The call from Veterans for Peace (VFP) comes days after the investigative outlet ProPublica published a detailed account of how the U.S. State Department submitted a report to Congress that contradicted the findings of the department’s own experts and those of other agencies.
The Blinken-led State Department’s May report concluded that Israel was not “prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance,” despite internal assessments from State Department experts and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) arguing that Israel had deliberately impeded American aid shipments to Gaza and that weapons transfers to the country should be cut off in line with Section 620I of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act.
VFP’s letter came days after the U.S. and Israel reached a deal for an additional $8.7 billion in American military support, even as the Israeli military continues to obstruct aid deliveries in Gaza, bombard the enclave’s starving population, and expand the assault on Lebanon.
Susan Schnall, VFP’s president, said Monday that U.S. military aid to Israel amounts to “a theft from millions of Americans who have none of the health insurance every Israeli enjoys; from millions of Americans living in horrific housing while Israel builds thousands of upscale homes on land stolen from Palestinians; from millions of young Americans who can’t afford college because America’s top priorities are weapons and death, not human needs.”
VFP also advocates for countries to stop arming Ukraine, and for Ukraine to essentially bend over and accede to Russian demands.
This is the issue that prevented me from joining when I first heard about them.
So since they oppose helping Ukraine they must be wrong about Israel as well? Mind sharing where they suggest Ukraine accede to Russian demands and bend over as you say?
Read the link posted by OP as a reply to me.
They might be talking about the unrealistic “demands” they have.
The Climate and Militarism Project has just issued a statement, The Ukraine Crisis and the Recent IPCC Report, with demands:
Immediate ceasefire in Ukraine and a negotiated settlement that accommodates the security needs of Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.
Reduction in NATO and US military posture in Europe in exchange for Russian guarantees to respect the right of self-governance of its neighboring nations.
Renegotiation of lapsed arms treaties.
Huge reductions by all countries in military spending and redirection of those funds to address the climate crisis.
That’s from thier website. I didn’t see anything else with my admittedly short search.
I don’t see anywhere in their statements any advocating for Ukraine to accede to Russian demands. That goes against their belief that “Russia out of Ukraine” is the most direct route to peace
https://www.veteransforpeace.org/take-action/diplomacy-not-war-peace-ukraine
I suggest you re-read the first link you posted. It may as well be posted on RT. What exactly is the diplomatic solution here? Russia needs to GTFO of Ukraine. Any equivocation plays into the Russian agenda.
Diplomacy Not War - Peace in Ukraine!
“We demand urgent, good faith diplomacy to end the war in Ukraine, not more U.S. weapons, advisors, and endless war. And certainly not a nuclear war. We want those billions of dollars going for climate correction, jobs, healthcare and housing, not for the profiteers who manufacture weapons for death and destruction. “As veterans who have experienced the carnage of war, we feel great empathy for the young soldiers on both sides of this bloody war, who are being killed and injured in the tens of thousands. We know all too well that the survivors of armed conflict will be traumatized and scarred for life.”
Their link under Read More goes into more details. Arguing that it’s unreasonable because Putin has no genuine interest in peace is a valid criticism. But it’s disingenuous to say Veterans for Peace is advocating for Ukraine to accede to Russian demands.
Quotes
First, an immediate ceasefire–an end to the fighting. That will require Russia to immediately pull back its troops and weapons out of Ukraine.
But negotiations mean that both sides need to give something. So NATO and the U.S. should agree to pull back heavy weapons and missiles away from the Russian border and recognize in public what NATO has long acknowledged privately: that Ukraine will not be joining the military alliance in any foreseeable future.
New negotiations, organized by combinations of the United Nations and the broad Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (which includes Russia, Ukraine, most European countries, and the United States) could move further towards renewing lapsed European arms control treaties and eventually towards full nuclear disarmament across Europe.
After Horrific Invasion, ‘Diplomacy Not War’ Must Be More Than a Slogan
But negotiations mean that both sides need to give something. So NATO and the U.S. should agree to pull back heavy weapons and missiles away from the Russian border and recognize in public what NATO has long acknowledged privately: that Ukraine will not be joining the military alliance in any foreseeable future.
This is absolutely playing into Russia’s hands, and is essentially imperialist. What right do Russia’s government (and American veterans) have to decide what Ukrainians get to do with their own country?
I would think letting Russia keep Ukrainian land would be playing into Russias hands. What are you proposing? This seems like the most realistic way to end the war and return Ukrainian territory rightfully to Ukraine.
Edit: can someone explain why I’m being downvoted? An unconditional surrender by Russia would be great, but I don’t see how that can be accomplished
Russia desperately doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO or further their ties to the west. Agreeing to those terms plays direct into Russia’s hands.
There is a wide gap between “Russia stops their invasion and pulls their forces out of Ukraine” and “unconditional surrender by Russia.” No one is calling for the latter, the former is a very reasonable outcome.
I agree that it’s reasonable for Ukraine to have a defensive pact and that Russia’s invasion completely justifies the need for a defensive pact in Europe. I just don’t see how they’ll agree to it from a geopolitical standpoint if their concern, justified or not, is Moscow being within range of US nukes. I think a different defensive pact without US hegenomy could satisfy every European countries security needs, but I don’t know how realistic that is either
