event, she is free to differ on foreign policy and chooses not to.

          I’m still voting for her. I’m going to be at the polls this coming Monday, which is when early voting opens here in Texas. I have every right to criticize her for supporting Netanyahu’s genocide, even if Netanyahu’s apologists want me to buy that she has shown any opposition whatsoever to the only policy centrists seriously hold.

          • geekwithsoulOPEnglish
            13•1 month ago

            Okay, let’s play this out. What exactly do you want her to say? Specifically. Because it’s not like as VP she can do anything about it directly. So this is just going to be a statement, right?

            Let’s say as part of that statement, she says Israel should get no more aid. That would be the crux of it, correct? And Biden then has to come out and say, that’s not happening while I’m President. Factions within the Democrats withdraw funding and support from her campaign. And the Iranians start actually drooling about being able to basically act unopposed. Hezbollah gets some shiny new missiles to kill more civilians. Centrists withdraw support from Harris and more than likely sit out the election, though a few may move over to Trump. November 6 rolls around and Trump wins, the region is even more of a shitshow than it is now, and just as important, Palestinians will still be dying. And under Trump it will get much, much worse.

            Or…she tries to thread a very small needle, gets elected, and can the come to the bargaining table as the newly sworn-in President. She still has to juggle a bunch of different interests, but as President she has the power to do more than make statements and has quite a bit of latitude when it comes to foreign policy. Harris wouldn’t have been my top choice, or even in my top 5, but I can honestly say I can’t believe she won’t make saving Palestinian lives a priority, unlike Biden. But she can’t do it as a candidate.

            • @[email protected]English
              6•1 month ago

              Okay, let’s play this out. What exactly do you want her to say?

              That she would consider conditioning weapons sales. She hasn’t even done that. There isn’t one lousy photon of daylight between her and Biden, and there isn’t a photon between him and Netanyahu.

              Centrists withdraw support from Harris and more than likely sit out the election, though a few may move over to Trump.

              You mean to tell me that “vote blue no matter who” only works one way? That it’s only meant for progressives to show unconditional support to the pro-genocide anti-worker wing of the party, but that the very instant that centrists don’t get 100% of everything they want for the first time ever, they immediately defect and become red capped trumpers?

              Or…she tries to thread a very small needle, gets elected, and can the come to the bargaining table as the newly sworn-in President.

              And announces that she has a mandate to continue Biden’s pro-genocide policies. Centrists rejoice.

              Harris wouldn’t have been my top choice, or even in my top 5

              Yeah. Netanyahu can’t run in US elections.

              • geekwithsoulOPEnglish
                14•1 month ago

                That she would consider conditioning weapons sales. She hasn’t even done that. There isn’t one lousy photon of daylight between her and Biden, and there isn’t a photon between him and Netanyahu.

                So I was correct in guessing what you wanted her to say? And my entire reply was about the probable outcome of that.

                You mean to tell me that “vote blue no matter who” only works one way?

                I was referring to centrist as those not strongly associated with either party. I despise the term “independents” as I think they are anything but. Basically the folks who see the Cheney endorsement and think “Maybe I can vote for Harris after all?” The 55 to 75 year olds who turn out in droves every election. And because of that, you need to get as many of them voting for you as possible to win.

                And announces that she has a mandate to continue Biden’s pro-genocide policies. Centrists rejoice.

                Obviously you have no interest in discussing this rationally. Especially considering you then implied my top choice for US president would’ve been Netanyahu.

                I laid out what I think would happen if Harris did what you wanted. You chose not to refute any of that. Or more likely - you couldn’t.

                So, want to try again or just throw more insults my way?

                • @[email protected]
                  10•1 month ago

                  I applaud the effort, friend… And I think it’s good to continue having this discussion over and over and over, if only so others may see it and perhaps be swayed.

                  But… at some point in a thread, it’s just not worth the time anymore. I actually believe it’s a tactic, sort of like those scam-baiters who keep spam callers busy for as long as possible so as to prevent them from scamming others, even if just for an hour. They know how to push our buttons, and they want us to waste time and effort on a thoughtful reply knowing full well that they probably won’t even read it…

                  But again, jokes on them, because the comments aren’t for them.

                • @[email protected]English
                  5•1 month ago

                  So I was correct in guessing what you wanted her to say?

                  You were not, but being incorrect in favor of Netanyahu and his genocide is basically what you do.

                  My position was:

                  That she would consider conditioning weapons sales

                  Yours was:

                  Let’s say as part of that statement, she says Israel should get no more aid.

                  I guess the only way you can falsely declare victory is if you lie about my position. That’s fine. You and the straw version of me you’ve constructed can have fun in my absence.

                  • geekwithsoulOPEnglish
                    6•1 month ago

                    Dude, do you not know that pretty much ALL the aid we provide Israel is military aid?! Do you think we’re sending them fruit baskets?

                    Most of the aid—approximately $3.3 billion a year—is provided as grants under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, funds that Israel must use to purchase U.S. military equipment and services. In October, the Joe Biden administration said Israel had nearly six hundred active FMF cases, totalling around $24 billion.

                    https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts

                    I hadn’t realized that you were that ignorant about such an evidently passionately held belief.

              • @[email protected]
                7•1 month ago

                “He’s doing a good job,” Trump saidabout the Israeli leader. “Biden is trying to hold him back, just so you understand, Biden is more superior to the VP. He’s trying to hold him back, and he probably should be doing the opposite, actually. I’m glad that Netanyahu decided to do what he had to do, but it’s moving along pretty good.”

                • @[email protected]English
                  2•1 month ago

                  I’m not sure why you’re quoting trump here. I don’t support him. Do you consider his words to be true or laudable? Do you just imagine that anyone who doesn’t support genocide must be a trumper?

                  • @[email protected]
                    9•1 month ago

                    If you vote third party or don’t vote, you support him.

                    You know this. You know the math. It has been explained to you dozens of times, and I will not waste my time further after this comment.

                  • @[email protected]
                    2•1 month ago

                    It was straight after you seemed to be criticising “vote blue no matter who” and appeared to be equating voting for Harris with voting for Netanyahu, which sounds a lot like advocating not voting for Harris to me. Certainly it’s how a bunch of self-declared “leftists” argue right before they show their true colours and advocate for actions more likely to bring about a Trump win. But no, true, you didn’t actually get that far.

                    prole clearly had the same impression about where you were coming from with their response. I didn’t push it because you pretty immediately said you would be voting for Harris, but I think I was right to bring a bit of balance, because it all seemed a bit one sided about which candidate supports Netanyahu and the world in general needed reminding that Trump is pretty vocally supportive of the genocide in Gaza.

                    I take your point, though, because I think I did treat you as if you were advocating for abstention, which you didn’t explicitly do, but to be fair, neither did I explicitly accuse you of it.

                    I do think we should chalk this one up to us both reading a bit more into what each other were saying than what was actually said. Either way, I apologise for making you feel criticised for things you didn’t say.