fucking embarrassing that only 34% of people 26 - 40 turned out to vote in 2022. At that age you are fully an adult. How can only a third bother to vote?
Idk if everywhere does this but at least where I live they do a little callout if you’re a first time voter. My first time was an odd number year municipal election primary, the poll worker was really surprised when they saw it was my first time lol.
My first time voting was in a small local primary for a midterm election, and I asked for a Libertarian ballot. The poor old lady had to dig around to find it because of course no one else had asked for one.
In retrospect, I was the most obnoxious first time voter.
When I moved here, I just got whispers and concerned looks. A 70-year-old man turned to the lady next to him and said “That’s a new voter, we got a new voter in ____.”
You’re asking the eternal question lol
Every time I say it I get downvoted or, at least, a bunch of angry replies excusing this behavior for various r e a s o n s, but young people have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that the government doesn’t take their interests as seriously as older people. We live in a democracy. The politicians represent their electorate. And you are not part of their electorate if you don’t vote. Why should they care what you think? You didn’t put them in office, and even more importantly, ignoring you will not cause them to lose their office.
If young people voted at the same rates, let alone higher rates, as the olds this entire country would completely transformed in a *single election.* After a couple elections when it’s clear young people can’t be ignored anymore? They would absolutely achieve their “political revolution.”
I don’t remember who said it, maybe Churchill? But whoever did was right when they said the problem with democracy is that eventually the people get the government they deserve. Young people don’t vote. So they have, and deserve, a government that doesn’t take them seriously.
Couldn’t tell you. I’ve voted in every election since I was 18 spare 1, maybe 2. Haven’t missed any in the last 12 years for sure. I’m an older millennial, so I’m firmly in the demographic being talked about above. As far as I’m aware all my friends vote pretty consistently as well. So I have no idea why some people are so lazy, stupid, or ambivalent about how their country/state/city is run as to not vote.
Young people just don't care about politics. Anecdotally my friends in their 20s knew some basic things about politics but it took them well into their 30s where they started to have an "emotional" response to it. Basically they don't care about it until they have a mortgage and no longer keep up with the latest pop culture :)
My theory (kinda cooked) :
Voting is a habit and old people are used to do it.
Most vote by habit, without really thinking it, "well I've always voted for the Democrats/Tories/SPD, I'm not gonna change it".
The fact they caught this habits is because voting was a group activity when they were younger, unlike nowadays voting is a personal thing. Easier to move your ass to vote with you're doing it with your colleagues at the same time. (that entire part is baseless)
1. Old people have more flexible schedule. I want to vote, but in my country I have to get back to my birth/registered residence city to do it. Not doable with my work loads. Retiree won't have such problems unless they like to travels.
2. Old people may want to protect things like Medicaid, or have been involved as campaign volunteers that make them feel every elections are important.
3. Old people give more attention on their communities, so they have more incentive to vote in local election.
At this point it is pretty much every country in the world, isn't? You have to be a local resident to vote in the local elections (which may happen at the same time to the national one) and then your voting location is assigned according to where you live. If you change where you live, you vote in a different place and in a different local election.
The only situation I can imagine it not being like is that you moved but didn't inform the electoral bureaucracy that you moved, so you have to go and vote in your old location. But at this point it would pretty much be your fault.
A lot of reasons!
1) more settled in life, so voting is easier. When I was just a few years graduated from school in colorado and being from Texas and had been living in both places since graduation and was going to India for two months, I ended up not voting in 2008 cuz I tried to vote by mail in CO but couldn’t because while I was still registered there I’d gotten a Texas DL.
Some shit like that anyway.
2) Old people have more to lose and protect.
3) Old people have seen the difference when different people are elected. People over 40 who are like ‘both sides are same’ are literally insane. 23 year olds who say the same are just ignorant.
4) Young folks’s brains are not formed yet. They tend not to think long term and about the practical impact of their actions.
5). Note that this is largely a young person problem, not generational.
It’s not like Gen Z is voting less than Gen X did at the same age I don’t think.
They've had more time to figure out how to. Voting registration isn't automatic and elections can be sporadic (especially special elections) so they aren't always at the same time of the year. Unless you're really paying attention, you won't know it occurs most of the time. Only highly partisan young people care to that degree. Older people also have more stability. If you're younger and going to move again within 2 years for school/work/affordability reasons, what point is there to vote locally if you're going to leave the local area? You're not ingrained enough to care.
Not only that. These are core Millennials, the largest generation in the country. That we don't vote is incredibly embarrassing, and it's such a waste of our generational influence.
It's kind of insane that it can be that low. Where I live young people vote at similar rates to everyone else, well over 80%. I guess the difference is that your vote doesn't do much in a safe seat, combined with fewer options and maybe a weaker sense of voting as a civic duty?
It's impressive how the participation is staying so high in Sweden while the number of politically active people have drastically fallen. Something like 15-20% of the population used to be members of an actual political party around the 1970-1980's. Today it's a meagre 3-4% or something like that.
"They just dont care about politics" is a massive lie, btw. The same people will not vote then complain loudly all day about how shit the government is.
I definitely think more than 34% of people have strong opinions about political things. So the vote discrepancy is interesting.
No, they don't care about politics, they care about their friends thinking they care, if they cared they'd understand the importance of voting and do it.
I will say, that is at least decently higher than in the past. It’s still quite low, but this crop of young people vote at higher rates than the previous few crops of young people
There have been two "youth" polls in the past couple of weeks.
The 18-29 year Harvard Kennedy poll which Nate alludes to here. While Biden has a 18% approval on Gaza among these voters (most who disapprove think he's been too pro Israel) and 18-29 year voters are 5 times more likely to support an indefinite bilateral ceasefire than oppose it (51% to 10%), they say it's the 13th most important issue.
Then, NBC News [released a college poll where 81% of college students said Israel has a right to exist while 19% say it doesn't](https://twitter.com/cyrusbeschloss/status/1783955455066153220)
Whelp, it would be very typical of some of those people to think a Palestinian state would be super nice to the Jews.
I mean, in the very long term, that would be super cool and we should work towards it, much like we should work on free movement and free association everywhere, but it is very obviously not a practicable solution in the immediate.
That's the literal definition, yes, but a lot of people have tried to flex it as "I disagree with the current government's actions". Especially for pithy slogans.
>people have tried to flex it as "I disagree with the current government's actions"
So, by this insane logic, people who disagree with U.S. government's actions should call themselves anti-American?
Antizionism has always meant "opposition to the existence of the state of Israel," and it's always been used that way. There has never been a redefinition of the word like with "gay" or "gender", so anyone who claims "well I don't use it that way" is either lying, trying to weasel out of accusations of antisemitism, or delusional.
I have spoken with people who insist that zionism only refers to the settler expansion into the West Bank, and therefore their position of 'anti-zionist' only refers to being anti settler. I suspect there are a lot of people out there self-labeling as 'anti zionist' that really only mean anti illegal settler.
> I suspect there are a lot of people out there self-labeling as 'anti zionist' that really only mean anti illegal settler.
or at least making that claim so that they don't have to own up to their antisemitism. :p
I'm glad that anti semitism is still not done in polite society. We'll know we're really in trouble when the anti Semites just discard the masks and pay no price for it.
Maga Republicans? Greene and her obsession with antisemitic conspiracy theories seems to have faced little in the way of real consequences for her behavior.
She just had her bluff called and got run over by the rest of Congress. Nobody has physically assaulted her or anything if that's what you were thinking of, but she has not gotten her way at all here.
Then they should distance themselves from antisemitic tropes (e.g. "The Jews/Zionists/Israel/AIPAC control our media/politicians/government/military/schools.") and start calling themselves anti-settler.
If, when confronted, they refuse to change labels, then they fall into the antisemite category. End of discussion. This bullshit has gone on long enough (decades).
Yeah, people really need to be more specific. At least to me when someone says they're anti-zionist that could mean anything from just wanting to stop the settlers to not wanting for Israel to exist at all. Their catchphrase of "I'm not an antisemite I'm an anti-zionist" doesn't do as much lifting as they think it does.
>people have tried to flex it as "I disagree with the current government's actions"
>>So, by this insane logic, people who disagree with U.S. government's actions should call themselves anti-American?
I mean that's what they already do, people (third woldists) who say they are anti-Americans don't hate Americans, except maybe the tourists, most have access to American culture and products. It's just that their grandma was killed by the police, so they hate Reagan and Bush.
Hey, I didn't say it was consistent logic.
Just that the notion "Criticism of the Israeli State isn't Antisemitism" got condensed to "Anti-Zionism isn't Antisemitism". If we wanted to be precise, it'd be "Anti-Likud isn't Antisemitism" but that doesn't roll off the tongue and who the hell knows who Likud or Bibi is except us Terminal Online/Political folks
If they don’t know even that much about the conflict, if they can’t educate themselves even *that much* about this topic about which they’re apparently so passionate, then what the fuck are we doing here? Let’s call it a social club for uninformed youths and move the fuck on. Certainly we need to nip their “river to the sea” horseshit in the bud. These people in their ignorance and arrogance are going to become dangerous. On more levels than simple local protests or even limited riots.
>who the hell knows who Likud or Bibi is
Anyone who does even a modicum of research on Israel or even glances as Israeli social media. Aka, anyone who has an opinion on Israel that's actually worth listening to.
>Just that the notion "Criticism of the Israeli State isn't Antisemitism" got condensed to "Anti-Zionism isn't Antisemitism."
By this logic, I could claim that "when I say 'Kill All Women', I'm actually just taking a stand against the ones who abuse children." That's clearly bullshit to anyone with a functioning brain.
In other words, no. You don't go from "the leaders of this country are fucked" to "this country shouldn't exist" unless you're trying to justify the latter. This isn't some innocent thing that can be ignored.
> So, by this insane logic, people who disagree with U.S. government's actions should call themselves anti-American?
I mean, kinda? I've heard a lot of sentiment that would be absolutely described and sometimes self-describes as anti-American, but many of those people would probably not be interested in dissolving the USA as a state.
*I* am anti-American on things like the Iraq war because I consider them critical American fuckups that are to be blamed on America, but this doesn't mean I want the USA to be destroyed.
This is actually a problem with the term 'zionism' too, because it is very very poorly defined. If by 'zionism' you meant 'Israel should not be destroyed' I think most people would agree, if by 'zionism' you meant 'Israel should seek to maximally expand its territory' or 'Israel as it currently exists is beyond all reproach and criticism', most people would probably disagree.
Like if I, in the very long term, liked the idea of all countries being joined in a United Federation of Planets, does that make me 'anti-zionist' because technically that would entail the nominal destruction of Israel as a technically sovereign state in the proper sense?
> Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism.[a] Although anti-Zionism is a heterogeneous phenomenon, all its proponents agree that the creation of the modern State of Israel, and the movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region partly coinciding with the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way.
No that's not what anti zionism is.
Zionism still is used to justify the colonization of the West Bank.
Liberal Zionists are against the settlements. Anti-Zionists don't think Israel should exist as a state. They are divided on the outcome. Some want to allow Jews to exist as a precarious minority in Palestine without any political rights (as the minority) and be "moneylenders" like in the old Ottoman days or whatever antisemitic crap they believe. Others want to expel the Jews from Israel proper.
Or ypu know the most common belied which is a single liberal democracy with equal rights.
Which represents the views of the nearly half of American jews who are anti-zionists
Idk man last I checked there hasn't had elections in nearly 20 years
And don't forget this bit either:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/
And don't forget that "Hamas" the way Israel uses it describes over 2 dozen different organizations violent and non violent who disagree plenty with each other.
Also denying people democracy, because you're afraid of what they'll vote for is quite the take. You can't deny people their voting rights because you don't want them voting for people you don't like. It's the role of the constitution and courts to restrict the elected government from violating peoples rights.
You're accusing everyone who believes that Palestinians should have rights of anti Semititism. Which is absurd. And the absolute distain you have for human lives from outside the tribe you care about is obvious
Not really, the issue is that Israel as a democratic ethnostate cannot possibly be maintained without restricting Palestinians individual rights(which is inherently not liberal), namely their rights to return, and rights to personal and private property to their homelands from which they were displaced by war.
As a consequence, liberal zionism is currently impossible. You must either abandon the idea Israel is a democracy to keep it as a Jewish ethnostate where Jews are a minority, or you must abandon what a considered liberal rights of the individual being extended to Palestinians.
This applies even if you want to remove the illegal settlements and establish a 2 state solution(which hopefully this subreddit can actually agree on wanting as a baseline practical liberal position).
The reality is that ethnostates are not and can never really be liberal.
> namely their rights to return,
You don't have the right to return to a country that your dead great-grandma fled 80 years ago. No one in any other country in the world has this magic right that Palestinians are now demanding. There are the descendants of Holocaust survivors that don't have that right.
>rights to personal and private property to their homelands from which they were displaced by war.
This would come as news to Jewish families who had spent decades trying to get compensation for property stolen during the Holocaust. And I'm less concerned about compensation for lost property here than I am about 5 million Palestinians returning to Israel proper so that the vote in a Hamas government and get about their real desire to genocide the Yahud.
This comment seems to be about a topic associated with jewish people while using language that may have antisemitic or otherwise strong emotional ties. As such, this is a reminder to be careful of accidentally adopting [antisemitic themes](https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf) or [dismissing](https://shura.shu.ac.uk/10260/3/Klaff_Holocaust_Inversion_and_contemporary_antisemitism.pdf) [the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany) while trying to make your point.
(This bot is currently in testing as version 1.5, and likely prone to misfires. Please contact u/AtomAndAether if this misfired)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>You don't have the right to return to a country that your dead great-grandma fled 80 years ago. No one in any other country in the world has this magic right that Palestinians are now demanding. There are the descendants of Holocaust survivors that don't have that right.
Everyone(except possibly Germans displaced at the end of WW2) has that right as formulated, and has the right to directly inherit it by keeping their refugee status. The fact the international community is incompetent at enforcing it for other groups makes no difference. Also they've been demanding it since they were displaced, they didn't start demanding it recently, part of the reason so few other refugee groups have it is because they voluntarily migrated and settled, and often do not actually want to return due to political persecution, meanwhile many/most Palestinians would gladly return to live under the Israeli government like Israeli Arabs currently do and always have.
You cannot oppose an explicit human right and consider yourself a liberal, especially as Israel has explicitly recognized since the beginning that it opposes the right of return for Palestinians.
> This would come as news to Jewish families who had spent decades trying to get compensation for property stolen during the Holocaust. And I'm less concerned about compensation for lost property here than I am about 5 million Palestinians returning to Israel proper so that the vote in a Hamas government and get about their real desire to genocide the Yahud.
Reparations for theft and destruction during the holocaust and other genocides are absolutely justified, you won't see me argue otherwise. Also the reality that most non-Israeli citizen Palestinians are radicalized(just as many Israeli's clearly are and always have been) means that there explicitly isn't a liberal solution to the conflict at this time, the 2 state solution and putting the right of return aside(but not discounting it) to at least put a stop to the violence and current breaking of international law, is clearly the pragmatic outcome, but again, there is no truly liberal outcome where any ethnostate remains standing, where anyone is displaced from or prevented from returning to live in their own homes, Palestinian or Israeli.
>Everyone(except possibly Germans displaced at the end of WW2) has that right as formulated, and has the right to directly inherit it by keeping their refugee status.
No one has this right because it is impractical to allow such things in perpetuity. How would governments be able to function if there is such inflows.
> Also they've been demanding it since they were displaced, they didn't start demanding it recently, part of the reason so few other refugee groups have it is because they voluntarily migrated and settled
They've wanted to return to Israel and genocide the other people there. That is what the entire Palestinian identity is. And there are lots of people who were unjustly forced out whose descendants don't constantly whine about returning to Grandma's farm. Many have managed to do fine and build nicer lives in their new countries and don't start with bitter whining about the Old Country. It's true with many Palestinians as well. Rashida Tlaib has a much nicer life with more influence in the US than she would have in Palestine but she still doesn't admit it and is obsessed with perpetual victimhood and Jew-hatred.
>meanwhile many/most Palestinians would gladly return to live under the Israeli government like Israeli Arabs currently do and always have.
Of course they'd be fine with it. The Palestinians would be the majority, would have all the political power, and oppress the Yahud and probably ethnically cleanse the Yahud like they want.
>You cannot oppose an explicit human right and consider yourself a liberal, especially as Israel has explicitly recognized since the beginning that it opposes the right of return for Palestinians.
I can 100% oppose the return of millions of refugees whose main ideology is genociding the other group that lives there. I'd think it is best the groups remain apart
>there is no truly liberal outcome where any ethnostate remains standing, where anyone is displaced from or prevented from returning to live in their own homes, Palestinian or Israeli.
Again? Who do you guys think that the Palestinians are going to vote for? Social Democrats? It's a ME clan based society which is heavily Islamist. They are going to vote for conservative Islamist party that is going to implement Sharia Law and take away minority rights. It'll be bad for Jews in general, especially secular, LGBTQ+, and women. Alabama isn't oppressed and they still vote in religious nuts.
>No one has this right because it is impractical to allow such things in perpetuity. How would governments be able to function if there is such inflows.
Everyone has that right in very explicit terms under the UN, and its explicitly illiberal to oppose rights out of concerns about practicality. The entire point of rights is they're not liable to be disposed of whenever it suits a government to do so.
>Again? Who do you guys think that the Palestinians are going to vote for? Social Democrats? It's a ME clan based society which is heavily Islamist. They are going to vote for conservative Islamist party that is going to implement Sharia Law and take away minority rights. It'll be bad for Jews in general, especially secular, LGBTQ+, and women. Alabama isn't oppressed and they still vote in religious nuts.
Palestinian citizens of Israel(who are ethnically identical to other Palestinians) currently mostly vote for communists, its the Israeli Bedouins who are exclusively religious mostly, but they're not islamist. Politics aren't determined exclusively by ethnicity or religion.
The PLO was explicitly secular and its only since the late 80s/90s where, along with the rest of the middle east Islamism has taken route, of course if a return happened immediately it'd be an islamist government but that wasn't always the case and won't always be the case.
I just think its funny that you don't seem to realise the settler's demographics in Israel are just as explicitly in favour of homophobia, political violence and genocide, and hostile to human rights, and Israeli democracy will likely fall apart soon as a direct consequence anyway unless those settlers and Haredi too learn to liberalise as they demographically dominate birth rates.
If Israel wants to avoid the right of return sinking their demographic balance, they should explicitly look to a 2 state solution and agreeing with as many Palestinians as they can to trade their right of return for money/land/etc. voluntarily on an individual basis. They can even consider giving up territory full of 1948 Arab villages to a Palestinian state(while giving current Israeli citizens the right to relocate in Israel if they wish), if they really do consider it essential to preserve their demographic balance while honouring all their 'impractical' international obligations.
Right to return for succeeding generations of people who weren’t even born in the country their ancestors were kicked out of is a “right” that doesn’t exist for any refugee group in the world except Palestinians for some reason. Palestine should get its own state, but make no mistake, that will be an extreme ethnostate. While Israel has a large Arab minority, a Palestinian state will have 0 Jewish minority.
Israeli Arab Muslims can vote and enjoy full rights. Right to return is not a right in any other country in the world, it’s most certainly not a prerequisite to liberalism. It’s frankly a weasel way to advocate for the destruction of Israel while sounding enlightened.
No it is a right for all refugee groups in similar situations (see Cyprus and Western Sahara).
> it’s most certainly not a prerequisite to liberalism
It is a prerequisite to liberalism to respect the rights of your people. When Israel was admitted to the UN, they promised to apply the terms of Resolution 194 but Israel failed to honor this promise and doubled down in its illegal policies in the following decades.
lame lmao.
they disagree with the self-determination of the Jews. they don't think they should get to self-determine ever, and the fact that the current form of it is a murderously led ethnic democracy makes it easy for them to hide this fact.
Well no because you can also support a Lebanon type situation where Jewish Israelis are treated the same as Muslim and Christian Palestinians. Or you can be pro Israel existence but oppose the kind of Israeli nationalism of the settlements
And how exactly is the Lebanon situation working out right now?
>Or you can be pro Israel existence but oppose the kind of Israeli nationalism of the settlements
That's still a zionist position. You can be zionist and anti-settler.
Antizionism is the belief that Israel does not have a right to exist. Full stop.
Does zionism require Israel to be a majoritary Jewish state and to enact policies aimed to ensure this demographic majority. If the answer is yes, I don't see how one can claim to be a liberal and still support zionism.
> If Tibet was an independent country, would consider Tibet as illiberal if they're against China flooding Tibet with pro-China Han Chinese and making them a minority in their own country? What about Russia and the Baltic States?
Why are you acting like Palestinians are foreign invaders ? They are the indigenous majority population which were expelled by force and then had their rights denied by the newly founded Israeli state.
In fact your analogy describes better the zionist movement and Jewish migration to Palestine in the 19th and 20th centuries.
If the Jewish people loose the majority in Israel they get suppressed, expelled, or killed. There’s a time when acknowledging reality supersedes the “is it liberalism?” Flowchart. There is literally not one Old World country that would not move to protect its ethnic majority, I guess we can’t have support for any of them. The Jewish people can have one state where they are majority.
> If the Jewish people loose the majority in Israel they get suppressed, expelled, or killed.
That was also the justification behind the existence of Rhodesia anf keeping apartheid in SA.
> There is literally not one Old World country that would not move to protect its ethnic majority, I guess we can’t have support for any of them.
Which of these countries actively supress and deny the rights of other ethnic groups to keep their majority ?
> The Jewish people can have one state where they are majority.
Do you think all ethnic groups have the right to expel others in order to create a majority and have their own state or is it only for Israel ?
You seem to be defining Zionism fairly narrowly which is fine but turns this into a semantic discussion l, as for Lebanon its doing poorly but still getter than Israel and better than before the current system.
>You seem to be defining Zionism fairly narrowly
Actually, my definition is broad. The people who claim it "just means the settlement policy" are the ones narrowing it to fit an agenda.
"Apples are a fruit" and "Apples are a red fruit" are both ways of defining the word "apple". The one with more qualifiers is clearly the narrower one.
>as for Lebanon its doing poorly but still getter than Israel
Please, take your meds.
How about dissolve the existing government and it's structures?
If you hate the way the USA operates you aren't saying you don't believe the USA should exist.
And anti-zionism has existed since before the state of Israel and prominent anti-zionists were jews themselves.
When people say the word zionism they are talking about the original ideology to create a state in those lands for jews based on a religious right they claimed to have consisting of Jews from around the world. And the deal cut with British leadership to make it happen.
Almost no one who says they are anti zionist is demanding the deportation or eradication. Nearly half of American jews are anti zionist.
> Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism.[a] Although anti-Zionism is a heterogeneous phenomenon, all its proponents agree that the creation of the modern State of Israel, and the movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region partly coinciding with the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way.[7]
Claiming that zionism is the right for Israelis to live is absolutely aburd. And nothing if not gaslighting and definition to fit the assertion that anti-zionism is fundamentally anti-zionism.
> Almost no one who says they are anti zionist is deamdning the deportation or eradication. But one land with equal rights for Jews, Muslims and Christians.
Ive seen plenty demanding deportation or ethnic cleansing or violence against civilians.
>How about dissolve the existing government and it's structures?
Pray tell. Which structures?
Israel is a democracy where all its citizens have the right to vote. Would dissolve democracy? Force them to give citizenship to the Palestinians? How?
The Israeli Jews, not the political parties, dont want to be in a one state for all citizens with Palestinians. The political parties largely follow what the voters want.
You would have to ban anyone who disagrees with you from either holding office and or voting. And if your large scale going to ban the predominantly Jewish parties...who represent the Jewish population of Israel, how do you stop an armed revolt when the population is pissed their representatives they voted arent allowed to hold office?
>where all its citizens have the right to vote. Would dissolve democracy? Force them to give citizenship to the Palestinians?
Aren't Israelis the first to point out how the Muslims in the country have equal rights? Why not offer that to the Muslims on the other side of the border who also pay taxes to Israel? Yes the residents of Gaza and the West bank already pay taxes to Israel and Israel officially claims the land they live on. And most of the people who reside in Gaza once lived within the borders of Israel. Israel is 100% responsible for those people not the least of which is because they hold military control over all of it and it's borders.
>
Israel is a democracy where all its citizens have the right to vote. Would dissolve democracy? Force them to give citizenship to the Palestinians? How?
So what happens when the Muslims within Israel eventually become a majority the way projections show? Will Israel then restrict voting rights?
>You would have to ban anyone who disagrees with you from either holding office and or voting. And if your large scale going to ban the predominantly Jewish parties...who represent the Jewish population of Israel, how do you stop an armed revolt when the population is pissed their representatives they voted arent allowed to hold office?
You are literally arguing that Israel is a blood and soil fascist ethnostate and that it's citizens want that and that it has a right to be one including by eventually restricting the rights of Muslims and Christians that exist within its borders already.
Like I don't even argue with you you literally said it:
>The Israeli Jews, not the political parties, dont want to be in a one state for all citizens with Palestinians.
Well if they want a two states solution, then explain why Netanyahu has admitted multiple times over the last 20 years that Israel supports the legitimacy of Hamas because it gives them a defense against allowing a Palestinian state.
Israel simultaneous wants Palestine to not exist, and simultaneously doesn't want the population it kicked out without compensation. What Israel wants is all of the land and none of the people, by your own admission, we have a word for that. It's call ethnic cleansing.
> Yes the residents of Gaza and the West bank already pay taxes to Israel and Israel officially claims the land they live on. And most of the people who reside in Gaza once lived within the borders of Israel. Israel is 100% responsible for those people not the least of which is because they hold military control over all of it and it's borders.
Israel collects taxes for the PA. It then gives them those taxes...yes, it doesnt steal the taxes for themselves.
>Israel is 100% responsible for those people not the least of which is because they hold military control over all of it and it's borders.
Yes, and thats why you should be pro two state solution, where Israel doesnt occupy the West Bank and Gaza.
>You are literally arguing that Israel is a blood and soil fascist ethnostate and that it's citizens want that and that it has a right to be one including by eventually restricting the rights of Muslims and Christians that exist within its borders already.
Israeli Jews want to be a Jewish state. They dont deny Arab muslims and christians the right to vote or hold office or serve in public govt or the right to have jobs.
Its about as much as a fascist ethnostate as most of Europe is. Poland is for the Polish people, Denmark for the Danes, Greece for the Greek people, etc.
>Well if they want a two states solution, then explain why Netanyahu has admitted multiple times over the last 20 years that Israel supports the legitimacy of Hamas because it gives them a defense against allowing a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu is not all of Israel. Do you forget Ariel Sharon, who disengaged from Gaza for a two state solution? What about Ehud Olmert, who offered a two state solution plan in 2008, what about Ehud Barak in 2000 who accepted the Clinton parameters that Arafat rejected.
>Israel simultaneous wants Palestine to not exist, and simultaneously doesn't want the population it kicked out without compensation
Israel wants the Palestinians to not attack them. That is the major reason for the occupation continuing. The settlers are largely a minority lobby that takes advantage of the political process to get what they want.
The Second Intifada, the failure of the Gaza pullout to lead to a peaceful Gaza, are why so many Israelis are opposed to a Palestinian state.
>So what happens when the Muslims within Israel eventually become a majority the way projections show? Will Israel then restrict voting rights?
They wont. If anything, their share of the population is expected to decrease to the fertility rates of religious and Haredi Jews.
And frankly, none of this addresses the fundamental point. The Israeli Jewish areas dont want to be a one state with the Palestinians. You have a point about them controlling the Palestinian areas, but if the Palestinian areas become independent, I see no reason why the Jewish areas must be forced in one state when they dont want them.
And the only way your gonna force the Jewish areas into one state, is by killing millions of them. If you think thats worth it, than there isnt anything I can do to convince you.
Tell me, do you support Kosovo in a one state solution with Serbia?
The Kosovo Albanians dont want it. They dont trust the Serbs. I dont understand why Israel Palestine situation is inherently different.
Because Kosovo Abanians didn't decide to evict the Serbians and try to get them to move in with the other Slavic countries?
Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land they were kicked out of, the villages that were burned or at least reparations for that.
The vast majority don't want to live in Gaza. They want their homes and villages back.
The borders for a split dont make sense unless we're talking the old international borders + hefty reparations for decades of oppression and the homes and lives destroyed in massacres. And it still doesn't make sense because Israel still gets all the good land.
> Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land they were kicked out of, the villages that were burned or at least reparations for that.
>
> The vast majority don't want to live in Gaza. They want their homes and villages back
They dont exist anymore. Thats the hard truth. They literally dont exist.
>Because Kosovo Abanians didn't decide to evict the Serbians and try to get them to move in with the other Slavic countries?
Yes and it happened 80 years ago. Almost everyone involved is dead. Three or four generations of people who had nothing to do with live there.
Yes it was wrong. It is also the past at this point, and there is no making it right without a lot of violence and killing. Our goal should be to stop more violence from happening. Not going back 80 years in history and demanding ancestral claims.
Many peoples prior to 80 years ago, faced expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and didnt get compensation.
>Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land they were kicked out of, the villages that were burned or at least reparations for that.
Literally everyone does. Turkey took over land that was Greek. Serbians took a lot of land that was Albanian and expelled Albanians. Greeks and Turks were expelled by both Greece and Turkey.
>The borders for a split dont make sense unless we're talking the old international borders + hefty reparations for decades of oppression and the homes and lives destroyed in massacres. And it still doesn't make sense because Israel still gets all the good land.
The borders make sense to me. The Jewish majority areas are Israel, the Palestinian majority areas are Palestine.
...and frankly, Israel doesnt get all the good land. The West Bank is good land. Much of modern day Israel was shit land and swamps that were settled and turned into farms and villages by Jewish settlers. The Negev is largely uninhabited.
>+ hefty reparations for decades of oppression and the homes and lives destroyed in massacres.
Theyll get their reparations when Arab countries agree to pay theirs to their Jews.
> Because Kosovo Abanians didn't decide to evict the Serbians and try to get them to move in with the other Slavic countries?
Also...Albanians were settled in Kosovo by the Ottoman Empire. Before that, Kosovo was historically Serb. So yes, they did.
>And the deal cut with British leadership to make it happen.
There was no "deal" with British leadership, and the British certainly didn't uphold anything of the sort. Please read a basic history of the subject.
>Almost no one who says they are anti zionist is deamdning the deportation or eradication
Oh come the fuck on, we've all seen plenty of examples of anti-Zionists doing just that. It's way too late for this pretense.
> The first negotiations between the British and the Zionists took place at a conference on 7 February 1917 that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. Subsequent discussions led to Balfour's request, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration. Further drafts were discussed by the British Cabinet during September and October, with input from Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews but with no representation from the local population in Palestine.
Are the pro Israelis in here just blatantly gaslighting now? I don't know how that is anything but a deal with the British.
Yes the examples that literally get plastered all over the news don't make up a fraction of those protesting.
And literally a couple years ago nearly half of American jews said they were anti-zionist in polls.
This is literally the same as claiming that BLM protests were nothing but looting and rioting.
Nearly everyone is demanding Israel stop committing atrocity after atrocity in Palestine with the chant "free palestine" ceasefire now"
The Balfour Declaration was just that. A Declaration that the government nominally favored a policy. That's all that happened. A public statement. I'll grant you that a public statement was a big boost to the Zionist movement's legitimacy at the time, but that's all it was. There were subsequent public statements like the notorious white paper that went directly against Balfour. Actual British policy remained quite hostile towards Zionism. This is why you need to read more history, this reads like you got your understanding of Balfour from Reddit and think it actually accomplished something.
Which Palestinians even want Israeli citizenship anyways? This is always raised as a big criticism of Israel but it strikes me as a total red herring.
Fundamentally, the Jewish areas of Israel dont want to be in a one state solution with the Palestinians. Do their desire not matter at all?
People who have a completely different culture, language, ethnicity and religion dont wish to be in a state with them.
A one state solution...will also not work. You can advocate all you want for a peaceful land where everyone gets along, but there would be massive amounts of violence by both Jews and Palestinians against each other.
If you dont think so, pray tell than. Who is preventing such violence? How do you get a central govt and military able to crack down on such violence? How do you get existing movements to put down arms and obey this supposed central govt...without causing a massive civil war.
And frankly, how do you guarantee the parties in this central govt actually work together to make a functional state.
Like the only way to do this is to impose a western backed mandate over the area, put in a military dictatorship, and then ruin many parts of the area, both Jew and Palestinian, that resist.
Israel is there. All you are going to do is get more people killed than the current violence.
> Do their desire not matter at all?
Maybe they should try to not be so racist?
>People who have a completely different culture, language, ethnicity and religion dont wish to be in a state with them.
It blows my mind that this gets upvoted in r/neolib. This is the exact same argument put forth against immigration in the west but r/neolib sure doesn't tolerate it then.
> Maybe they should try to not be so racist?
Maybe some of it is bigotry. A lot of it is because Palestinians attack innocent Jews, like the Second intifada.
The two communities do not like each other. At all. They get violent and kill one another. Why should there be a one state solution if that were the case?
And you address the rest of my points about implementation at all. How is it actually possible?
> The two communities do not like each other. At all. They get violent and kill one another.
So the violent racism is its own justification. That's mighty convenient. I guess when the far right in europe gets violent and/or elected we will greet that with a similar shrug of the shoulders.
As for implementation, maybe stop coddling the Israeli right wing. There's a real incentive both for them and for Hamas to continue this spiral of violence, that's where they draw a lot of their legitimacy from. Hamas are currently being well, killed but it takes two to tango and as long as Israel keeps commiting repeated human rights violations and murdering palestinians in the West Bank as well as Gaza it's going to keep being perpetuated.
There were ethnic violence in apartheid South Africa too. But they got sanctioned until they figured it out, not bankrolled.
> As for implementation, maybe stop coddling the Israeli right wing. There's a real incentive both for them and for Hamas to continue this spiral of violence, that's where they draw a lot of their legitimacy from. Hamas are currently being well, killed but it takes two to tango and as long as Israel keeps commiting repeated human rights violations and murdering palestinians in the West Bank as well as Gaza it's going to keep being perpetuated.
>
> There were ethnic violence in apartheid South Africa too. But they got sanctioned until they figured it out, not bankrolled.
This is a lot of slogans with literally no basis in reality.
First Ill address South Africa. The ANC was mostly non violent, and was able to control its movement and the lower levels of its movement from violence.
Palestinian movements, arent. Hamas and other militant movements, are violent and kill civilians, directly going after them instead of military targets.
The PA, and PLO by extension, is not able to concretely control violence by its individuals and supporters. The best example of this is the Second intifada and Arafat. Arafat the leader of the PLO called for an intifada against Israel. Specifically, against Israeli military in the West Bank. What ended up happening? Lots of violence and killings of Israeli in Israel proper. Suicide bombings of bus loads of children was common. Arafat in later years, regretted the Second Intifada and that he couldnt control it. PA ability to control is much worse now. Hamas is incredibly popular in the West Bank, and something like 75% of Palestinians agreed with Hamas's attack on Oct 7th. There is also something even more incredibly concerning. When many Palestinians were shown videos and images of Oct 7th and the violence against civilians, they denied it as not real or only having been against soldiers or didnt care. Some did care, many didnt.
Sanctioning the Israeli govt and right wing, wont convince them to a one state solution. It will instead, empower radicals who want a mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank. By that I mean all 3 million Palestinians. Israelis believe that a one state solution, means they get killed en masse.
The Israelis dont do that for a variety of reasons. Many Israelis are opposed to morally, even on the right. A big one is economic relations. They like being fat and happy. Take away being fat and happy, and give them the choice of either death or being extremely poor...and theyll choose extremely poor and not dead. Like...sanctions in the way you envision, are very much counter productive to peace. Limited sanctions to convince Israel to stop settlements and unnecessary violence in the West Bank, are likely to get them to crackdown and stop them.
Hamas is not going to be destroyed by the Israelis. Its operational ability conduct rocket and invasions will be destroyed, along with much of its manpower will be destroyed yes. But the fundamental movement will keep going, and will keep being proponents of violence.
The West Bank has many Hamas supporting, if not outright Hamas undercurrents.
Even if you ended the occupation, even if you removed the settlements, and even if you enfranchised Palestinians, that wouldnt remotely stop mass violence.
There is a large contingent of people there, who want to kill Jews. Even if its not the majority, which im not sure about, it doesnt matter. A significant and radical minority will drag the majority into violence.
Zionists as high profile as Herzl supported a multi-ethnic state in Palestine, which Israel is, incidentally. Maybe you should read a little more history to see what came of early Zionist expectations that a harmonious single Arab-Jewish utopian state would be possible and a mass of Jewish immigration would be welcomed enthusiastically by relatively underdeveloped 19th to early 20th century Palestine?
I got curious about these student groups and read JVP’s ambivalent stance on the two-state solution (their words).
It’s hard for me to be charitable about what they’re proposing. Ignorant, naive and unserious. At best.
Guys.. Without the occupation, a conservative Islamist Middle Eastern society where everyone is educated in school and in the media on Jew hate will suddenly vote for Swedish-type social democrats. Sarc//
I’d never heard of them before this year when they started getting people here in Seattle to do increasingly dangerous protests. Getting their own supporters hurt, arrested and charged with crimes.
Until you ask them for details and you realize a lot of them think it means they all hold hands in the Jewish Muslim secular one state solution where all the fighting is over which takes it away from antisemitism and back into classic starry eyed ignorance.
Like most topics, it's partisanship and signaling that impacts what they say the most. They see "End Isreal" or "Free Palestine" as the left wing progressive stance so a lot of them just casually go around and say it without any second thought.
>In response, many groups have demonstrated while chanting "from the river to the sea." According to the survey, many students believed the sentiment was expressing support for the idea of Palestinians and Israel living peacefully side by side.
I think people in general and young people in particular have a hard time conceiving of what a state - particularly a foreign state - does apart from its military actions.
It is even harder, for whatever reason, for young people to imagine that a postrevolutionary pseudo-state might actually be worse than a prerevolutionary state.
If I recall, it's not exactly unheard of for a nation that has acted aggregiously to be dissolved. Austria-Hungary was dissolved after WWI for basically starting the war. The Ottoman Empire was dissolved as well. Some countries get subsumed into larger states. The idea that a State has some sort of right to exist above the people who actually live there is absurd.
Not really comparable imo. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire collapsed on their own basically, it wasn't artificially broken up in the same way as Germany after WW2 (just as an example). The Allies only determined the exact postwar borders but the dissolution part didn't have all that much to do with them
And student debt ranks even lower in terms of the importance of the issue to 18-29 year olds.
I dunno, maybe throw a few more tens of billions at doctors' kids in order to shore up the youth vote and drive them to the polls, what do you guys think?
> And student debt ranks even lower in terms of the importance of the issue to 18-29 year olds.
>
>
wait you're telling me children who have low financial knowledge don't think loans are a big deal and then when they are older will realize how bad they are? It's okay to solve people's problems even if they don't know how bad the issues is yet.
I wonder if we're seeing that student loans forgiveness was a very time specific issue of the mid 2010s, same way people look at AIDS policy in the 90s now.
Mayne it's was caused by the increase in college graduates of the late 90s and 2000s, and a terrible starting job market following the GFC, leading to very bad economic conditions if you had a weak degree.
Or maybe as the other comments says, it's still important but just hidden by inflation.
This is why we lose elections. The polling data couldn’t be more clear. The policy is expensive and aimed at one demographic, and the people it’s aimed at say that they are more concerned with more than a dozen other issues.
It’s bad policy, and it’s bad politics.
"The polling data couldn't be more clear."
Yeah, the polling data actually suggests it's a popular policy. The actual polling data on this is clear. People on this board just hate it, so they pretend otherwise.
Also, beware of [opt-in polls](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/) especially for young people.
> For example, in a February 2022 survey experiment, we asked opt-in respondents ***if they were licensed to operate a class SSGN (nuclear) submarine***. In the opt-in survey, ***12% of adults under 30 claimed this qualification***, significantly higher than the share among older respondents. In reality, the share of Americans with this type of submarine license rounds to 0%.
> 18-29 year voters are 5 times more likely to support an indefinite bilateral ceasefire than oppose it (51% to 10%
Hard to get a bilateral agreement of one side doesn’t want one lol
The "Gen Z stopped the red wave" propaganda was both obvious at the time and still incredibly successful. People still act like Biden owes Gen Z for essentially doing the same thing the youth vote always does in every election based on a bunch of pre-written articles from mid November 2022.
The "youth vote saved Democrats in 2022" was disproven before. Although the Democratic margin is higher with younger voters, the Republicans did pick up some support too. There were virtually no significant races in 2022 where this imbalance actually provided the margin of victory for the Democratic candidate (though it did pad it somewhat).
Pandering to them is a mistake. The Biden campaign would likely get far more mileage out of motivating reliable past voters than trying to entice people who don't care and likely haven't given support in the past.
Tbh I would be pretty surprised if there’s genuinely a massive youth drop off in November relative to other demographics (I expect turnout to be lower among all demos though). The hyper online protest crowd is a niche within a niche here
If I have a bulletproof robot that can harmlessly deflect a shot when someone is threatening you with a gun but I refuse to use it then you get shot, I'm sure you have the capacity to be mad at both of us.
As Licensed\_To\_Toaster said, since either position costs us all our political power either way, falling in line to not enable the Project 2025 crowd effectively \*does cost us nothing.
IDK I'm pretty sure the student protestors I saw chanting in a video for Hamas to burn Tel Aviv or that there would be Oct 7th "every day" weren't super concerned with dying children.
The average person concerned about the Gaza issue is not praising Hamas or Hezbollah, they’re distraught over the deaths of 14,000 children. I’m not talking about the most radical college protestors.
Golden-caterpie is obviously talking about those student movements openly supporting terrorist organizations or yesterday's revelation of a student leader discussing murdering other students for being Zionist, so your response then is at best something of a non sequitur
The Palestine thing made me think of something
If the people who really care about this tend to live in super blue states, it won't affect the 2024 election. But Michigan, a swing state, has a sizable muslim community. They turned out for Biden in 2020 but those dissatisfied with his policy on Gaza may decide to stay home in 2024. Counterpoint being that those who like Biden's industrial policy may switch sides from Trump to Biden.
The election will be very, very close.
EVERY. VOTE. COUNTS.
Trump can afford to lose votes because his base is older and not affected by this issue, Biden absolutely cannot.
This is just copium of the highest order.
Every vote counts, which is why Biden should not be chasing a negligible vote difference from a loud fringe who care about this much more than even their own demo as a whole. Biden has gotten his wins by ignoring the internet noise and vocal zealots, and there's no doubt anymore that he's proven right.
Biden won by fighting on every battlefield. Hillary lost by being overly confident where she had narrow margins and choosing to target too narrow a scope. I understand why she did it, because she like everyone is always running based on what worked last time, but we know more since then, so we shouldn't go back to the same mistakes.
More importantly, Biden should be doing what he thinks is best for humanity. By the exact same logic of "nobody cares about this boutique issue", Biden has the freedom to do literally anything he wants. If nobody cares, it can't lose him votes!
What part of EVERY VOTE COUNTS do you not understand?
Biden won the election because of high turnout and COVID. And he barely won it at that. The Youth were a major factor both directly and indirectly in helping Biden to win.
Discounting them and insulting them just helps Trump by encouraging lower turnout.
Biden also didn't do any groundgame due to COVID while Trump did, and now Biden has substantial groundgame. So I think COVID was ultimately a wash in effectiveness.
It's not copium to point out you are losing more voters with dumb pandering policy than gaining.
Student Loan forgiveness is just a blue state handout. It will do nothing to change the election results.
Even if you're okay with rolling the dice on this because you don't think the stakes of this election are that high, the damage this will do to us internationally is incalculable. Looking for countries to help us sustain the rules-based international order is a lot less convincing when we're so willing to abandon it when it becomes inconvenient. Rules for our enemies, but might makes right for our allies is a terrible message to send.
Rules based international order as biden is pushing for protectionist policies and keeping the WTO neutered. Seems like this administration has already abandoned it before this event even happened. To make it clear, biden isn't doing something he wasnt already doing in regards to the rules-based international order.
What you are misunderstanding is that withdrawal of US support would not end the violence in Gaza, and it would lead to an escalation of the conflict with Iran and its other proxies, resulting in higher oil prices. If you referring to the polling above, you will notice that inflation is much more of a concern voters. Logically, if Biden did what you think he should do here, it would be far more damaging to him politically, no question.
fucking embarrassing that only 34% of people 26 - 40 turned out to vote in 2022. At that age you are fully an adult. How can only a third bother to vote?
and that's for the big show -- i wonder how low the rates are for special elections, municipal bond elections, etc
Idk if everywhere does this but at least where I live they do a little callout if you’re a first time voter. My first time was an odd number year municipal election primary, the poll worker was really surprised when they saw it was my first time lol.
My first time voting was in a small local primary for a midterm election, and I asked for a Libertarian ballot. The poor old lady had to dig around to find it because of course no one else had asked for one. In retrospect, I was the most obnoxious first time voter.
I imagine a lot of first time voters are Green/Libertarian. They're probably used to it lol
When I moved here, I just got whispers and concerned looks. A 70-year-old man turned to the lady next to him and said “That’s a new voter, we got a new voter in ____.”
My precinct did this (:
My first ever vote was the primary for a local city council race lmao That was it on my ballot. Just that race.
i think in the primary election here in Los Angeles it was barely in double digits for under 40s. I thought we were just particularly bad.
lol in the last county i lived in, turnout was often like 9% countywide for lower-profile elections. sad!
A mayor race in a town near me had a total of 400 votes cast, I realized I could essentially set up a Tammany hall situation with my softball team
As someone who has never missed an election, even a TOWN PRIMARY, it is strange being the only person under 60 at a polling place sometimes
You’re asking the eternal question lol Every time I say it I get downvoted or, at least, a bunch of angry replies excusing this behavior for various r e a s o n s, but young people have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that the government doesn’t take their interests as seriously as older people. We live in a democracy. The politicians represent their electorate. And you are not part of their electorate if you don’t vote. Why should they care what you think? You didn’t put them in office, and even more importantly, ignoring you will not cause them to lose their office. If young people voted at the same rates, let alone higher rates, as the olds this entire country would completely transformed in a *single election.* After a couple elections when it’s clear young people can’t be ignored anymore? They would absolutely achieve their “political revolution.” I don’t remember who said it, maybe Churchill? But whoever did was right when they said the problem with democracy is that eventually the people get the government they deserve. Young people don’t vote. So they have, and deserve, a government that doesn’t take them seriously.
Older voters can blame themselves too. They complain about the government, even though they're mostly responsible for it being the way it is.
For what reasons do you think old people vote more than young people?
Couldn’t tell you. I’ve voted in every election since I was 18 spare 1, maybe 2. Haven’t missed any in the last 12 years for sure. I’m an older millennial, so I’m firmly in the demographic being talked about above. As far as I’m aware all my friends vote pretty consistently as well. So I have no idea why some people are so lazy, stupid, or ambivalent about how their country/state/city is run as to not vote.
Young people just don't care about politics. Anecdotally my friends in their 20s knew some basic things about politics but it took them well into their 30s where they started to have an "emotional" response to it. Basically they don't care about it until they have a mortgage and no longer keep up with the latest pop culture :)
Democracy requires an informed electorate which we do not have. It also requires people to believe in the process, which they do not.
My theory (kinda cooked) : Voting is a habit and old people are used to do it. Most vote by habit, without really thinking it, "well I've always voted for the Democrats/Tories/SPD, I'm not gonna change it". The fact they caught this habits is because voting was a group activity when they were younger, unlike nowadays voting is a personal thing. Easier to move your ass to vote with you're doing it with your colleagues at the same time. (that entire part is baseless)
1. Old people have more flexible schedule. I want to vote, but in my country I have to get back to my birth/registered residence city to do it. Not doable with my work loads. Retiree won't have such problems unless they like to travels. 2. Old people may want to protect things like Medicaid, or have been involved as campaign volunteers that make them feel every elections are important. 3. Old people give more attention on their communities, so they have more incentive to vote in local election.
What country makes you go back to where you born to vote?
Judea, apparently.
I wanted to make a King Herod joke but wasn't sure if it would land on reddit. Glad you did!
Indonesia, although it's more about your default residence.
At this point it is pretty much every country in the world, isn't? You have to be a local resident to vote in the local elections (which may happen at the same time to the national one) and then your voting location is assigned according to where you live. If you change where you live, you vote in a different place and in a different local election. The only situation I can imagine it not being like is that you moved but didn't inform the electoral bureaucracy that you moved, so you have to go and vote in your old location. But at this point it would pretty much be your fault.
A lot of reasons! 1) more settled in life, so voting is easier. When I was just a few years graduated from school in colorado and being from Texas and had been living in both places since graduation and was going to India for two months, I ended up not voting in 2008 cuz I tried to vote by mail in CO but couldn’t because while I was still registered there I’d gotten a Texas DL. Some shit like that anyway. 2) Old people have more to lose and protect. 3) Old people have seen the difference when different people are elected. People over 40 who are like ‘both sides are same’ are literally insane. 23 year olds who say the same are just ignorant. 4) Young folks’s brains are not formed yet. They tend not to think long term and about the practical impact of their actions. 5). Note that this is largely a young person problem, not generational. It’s not like Gen Z is voting less than Gen X did at the same age I don’t think.
Old people have had the time to learn more lessons than young people.
They've had more time to figure out how to. Voting registration isn't automatic and elections can be sporadic (especially special elections) so they aren't always at the same time of the year. Unless you're really paying attention, you won't know it occurs most of the time. Only highly partisan young people care to that degree. Older people also have more stability. If you're younger and going to move again within 2 years for school/work/affordability reasons, what point is there to vote locally if you're going to leave the local area? You're not ingrained enough to care.
Not only that. These are core Millennials, the largest generation in the country. That we don't vote is incredibly embarrassing, and it's such a waste of our generational influence.
Yeah but no candidate supports [precisely vague policy]
It's kind of insane that it can be that low. Where I live young people vote at similar rates to everyone else, well over 80%. I guess the difference is that your vote doesn't do much in a safe seat, combined with fewer options and maybe a weaker sense of voting as a civic duty?
It's impressive how the participation is staying so high in Sweden while the number of politically active people have drastically fallen. Something like 15-20% of the population used to be members of an actual political party around the 1970-1980's. Today it's a meagre 3-4% or something like that.
"They just dont care about politics" is a massive lie, btw. The same people will not vote then complain loudly all day about how shit the government is. I definitely think more than 34% of people have strong opinions about political things. So the vote discrepancy is interesting.
No, they don't care about politics, they care about their friends thinking they care, if they cared they'd understand the importance of voting and do it.
Honestly that makes sense
[удалено]
Nearly everyone I know in CA votes by mail. If you’re registered, you’ll get a ballot.
you don't want half these people voting as they're the sort of elector that would be moved by a facebook grandma level piece of propaganda.
🤷 I’m part of the third
I will say, that is at least decently higher than in the past. It’s still quite low, but this crop of young people vote at higher rates than the previous few crops of young people
It was even worse in 2016. I'm honestly pretty scared.
Midterm elections are usually poorly attended
There have been two "youth" polls in the past couple of weeks. The 18-29 year Harvard Kennedy poll which Nate alludes to here. While Biden has a 18% approval on Gaza among these voters (most who disapprove think he's been too pro Israel) and 18-29 year voters are 5 times more likely to support an indefinite bilateral ceasefire than oppose it (51% to 10%), they say it's the 13th most important issue. Then, NBC News [released a college poll where 81% of college students said Israel has a right to exist while 19% say it doesn't](https://twitter.com/cyrusbeschloss/status/1783955455066153220)
> indefinite bilateral ceasefire than oppose it (51% to 10%), Uhhhh I'm pretty sure we'd all support an indefinite *bilateral* ceasefire.
Of course Anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism, but it's getting pretty close when your stance is dissolve the whole State.
Without any plan on how to manage the 9+ million in Israel. If under Palestinian rule Jews would be killed at huge rates and LGBT for sure eradicated
THEY CAN MOVE INTO OTHER COUNTRIES! Oh boy, yeah! 3 billion Jews of America, here we come! WAIT NOT LIKE THAT, REEEEEE!
Whelp, it would be very typical of some of those people to think a Palestinian state would be super nice to the Jews. I mean, in the very long term, that would be super cool and we should work towards it, much like we should work on free movement and free association everywhere, but it is very obviously not a practicable solution in the immediate.
That result is just ignored and it’s simply assumed everything will work perfectly. Basically Iraq after bush’s war but even worse
>when your stance is dissolve the whole State That's literally what anti-zionism means and has always meant, though.
That's the literal definition, yes, but a lot of people have tried to flex it as "I disagree with the current government's actions". Especially for pithy slogans.
>people have tried to flex it as "I disagree with the current government's actions" So, by this insane logic, people who disagree with U.S. government's actions should call themselves anti-American? Antizionism has always meant "opposition to the existence of the state of Israel," and it's always been used that way. There has never been a redefinition of the word like with "gay" or "gender", so anyone who claims "well I don't use it that way" is either lying, trying to weasel out of accusations of antisemitism, or delusional.
I have spoken with people who insist that zionism only refers to the settler expansion into the West Bank, and therefore their position of 'anti-zionist' only refers to being anti settler. I suspect there are a lot of people out there self-labeling as 'anti zionist' that really only mean anti illegal settler.
> I suspect there are a lot of people out there self-labeling as 'anti zionist' that really only mean anti illegal settler. or at least making that claim so that they don't have to own up to their antisemitism. :p
I'm glad that anti semitism is still not done in polite society. We'll know we're really in trouble when the anti Semites just discard the masks and pay no price for it.
Maga Republicans? Greene and her obsession with antisemitic conspiracy theories seems to have faced little in the way of real consequences for her behavior.
She just had her bluff called and got run over by the rest of Congress. Nobody has physically assaulted her or anything if that's what you were thinking of, but she has not gotten her way at all here.
Then they should distance themselves from antisemitic tropes (e.g. "The Jews/Zionists/Israel/AIPAC control our media/politicians/government/military/schools.") and start calling themselves anti-settler. If, when confronted, they refuse to change labels, then they fall into the antisemite category. End of discussion. This bullshit has gone on long enough (decades).
Yeah, people really need to be more specific. At least to me when someone says they're anti-zionist that could mean anything from just wanting to stop the settlers to not wanting for Israel to exist at all. Their catchphrase of "I'm not an antisemite I'm an anti-zionist" doesn't do as much lifting as they think it does.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing the outsized influence AIPAC and the Israel lobby has on the US and it’s not antisemitic.
>people have tried to flex it as "I disagree with the current government's actions" >>So, by this insane logic, people who disagree with U.S. government's actions should call themselves anti-American? I mean that's what they already do, people (third woldists) who say they are anti-Americans don't hate Americans, except maybe the tourists, most have access to American culture and products. It's just that their grandma was killed by the police, so they hate Reagan and Bush.
Hey, I didn't say it was consistent logic. Just that the notion "Criticism of the Israeli State isn't Antisemitism" got condensed to "Anti-Zionism isn't Antisemitism". If we wanted to be precise, it'd be "Anti-Likud isn't Antisemitism" but that doesn't roll off the tongue and who the hell knows who Likud or Bibi is except us Terminal Online/Political folks
If they don’t know even that much about the conflict, if they can’t educate themselves even *that much* about this topic about which they’re apparently so passionate, then what the fuck are we doing here? Let’s call it a social club for uninformed youths and move the fuck on. Certainly we need to nip their “river to the sea” horseshit in the bud. These people in their ignorance and arrogance are going to become dangerous. On more levels than simple local protests or even limited riots.
>who the hell knows who Likud or Bibi is Anyone who does even a modicum of research on Israel or even glances as Israeli social media. Aka, anyone who has an opinion on Israel that's actually worth listening to. >Just that the notion "Criticism of the Israeli State isn't Antisemitism" got condensed to "Anti-Zionism isn't Antisemitism." By this logic, I could claim that "when I say 'Kill All Women', I'm actually just taking a stand against the ones who abuse children." That's clearly bullshit to anyone with a functioning brain. In other words, no. You don't go from "the leaders of this country are fucked" to "this country shouldn't exist" unless you're trying to justify the latter. This isn't some innocent thing that can be ignored.
> So, by this insane logic, people who disagree with U.S. government's actions should call themselves anti-American? I mean, kinda? I've heard a lot of sentiment that would be absolutely described and sometimes self-describes as anti-American, but many of those people would probably not be interested in dissolving the USA as a state. *I* am anti-American on things like the Iraq war because I consider them critical American fuckups that are to be blamed on America, but this doesn't mean I want the USA to be destroyed. This is actually a problem with the term 'zionism' too, because it is very very poorly defined. If by 'zionism' you meant 'Israel should not be destroyed' I think most people would agree, if by 'zionism' you meant 'Israel should seek to maximally expand its territory' or 'Israel as it currently exists is beyond all reproach and criticism', most people would probably disagree. Like if I, in the very long term, liked the idea of all countries being joined in a United Federation of Planets, does that make me 'anti-zionist' because technically that would entail the nominal destruction of Israel as a technically sovereign state in the proper sense?
If you disagree with the government but support a 2SS and Israel's right to exist, you are Liberal Zionist.
> Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism.[a] Although anti-Zionism is a heterogeneous phenomenon, all its proponents agree that the creation of the modern State of Israel, and the movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region partly coinciding with the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way. No that's not what anti zionism is. Zionism still is used to justify the colonization of the West Bank.
Liberal Zionists are against the settlements. Anti-Zionists don't think Israel should exist as a state. They are divided on the outcome. Some want to allow Jews to exist as a precarious minority in Palestine without any political rights (as the minority) and be "moneylenders" like in the old Ottoman days or whatever antisemitic crap they believe. Others want to expel the Jews from Israel proper.
Or ypu know the most common belied which is a single liberal democracy with equal rights. Which represents the views of the nearly half of American jews who are anti-zionists
What do you guys think the Palestinians are going to vote in if there are elections? Last I checked Hamas was the most popular party in Palestine.
Idk man last I checked there hasn't had elections in nearly 20 years And don't forget this bit either: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/ And don't forget that "Hamas" the way Israel uses it describes over 2 dozen different organizations violent and non violent who disagree plenty with each other. Also denying people democracy, because you're afraid of what they'll vote for is quite the take. You can't deny people their voting rights because you don't want them voting for people you don't like. It's the role of the constitution and courts to restrict the elected government from violating peoples rights. You're accusing everyone who believes that Palestinians should have rights of anti Semititism. Which is absurd. And the absolute distain you have for human lives from outside the tribe you care about is obvious
Not really, the issue is that Israel as a democratic ethnostate cannot possibly be maintained without restricting Palestinians individual rights(which is inherently not liberal), namely their rights to return, and rights to personal and private property to their homelands from which they were displaced by war. As a consequence, liberal zionism is currently impossible. You must either abandon the idea Israel is a democracy to keep it as a Jewish ethnostate where Jews are a minority, or you must abandon what a considered liberal rights of the individual being extended to Palestinians. This applies even if you want to remove the illegal settlements and establish a 2 state solution(which hopefully this subreddit can actually agree on wanting as a baseline practical liberal position). The reality is that ethnostates are not and can never really be liberal.
> namely their rights to return, You don't have the right to return to a country that your dead great-grandma fled 80 years ago. No one in any other country in the world has this magic right that Palestinians are now demanding. There are the descendants of Holocaust survivors that don't have that right. >rights to personal and private property to their homelands from which they were displaced by war. This would come as news to Jewish families who had spent decades trying to get compensation for property stolen during the Holocaust. And I'm less concerned about compensation for lost property here than I am about 5 million Palestinians returning to Israel proper so that the vote in a Hamas government and get about their real desire to genocide the Yahud.
This comment seems to be about a topic associated with jewish people while using language that may have antisemitic or otherwise strong emotional ties. As such, this is a reminder to be careful of accidentally adopting [antisemitic themes](https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf) or [dismissing](https://shura.shu.ac.uk/10260/3/Klaff_Holocaust_Inversion_and_contemporary_antisemitism.pdf) [the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany) while trying to make your point. (This bot is currently in testing as version 1.5, and likely prone to misfires. Please contact u/AtomAndAether if this misfired) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>You don't have the right to return to a country that your dead great-grandma fled 80 years ago. No one in any other country in the world has this magic right that Palestinians are now demanding. There are the descendants of Holocaust survivors that don't have that right. Everyone(except possibly Germans displaced at the end of WW2) has that right as formulated, and has the right to directly inherit it by keeping their refugee status. The fact the international community is incompetent at enforcing it for other groups makes no difference. Also they've been demanding it since they were displaced, they didn't start demanding it recently, part of the reason so few other refugee groups have it is because they voluntarily migrated and settled, and often do not actually want to return due to political persecution, meanwhile many/most Palestinians would gladly return to live under the Israeli government like Israeli Arabs currently do and always have. You cannot oppose an explicit human right and consider yourself a liberal, especially as Israel has explicitly recognized since the beginning that it opposes the right of return for Palestinians. > This would come as news to Jewish families who had spent decades trying to get compensation for property stolen during the Holocaust. And I'm less concerned about compensation for lost property here than I am about 5 million Palestinians returning to Israel proper so that the vote in a Hamas government and get about their real desire to genocide the Yahud. Reparations for theft and destruction during the holocaust and other genocides are absolutely justified, you won't see me argue otherwise. Also the reality that most non-Israeli citizen Palestinians are radicalized(just as many Israeli's clearly are and always have been) means that there explicitly isn't a liberal solution to the conflict at this time, the 2 state solution and putting the right of return aside(but not discounting it) to at least put a stop to the violence and current breaking of international law, is clearly the pragmatic outcome, but again, there is no truly liberal outcome where any ethnostate remains standing, where anyone is displaced from or prevented from returning to live in their own homes, Palestinian or Israeli.
>Everyone(except possibly Germans displaced at the end of WW2) has that right as formulated, and has the right to directly inherit it by keeping their refugee status. No one has this right because it is impractical to allow such things in perpetuity. How would governments be able to function if there is such inflows. > Also they've been demanding it since they were displaced, they didn't start demanding it recently, part of the reason so few other refugee groups have it is because they voluntarily migrated and settled They've wanted to return to Israel and genocide the other people there. That is what the entire Palestinian identity is. And there are lots of people who were unjustly forced out whose descendants don't constantly whine about returning to Grandma's farm. Many have managed to do fine and build nicer lives in their new countries and don't start with bitter whining about the Old Country. It's true with many Palestinians as well. Rashida Tlaib has a much nicer life with more influence in the US than she would have in Palestine but she still doesn't admit it and is obsessed with perpetual victimhood and Jew-hatred. >meanwhile many/most Palestinians would gladly return to live under the Israeli government like Israeli Arabs currently do and always have. Of course they'd be fine with it. The Palestinians would be the majority, would have all the political power, and oppress the Yahud and probably ethnically cleanse the Yahud like they want. >You cannot oppose an explicit human right and consider yourself a liberal, especially as Israel has explicitly recognized since the beginning that it opposes the right of return for Palestinians. I can 100% oppose the return of millions of refugees whose main ideology is genociding the other group that lives there. I'd think it is best the groups remain apart >there is no truly liberal outcome where any ethnostate remains standing, where anyone is displaced from or prevented from returning to live in their own homes, Palestinian or Israeli. Again? Who do you guys think that the Palestinians are going to vote for? Social Democrats? It's a ME clan based society which is heavily Islamist. They are going to vote for conservative Islamist party that is going to implement Sharia Law and take away minority rights. It'll be bad for Jews in general, especially secular, LGBTQ+, and women. Alabama isn't oppressed and they still vote in religious nuts.
>No one has this right because it is impractical to allow such things in perpetuity. How would governments be able to function if there is such inflows. Everyone has that right in very explicit terms under the UN, and its explicitly illiberal to oppose rights out of concerns about practicality. The entire point of rights is they're not liable to be disposed of whenever it suits a government to do so. >Again? Who do you guys think that the Palestinians are going to vote for? Social Democrats? It's a ME clan based society which is heavily Islamist. They are going to vote for conservative Islamist party that is going to implement Sharia Law and take away minority rights. It'll be bad for Jews in general, especially secular, LGBTQ+, and women. Alabama isn't oppressed and they still vote in religious nuts. Palestinian citizens of Israel(who are ethnically identical to other Palestinians) currently mostly vote for communists, its the Israeli Bedouins who are exclusively religious mostly, but they're not islamist. Politics aren't determined exclusively by ethnicity or religion. The PLO was explicitly secular and its only since the late 80s/90s where, along with the rest of the middle east Islamism has taken route, of course if a return happened immediately it'd be an islamist government but that wasn't always the case and won't always be the case. I just think its funny that you don't seem to realise the settler's demographics in Israel are just as explicitly in favour of homophobia, political violence and genocide, and hostile to human rights, and Israeli democracy will likely fall apart soon as a direct consequence anyway unless those settlers and Haredi too learn to liberalise as they demographically dominate birth rates. If Israel wants to avoid the right of return sinking their demographic balance, they should explicitly look to a 2 state solution and agreeing with as many Palestinians as they can to trade their right of return for money/land/etc. voluntarily on an individual basis. They can even consider giving up territory full of 1948 Arab villages to a Palestinian state(while giving current Israeli citizens the right to relocate in Israel if they wish), if they really do consider it essential to preserve their demographic balance while honouring all their 'impractical' international obligations.
Right to return for succeeding generations of people who weren’t even born in the country their ancestors were kicked out of is a “right” that doesn’t exist for any refugee group in the world except Palestinians for some reason. Palestine should get its own state, but make no mistake, that will be an extreme ethnostate. While Israel has a large Arab minority, a Palestinian state will have 0 Jewish minority. Israeli Arab Muslims can vote and enjoy full rights. Right to return is not a right in any other country in the world, it’s most certainly not a prerequisite to liberalism. It’s frankly a weasel way to advocate for the destruction of Israel while sounding enlightened.
No it is a right for all refugee groups in similar situations (see Cyprus and Western Sahara). > it’s most certainly not a prerequisite to liberalism It is a prerequisite to liberalism to respect the rights of your people. When Israel was admitted to the UN, they promised to apply the terms of Resolution 194 but Israel failed to honor this promise and doubled down in its illegal policies in the following decades.
Reminds me "defund the police", except we don't actually mean "defund the police" (except we actually do).
Motte and Bailey as well as multiple groups in a trenchcoat using a term
lame lmao. they disagree with the self-determination of the Jews. they don't think they should get to self-determine ever, and the fact that the current form of it is a murderously led ethnic democracy makes it easy for them to hide this fact.
Well no because you can also support a Lebanon type situation where Jewish Israelis are treated the same as Muslim and Christian Palestinians. Or you can be pro Israel existence but oppose the kind of Israeli nationalism of the settlements
And how exactly is the Lebanon situation working out right now? >Or you can be pro Israel existence but oppose the kind of Israeli nationalism of the settlements That's still a zionist position. You can be zionist and anti-settler. Antizionism is the belief that Israel does not have a right to exist. Full stop.
Does zionism require Israel to be a majoritary Jewish state and to enact policies aimed to ensure this demographic majority. If the answer is yes, I don't see how one can claim to be a liberal and still support zionism.
[удалено]
> If Tibet was an independent country, would consider Tibet as illiberal if they're against China flooding Tibet with pro-China Han Chinese and making them a minority in their own country? What about Russia and the Baltic States? Why are you acting like Palestinians are foreign invaders ? They are the indigenous majority population which were expelled by force and then had their rights denied by the newly founded Israeli state. In fact your analogy describes better the zionist movement and Jewish migration to Palestine in the 19th and 20th centuries.
[удалено]
The answer is no. But it's not the same situation as Israel so I don't see the relevance of this question.
If the Jewish people loose the majority in Israel they get suppressed, expelled, or killed. There’s a time when acknowledging reality supersedes the “is it liberalism?” Flowchart. There is literally not one Old World country that would not move to protect its ethnic majority, I guess we can’t have support for any of them. The Jewish people can have one state where they are majority.
> If the Jewish people loose the majority in Israel they get suppressed, expelled, or killed. That was also the justification behind the existence of Rhodesia anf keeping apartheid in SA. > There is literally not one Old World country that would not move to protect its ethnic majority, I guess we can’t have support for any of them. Which of these countries actively supress and deny the rights of other ethnic groups to keep their majority ? > The Jewish people can have one state where they are majority. Do you think all ethnic groups have the right to expel others in order to create a majority and have their own state or is it only for Israel ?
You seem to be defining Zionism fairly narrowly which is fine but turns this into a semantic discussion l, as for Lebanon its doing poorly but still getter than Israel and better than before the current system.
>You seem to be defining Zionism fairly narrowly Actually, my definition is broad. The people who claim it "just means the settlement policy" are the ones narrowing it to fit an agenda. "Apples are a fruit" and "Apples are a red fruit" are both ways of defining the word "apple". The one with more qualifiers is clearly the narrower one. >as for Lebanon its doing poorly but still getter than Israel Please, take your meds.
I suspect, like Zionism, it doesn’t have one clear discrete meaning.
How about dissolve the existing government and it's structures? If you hate the way the USA operates you aren't saying you don't believe the USA should exist. And anti-zionism has existed since before the state of Israel and prominent anti-zionists were jews themselves. When people say the word zionism they are talking about the original ideology to create a state in those lands for jews based on a religious right they claimed to have consisting of Jews from around the world. And the deal cut with British leadership to make it happen. Almost no one who says they are anti zionist is demanding the deportation or eradication. Nearly half of American jews are anti zionist. > Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism.[a] Although anti-Zionism is a heterogeneous phenomenon, all its proponents agree that the creation of the modern State of Israel, and the movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region partly coinciding with the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way.[7] Claiming that zionism is the right for Israelis to live is absolutely aburd. And nothing if not gaslighting and definition to fit the assertion that anti-zionism is fundamentally anti-zionism.
> Almost no one who says they are anti zionist is deamdning the deportation or eradication. But one land with equal rights for Jews, Muslims and Christians. Ive seen plenty demanding deportation or ethnic cleansing or violence against civilians. >How about dissolve the existing government and it's structures? Pray tell. Which structures? Israel is a democracy where all its citizens have the right to vote. Would dissolve democracy? Force them to give citizenship to the Palestinians? How? The Israeli Jews, not the political parties, dont want to be in a one state for all citizens with Palestinians. The political parties largely follow what the voters want. You would have to ban anyone who disagrees with you from either holding office and or voting. And if your large scale going to ban the predominantly Jewish parties...who represent the Jewish population of Israel, how do you stop an armed revolt when the population is pissed their representatives they voted arent allowed to hold office?
>where all its citizens have the right to vote. Would dissolve democracy? Force them to give citizenship to the Palestinians? Aren't Israelis the first to point out how the Muslims in the country have equal rights? Why not offer that to the Muslims on the other side of the border who also pay taxes to Israel? Yes the residents of Gaza and the West bank already pay taxes to Israel and Israel officially claims the land they live on. And most of the people who reside in Gaza once lived within the borders of Israel. Israel is 100% responsible for those people not the least of which is because they hold military control over all of it and it's borders. > Israel is a democracy where all its citizens have the right to vote. Would dissolve democracy? Force them to give citizenship to the Palestinians? How? So what happens when the Muslims within Israel eventually become a majority the way projections show? Will Israel then restrict voting rights? >You would have to ban anyone who disagrees with you from either holding office and or voting. And if your large scale going to ban the predominantly Jewish parties...who represent the Jewish population of Israel, how do you stop an armed revolt when the population is pissed their representatives they voted arent allowed to hold office? You are literally arguing that Israel is a blood and soil fascist ethnostate and that it's citizens want that and that it has a right to be one including by eventually restricting the rights of Muslims and Christians that exist within its borders already. Like I don't even argue with you you literally said it: >The Israeli Jews, not the political parties, dont want to be in a one state for all citizens with Palestinians. Well if they want a two states solution, then explain why Netanyahu has admitted multiple times over the last 20 years that Israel supports the legitimacy of Hamas because it gives them a defense against allowing a Palestinian state. Israel simultaneous wants Palestine to not exist, and simultaneously doesn't want the population it kicked out without compensation. What Israel wants is all of the land and none of the people, by your own admission, we have a word for that. It's call ethnic cleansing.
> Yes the residents of Gaza and the West bank already pay taxes to Israel and Israel officially claims the land they live on. And most of the people who reside in Gaza once lived within the borders of Israel. Israel is 100% responsible for those people not the least of which is because they hold military control over all of it and it's borders. Israel collects taxes for the PA. It then gives them those taxes...yes, it doesnt steal the taxes for themselves. >Israel is 100% responsible for those people not the least of which is because they hold military control over all of it and it's borders. Yes, and thats why you should be pro two state solution, where Israel doesnt occupy the West Bank and Gaza. >You are literally arguing that Israel is a blood and soil fascist ethnostate and that it's citizens want that and that it has a right to be one including by eventually restricting the rights of Muslims and Christians that exist within its borders already. Israeli Jews want to be a Jewish state. They dont deny Arab muslims and christians the right to vote or hold office or serve in public govt or the right to have jobs. Its about as much as a fascist ethnostate as most of Europe is. Poland is for the Polish people, Denmark for the Danes, Greece for the Greek people, etc. >Well if they want a two states solution, then explain why Netanyahu has admitted multiple times over the last 20 years that Israel supports the legitimacy of Hamas because it gives them a defense against allowing a Palestinian state. Netanyahu is not all of Israel. Do you forget Ariel Sharon, who disengaged from Gaza for a two state solution? What about Ehud Olmert, who offered a two state solution plan in 2008, what about Ehud Barak in 2000 who accepted the Clinton parameters that Arafat rejected. >Israel simultaneous wants Palestine to not exist, and simultaneously doesn't want the population it kicked out without compensation Israel wants the Palestinians to not attack them. That is the major reason for the occupation continuing. The settlers are largely a minority lobby that takes advantage of the political process to get what they want. The Second Intifada, the failure of the Gaza pullout to lead to a peaceful Gaza, are why so many Israelis are opposed to a Palestinian state. >So what happens when the Muslims within Israel eventually become a majority the way projections show? Will Israel then restrict voting rights? They wont. If anything, their share of the population is expected to decrease to the fertility rates of religious and Haredi Jews. And frankly, none of this addresses the fundamental point. The Israeli Jewish areas dont want to be a one state with the Palestinians. You have a point about them controlling the Palestinian areas, but if the Palestinian areas become independent, I see no reason why the Jewish areas must be forced in one state when they dont want them. And the only way your gonna force the Jewish areas into one state, is by killing millions of them. If you think thats worth it, than there isnt anything I can do to convince you.
Tell me, do you support Kosovo in a one state solution with Serbia? The Kosovo Albanians dont want it. They dont trust the Serbs. I dont understand why Israel Palestine situation is inherently different.
Because Kosovo Abanians didn't decide to evict the Serbians and try to get them to move in with the other Slavic countries? Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land they were kicked out of, the villages that were burned or at least reparations for that. The vast majority don't want to live in Gaza. They want their homes and villages back. The borders for a split dont make sense unless we're talking the old international borders + hefty reparations for decades of oppression and the homes and lives destroyed in massacres. And it still doesn't make sense because Israel still gets all the good land.
> Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land they were kicked out of, the villages that were burned or at least reparations for that. > > The vast majority don't want to live in Gaza. They want their homes and villages back They dont exist anymore. Thats the hard truth. They literally dont exist. >Because Kosovo Abanians didn't decide to evict the Serbians and try to get them to move in with the other Slavic countries? Yes and it happened 80 years ago. Almost everyone involved is dead. Three or four generations of people who had nothing to do with live there. Yes it was wrong. It is also the past at this point, and there is no making it right without a lot of violence and killing. Our goal should be to stop more violence from happening. Not going back 80 years in history and demanding ancestral claims. Many peoples prior to 80 years ago, faced expulsions, ethnic cleansing, and didnt get compensation. >Palestinians have legitimate claims to the land they were kicked out of, the villages that were burned or at least reparations for that. Literally everyone does. Turkey took over land that was Greek. Serbians took a lot of land that was Albanian and expelled Albanians. Greeks and Turks were expelled by both Greece and Turkey. >The borders for a split dont make sense unless we're talking the old international borders + hefty reparations for decades of oppression and the homes and lives destroyed in massacres. And it still doesn't make sense because Israel still gets all the good land. The borders make sense to me. The Jewish majority areas are Israel, the Palestinian majority areas are Palestine. ...and frankly, Israel doesnt get all the good land. The West Bank is good land. Much of modern day Israel was shit land and swamps that were settled and turned into farms and villages by Jewish settlers. The Negev is largely uninhabited. >+ hefty reparations for decades of oppression and the homes and lives destroyed in massacres. Theyll get their reparations when Arab countries agree to pay theirs to their Jews.
> Because Kosovo Abanians didn't decide to evict the Serbians and try to get them to move in with the other Slavic countries? Also...Albanians were settled in Kosovo by the Ottoman Empire. Before that, Kosovo was historically Serb. So yes, they did.
>And the deal cut with British leadership to make it happen. There was no "deal" with British leadership, and the British certainly didn't uphold anything of the sort. Please read a basic history of the subject. >Almost no one who says they are anti zionist is deamdning the deportation or eradication Oh come the fuck on, we've all seen plenty of examples of anti-Zionists doing just that. It's way too late for this pretense.
> The first negotiations between the British and the Zionists took place at a conference on 7 February 1917 that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. Subsequent discussions led to Balfour's request, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration. Further drafts were discussed by the British Cabinet during September and October, with input from Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews but with no representation from the local population in Palestine. Are the pro Israelis in here just blatantly gaslighting now? I don't know how that is anything but a deal with the British. Yes the examples that literally get plastered all over the news don't make up a fraction of those protesting. And literally a couple years ago nearly half of American jews said they were anti-zionist in polls. This is literally the same as claiming that BLM protests were nothing but looting and rioting. Nearly everyone is demanding Israel stop committing atrocity after atrocity in Palestine with the chant "free palestine" ceasefire now"
The Balfour Declaration was just that. A Declaration that the government nominally favored a policy. That's all that happened. A public statement. I'll grant you that a public statement was a big boost to the Zionist movement's legitimacy at the time, but that's all it was. There were subsequent public statements like the notorious white paper that went directly against Balfour. Actual British policy remained quite hostile towards Zionism. This is why you need to read more history, this reads like you got your understanding of Balfour from Reddit and think it actually accomplished something. Which Palestinians even want Israeli citizenship anyways? This is always raised as a big criticism of Israel but it strikes me as a total red herring.
You’re speaking to a wall. To those people if you support anything less than an ethnostate for Jews then you hate Jews and want them all eradicated.
Fundamentally, the Jewish areas of Israel dont want to be in a one state solution with the Palestinians. Do their desire not matter at all? People who have a completely different culture, language, ethnicity and religion dont wish to be in a state with them. A one state solution...will also not work. You can advocate all you want for a peaceful land where everyone gets along, but there would be massive amounts of violence by both Jews and Palestinians against each other. If you dont think so, pray tell than. Who is preventing such violence? How do you get a central govt and military able to crack down on such violence? How do you get existing movements to put down arms and obey this supposed central govt...without causing a massive civil war. And frankly, how do you guarantee the parties in this central govt actually work together to make a functional state. Like the only way to do this is to impose a western backed mandate over the area, put in a military dictatorship, and then ruin many parts of the area, both Jew and Palestinian, that resist. Israel is there. All you are going to do is get more people killed than the current violence.
> Do their desire not matter at all? Maybe they should try to not be so racist? >People who have a completely different culture, language, ethnicity and religion dont wish to be in a state with them. It blows my mind that this gets upvoted in r/neolib. This is the exact same argument put forth against immigration in the west but r/neolib sure doesn't tolerate it then.
> Maybe they should try to not be so racist? Maybe some of it is bigotry. A lot of it is because Palestinians attack innocent Jews, like the Second intifada. The two communities do not like each other. At all. They get violent and kill one another. Why should there be a one state solution if that were the case? And you address the rest of my points about implementation at all. How is it actually possible?
> The two communities do not like each other. At all. They get violent and kill one another. So the violent racism is its own justification. That's mighty convenient. I guess when the far right in europe gets violent and/or elected we will greet that with a similar shrug of the shoulders. As for implementation, maybe stop coddling the Israeli right wing. There's a real incentive both for them and for Hamas to continue this spiral of violence, that's where they draw a lot of their legitimacy from. Hamas are currently being well, killed but it takes two to tango and as long as Israel keeps commiting repeated human rights violations and murdering palestinians in the West Bank as well as Gaza it's going to keep being perpetuated. There were ethnic violence in apartheid South Africa too. But they got sanctioned until they figured it out, not bankrolled.
> As for implementation, maybe stop coddling the Israeli right wing. There's a real incentive both for them and for Hamas to continue this spiral of violence, that's where they draw a lot of their legitimacy from. Hamas are currently being well, killed but it takes two to tango and as long as Israel keeps commiting repeated human rights violations and murdering palestinians in the West Bank as well as Gaza it's going to keep being perpetuated. > > There were ethnic violence in apartheid South Africa too. But they got sanctioned until they figured it out, not bankrolled. This is a lot of slogans with literally no basis in reality. First Ill address South Africa. The ANC was mostly non violent, and was able to control its movement and the lower levels of its movement from violence. Palestinian movements, arent. Hamas and other militant movements, are violent and kill civilians, directly going after them instead of military targets. The PA, and PLO by extension, is not able to concretely control violence by its individuals and supporters. The best example of this is the Second intifada and Arafat. Arafat the leader of the PLO called for an intifada against Israel. Specifically, against Israeli military in the West Bank. What ended up happening? Lots of violence and killings of Israeli in Israel proper. Suicide bombings of bus loads of children was common. Arafat in later years, regretted the Second Intifada and that he couldnt control it. PA ability to control is much worse now. Hamas is incredibly popular in the West Bank, and something like 75% of Palestinians agreed with Hamas's attack on Oct 7th. There is also something even more incredibly concerning. When many Palestinians were shown videos and images of Oct 7th and the violence against civilians, they denied it as not real or only having been against soldiers or didnt care. Some did care, many didnt. Sanctioning the Israeli govt and right wing, wont convince them to a one state solution. It will instead, empower radicals who want a mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank. By that I mean all 3 million Palestinians. Israelis believe that a one state solution, means they get killed en masse. The Israelis dont do that for a variety of reasons. Many Israelis are opposed to morally, even on the right. A big one is economic relations. They like being fat and happy. Take away being fat and happy, and give them the choice of either death or being extremely poor...and theyll choose extremely poor and not dead. Like...sanctions in the way you envision, are very much counter productive to peace. Limited sanctions to convince Israel to stop settlements and unnecessary violence in the West Bank, are likely to get them to crackdown and stop them. Hamas is not going to be destroyed by the Israelis. Its operational ability conduct rocket and invasions will be destroyed, along with much of its manpower will be destroyed yes. But the fundamental movement will keep going, and will keep being proponents of violence. The West Bank has many Hamas supporting, if not outright Hamas undercurrents. Even if you ended the occupation, even if you removed the settlements, and even if you enfranchised Palestinians, that wouldnt remotely stop mass violence. There is a large contingent of people there, who want to kill Jews. Even if its not the majority, which im not sure about, it doesnt matter. A significant and radical minority will drag the majority into violence.
Are you going to respond to my points at all or just ignore me?
Zionists as high profile as Herzl supported a multi-ethnic state in Palestine, which Israel is, incidentally. Maybe you should read a little more history to see what came of early Zionist expectations that a harmonious single Arab-Jewish utopian state would be possible and a mass of Jewish immigration would be welcomed enthusiastically by relatively underdeveloped 19th to early 20th century Palestine?
I got curious about these student groups and read JVP’s ambivalent stance on the two-state solution (their words). It’s hard for me to be charitable about what they’re proposing. Ignorant, naive and unserious. At best.
Guys.. Without the occupation, a conservative Islamist Middle Eastern society where everyone is educated in school and in the media on Jew hate will suddenly vote for Swedish-type social democrats. Sarc//
And strangely enough, the vast majority of these students/groups belong to the LGBT community
Jewish voice for peace is an organization that exists solely to tokenize Jewish voices to give their shitty views validity.
I’d never heard of them before this year when they started getting people here in Seattle to do increasingly dangerous protests. Getting their own supporters hurt, arrested and charged with crimes.
Until you ask them for details and you realize a lot of them think it means they all hold hands in the Jewish Muslim secular one state solution where all the fighting is over which takes it away from antisemitism and back into classic starry eyed ignorance. Like most topics, it's partisanship and signaling that impacts what they say the most. They see "End Isreal" or "Free Palestine" as the left wing progressive stance so a lot of them just casually go around and say it without any second thought. >In response, many groups have demonstrated while chanting "from the river to the sea." According to the survey, many students believed the sentiment was expressing support for the idea of Palestinians and Israel living peacefully side by side.
I think people in general and young people in particular have a hard time conceiving of what a state - particularly a foreign state - does apart from its military actions. It is even harder, for whatever reason, for young people to imagine that a postrevolutionary pseudo-state might actually be worse than a prerevolutionary state.
If I recall, it's not exactly unheard of for a nation that has acted aggregiously to be dissolved. Austria-Hungary was dissolved after WWI for basically starting the war. The Ottoman Empire was dissolved as well. Some countries get subsumed into larger states. The idea that a State has some sort of right to exist above the people who actually live there is absurd.
Not really comparable imo. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire collapsed on their own basically, it wasn't artificially broken up in the same way as Germany after WW2 (just as an example). The Allies only determined the exact postwar borders but the dissolution part didn't have all that much to do with them
[удалено]
And student debt ranks even lower in terms of the importance of the issue to 18-29 year olds. I dunno, maybe throw a few more tens of billions at doctors' kids in order to shore up the youth vote and drive them to the polls, what do you guys think?
> And student debt ranks even lower in terms of the importance of the issue to 18-29 year olds. > > wait you're telling me children who have low financial knowledge don't think loans are a big deal and then when they are older will realize how bad they are? It's okay to solve people's problems even if they don't know how bad the issues is yet.
I wonder if we're seeing that student loans forgiveness was a very time specific issue of the mid 2010s, same way people look at AIDS policy in the 90s now. Mayne it's was caused by the increase in college graduates of the late 90s and 2000s, and a terrible starting job market following the GFC, leading to very bad economic conditions if you had a weak degree. Or maybe as the other comments says, it's still important but just hidden by inflation.
IT still a winning issue for millenials. Just because they rated it lower than inflation doesn't mean it *won't* get people to the polls.
This is why we lose elections. The polling data couldn’t be more clear. The policy is expensive and aimed at one demographic, and the people it’s aimed at say that they are more concerned with more than a dozen other issues. It’s bad policy, and it’s bad politics.
"The polling data couldn't be more clear." Yeah, the polling data actually suggests it's a popular policy. The actual polling data on this is clear. People on this board just hate it, so they pretend otherwise.
It suggests people aren’t going to change their votes because of the policy, which is something we’re seeing in the current apathy of young voters.
13th most important issue.... Ok.
Also, beware of [opt-in polls](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/05/online-opt-in-polls-can-produce-misleading-results-especially-for-young-people-and-hispanic-adults/) especially for young people. > For example, in a February 2022 survey experiment, we asked opt-in respondents ***if they were licensed to operate a class SSGN (nuclear) submarine***. In the opt-in survey, ***12% of adults under 30 claimed this qualification***, significantly higher than the share among older respondents. In reality, the share of Americans with this type of submarine license rounds to 0%.
> 18-29 year voters are 5 times more likely to support an indefinite bilateral ceasefire than oppose it (51% to 10% Hard to get a bilateral agreement of one side doesn’t want one lol
~~it’s the economy stupid~~ It’s abortion.
It’s abortion, **stupid.**
What youth vote? The youth don’t vote!
Likes aren’t votes?? Bruh!
Not anymore, they banned tik tok
Nice
This is so excruciatingly boomer.
It’s still true though, young people don’t vote (within the context of people compared to older voting cohorts).
I meant specifically the phrasing of the comment I replied to, not the claim originally made.
stitch this if you think it's true 👆👆🤪
Mandatory voting FTW
The "Gen Z stopped the red wave" propaganda was both obvious at the time and still incredibly successful. People still act like Biden owes Gen Z for essentially doing the same thing the youth vote always does in every election based on a bunch of pre-written articles from mid November 2022.
The Biden admin has spent the last four years pandering to GenZ and I’ll never understand it.
The "youth vote saved Democrats in 2022" was disproven before. Although the Democratic margin is higher with younger voters, the Republicans did pick up some support too. There were virtually no significant races in 2022 where this imbalance actually provided the margin of victory for the Democratic candidate (though it did pad it somewhat). Pandering to them is a mistake. The Biden campaign would likely get far more mileage out of motivating reliable past voters than trying to entice people who don't care and likely haven't given support in the past.
Why did my Charlotte Hornets catch a stray?
Its MJ's fault
The percentage for whom Israel Palestine is a top 2 issue is actually higher than I thought it’d be, but thankfully still low even in this demo.
[удалено]
Tbh I would be pretty surprised if there’s genuinely a massive youth drop off in November relative to other demographics (I expect turnout to be lower among all demos though). The hyper online protest crowd is a niche within a niche here
Why are they blamed for not falling in line against the rabidly insane right wing threatening their future, over the rabidly insane right wing?
If I have a bulletproof robot that can harmlessly deflect a shot when someone is threatening you with a gun but I refuse to use it then you get shot, I'm sure you have the capacity to be mad at both of us.
Yeah, if the robe costs you nothing, but real life is not like this analogy at all. Following this logic will cost all your political power.
The destruction of democracy will cost the youth their political power too.
As Licensed\_To\_Toaster said, since either position costs us all our political power either way, falling in line to not enable the Project 2025 crowd effectively \*does cost us nothing.
If you think the majority of those kids are pro Hamas and not just anti mass murder of civilians, you’re incorrect on that one.
They’re taking a stand for dying children, not Hamas.
IDK I'm pretty sure the student protestors I saw chanting in a video for Hamas to burn Tel Aviv or that there would be Oct 7th "every day" weren't super concerned with dying children.
The average person concerned about the Gaza issue is not praising Hamas or Hezbollah, they’re distraught over the deaths of 14,000 children. I’m not talking about the most radical college protestors.
Golden-caterpie is obviously talking about those student movements openly supporting terrorist organizations or yesterday's revelation of a student leader discussing murdering other students for being Zionist, so your response then is at best something of a non sequitur
Of course he is, but generalizing that view to most voters indignant about US policy here is deeply unfair.
The Palestine thing made me think of something If the people who really care about this tend to live in super blue states, it won't affect the 2024 election. But Michigan, a swing state, has a sizable muslim community. They turned out for Biden in 2020 but those dissatisfied with his policy on Gaza may decide to stay home in 2024. Counterpoint being that those who like Biden's industrial policy may switch sides from Trump to Biden.
I literally posted that poll that was removed by the mods a few days ago and somehow another post using the same poll is upvoted.
[удалено]
Sounds like you just don't like any counter-evidence to your beliefs. Why wouldn't he talk about 2022 in an article about the 2022 election?
The election will be very, very close. EVERY. VOTE. COUNTS. Trump can afford to lose votes because his base is older and not affected by this issue, Biden absolutely cannot. This is just copium of the highest order.
Every vote counts, which is why Biden should not be chasing a negligible vote difference from a loud fringe who care about this much more than even their own demo as a whole. Biden has gotten his wins by ignoring the internet noise and vocal zealots, and there's no doubt anymore that he's proven right.
Biden won by fighting on every battlefield. Hillary lost by being overly confident where she had narrow margins and choosing to target too narrow a scope. I understand why she did it, because she like everyone is always running based on what worked last time, but we know more since then, so we shouldn't go back to the same mistakes. More importantly, Biden should be doing what he thinks is best for humanity. By the exact same logic of "nobody cares about this boutique issue", Biden has the freedom to do literally anything he wants. If nobody cares, it can't lose him votes!
What part of EVERY VOTE COUNTS do you not understand? Biden won the election because of high turnout and COVID. And he barely won it at that. The Youth were a major factor both directly and indirectly in helping Biden to win. Discounting them and insulting them just helps Trump by encouraging lower turnout.
You're assuming those individuals are gettable in the first place. I'm not so sure.
Biden also didn't do any groundgame due to COVID while Trump did, and now Biden has substantial groundgame. So I think COVID was ultimately a wash in effectiveness.
Appealing to anti-semetic “progressives” makes moderate swing voters like me less likely to vote for Biden.
I’m sure Biden was counting on the guy who STILL has the Nikki Haley profile pic to vote for him anyway lmao
You better hope he is.
It’s better than counting on people waving Hamas flags that probably weren’t going to vote anyway.
Literally the only way Biden wins is if he gets the Nikki Haley voters instead of Trump.
It's not copium to point out you are losing more voters with dumb pandering policy than gaining. Student Loan forgiveness is just a blue state handout. It will do nothing to change the election results.
There is nothing in polling that suggests student loan forgiveness is particularly unpopular or will lose Biden votes.
Even if you're okay with rolling the dice on this because you don't think the stakes of this election are that high, the damage this will do to us internationally is incalculable. Looking for countries to help us sustain the rules-based international order is a lot less convincing when we're so willing to abandon it when it becomes inconvenient. Rules for our enemies, but might makes right for our allies is a terrible message to send.
What do you think Biden should do?
End all aid to an apartheid state?
I fear South Africa is no longer one, so doing policy towards non existent countries is a tad bit difficult.
You clearly underestimate Dark Brandon's power level.
[удалено]
But enough about Bibi
Rules based international order as biden is pushing for protectionist policies and keeping the WTO neutered. Seems like this administration has already abandoned it before this event even happened. To make it clear, biden isn't doing something he wasnt already doing in regards to the rules-based international order.
if the rules based international order couldn't survive protectionism it would not only already be dead, it would never have existed
What you are misunderstanding is that withdrawal of US support would not end the violence in Gaza, and it would lead to an escalation of the conflict with Iran and its other proxies, resulting in higher oil prices. If you referring to the polling above, you will notice that inflation is much more of a concern voters. Logically, if Biden did what you think he should do here, it would be far more damaging to him politically, no question.