DOZENS OF LEGAL and civil society organizations from around the world have thrown their weight behind a U.S. lawsuit accusing President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for failing to “prevent an unfolding genocide” in Gaza.
US does something: “US WORLD POLICE LEAVE OTHER COUNTRIES ALONE”
US doesn’t do something: “DOING NOTHING IS LITERALLY THE SAME AS GENOCIDE, YOU ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE”
Is that even true? From what I understand Israel produces a majority of their military tech themselves. Rafael is one of the top dogs when it comes to stuff that goes boom
Selling them all those guns, moving aircraft carriers in to defend them, running interference at the UN, providing diplomatic cover, etc.
The rest of the world is trying to stop the IDF and the lunatics that netanyahu put in charge from continuing their genocide and we are active in preventing that.
That’s a much longer-term issue. I would argue that the current sales of ammunition, while distasteful, are little more than token support to a supposed ‘ally’.
moving aircraft carriers in to defend them
Alright, that one is to discourage a full-fledged war from breaking out. And I’m pretty sure that will not be any better for the Palestinian people than the current scenario.
running interference at the UN,
Fair enough on that one.
providing diplomatic cover, etc.
We’ve actually been more standoffish to Israel than I’ve ever seen before in terms of public statements. I think the nakedness of it has rattled some people in the State Department.
You also specifically said it was just part of their long term support. Why is it such an emergency that we provide those weapons now if it’s little more than a token gesture?
Ah, that would tie in to both the fact that Israel is a major purchaser of US equipment and that we don’t want Israel to be invaded, because God fucking knows how that will end.
The first is that when a country buys weapons from another, they want to know that they can continue to purchase the supplies that let them continue to operate those weapons. If not, well, they won’t purchase arms from that country anymore - if they will cut you off for policy disputes, then you’re at their mercy, and that’s unacceptable to most nations. A reputation for continuing to supply the weaponry we sell even to those we have disputes with, such as Turkiye and Egypt, is valuable to have for this reason. And while the profit motive is often championed as the reason for the sales, the real cause for its importance is influence - it’s much easier to integrate and cooperate with countries which use the same systems and have economic ties to you.
The second is that Israel isn’t about to literally run out of artillery shells for their current rate of genocide, but a perception of reduced supply could embolden other actors in the region to take aggressive action while stockpiles are lower. One of the major sales recently was of tank shells, which are not being used in large amounts in Gaza at the moment (most of it is being done by artillery and airstrikes) - a sale to shore up stockpiles to ward off the prospect of an intervention by a hostile neighbor. A war breaking out would be… disastrous. For Palestinians and everyone else.
Now, all this being said, I still think that we shouldn’t sell them anything at this moment, reputation be damned. But I also think it’s not a major contributor to the ongoing genocide, and it’s not much more than a continuation of prior policies.
Yeah, super standoffish. You can tell by how it’s made no fucking difference, while the US sells them hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs and shells.
But they crooked an eyebrow while doing it, and that’s what really matters.
I do kind of agree, this is a bit much, but we are giving them lots of weapons, like i understand maintaining the alliance & there is a large jewish lobby in the USA but like the ammunition would be much better spent in Kharkiv or Robotnye vs Gaza City imo.
But let’s not pretend that the timing is anything but an excuse to beat on the “US BAD” drum.
I would disagree.
It’s a valid tactic to shame the US in order to move public opinion in a way that affects democrats. That’s a legit strategy to remove the biggest roadblock to holding Israel accountable, not just a chance for cheap political point-scoring.
I’m sure it will also be used for that by some but so what? We are bad. We’re a state. Any organization that holds power based on their control of violence is by definition evil. And worse, we’re a global imperial power, the worst kind of state. Maybe you think we’re the lesser evil, but we’re still quite obviously bad. All countries are vermin.
I would disagree. It’s a valid tactic to shame the US in order to move public opinion in a way that affects democrats. That’s a legit strategy to remove the biggest roadblock to holding Israel accountable, not just a chance for cheap political point-scoring.
But will it? Bringing charges against the Biden administration are unlikely to cause the Biden administration to change course, because such would be immediately jumped on by pro-Israel Democrats (ie the majority) and the entire Republican Party. It’s unlikely to change opinions here in the US for the better, because Republicans want genocide, while Democrats have already largely made up their minds as to whether Israel’s response is disproportionate or not.
That leaves a small number of swing voters to change - but the only change that would be noticeable by them would be an abandonment of the anti-Israel elements of the Democratic Party for not being anti-Israel enough. In every other scenario, their opinions on Israel are immaterial due to the overwhelming support from the other two, larger groups.
My point isn’t that we shouldn’t be calling out Israel’s genocide for what it is. We absolutely should be. My point is that apportioning blame to the Biden administration or attempting to hold the US government legally responsible for someone else’s genocide is counterproductive at best.
By itself almost certainly not, but it’s rare for any one thing to change policy. Maybe something interesting comes out in court, or the government’s arguments make it look particularly bad. Probably not, but equally I doubt it’s going to backfire strongly.
I don’t know, man. It probably won’t backfire on the people bringing the suit, but it very easily could damage Biden at no expense to the pro-Israel wing. Which, in case anyone else reading this needs it to be said, would have even less desirable results regarding the ongoing genocide.
Put another way, if Biden ends up punished at the ballot box, pro-Israel voters are a MUCH larger bloc than us anti-Israel voters. The sad strategic answer of the next candidate will not be “Biden lost pro-Israel votes AND anti-Israel votes by stepping away from Israel; I had better step even further away in the hopes that it’ll be good enough for them this time!” it will be “Anti-Israel voters won’t help me if I step away from Israel, so it’s better to just go all-in on uncritical support for genocide to keep pro-Israel voters”.
When an official begins to step away from long-standing policy embedded deep into the institutions of government, the answer shouldn’t be to drag them for not stepping away far enough. It should be to emphasize that the move is good, and should be repeated.
You realize the world is full of people and organizations with many different opinions and interests, don’t you? It is impossible for anyone to do anything, or fail to do anything without people being unhappy and critical about it. The bigger and more powerful you are the louder that will be. There should be nothing surprising about this.
This is a really wierd statement/sentiment to me. Of course every decision is going to have detractors but when war crimes and genocide are involved, it gets bumped up a level past just “agree to disagree”
US does something: “US WORLD POLICE LEAVE OTHER COUNTRIES ALONE”
US doesn’t do something: “DOING NOTHING IS LITERALLY THE SAME AS GENOCIDE, YOU ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE”
Usually I’d agree with this but the US is the main supplier of weapons to Israel. So…
Is that even true? From what I understand Israel produces a majority of their military tech themselves. Rafael is one of the top dogs when it comes to stuff that goes boom
Thanks to billions of dollars of subsidies, training, and resources provided by…?
I’m dumb and confused. What is it that you normally agree with?
If America does nothing it’s not their fault. But PugJesus is somehow saying that America is doing nothing in Gaza which is a huge lie.
Selling them all those guns, moving aircraft carriers in to defend them, running interference at the UN, providing diplomatic cover, etc.
The rest of the world is trying to stop the IDF and the lunatics that netanyahu put in charge from continuing their genocide and we are active in preventing that.
That’s a much longer-term issue. I would argue that the current sales of ammunition, while distasteful, are little more than token support to a supposed ‘ally’.
Alright, that one is to discourage a full-fledged war from breaking out. And I’m pretty sure that will not be any better for the Palestinian people than the current scenario.
Fair enough on that one.
We’ve actually been more standoffish to Israel than I’ve ever seen before in terms of public statements. I think the nakedness of it has rattled some people in the State Department.
Didn’t Biden push through a sale specifically for this “war” though?
Hence the ‘current sales of ammunition’.
Don’t forget directly providing intelligence https://theintercept.com/2024/01/11/israel-air-force-targeting-intelligence/
You also specifically said it was just part of their long term support. Why is it such an emergency that we provide those weapons now if it’s little more than a token gesture?
Ah, that would tie in to both the fact that Israel is a major purchaser of US equipment and that we don’t want Israel to be invaded, because God fucking knows how that will end.
The first is that when a country buys weapons from another, they want to know that they can continue to purchase the supplies that let them continue to operate those weapons. If not, well, they won’t purchase arms from that country anymore - if they will cut you off for policy disputes, then you’re at their mercy, and that’s unacceptable to most nations. A reputation for continuing to supply the weaponry we sell even to those we have disputes with, such as Turkiye and Egypt, is valuable to have for this reason. And while the profit motive is often championed as the reason for the sales, the real cause for its importance is influence - it’s much easier to integrate and cooperate with countries which use the same systems and have economic ties to you.
The second is that Israel isn’t about to literally run out of artillery shells for their current rate of genocide, but a perception of reduced supply could embolden other actors in the region to take aggressive action while stockpiles are lower. One of the major sales recently was of tank shells, which are not being used in large amounts in Gaza at the moment (most of it is being done by artillery and airstrikes) - a sale to shore up stockpiles to ward off the prospect of an intervention by a hostile neighbor. A war breaking out would be… disastrous. For Palestinians and everyone else.
Now, all this being said, I still think that we shouldn’t sell them anything at this moment, reputation be damned. But I also think it’s not a major contributor to the ongoing genocide, and it’s not much more than a continuation of prior policies.
Yeah, super standoffish. You can tell by how it’s made no fucking difference, while the US sells them hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs and shells.
But they crooked an eyebrow while doing it, and that’s what really matters.
More stand off ish in the press. And only in recent years after almost a century of colonialism
I do kind of agree, this is a bit much, but we are giving them lots of weapons, like i understand maintaining the alliance & there is a large jewish lobby in the USA but like the ammunition would be much better spent in Kharkiv or Robotnye vs Gaza City imo.
I mean, I’m in support of stopping aid to Israel entirely, and have been for years, since this is not in any way a new genocide.
But let’s not pretend that the timing is anything but an excuse to beat on the “US BAD” drum.
I would disagree.
It’s a valid tactic to shame the US in order to move public opinion in a way that affects democrats. That’s a legit strategy to remove the biggest roadblock to holding Israel accountable, not just a chance for cheap political point-scoring.
I’m sure it will also be used for that by some but so what? We are bad. We’re a state. Any organization that holds power based on their control of violence is by definition evil. And worse, we’re a global imperial power, the worst kind of state. Maybe you think we’re the lesser evil, but we’re still quite obviously bad. All countries are vermin.
Truest statement of 2024
As true now as it was in the neolithic.
But will it? Bringing charges against the Biden administration are unlikely to cause the Biden administration to change course, because such would be immediately jumped on by pro-Israel Democrats (ie the majority) and the entire Republican Party. It’s unlikely to change opinions here in the US for the better, because Republicans want genocide, while Democrats have already largely made up their minds as to whether Israel’s response is disproportionate or not.
That leaves a small number of swing voters to change - but the only change that would be noticeable by them would be an abandonment of the anti-Israel elements of the Democratic Party for not being anti-Israel enough. In every other scenario, their opinions on Israel are immaterial due to the overwhelming support from the other two, larger groups.
My point isn’t that we shouldn’t be calling out Israel’s genocide for what it is. We absolutely should be. My point is that apportioning blame to the Biden administration or attempting to hold the US government legally responsible for someone else’s genocide is counterproductive at best.
By itself almost certainly not, but it’s rare for any one thing to change policy. Maybe something interesting comes out in court, or the government’s arguments make it look particularly bad. Probably not, but equally I doubt it’s going to backfire strongly.
I don’t know, man. It probably won’t backfire on the people bringing the suit, but it very easily could damage Biden at no expense to the pro-Israel wing. Which, in case anyone else reading this needs it to be said, would have even less desirable results regarding the ongoing genocide.
Put another way, if Biden ends up punished at the ballot box, pro-Israel voters are a MUCH larger bloc than us anti-Israel voters. The sad strategic answer of the next candidate will not be “Biden lost pro-Israel votes AND anti-Israel votes by stepping away from Israel; I had better step even further away in the hopes that it’ll be good enough for them this time!” it will be “Anti-Israel voters won’t help me if I step away from Israel, so it’s better to just go all-in on uncritical support for genocide to keep pro-Israel voters”.
When an official begins to step away from long-standing policy embedded deep into the institutions of government, the answer shouldn’t be to drag them for not stepping away far enough. It should be to emphasize that the move is good, and should be repeated.
Adolf Hitler was also just doing what the voters wanted right
Speaking of Weimar-era comparisons, don’t you have some “Liberals are social fascists; after Trump, us!” bullshit to peddle or something?
You realize the world is full of people and organizations with many different opinions and interests, don’t you? It is impossible for anyone to do anything, or fail to do anything without people being unhappy and critical about it. The bigger and more powerful you are the louder that will be. There should be nothing surprising about this.
This is a really wierd statement/sentiment to me. Of course every decision is going to have detractors but when war crimes and genocide are involved, it gets bumped up a level past just “agree to disagree”