It's educate, AGITATE, organize
edit: putting this at the top so people understand the basis for this:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
I completely agree, but I imagine we probably disagree about who is propagandizing for israeli support. I don't think it's a baseless accusation to suggest the US stands to gain something from the relationship, and suggesting otherwise is a little strange considering just how robust that support is. Biden himself said if Israel didn't exist, the US would create one to advance her interests in the Middle East. I'm assuming that didn't come out of nowhere.
Then someone should be pushing him to make a stronger one, either way, before he loses the election to an issue he seems to not have a compelling response to.
This would be more compelling if it were just Biden perpetuating that relationship, but it (seemingly) exists throughout the entire institution, from individual polititions to the state department to educational institutions to media conglomerates. My own inclination is to view it as a self-perpetuating system, rather than a per-decision-maker issue. The more persistent a trait is in a system (despite obvious challenges to that trait), the more likely I think it is that the issue doesn't exist at the individual level but at the level of the institution itself. Most people I discuss this with here seem to agree that there are substantial benefits for the US to have an iron-clad ally in the ME, i'm curious what you think of those suggestions? Namely that the US (through israel) maintains influence over the red sea as well as major oil and gas pipelines that traverse the area.
This sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy, but setting that aside for a second (because I acknowledge that a lot of issues are determined by financial contributions), wouldn't this be a very compelling reason why we should be creating a crisis against letting this campaign continue? If you're arguing (like I think you are..?) that we should permit our politicians to continue supporting a genocidal fascistic state simply because they can afford to contribute more to our political system than we can to buy their vote, how is that not an apathetic stance?
Frankly, this is a frightening way to look at american democracy, and i'll say the same to you that i'd say to anyone else feeling this apathetic: you don't have to accept this reality alone. We can fight against it together.
I'm sorry we butt heads so often, I really think we could both benefit if we worked together but you at least need to acknowledge that the problem isn't impossible to overcome.
I don't want to burn any goodwill we might have built here, so I'm not going to pick out the few things here I disagree with just to keep it going.
I basically believe that Biden can't win with this position, and agitating him to change it is the only thing I can do from where I am to fix that. I hope I'm wrong.