• Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    That’s an impressively self centered privileged possible view.

    “Sure, a lot of you are going to die but I think it would have happened either way so there’s no difference between Harris and trump.”

    Especially when you factor in the Left’s newfound support for Palestine and that there would presumably be support to push for changing the status quo, this somehow manages to be an even dumber take.

    the only difference between what they’re trying to do and the status quo is what things are names.

    That’s just nonsense. One is likely the end of the road for Palestineans in the West Bank, the other at least has chances for an alternative.

    It’s as dumb as arguing that climate change would be the same under either President because you don’t think things will change.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      “Sure, a lot of you are going to die but I think it would have happened either way so there’s no difference between Harris and trump.”

      Uh… Nobody’s going to die because of this particular action. They’re trying to annex settlements, which are basically already governed as Israeli territory. This is unrelated to the expansion of settlements, which is part of the status quo Harris wasn’t going to change.

      Especially when you factor in the Left’s newfound support for Palestine and that there would presumably be support to push for changing the status quo, this somehow manages to be an even dumber take.

      The left’s newfound support that the Democratic establishment has been completely ignoring? There was no changing the status quo under Harris let’s not kid ourselves.

      It’s as dumb as arguing that climate change would be the same under either President because you don’t think things will change.

      These are literally the same statement. In this case the assumption isn’t wrong, because while Harris would likely keep Biden’s policies Trump is going to change a lot of things for the worse, but if you assume that things won’t change under either administration then climate change would be the same under either president.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        In this case the assumption isn’t wrong, because while Harris would likely keep Biden’s policies Trump is going to change a lot of things for the worse, but if you assume that things won’t change under either administration then climate change would be the same under either president.

        This might literally be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read.

        “Sure, things will be different but then if you assume things won’t change then they’re the same.”

        I feel dumber for having interacted with you, I’m done.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 days ago

          “Sure, things will be different but then if you assume things won’t change then they’re the same.”

          I mean you’re the one who said “this is as dumb as saying things won’t change because I think won’t change”.

          • Lauchs@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            I mean, I missed a word but that definitely made it more confusing (even if it was paraphrasing your point.)

            Am I understanding your argument is that:

            You feel Israel will eventually annex the West Bank so it doesn’t matter whether Harris or trump won in 2024?

            • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              You feel Israel will eventually annex the West Bank so it doesn’t matter whether Harris or trump won in 2024?

              So first it’s not the whole West Bank. If they did that they’d have to follow Israeli domestic law, which would give West Bank Palestinians rights and kind of defeat the point. Instead what Smotrich is pushing for is annexing some West Bank settlements. Now what I’m saying is that if his push for annexation succeeds then it was eventually going to happen (and by eventually I mean within these four years) because I just don’t see Harris having enough backbone to stop it, and that even if he succeeds the only thing that changes is what the land the settlements are on is called because they’re basically already governed as Israeli territory. The part where people are actually hurt—the expansion of settlements—is no different from before the election.

              • Lauchs@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 days ago

                <(and by eventually I mean within these four years)

                Yeah, I think that’s pretty nonsensical.

                Were that the case, there’s no reason for Smotrich to wait until after the election to announce his actual intentions etc. Nor any reason for them to hold back until now. Your take requires some incredibly coincidental timing that I don’t think just happened magically.

                Like, I get your argument I just think it’s more than a little silly but to each their own.

                Cheers.