Now that is what I call anti-semtisim. The idea of attaching all Jewish identity to Israel, a nuclear armed nation-state with a conventional war machine. Many Jewish people couldn't give a **** if their VP candidate served in the IDF.
I guess you will forever be confused as to why someone with a viewpoint so opposed to modern young democrats is being so strongly considered then.
A tale as old as time. Status quo unsettlement always irks the people with power and money. The status quo currently is seeing the Palestinian people as a unempathetic group of humans. A change of that status quo upsets donor class. It's really that simple.
which demographic of donor class specifically has the least empathy towards people who attack israel?
Which isn't an atypical experience for young Jewish people who participate in birthright. I've got friends on the political left who did exactly what Shapiro did after they turned 18. It shouldn't be a disqualifying thing.
So far, what I've read doesn't match what you describe here, but I need to read more to form a more informed opinion. Who are they?
Also I'm suspicious of your framing of things. Calling bibi's ethnic cleansing campaign a mishandling is giving me giant red flags about your opinions on this matter. People don't mishandle when they try to do what ic cleanings. That isn't a term you use for a purposeful ethnic cleansing campaign.
If you are implying these were positions he adopted after he became a VP candidate, that’s not the case. These were from articles I read dated before Biden dropped out. Regarding the term "mishandle," I have two points. First, I'm not sure if that's the exact term he used; I only mentioned it because an article described it that way. He might have used a different term (I'll need to look into it further). Second, the interpretation depends on the context. It is possible to argue that a war is both mishandled and a genocide (or some combination of the two). I think (not saying you are doing this since you might have more context) assuming that describing a war as "mishandled" automatically implies a rejection or acceptance of it being a genocide is an oversimplification. Context is important there. I don't know where you got that implication (that he believed Palestinians weren't oppressed before October 7th) from. Can you share more info on it? So far, and I haven't read much on this yet, he doesn't sound that much different from the other VP candidates.
This is probably where most everyone is. But I do not take things as given (by either progressive or his supporters). There is simply too much of that going on (in general), so I'm trying to find out more about his positions.
By saying a attack was unprovoked. The terrorists who stormed the security checkpoints on oct 7th are filled with damaged ptsd'd out men and boys who've experienced sever trauma like loss of homes or family members to the IDF. None of those experiences justified attacking a civilian population. But we can't pretend Oct 7th happened in a vacuum. That's just the violent interactions they experienced let alone the non violent dehumanizing daily interactions like having to go through 6 hours of security checkpoints divided by ethnic lines to reach their work shift. He has also called the Palestinians as a whole as people incapable of coexisting because of their inherent behavior. It's very simple. Find a candidate that didn't serve in the IDF. It's easy to find candidates that didn't fight for Hamas or the IDF. It shouldn't be this difficult. Why even poke that bear? Why entertain someone who has this level of baggage?
There is nothing about Bibi's actions post Oct 7th attributed to mishandling. His goal has always been to make Gaza less and less hospitable to civilization to the point where he hopes Gazans cry to Egypt to let them into the Sinai peninsula. The destruction of all civil infrastructure from schools to mosques is a direct purposeful action to make Gaza seen as not a future permanent home for Palestinians. His goal has always been to break the will of Palestinians. There is no mishandling here. It is purely intentional.
"We’ve lost around 30,000 people in Gaza. Of course, this all started because 1,200 Israelis were murdered by Hamas, a designated terrorist group, in an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. " Regarding the term "unprovoked," there are two parts to this. The attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians can be considered unprovoked, while the broader context of ongoing conflict, grievances, and historical tensions between Hamas and Israel can be seen as a provocation. Hamas attacks both civilian and military targets. From a very high-level perspective, one part can be viewed as unprovoked, and the other part as provoked. That's my take. My guess, and I could be wrong, is that most VP candidates, as politicians, describe it as unprovoked. If they use the term "provoked" (or imply that), they fear backlash due to the first part (the civilian aspect). Please share your source on the "inherent behavior" when you can.
When a Aparthied system is happening any actions unjustified or not lashing out because of said Aparthied system isn't unprovoked. The Aparthied system is the provoking. The Hatian slaves who raped and murdered civilians didn't do it unprovoked when they did a slave revolt. It was wrong to rape and murder civilians but it wasn't unprovoked because the underlying existing system provoked it. And your answer to when did he say Palestinians are people who inherently can't coexist is to check on his reasoning for not supporting a two state solution before he realizes he has to change his stance to be electorally viable in Democrat elections. It seems like you are using an excuse of not looking things up as a justification to be this dismissive. "I didn't look into it but it feels wrong".
He also labeled core aspect of Palestinian cultural attire like the keffiyeh as KKK like. Palestinians expressing their culture is KKK like for him.
