As far as I’m aware, the US has not fired any weapons on Gaza soil. There’s been some defensive strikes to the north in Lebanon, but that’s it. Seems like a stretch to call the United States complicit when it’s goals do not align with the Netantahu government.
The vetoes are enough. The weapons and aid sent just make them one step away from pulling the trigger themselves.
The US will be held accountable for this genocide.
Vetoing a ceasefire in an active war does not change states policy and actions, but you can spin this however you’d like and we can agree to disagree. There’s nothing wrong with disagreement, it just spurs the need for thoughtful discourse.
The US could have ended it 2 months ago, but instead it sends weapons and stops any international attempt at stopping it. It is complicit and all the resistance groups across the Middle East agree. US interests in the Middle East and military are legitimate targets. We can agree to disagree, but the US government will be held accountable for its war crimes.
As any nation/organization should be. The US is not exempt from international law, but fortunately has a remarkably solid argument in defense of its actions here.
It would be naive to think the strength of a nation in international relations is not a waxing/waning manor. It’s of upmost importance to maintain policy that echos the opinions of a collective humanity.
Not true, the US and Israel act independently. Their democratic elections alter policy over time as new elected officials foster youthful debate and thus change officials policy. It’s not a static system, but instead a dynamically evolving one.
Being genocided isn’t a disagreement. It is amazing how you can be so racist and defend bombardment against the Palestinians in particular but oppose it against the Ukrainians.
but racism explains why you are defending a genocide against the Palestinians. You would be singing a completely different tune if the people being murdered were relatively civilized relatively european.
where does your double standards come from, unless you don’t see the Palestinians as equally humans?
As far as I’m aware, the US has not fired any weapons on Gaza soil. There’s been some defensive strikes to the north in Lebanon, but that’s it. Seems like a stretch to call the United States complicit when it’s goals do not align with the Netantahu government.
The vetoes are enough. The weapons and aid sent just make them one step away from pulling the trigger themselves. The US will be held accountable for this genocide.
Vetoing a ceasefire in an active war does not change states policy and actions, but you can spin this however you’d like and we can agree to disagree. There’s nothing wrong with disagreement, it just spurs the need for thoughtful discourse.
The US could have ended it 2 months ago, but instead it sends weapons and stops any international attempt at stopping it. It is complicit and all the resistance groups across the Middle East agree. US interests in the Middle East and military are legitimate targets. We can agree to disagree, but the US government will be held accountable for its war crimes.
As any nation/organization should be. The US is not exempt from international law, but fortunately has a remarkably solid argument in defense of its actions here.
Might is right is only a valid argument when you know you will never be weak. International Law applies equally to all otherwise.
It would be naive to think the strength of a nation in international relations is not a waxing/waning manor. It’s of upmost importance to maintain policy that echos the opinions of a collective humanity.
Yet, the US-Israel acts with complete disregard to International Law and human values it as-if they will be strong forever.
Not true, the US and Israel act independently. Their democratic elections alter policy over time as new elected officials foster youthful debate and thus change officials policy. It’s not a static system, but instead a dynamically evolving one.
Nothing defensive about it. Israel is the aggressor and the US is the enabler.
Sounds like we can agree to disagree, there’s nothing wrong with that when democracy reigns!
Being genocided isn’t a disagreement. It is amazing how you can be so racist and defend bombardment against the Palestinians in particular but oppose it against the Ukrainians.
I haven’t brought race into this discourse and plan to keep it that way. This is discussing country policy decisions.
but racism explains why you are defending a genocide against the Palestinians. You would be singing a completely different tune if the people being murdered were relatively civilized relatively european.
where does your double standards come from, unless you don’t see the Palestinians as equally humans?
I disagree, the promotion of a 2 state solution in Israel parallels the states policy for the protection of Ukrainian sovereignty.
So you agree with Russia annexing parts of Eastern Ukraine? Just looking for consistency.
No, I disagree with any form of forced annexation. Hench the support of a 2 state solution in Israel and the protection of Ukrainian sovereignty.
🔻 🔻 🔻
Is this supposed to mean something? It’s interesting to see Bush wearing a furry suit to say the least!