I don’t know what else to do to stop this. Have demonstrated in the streets, sent money to aid organizations and hospital and to the few politicians who have voted to stop the funding. Have written letters and email to the WH (Biden), the VP Harris, written letters endless comments, some of which were not published by the NYT, which alon…
I don’t know what else to do to stop this. Have demonstrated in the streets, sent money to aid organizations and hospital and to the few politicians who have voted to stop the funding. Have written letters and email to the WH (Biden), the VP Harris, written letters endless comments, some of which were not published by the NYT, which along with most other msm, is complicit. My thoughts: demonstrate in front of DNC headquarters; demonstrate in front of the NYT. Most Democratic members of Congress, together with all of their Republican counterparts, regularly vote to continue the funding. This includes, of course, Cory Booker, who apparently is launching his second bid for the presidency. VP candidate Tim Waltz refused to answer a recent question by Chris Hayes in MSNBC as to whether, looking back, he and Harris should have taken a different position on Gaza. He was asked twice and twice gave a non answer. All of us who oppose this need to let them know loud and clear (and over and over) that we will not vote for supporters of genocide. It’s on them — not us.
I totally empathize with your feelings of nowhere to go to vote for a party of candidates whose main ambition is good governance—taking care of the nation and its people. I'm ready to resign from the Democratic Party because I do not want formal affiliation with organized ruling-class Nazi genocidists pretending to value democracy. With only two parties trying to out-compete each other for AIPAC $$$ and the favors of a pseudo-Zionist monster who hates our Constitution, there are no lesser evils now. One party exists that seems less threatening, but maybe that is because of the image that party works to project.
Just like most Jews are not rabid cheerleaders of genocide, most rank and file Democrats don't support "genocidal capitalist planet mauling." In both cases, the operatives that control both do, and they do so against the will of those they claim to represent.
When there is currently nothing to leave to that merits support, we are left with the empty feeling Nancy described. One solution would be to organize a kind of "strike" in which we abandon support for our party operatives' anointed ones wherever possible and support selected Independent candidates that do represent the people. I've seen a few Independent candidates popping up very recently. Would be great if support for them coalesced into a movement. That could spring from the "Hands Off!" protests. I'm finding participating in the protests more satisfying than supporting my Party. Maybe others are too.
Zionists of both stripes are rabid supporters of genocide and so called 'rank and file' democrats turn a blind eye to their party's complicity and whine about the price of eggs.
I'm not going to pretend to be emotional here, so I’ll just give you a straight answer.
If you're asking what else to do, the cold political reality is this: you need to mobilize about 3.5% of the population with Gaza as a top priority. That’s the threshold where movements start to shift policy, based on political science research.
Yes, you'll see polls saying 60% of Americans don't support Israel’s actions or that 80% want a ceasefire. Those numbers are encouraging, but they're not what drives political change. It’s not just how many people care—it’s how much they care, and whether they’re willing to act on it.
Right now, Gaza might be the #1 or #2 international issue for some people, but for most, it’s not even close. There are many international affairs that impact Americans more directly—like immigration, trade with China, or global energy prices—and those take precedence in their minds. Gaza is seen as tragic, but distant. And let’s be blunt—Americans are probably the most sheltered population on the planet. Most only have to deal with their own dysfunctional politics; the rest of the world has to deal with their own retards plus the consequences of America's “leadership.”
So your two realistic options are:
1. Persuade average people to move Gaza to the top of their priority list—even if it doesn't affect them directly.
2. Improve their quality of life enough that they have the bandwidth to care about distant international issues at all.
That’s where real pressure comes from—not just letters or demonstrations, but priority reshuffling on a national scale.
And with the fallout from the upcoming big-brain tariff politics, I expect most people—both in the U.S. and globally—will soon be too busy handling their own shit to keep Gaza anywhere near the top of the list.
Agree with most of what you wrote. The question with respect to making Gaza a priority with 3 + % is how you do that. That’s where I disagree that demonstrations aren’t helpful. I think we need to let Democratic politicians and the DNC know that the party won’t win the presidency without changing its position on Palestine. And I truly believe that it won’t. (A lot of people think it was enough to affect the outcome in the 2024 election). And now parts of the mainstream media, like MSNBC, are raising the question about the impact on future elections. The opposition needs to be visible to catch on and to get the necessary attention and support.
Cory Booker got called out on Gaza at a town hall in Tucson. This got press coverage.
With respect to your number 2, yes, that needs to happen and there are lots of people working on it. The problem is, it won’t happen soon enough to save the people in Gaza.
Honestly, I don’t think anything significant will shift within the next four years. If the U.S. experiences serious supply chain disruptions or domestic economic pressure, the Palestinian issue will be deprioritized instantly. It’ll survive as a niche cause—activists will still push, some reporters will still cover it, and there’ll be noise on campuses—but it won’t dominate public discourse.
The only viable strategy I see is strategic piggybacking.
If the pro-Palestine movement aligns itself with causes people already care about—like personal freedoms, free speech, or government overreach—then it stands a chance of staying relevant as a side effect of those broader concerns.
But as a standalone issue? Once inflation, housing, tariffs, factory shutdowns, or job loss hit harder, Palestine will become a background issue for most. People will relegate it to moral afterthoughts unless it can be logically linked to something that directly impacts them.
And honestly, that’s probably where the “battle” will happen. The deciding factor will be the cohesiveness of the glue—or the strength of the paperclip.
I don’t know what else to do to stop this. Have demonstrated in the streets, sent money to aid organizations and hospital and to the few politicians who have voted to stop the funding. Have written letters and email to the WH (Biden), the VP Harris, written letters endless comments, some of which were not published by the NYT, which along with most other msm, is complicit. My thoughts: demonstrate in front of DNC headquarters; demonstrate in front of the NYT. Most Democratic members of Congress, together with all of their Republican counterparts, regularly vote to continue the funding. This includes, of course, Cory Booker, who apparently is launching his second bid for the presidency. VP candidate Tim Waltz refused to answer a recent question by Chris Hayes in MSNBC as to whether, looking back, he and Harris should have taken a different position on Gaza. He was asked twice and twice gave a non answer. All of us who oppose this need to let them know loud and clear (and over and over) that we will not vote for supporters of genocide. It’s on them — not us.
I totally empathize with your feelings of nowhere to go to vote for a party of candidates whose main ambition is good governance—taking care of the nation and its people. I'm ready to resign from the Democratic Party because I do not want formal affiliation with organized ruling-class Nazi genocidists pretending to value democracy. With only two parties trying to out-compete each other for AIPAC $$$ and the favors of a pseudo-Zionist monster who hates our Constitution, there are no lesser evils now. One party exists that seems less threatening, but maybe that is because of the image that party works to project.
Resign already. Dems are genocidal capitalist planet mauling asswipes, don't you see.
Just like most Jews are not rabid cheerleaders of genocide, most rank and file Democrats don't support "genocidal capitalist planet mauling." In both cases, the operatives that control both do, and they do so against the will of those they claim to represent.
When there is currently nothing to leave to that merits support, we are left with the empty feeling Nancy described. One solution would be to organize a kind of "strike" in which we abandon support for our party operatives' anointed ones wherever possible and support selected Independent candidates that do represent the people. I've seen a few Independent candidates popping up very recently. Would be great if support for them coalesced into a movement. That could spring from the "Hands Off!" protests. I'm finding participating in the protests more satisfying than supporting my Party. Maybe others are too.
Zionists of both stripes are rabid supporters of genocide and so called 'rank and file' democrats turn a blind eye to their party's complicity and whine about the price of eggs.
It's the Uniparty. The Democrats aren't an opposition party. They just play one on TV, and getting worse at it by the day.
I'm not going to pretend to be emotional here, so I’ll just give you a straight answer.
If you're asking what else to do, the cold political reality is this: you need to mobilize about 3.5% of the population with Gaza as a top priority. That’s the threshold where movements start to shift policy, based on political science research.
Yes, you'll see polls saying 60% of Americans don't support Israel’s actions or that 80% want a ceasefire. Those numbers are encouraging, but they're not what drives political change. It’s not just how many people care—it’s how much they care, and whether they’re willing to act on it.
Right now, Gaza might be the #1 or #2 international issue for some people, but for most, it’s not even close. There are many international affairs that impact Americans more directly—like immigration, trade with China, or global energy prices—and those take precedence in their minds. Gaza is seen as tragic, but distant. And let’s be blunt—Americans are probably the most sheltered population on the planet. Most only have to deal with their own dysfunctional politics; the rest of the world has to deal with their own retards plus the consequences of America's “leadership.”
So your two realistic options are:
1. Persuade average people to move Gaza to the top of their priority list—even if it doesn't affect them directly.
2. Improve their quality of life enough that they have the bandwidth to care about distant international issues at all.
That’s where real pressure comes from—not just letters or demonstrations, but priority reshuffling on a national scale.
And with the fallout from the upcoming big-brain tariff politics, I expect most people—both in the U.S. and globally—will soon be too busy handling their own shit to keep Gaza anywhere near the top of the list.
Agree with most of what you wrote. The question with respect to making Gaza a priority with 3 + % is how you do that. That’s where I disagree that demonstrations aren’t helpful. I think we need to let Democratic politicians and the DNC know that the party won’t win the presidency without changing its position on Palestine. And I truly believe that it won’t. (A lot of people think it was enough to affect the outcome in the 2024 election). And now parts of the mainstream media, like MSNBC, are raising the question about the impact on future elections. The opposition needs to be visible to catch on and to get the necessary attention and support.
Cory Booker got called out on Gaza at a town hall in Tucson. This got press coverage.
With respect to your number 2, yes, that needs to happen and there are lots of people working on it. The problem is, it won’t happen soon enough to save the people in Gaza.
Honestly, I don’t think anything significant will shift within the next four years. If the U.S. experiences serious supply chain disruptions or domestic economic pressure, the Palestinian issue will be deprioritized instantly. It’ll survive as a niche cause—activists will still push, some reporters will still cover it, and there’ll be noise on campuses—but it won’t dominate public discourse.
The only viable strategy I see is strategic piggybacking.
If the pro-Palestine movement aligns itself with causes people already care about—like personal freedoms, free speech, or government overreach—then it stands a chance of staying relevant as a side effect of those broader concerns.
But as a standalone issue? Once inflation, housing, tariffs, factory shutdowns, or job loss hit harder, Palestine will become a background issue for most. People will relegate it to moral afterthoughts unless it can be logically linked to something that directly impacts them.
And honestly, that’s probably where the “battle” will happen. The deciding factor will be the cohesiveness of the glue—or the strength of the paperclip.
Agreed!
Settler occupy all synagogues until Jews learn to share. That'll stop this shit.