Vice President Harris has made it clear that she will not change her current policy of blind support of Israel which is causing, with our tax dollars, genocide, crimes against humanity and total destruction of Gaza. She backed up her stand by letting a hostage family speak at Democratic Convention but refused an American surgeon to speak about his experiences at a Gaza Hospital. Harris’s supporters argue that once Harris is elected, they will pressure her to change Gaza policy. But these supporters could not convince Harris for even a small gesture of letting doctor speak at the convention. They further argue that voting for Trump is a mistake as he may be even worse. Which may be true.
Whom to vote for if both candidates may end up continuing genocide and crimes against humanity policy? Both choices are evil and there is no lesser evil here. One should be clear that no matter which candidate, Harris or Trump, one votes for, your vote is also an endorsement of genocide and crimes against humanity, because you do have a choice of third candidate. Vote for third choice may still elect Harris or Trump, but your vote did not endorse genocide or crimes against humanity. One cannot vote for Harris or Trump without crossing this moral obligation.
One may try to fall back on pragmatism and argue that Genocide and crimes against humanity has taken place in past without notice and are still taking place in other places; why make so much fuss about Gaza? All other genocides and crimes against humanity do not make Gaza Genocide and crimes against humanity kosher. Every genocide should be condemned. Additionally, Gaza Genocide and crimes against humanity are enabled by our tax dollars and makes us accomplice in this.
Lastly, neither pragmatism, nor democratic values bless genocide and crimes against humanity.
As both the actors seem to have evil intentions, I will vote for Trump taking him a BETTER-EVIL. Mirza Ashraf
Politics being the dirty game it is, the first priority in poltics is winning the election. And in the pursuit of winning one needs to make very difficult, cold hearted practical decisions. I don’t think Harris by herself made the decision to not allow the doctor to speak. It must have been a calculated decision by her advisors: Do you anger a few Muslims or many more Jews and the formidable power of AIPAC?
Voting almost always comes to choosing the lesser of the two evils. I don’t remember ever voting for a clear favorite except for Obama the first time only and that was more of an emotional decision. I didn’t think “change was coming to America”. Voting for a third party candidate who has zero chance of winning and whose platform one barely knows is is as good as not voting.
Against Harris’s mistake of not allowing the doctor to speak are Trump’s Muslim ban, asking Ilhan Omar and others to go back to where you came from and saying “Biden is holding Netanyahu back; I would ask him to be more forceful”. And these are just Muslim related negatives of Trump. If you add his other baggag, the lesser of the two evils dilemna should be clear.
Another article by Lydia Polgreen that was posted on TF a day later makes the same case.
PS I wish this discourse does not count as “political” since TF is supposed to be non political
These are personal comments and not of TFUSA. These do not violate any law.
There was never an issue in the presidential election about the genocides of DARFUR, RWANDA, BOSNIA, and as recently as IN ROHINGYA
The question that why disproportionate attention is given to the Gaza Genocide is legit.
Simply “should be” condemning other genocide is not enough.
Bystanders are also accomplices, especially those being a superpowers who can make a difference.
Tax dollars are spent on USA security which is paramount.
Muslim voters should set their priorities as the economics of the USA and the future of their children so the new generation of Muslims can be more influential in USA Foreign Policy.
Ghaza issue should not be the only deciding factor; indeed it’s something to consider along with Ukraine, China, etc.