How is it not the logical conclusion to “reducing support for one side increases support for the other”? In what cases am I allowed to criticize genocide and what cases am I not allowed?
Yeah you don’t see me “and my ilk”, whatever the fuck you’re implying criticizing Netanyahu as much, I also didn’t go out of my way to criticize Bin Laden a lot. Turns out you don’t really need to convince people they should hang when everyone already agrees they should hang instead of defending their indefensible crimes against humanity.
The cool thing about Democrats in the US is that you can criticize their policies, and they might even listen to you. Good luck trying to do that with the right wing.
Then why bring up the thing about the two party system? We agree about criticizing their policies. People should do it, specially when the policy is genocide. Leveraging your vote and bargaining is the basic concept of democracy.
Because in many other comments, you’re pressing that a vote for Biden is a vote for genocide (as though a Republican administration wouldn’t do even worse things relative to that situation).
You are trying to convince people to be uncomfortable voting for the plainly better choice, and the result of that is to increase relative support for the wildly worse choice.
You should be uncomfortable voting for Biden. He is the lesser of two evils. This shouldn’t make you feel good, you’re sacrificing your convictions to stop something worse from happening.
If you want to be less uncomfortable, try getting him to stop supporting genocide.
POTUS has the power to pause military equipment shipments. Biden did exactly this with Israel, as have a few other presidents in other situations. The current congressional Republicans put forward legaislation to prevent POTUS from being able to do that. (I’m not sure whether that bill got anywhere or not.) Biden said he would veto such a bill.
As in my very first comment in this thread, the Biden administration is who crafted a tentative ceasefire agreement which may still come to fruition.
Foreign military aid to Israel is supplied as of the terms of the United States - Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, a ten year agreement to supply Israel with certain military aid, which was signed by the US and Israel in 2016, and which took effect in 2018. That was passed by Congress. POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.
Get the Republican-controlled House (remember, the one that wants to make it so POTUS can’t even pause those shipment?) to pass a bill which reverses that act, then we’ll talk.
So far as I can see, there’s a ton of “bad shit” going on in Israel. I disagree with basically all of it. The Israeli government led by Netanyahu is responsible for that. What I see this administration doing is being very careful to use every tool they have at their disposal to shorten this conflict. One of those tools is the leverage the US has over Israel because of the military aid the US supplies.
Not only do I find it curious that you propagandists never criticize Netanyahu, I find it doubly curious that you don’t criticize the Republican party, which has very clearly been way more supportive of Israeli shenanigans.
If they were being so careful to use everything at their disposal, then how did they release a report tentatively exonerating Israel in such a way that it prevents the legal mandate to stop arms shipments?
The report also sought to assess whether Israel was impeding the flow of aid into Gaza, another possible violation of international humanitarian law, as well as US law.
It found “numerous instances during the period of Israeli actions that delayed or had a negative effect on the delivery of aid to Gaza”.
Nevertheless, the report concluded that it could not assess that the “Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance within the meaning of section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act”.
Humanitarian groups, however, have reported for months that Israel systematically blocks large portions of aid from entering the Gaza Strip.
Overall, the report said that US intelligence agencies have “no direct indication of Israel intentionally targeting civilians”, but they assessed that “Israel could do more to avoid civilian harm”.
In addition, the State Department pledged to continue to monitor the situation in Gaza, particularly with regards to the delivery of aid.
“This is an ongoing assessment and we will continue to monitor and respond to any challenges to the delivery of aid to Palestinian civilians in Gaza moving forward.”
The steering wheel of the bus with no brakes can’t just be suddenly yanked one way or the other. I have to think that the people who wrote and approved this report knew full well that it was inaccurate, and that there would be public and media backlash about it.
It’s been decades of “unwavering support for Israel, or you’re a Nazi.” Public opinion has to be changed on that if we’re to apply anything like solid and effective pressure against the Israeli government.
Sorry, just to make sure I’m understanding, are you saying here “I have to think that the people who wrote and approved this report knew full well that it was inaccurate” that you think they lied, but that thats okay?
How is it not the logical conclusion to “reducing support for one side increases support for the other”? In what cases am I allowed to criticize genocide and what cases am I not allowed?
Yeah you don’t see me “and my ilk”, whatever the fuck you’re implying criticizing Netanyahu as much, I also didn’t go out of my way to criticize Bin Laden a lot. Turns out you don’t really need to convince people they should hang when everyone already agrees they should hang instead of defending their indefensible crimes against humanity.
The cool thing about Democrats in the US is that you can criticize their policies, and they might even listen to you. Good luck trying to do that with the right wing.
Then why bring up the thing about the two party system? We agree about criticizing their policies. People should do it, specially when the policy is genocide. Leveraging your vote and bargaining is the basic concept of democracy.
Because in many other comments, you’re pressing that a vote for Biden is a vote for genocide (as though a Republican administration wouldn’t do even worse things relative to that situation).
You are trying to convince people to be uncomfortable voting for the plainly better choice, and the result of that is to increase relative support for the wildly worse choice.
You should be uncomfortable voting for Biden. He is the lesser of two evils. This shouldn’t make you feel good, you’re sacrificing your convictions to stop something worse from happening.
If you want to be less uncomfortable, try getting him to stop supporting genocide.
POTUS has the power to pause military equipment shipments. Biden did exactly this with Israel, as have a few other presidents in other situations. The current congressional Republicans put forward legaislation to prevent POTUS from being able to do that. (I’m not sure whether that bill got anywhere or not.) Biden said he would veto such a bill.
As in my very first comment in this thread, the Biden administration is who crafted a tentative ceasefire agreement which may still come to fruition.
Foreign military aid to Israel is supplied as of the terms of the United States - Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, a ten year agreement to supply Israel with certain military aid, which was signed by the US and Israel in 2016, and which took effect in 2018. That was passed by Congress. POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.
Get the Republican-controlled House (remember, the one that wants to make it so POTUS can’t even pause those shipment?) to pass a bill which reverses that act, then we’ll talk.
So far as I can see, there’s a ton of “bad shit” going on in Israel. I disagree with basically all of it. The Israeli government led by Netanyahu is responsible for that. What I see this administration doing is being very careful to use every tool they have at their disposal to shorten this conflict. One of those tools is the leverage the US has over Israel because of the military aid the US supplies.
Or, let the Reublicans handle it:
Not only do I find it curious that you propagandists never criticize Netanyahu, I find it doubly curious that you don’t criticize the Republican party, which has very clearly been way more supportive of Israeli shenanigans.
If they were being so careful to use everything at their disposal, then how did they release a report tentatively exonerating Israel in such a way that it prevents the legal mandate to stop arms shipments?
https://www.democracynow.org/2024/5/31/stacy_gilbert_state_dept_resignation_gaza
I’d offer an article with direct quotes from said report:
The steering wheel of the bus with no brakes can’t just be suddenly yanked one way or the other. I have to think that the people who wrote and approved this report knew full well that it was inaccurate, and that there would be public and media backlash about it.
It’s been decades of “unwavering support for Israel, or you’re a Nazi.” Public opinion has to be changed on that if we’re to apply anything like solid and effective pressure against the Israeli government.
Sorry, just to make sure I’m understanding, are you saying here “I have to think that the people who wrote and approved this report knew full well that it was inaccurate” that you think they lied, but that thats okay?
Ah, so we’ve moved to the “actually his support of genocide is actually the best possible scenario, you should be thankful” part of the argument.
You’re telling me the Republican party is bad?
My God, what a revelation. I must meditate on this. Maybe I should have listened when they said “we are evil”, but how was I supposed to know.
Oh, he’s almost there, folks.