France To Recognize The Palestinian State. Vive la France

[Frankfooter]

Any conceivable 2 state solution must include a pledge by both states regarding each other's right to exist, honored by both states, with no terrorism or other militant attacks from either side.

Israel should then have no say or control over what goes on in Gaza, assuming Hamas or whatever regime is in power in Gaza does not seem to be building up their military forces again.

Remember that Israel pulled all of its citizens out of Gaza in 2005, in the hopes that would end the terrorism and attacks from Gaza, but still kept some control of Gaza. Didn't work...

Palestine already said they accept Israel's right to exist, its just Israel who hasn't. If you believe the no terrorism pledge then you need to kick Ben Gvir out of the government and arrest all settlers who have attacked Palestinians. If you believe that a Palestine will be a free state then you must accept they will build an army for self defence.

Here's the reason why you won't accept it and why it will now be a fight for equal rights for Palestinians:
Define the borders you will accept for Palestine and Israel.

1967?
1948?

How many settlements will Israel have to give up?

 

[Klatuu]

Any conceivable 2 state solution must include a pledge by both states regarding each other's right to exist, honored by both states, with no terrorism or other militant attacks from either side.

Israel should then have no say or control over what goes on in Gaza, assuming Hamas or whatever regime is in power in Gaza does not seem to be building up their military forces again.

Remember that Israel pulled all of its citizens out of Gaza in 2005, in the hopes that would end the terrorism and attacks from Gaza, but still kept some control of Gaza. Didn't work...

Your self awareness is virtually nil.

 

[Frankfooter]

The genocide continues.
This is all zionism will be remembered for.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952636070023385511

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, for this debate lets use the UNRWA registered number.

Surprising.
But sure.

As long as you are ok with having stupid questions called out, fine.

I don't care.
Making people to actually articulate the question they are asking instead of what they think they are asking is almost always useful.
As is seeing what people defensively deflect from by calling the question stupid.

Which is why you always come off as a zionist supporter, at best 'liberal zionist', practicing lines to use to defend Israel in polite society.

Of course.
Everyone who doesn't agree with you completely is a "Zionist" to you, which is a major reason you don't matter.
You've accused me of being a genocide supporter.
You've said caring about anything else other than Palestine makes me a moral monster.

Let's just say your interpretation of these things and your voiced opinion isn't one to be held in very high regard.

I am

LOL

Defending zionism through practicing talking points here is just more Wilhoit conservatism, a form of trying to use laws to maintain control over another group.

So interesting that you think the talking points I'm examining and exploring here are to defend Zionism.
And one day, I really hope you manage to wrap your head around Wilhoit's law.

Its comes across from your posts that you think Israel can continue in its present form, whether or not the genocide is ended.

Well now, what an interesting admission that is from you.
Nothing less than the destruction of Israel, is it?
Not sure you've said that out loud before.

Instead, its looking like the genocide will lead to the end of the zionist movement, possible end of american democracy and an end to larger alliances.

Zionism is causing the end of American democracy and "larger alliances"?
I see.

That you appear to think there is no solution just makes it sound you are ok with this.

You're the one who insisted what you were doing posed no threat to anything.

 

[Frankfooter]

Of course.
Everyone who doesn't agree with you completely is a "Zionist" to you, which is a major reason you don't matter.
You've accused me of being a genocide supporter.
You've said caring about anything else other than Palestine makes me a moral monster.

Let's just say your interpretation of these things and your voiced opinion isn't one to be held in very high regard.

Of course you think you speak for 'everyone' and that your views on who is in high regard are the only ones that matter.
You argued during the election that voting to support genocide wasn't a problem for you, how is anyone to take that as being anything but support?
You voted for genocide, assuming you voted.

So interesting that you think the talking points I'm examining and exploring here are to defend Zionism.
And one day, I really hope you manage to wrap your head around Wilhoit's law.

Your views are way more obvious than you think.
The only person you attack on this issue is me, you have never once criticized someone defending the genocide.

Well now, what an interesting admission that is from you.
Nothing less than the destruction of Israel, is it?
Not sure you've said that out loud before.

Ah, that's the language of a zionist right there. Any call that things can't continue as they are, even if its committing genocide, means you support the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. I've never called for the complete destruction of any country, not the way zionists here have wiped Palestine off the maps as they wipe Palestinians out through genocide. That's not a problem for you that I've seen, not once have you posted anything about that issue. But here you are worrying that ending the genocide and bringing people to trial most definitely means COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL.

Feel free to state your opinions clearly if this is not true, you have that option.
Otherwise accept that this is how you come across on this board.

Zionism

is causing the end of American democracy and "larger alliances"?
I see.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952891641490014564

Yup.

Harris lost the election because she refused to listen to voters who said they couldn't vote for genocide.
trump is in office because dems stayed home.
Now you've got trump allowing Israel to escalate the genocide, destroy international laws and lose allies like Canada.
Zionism put trump in power and Israel was very happy about it.

You're the one who insisted what you were doing posed no threat to anything.

Again, you are arguing that ending the genocide, bringing people to trial and respecting human rights is a threat to something.
Do you think that without the genocide it will lead to the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL?

 

[Valcazar]

Carney: Two-state solution ‘no longer tenable’

Prime Minister Mark Carney says Canada has long supported a two-state solution in the Middle East, but now that “approach is no longer tenable.” Subscribe to...

www.youtube.com

LOL...

Why put a misleadingly-edited clip up without context?

It's weak, even for you.

 

[Valcazar]

Of course you think you speak for 'everyone' and that your views on who is in high regard are the only ones that matter.

Oh.
If it wasn't clear.
I mean by me.

I don't really care about the rest of the board's opinion on the matter.

You argued during the election that voting to support genocide wasn't a problem for you, how is anyone to take that as being anything but support?

We've established how thick you are about this repeatedly.
You're not going to have an epiphany now.

You voted for genocide, assuming you voted.

I voted against it, actually.
But you don't know how voting works.

Your views are way more obvious than you think.
The only person you attack on this issue is me, you have never once criticized someone defending the genocide.

I also don't engage with the other people who support your side.
Unless you think of yourself as their leader and one true flag-bearer who I must defeat, maybe something else is going on than what you think?

Ah, that's the language of a zionist right there. Any call that things can't continue as they are, even if its committing genocide, means you support the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL.

Really?
Because it is starting to sound like it with "Cannot continue in its present form". As I pointed out, that was the first time I noticed something that rang to that tune. (Along with your earlier call for it to be dismantled [I believe that was the word you used.] and controlled by external forces like Nazi Germany was.)

I've never called for the complete destruction of any country, not the way zionists here have wiped Palestine off the maps as they wipe Palestinians out through genocide.

So is that you specifically saying you aren't calling for genocide against the Israelis or is it you saying you want the end result here to be that there will still be a state of Israel?

That's not a problem for you that I've seen, not once have you posted anything about that issue. But here you are worrying that ending the genocide and bringing people to trial most definitely means COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL.

Why would ending the genocide and bringing people to trial bring about the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL?
Why would I even suggest a silly thing?
Why would you think that is remotely what I was talking about?

Feel free to state your opinions clearly if this is not true, you have that option.
Otherwise accept that this is how you come across on this board.

To you.
But then, you're you.

 

[Valcazar]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952891641490014564

Chotiner always does good work.

Yup.

Harris lost the election because she refused to listen to voters who said they couldn't vote for genocide.
trump is in office because dems stayed home.
Now you've got trump allowing Israel to escalate the genocide, destroy international laws and lose allies like Canada.
Zionism put trump in power and Israel was very happy about it.

You argued quite passionately for that very outcome.

Again, you are arguing that ending the genocide, bringing people to trial and respecting human rights is a threat to something.
Do you think that without the genocide it will lead to the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL?

No.
I am reminding you that you said that nothing bad would happen with Trump in charge because he was senile and ineffective.

 

[Frankfooter]

We've established how thick you are about this repeatedly.
You're not going to have an epiphany now.

Yes, we've established how you refuse to accept that a close election could have been one by backing policy supported by 80% of dems.
Its part of a story you need to keep telling yourself.

I voted against it, actually.
But you don't know how voting works.

If you voted for the dems, you voted for genocide.
Even if you tell yourself you voted for the dems to stop trump, you also voted for aiding genocide.
And I know you didn't vote for trump or an independent.

I also don't engage with the other people who support your side.
Unless you think of yourself as their leader and one true flag-bearer who I must defeat, maybe something else is going on than what you think?

Confirmed, your only beef is with someone against the genocide.

Really?
Because it is starting to sound like it with "Cannot continue in its present form". As I pointed out, that was the first time I noticed something that rang to that tune. (Along with your earlier call for it to be dismantled [I believe that was the word you used.] and controlled by external forces like Nazi Germany was.)

Even in that comparison you have to admit that Germany still exists as a country. Jumping to 'total destruction' is playing to the tune of zionists.

So is that you specifically saying you aren't calling for genocide against the Israelis or is it you saying you want the end result here to be that there will still be a state of Israel?

On what basis do you think I've ever called for the genocide of any people?
Calling you out for not backing 'never again' is standing up for nobody suffering genocide.

Why would ending the genocide and bringing people to trial bring about the COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL?
Why would I even suggest a silly thing?
Why would you think that is remotely what I was talking about?

Good question, why did you think my calls for the end of the genocide and rule of law would lead to the destruction of Israel, as you stated earlier.

To you.
But then, you're you.

That I am.

Again, the polls say the dems don't back the genocide yet the party still stands with Israel.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952827714328539525

 

[Frankfooter]

Chotiner always does good work.

In a thread that said ICE were going to be checking papers at hospital births you posted 'disgusting'.
That is something you have never said about Israel's actions.

You argued quite passionately for that very outcome.

This is part of the story you tell yourself here to make you feel better about the total failure of your plan, to ignore the dem support of genocide and vote for them to keep trump out of office.

No.
I am reminding you that you said that nothing bad would happen with Trump in charge because he was senile and ineffective.

I'll admit I was wrong and didn't realize how Project 2025 and AIPAC could do what trump was never able to do in his first term.
Though I think I'm still right about his dementia and the likelihood he doesn't survive this term.

All the more reason why pushing the dems to not support the genocide was important.

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, we've established how you refuse to accept that a close election could have been one by backing policy supported by 80% of dems.
Its part of a story you need to keep telling yourself.

I'm not sure why you insist on being in denial about what you and I were advocating and what you and I believe, but it's clear that is where you intend to stay.

If you voted for the dems, you voted for genocide.
Even if you tell yourself you voted for the dems to stop trump, you also voted for aiding genocide.
And I know you didn't vote for trump or an independent.

Genocide wasn't on the table in the election.
This is the part you refuse to understand.
Given what was available to vote for, i voted for the better outcome for Palestine (insomuch as that was part of the calculation).
You recommended people should vote for a worse outcome for Palestine and giving the Israeli hard right what it wanted.

Confirmed, your only beef is with someone against the genocide.

LOL

Even in that comparison you have to admit that Germany still exists as a country. Jumping to 'total destruction' is playing to the tune of zionists.

A country called Germany does NOW.
It didn't then. It was turned into two different countries.

On what basis do you think I've ever called for the genocide of any people?
Calling you out for not backing 'never again' is standing up for nobody suffering genocide.

Are you going to answer the question or not?

Good question, why did you think my calls for the end of the genocide and rule of law would lead to the destruction of Israel, as you stated earlier.

I haven't thought they would.
That's why I remarked on the shift in your rhetoric.

Again, the polls say the dems don't back the genocide yet the party still stands with Israel.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952827714328539525

Yup.
And your solution to seeing numbers like that was "The Republicans should be in charge."

 

[Valcazar]

In a thread that said ICE were going to be checking papers at hospital births you posted 'disgusting'.
That is something you have never said about Israel's actions.

So this is about nothing but social media performance for you.
Interesting.

This is part of the story you tell yourself here to make you feel better about the total failure of your plan, to ignore the dem support of genocide and vote for them to keep trump out of office.

I'm not sure why you deny your own victory like that.

I'll admit I was wrong and didn't realize how Project 2025 and AIPAC could do what trump was never able to do in his first term.
Though I think I'm still right about his dementia and the likelihood he doesn't survive this term.

So you've moved to "It will be better for Trump to be in power because at least he won't survive".
Is your argument that Vance or the rest of the GOP will be better then?
It's just a Trump issue?

All the more reason why pushing the dems to not support the genocide was important.

And pushing was never the problem.
The game of chicken was.
You just posted an image where the Dem support has been pushed forward and the GOP support is at 0.
Your answer to that kind of movement was to make sure the GOP was in charge instead of arranging the people who were responding to your push would still be in power so your pushing could accomplish something.

 

[psykick456]

I think a lot of europeans are waking up to the reality that the US has a strategy worked out.

Step 1: destabalize othe regions of the world
Step 2: create a bunch of refugees who out of a desire to escape that instability go to white countries
Step 3:Take the best and brighest and have the others go to europe (The Arab population in the USA is less than 1% of the total population while that of the netherlands or france or the UK or Sweden will be markedly higher).
Step 4: Use the idea of non whites being a common enemy to melt the many different identities that make up the european mosaic into a singular white identity that can be subsumed by the american empire

I think the europeans have figured out that less US/Israeli shenanigans =>Less Refugees => Less Cultural Erasure => Maintaining European Identitities,Sovereignty, and Independence from US Imperialism.

It isn't that right wingers like Emmanuel Macron and Georgia Meloni suddenly love Muslims. Rather, maybe they pieced together the link between instability engineered by US foreign policy and harms experienced by europeans. Its self preservation, not just moral gesturing.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm not sure why you insist on being in denial about what you and I were advocating and what you and I believe, but it's clear that is where you intend to stay.

I'm not in denial.
That is you, my friend,.

Genocide wasn't on the table in the election.
This is the part you refuse to understand.
Given what was available to vote for, i voted for the better outcome for Palestine (insomuch as that was part of the calculation).
You recommended people should vote for a worse outcome for Palestine and giving the Israeli hard right what it wanted.

Yes, genocide was on the table. We had long discussions about voting for Stein, Uncommitted, the student protests and the polls.
What you declared was that it was 'pragmatic' to vote for Harris aiding genocide over trying to change her policy or voting third party.
You called those actions 'naive'.

Now you want to argue that the trump support of genocide is worse than the Harris/Biden support of genocide.
Go to it, tell us how much better the Biden form of genocide was and what Harris wouldn't have allowed now.

A country called Germany does NOW.
It didn't then. It was turned into two different countries.

You mean a 'two state solution'?
Point made.

Are you going to answer the question or not?

Given that you have declared you will never answer any direct questions on your views I find this line laughable.

I haven't thought they would.
That's why I remarked on the shift in your rhetoric.

No, you just decided to once again make your own views apparent through an attack.
You accused me of wanting the destruction of Israel, while during the two years or so of these threads you have not once declared it wrong that Israel has destroyed Palestine.

Yup.
And your solution to seeing numbers like that was "The Republicans should be in charge."

A reminder that your solution was enacted and the republicans are now in power.
Had dems worked to change the party and managed to get Harris to respect voters wish for a ceasefire I still argue that they would have won.

 

[Frankfooter]

So this is about nothing but social media performance for you.
Interesting.

No, this is about trying to dismantle the views of a liberal zionist who is still supporting genocide while trying to walk the line of appearing moral.

So you've moved to "It will be better for Trump to be in power because at least he won't survive".
Is your argument that Vance or the rest of the GOP will be better then?
It's just a Trump issue?

What we do know is that under Biden, Harris and trump the genocide was fully supported, funded and protected by the US.
And hope that change will be for the better.

And pushing was never the problem.
The game of chicken was.
You just posted an image where the Dem support has been pushed forward and the GOP support is at 0.
Your answer to that kind of movement was to make sure the GOP was in charge instead of arranging the people who were responding to your push would still be in power so your pushing could accomplish something.

The dems did not respond to pushes to change their policy from their voters. But somehow you think that if they were in power and the voting over that suddenly this would change and they'd back a nicer form of genocide or something.

Right now the dems are very unpopular, even more than trump.
That is how well your plan is doing.
trump is in power, the genocide is destroying Palestinians and Israel, the dems are lost and americans understand that politicians don't listen to voters.

 

[Valcazar]

I think a lot of europeans are waking up to the reality that the US has a strategy worked out.

Step 1: destabalize othe regions of the world
Step 2: create a bunch of refugees who out of a desire to escape that instability go to white countries
Step 3:Take the best and brighest and have the others go to europe (The Arab population in the USA is less than 1% of the total population while that of the netherlands or france or the UK or Sweden will be markedly higher).
Step 4: Use the idea of non whites being a common enemy to melt the many different identities that make up the european mosaic into a singular white identity that can be subsumed by the american empire

I think the europeans have figured out that less US/Israeli shenanigans =>Less Refugees => Less Cultural Erasure => Maintaining European Identitities,Sovereignty, and Independence from US Imperialism.

It isn't that right wingers like Emmanuel Macron and Georgia Meloni suddenly love Muslims. Rather, maybe they pieced together the link between instability engineered by US foreign policy and harms experienced by europeans. Its self preservation, not just moral gesturing.

I think that's a hell of a theory.
Why, exactly, would they want to be doing this?

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, genocide was on the table. We had long discussions about voting for Stein, Uncommitted, the student protests and the polls.

Exactly.
It wasn't on the table in terms of "I can vote to end the genocide".
Stein wasn't anywhere she could get into power or get to have any levers to get concessions in some kind of brokered house vote in the electoral college.
Uncommitted was a primaries movement, and was decently thought out. They knew better than to advocate for tanking the Democrats and letting Trump win once it came to the general.
The student protests were not voting.

In the end, the only vote people meaningfully had was "do I want Harris or Trump (and further down the ballot, Democrats or Republicans) on the levers of power going forward".
There was no vote anyone could cast that would be "The US withdraws support immediately from Israel" as a result.

What you declared was that it was 'pragmatic' to vote for Harris aiding genocide over trying to change her policy or voting third party.
You called those actions 'naive'.

It was pragmatic to vote for her over third party because third party voting accomplishes absolutely nothing useful in the system as it is constructed.
Trying to get her to change her policy was perfectly fine, except that trying to do it by getting Trump in power was asinine and stupid.
Playing chicken was naive.
Now, those people who weren't playing chicken, but were actively pursuing other goals, they I don't accuse of being naive.

Now you want to argue that the trump support of genocide is worse than the Harris/Biden support of genocide.
Go to it, tell us how much better the Biden form of genocide was and what Harris wouldn't have allowed now.

You consider Trump's proposal of depopulating Gaza no worse?
You think Harris would be supporting things with Bibi in the same way as Trump? Even as you see massive defection in her party vs none at all in the GOP?

But sure, let's say there would be nothing different.
The exact same thing would be happening in Gaza if Harris were in charge.

Your argument is that since nothing would change, it is better than Trump is free to do all the damage he is doing.
This is, I'm sorry, a stupid argument.

If you are right that absolutely nothing would be different, the choices were
a - things don't get better in Gaza, Trump makes things worse across the US and the World.
b - things don't get better in Gaza, Trump doesn't make things worse across the US and the World.

Your pitch was that if those were the choices, b wasn't worth making an effort for and you were fine with that result.
Indeed, you said that anyone who pointed out that b was preferable to a valued American lives over Palestinian ones and was morally depraved.
All those people dying because USAID has been cut? Perfectly acceptable and appropriate according to you.
All those people being thrown in prisons after being swept off the street by masked goons? Worth it.

You keep thinking I am saying the Democrats handled the Gaza situation perfectly in the campaign. I'm not and I wasn't then.
I am saying that at the end of the day, the strategy you supported going into the general was bad for what both what you say you wanted in Gaza and what you say you support overall.

Given that you have declared you will never answer any direct questions on your views I find this line laughable.

If you like.
It wasn't a question on your views.
It was a question to clarify your statement.
If you would rather not, that's up to you.

Just so the thread remembers, this is the statement you made.
" I've never called for the complete destruction of any country, not the way zionists here have wiped Palestine off the maps as they wipe Palestinians out through genocide."

What you refuse to clarify is whether you mean by this that you are not calling for the destruction of Israel or you are not calling for the destruction of Israel in "the way the zionists here have wiped Palestine off the maps as they wipe Palestinians out through genocide".

I'd like to think that the comment about maps there means in the end you want there to be a state of Israel remaining.
That would be most consistent with your previous statements.
But apparently, you prefer not to clarify that.

A reminder that your solution was enacted and the republicans are now in power.

My solution was NOT enacted.
I wanted better messaging from the Dems about Gaza and I wanted the campaign of "it makes no difference who wins" to stop.
Neither of those things happened.

Had dems worked to change the party and managed to get Harris to respect voters wish for a ceasefire I still argue that they would have won.

They may well might have.
But that wasn't what you supported during the campaign, where you took the maximalist position that it was good that the Democrats lose.

 

[Valcazar]

No, this is about trying to dismantle the views of a liberal zionist who is still supporting genocide while trying to walk the line of appearing moral.

LOL

What we do know is that under Biden, Harris and trump the genocide was fully supported, funded and protected by the US.
And hope that change will be for the better.

So just hope any random change is better but in general there is currently no ability to affect the issue through voting in different governments?

The dems did not respond to pushes to change their policy from their voters. But somehow you think that if they were in power and the voting over that suddenly this would change and they'd back a nicer form of genocide or something.

They did respond, you fence post.
You can see it in the very tweet you posted.
They've been responding.

But since that's a result, but not a win , you are in favor of giving up and making further progress harder.
That was your whole strategy.
And yes, it is the same as Butler's "the Dems didn't enact Universal health care, therefore they are as bad as the GOP" logic.

You are looking at the a group that had 51% support for your position (the Democrats) and saying that is no different than the one that has 100% opposition to it.

Right now the dems are very unpopular, even more than trump.
That is how well your plan is doing.
trump is in power, the genocide is destroying Palestinians and Israel, the dems are lost and americans understand that politicians don't listen to voters.

And you supported that.
You actively encouraged it.
You said "The Dems aren't listening fast enough, we should make things worse" and patted yourself on the back as being savvy.

 

[Frankfooter]

Exactly.
It wasn't on the table in terms of "I can vote to end the genocide".
Stein wasn't anywhere she could get into power or get to have any levers to get concessions in some kind of brokered house vote in the electoral college.
Uncommitted was a primaries movement, and was decently thought out. They knew better than to advocate for tanking the Democrats and letting Trump win once it came to the general.
The student protests were not voting.

And Harris lost because dems stayed home or wouldn't vote dem.
Your claim it wasn't on the table is your own bias, for lots of people it was a real issue.

In the end, the only vote people meaningfully had was "do I want Harris or Trump (and further down the ballot, Democrats or Republicans) on the levers of power going forward".
There was no vote anyone could cast that would be "The US withdraws support immediately from Israel" as a result.

No, you just called the other options wasted votes, including voting for Stein or staying home. Those were options, just options you needed to claim weren't real in order to not accept that support of the genocide could change the election.

It was pragmatic to vote for her over third party because third party voting accomplishes absolutely nothing useful in the system as it is constructed.
Trying to get her to change her policy was perfectly fine, except that trying to do it by getting Trump in power was asinine and stupid.
Playing chicken was naive.
Now, those people who weren't playing chicken, but were actively pursuing other goals, they I don't accuse of being naive.

My belief in 'never again' means there is no justification for genocide and I would never support it or a politician backing or aiding genocide.
Your belief is that aiding genocide wasn't an issue.

That is your moral choice, a very Wilhoit decision that you accept voting for someone who breaks the biggest moral rule in order to gain power over another group you don't like.

You consider Trump's proposal of depopulating Gaza no worse?
You think Harris would be supporting things with Bibi in the same way as Trump? Even as you see massive defection in her party vs none at all in the GOP?

The dems have not shown they don't back everything that trump is doing and wouldn't be doing it now if they were in power.

But sure, let's say there would be nothing different.
The exact same thing would be happening in Gaza if Harris were in charge.

Yes, which is why some dems tried to get her to stop supporting the genocide so they could vote for her, like Uncommitted.

Your argument is that since nothing would change, it is better than Trump is free to do all the damage he is doing.
This is, I'm sorry, a stupid argument.

Straw man, but yes, that would be a stupid argument.
My argument was that unless the dems forced Harris to change they would lose the election and put trump in power. So ending her support for the genocide was in opinion the most likely path to dem success and the best path to stopping genocide.

A reminder, your argument was proven to be stupid through its failure.

If you are right that absolutely nothing would be different, the choices were
a - things don't get better in Gaza, Trump makes things worse across the US and the World.
b - things don't get better in Gaza, Trump doesn't make things worse across the US and the World.

c - work your ass off to get the dems to change now or in the future

Your pitch was that if those were the choices, b wasn't worth making an effort for and you were fine with that result.
Indeed, you said that anyone who pointed out that b was preferable to a valued American lives over Palestinian ones and was morally depraved.
All those people dying because USAID has been cut? Perfectly acceptable and appropriate according to you.
All those people being thrown in prisons after being swept off the street by masked goons? Worth it.

Nope, straw man argument again. You rely on this debating tactic almost exclusively where you declare in a loud voice that the only options are the ones you approve of even thought they failed.

You keep thinking I am saying the Democrats handled the Gaza situation perfectly in the campaign. I'm not and I wasn't then.
I am saying that at the end of the day, the strategy you supported going into the general was bad for what both what you say you wanted in Gaza and what you say you support overall.

In the end I backed a strategy that I can live with and continue to support. I backed working to change the system instead of voting to continue to back genocide.
That trump won is a testament to the failure of your plan and with it you lose any moral arguments and standing. You are willing to accept backing genocide. That lives with you along with trump's election.

If you like.
It wasn't a question on your views.
It was a question to clarify your statement.
If you would rather not, that's up to you.

Again, you refuse to clearly state your views and are here to try to mischaracterize mine to make you feel better about backing a losing strategy, your moral standing and watching zionism kill itself along with Palestinians. I back holding those who commit genocide, terrorism and war crimes to the law. Only hardcore zionists have declared that means calling for the destruction of Israel and its an admission that they believe Israel cannot exist without apartheid, genocide and terrorism.

Just so the thread remembers, this is the statement you made.
" I've never called for the complete destruction of any country, not the way zionists here have wiped Palestine off the maps as they wipe Palestinians out through genocide."

That is my view.

What you refuse to clarify is whether you mean by this that you are not calling for the destruction of Israel or you are not calling for the destruction of Israel in "the way the zionists here have wiped Palestine off the maps as they wipe Palestinians out through genocide".

I'd like to think that the comment about maps there means in the end you want there to be a state of Israel remaining.
That would be most consistent with your previous statements.
But apparently, you prefer not to clarify that.

I'm not playing this game with someone who is out to prove that those against the genocide are the problem.
I back Israel and their leaders, along with the leaders of Hamas, being held to the law for all war crimes. That includes the illegal occupation, apartheid, terrorism and genocide. If you want to argue that Israel cannot exist without those acts, go to it.

My solution was NOT enacted.
I wanted better messaging from the Dems about Gaza and I wanted the campaign of "it makes no difference who wins" to stop.
Neither of those things happened.

No, you never once in our pre election threads said you wanted 'messaging' changes or actual changes in policy. You just repeatedly declared that voters should live with them and vote for genocide or else elect trump.

They may well might have.
But that wasn't what you supported during the campaign, where you took the maximalist position that it was good that the Democrats lose.

As part of option c above, acting to change the dems was the best solution. That your plan was enacted and they didn't win means the best path forward now is to continue to get the dems to change. Though at this moment I have not seen you argue that they should do anything to change.

trump won't live to the end of his term. Vance may be better or worse but the dems should be at a crossroad. Do they continue to support those who are funding them or those who will vote for them. That is more important to democracy now.

 

[Frankfooter]

So just hope any random change is better but in general there is currently no ability to affect the issue through voting in different governments?

Please list the options you think should be considered instead.

They did respond, you fence post.
You can see it in the very tweet you posted.
They've been responding.

But since that's a result, but not a win , you are in favor of giving up and making further progress harder.
That was your whole strategy.
And yes, it is the same as Butler's "the Dems didn't enact Universal health care, therefore they are as bad as the GOP" logic.

You are looking at the a group that had 51% support for your position (the Democrats) and saying that is no different than the one that has 100% opposition to it.

No, that tweet only shows that dems are still not listening to their voters.
During the election dem polls said 80% supported ceasefire. Now about half of americans and Canadians say its genocide yet the politicians in both countries are waffling and not making clear actions to end support of Israel. Your claim the dems have changed is just not born out in reality, they are still voting to send bombs to Israel.

And you supported that.
You actively encouraged it.
You said "The Dems aren't listening fast enough, we should make things worse" and patted yourself on the back as being savvy.

No, I worked to end support of genocide and enact change and continue to do so. I can stand firm and defend my actions through this genocide.
I did not say 'vote for genocide cuz trump' or any other lame justification for aiding genocide.

You actively argued here to not pressure the dems but to instead just vote for them.
You were wrong, the dems did not win backing genocide and now you are someone who has justified supporting genocide.