• Nougat
    link
    fedilink
    113
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I love how the propagandists just keep beating the same drum after the Biden administration has constructed a ceasefire deal which has received unanimous UN Security Council support, and did appear to be moving forward until about 14 hours ago. (Edit: It might still, that’s not over yet.)

    It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s) It’s almost like geopolitics are - wait for it - complicated.

    Second Edit: Let’s also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel’s back is against the wall, they’re running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?

    • @disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      68
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It was unanimous because Russia abstained. Putin loves the refocus on Israel while he continues his genocidal war crimes in Ukraine under the US media radar.

      For those who haven’t been keeping up, Russia has abducted 700,000 Ukrainian children to be raised as Russians in foster homes since the war began. It’s genocide on a scale 20 times larger than Palestine, and isn’t making national headlines in the US due to the focus on Israel.

      The US formally declared this as genocide in the House of Representatives with a 390-9 vote in April by invoking the UN Genocide Convention, and the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Did you see any headlines about that?

      Russia is also the largest investor in the sanctioned Iran economy that is directly funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.

      • @Kellamity@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        276 months ago

        I was sceptical of this claim so I did some research - 700,000 is almost certainly too high, but other than that it’s disturbingly true:

        The 700,000 number comes from a Russian parliamentarian in 2023, and refers to orphaned and abandoned children Russia has ‘protected’ from conflict zones in Ukraine. A later Russian report walked this back a bit, and claimed that most of this number were children accompanied by family voluntarily escaping the fighting by feeling into Russia.

        Obviously we should be sceptical of what Russia says about this, but this is not the same number as the number of children abducted - not even Ukraine alleges it to be this high.

        The number of children abducted and forcibly deported was officially reported by Kyev to be 19,000 to 20,000 at the time of the above claim based on the data (nearly 30,000 now). The real number is almost certainly higher - many Ukranian officials believe the actual amount is higher, with one saying it may be into the ‘hundreds of thousands’. A US report in 2022 estimates that Russia has “interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported… 260,000 children, from their homes to Russia”

        Even if we take only the low amount that can be fairly positively stated as abductions, that’s nearly 30,000 children. Various reports have shown some of these children being given new Russian identities and false birth certificates, and being put up for adoption in Russia. Some have testified to being indoctrinated and shown pro-Kremlin propaganda.

        This broadly constitutes Cultural Genocide - whether it technically is or not is for academics to argue over, because the legal definition of genocide is complicated and so much is unkown.

        Whether or not you want to call it a Genocide, it is undeniably a War Crime. The ICC has issued arrest warrents for Putin and Russian Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova over this.

      • @jumjummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        146 months ago

        And yet not a peep from these “Genocide Joe” people. They’re either Russian disinformation agents, or useful idiots.

        • @TheFriar@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I get what you’re saying, but I’m pretty damn sure you’re confusing Americans’ inability to focus on more than one issue at a time with the seemingly catch-all “bots!” thing.

          Don’t attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity/ignorance/laziness.

          • @jumjummy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            No, what everyone here seems to talk about is how the President is supporting genocide, while failing to mention that Biden alone can’t do anything to fund Israel.

            Where are you seeing any criticism towards the GOP? All I’m seeing are the same “Genocide Joe” and “Both Sides” people being the most vocal.

            • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Yeah, given it’s a center stance and not remotely a partisan issue in this election it’s probably better not to talk about it outside of the context of supporting protests and spreading news about the conflict.

      • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        16 months ago

        It seems like the potential for an ethnicity to disappear completely after decades of starvation, oppression, and embargo is a more pressing concern than a war between two competent militarized nations, but yeah I agree they’re at completely different scales in every aspect except funding from third parties.

      • @Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        06 months ago

        I’m legit not trying to troll here, but I vaguely recall a news story last month where Biden said it’s not genocide. I forget if he was referring to Ukraine or Gaza, but either way I was kind of dumbfounded like wtf.

        • @AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          46 months ago

          It becomes a game of semantics. “Genocide” is not just a loaded term but it has a definition you can argue against, without disagreeing on the scope of the atrocity. Arguing about whether it fits the definition is just a redirect so we’re not talking about the scale of the suffering

      • @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        -26 months ago

        And you can’t even bring this up as an argument against the “gEnOciDe jOe” kids because it gets removed for “whataboutism” in almost every thread.

        They have their agenda pretty locked down

      • OBJECTION!
        link
        fedilink
        -40
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        “The news is so focused on children trapped in a war zone but they’re ignoring the real issue we should be focusing on: children being safely transported out of a war zone.”

        • @disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          37
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Russia is taking Ukrainian children, placing them in foster care, and putting them up for adoption to be raised as Russians. This is the definition of genocide.

          Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:

          1. Killing members of the group
          2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
          3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
          4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
          5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
            • @disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              25
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              You are implying this is some diplomatic decision. They are being abducted. They have no choice. Again, these children are being placed in foster homes and put up for adoption to be raised as if they are Russian. This isn’t a refugee rescue operation. It’s cultural genocide. You’re either wildly obtuse, or in defense of genocide.

              https://www.reuters.com/world/us-aware-credible-reports-russia-is-listing-ukrainian-children-adoption-white-2024-06-12/

              • OBJECTION!
                link
                fedilink
                -21
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                So you would prefer that they be left where they are, understood.

                Personally I think it’s good that children not be left in dangerous, traumatic situations, but if you want to classify something as “genocide” when it involves saving the lives of the “victims,” then I guess I am defending “genocide.” And if you wanted to call if “murder” when I take a drink of water, I guess that means I’ll defend “murder” too. If you play around with words enough you can make anything look bad.

                I consider people being slaughtered worse than children being raised in a culture different from that of their parents, so sue me.

                  • OBJECTION!
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -12
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    You’re using a false-dilemma argument

                    No, I’m using a real-dilemma argument. If you’d care to provide an alternative to taking them out of a war zone or leaving them there, I would love to hear it.

                    How many Rubles do you get per comment?

                    Of course, the “everyone who disagrees with me is a secret agent” conspiracy theory. I’m not feeling particularly quippy today so I’m not going to bother making fun of it.

                • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  146 months ago

                  We would prefer they go with their parents or at least family.

                  Which Russia is preventing by kidnapping them.

                  • OBJECTION!
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -126 months ago

                    We’re talking about war orphans. Generally, their family is either dead or can’t be located.

            • @jumjummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              146 months ago

              What a moronic take. Those Russian must be saints taking those poor Ukrainian children after, you know, illegally invading their country, killing their parents, and destroying their cities.

              • OBJECTION!
                link
                fedilink
                -166 months ago

                I never called them saints, I only said that transporting war orphans into safety is not genocide.

                  • OBJECTION!
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -96 months ago

                    Being a tankie is when you consider children being adopted to parents who raise them in a safe environment “safety,” in comparison to living in a war zone.

            • AbsentBird
              link
              fedilink
              English
              8
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I can think of one country first in line to take them: Ukraine, or Ukrainian refugees sheltering in NATO countries. Wtf kind of fascist take are you spewing? 'Someone has to save these kids from the warzone we created; can’t just give them to their extended families, those are the enemy, guess we have no choice but to do genocide '. Get the fuck out of here.

              • OBJECTION!
                link
                fedilink
                -96 months ago

                We’re talking about war orphans, children whose families cannot be located.

                • AbsentBird
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  26 months ago

                  Did they try locating the extended families, or did they just abduct thousands of children to be raised as Russians? That’s a rhetorical question, they did the latter.

                  • OBJECTION!
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -46 months ago

                    War orphans are not a new thing. Every war that’s ever been caught has produced children who’s families cannot be found, because wars are chaotic and also deadly.

            • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              76 months ago

              So if Israel took every Palestinian child they saw, regardless of what family they have, and brought them to Israel for an Israeli family to raise, you’d be fine with that?

              • OBJECTION!
                link
                fedilink
                -106 months ago

                So if Israel took every Palestinian child they saw, regardless of what family they have

                Russia is not doing this. We’re talking about war orphans.

                  • OBJECTION!
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -8
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    I’d be better than the current situation, yes. It’s by no means ideal, but Palestinian children would be better off being adopted by Israeli families than starving to death or being bombed or shot. My problem is with them putting them in the situation in the first place.

        • @PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          106 months ago

          “The news is so focused on children trapped in a war zone but they’re ignoring the real issue we should be focusing on: children being safely transported out of a war zone.”

          Jesus fucking Christ. Imagine being so pro-genocide you make apologia for kidnapping literal children and ethnic cleansing.

          • OBJECTION!
            link
            fedilink
            -126 months ago

            What I’m learning from this is that libs are perfectly fine with children being left to die in an active war zone and are actively opposed to getting them to safety.

    • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      19
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’m absolutely voting for Biden and everyone should, because he is the best viable candidate on literally every issue, including Palestine.

      That said, he has openly and loudly taken Israel’s side for months. As a result, he’s made himself an avatar for all the other US institutions that are openly against any criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians. Even if he has secretly been doing everything he can to stop the killing all this time—which I doubt—he had still fucked up massively when it come to avoiding the blowback from other groups’ attempts to crush anyone who speaks out, including agencies his administration controls.

    • @elliot_crane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      166 months ago

      But hey, some rando with literally no national attention is polling at 3% in a couple of safely blue states, so definitely don’t vote for GeNoCiDe JoE! /s

        • @elliot_crane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          9
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Oh I’ve noticed. The way I see it, there are three options when it comes to the “both sides”/protest vote camp, every single one of them is one of the following:

          • a bad faith actor cosplaying as a leftist
          • an accelerationist
          • a misguided idealist who legitimately believes a non-mainstream candidate could win and/or completely disregards the cold hard fact that FPTP means a third party/abstain vote simply endangers the lesser of two evils candidate while empowering the greater of two evils candidate

          No matter what I will never stop throwing shade at that crowd hard and heavy. The first two on that list will never change. I do hope, however, that continued social pressure on that last type of person will make some of them realize that voting is just as much a responsibility as a right, and consider that maybe there’s a good reason their views are so unpopular.

          Edited after a good point made by samus12345.

          Also I noticed the single downvote on every one of my comments. I know who you are lol. Glad to see I’m still living in your head rent-free.

          • @Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            156 months ago

            What about a more nuanced approach, such as both sides are shit. One side is clearly a bit less shit than the other, and so, I’ll vote for that side, out of duress. I don’t want to, I want to vote someone I actually believe in. I can’t say many good things about the party I’m voting for, but I can’t say ANYTHING good about their only viable opponent. And so, in an effort to keep the worst case scenario from happening, I’m going to vote for the only viable option.

            This is the core of the “both sides” argument to me. We’re going to vote dem. But we cannot forget that neither of these parties are the ones we want. It’s important to make that known. We are not voting for you because we like you, we’re voting for you because we REALLY DON’T LIKE THE OTHER ONE. As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want.

            • @Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              106 months ago

              As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want.

              Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left.

          • @samus12345@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            5
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I think there are also misguided idealists who think it’s more important that they feel good about not voting for the “genocide” guy while absolving themselves of any blame should his opponent win. They know a third party candidate can’t win, but that’s not as important as them being “right”.

            • @barsquid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              16 months ago

              I believe the vast majority of these are privileged people whose family wealth will shield them from legislation they don’t want to be subject to.

              • @SuperZorro@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                36 months ago

                NO, These are all bad points! With the regularity of these posts, I am starting to suspect you are all bots.

                If you want Biden to stop doing something, like supporting a genocide, you don’t just say “please stop, but I’ll support you no matter what”. You tell him, pollsters and everyone who asks that you definitely won’t be voting for someone who supports x. When it’s time to vote, it might be time to vote for the least evil choice.

                • @elliot_crane@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  56 months ago

                  With the regularity of these posts, I am starting to suspect you are all bots.

                  lol… I went ahead and measured my heart rate and blood oxygen for ya, 67bpm and 98% respectively; I am decidedly flesh and bones. Perhaps the reason these posts are so regular is because a good number of people don’t agree with you? Ever consider that?

                  You tell him, pollsters and everyone who asks that you definitely won’t be voting for someone who supports x. When it’s time to vote, it might be time to vote for the least evil choice.

                  Ok. There’s a lot to unpack here. If you’re considering voting for him anyway, there’s no weight behind your threat to withhold your vote. The problem is that not everyone thinks that way, and encouraging people to essentially burn their vote and endanger Biden’s reelection is that the only other option is Trump. Myself, and many others in this community see this as a flagrantly irresponsible gamble to be making. That’s why we push back against it. I emphatically support protesting, but not protest voting. I emphatically support the idea of a general strike, but still not protest voting. There are plenty of people like me, who want to see the genocide end, but also recognize the very real fact that the consequences of fucking around come general election time may very well be continued genocide and fascism. Just like some people say voting for a candidate supporting a genocide is a line they won’t cross, ushering in the age of trumpist fascism in the US is a line we won’t cross. The thing you seem to fail to consider is that there are more of us than you think.

          • @jumjummy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            Amen! I feel like my post history is 90% calling out these bullshit accounts, and 10% random other non-political stuff.

            • @elliot_crane@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              06 months ago

              Yeah, same. Mine is a mix of dumb memes posted to Ten Forward, dumb joke comments on random posts, and “both siders are fucking morons”-type comments.

        • @Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          66 months ago

          To be entirely fair, the Republican party does a good job of criticizing themselves.

          Consider that a lot of the discourse you’re seeing is from people who already believe the democratic party is the lesser of the two evils they’re probably going to vote for them regardless.

          If you’re engaging in a conversation with someone else, whose only tangible difference between the two of you is that one of you believes Dems are a-okay, and one believes that both parties are shit, the only real talking points they have are what the Dems do that aren’t great.

          Obviously I don’t think this is every case, but I know that if I wasn’t already primed to have THIS argument, that’d probably be the route it’d take.

          • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            Congress exists as a coequal branch of the government and is who actually makes laws. The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.

            This is elementary school civics in the US. Being commander in chief doesn’t mean Biden can change funding and laws on a whim.

            • @NuclearDolphin@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              06 months ago

              The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.

              From: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/02/23/memorandum-on-united-states-conventional-arms-transfer-policy/

              If the United States determines at any time that a transfer is no longer in accordance with United States foreign policy objectives, national security goals, or legal obligations, the United States may cease the transfer of or future support for a transferred defense article or service.

              Biden could act unilaterally here.

              This is elementary school civics in the US.

              Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn’t mean that’s how the country operates in practice.

              “Checks and balances” exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches.

        • @anticolonialist@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          16 months ago

          Republicans don’t pretend to care they wear their bigotry on their shoulder, Democrats are covert in their bigotry and their racism that’s why they are often called out for it

        • @barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          06 months ago

          I’ve noticed they will have a little tirade if you ask them what is the logical consistency that they support China despite being “against” Gaza genocide in a way that means they couldn’t possibly vote for harm reduction.

              • Victoria Antoinette
                link
                fedilink
                06 months ago

                voting isn’t a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout.

                • @barsquid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  36 months ago

                  Yes, by voting for the party that isn’t saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza.

                  • Victoria Antoinette
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -26 months ago

                    you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies.

        • @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          -36 months ago

          I’ve been pointing that out all the time. They’re never on any posts critical of Trump. Only anything about Biden. It it’s critical, they’re there to agree- if it’s positive, they’re there to shit all over it.

          • Nougat
            link
            fedilink
            -76 months ago

            Also notice how there’s never any talk about what they wish Biden was doing instead.

              • Nougat
                link
                fedilink
                26 months ago

                From another comment:

                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 legislation 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.

                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.

                • OBJECTION!
                  link
                  fedilink
                  26 months ago

                  POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.

                  False

                  • Nougat
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -76 months ago

                    From the article you linked:

                    When the President is aware of the possibility of violations of the AECA, the law requires a report to Congress on the potential violations.

                    And that’s a different act that strictly applies here. The AECA enables the existence of the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act.

              • @barsquid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                -56 months ago

                Oh, hey, I have seen you before. One of the accelerationists who wants China to expand its influence despite what they are doing to Uyghurs.

            • @JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              -26 months ago

              Nor any suggestions on who could win in his place. Ask them. Every time- make a game out of it.

              They NEVER answer it. Not once. I’ve asked them who is currently running that can win November. Not a single one of them has made a peep of a suggestion.

      • @barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -26 months ago

        Is that Jill Stein? She barely scraped past 1% of the popular vote in 2016, less than 1/3 of fucking Gary Johnson.

        Oh but this time, this time Dems will learn a lesson and turn full leftist 2028. There’s no risk either since muh both sides are dictators so it’s equally bad either way.

        • @elliot_crane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -16 months ago

          I think there was some guy from California that was recently polling (yes polling, not locked in votes at all) around 3% in a handful of states and some of the both-siders were breaking their arms jerking each other off about it. I don’t remember the dude’s name, for the obvious reason of his candidacy being completely unviable.

    • @Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      146 months ago

      It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s)

      How is this distinct from the current situation, where Israel has killed at least 35,000 people, is starving around a million more, shows no signs of changing course, and also we are giving them bombs to carry it out?

      The time to start applying gentle pressure was about 8 months ago.

    • LeadersAtWork
      link
      fedilink
      16 months ago

      It is complicated. I don’t bother acting like I know what’s going on, I just accept that there is guaranteed to be more complicated reasons than what we are often given. This means the problem is extremely simple:

      Critical Thinking Skills and willingness to challenge one’s own beliefs.

      Which is a strong reason why far too many people continue to parrot the same arguments. Biden could at this point cause an act of God to occur, reset the timeline, and if people remembered we’d still be hearing it.

    • @Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      16 months ago

      Israel’s pack is against the wall against… Hamas?

      They managed to push those bastards back, before they’ve destroyed the Gaza strip.

      • Nougat
        link
        fedilink
        146 months ago

        What do you think happens when Israel’s back is against the wall, they’re running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?

        Do not misrepresent what you know full well I am talking about.

      • @GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        36 months ago

        Against Iran. Which is Hamas’ big brother.

        (This comment is not approval of Israel’s actions)

        • @Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          26 months ago

          The protests don’t ask for Israel not defending itself. They demand a stop to the revenge-rampage Israel is carrying out.

          • @GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            76 months ago

            My comment has nothing to do with protests and never implies approval of Israel’s actions.

              • @GBU_28@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                4
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                You asked about Israel having their back against the wall (Hamas).

                I clarified the bigger challenge Israel would hypothetically be against the wall with would be Iran. That’s it.

                Edit then you randomly brought protests up into a tightly scoped comment chain.

    • @FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      16 months ago

      There was another similar ceasefire a couple of months ago that got vetoed by Chairman Xi Jinping, as well. They say any ceasefire proposal which includes complete release of all Israeli hostages is unacceptable, for some reason.

    • BarqsHasBite
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement

      No kidding huh, I can’t believe people don’t see this. You want to influence Israel? You can’t do that if you cut off communication and shun them.

    • Neato
      link
      fedilink
      English
      06 months ago

      It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s) It’s almost like geopolitics are - wait for it - complicated.

      Which would end up with Israel in a war not just with Palestine but probably other countries in the region. And something I feel people forget: Israel has nuclear weapons but doesn’t acknowledge them. Which means we don’t have a great idea of their nuclear capability. So if Israel’s existence is being threatened, there’s a good chance to ruin that part of the world for generations and/or start WW3.

      • jwiggler
        link
        fedilink
        English
        56 months ago

        Are you saying that if the US stops sending Israel weapons, they will likely start a nuclear war? Bruh

        • Neato
          link
          fedilink
          English
          06 months ago

          If Israel is fighting for it’s survival and it has nukes? Uh yeah? That’s why no one’s itching to invade Russia even though they are a LOT weaker than expected.

          • jwiggler
            link
            fedilink
            English
            126 months ago

            Guess I just don’t see the flattening of Gaza and displacement of more than 1 million Palestinian civilians as Israel “fighting for it’s survival,” nor do I see an immediate cessation of sending US bombs to Israel as leaving them in the dust.

            • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              06 months ago

              Remember though that Iran has already launched a significant attack on Israel, and it was because of the US and their allies that casualties were heavily curbed. If the US had previously stopped all operations, it could very well have turned into an existential war for Israel.

              None of that remotely defends what Israel is doing. And I completely agree we need to stop sending them bombs and additional military support for Gaza. But my point is that there is a potential for a much bigger, possibly nuclear conflict if countries cut all ties.

              • jwiggler
                link
                fedilink
                English
                5
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                I get what you’re saying, but I’m not certain the Iranian drone attack would have even happened if Israel hadn’t been engaged in the raising of Gaza with US backing.

                I mean, Israel bombed an Iranian embassy two weeks before that occurred.

                I’m in somewhat agreement with you. On the one hand, there are innocent Israelis who need to be protected (here, I don’t necessarily buy the nuclear risk, tbh. Continued US protection is more about prevention of civilian casualties, to me ). On the other, our continued support further emboldens Israel to keep fucking shit up over there, so of course they’re going to experience aggression from their neighbors.

                Unfortunately this starts getting into a game of who-shot-first, which is a bad state to be in.

                If anything, all this is a win-win for the “defense” industry.

                Edit: also, for the record, and in the context of this thread, even though I’d argue against continued US military support of Israel, and that Biden hasn’t been forceful enough on that issue, and that Democrats in general are too comfortable with the status quo regarding free market capitalism for individuals and socialism for the corporations, and that many of them serve their own interests or those of corporations, you still gotta vote for Biden this election, especially if you’re in a swing state. The two parties are not the same, even if they do both suck. The degrees of suckage are not equal.

                • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  46 months ago

                  Continued US protection is more about prevention of civilian casualties, to me

                  I completely agree, and you have a good point that Israel did bomb the embassy first. Technically Iran does seem to support Hamas, but they still doesn’t justify what Israel did.

                  All in all, Israel is inserting itself into these situations. They’re being genocidal and aggressive, and prompting responses. They feel justified in lethal force for self defence, only after they purposely put themselves in harm’s way. My ideal US policy at this point would be defending civilians and nothing else – but even then, like you say, it emboldens Israel to continue being a rogue state.

                  And I agree with your final sentiment completely. Democrats aren’t perfect, but Republicans are so terrible by comparison that they make Democrats look like spotless. I see a vote for Biden and Democrats as a means to eventually address the issues with unfettered capitalism and corporate greed – the Republican party is fractured and in a bad place. Repeated Democrat victories by high margins will destroy their party, and allow us to finally focus on reining in corporations and nationalizing critical industries. We need Republicans out of the way first before we can fix those. You can’t fix a house with totally broken plumbing if it’s currently on fire.

    • @UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -16 months ago

      Second Edit: Let’s also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel’s back is against the wall, they’re running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?

      Sounds like Russia.

    • Patapon Enjoyer
      link
      fedilink
      -2
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Great work on the peace deal, fellas. I think we can treat ourselves to another 20 billion of bombs to Israel to celebrate.

      Second Edit: Let’s also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel’s back is against the wall, they’re running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?*

      Should we allow Russia to just run over Ukraine? They have the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth. Who knows what happens when their backs are against the wall.