But the ethical stance you have of “protecting all children” is itself the far-fetched idealism you admit we’re not in a position to deal with, given that we can’t really stop Israel from bombing Palestinian children (as it’s proven to do perpetually) as long as it’s recognized as a sovereign state.
It’s funny, you’d think being on Lemmy for several years as an anarchist with an interest in understanding the perspectives of fellow revolutionaries would lead me to have more of an appreciation for MLs. Instead I’m just 98% convinced y’all are in a cult.
They lose elections because people are too stupid…
That’s the whole problem. Democrats see the very understandable cynicism many people have around their vote actually mattering in our current political reality, and they conclude it’s because they’re stupid or misinformed.
Hey maybe don’t judge an entire culture by its worst adherents? Are we really still doing this 9/11-era nonsense?
Yeah, I mean I don’t see how you could make the case that providing Israel defensive weapons (which, setting aside that they shouldn’t be trusted not to find a way to use them offensively, has the direct and immediate effect of strengthening the continued existence of the genocidal state and thus its ability to continue the genocide) is simply harm reduction. It’d be great if there were a way to dismantle the Israeli state to the extent that they no longer have the capability to carry out a genocide while simultaneously protecting Israeli children from the few attempts Hamas has made at resisting the genocide. I’d support that. But it’s idealistic given our current reality. We can work towards it, but in the meantime, if we want to mitigate the most harm, we need to be taking power and capability away from the genocidal state wherever it exists–including its “defensive” weapons.