239
He won't listen, but it's still good to draw attention to it.
I'm genuinely curious what you expect Biden should do other than ask Netanyahu and the leaders of Hamas to agree to a ceasefire? No shade what so ever. I just dont see what options he has to sway these two sovereign nations.
He asks Israel for ceasefire. Then he cuts funding if they don't listen. Israel will do literally anything to maintain that pipeline of cash.
No one is asking for them to disarm, or allow Hamas to strike. People are just asking for Israel to stop with the warcrimes while support groups can figure out how to aid the Palestinians.
Then he cuts funding if they don’t listen.
Then Israel cuts political funding and a whole pile of Democrats lose their next election. Most people have ZERO idea how much political power AIPAC has in the United States.
President Joe "I am a Zionist" Biden won't be cutting a damn thing.
AIPAC has bent and twisted US Domestic politics for it's own benefit for at least the last twenty years and party doesn't matter.
Literally every President and Vice President and the major POTUS candidates for at least the past two decades has spoke at AIPAC. Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush Jr, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. ALL of them.
Kamala Harris? Yup.
New Speaker of the House Mike Johnson? AIPAC was his single largest donor!
It's not just leadership either, AIPAC will fund dozens of US Congresspeople so they can go to Israel and meet with Israeli Officials.
If there's another single issue lobbying group out there with more political power I'm unaware of them. AIPAC flexes so hard that even the NRA is jealous.
Israel will do literally anything to maintain that pipeline of cash.
That pipeline of cash isn't going anywhere no matter what Israel does or doesn't do. They are driving the bus, not riding in it.
You've described the situation.
Which is why so many people are marching and phoning their representatives etc. We know it's not going to change on its own, and we can't live with doing nothing.
Playing this out. Democrats lose power over lost political funding. AIPAC now ensures it's largest gov. ally effectively slips into single party representation. That remaining party is aligned nearly completely to an orange figure head that supports fascism openly. Overseas, ironically, the country created as a result of WWII fascism becomes any ally to the world's largest fascist superpower. Sounds like we're fscked any way you slice this.
Unpopular donors are very inefficient and could easily spend x10 their opponent to eke out a win in a primary. Also, donors like to be bipartisan. Meaning they never openly spend on just 1 party in November because they want a good relationship with both parties.
The DNC wants to help Israel without any consequences, so they are pretending to be powerless here. But for arguments sake, if AIPAC tried to hurt the DNCs chances in November over a growing antiwar movement. They would permanently damage Israel's reputation with liberal democracies across the globe because Trump is an unpopular guy.
Except Israel isn’t unpopular with most voters, unfortunately, especially in contested states and districts.
I don't know how to reply here. You ignored so much of my comment, I'd believe you if you said your reply was meant for another.
What did they British government do when proto-isreali terrorists partook in a campaign of assassinations and civilian bombings that used schools, temples and hospitals to stage attacks and store weapons?
Why are people downvoting your perfectly reasonable question???
Has Biden become the PM of Israel? Or is it secret powers of sone sort.
Israel is a proxy state. A ridiculous amount of Israeli GDP is actually American aid.
If Biden wanted the bombing the to stop, it would stop.
I'm curious, why do you think he actually wants it to continue? Geopolitical strategy is an ugly and complicated beast but most people seem to think it's as simple as "old man wants genocide".
His argument is a simplification, yes, of course it's not as simple as "old man wants genocide". It's more like "old man doenst really mind genocide thst much as long as he gets to keep the influence over a proxy state and also his own home state"
That's fair, thanks for expanding. Now I ask, do you think any other US president would do the same in his shoes? Why or why not?
I've heard about oil off the coast of Gaza. I've heard some stories about a canal.
My personal theory:
Saudi Arabia and Israel were just about to normalize relations. Iran didn't like that, and pushed Hamas to attack in Oct. Meanwhile, there's some oil depletion stuff happening worldwide except USA and Canada. If the middle east got itself together it could be a global power to rival the US or China. This kind of destabilizing war does a lot to stop that from happening.
I don't think it's any one thing though.
Interesting thought, though wasn't it revealed the plan for the attack started a few years ago? That might weaken the normalized relations aspect but it still could be something they saw coming maybe.
I wasn't aware, but I don't think that changes anything.
The US has plans for an invasion of Canada. Doesn't mean that it's going to happen anytime soon
That makes no sense. Congress legislates and the executive executes that legislation. The President can't put further requirements on aid.
He can veto the legislation, and (more contentiously) he can issue executive orders blocking the implementation of the legislation. Or least of all, use his human mouth to speak words against the legislation (the "bully pulpit").
So he should veto legislation he hasn't gotten, write an executive understanding order, which again can not set new conditions, or speak against aid to an ally. Doesn't seem to be cease fire material to me.
"He hasn't gotten"? He drafted the request:
write an executive understanding order, which again can not set new conditions,
He is bound by existing conditions, e.g. the ratification of the Geneva Convention, not to facilitate genocide. He is currently being sued for this.
edit: To be sure, the reason I wrote this is contentious, the actual scope of EOs (not to be confused with a private MOU, which isn't applicable nor legally binding) is contentious. The reason we have the executive branch to begin with, in terms of checks and balances, is to ensure there can be a refusal to implement. Although it's a non-issue in this case since he's asking for it, it would only become an issue with a 2/3 majority ready to force legislation through and with him actually opposed to it. Disclaimer, not a lawyer, just know some fundamentals.
He hasn't gotten"? He drafted the request:
The legislation is not on the desk, you know that but are being obtuse
He is bound by existing conditions, e.g. the ratification of the Geneva Convention, not to facilitate genocide.
Has the International Criminal Court charged anyone on genocide? The President is bound by the legislation in front of them, not your feelings.
I will never understand how people have the nerve to leave comments about things they don't understand or know anything about.
Really? That's the best you can do?
I don't think one state runs the other. IMO, the same organization runs both, plus other European colonial powers and proxy/puppet states. It's basically impossible otherwise to account for this kind of like, inexplicable synchronicity that they have with absolutely indefensible policies.
Yeah I hate to feed into conspiracy theories but there's absolutely a freemason shadow government or something deeper going on internationally.
Truth is the truth. Doesn't take much imagination to see why that type of idea is stigmatized so much.
The USA is Israel's proxy
I get people fear endangering their jobs, but isn't it kind of toothless to say "we're Biden staffers signing this letter" followed immediately by "anonymously"?
this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
239 points (93.5% liked)
worldnews
4839 readers
1 users here now
Rules:
-
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
-
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
-
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS