Isn’t Biden already holding back arms shipments?
Isn’t that why the Republicans are freaking out right now because he isn’t a friend to Israel?
Can you explain because I’m confused.
I think he’s walking a line. On the one side are people who want the US to stop all support until Israel stops, want the US to stop threatening the international courts seeking to hold Israel officials accountable for war crimes - essentially, want the US to treat Israel like we are treating Russia. On the other side is a powerful, well-funded pro-Israel lobby (which the Palestinians don’t have) and a traditionally fairly cohesive and influential pro-Israel voting block. Plus, Israel is our Ally, like officially; Palesteine is not.
He’s slowly, slightly shifting from full-throated support of Israel, but so far all he’s doing is withhold some ordinance. It feels as of all he’s doing is pissing off both sides, rather than shifting some support.
Honestly, I think he’s in a no-win situation. It’s critical for the USA that he win this next election - Trump is an existential threat to Democracy in the US. There’s a lot of money and influence he loses by not getting the pro-Israel lobby on his side, and who does he lose by continuing support? Are the disenfranchised youth going to vote for him if he pivots on Israel? All the folks who’ve been complaining (rightly) about the cost of living, housing prices, healthcare costs, loss of rights over their own bodies - all these folks who protest-voted in the primaries and are threatening to protest-vote in the general election… they’re all suddenly going to jump on Team Biden if he cuts off Israel? In enough numbers to counter what he loses from the pro-Israel lobby?
So I think the irony is that if standing with Israel means he can win the election, it’s still a better outcome for Palestine than if he loses. If he loses the election, Trump will tell Israel to just go ahead and glass the area.
Edit: Came across this article here today, which I think has basically the same view.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It feels better knowing that at least one other person around here gets it. I’ve been trying to explain this to people since the start of this whole thing and all I get is downvoted into oblivion for it.
On the other side is a bigger powerful, well-funded pro-Israel lobby (which the Palestinians don’t have) and a traditionally fairly cohesive and influential pro-Israel voting block.
The bolding is my own addition. I think this is the part people seem to refuse to understand. The pro-Israel side is many times larger than the pro-Palestine side. Even if he were to change positions the day that Israel bombed the first hospital, all that would mean is that we’d be seeing even larger pro-Israel protests instead of pro-Palestine ones, and politicians from both parties would be taking Biden to task for essentially abandoning one of our allies.
And I agree with your assessment that at this point, all he’s doing is pissing both sides off. But in reality, there was never a situation where he wasn’t going to piss off somebody. From the point of view of his attempts to get re-elected, he’s probably taking the least shitty option available to him. Whether or not any of us agree on if it’s the morally correct choice, I at least can acknowledge and understand that the other options available to him are all significantly worse and would only significantly increase Trump’s chances of winning, which is just worse for everybody regardless of which side of the issue you’re on.
It’s not black and white politically. It’s clear as day morally. And he’s falling on that score
Deontology is moral masturbation, a luxury reserved for those with little effect on the world. Responsible, conscious adults have to take into account the consequences of their choices. Politicians’ choices have consequences which are orders of magnitude more significant than a random person. The president of the United States, especially this president ahead of this election, has a vast number of complex consequences to consider in their moral calculus.
When political choices have moral consequences, and vice versa, you can’t draw a tidy line between the two considerations.
It’s impressive making a post like that while accusing others of moral masturbation.
Did I? I described a practice as moral masturbation, I didn’t accuse anyone of anything.
You did. Unless that another hair you’d like to split. I’m done with this conversation.
It’s critical for the USA that he win this next election - Trump is an existential threat to Democracy in the US.
It’s critical for the world that Trump not win.
Trump is immediately going to stop any support for Ukraine and hand that to Putin on a silver platter, is going to weaken NATO and the UN as much as he possibly can, and is going to flip the US from the virtual ‘allies’ to ‘axis’ before the end of his first next four years. Which will go on as long as he is alive, as once he gets power he’s not giving it up.
He isn’t even playing coy with his praise for megalomaniacal current dictators, especially Putin.
With Trump in charge of the US, you can expect him and Putin together actively working to spread Christian fascism to Europe using subversion and eventually force where needed.
It’s not just the US that’s on the line in November.
Don’t forget Taiwan. Tech investments aside, Taiwan doesn’t stand a chance against China alone.
So I think the irony is that if standing with Israel means he can win the election, it’s still a better outcome for Palestine than if he loses. If he loses the election, Trump will tell Israel to just go ahead and glass the area.
The irony is how much you have twisted your political beliefs to find a position you feel ok about this from.
The majority of Americans think what Israel is doing is heinous and want it to stop, the idea that Americans are evenly divided on this is not grounded in reality.
Who said Americans are evenly divided on it?
Very well said. There’s so many people here that could really use a deep education on the concept of nuance. I used to try and have patience to explain it with kindness. But that went nowhere.
Kinda I guess, he’s said he would hold back one part of a single shipment, but that is the absolute bare minimum
So why are the republicans freaking out?
When aren’t they freaking out?
When Israel gets what it wants
Ah yes, they definitely weren’t freaking out about othet things before Isreal started the invasion
They weren’t freaking out about Israel until Biden held shipments to Israel.
And my point is they always have something they are freaking out about so why care Republicans are freaking out
No they’re still freaking out.
Well a Democrat did something so they need to bitch about it.
The bare minimum used to be calling for a ceasefire.
Some people will never be satisfied, so it’s pointless to try to satisfy them.
Unless. Just maybe, Genocide is more important than playing politics
To most people, Gaza is not the most important issue in this election. So to them, the “bare minimum” on Gaza might be more than enough.
I think the point is to get Biden or his administration to admit that they’re committing war crimes.
Politically, he can’t. I think he’s actually going further than 90% of other presidents would be prepared to do by delaying arms. He’s even leaned into the ‘pro-Israeli’ crowd and given Israel so much benefit of the doubt lest he be called out as anti-Semitic.
Realistically, I don’t think he enjoys being in this position either, but if the Israeli lobby switch to the Republicans, its cuts off a lot of support.
Don’t forget that Hamas are terrorists, they condoned and supported the October 7th atrocities and from what I’ve heard from the hostages, some of them were not great to their captives to say the least. Hamas do need to be removed from power.
Is Israel going too far? Yes, yes they are… can you win the next election by being seen to support Hamas? Even if what you’re actually doing is trying to protect civilians? Nope. Until someone makes a decision that Israel are actually committing genocide (and in my opinion based on the evidence I’ve observed, this seems very likely), I don’t think the president has a political leg to stand on. Once that decision is made, I believe Israel will see international support begin to fade.
Disclaimer: The use of the word “Israel” is limited to Benjamin Netanyahu, the IDF, the ruling government the Likud party.
Don’t forget that Hamas are terrorists,
Compared to Israel they’re just a bunch of amateurs.
Terrorism is not an ideological choice, it is a military strategy employed by groups that do not have the means to fight a more traditional conflict.
Hamas uses “terrorism” but the IDF doesn’t need “terrorism” because it has tanks, advanced fighter jets and one of the most advanced and well armed militaries in the world. It can just slaughter innocent tens of thousands of Palestinians and claim it is doing “military operations” and the world media will shake their heads and agree.
“Stopping the genocide of women and children might cause Biden to lose in the fall. No can do bucko!”
I especially can’t stand that people keep treating it as a fact here that US voters are split 50-50 on Israel’s genocide to stop. The polling is clear, US voters with a decisive majority support Palestine and ending this genocide.
People in this thread asserting that most Americans support Israeli’s actions in this genocide rather than support Palestinians as a some kind of indisputable fact as part of their rhetorical arguments is a self fulfilling prophecy of attempting to manufacture consensus where it doesn’t exist.
The popular vote doesn’t matter in America. Just ask Trump who lost the popular vote yet won the presidency. Biden needs the electoral college votes to be elected and some of those are deep in Israeli pockets.
Anyone that understands nuance is a genocide supporter according to OP. I already tried to explain it. They don’t want to hear it.
I can certainly appreciate the point, but realistically what can he actually do? Israel have already shown that they don’t actually give a toss about what the US of A thinks. The US have said stop hundreds of times already and Israel have carried on bombing refugee camps. Even if he stops sending any weapons right this minute or even at the start of the war… would that have actually stopped Israel no, would Iran have actually launched a straight up invasion, you betcha.
The next option is to go to war with Israel and return Israel back to the mandate. This will take well over a few months, in which time if Trump is elected, as another commentator said, he’s likely just to authorize Israel to and I quote “glass Palestine”. Thousands of people verse Millions of people, it’s a horrifying choice.
I can certainly appreciate the point, but realistically what can he actually do? Israel have already shown that they don’t actually give a toss about what the US of A thinks.
Israel is literally existentially dependent on the US along multiple vectors including material military aid and diplomatic cover (especially now that they have made themselves a pariah state globally), this means that Biden has holds ALL of the leverage. Biden just has to actually demonstrate to Netanyahu he isn’t playing around, which Biden has being doing the opposite of.
You make it sound like Israel have no cards to play. Russia, China and other states have made it clear that they are prepared to back Israel, even more so if that means an ally turning away from the US.
Of course Biden cannot hold Netanyahu’s feet to the fire, because otherwise it means withdrawing military support etcera. If Biden does this he will 100% lose electoral college votes and then we have trump in office.
I’m no fan of Netanyahu or current Israeli policy and if I could see a perfect solution where Hamas get evicted, Netanyahu gets thrown under a bus and unelected, to work towards a proper two state solution, I would happily support that… it just isn’t there and the Israeli lobby is stupidly powerful in American politics.
Do you think the risk of losing is preferrable?
It’s a fucked up situation, but until enough of the voterbase is convinced or he no longer has to worry about the election, he’s in an awful bind.
The unpleasant truth is that, to some extent, the US is still a democracy, and the opinion of the people matters. If the majority of the US populace doesn’t see it as genocide, it is democratically right for him to act on that opinion.
Which means the fault isn’t with him alone - arguably, he could take the risk and attempt to inform people - but also with the voters, the propaganda that misled them and the fucked up election system.
deleted by creator
The mass graves for starters that were discovered after the IDF left the area. The indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, UN assigned refugee camps don’t go amiss either. The forceful expulsion of millions of people from their homes to ever smaller and smaller parts of Gaza. Perhaps where the IDF told people to go to certain places for safety and then promptly bombed those places.This is supported by statements made my ministers or representatives in the Israeli legislature and government, including current and former ministers. The denial/restriction of aid and water.
This is completely aside from using trumped up evidence absent charges that members of the UN agency were supporting Hamas in order to disrupt funding to a UN refugee agency. They also used this as an excuse to raid hospitals providing necessary medical care, doctors and nurses have been killed. Oh and killing aid workers… repeatedly. I think the first excuse was “it wasn’t us” which turned into “it was us but it was an accident” to “it was us, we deemed them a thread”… another incident was… World Kitchen? That was just such a shitshow for the IDF that someone actually got the boot.
There’s plenty of evidence available, it’s literally everywhere and often published/reported on by international media.
deleted by creator
My point was that actual genocide is more important than politics. You appear to be reiterating a belief that it’s the other way around
The letter, drafted by unnamed legal and policy staff
A letter written by anonymous lawyers is no better than a letter written by non-lawyers.
There’s a long history in journalism of people speaking the truth – and being willing to identify themselves to the media (as here) – to prove what they’re saying is legit, while still keeping their identity a secret from the public / from their bosses, so they can’t be punished. Seems okay to me.
Maybe so, but analysis from an anonymous lawyer is still no better than analysis from an internet stranger.
What would you think about a letter casting doubt on, say, climate change signed by 50 university professors? I would immediately check their affiliation. If they are all from the Department of Music, then their opinion is no better than anyone else’s.
Likewise, law is a highly subspecialized field. For all I know, the letter was written by a bunch of IP lawyers. In which case, their opinions on potential war crimes would not be particularly valuable.
Oh, come on. You know this isn’t from the damn music department. They actually went out of their way to indicate what were the credentials of the specific sources they talked to.
a DOJ attorney
a DHS attorney
A State Department staffer with more than two decades of policy experience, including in foreign assistance in the Middle East
Yes, I know they aren’t in the music department.
What I said is that they could be IP lawyers (who exist in both DOJ and DHS).
Or in the case of State, likely not a lawyer at all.
Or, with equal validity, I could say they could include Merrick Garland and Jonathan Meyer.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies, as opposed to because they’re doing exactly what’s the standard thing to do when you have an issue with what your employer the United States Govt is doing.
You’re also comparing them to music professors speaking on climate change, when professors have tenure specifically because of this exact issue, so they can speak publicly on controversial issues without being fired for it if they cross someone powerful. Since these people don’t have that protection, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that the reason they’re anonymous is because they want to be able to tell the truth without being fired, and they’re using the exact mechanism built into our society for doing that.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies
Not at all. If they are anonymous, then they are no better than an internet stranger but also no worse.
We’re all equal here. After all, for all I know you could be Merrick Garland.
And I fully understand why they want to remain anonymous. I’m anonymous too. But claiming the benefits of anonymity means giving up the mantle of authority. You can only earn that by providing your CV.
If only there were a process where some third party could vouch for their credentials while keeping them anonymous
Source anonymity is an important and necessary part of journalism to protect said sources. It’s the journalists’ job to do the vetting.
deleted by creator
