Sorry, I assumed that you had the capacity to read and infer based on context. Clearly you lack that ability, so here is the full argument: 1. Throughout this entire conversation, you have repeated the same basic attack: 'Genocide Enabler' with no further context
2. My response was, given the facts on the ground in November and the easily predictable consequences on the ground, if Trump became President, things would get worse, not better for Gaza. Events have born this out. you have not acknowledged this at all. That's likely because the facts are
devastating to your position. 3. Trump being worse for Gaza was predictable. Also predictable was that many other people would additionally suffer and die if Trump became president. Far more than would suffer under a Harris presidency. Facts have also born this out. USAID cuts alone ensure that
more people will starve to death in Africa than will in the Gaza. You refuse to acknowledge all of this too. 4. Given all this was knowable in November, my position is those who had power to keep this from getting worse were obligated to act to do so. It's a simple harm reduction argument.
5. Every time I make this argument, you avoided any attempt at refuting it. A simple 'genocide enabler' attack was all you could respond with. You also tried to change the subject. I think that is because with the situation in Gaza becoming much worse, you are damned by your own measure.
So I conclude 'genocide enabler' attack is a cover that you are employing to hide the immorality of your position, which is not merely that not acting at the time was acceptable, but that it was still the correct decision in retrospect, even given what has happened in the last 7 months.
I find that loathsome. And therefore, I say your moral judgement is founded on sand. All that it does is provide you cover to be self-righteous. It has zero consideration for all the lives ruined. Lives you say it was right to allow to be ruined. For you only the past matters, not the future.