Hacker News Reader

Comment by filoleg | Hacker News Reader

> Only one side is being armed and funded by our tax dollars

I mean, yeah, I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other. Specifically, the side that I consider to be fundamentally in the right in the conflict.

Whichever side I am talking about is not relevant to the point. What's relevant to the actual point I am trying to make, is that I don't think that one side being better armed and funded serves as a reasonable indicator of which side is right/wrong in a given conflict.

View on HN

> I would heavily prefer for one of the sides in this conflict to be much better funded and armed than the other.

Most Americans would prefer that we fund neither.

And this isn’t 2012, majority of Americans today do not see Israeli’s, who steal, spy on and try to get Americans killed through wars they start as the “good guys”.

> Most Americans would prefer that we fund neither.

I'd say, based on the latest election result, this isn't true.

Trump was basically like: I'm gonna fuck up Palestine. They'd better watch it. He was always clear about this.

And then he won every single swing state and even won popular vote.

Not that I agree with Trump. I merely state what I've observed.

> I'd say, based on the latest election result, this isn't true.

The Israeli-Palestine conflict is far from the #1 priority of things US voters consider when voting in presidential elections.

Also, winning by one of the narrowest margins in US election history, and with less than 50% of the popular vote is hardly a decisive mandate to give Israel a blank check. [1]

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/22/us/politics/trump-electio...

> Also, winning by one of the narrowest margins in US election history

This dude said he would help commit genocide and became the first republican to win popular votes in 20 years.

> The Israeli-Palestine conflict is far from the #1 priority of things US voters consider when voting in presidential elections.

If a president promises to commit a genocide, I don't think any kind of policies would get voters (who are against genocide) to vote for him.

It's certainly not #1 priority but it is a deal breaker.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com