this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
745 points (95.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
4123 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

There's been a lot of FUD about it and .ml has been running wild denying anything even remotely pro peace from her.

At any rate literally all we need at this point is a president that tells Netanyahu he either accepts a negotiated return of remaining hostages and withdraws or he loses our weapons support.

But Biden is also doing his best to pump up their ammo supply so the next president actually doesn't have the influence Biden could have had. It's 2024 and I'm ashamed we didn't learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames. They've been shamelessly giving Israel our best military technology with no regard to their political situation. College students called this as the most likely path 2 decades ago, and here we are appearing to be caught by surprise.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Fun fact, there's a 2008 law that specifically forces the president to give Israel all the best military hardware.

It was passed by W on his way out the door, and due to the Democratic party being compromised as hell, there's never been enough votes to get rid of it, and any time the president might want to hold things back, they get sued under that law.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Biden and Obama both could have used the leahy law on day one. We have evidence going that far back that Israel systematically commits war crimes, including occupying Palestine in an illegal manner. To be clear there is a way they could have done it legally. But things including extending their own, civilian, legal system into the occupied areas preclude it being legal.

[–] nednobbins@lemm.ee 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Fun fact, there’s a 2008

What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can't find that law.

I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.

[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it's here.

https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf

There's actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.

So there isn't really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.

[–] nednobbins@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

I just read that law and it's far from clear that it requires any aid to Israel at all.

Section 1 just defines the title.
Section 2 provides a statement of findings.
Section 3 covers US policy towards Israel. This is the closest I could find to something requiring assistance. Policy statements don't bind the president. At best they serve as guidelines for future legislation.
Section 4 talks about actively defending Israel but brackets the whole thing in "should". That has a specific legal definition that includes, "but it's not required."
Section 5 simply extends some deadlines that were going to expire.
Section 6 mandates some reports.
Section 7 defines terms.

The language in the Leahy Act is considerably stronger and more explicit. "No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter..."

[–] LePoisson@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it's here.

https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf

There's actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.

So there isn't really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It’s 2024 and I’m ashamed we didn’t learn from supporting South Africa and Iran into the flames.

We did learn. Just all the wrong lessons. Iran taught us that you can ride a wave of hate for 50 years. South Africa taught us that you crack down on the BDS movement day one and keep the media on lock for your Apartheid friends.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I hate that you're right. I want to live in a country that's actually moral.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Then you need to find a different planet.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What did South Africa do to BTS?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Boycott Divest Sanction