What’s happening right now has destroyed more of Israel’s international support than the decades of slow-mo genocide that preceded it.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean international support in the sense of public sentiment, or do you mean it in the sense of material change? The US is still sending them military aid, and also started a war with Iran, which benefits them.
Even in terms of public support, your argument is self-contradicting. If Israel can revert to the “slo-mo” genocide and recover international support that way, then what does it matter that their international support was destroyed by the more extreme policy? It was only destroyed temporarily, while that policy was in place. If, on the other hand, they could not recover international support by shifting to a “slo-mo” approach, then the argument that it’s better for the more extreme policy to remain makes no sense.
This sort of “accelerationism” is generally bullshit. People being mad about something isn’t enough to make it change, those people have to have some mechanism of affecting policy in order to affect change. One such mechanism is what may have happened here. No matter how bloodthirsty or genocidal the Israeli politicians or electorate may be, if they see that the extreme approach alienates the international community, they have an incentive to support less extreme policy.
Calling out the limitations of voting doesn’t mean taking a hard line that it never does anything anywhere.
No we would prefer Israel end its existence. Which might possibly happen if they end up losing support from Western nations due to citizens not voting for pro-Zionist politicians.
No, we simply recognize that more people dying per day under circumstances that could lead to the dying stopping is ultimately less people dying than fewer people dying per day forever until they’re all gone.
What’s happening right now has destroyed more of Israel’s international support than the decades of slow-mo genocide that preceded it.
It’s not that Israeli genocide soldiers weren’t sniping kids looking for food before Al Aqsa Flood, it’s just that you never heard about it.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean international support in the sense of public sentiment, or do you mean it in the sense of material change? The US is still sending them military aid, and also started a war with Iran, which benefits them.
Even in terms of public support, your argument is self-contradicting. If Israel can revert to the “slo-mo” genocide and recover international support that way, then what does it matter that their international support was destroyed by the more extreme policy? It was only destroyed temporarily, while that policy was in place. If, on the other hand, they could not recover international support by shifting to a “slo-mo” approach, then the argument that it’s better for the more extreme policy to remain makes no sense.
This sort of “accelerationism” is generally bullshit. People being mad about something isn’t enough to make it change, those people have to have some mechanism of affecting policy in order to affect change. One such mechanism is what may have happened here. No matter how bloodthirsty or genocidal the Israeli politicians or electorate may be, if they see that the extreme approach alienates the international community, they have an incentive to support less extreme policy.
Calling out the limitations of voting doesn’t mean taking a hard line that it never does anything anywhere.
So, you’d prefer things to stay the way they are now.
No we would prefer Israel end its existence. Which might possibly happen if they end up losing support from Western nations due to citizens not voting for pro-Zionist politicians.
… and you want the genocide to continue at the current rate because you think it will maybe cause that to happen?
No, we simply recognize that more people dying per day under circumstances that could lead to the dying stopping is ultimately less people dying than fewer people dying per day forever until they’re all gone.