this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
412 points (96.6% liked)

World News

32348 readers
413 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chayleaf@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Your comments are a prime example of the fallacies of analytical (as opposed to dialectical) thinking. I'm talking about the broader interconnections, relations, tendencies, and you're trying to shift the focus from the system into its constituent parts. Of course, if you do that, you can get any conclusion you want. The fact of the matter is you can't look at Israel without looking at the US, you can't look at Kamala without looking at the American government.

You're asking - "what would Kamala asking for ceasefire change". I say - Kamala is part of the American government, which is dead set on supporting Israel, and she wouldn't magically change her mind, because her consciousness, like anyone else's, is shaped by her social being. That said, that doesn't mean she won't ever change her mind - if she does, it would be indicative of broader shifts and contradictions among American elites. Her asking for ceasefire wouldn't be a cause - it would be a symptom. As for what American support for a ceasefire change, I wrote about that in my comment above.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 9 points 8 months ago

Her asking for ceasefire wouldn’t be a cause - it would be a symptom.

It wouldn’t even necessarily be that: it might have been empty rhetoric to assuage the masses and lubricate the genocide.