An iron dome to protect against what? If we're going to spend money building one, it's Ukraine that needs one, not the US.
I'm guessing they included that to distract people from the other executive orders.
Switched to Apple Maps a few months ago, just one more reason to never switch back.
Why do you think the U.S. decided to withdraw
Trump was elected.
what role did concerns about economic burdens play in that decision?
Those were the only concerns taken into account.
Do you agree with the argument that the agreement was unfair to the U.S.
No.
do you think it was a necessary commitment to addressing climate change?
Yes.
How do you think the withdrawal impacted global efforts and international relations
It'll discourage other countries from living up to the targets of the agreement, whether they continue participating on paper or not.
It makes China's environmental efforts look good in comparison, so the logical thing to do (if lobbyist bribes weren't holding us back) would have been for the US to outcompete China in that field too, since being a market leader in renewable energy is getting more and more valuable with each passing year.
did it weaken the collective fight against climate change or influence other nations’ decisions
Undoubtedly.
Should economic concerns ever take precedence over environmental responsibilities in agreements like this?
For long term economic success, those environmental responsibilities must be fulfilled to account for the negative externalities of any industry that pollutes the environment. Ignoring them offsets those costs onto others, artificially increasing short-term profits.
Never in anything I wrote did I say that any Palestinian deserves the horrors that Israel has inflicted and continues to inflict upon them.
While I am against the actions of Hamas, since terrorism won't solve anything, Israel has committed crimes far worse in comparison (approximately 60,000 Palestinians killed versus approximately 1,000 Israelis). There's no doubt that Israel has gone far and beyond their stated goal of terrorism prevention to instead make progress towards their goal of clearing Gaza out for Israeli settlement.
The problem is that most Americans don't share my view on the issue of Palestine, and still view the Palestinians as instigators of violence, which is among the reasons why neither the republicans nor democrats were ever going to drop support for Israel. The best course of action, in my opinion, would have been to pick Harris to at least get the better long-term course of action for Palestine, rather than the increased risk of Israeli expansionism after Trump's re-election.
The most frustrating part of getting banned from there is that having echo chambers like that decreases the likelihood that new Lemmy users will stick around.
Palestinians have my full sympathy and the Israeli government my full ire, with the past year's bloodshed demonstrating that an independent Palestine being necessary and long overdue if there's to be any chance of a long term peace.
My problem with the moderator's comments was twofold. First, they themselves are demonstrating an extremist position in suggesting that terrorism committed in retribution to Israel's war crimes is in any way acceptable. While I can sympathize with there being few other meaningful options available when Israel has the US as an ally, any hope of meaningful political support for the Palestinian cause—something will only degrade further under Trump—is lost if Israel is no longer seen as the aggressor. Resistance is one thing, terrorism is another.
Secondly, setting the goalposts of success as being the proclamation of a ceasefire was meaningless, given that they now have Trump's support to gradually expel the remaining Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and establish additional Israeli settlements. Like him or not, Biden was at the very least against that, something that means a lot more in terms of the long term ability for Palestinians to remain in Palestine.
Having been banned, I can't interact with any posts on there now unfortunately, so just added it to my block list. More importantly, however, the more echo chambers that people establish on Lemmy, the harder it'll be to attract new users to the platform.
If that was indeed the reason, then that only serves to support the notion that general disagreement, rather than just extremism, is what is being banned from that community. They have every right to ban advocates of genocide for extremism, but in no way do I think that supporting Palestine without supporting Hamas is a position worthy of a ban.
Using life imprisonment to maintain a low-cost source of labor without giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship; sounds familiar...
Although it's clear I won't convince you and you won't convince me, to make it clear, I don't support the actions of the Israeli government, as I've stated in my previous comments. I'm just not laser focused on one political issue and would rather have the lesser of two evils than pretend that a far-right candidate like Trump cares more about civil or human rights than Biden or Harris.
And yes, although the Israeli army has plenty of war criminals that should be sent to The Hague along with Netanyahu for their actions in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, Hamas was never justified in kidnapping Israeli citizens in the first place. Terrorism is never justified, and terrorists on both sides deserve to be tried for their war crimes, as should be the case in any war.
Netanyahu could have enacted the ceasefire at any point last year, but deliberately waited to do his part in spreading fascism to the US.
Trump's overt racism towards Muslims leaves Palestinians worse off than they've ever been, with Trump lifting Biden's sanctions on Israeli settlers in the West Bank, Netanyahu having Trump's full support, with the high-tonnage bombs that were blocked from being sent to Israel now being allowed at Trump's order, and Israel's renewed intrusion into the West Bank demonstrating that Netanyahu intends to do everything he can to continue the war while claiming to be acting in a humanitarian manner, only stopping in Gaza to make it look like Trump had anything to do with it.
In terms of Ukraine, as nearly 100,000 Ukrainians (civilians and the armed forces of Ukraine and its breakaway regions) have died as a direct result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, casting aside the suffering that has occurred there is just as disrespectful as the people that ignore the suffering that has occurred in Palestine.
Given that choosing Trump over Harris not only leaves Palestine worse off, but harms Ukraine, the environment, abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, anti-discrimination efforts, and countless other issues impacting minority groups, enables further corporate profiteering, and normalizes overt bribery and corruption, anyone who would accept all of that in favor of a delusion that Trump cares for a second about the wellbeing of Palestine is just as deluded as Trump's MAGA supporters.
And that's why we now have president Harris. Clearly a winning strategy.
Again, the Israelis wanted the few limitations imposed on them lifted, in addition to the billions of other dollars American oligarchs funneled to Trump in support of other issues, so ultimately intense advertising campaigns in swing states along with propaganda efforts on pro-republican social media platforms far outweighed the electoral benefits of supporting Israel; the point was not adding to Trump's lead in opposing them.
Many Democratic politicians were already doing that.
As were even more Republican ones; at least the far-left is supportive of cutting off aid to Israel, unlike the far-right, while also not propagating its racist, bigoted values.
A strong argument for voting third party.
Voting third party in the United States only serves to draw support away from one's second-preferred candidate to the benefit of one's least preferred candidate, as demonstrated by the failure of relatively popular third-party right-wing presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996. Without the implementation ranked choice voting to prevent the spoiler effect, most third-party voters end up with a worse outcome for the issues they support than they'd have gotten with their second-preferred candidate.
So the ceasefire would have been in the Democrats' best interest yet they sacrificed their chances to win at the altar of Zionism.
Not if voters saw it as giving in to terrorism, which is how it would have been spun if Biden had pushed for it. As the media spins Israeli state-backed acts of terror in Palestine as actions of self-defense, most Americans remain supportive of Israel.
"Genocide is a minor issue if it is happening to people we see as inferior."
Again, things will only get worse under Trump.
Beyond that, it also enables things to get worse for Ukraine. With Ukraine having over 36,000,000 people in contrast to Palestine's 5,000,000 or Israel's 10,000,000, Russia's war crimes there have had a far greater impact than those committed by Israel and Hamas combined. Despite that, Trump's odd admiration of Putin combined with the strengthened alliance with Israel means than things will not only get worse in Palestine than if Harris had been elected, but in Ukraine as well.
Would you say those who voted for Biden in 2020 or stayed home are complicit in the genocide?
No more or less than those who voted for Trump in 2020, or even any leading third-party candidate, since supporting Israel has been a cornerstone of American geopolitics for decades.
Just another cost of doing business for them. Until such fines are measured in the hundreds of millions or billions, companies will keep profiting by breaking the law and paying a meaningless fine if caught.
Thanks; that worked for me 👍