More than 100 Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats and community leaders have signed a letter making the case for those reluctant to support Kamala Harris against Donald Trump.
“We know that many in our communities are resistant to vote for Kamala Harris because of the Biden administration’s complicity in the genocide,” the letter, published Thursday night, reads.
“Some of us have lost many family members in Gaza and Lebanon. We respect those who feel they simply can’t vote for a member of the administration that sent the bombs that may have killed their loved ones,” the letter continued. “As we consider the full situation carefully, however, we conclude that voting for Kamala Harris is the best option for the Palestinian cause and all of our communities.”
Look, I’ve already voted, and I don’t hold any position of power to make any more decisions, and there’s nothing productive to continuing this. My temper is my Achilles heel, and nobody has anything to gain. I’ve heard the arguments from the “Democrats are genociders”, and I will never be convinced that the best way to protect a group of people is let their fate be decided by someone who has explicitly made clear his desire to wipe them out, and I will never not think that people in that camp are insane. They are more than welcome to go take their magical thinking to someone who will listen.
temper is almost everone’s achilles heel and what you can gain from it is deeper understanding.
here’s a quote from someone that you might hold in high regard, dr martin luther king jr, who sums up why shallow understanding is bad for all of us and also sums up the debate you’ve had here regarding liberal support for the harris campaign and the genocide shes enabling:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
I am aware of Dr. King’s quote, and I am aware that the Democrats are not some kind of paragon of progressive ideals, and I fully agree with you that they are far, FAR from ideal, and in fact are fundamentally flawed. But they ARE, as flawed as they are, the only bulwark against something far worse. If we don’t agree on that, we do not agree on necessary priors, and we have nothing more to convince each other of.
again: convincing anyone should not be your goal; you will only piss yourself off if you try and especially so if they’re snarky or default to insults and the point of the quote is not to paint democrats in any light.
i don’t know what your views are, but i used to be a liberal and this is how i see the quote as it pertains to what’s happening right now and how material like it changed my views by engaging leftists on the lemmyverse and using it to challenging my own views:
…the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice…
we’re being forced to pick between two genocide options. yes one has a chance at being worse than the other and that’s not the point here. we’re told that we MUST chose between these two options to enforce the peace through the barrel of a gun.
… who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action” …
this one applies in multiple ways but the one that both pertains to this discourse and still matters is the two genocide choices we’re being forced to select is manufactured since peace through violence is automatically not viable, so going third party is a direct action that moderates don’t agree with; strongly.
… who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” …
this speaks to the bulwark comment you shared: when they refuse to stop the genocide (or atleast attaching restrictions to the weapons) they’re accelerating the issue so that we have to make a decision here and right now because “now is not the time” since the election’s next week. this is intentionally done to push the narrative that “we vote now and then try to push a harris administration later” and that seems reasonable on the surface given the circumstances; but those circumstances were manufactured to force a time table to works in the genocider’s favor.
also: pushing an administration on something that lobbyist work against has never worked and convincing yourself that it can only helps push to conversation towards that genocider time table.
additionally; we’ve been voting for the lesser evil for a few generations now and doing so has painted us into this corner of a choice between 2 genocides. there is no indications that taking the same action that we have always been taking are going to yield different results this time and this genocide along with the erosions of legal protections on a variety of issues is sufficient argument that things will continue to devolve if we keep doing the same thing as we have been doing.
… Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
a deeper understanding requires time & effort; it’s much easier to skim the information to make a decision and doing so perpetuates a shallow understanding were we don’t know the recent history that explains why we’re being forced to chose between 2 genocides.
when people of shallow understanding get together because their views align it creates an environment where dissension is not tolerated; especially when it’s properly educated and informed because that creates a counter reality with enough substance to rival the shallow understanding groupthink. the number of people who only skim the information will always vastly outnumber the people who put the time & effort in and that creates a world where there’s an “obvious” right answer from the majority’s perspective and the few weirdos who have learned of that counter reality are just silly because they won’t accept “common sense.”
