As the title states I am confused on this matter. The way I see it, the USA has a two party system and in the next few weeks they’re either going to have Trump or Harris as president, come inauguration day. With this in mind doesn’t it make sense to vote for the person least likely to escalate the situation even more.

Giving your vote to an independent or worse not voting at all, just gives more of a chance for Trump to win the election and then who knows what crazy stuff he will allow, or encourage, Israel to get away with.

I really don’t get the logic. As sure nobody wants to vote for a party allowing these heinous crimes to be committed, but given you’re getting one of them shouldn’t you be voting for the one that will be the least horrible of the two.

Please don’t come at me with pro-Israeli rhetoric as this isn’t the post for that, I’m asking about why people would make such choices and I’m not up for debate on the Middle East, on this post, you can DM me for that.

Edit: Bedtime here now so will respond to incoming comments in the morning, love starting the day with an inbox full 😊.

Edit 2: This blew up, it’s a little overwhelming right now but I do intent on replying to everybody that took the time to comment. Just need to get in the right headspace.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          22 days ago

          No. They are absolutely not allowed to stop food and aid into the combat zone they created. They are absolutely not allowed to prevent Egypt from sending aid in. They are absolutely not allowed to conduct a naval blockade.

          Russia is food secure and has trade access all along Central and East Asia. Norway’s closure is in no way the same thing.

          When the professional aid distribution people who work for the United States Agency for International Development tell you it’s happening, then it’s happening.

        • macabrett[they/them]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 days ago

          It qualifies as a war crime but not as genocide.

          Okay… if its a war crime and not a genocide, that still qualifies as a way to stop sending weapons.

          They are, legally speaking allowed to close any port of entry or exit from their country.

          Huh wonder if maybe Palestine should be legally recognized as a country to prevent this? Oh well, nothing we can do, since the politicians in power don’t want to do that.

          But I don’t think that it can be proven especially seeing as the official government statistics coming out of gaza are provided by a group that is internationally recognised as a terrorist organisation.

          Every organization operating out of Gaza would get called a terrorist organization by Isreal. It is almost as if America is being intentionally obtuse to allow Isreal to carry out a genocide.

    • Cleggory@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

      The acts that constitute genocide fall into five categories:

      • Killing members of the group

      • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

      • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part

      • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

      • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

      https://www.ushmm.org/genocide-prevention/learn-about-genocide-and-other-mass-atrocities/what-is-genocide

      A short list of official allegations of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians (Google):

      South Africa’s genocide case against Israel

      The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ordered Israel to prevent the destruction of evidence and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

      Israel’s use of the “Hannibal Directive”

      Israel has been accused of using its “Hannibal Directive” policy, which allows for the killing of Israeli soldiers and civilians to prevent them from being taken alive as prisoners of war. This policy has been criticized as a form of genocide.

      UN reports

      UN experts have reported “grave violations” committed by Israeli forces against Palestinians in Gaza, including “genocidal incitement” and the use of “powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts.” They have also cited evidence of Israel’s intent to “destroy the Palestinian people under occupation.”

      Special Rapporteur’s findings

      The UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, has found “reasonable grounds” to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. She cited evidence of Israel’s intent to destroy the Palestinian group, including causing serious bodily or mental harm, imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and preventing births within the group.

      Amnesty International’s research

      Amnesty International has gathered evidence of unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, resulting in mass civilian casualties. The organization has criticized Israel’s failure to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, leading to indiscriminate attacks that are war crimes.

      Other reports and allegations

      Various independent reports and allegations have been made about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, including forced transfers, torture, and the destruction of infrastructure. Some have characterized Israel’s actions as genocide, while others have criticized the use of the term without sufficient evidence.