The Democratic votes on the pair of resolutions from Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., were not enough to overcome universal opposition from Republicans.
Still, the votes represented a watershed moment in the party’s relationship with Israel and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel had continued to enjoy strong support from Democratic leaders, despite outrage from the base over the war on Gaza. Sanders said the votes signaled that party leaders are finally taking note.
“This is where the American people are. The polls are very clear: The overwhelming majority of American people do not want to continue to give weapons to Netanyahu and his horrific wars in the Mideast,” he said. “I think the Democrats have caught on to that. It took a little while, but they caught on to that. But Republicans, I think, are standing in opposition to millions of their own supporters.”
Schumer (D-Tel Aviv) voted against.
And yet the Dems are leaving him as leader?
Just a few years too late.
Best time to cut ties with Israel was 20 years ago.
Second best time is now
I didn’t disagree.
Meaningless posturing because they knew it wouldn’t win. Wake me up when they have a majority and actually do something with it.
It’s not meaningless. It’s saying “if you vote for us, we will make this happen”.
If you don’t fail to pass laws/resolutions because you’re the minority, you won’t win votes over.
That would be sound reasoning if they ever fucking did anything like this when they had a majority
If the Ds had enough votes to block passage, magically, just one would vote against.
We need a country to bribe our reps more than Israel does, this is the only way. Oops, I mean donate.
China, you’re our only hope.
Imagine if the people of the nation had enough money for food, shelter, and political donations.
lol imagine if we achieve the death of US imperialism and the dawn of global communism simply by bribing the politicians more than the capitalists do.
Putin has been donating to that first issue for a while now.
Why do you want a foreign country to interfere on your country’s affairs?
It would obviously be a net good for global society if the US federal government stopped functioning; if the government continues pursuing its current interests that will never happen, yet if foreign lobbyists whose interests are fundamentally enemical to the US (such as China, but not Israel, which is just an appendage of the US) can influence the US federal government it may happen. At least that seems more proximal than the US working class suddenly gaining the kind of militant political stances and organization that would be necessary otherwise. But if both things could happen that’d be even better.
We need that ACPAC money
We are remarkably lazy, thoroughly beaten down, and a generation or two removed from an education that would have been helpful. Couple that with a people who believe the world is ending and 50 years of bad leadership.
I’d say the majority of Americans are not yet aware that their government has changed.
We need a country to bribe our reps more than Israel does
It’s a circular scheme. Money we spend arming Israel goes to their weapons manufacturers. Their MIC collects a profit, which is milled back into campaign donations to US Congresscritters. Congresscritters take the money and rubber stamp more tax-dollars to Israel, to buy more weapons, to generate more profit, to bribe more of Congress.
China, you’re our only hope.
President Xi, please liberate our people.
This idea that China is somehow going to save you or the world is brain death.
Xi loves what Trump is doing. Why would he risk stabilizing the U.S. when he could just not and continue to madly profit?
Also are you Han Chinese? Because if not, see my first point.
I don’t think Xi Jinping loves when Trump puts 1quadrillion% tariffs on China.
failed just as planned. i can’t take them
seriouslynever mind i do take them seriously after they rejected the call to stop taking AIPAC money. of course they are not going to stop. they just need to choose the defectors. and shumer is too cowardly to answer for his own demandsAre Democrats feeling the Bern at last?
Imagine if you will - a world where we would have had Bernie instead of Sweet Potato Hitler V1.
Never forget kids: The rich are the true and only enemy.
Hell, I’m still imagining a world where we had Gore instead of Junior.
Two easy ones:
No 9-11. There would have eventually been an attempt somehow, hell, maybe it would have been worse, like a dirty bomb. But the ball wouldn’t have been dropped on staying alert. Climate activism. Still think it was far too late even by 2000 to prevent the worst that’s coming (which tells you were I think we are now), but at least Gore knew the science and would have tried to change something.
Still would have had our problems, but it’s such a different path, it’s hard to say what would have still happened.
I have a hard time believing that Gore would have made a difference on preventing 9-11, but I’m sure the response would have been different. Maybe no Patriot Act, maybe no Afghanistan War, almost certainly no Iraq War. That’s a big enough difference for me.
Bush was an idiot that blew off reports about Osama bin laden mobilizing. I don’t think Gore would have, personally.
Was it Bush, or was it good ol’ Dick wanting an excuse to go into the oil desert again?
I’m old. I’m STILL imagining a world where we got Dukakis instead of Reaganomics 2.0
I’m ancient. George McGovern instead of Dick Nixon.
I’m prehistoric. George III instead of Washington
Republicans: not even once.
I wasn’t born, but a world in which Carter won re-election instead of Reagan or Humphrey defeated Nixon would have been… So much better.
Even Eisenhower, best of a bad lot, did nothing to stop the red scare and instead used it as an opportunity to remove homosexuals and leftists from the civil service.
Not even once.
It was safe to vote in order to appease the voters without actually doing anything because they knew the Republicans would shut it down.
If the vote were closer and couldn’t survive Democratic unanimity, just enough of the rotating selection would oppose it to keep it from passing while the rest saved face.
It’s a bad play I think if that’s their plan. It shows that criticizing Israel is fair game, which has pretty much been against everything said in the past. It’s an admission that they think that what Israel is doing is wrong. You can’t put that back. AIPAC would not be in favor of this. If this is just appeasement, it’s at least appeasement that can be pointed at to show what’s wrong.
They may think of it like appeasement
But this is only the beginning of the anti-zionist snowball
I desperately hope you’re right, but I suspect this is naïvely optimistic.
The Democratic Party has shown time and time again that they are willing to vote in line with the people if and only if their vote doesn’t change the outcome.
I’ll believe their votes on Israel mean anything when their votes – well – mean anything for the result.
Israel will only get more unpopular
More and more people see day after day the billions we spend sending weapons to Israel’s genocide and ethnic cleansing campaigns, billions that aren’t being used to help everyday americans
This type of resentment and anger is only growing, and will only grow faster as material conditions continue to worsen, which the vast majority of Americans are experiencing
So on top of the, rightfully, moral outrage at what Israel is, it’s also fuelled by that economic outrage, and both are only increasing
With berniecrat types, like Zohran and others, we see massive grassroots motion precisely because they can authentically tackle both those aspects. Calling out the truth of Apartheid and Genocide, demanding Divestment, on top of taxing the rich, moving all those funds to instead help cost of living at home
More and more berniecrats are winning races across the country because people are demanding a disruption to the status quo. The scare mongering of the socialist label doesn’t work anymore. People don’t care, they just hear that those policies can improve things. And as those policies do improve things, it only gets more and more popular
A Candidate whose unapologetically anti-zionist shows authenticity, so people are more charitable to that candidates socialist policies and more willing to give them a chance. The Republican policies aren’t working, the Liberal Democrat policies aren’t working, so fuck it, we ball
Democrats: against every war but the current war.
The war to end all wars
It’s nice, but we need meaningful campaign finance reform. We need to get Israeli money, and all foreign money, as far away from our political campaigns as possible.
Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I suspect a lot of Dems knew it wouldn’t pass and are virtue signaling. Let’s see if there’s a blue wave in November and if so, whether they still have the backbone to cut off Israel.
This wouldn’t be an issue if we just had campaign finance reform.
Virtue signaling is a good start.
Don’t underestimate the value of moving the Overton Window
deleted by creator
Hey Dems, this is the kind of hings we want. Keep it up. Do actual healthcare and debt reduction next!
Future: Sorry, even though there are 55 Democratic senators now, six of them won’t vote for it because of inscrutable reasons and there’s just nothing we can do!
And apologists wonder why we don’t like the Dem neo-libs.
…now? They just did this now? What was the inflection point?
The inflection point was they knew it’s gonna pass anyway, so they used the opportunity to feign alignment with their voters for a change.
they knew it’s gonna pass anyway
Legislation doesn’t just pass by magic. There has to be a critical point of majority support. In this case, there wasn’t.
The final 47–52 tally disappointed advocates who had hoped to draw more GOP support.
This feels a bit like the Epstein stuff. Liberal politicians recognizing how ugly their primary bids could get and how dangerous the general could be for pro-Israeli candidates going into 2028 and have decided to hedge their bets.
Meanwhile Republicans seem dead set on making this a referendum on the US-Iran War, which their caucus largely supports.
They were probably told to wait until Israel got most of what it wanted and then were allowed to do this to save face. Fuck all democrats who voted yes previously, this will not absolve them. They deserve to rot in the same cesspit with Trump and Netanyahu.
Israel hasn’t stolen all of Lebanon yet
Only thing I can think of, is that the world is turning against Israel. Including Italy, France, UK, Spain, South Korea, and even Saudi Arabia is shutting down their sport-washing projects like LIV Golf and cutting off their Bonds investments in USA.
If they did this about 2 years ago we wouldn’t have Trump.
I guess an eventual response is better than no response. Although for many is this juat a decision to win votes? Like I want representatives that have morals, but I suppose ones that listen to their voters is better than the current situation
I too can never quite shake the feeling that at least sometimes the supposed opposition is just theatre. Especially when they know it won’t make any functional difference, they can say “well, gosh darn it, we tried” when in reality they’ll always magically never have enough votes to do the right thing.
Plato’s Cave became billionaires present a marionette show for the people.
And if in some miracle they do, the Parliamentarian will just stop it.
Cool! Now let’s do that 2 years ago
If you know popular legislation will fail then it’s easier to support it.
deleted by creator
Bare minimum but a start I guess
Now send iron dome to Gaza and sanctions against Israel
I’m assuming they know it won’t pass because of the Republican majority so they are virtue signaling. I can’t trust either side.
Call their bluff and give them the majority they need yet secretly hope they don’t receive?
Why does your cult always put the burden on the voters and not the party to do what their constituency wants?
If they really want to oppose Israel, ask them to renounce their lobbying and kick them out instead?
“Call their bluff and make them win”
What kind of retarded strategy is this?
I mean, the alternative is what we have. Can’t see how that’s better. Giving them the votes for it would, at worst, change absolutely nothing, and at best prove cynics wrong and minutely improve shit. What’s there to lose?
Giving them the votes for it would, at worst, change absolutely nothing […] What’s there to lose?
I believe this is exactly what people have been doing the last 40 years, and each day that passes the Dems are further right because they know people will vote for them anyway.
Yeah, that is a problem, but are the Republicans going to fix it?
Primaries, lower-stakes elections (like non-federal or in non-swing states), nurturing an actually progressive platform from the ground up - that’s the most plausible democratic way to change things. Imagine if you could swing a formerly red state around to a progressive one. That would send one hell of a message.
I’m not going to advocate for non-democratic means on a public forum, obviously.
But as should be evident by now, neither voting Dem nor not voting Dem seem to y stop that slide (though defeats seem to encourage it, since they subsequently try to curry conservative votes rather than trying to regain the progressive favour), except that Republicans at the federal level have manifestly worse side-effects.
So I maintain that giving them votes is a form of damage control, where no better option exists, but if there is little damage to control, voting third party can be a sensible way to send a signal.
your cult
I’m not even American. I’m just wondering if that would be an effective strategy. I’m probably wrong and I wonder why that is the case.
