Mike Huckabee suggested any future Palestinian state should be carved out of ‘a Muslim country’
Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, has said that the US is no longer pursuing the goal of an independent Palestinian state, marking what analysts describe as the most explicit abandonment yet of a cornerstone of US Middle East diplomacy.
Asked during an interview with Bloomberg News if a Palestinian state remains a goal of US policy, he replied: “I don’t think so.”
The former Arkansas governor chosen by Donald Trump as his envoy to Israel went further by suggesting that any future Palestinian entity could be carved out of “a Muslim country” rather than requiring Israel to cede territory.
1 million upvotes for you. “Hope you’re happy Trump got elected. Palestine is doing great now” etc. is such a tired cliche at this point. I’m astonished that it gets upvoted every. single. time. Harris literally said she wouldn’t do anything different from Biden. She would have allowed/financed the genocide all the same, but she’d be calling the “tragic loss of life” a “very complex issue.” I have no idea where this fantasy comes from that she would suddenly be the hero who stands up to Israel.
She would have been better for the world as a whole than Trump. If you truely think that things would have played out exactly the same in Gaza with Harris as POTUS, then it still comes down to two candidates last November, and every person knew that one of them would win. So a vote for Trump, a non vote, or a third party vote directly benefited Trump.
“Oh but I voted against genocide”, fuck no you didn’t. You voted in a manner that directly put Trump in charge, which was the worst possible outcome.
To be clear, I voted for Harris, and I implored everyone I know to vote for Harris, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I will always vote for the farthest-left candidate in the general, full-stop. I’m not arguing that both sides are the same, or that Harris wouldn’t have been a better choice for 100 reasons outside of the genocide issue. I’m arguing that Harris gave no indication that she would defend Palestine or even recognize the genocide at all. She might well have done those things, but she didn’t campaign on that, so I don’t know why anyone is defending her on the issue. Establishment Dems can’t seem to get it through their heads that progressive policies are popular, so we keep getting general elections between an absolute monster and a neolib Dem saying, “Vote for me or you’ll get the monster!” That might be the reality, but it’s not a platform.
I live in a blue state, and I had people around me arguing that whether they voted third-party or didn’t vote at all, they would be able to sleep at night knowing that A. they didn’t vote for genocide and B. the state would go blue anyway. I don’t agree with that position at all. I want third parties to be represented in the US, but that starts at the local level and in the primaries. By the general election it’s too late and we realistically have two options. I also believe that shutting down any criticism of the Dem candidate (e.g. a now-banned user told me to kill myself) is a good way to alienate people and discourage them from engaging with the process at all. The right has banned nuance from their discourse, and I refuse to allow the same thing to happen around me.
I agree with you on everything you wrote.
I’m not trying to say that Harris would have been good for Palestine, or even a good POTUS. I’m saying she was the less bad option overall in the election. I don’t know that anything would be different with Israel had she won, but I think there was a better chance that she would have done something good over Trump doing something good. That could still be a negligible chance, but it was the better of two chances.
Like you said, local elections and primaries (when they’re held, but that’s separate from this overall conversation) are when to vote for different parties and more fringe candidates. One of two people is already the winner in the election by the time November rolls around, so it comes down to least bad.
It could be argued that trump is actually better for the world (but not for the US) since he’s ruining the US’s soft power by tearing up alliances and expressing blatant corruption, making the US look incompetent and completely untrustworthy. Now other countries are finding alternatives, making the US not as central as it used to be. He is perhaps the most effective tool in helping the US empire fall.
You could also argue that this is accelerationism, but to be fair, democrats take advantage of accelerationism all the time (e.g. “republicans have repealed reproductive rights, donate even more money to us so we can fight it” while letting things get worse and worse, barely putting up a fight to make long-lasting changes and indeed letting things get this bad so they can position themselves as the only “solution”).
All, unfortunately, true.
Edit: Unfortunate for us in the US, not necessarily unfortunate for the rest of the world in some aspects. I still think as a whole his influence and other actions probably still make him worse for the world, but there is a valid argument about nations growing less dependent on the US.
Hopefully in 3.5 years (or please God, less), the US will be knocked down a peg on the world stage, other nations have a more diverse and stable trade relationships, and maybe Trump’s actions will help spark other countries into action against hard right politics to prevent the same thing from happening to them. Ideally, this could be a catalyst for positive change, but I’m not holding my breath.
I have friends in an active warzone and everytime there’s a disguisting yank to make it about their domestic policy. You country have been supporting this shit for decades you piece of trash. Go get cancer
Most wars of the last 100 years are heavily influenced by American decisions. Who they elected as president is not domestic policy, it directly influences the amount of missiles that will be raining on your friends.
It’s the difference between “let’s build a symbolic pier do deliver two cartons of milk” and “let’s exterminate them so we can build a hotel”.
Most wars of the last 100 years are heavily influenced by American decisions. Who they elected as president is not domestic policy, it directly influences the amount of missiles that will be raining on your friends.
It’s the difference between “let’s build a symbolic pier do deliver two cartons of milk” and “let’s exterminate them so we can build a hotel”.