So lets say you have twi buttons and you can only press one:
A) Your movement gains the support
of a politician who flip-flopped
and now would vote in laws that
help ending the conflict and/or
easing the humanitarian situation
The price is literally just doing
nothing and you can talk bad
about the politician once they
were useful for the movement
B) You don't get that vote, but you
pretend to keep the movement pure
from an ideological standpoint.
The price is potentially not
passing needed legislation.
Don't get me wrong, I like neither option and whether I personally would chose A or B depends a lot on the specifics. But purely from a "we want to achieve tangible political goals"-position the former is superior.
If this is a false dichotomy (it might be), tell me.
It’s not about someone changing their mind when there’s new evidence. The evidence was already there, it was being live-streamed and talked about since the beginning.
The vast majority of the politicians in America receive funding from AIPAC. They know what happens when they deviate from their supplied talking points, and right now the public outcry has grown to the point where those same politicians who would say they “want Palestinians free of Hamas” while those same Palestinians were being wholesale slaughtered for nearly two years, are now suddenly changing their tune.
They are not trustworthy full stop. And they should not be granted the forgiveness while they consistently either openly endorsed the actions of Israel by either words or voting to send more weapons to kill Palestinians
If this is a false dichotomy (it might be), tell me.