Nothing has been won if noone got into office yet.
Even after that… Actual policy change needs to be implemented. Still… May as well enjoy the small steps forward too
Of all the Democratic Party’s proposals for disciplining Israel, ending US aid may be the most politically palatable — yet least effective.
The notion that the United States should stop giving Israel $3.8 billion each year has some appeal on the left, right, and center. Which is not surprising: One doesn’t need to be passionately pro-Palestinian to be skeptical of America giving billions in aid to a rich, foreign country. In his Senate race, El-Sayed tried to tap into this isolationist sentiment, describing his plans for slashing aid to Israel — and increasing benefits for US citizens — as an “America First” agenda.
Unfortunately, ending aid would have little impact on Israeli policy. And for the very reason that such assistance is hard to justify, even to those who care little about the Palestinians: Israel is a wealthy nation that can fund its own military.
Ok. So?’
Thus, conditionally freezing sales of US military equipment to Israel would place real constraints on its martial capabilities. Although, the scale of those constraints depends a lot on the details of US policy.
The most prominent proposal for an arms embargo in Congress, the Block the Bombs Act, would freeze the transfer of select classes of weaponry, including bunker-busting bombs and precision missiles. This policy might force Israel to scale back or delay certain aerial campaigns. In the long run, however, Israel has domestic substitutes for these weapons.
By contrast, were the US to choke off military supplies more broadly — leaving the Israeli air force bereft of fighter jets and component parts — the implications for Israeli security strategy would be far more profound.
Oh. Yeah, sure. Do that.
We can absolutely do both. It’s not asking too much — quite the opposite, actually.
Many people want to stop funding Israel; Many people want to stop Israel bombing Palestine and Lebanon. Those two outlooks go hand-in-hand.
Outside of the DNC and RNC establishment, folks aren’t crying over the future of Israel. Many folks are apathetic and simply do not care about Israel’s atrocities, because they’re stressed with surviving day-to-day. Cutting taxes appeals to that demographic. Leftists/Progressives think Israel’s actions are unforgivable, and don’t want to be complicit in said genocide; and while they’d roll their eyes at most “muh taxes” arguments, they don’t want their taxes going to Israel for the same reason they don’t want their taxes going to build a surveillance net.
That’ll never happen. Weapons sales is what the US does.
Indeed that is a bit of a . . . hurdle.
These points just make it clear if we want Israel to do the right thing our main leverage is to withhold funding.
Seems like the right thing to intend to do and back it up with withdrawal if Israel won’t change.
The next step is where every candidate and every avenue of media turns public opinion toward aid for Israel, once low information voters are actually paying attention in an election year.
But that does assume that low information voters can still pay attention. And that they’ll show up to vote. There is a chance oversaturation has killed the machine.
