Eh, I don’t agree with the analysis, but i understand the thinking.
I like that most of us are having a civil discussion!
If we're going to do the realpolitik analysis, why does nobody ever mention that a democratic Israel or any sort of Palestinian state would be unfriendly at best toward the US? Or in other words, helping the Palestinian people would do nothing to further the interests of the US.
I know it's gross to think in terms like that, but we're already framing this as a problem for American elections. Soooooo
Why would it be unfriendly at best towards the US?
In international politics, relations change as quickly as shifting sand. Vietnam is an ally and very friendly towards the US anymore, and they still have the same government that we went to war with. Think in comparison to "We, personally, violated your sovereignty, laid more ordinance on your country than in all of WW2, committed numerous warcrimes, and poisoned the land with chemical defoliant", "We supported your oppressors and gave only token assistance to your independence struggle" is easier to overcome.
I would have said (and DID say, for that matter) that it would hurt Dem chances of victory back in January, but opinions have changed very rapidly. I'm inclined to think that it would be a wash at this point.
Your link doesn't match your title.
What would you suggest?
What is the argument?
Maybe it's my browser, but I'm just linking to a description of the article.
Tldr; it looks like there's more "single issue voters" whose single issue is "pro genocide" than there are whose single issue is "anti genocide".
Eh, I don’t agree with the analysis, but i understand the thinking.
I like that most of us are having a civil discussion!