You are deeply delusional if you think “producing bombs” is the only thing America does for Israel. The states have very deep ties, because Israel is America’s primary outpost in the region. “Geopolitical partners” are non-fungible. You can’t just say “if the US didn’t support Israel, some other country would”, that’s not how it works, besides the self-evident statement that there would be some state with some ideology with some policies at that territory. For example, from the very start (1967) PFLP fought not just Zionism, but also Western, primarily American imperialism - that’s how obvious the connection is.
And I’m not American so I don’t even know who Kamala is, but I imagine it’s some random genocidal politician that could just as well be replaced with any other genocidal politician. The US supporting an Israeli ceasefire would indeed be a heavy blow to Israel because US interests are the only thing preventing unanimous UN support for a ceasfire, and because the US is Israel’s primary economic partner, and under US sanctions Israel’s military prowess would quickly dive below the level of Cuba, even lower because of the hostility of most countries of the world towards it. But the “ceasefire” framing is disingenuous as it considers the two sides of the conflict as equals, as opposed to the occupied and the occupier.
Of course, what you are saying would be natural for someone who believes in vulgar economists’ favorite “supply and demand” and “the invisible hand of the market” being something akin to natural forces. Luckily, they aren’t actually natural forces, but something created by humans, something we can analyze just fine.
This is a lot of words to avoid the questions you were asked lmao. You want to establish America as evil for the actions of other nations as an excuse to not hate your government more.
Yall are so delusional its not even worth engaging your spin off tangents. Just like you ignored the statements of my previous comment, ypu would continue doing so moving forward. You even admit you chimed in in bad faith, “i dont even know who Kamala is”. You wanted to change the discussion before to distract from the fact the initial comment is clear bad faith propoganda meant to establish fault for actions taken by a different nation. Here you are again trying to run off topic because it’s inconvenient to face the facts.
I joined this chat asking why they think Kamala calling for a ceasefire was in contradiction to America selling bombs. You joined to paint a false narrative to distract.
Again, what specific actions did you think would come as a result of Kamala calling for a ceasefire?
Your comments are a prime example of the fallacies of analytical (as opposed to dialectical) thinking. I’m talking about the broader interconnections, relations, tendencies, and you’re trying to shift the focus from the system into its constituent parts. Of course, if you do that, you can get any conclusion you want. The fact of the matter is you can’t look at Israel without looking at the US, you can’t look at Kamala without looking at the American government.
You’re asking - “what would Kamala asking for ceasefire change”. I say - Kamala is part of the American government, which is dead set on supporting Israel, and she wouldn’t magically change her mind, because her consciousness, like anyone else’s, is shaped by her social being. That said, that doesn’t mean she won’t ever change her mind - if she does, it would be indicative of broader shifts and contradictions among American elites. Her asking for ceasefire wouldn’t be a cause - it would be a symptom. As for what American support for a ceasefire change, I wrote about that in my comment above.
Calling it a logical fallacy to ask you to respond to the topic discussed in the thread has gotta be a new level of hypocrisy/coping.
The reality of you propoganda groups from Russia, is you have a two faced theory on responsibility of government. All other people of other nations or governments are responsible for all actions taken by all individuals of their nation, but everybody in Russia is a victim of government thus not responsible for any actions or intellectual honesty on the conversation of government.
Yall can’t make a functioning government of your own but think you have what it takes to improve others lmao.
You clearly do not understand how a Democratic government works if you think a VP can just override the will of representatives from dozens of states who represent millions of people.
If you can’t participate in a conversation in good faith then fuck off.
You are claiming that I said VP can magically override the US policy, while I said the exact opposite - VP can’t and won’t do shit unless the entire government undergoes a broad ideological shift.
Before that, you talked about responsibility, which I didn’t talk about at all. I simply said that Israel exists in its current form thanks to the US, which is objectively true. There’s no “responsibility” or “morals” in saying that much, and people all across the political spectrum can agree with this.
And no, I didn’t call what you said a logical fallacy, because fallacy and logical fallacy are two different terms (leaving aside whether what you are saying is indeed a logical fallacy).
It’s doesn’t matter if you’re from Russia. If he thinks they’re sending their best and brightest propagandists to the comment mines on lemmy to argue for a materialist understanding of American geopolitics then he’s either delusionally paranoid or arguing in bad faith.
You didn’t know who Kamala even was before this discussion. Yet you’ve got her pegged dead-to-rights?
How do you know she’s not an outspoken ally to Palestine in protest of all Israeli agreements?
You don’t. You just assumed because she’s American. Which mean you have a bias, which means you clearly shouldn’t be forcing yourself into discussions about things you can’t think critically on.
These people have no understanding of the complexity and nuance involved in foreign affairs. There no reasoning with them at all.
They’re going to single out one or two people to be at fault for everything that happens regardless of their level of involvement, amount of complexity/nuance, length of time agreements have existed, what the agreements entail, or any rational knowledge of foreign affairs.
And if you argue with them too much, they’re going to get you banned.
Yeah. It’s always a good thing to oppose the propaganda. I do the same, but they’ll trap you into arguing against rhetoric. I just call them out and move on, but you killed it here man.
it’s no secret that Israel can only function like it does thanks to US support
Removed by mod
You are deeply delusional if you think “producing bombs” is the only thing America does for Israel. The states have very deep ties, because Israel is America’s primary outpost in the region. “Geopolitical partners” are non-fungible. You can’t just say “if the US didn’t support Israel, some other country would”, that’s not how it works, besides the self-evident statement that there would be some state with some ideology with some policies at that territory. For example, from the very start (1967) PFLP fought not just Zionism, but also Western, primarily American imperialism - that’s how obvious the connection is.
And I’m not American so I don’t even know who Kamala is, but I imagine it’s some random genocidal politician that could just as well be replaced with any other genocidal politician. The US supporting an Israeli ceasefire would indeed be a heavy blow to Israel because US interests are the only thing preventing unanimous UN support for a ceasfire, and because the US is Israel’s primary economic partner, and under US sanctions Israel’s military prowess would quickly dive below the level of Cuba, even lower because of the hostility of most countries of the world towards it. But the “ceasefire” framing is disingenuous as it considers the two sides of the conflict as equals, as opposed to the occupied and the occupier.
Of course, what you are saying would be natural for someone who believes in vulgar economists’ favorite “supply and demand” and “the invisible hand of the market” being something akin to natural forces. Luckily, they aren’t actually natural forces, but something created by humans, something we can analyze just fine.
“I have no idea who Kamala is, but I’ll add my rhetoric to a discussion that she is the main topic of”.”
Mmmmkay.
This is a lot of words to avoid the questions you were asked lmao. You want to establish America as evil for the actions of other nations as an excuse to not hate your government more.
Yall are so delusional its not even worth engaging your spin off tangents. Just like you ignored the statements of my previous comment, ypu would continue doing so moving forward. You even admit you chimed in in bad faith, “i dont even know who Kamala is”. You wanted to change the discussion before to distract from the fact the initial comment is clear bad faith propoganda meant to establish fault for actions taken by a different nation. Here you are again trying to run off topic because it’s inconvenient to face the facts.
I joined this chat asking why they think Kamala calling for a ceasefire was in contradiction to America selling bombs. You joined to paint a false narrative to distract.
Again, what specific actions did you think would come as a result of Kamala calling for a ceasefire?
I didn’t see anyone imply that they expected anything from Harris’ empty rhetoric, so I don’t know why you’re asking this.
Your comments are a prime example of the fallacies of analytical (as opposed to dialectical) thinking. I’m talking about the broader interconnections, relations, tendencies, and you’re trying to shift the focus from the system into its constituent parts. Of course, if you do that, you can get any conclusion you want. The fact of the matter is you can’t look at Israel without looking at the US, you can’t look at Kamala without looking at the American government.
You’re asking - “what would Kamala asking for ceasefire change”. I say - Kamala is part of the American government, which is dead set on supporting Israel, and she wouldn’t magically change her mind, because her consciousness, like anyone else’s, is shaped by her social being. That said, that doesn’t mean she won’t ever change her mind - if she does, it would be indicative of broader shifts and contradictions among American elites. Her asking for ceasefire wouldn’t be a cause - it would be a symptom. As for what American support for a ceasefire change, I wrote about that in my comment above.
It wouldn’t even necessarily be that: it might have been empty rhetoric to assuage the masses and lubricate the genocide.
Calling it a logical fallacy to ask you to respond to the topic discussed in the thread has gotta be a new level of hypocrisy/coping.
The reality of you propoganda groups from Russia, is you have a two faced theory on responsibility of government. All other people of other nations or governments are responsible for all actions taken by all individuals of their nation, but everybody in Russia is a victim of government thus not responsible for any actions or intellectual honesty on the conversation of government.
Yall can’t make a functioning government of your own but think you have what it takes to improve others lmao.
You clearly do not understand how a Democratic government works if you think a VP can just override the will of representatives from dozens of states who represent millions of people.
If you can’t participate in a conversation in good faith then fuck off.
You are claiming that I said VP can magically override the US policy, while I said the exact opposite - VP can’t and won’t do shit unless the entire government undergoes a broad ideological shift.
Before that, you talked about responsibility, which I didn’t talk about at all. I simply said that Israel exists in its current form thanks to the US, which is objectively true. There’s no “responsibility” or “morals” in saying that much, and people all across the political spectrum can agree with this.
And no, I didn’t call what you said a logical fallacy, because fallacy and logical fallacy are two different terms (leaving aside whether what you are saying is indeed a logical fallacy).
And before you jumped in this discussion with your propaganda, you didn’t even know she was VP.
Your argument has no merit.
lmao
at least they got half of it right, I indeed live in Russia
It’s doesn’t matter if you’re from Russia. If he thinks they’re sending their best and brightest propagandists to the comment mines on lemmy to argue for a materialist understanding of American geopolitics then he’s either delusionally paranoid or arguing in bad faith.
This debatebro had a couple of bullshit sessions over Russia yesterday in one post:
You didn’t know who Kamala even was before this discussion. Yet you’ve got her pegged dead-to-rights?
How do you know she’s not an outspoken ally to Palestine in protest of all Israeli agreements?
You don’t. You just assumed because she’s American. Which mean you have a bias, which means you clearly shouldn’t be forcing yourself into discussions about things you can’t think critically on.
Unlike you, of course, who came into this completely free of all bias.
Oh I have a bias. I never said I don’t. I Am biased against propaganda and misinformation along with people who argue things they know nothing about.
And as I can see you’re already getting comments removed, I’m going to walk away and let you have your little victory here.
Blocking you now.
Well said.
You mean between an genocidal, apartheid, settler-colonial, occupier state and an stateless occupied peoples.
These people have no understanding of the complexity and nuance involved in foreign affairs. There no reasoning with them at all.
They’re going to single out one or two people to be at fault for everything that happens regardless of their level of involvement, amount of complexity/nuance, length of time agreements have existed, what the agreements entail, or any rational knowledge of foreign affairs.
And if you argue with them too much, they’re going to get you banned.
Yup, didn’t realize which instance I stumbled into until after lmao.
It was just such an impressive assertion I had to ask more lmao.
Yeah. It’s always a good thing to oppose the propaganda. I do the same, but they’ll trap you into arguing against rhetoric. I just call them out and move on, but you killed it here man.
Well argued!