It’s educate, AGITATE, organize
edit: putting this at the top so people understand the basis for this:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
Uh, okay, you have fun with not understanding the difference between social change and an election coming up in a handful of months with tensions over key issues already sky-high, and ‘Foreign Policy tension’ being pretty fucking unlikely to top or come close to any of them regardless of how loud you make “Genocide Joe” chants.
Then it shouldnt be of any concern to you that I continue agitating it.
It shouldn’t be any concern to me that you’re agitating on an issue that can’t possibly win us the election, but can very possibly lose us the election?
“[…]create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.”
Negotiations only work when there is something that both sides can agree on exchanging, and refusing a deal offered, even a poor one (“I will condemn Israeli genocide but not make any actions against it”), is only viable insofar as you’re willing to accept the alternative (“I will give Israel everything it wants and more, and also I will commit genocide here, and also you can look forward to never having a real election again”).
Except, at least on paper, we all agree that there is a resolution that would be acceptable to both parties.
I suspect (as do many other leftists who have a more cynical view of american imperialism than you do) that Biden is well aware of what the right thing to do is, but doesn’t want to be the one to give up the benefits of having Israel as a foothold in the middle east and is willing to accept a genocide in order to keep it.
If Biden ever made a strong case publicly on why Israel is such an important ally that we should ignore their atrocities, it would be impossible for any of us to miss it. I think we haven’t seen that case being made because nobody who believes in the benevolence of the US would be happy with it.
The two-state solution that the Biden administration has confirmed is the desired solution?
“the benefits of having Israel as a foothold in the middle east”
This line is trotted out all the fucking time by both Zionists and anti-Zionists, and yet it has not one lick of fucking truth to it.
Israel isn’t a good ally. They aren’t even a mediocre ally. They’re a pariah state we play human shield for because a third of the electorate is high on Israel’s propaganda that it’s pumped in for the past forty years, and a third is high on religious eschatology.
Biden has made the case, publicly, that Israel’s atrocities do not rise to the level of being worth being stripped of aid, for political, diplomatic, and security reasons. It’s a stupid case, but it is a case.
I completely agree, but I imagine we probably disagree about who is propagandizing for israeli support. I don’t think it’s a baseless accusation to suggest the US stands to gain something from the relationship, and suggesting otherwise is a little strange considering just how robust that support is. Biden himself said if Israel didn’t exist, the US would create one to advance her interests in the Middle East. I’m assuming that didn’t come out of nowhere.
Then someone should be pushing him to make a stronger one, either way, before he loses the election to an issue he seems to not have a compelling response to.
Iron law of institutions. Institutions don’t do what benefit the institution’s hold on power; institutions do what benefits the decision-makers’ hold on power. The US supports Israel because Israel can swing elections, especially Republican primaries and close elections, in favor of pro-Israel forces. For that reason, most politicians have become pro-Israel. It also creates a feedback loop - politicians feed pro-Israel sentiment because they are (now) on the record as pro-Israel, and need as many voters as possible to be onboard with that.
It didn’t. It came out of Israeli funding combined with evangelical ascendance into politics in the 80s. We were ambiguous at best in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, and only mildly supportive of Israel in the 70s.