It's educate, AGITATE, organize
edit: putting this at the top so people understand the basis for this:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
The goal is to stop democrats from continuing to support a genocide (min) and a genocidal project (max)
The route is through moderates, who would really like to not talk about this issue, because while it is something they agree with, pointing to something bad that they are contributing to threatens to weaken their voting base. Any political agitation necessarily implicitly makes that threat, and it's intentional, because otherwise the moderate would have no reason to push for it.
Ok, but that's an aspiration, not an action plan. What are you asking people to do? Who should they vote for? Where should they make political donations? Imagine you have convinced someone you're right. What's their next step?
stop pushing this issue to the side and make it a priority
join in pushing your representatives to change their policy
The second point requires you do the bare minimum of raising the issue. The more you raise the issue the less your representative can ignore it.
People should vote for the least bad option according to their own priorities. But if all you're doing is voting than you haven't done anything to address the issue being raised, and you are still a part of the problem. If, in response to this issue being raised, is simply 'but the other guy is worse', you've done nothing but obstructed progress and you'll be called out on it by the few of us who are doing the work of agitation.
In my opinion: to any organization that supports the end to the genocide. I recommend any of these progressives currently under threat by the AIPAC
Use whatever platform they have available to spread the message that democrats must end their support to Israel's war crimes. Make it clear that they risk losing their re-election if they continue dodging the issue.
"If I don't get the policy change I want, fascism is an acceptable alternative" - People Who Are DEFINITELY Not Fascists(tm)
It would be better if everyone who agreed with the policy change being pushed would also raise the issue, so that representatives would have a better idea of how many within their base actually supported it.
So your aim is only to cast aspersions on Democrats, got it.
Surely you're aware of the two-party system of politics in the United States, one where if Democrats lose, Republicans win, and those Republicans will do the genocide you claim to hate so much even harder, not to mention royally fucking things up for huge swaths of people domestically, handing Ukraine over to Russia (which extends to directly threatening the rest of Europe/NATO), and walking away from Taiwan, for starters.
You don't want to "end genocide," you want to get Republicans elected.
Hey now let’s not forget, abandoning Ukraine and Taiwan means that Russia and China get to do some genocide as well.
That was implied.
Because they are the ones who claim to agree, but apparently lack sufficient motivation to stop obstructing progress.
"Yeah, a fascist victory will motivate those fuckers! Take that, moderates! Maybe next election you'll-"
If agitating this issue is enough to make that threat real then it's enough for them to address it. It's that simple.
Address it... how? By swapping their position and losing even more votes from those with a pro-Israel position?
Either by swapping their position and making their case to those who disagree with it,
or
keeping their position and attempt justifying it to those who disagree with it
The fuck do you think they've been doing.
Nothing particularly convincing to anyone paying attention.
I have yet to hear their justification on ignoring the war crimes committed by an ally. I'll happily ruminate on it if I did.
Okay, so they are doing what you want them too, you just still don't like it enough to work to stop fascism.
I (quite loudly) disagree with what you say constitutes 'working to stop fascism'. And I will continue voicing that disagreement loudly until that changes.
Yes, you quite loudly disagree with the idea that working to stop a fascist from getting into power is 'working to stop fascism'. It very much highlights where your priorities are.
Almost, I disagree that working to stop fascism entails supporting them while they commit atrocities abroad
What else will you not support the opposition to fascism over? What other matters do you regard as more important than opposing fascism?
There is NO issue more important than opposing fascism, THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD BE OPPOSING FASCISM IN GAZA
"I oppose fascism in Gaza by enabling more fascism in the United States!"
Except foreign affairs, it would seem.
Damn, you want us to go to war with Hamas AND Israel? I thought we were done with nation-building.
Or is what you mean "We should make a show of opposing fascism in Gaza"? In which case the only difference between your position and Biden's is one of degrees.
We we certainly shouldn't be supplying material support for an active genocide, that seems like a pretty obvious red flag to most people. Going to war ourselves is a stretch, but not obstructing an ICC arrest warrant and recognizing Palestinian statehood at the UN seem like other common-sense positions that fall well short of going to war, but what do I know about what it is you think?
So material support for an active genocide (a lot of qualifiers there) is your absolute line? If any presidential candidate crosses that line, you won't work with them against literal fascists?
Why are you posing this as a binary? I can BOTH work with them against literal fascists AND agitate them to drop support for a literal fascist. Voting is such a small part of this picture, and it's also the only part of it that's binary.
That's what I'm doing. But you've openly stated that your position's purpose is to create a crisis in Biden's election which will force him to either capitulate to your demands or lose.
That's nothing less than a statement that failure to capitulate to your demands is worth condemning all of us to fascism.
Voting is an IMPORTANT part of this picture, and the key to stop fascism from taking over in the next six months. There's so much else that needs to be done - but right now, fascism is banging on the door.
I've also openly stated that I think Biden can't win with this position (his polling is at least not evidence against that theory), regardless of what I'm doing here. I think his only route to victory is about-facing (I also think it's an extremely important issue in its own right that deserves agitation over).
He has 6 months to win and the convention is still a few months away, fingers crossed that he gets the message.
I think you overestimate the importance of this issue to the electorate, and you overestimate how left-wing the American electorate is.
I think you under-estimate how unpopular supporting the genocide would be, if only Biden wasn't actively denying it happening and that message wasn't being suppressed (let alone being communicated from Biden and congress themselves)
I think we have a pretty good cross-section of where we disagree.
Because his arguments fall apart instantly if you don't accept the false dichotomy upon which they rest.
The problem with that is their position is "let's keep supporting genocide" which isn't a justifiable position.
So what you're saying is that you're a single-issue voter.
I'm saying i'll vote in november for whoever best serves my interests, just like everyone else here.
But i'll make sure my voice is heard all the way up until november what I think of Biden's shit Israel policy.
Uh huh. So what do you think of Trump's Israel policy?
It's dogshit, too.
But Trump has no illusions about my likelihood of voting for him (or anyone in this demographic) no matter what he does. If I thought agitating him from where I am had any possibility of ending our support for genocide, i'd be doing that too. But I think it's much more likely that Biden would change his position if there was a loud enough group in his base screaming at him to end support
All they hear is agitate, none of them see anything else to what you say.
I feel you, you’re getting dogpiled, but I fucking feel you
Single issue voters exist and Biden must take them into account.
Single-issue voters aren't capable of rational political conversation, or thought processing. They will be attracted to whichever charlatan offers to scratch their particular itch.
If you can't grasp nuance, you really aren't qualified to have political opinions.
And despite that, they continue to exist and continue to be a factor with which Biden must contend.
And yet, single issue voters are voters. No matter how much you want to disenfranchise them for disagreeing with you.
Note that nowhere during this conversation have I said that I am a single-issue voter. I'm voting for Biden despite his support for genocide. If you don't understand the difference between acknowledging the existence of single issue voters and actually being one, don't talk to others about nuance.
Sure, they exist, but they aren't worth wasting any time or campaign effort on - unless you're suggesting that the campaign should simply promise these people what they want to hear without any intent to actually deliver.
Pandering is really the only way to bring such people into your camp - and it's the tactic that the GOP uses to pull in fringe groups and religious nuts. I don't think the Democratic party should start operating that way, even if it means losing elections.
My opinion is not that single-issue voters should be disenfranchised. Everyone should vote.
My opinion is that no reasonable person should waste their time listening to the opinions of single-issue voters or trying to have any kind of political discussion with them, and that no serious political campaign should waste time trying to pander to them.
Side note, this "you":
wasn't directed at you personally, but broadly/generally. I thought that was obvious in context, but I was wrong. My apologies for the confusion.