Between Trump and Harris, Trump was obviously a much worse choice for Gaza. Anyone equivocating the distinction between them doesn't care about Gaza at all and is functioning entirely within the realm of performative activism.
Between Trump and Harris, Trump was obviously a much worse choice for Gaza. Anyone equivocating the distinction between them doesn't care about Gaza at all and is functioning entirely within the realm of performative activism.
https://www.columnblog.com/p/if-harris-opposes-trumps-horrif...
> ### If Harris Opposes Trump’s Horrific Gaza Policies, She Should Say So
> Her defenders insist she would have been “better on Gaza.” This is very possible. But why doesn’t she explain how in her own words?
I'm still waiting.
There is nothing 'performative' about refusing to vote for a candidate who promises to arm a genocidal regime currently doing a live-streamed holocaust. That's just your basic bare-minimum moral and legal duty as a human.
The fact that such an assertion is a tolerated talking point in US society is absolutely damning.
What about voting for a candidate that says America should let Israel "finish the job" while campaigning?
Israel was going to be armed either way, this is decades long u.s. policy and nobody was going to change that.
The choice was between a liberal candidate that's at least nominally interested in good outcomes for Gaza and a candidate that's openly hostile to Gaza, the same candidate that recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and enacted a total ban on Muslim immigrants in the u.s.
Now, Trump is openly proposing ethnic cleansing so he can build hotels in Gaza. People who equivocate on lesser-of-two-evils are those who simply don't care about real outcomes.
But Trump promised that too.