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.

    • Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 months ago

      It qualifies as a war crime but not as genocide. But again their involvement is largely preventing aid shipments from entering Gaza. They are, legally speaking allowed to close any port of entry or exit from their country. There are people starving in Russia and Norway has closed the border. Is Norway committing a war crime? Also if that’s the case then why are people not jumping on Egypt? There’s a border crossing to Egypt as well. Is Egypt committing genocide?

      Just to be clear, I don’t support either side in this conflict. And I do think the IDF are probably committing war crimes. 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.

      • macabrett[they/them]@lemmy.ml
        0·
        2 months 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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 months 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.