this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
72 points (95.0% liked)

politics

19238 readers
2113 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"For months, Netanyahu and his government have consistently ignored American counsel as to how to prosecute the war in Gaza against Hamas after the Oct. 7 terror attacks. Biden and his aides were repeatedly frustrated by Israel’s widening war aims within Gaza — with a devastating impact on Palestinian civilians — even at the cost of a deal to free the remaining hostages.

Biden deemed Israel’s response “over the top” and did stop one shipment of American arms to Israel. But even as pressure grew from fellow Democrats to create distance from Netanyahu, Biden’s reflexive instinct was to support Israel despite the swelling humanitarian crisis. As his influence over Netanyahu shrunk, the president’s anger grew. Phone calls between the two men were increasingly turned into shouting matches, according to one of the officials and one other senior official not authorized to discuss private conversations. Biden told confidants that he did not believe his Israeli counterpart wanted a cease-fire deal, arguing that Netanyahu was trying to perpetuate the conflict to save his political future and assist Trump in November’s election, the officials said."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, Imagine how different Israeli aggression would be if the flow of American Money and Weapons stopped.

But he doesnt want to do that, because Israel holds some weird fucking power over America.

[–] sirboozebum@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's called AIPAC.

Their lobbying power is perfectly legal and immense.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's also all the weapons producers who are making money like they won the lotto selling those weapons. They have a ton of influence as well.

[–] sirboozebum@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I agree but they are not as influential as AIPAC regarding supporting the mass punishment and murder of civilians in the middle east.

Weapons manufacturers will be busy for years resupplying stocks that were provided to Ukraine.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I'm not sure which has the stronger lobby. But even 1 of them by itself would probably been enough to keep US support for suppling Isreal going in the government.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It gotta take something more than a lobbying group to get America to offer up its tongue for use as TP, cause thats basically the stage that America is at with regards to servicing Israel.

[–] sirboozebum@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Any politician that stands up to AIPAC gets millions (if not tens of millions) raised for their political opponents.

The vast majority of politicians are far too frightened to anger this lobby in an election year.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Didn't one politician this year try to stand up to AIPAC and end up losing to an incredibly well-funded opponent? If so it would definitely have a chilling effect.

[–] sirboozebum@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

They have spent $100 million dollars this cycle.

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Not like they have bilateral signed and legally binding defense pacts or anything.

I'm not saying the US shouldn't be twisting those levels levers and at least warning of decreased investment (which I believe is probably going on now for a few months privately) but immediately breaking ties, probably illegally breaking a defense treaty, and creating an immediate and huge power vacuum doesn't seem like it's going to save any more lives. I'd guess it would embolden Iran and full on war rather than this intensifying skirmishes would be happening.

You don't turn around 75 years of investment on a dime.

I personally think there needs to be stabilization and the US/NATO work on improving relations with iran using divestment with Israel as the carrot over the next 10 years. Work to re-establish the nuclear deal and start to pull money from Israel over time.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not like they have bilateral signed and legally binding defense pacts or anything.

It's not like the US has laws banning the delivery of weapons to states that are guilty of breaking humanitarian law, either

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Yep, international law be like that sometimes. It's complicated.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's actually extremely uncomplicated in this case. That's why they had to present counterfactual evidence to congress to evade the explicit restrictions spelled out by the law.

I swear there was actually a name for that.... pur.... purge.... perjury? Is it perjury? Wow i'm having some wild dejavu, has this happened before?

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago

In fairness to you it has happened quite a few times.

Here's the one i'm referring to, though.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's neat how it's always complicated in favor of things that centrists want to do.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, you're right.

It'd totally be uncouth to step in and do anything to prevent the slaughter of tens of thousands, if not more, innocent civilians.

We should really drag it out and make no substantive efforts until Israel's genocide is complete, Then we can "punish" them by giving them all the land they've cleansed.

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I do think that more Palestinians will die if Iran and Israel go to full scale war.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

More Palestinians will also die if Iran and Israel don't go to full scale war, especially if the western world keeps shrugging their shoulders as Israel keeps expanding the conflict unilaterally.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

There's not like a super court states can sue each other in to enforce a treaty. It's just words. We can do whatever we want and people will keep making treaties with us because we're the superpower and most of them agree it's genocide.

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

Oh okay I guess things like the Iran treaty being broken Willy nilly is good for politics.