You're viewing a single thread.
Biden says the same stuff as Kamala...
I'm sure she'll handle it better than Biden, and absolutely better than trump would.
But I just don't think she'll do enough, which is disappointing because "enough" is just cutting off aid money and weapons sales until they stop actively committing a genocide.
If they need aid to defend against Lebanon or Iran in an actual war, maybe they should stop committing a genocide at the same time?
Really seems like if Israel was actually concerned with defense, they wouldn't spend so much time bombing refugees.
cutting off aid money and weapons sales
I don't understand this line of thinking.
First, Israel doesn't need top-tier modern weapons to attack a defenseless civilian population. If Israel's goal was outright genocide as it's being put, they could buy mid-tier weapons from any manufacturer for that purpose.
Second, if the US stops selling US-grade weapons to Israel, that will signal to the region that Israel is open to military attacks, which might result in a larger scale multi-country war that would dwarf the Gaza conflict.
Those that care about the lives of innocent civilians in the region should prefer that the weapons sold to Israel come with Western strings attached and conditions as part of the weapons agreements, and should also care that the region doesn't descend into another 1960s-70s war era but with more modern and powerful weapons.
See on US weapons:
The U.S. expects every country receiving its military assistance to use it "in full compliance with international humanitarian law and the laws of war, and Israel is no exception," State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told a news briefing on Monday.
Enforcing the Western weapons rules is politically complex, but not having any rules on those weapons would only embolden Israel's operation in Gaza. I hope people around here will come to understand that every time you call for the US to pull out of weapon deals in Israel, what you are advocating for is to remove the weapons restrictions the West imposes on Israel.
Israeli has been a belligerent country who has not stopped terrorizing their neighbors since their formation. Zionists created Israel through a campaign of terror against British mandate Palestine and continue it to this day against Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iran.
Why are we supporting a country who does not want peace with their neighbors? They claim to be defending themselves by preemptively attacking any country that so much sneezes on them. Israel has even attacked the United States on many occasions.
If they want to be belligerent bullies in the region, they should have to do it on their own without dragging the US and it's allies into yet another middle eastern conflict.
They even assassinated the leader Hamas while they were negotiating a ceasefire. Does that sound like a peaceful country?
Bar Palestine, where they want to annex the West Bank, Israel would be more than happy with a live and let live relation. The entire reason Hamas wanted to escalate hostilities was because Israel was succeeding in just that, and they couldn't stop it otherwise.
The other player is Iran. You should think about whether it's right you included Jordan in your list and then why they'd help intercept Iran's missile strike some months ago...
-
Israel primarily needs bombs, and lots of them. No other country could provide Israel with bombs and planes on the scale that the US currently supplies them. A US arms embargo would force Israel to use up its current stockpiles, and could seriously affect their war effort.
-
Israel has initiated all of the recent military strikes in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon and despite this, none of Israel's neighbors, not even Iran, want escalation to a full scale conflict. The idea that they would all suddenly attack Israel following a US arms embargo is sheer fantasy.
-
The US State department is imposing restrictions on Israel's use of US weaponry? Uh, since when? They are not currently imposing any restrictions, even though they should be under the Leahy Laws, so imposing an embargo would not change Israel's behavior in this regard whatsoever. All this talk of being "in compliance with international humanitarian law" when it comes to Israel is a total PR farce.
-
Finally someone on here is actually talking about the complexities that are actually present and not just “MURDER IS BAD, DONT GIVE MURDERER GUN”
It is not just money and sale of weapons. US has been using veto power in support of Israel. Out of 89 uses of veto in the security council about 45 have been in support of Israel. US vetoed the Dec 8 resolution calling for a humanitarian aid. Givven how israel is conducting its war, how is own ministers are calling for murder and the reports from UN observers it is boggling to my mind how you can still have doubts and say "if they wanted to commit genocide". The restrictions you are so adamant will save the Palestinian people are Flagrantly being disregarded by Israel and the US has in it's own report said that Israel's use of US weapons is inconsistent with humanitarian law, but since the US lacks specific evidence of specific weapons bring used so Israel is being given the benefit of the doubt. This is so bafflingto me, you don't give benefit of the doubt to the person who is killing, you give it to the person being killed.
People will just ignore this and say your pro genocide because a lot of that "stop the genocide" people don't seem to understand what nuance is.
Also, in case the nuance is getting lost since we don't all get our information from the same sources,
When the US sells weapons to Israel, the purpose is to ensure peace in the region by helping them hold a line of defense against military attacks from antagonistic countries; and in the case of Hamas, for the anti-terrorism operation of removing Hamas from power in Gaza, so that Palestinians can pursue self-determination free from terrorist rule.
Also, because around these parts the echo chambers are deafening,
Most Americans are against the suffering of civilians in Gaza, but understand that under Hamas rule the Gaza people are screwed, and long-lasting peace is impossible, so there's significant value in removing Hamas from power so that we can drive towards a better future. This is the purpose for which we continue to sell any weapons to Israel that may be used in the Gaza operation, and we use the agreements to enforce guardrails to minimize civilian casualties.
In summary, If you think the Biden admin is supporting genocide, I wanted to point out that as far as the US leadership understands it, the weapons sales are intended for the purpose of driving towards peace, minimizing civilian casualties, and improving conditions for people in the region in the long-term. Whether you agree with that vision or not.
What's unclear is the alternative long-term solution that the "stop supporting Israel" crowd have mapped out for the region. What exactly is supposed to get better if the US pulls out and washes its hands of peace deals and weapons agreements, so that Israel and Hamas can double down on bombing each other to the last drop of blood?
Someone explain to me the 10 year plan that the "stop selling weapons" side has envisions for the Gaza region. Because I know Harris wants to end the war, rebuild Gaza, and force a permanent peace by leading international negotiations for Palestinian statehood. I cannot imagine a workable pathway that's more pro peace and pro civilians.
It seems to me like you are trying to make people be pro Harris. It is not a question, ah least for me, between the two options for us president Harris to my mind is the clearly better one. Your entire argument on weapons assumes that Israel is defending itself when it is not and that somehow the "guardrails" are going to keep the weapons from being used offensively. Unfortunately Israel has been using the weapons offensively, the US has been supporting them knowing the weapons are being used offensively. What did the US invasion of Afghanistan achieve? When US went out of Afghanistan dis they leave a paradise behind? It is the same here, US' presence in this conflict is empowering one party and that needs to stop. You talk about a future plan while disregarding the present. Israel's actions need to be condemned, the war on Palestinian people stopped. Who gives a flying fuck about 10 years down the road when you are killing an entire generation, starving am entire generation.
No. Half of what you wrote is disconnected from what I'm saying. So let's reset.
The present: Israel lives with a terrorist group next door that is constantly launching rockets at them and planning and executing genocide on the people of Israel. That needs to be addressed. Israel is sick of it and they decided to remove Hamas.
The US weapon guardrails are mainly to define what an appropriate use of each weapon type would be. Lots of the weapons provided to Israel are not allowed for use in Gaza due to the type of damage they cause deemed incompatible with the type of conflict. If the US pulled out of these weapon deals, all the weapons (bombs) that are currently banned would be on the menu to Israel. If you think Gaza is taking damage now, consider that the damage so far has been hampered through limitations imposed by the West.
The US supports protecting civilians, ending terrorism, and finding a permanent solution to this eternal animosity. We are the ones imposing limitations on war actions and weapons, and forcing in food convoys.
The fastest route is to end the Hamas rule as quickly as possible and transition to rebuilding Gaza and establishing Palestinian statehood. That's what the US is currently working on. I have not seen anyone here propose a solution that would move faster towards enduring peace.
Whether people here are informed enough to recognize it, we are currently on the best path available towards progress in these centuries-old conflicts in the Middle East. The other half-baked low-information ideas proposed in this forum are not better than what the US is doing right now. "Just stop selling them weapons" is not only not going to work, it's a dumb idea that would make things worse.
The future: Low information actors like the people in this forum are at fault for the situation that we are in now. These conflicts started long ago, and we prevented a resolution and made them worse with the naive calls to cease intervention. Hamas took control in the the 2000s because of people like you naively helping them on.
The only way to have a better future is to stop kicking the can down the road. And the US is not direct party to this conflict, so we can't unilaterally do anything to change it. Again, backing out of weapons agreements would only make Israel bomb Gaza twice as hard, and then invite a larger war in the region.
You think our difference is that I'm ok with forgiving a little "genocide" from my elected officials. NO. I'm old enough to have been through several cycles of this Israel v terrorism crap. Hamas is mostly at fault for our current state of affairs, and I understand these issues enough to recognize that my elected officials are working on the best available course of action given the impossible nature of this type of eternal hate and genocidal intent from all parties towards each other in the Middle East.
You "stop the weapons" guys want some magical way to do better, save more lives and end conflicts faster. But when asked what's the plan, we get crickets. "Just get Israel to stop and back off" is exactly how we ended up with Hamas terrorizing Gaza this century and using civilians as shields - learn the history circa 2005-7.
Today, the real plan is political, hard and messy. The "no weapons" plan has no merit, no future, and will only makes things worse. That's why the current admin doesn't spend much time taking advice from tiktok-tier ideas.
I want my US elected officials to protect civilians and seek to end the eternal wars in that region. That's why I want them to ignore the no-plan ideas, and continue with the difficult work they are already doing to try to find a real and sustainable solution.
Yes, I trust Harris with the next 4 years of this situation way more than I'd trust this low-information forum. I don't see Harris as "the better of 2 bad choices," I see Harris as having a real plan that makes sense and is way better than any low-info ideas I've read here.
This might be, in truth, one of the dumbest comments I’ve ever seen.
Israel lives with a terrorist group next door that is constantly launching rockets at them and planning and executing genocide on the people of Israel. That needs to be addressed. Israel is sick of it and they decided to remove Hamas.
“Genocide on the people of Israel”? The entire “Israeli” identity is based on settler-colonial genocide. You might as well speak of the American native resistance’s “genocide on white settlers.” Just beyond idiotic. The reason, as though you seem not to know, that this “terrorist group” (Israel’s bombing not being “terrorist” of course!) constantly launches rockets at them is due to the settler-colonial occupation of their land and the war of extermination against the Palestinian people.
“We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture” — Moshe Sharett, second PM of Israel
What Leading Israelis Have Said
It’s a completely ridiculous and absurd idea that Israel simply has this belligerent neighbor who attacks them for no reason.
The US weapon guardrails are mainly to define what an appropriate use of each weapon type would be. Lots of the weapons provided to Israel are not allowed for use in Gaza due to the type of damage they cause deemed incompatible with the type of conflict. If the US pulled out of these weapon deals, all the weapons (bombs) that are currently banned would be on the menu to Israel. If you think Gaza is taking damage now, consider that the damage so far has been hampered through limitations imposed by the West.
Israel has the choice not to accept US weapons deals. If there were better deals on the table, they would be taken, so it’s complete nonsense to act as if conditional deals are some hamper on Israel’s genocide when, so too, we have seen them routinely violate int. law and be protected against repercussions by the US. Truly harm reduction in the extreme!
The fastest route is to end the Hamas rule as quickly as possible and transition to rebuilding Gaza and establishing Palestinian statehood. That’s what the US is currently working on. I have not seen anyone here propose a solution that would move faster towards enduring peace.
What came first was Israeli occupation and ethnic cleansing. This is the father of Hamas, and to act like this is some tumor that must be cut out for “peace” ignores that it is only a reaction to this “tumor cutting.” The US is not working towards peace. See:
1998: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/53/42) | In Favor: 154 // Against: 2 (Israel & U.S.) 2000: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/55/55) | In Favor: 149 // Against: 2 (Israel & U.S.) 2021: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/76/10) | In Favor: 148 // Against: 9 (Israel & U.S., Australia, etc.) 2022: Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/RES/77/25) | In Favor: 153 // Against: 9 (Israel & U.S., Canada, etc.)
Hamas is mostly at fault for our current state of affairs
Ignorance of history in the extreme. Again, Israeli colonialism came first. Hamas is only a reaction.
“Just get Israel to stop and back off” is exactly how we ended up with Hamas terrorizing Gaza this century and using civilians as shields - learn the history circa 2005-7.
This is wondrous! Israel backing off is when they enforce a total blockade and control travel! Who knew? As for human shields, you’ve revealed yourself as a complete charlatan, as there is simply no evidence of this practice being used by anyone other than Israel itself. [1] [2] [3]
I think the real talk is that she's a little better than Biden, but Biden is pretty bad. It's hard to say what she would be doing because i get the feeling she's holding back out of desire to not undermine Biden's policies. I'm not anticipating much change overall, though. Sadly, we're all left watching the genocide.
I’m sure she’ll handle it better than Biden, and absolutely better than trump would.
Hoped that, but DNC killed that hope :(
If you think there's even a chance of Kamala being as bad as Biden in this regard, you haven't been paying attention to just how bad Biden is with Israel.
He literally has no line, and has been publicly saying for 50 years absolutely nothing would ever make him lessen his support for Israel.
And he fucking means it.
Kamala will be the same as Biden on practically every issue
Which overall, is fine.
But on this issue of genocide, is damning
what exactly do you mean by "damning"? Like you're not going to vote for her? Because the alternative is Trump who will be even worse.
I don't see her changing what's currently policy, so status quo will continue.
She can't do anything until/if she assumes office as president.
Especially with Biden as president, literally nothing else matters. He literally went around congress to avoid like a week delay.
Now she could say she's going to be stricter on Israel, and it would probably gain some votes in the right states to have an effect.
But what would definitely happen is AIPAC would give just an unthinkable amount of money to trump.
That would 100% happen if they have the slightest doubts in the Dem party.
So like I've said:
She won't be great. But she's better than trump or Biden and we frankly have no option other than voting for her and hoping public opinion affects her position more than donor money immediately after an election.
Like I said, can hope but not that hopeful.