I Like Drawing Meryls For My Mental Health Tbh

Meryl Stryfe.

1/5

how does electing trump lower the gun pointed at palestine?

how does electing kamala? how did electing biden?

you know what. let me answer this in good faith.

this ask is in response to my previous post, where i stated:

"keep your eyes open about what you are voting for, so that your vote does not become another vote in service of genocide, and you are part of a structure of accountability for your government. yes, you are voting in self-preservation. but no, you are not being asked to protect anyone to your own detriment. let me put it more simply: as a nation, you aren't being asked to jump in front of a bullet to save palestine from genocide. you're being asked to lower the gun."

as a matter of fact, the US is a partner in the genocide. through weapons funding, through diplomatic immunity, through the media apparatus and through boots-on-the-ground soldiers. this was only further reinforced by netanyahu's address in congress today, which affirmed (needlessly, as we already knew) that israel and the US are "standing with civilization against barbarism" and other genocidal dogwhistles. but he said that for a reason: he's letting american politicians know they are just as culpable for this genocide. it is their genocide too. under international law, biden is liable for delivering weapons to a nation plausibly accused of genocide, not to mention under american law as well for delivering weapons to a nation preventing humanitarian aid.

this is bipartisan policy. both democrats and republicans support the US war machine. US foreign policy has been uniformly bloodthirsty for the past few decades, with some variation that ultimately led to nothing. democrats might kick up more fuss about human rights, but they will ultimately wage the same wars with the same disregard for international law, and have shifted right on israel in ways that even george bush did not entertain.

because this is so deeply entrenched in US politics for myriad historical, political and financial reasons, there is currently no electoral solution for palestinians within US politics, and more urgently there is no electoral solution for the genocide in gaza within US electoral politics. long-term, there might be. the increase of democrats boycotting netanyahu's speech, the election of democrats like rashida tlaib, and the pressure from constituents are indications of an enormous shift in US policy towards israel. but this is very slow change, and people in gaza are dying very quickly.

prior to 2020, there was a certain belief that democrats had some red lines that republicans don't wrt gaza. however, bidens management of the past nine months have completely disabused everyone of that notion. even someone like rashid khalidi, who believes firmly in the power of persuading americans in the imperial core, has been caught off-guard by biden's management of the war, stating that he will not vote for him.

as you might have realized over the past few years, the way the current system is set up leaves very little avenue for constituents to affect policy in the US right now, especially since democrats are extremely adept at pacifying the masses with nominal acts (notably on items like policing and environmentalism in particular) in service of their donors. mass protests are actually an indication that the political system has failed at providing an avenue for political participation except taking to the streets. it is normally a last resort. for some issues it is a first resort, because there are few other options unless you've got lobbying money. now multiply that x100 for foreign policy, where popular opinion has little sway and there are few democratic pathways for the average american to engage with, especially since it is not considered a priority as american deaths in wars have become negligible.

what does this mean? it means it is very, very difficult to pressure politicians on palestine, even though they are wholly involved in palestine and using your tax dollars to do it. in regular times, it is participation in apartheid and occupation, which is bad enough. but right now, it is participation in one of the worst crimes mankind can commit: genocide. the US is not just dropping bombs, it is also a partner in a starvation policy that is deeply sickening. it is medieval to deprive 2 million people, 50% of them children, trapped in a blockaded area of food and water, but this is a strategy the US has not only endorsed, but also assisted israel in carrying out.

because biden has been so batshit insane, there is functionally no way trump can be worse. biden (and blinken) spoke of red lines, but have gradually walked every single one of them back, because this is what democrats do: they pacify you until you no longer notice the boiling water. there is no more money trump can send, and there are no more weapons trump can send, that would make a difference to what israel is doing. they have enough money and weapons and diplomatic immunity to nuke gaza if they want to. they are not being held back by biden, they are being held back by their own limitations, their own internal disagreements, partially by saudi arabia, partially by egypt, by the palestinian resistance factions, and more significantly by hezbollah, yemen and iran. when people say "trump can do more genocide" they're not wrong that things can get worse, but they are wrong that they need trump to get worse. they can also get worse under the next democrat, just as they got worse under biden, because there is no mechanism in place to stop it.

now unlike biden who was ideologically and fanatically zionist, trump is an unpredictable opportunist. he might have done worse, and he might not have. he is actually far more likely to be influenced in any which way—but not by people, by other countries such as saudi arabia, egypt or russia. it doesn't really matter because again: the genocide didn't happen under trump. it happened under biden. it is an atrocity that the full scope of which has not been truly uncovered, and it is still really, horrifically bad—not just because we've seen kids being ripped apart daily for nine months, but because we've also seen the democratic establishment categorically prevent every international mechanism (including the highest court in the world) from stopping it. so even if trump wants to do More Genocide, the biden admin has conveniently removed all diplomatic obstructions that would stop him from doing so, and set a precedent for ignoring both the ICJ and the ICC, which was already in place since bush and further cemented since by obama and then trump and biden. it has simply been a two decades of Things Getting Worse in the middle east, and electoral politics of voting for the lesser evil have played no small part in that, and intentionally so, but there's no need to confront that right now i guess!

so where does kamala come in? well, as i said, there are few avenues for voters to influence foreign policy. the only window that exists is when a politician requires your votes. democrats are notorious for lack of follow through. they campaign, they lie, they hope you forget. if kamala is elected, she may be better on palestine. but nothing in her track record suggests that, and there would be absolutely no leverage to force her to be. but as long as she needs to be elected, there is still critical time for pressure, and it is also critical because people are dying right now.

this is also the answer to those of you stating joe biden is still president and its unfair to talk about kamala: joe biden is barely sentient, and when he is he's a geriatric genocidal racist who couldn't be moved on gaza even when he did want to be re-elected. but now he no longer needs to be elected, and has even less incentive to answer to his base (but will hopefully someday answer to the hague).

so again, when you tell me about "electing" trump or "electing" kamala—none of this is what affects palestinians right now. we have no evidence either way of what they might do. we don't even have a promise from kamala to be better right now, aside from generic vp statements on humanitarianism. she boycotted netanyahu's speech, but neither she nor pelosi have mentioned palestinians, who are still undergoing a genocide they are knowing participants in, nor have they acknowledged that israel is formally an apartheid state and netanyahu is a war criminal (bc of course, then they'd have to admit so is biden). everyone is hoping that she is better, and that she can be pressured, but as of right now that remains to be seen.

your concern is the election, my concern is the present. kamala, as a partial incumbent, will be affected if she can't change anything within the next four months. she doesn't have joe biden's record on israel yet. but as netanyahu's speech showed, the genocide was not joe biden's alone. it is a bipartisan genocide from the US political establishment that joe biden presided over and allowed to escalate unencumbered. kamala was part of this, and doesn't have anything to the contrary—yet. all we have to force her to lower the gun is the knowledge that she wants to be elected. trump's base does not want him to lower the gun, but presumably you (kamala's base) do.

so to answer your question: the upcoming presidential election is not the solution for palestine right now, but it is one of the tools that can be used to stop a genocide that both parties are responsible for. electing kamala may be beneficial in the long run—or it may not. but pressuring kamala is now, and it is urgent.

sara

Xeha mom and baby xeha! requested from my last post!

★:･ﾟ･ﾟ｡✷ Request more Kh characters ! ⋆.ヽ. ✳︎･ ﾟ｡✷･

DARLING DERRINGER MERYL 🤍❕

i think this does get critiqued sometimes like I think we're supposed to see naruto's enduring loyalty to Sasuke as overall a noble/good thing but in the case of the uchiha massacre the uchiha's disloyalty to the village is used to justify their deaths and Itachi putting the village first is seen as a good thing i.e. loyalty to comrades is only good when they are loyal to the state which is deeply disturbing

I think it’s interesting how Shikamaru is basically saying that Sasuke is worth risking their lives for because he is a shinobi from the hidden leaf and therefore a comrade, instead of it being because he’s a kid who’s essentially being abducted by an incredibly dangerous enemy. He’s not a comrade in the sense of being someone he knows in a dangerous situation, but in the sense of being loyal to the hidden leaf, implying that once he fully cuts those ties to the village he will no longer be worthy of help/protection, which is exactly how he gets treated by Shikamaru and most of the Konoha 11 when he becomes a rogue ninja. Even the core ideas of loyalty and protecting one another are wrapped up in the nationalism of the show.

a decade later and the way people talk about fictional women and girls is very. Fucked. The only way they’re compelling to most is 1) she girl bosses in a way that doesn’t obstruct their male faves 2) her motivations aren’t male centric (which, hard agree) but then they dismiss her complexities in the same breath BECAUSE all they focus on is her connections to men. there’s definitely a double standard bc men can obsess over men and not be questioned lmao