Nov.08

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

The War in Israel, Part XI: Genocide in Gaza?--Reader Responses, Part I

On Monday, we ran a letter from reader J.P. in Guilford, CT, that included this observation: "Biden has dug his own grave here by turning a blind eye and making excuses for killing on an unimaginable scale, that won't bring us any closer to peace. Many will be voting proudly against genocide, myself included." This clearly speaks to some of the observations we make above.

In service of our point about how emotion-driven (and how divisive) this issue has become, we're going to run a couple of letters from people who are in agreement with J.P. in Guilford and a couple from people who most certainly are not. First, the agreers:

• E.C. in Houston, TX: You have the questions all wrong. They are posed from an Israel-centric viewpoint. The problem is bombing to death innocent people, with the apparent goal of making refugees out of all who survive the bombing—otherwise, why cut off water, food and fuel? Those conditions are a recipe for epidemics and deaths on a massive scale. Joe Biden and Donald Trump are apparently for all of it and however much more $13.5 billion can buy.
  
  It's 1968 again. Sure, Nixon was worse, but LBJ has got to go.
  
  
• D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: I supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2016 and 2020 until he was forced to pull out and then I supported Joe Biden. I've contributed to his campaign and to the DLCC and DCCC and to specific Democrats nominated by their party. Since 2018, I have not contributed to any Democratic primary campaign except when a progressive was challenged by a centrist, but I specifically avoided supporting progressive challengers to centrist Democrats, all in the name of unity. I've contributed and phone-banked for Democrats. I've been a Bernie Sanders Democrat supporting Biden and supporting Democratic unity in the face of the overtly fascist Trumpublicans.
  
  That is over. I was delusional. I'm finished with the Democrats, and I'm finished with Bernie Sanders, who explicitly refused to call for a cease-fire. What is going on in Gaza is genocide.
  
  The Palestinian child who was murdered yesterday by Israel and the U.S. does not care whether Trump or Biden wins in 2024. She's dead. The Palestinian child who will be murdered tomorrow by Israel and the U.S. also won't care whether Trump or Biden wins in 2024. He'll be dead. I stand with these children.
  
  You can call me any names you like. They couldn't hurt a millionth compared to the pain I'm feeling from this slaughter.

And the disagreers:

• G.K. in Blue Island, IL: J.P. in Guilford states: "There is nothing anyone can say to make me vote for genocide, so don't waste your breath." J.P. has just adopted the same argument used by the anti-abortion crowd for years—swap "abortion" in for "genocide," then try telling us that's not the basic argument used by pro-life activists. And, as with abortion, it falsely frames any future debate as being with a non-existent foe who is single-mindedly "pro-infanticide" or "pro-genocide."
  
  In politics, as in life, it is possible for two superficially opposite things to be true at the same time. I have watched for years the reports from human rights observers in the West Bank and Gaza decrying both subtle and overt acts of injustice against Palestinians, which have included the stoning of schoolchildren by Jewish settlers, the seizure of land from families whose ownership dates back to the Ottoman Empire, and the destruction of livelihoods in the name of manifest destiny cloaked as security. I accept those reports as true just as I accept that Hamas has made it clear that they represent an existential threat to all Israeli citizens, and that Israel is now understandably responding to that threat.
  
  The essential problem on both sides is that extremists have been defining the boundaries of the situation for years. The Code of Hammurabi is on full display, and extreme is being met with extreme. How does any nation respond to this? It is possible to be sickened by both a terrorist attack that kills over 1,000 civilians as well as an air strike in response that kills over 2,000 civilians. I submit that taking sides in this situation, without any qualifications, is itself tantamount to being "pro-genocide" as the extremists who hold sway to varying degrees on either side are dead set on the annihilation of their foe, regardless of the cost in human lives. What is unhelpful is to hinder those striving for a measured, strategic response against extremists—and for humanitarian aid for the innocent—by framing any response that isn't viewed as 100% pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli as an extreme itself (e.g., pro-genocide).
  
  No rational person is asking J.P. to "vote for genocide." No one. With that off the table, what would J.P. vote for instead? What solution do they have that the current administration should implement? Do they think a Republican administration—brought in by either their pro-Republican vote or their withheld-Democrat vote—would be more likely to implement that solution?
  
  
• J.D. in Greensboro, NC: In regards to J.P. in Guilford, to me a protest vote for a third-party candidate is worse than writing in Donald Duck on the ballot (I've worked at elections and this is at least good for a laugh). J.P. probably doesn't like Biden and will use any excuse to vote against him. This is fair, because we enjoy freedom of choice at the ballot box. I just get a little irritated when they try to paint their protest vote as something that speaks to their own sense of moral superiority. So I say to J.P.: Go ahead and waste your vote. You can brag about it if you want. But remember that many of these third-party candidates are being propped up by donors who don't give a fig about the Middle East, but like the thought of someone in the White House who works only for them. If this happens, you may rethink the wisdom of your decision, but by then it will be too late.

We'll run another set on Friday. (Z)