cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601

“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”

Reads like a bloody Onion article.

  • Soup@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    It’s so simple, even a random person on the internet with no knowledge of how any of it actually works has figured it all out!

    Yeah! Just… break a decades-long agreement. There no nuance to this at all! No complications…

    amirite?

    There can’t possibly be any penalties or repercussions for that! I mean. A random internet citizen said to do it- so……

    Easy peezy!

    • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      So we throw away the “rules based international order” and return to the pre-1914 unilateral rules and all the brutal wars that bought? So much better, amirite? Might makes right, and we’ve got the might for now!

      The US stance on Israeli leadership is decimating our ability to wield soft power influence. We are global hypocrites blocking ANY action, whilst expecting the world to fall in line to support Ukraine against Russian revanchism - even NATO members dissent from the US position. The global south is turning to China/OPEC+ trading blocs. They already tried to break the petrodollar, which would be a huge blow if successful.

      Even taking a realpolitik approach, without soft power all those US military bases used for ‘power projection’ lose their local consent, and become occupation sites inside non-allied nations. the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan is a chill spot for launching COIN drone missions - whereas the Conoco base in Syria is constantly under drone and rocket attack.

      Supporting Bibi’s wars of aggression is a stupid play on multiple levels.

      • Soup@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        I never said it was good to support it (though I’m sure that won’t stop people from reporting me for being a genocide apologist). Only that it’s a very complicated and nuanced thing to just assume it should be easy to simply stop because we want it to.

        Nothing would make me happier than to see the issue resolved and for people to stop being hurt. But that’s not for me to decide. With a vote or otherwise.

        And that’s because it’s a very complicated agreement. Nations don’t just decide to break them. Regardless of your strong opinions on the matter.

        • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          Maybe stop sending them billions in weapons then, eh?

          I see at least three actions in that statement:

          1. Stop giving them billions in free weapons
          2. Stop giving them any weapons
          3. Stop them

          #1 should have happened a long time ago imo, if not used as a leverage to prevent an Israeli ground invasion of Rafah, the West Bank, Lebanon, striking enrichment at Natanz. “Free bombs for crimes against humanity” is a bad moral play, bad politics, and bad diplomacy outside the US:Israel sphere.

          #2 Is politically hard normally, impossible in an election cycle. I hate it, but here we are in the house we built. Make FEC the only campaign funds - it’s OUR government, not the highest bidder’s.

          #3 The US’s geopolitical track record shows that we’ll tolerate some awful, terrible people if they’ll get ‘on our side’ even if there’s a trend of massive and foreseeable blowback, the diplomatic corps don’t learn lessons.

          • Soup@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            And my point is:

            1. It’s more complicated than that
            2. It’s more complicated than that
            3. it’s more complicated than that.

            What I’m trying to say is that none of us are experts on the subject. And those that are suggest that, guess what?

            Yeah. It’s more complicated than that.

            And I chose to believe the experts on the matter. But when they’re ready to argue music theory, I’ll eat their lunch. 😀

    • Count042@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      It is.

      It was easy enough for Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Obama.

      It is easy enough to do again.

      Seriously, do you have no idea about recent history?

      • Soup@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        What do you think happens when America stops supplying Israel? Think they’ll just stop attacking Palestine?? They’ve already said that don’t really need America chipping in. And they don’t.

        So… when America just- stops sending them arms, the next bidder steps in. That’s what happens.

        And that’s going to be either China or Russia. And they wont have any restrictions like America does. (And before you say “what restrictions” I’d urge you to try and understand what’s involved in the pact). Russia and or China will absolutely allow them to decimate Palestine. And even help if necessary.

        And if America doesn’t end up going to war with them over this, guess, who they’re all most likely turning their sights on once Palestine becomes a gravel pit?

        This is just ONE example. There are MANY others. Pay attention when the experts on the sublet discuss this. You’ll learn something just as I did.

        And lastly…. What could be done, at best, is America might be able to leverage additional conditions. And if you’ve been paying attention- they’ve been trying to do just that this entire time.

        Again- nuance. Understand it.

        • bishbosh@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          So… when America just- stops sending them arms, the next bidder steps in. That’s what happens. And that’s going to be either China or Russia.

          lol, holy shit

          • Soup@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            Man… I’m really done wasting my time trying to explain simple concepts to far leftists. What a fucking waste of time.

            • bishbosh@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 days ago

              You really think China and Russia would give billions of free weapons to Israel?

              • Soup@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 days ago

                I really think they’d go to someone, and negotiates would ensue. I can’t predict the outcome because I’m not an idiot that makes assumptions.

                And again, I am not the one making these decisions. I’m simply offering an example of how it would be incredibly difficult to just simply- stop.

                Which is more than anyone that’s countering the argument.

                “It’s so easy! Just stop sending weapons! Break a trade agreement! No consequences at all because Israel is so well know as a nice and understanding nation!”

                • bishbosh@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Genuinely, who in the world has the capacity to give the level of aid the US gives to Israel. You say they would go to someone and don’t want to predict who it would be, then give a list. What countries would be able and remotely willing to even a 10th of what the US gives to Israel?

                  • Soup@lemmy.cafe
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 days ago

                    I don’t get to make that assumption. The point you’re missing here is that it’s COMPLICATED. I gave a simple example of what might stall the “simple” decision to do as the leftists think would be so easy. (Bad auto-correct decision here, hope it fixed before read)

                    They’ve come up with zero ideas or concepts of how it can be done, but my feet are held to the fire to illustrate why it’s complicated?

                    That’s where we are now.

                    Armchair geopolitical edgelords on the internet get to claim simplicity in ending trade policies, whereas someone who suggest it isn’t that easy is held to the task to explain it to people that are just going to brush it off with ad hominem attacks nay say.

                    I’m done dude. I said what I felt needed be said. I’m not here to change kids as that’s fucking impossible. I knew this before I started and did it anyway.

                    You cannot reason with a leftist.

                    I’m just going to point and laugh from now on like everyone else does.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      You’re right, they should keep supporting acts of genocide because doing anything else is just too darn hard.

      Very well said!