You're viewing a single thread.
I love how the propagandists just keep beating the same drum after the Biden administration has constructed a ceasefire deal which has received unanimous UN Security Council support, and did appear to be moving forward until about 14 hours ago. (Edit: It might still, that's not over yet.)
It's almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we'd lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s) It's almost like geopolitics are - wait for it - complicated.
Second Edit: Let's also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel's back is against the wall, they're running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?
It was unanimous because Russia abstained. Putin loves the refocus on Israel while he continues his genocidal war crimes in Ukraine under the US media radar.
For those who haven’t been keeping up, Russia has abducted 700,000 Ukrainian children to be raised as Russians in foster homes since the war began. It’s genocide on a scale 20 times larger than Palestine, and isn’t making national headlines in the US due to the focus on Israel.
The US formally declared this as genocide in the House of Representatives with a 390-9 vote in April by invoking the UN Genocide Convention, and the ICC has issued arrest warrants. Did you see any headlines about that?
Russia is also the largest investor in the sanctioned Iran economy that is directly funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
I was sceptical of this claim so I did some research - 700,000 is almost certainly too high, but other than that it's disturbingly true:
The 700,000 number comes from a Russian parliamentarian in 2023, and refers to orphaned and abandoned children Russia has 'protected' from conflict zones in Ukraine. A later Russian report walked this back a bit, and claimed that most of this number were children accompanied by family voluntarily escaping the fighting by feeling into Russia.
Obviously we should be sceptical of what Russia says about this, but this is not the same number as the number of children abducted - not even Ukraine alleges it to be this high.
The number of children abducted and forcibly deported was officially reported by Kyev to be 19,000 to 20,000 at the time of the above claim based on the data (nearly 30,000 now). The real number is almost certainly higher - many Ukranian officials believe the actual amount is higher, with one saying it may be into the 'hundreds of thousands'. A US report in 2022 estimates that Russia has "interrogated, detained, and forcibly deported... 260,000 children, from their homes to Russia"
Even if we take only the low amount that can be fairly positively stated as abductions, that's nearly 30,000 children. Various reports have shown some of these children being given new Russian identities and false birth certificates, and being put up for adoption in Russia. Some have testified to being indoctrinated and shown pro-Kremlin propaganda.
This broadly constitutes Cultural Genocide - whether it technically is or not is for academics to argue over, because the legal definition of genocide is complicated and so much is unkown.
Whether or not you want to call it a Genocide, it is undeniably a War Crime. The ICC has issued arrest warrents for Putin and Russian Children's Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova over this.
Regardless of the number, it was deemed genocide in a 390-9 vote in the House in April, by invoking the UN Genocide Convention.
When the US congress deems there to be a genocide, the truth is always the opposite of their conclusion. If the Holocaust was going on today, congress would rule unanimously there to be no genocide.
Lol at basically citing the CIA as your source.
And yet not a peep from these “Genocide Joe” people. They’re either Russian disinformation agents, or useful idiots.
I get what you’re saying, but I’m pretty damn sure you’re confusing Americans’ inability to focus on more than one issue at a time with the seemingly catch-all “bots!” thing.
Don’t attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to stupidity/ignorance/laziness.
Idk why you're saying "not a peep" when it's pretty much all we ever talk about in these parts.
No, what everyone here seems to talk about is how the President is supporting genocide, while failing to mention that Biden alone can’t do anything to fund Israel.
Where are you seeing any criticism towards the GOP? All I’m seeing are the same “Genocide Joe” and “Both Sides” people being the most vocal.
Yeah, given it's a center stance and not remotely a partisan issue in this election it's probably better not to talk about it outside of the context of supporting protests and spreading news about the conflict.
It seems like the potential for an ethnicity to disappear completely after decades of starvation, oppression, and embargo is a more pressing concern than a war between two competent militarized nations, but yeah I agree they're at completely different scales in every aspect except funding from third parties.
I'm legit not trying to troll here, but I vaguely recall a news story last month where Biden said it's not genocide. I forget if he was referring to Ukraine or Gaza, but either way I was kind of dumbfounded like wtf.
It becomes a game of semantics. “Genocide” is not just a loaded term but it has a definition you can argue against, without disagreeing on the scope of the atrocity. Arguing about whether it fits the definition is just a redirect so we’re not talking about the scale of the suffering
He was referring to Gaza. Its amazing the number of lies $12m buys
And you can’t even bring this up as an argument against the “gEnOciDe jOe” kids because it gets removed for “whataboutism” in almost every thread.
They have their agenda pretty locked down
"The news is so focused on children trapped in a war zone but they're ignoring the real issue we should be focusing on: children being safely transported out of a war zone."
Russia is taking Ukrainian children, placing them in foster care, and putting them up for adoption to be raised as Russians. This is the definition of genocide.
Genocide is an internationally recognized crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. These acts fall into five categories:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Yes, I'm aware of that definition, but there is also a real and present danger to leaving Ukrainian children in the war zone, and I'm not aware of other countries lining up to take them in. It's also completely ridiculous to compare civilians being slaughtered wholesale in an open-air prison to war orphans being raised by parents of a different culture. Would you prefer they be left where they are?
You are implying this is some diplomatic decision. They are being abducted. They have no choice. Again, these children are being placed in foster homes and put up for adoption to be raised as if they are Russian. This isn’t a refugee rescue operation. It’s cultural genocide. You’re either wildly obtuse, or in defense of genocide.
So you would prefer that they be left where they are, understood.
Personally I think it's good that children not be left in dangerous, traumatic situations, but if you want to classify something as "genocide" when it involves saving the lives of the "victims," then I guess I am defending "genocide." And if you wanted to call if "murder" when I take a drink of water, I guess that means I'll defend "murder" too. If you play around with words enough you can make anything look bad.
I consider people being slaughtered worse than children being raised in a culture different from that of their parents, so sue me.
You’re using a false-dilemma argument while arguing semantics over the lives of children. How many Rubles do you get per comment?
What I’d prefer is what the EU is doing by providing temporary amnesty for refugees, while they await return to their conflict-free home country.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/ukraine-refugees-eu/
You’re using a false-dilemma argument
No, I'm using a real-dilemma argument. If you'd care to provide an alternative to taking them out of a war zone or leaving them there, I would love to hear it.
How many Rubles do you get per comment?
Of course, the "everyone who disagrees with me is a secret agent" conspiracy theory. I'm not feeling particularly quippy today so I'm not going to bother making fun of it.
We would prefer they go with their parents or at least family.
Which Russia is preventing by kidnapping them.
We're talking about war orphans. Generally, their family is either dead or can't be located.
Most people have extended families, that could be located if someone tried. But I think you knew that.
Yes, and hopefully peace will be achieved as soon as possible so that that process can happen, but it's a little hard to track people down during the chaos of war. This isn't a new phenomenon.
What a moronic take. Those Russian must be saints taking those poor Ukrainian children after, you know, illegally invading their country, killing their parents, and destroying their cities.
I never called them saints, I only said that transporting war orphans into safety is not genocide.
What a tankie clown. To “safety”.
Being a tankie is when you consider children being adopted to parents who raise them in a safe environment "safety," in comparison to living in a war zone.
I can think of one country first in line to take them: Ukraine, or Ukrainian refugees sheltering in NATO countries. Wtf kind of fascist take are you spewing? 'Someone has to save these kids from the warzone we created; can't just give them to their extended families, those are the enemy, guess we have no choice but to do genocide '. Get the fuck out of here.
We're talking about war orphans, children whose families cannot be located.
Did they try locating the extended families, or did they just abduct thousands of children to be raised as Russians? That's a rhetorical question, they did the latter.
War orphans are not a new thing. Every war that's ever been caught has produced children who's families cannot be found, because wars are chaotic and also deadly.
Oh yeah, like how during the Iraq war when the US abducted all those Iraqi children and gave them to American families? Or when France stole all those orphans from central Africa to raise as little French kids? Or when the Canadian adoption system was flush with Afghani children they took away from their families and homeland?
Pretty sure abducting children after killing their parents has always been wrong.
If the US ever tried evacuating Iraqi orphans into the US adoption system, the right would start race riots over it. We didn't even let our collaborators in.
No, instead, the children were left in the war zone where countless numbers were killed.
So if Israel took every Palestinian child they saw, regardless of what family they have, and brought them to Israel for an Israeli family to raise, you'd be fine with that?
I mean, it would be an improvement...
...I can't argue there. Genocide all the same, but at least without killing kids.
So if Israel took every Palestinian child they saw, regardless of what family they have
Russia is not doing this. We're talking about war orphans.
Fine then, if Israel took war orphans like Russia? You'd be totally fine with that?
I'd be better than the current situation, yes. It's by no means ideal, but Palestinian children would be better off being adopted by Israeli families than starving to death or being bombed or shot. My problem is with them putting them in the situation in the first place.
I mean, it's hard to argue with that. It would still be genocide, but at least kids wouldn't be dying.
God. It's fucked up.
Objection used a false comparison.
A more direct analogy would be if they were being put up for adoption by the Israeli government. That’s what makes it genocide. Once adopted, they become property of the Russian family. They’re not being returned to their homes when the war is over like the refugees who have sought amnesty in the EU.
What I'm saying is that the problem isn't moving war orphans out of a conflict zone, the problem is that there's a conflict zone in the first place.
It's not as if these orphans are some sort of "prize" to be won and brought home as spoils. Caring for them takes resources. Individual Russian families are not out there twirling their moustaches thinking, "How can I help destroy Ukrainian culture... I know! I'll adopt a child and spend years raising them as my own, that'll show 'em!"
“The news is so focused on children trapped in a war zone but they’re ignoring the real issue we should be focusing on: children being safely transported out of a war zone.”
Jesus fucking Christ. Imagine being so pro-genocide you make apologia for kidnapping literal children and ethnic cleansing.
What I'm learning from this is that libs are perfectly fine with children being left to die in an active war zone and are actively opposed to getting them to safety.
I'm absolutely voting for Biden and everyone should, because he is the best viable candidate on literally every issue, including Palestine.
That said, he has openly and loudly taken Israel's side for months. As a result, he's made himself an avatar for all the other US institutions that are openly against any criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians. Even if he has secretly been doing everything he can to stop the killing all this time—which I doubt—he had still fucked up massively when it come to avoiding the blowback from other groups' attempts to crush anyone who speaks out, including agencies his administration controls.
But hey, some rando with literally no national attention is polling at 3% in a couple of safely blue states, so definitely don’t vote for GeNoCiDe JoE! /s
Notice how they only ever criticize Biden, and never the Republican party, which fully supports Israeli bullshit?
Oh I’ve noticed. The way I see it, there are three options when it comes to the “both sides”/protest vote camp, every single one of them is one of the following:
- a bad faith actor cosplaying as a leftist
- an accelerationist
- a misguided idealist who legitimately believes a non-mainstream candidate could win and/or completely disregards the cold hard fact that FPTP means a third party/abstain vote simply endangers the lesser of two evils candidate while empowering the greater of two evils candidate
No matter what I will never stop throwing shade at that crowd hard and heavy. The first two on that list will never change. I do hope, however, that continued social pressure on that last type of person will make some of them realize that voting is just as much a responsibility as a right, and consider that maybe there’s a good reason their views are so unpopular.
Edited after a good point made by samus12345.
Also I noticed the single downvote on every one of my comments. I know who you are lol. Glad to see I’m still living in your head rent-free.
What about a more nuanced approach, such as both sides are shit. One side is clearly a bit less shit than the other, and so, I'll vote for that side, out of duress. I don't want to, I want to vote someone I actually believe in. I can't say many good things about the party I'm voting for, but I can't say ANYTHING good about their only viable opponent. And so, in an effort to keep the worst case scenario from happening, I'm going to vote for the only viable option.
This is the core of the "both sides" argument to me. We're going to vote dem. But we cannot forget that neither of these parties are the ones we want. It's important to make that known. We are not voting for you because we like you, we're voting for you because we REALLY DON'T LIKE THE OTHER ONE. As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn't silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we'll actually be able to elect the one we want.
As long as we keep talking about that, as long as that very critical voice isn’t silenced, we can slowly move the needle, until eventually one election we’ll actually be able to elect the one we want.
Which is why centrists are so keen on silence from their critics to the left. And only ever the left.
The neolib centrists need the right to guarantee their power. The left is the only group threatening that.
I think there are also misguided idealists who think it's more important that they feel good about not voting for the "genocide" guy while absolving themselves of any blame should his opponent win. They know a third party candidate can't win, but that's not as important as them being "right".
I believe the vast majority of these are privileged people whose family wealth will shield them from legislation they don't want to be subject to.
Or just white cis straight males, who will be protected from much of it as well.
you don't actually have any evidence for that, though, do you?
Only their words showing them to be clearly insulated from and cavalier about the effects of Republican legislature, true.
so can you link that?
Certainly: https://lemmy.world/comment/10594717
Yeah that’s a good point.
NO, These are all bad points! With the regularity of these posts, I am starting to suspect you are all bots.
If you want Biden to stop doing something, like supporting a genocide, you don't just say "please stop, but I'll support you no matter what". You tell him, pollsters and everyone who asks that you definitely won't be voting for someone who supports x. When it's time to vote, it might be time to vote for the least evil choice.
With the regularity of these posts, I am starting to suspect you are all bots.
lol.. I went ahead and measured my heart rate and blood oxygen for ya, 67bpm and 98% respectively; I am decidedly flesh and bones. Perhaps the reason these posts are so regular is because a good number of people don’t agree with you? Ever consider that?
You tell him, pollsters and everyone who asks that you definitely won't be voting for someone who supports x. When it's time to vote, it might be time to vote for the least evil choice.
Ok. There’s a lot to unpack here. If you’re considering voting for him anyway, there’s no weight behind your threat to withhold your vote. The problem is that not everyone thinks that way, and encouraging people to essentially burn their vote and endanger Biden’s reelection is that the only other option is Trump. Myself, and many others in this community see this as a flagrantly irresponsible gamble to be making. That’s why we push back against it. I emphatically support protesting, but not protest voting. I emphatically support the idea of a general strike, but still not protest voting. There are plenty of people like me, who want to see the genocide end, but also recognize the very real fact that the consequences of fucking around come general election time may very well be continued genocide and fascism. Just like some people say voting for a candidate supporting a genocide is a line they won’t cross, ushering in the age of trumpist fascism in the US is a line we won’t cross. The thing you seem to fail to consider is that there are more of us than you think.
Amen! I feel like my post history is 90% calling out these bullshit accounts, and 10% random other non-political stuff.
That’s almost all I do here. These people should be outed for what they are.
Yeah, same. Mine is a mix of dumb memes posted to Ten Forward, dumb joke comments on random posts, and “both siders are fucking morons”-type comments.
To be entirely fair, the Republican party does a good job of criticizing themselves.
Consider that a lot of the discourse you're seeing is from people who already believe the democratic party is the lesser of the two evils they're probably going to vote for them regardless.
If you're engaging in a conversation with someone else, whose only tangible difference between the two of you is that one of you believes Dems are a-okay, and one believes that both parties are shit, the only real talking points they have are what the Dems do that aren't great.
Obviously I don't think this is every case, but I know that if I wasn't already primed to have THIS argument, that'd probably be the route it'd take.
Biden is the fucking commander in chief.
Congress exists as a coequal branch of the government and is who actually makes laws. The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.
This is elementary school civics in the US. Being commander in chief doesn't mean Biden can change funding and laws on a whim.
The president can only exercise policies to execute those laws.
If the United States determines at any time that a transfer is no longer in accordance with United States foreign policy objectives, national security goals, or legal obligations, the United States may cease the transfer of or future support for a transferred defense article or service.
Biden could act unilaterally here.
This is elementary school civics in the US.
Yes, and he needs a declaration of war to go to war. 🙄 Just because your education ended with an elementary school reading of the constitution, doesn't mean that's how the country operates in practice.
"Checks and balances" exist in name only. Sure the supreme court or congress could strike down new social programs, but war and spy powers exist independently from the legislative and judicial branches.
That is why every time someone brings up Genocide Joe, I bring up Turbo Genocide Donny
Republicans don't pretend to care they wear their bigotry on their shoulder, Democrats are covert in their bigotry and their racism that's why they are often called out for it
I've noticed they will have a little tirade if you ask them what is the logical consistency that they support China despite being "against" Gaza genocide in a way that means they couldn't possibly vote for harm reduction.
voting is not a harm reduction strategy.
It is if you think women losing access to healthcare or Ukrainians being massacred is harm.
voting isn't a harm reduction strategy. a harm reduction strategy would be recognizing those bad things are going to happen and helping people mitigate the fallout.
Yes, by voting for the party that isn't saying we should have the National Guard brutalize protesters, that protesters should be deported, and that Israel would be justified in nuking Gaza.
you are ignoring what harm reduction means and pretending voting fits the definition of this specific jargon. it does not, and claiming it does actually impedes the educational work that harm reductionists need to do to advance their strategies.
I’ve been pointing that out all the time. They’re never on any posts critical of Trump. Only anything about Biden. It it’s critical, they’re there to agree- if it’s positive, they’re there to shit all over it.
Also notice how there's never any talk about what they wish Biden was doing instead.
I wish Biden would stop sending weapons to Israel.
From another comment:
POTUS has the power to pause military equipment shipments. Biden did exactly this with Israel, as have a few other presidents in other situations. The current congressional Republicans put forward legislation to prevent POTUS from being able to do that. (I'm not sure whether that bill got anywhere or not.) Biden said he would veto such a bill.
Foreign military aid to Israel is supplied as of the terms of the United States - Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, a ten year agreement to supply Israel with certain military aid, which was signed by the US and Israel in 2016, and which took effect in 2018. That was passed by Congress. POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.
POTUS does not have the power to unilaterally end that agreement; Congress does.
From the article you linked:
When the President is aware of the possibility of violations of the AECA, the law requires a report to Congress on the potential violations.
And that's a different act that strictly applies here. The AECA enables the existence of the US-Israel Strategic Partnership Act.
It also says:
The Arms Export Control Act of 1976 gives the President of the United States the authority to control the import and export of defense articles and defense services.
Now, I'm not a lawyer, but these people are and they say:
“The law is clear and aligned with the majority of Americans who believe the U.S. should cease arms shipments to Israel until it stops its military operation in Gaza”
Biden himself exercised an emergency provision in the law to bypass congress, in order to send more weapons to Israel
Oh, hey, I have seen you before. One of the accelerationists who wants China to expand its influence despite what they are doing to Uyghurs.
Nor any suggestions on who could win in his place. Ask them. Every time- make a game out of it.
They NEVER answer it. Not once. I’ve asked them who is currently running that can win November. Not a single one of them has made a peep of a suggestion.
Is that Jill Stein? She barely scraped past 1% of the popular vote in 2016, less than 1/3 of fucking Gary Johnson.
Oh but this time, this time Dems will learn a lesson and turn full leftist 2028. There's no risk either since muh both sides are dictators so it's equally bad either way.
I think there was some guy from California that was recently polling (yes polling, not locked in votes at all) around 3% in a handful of states and some of the both-siders were breaking their arms jerking each other off about it. I don’t remember the dude’s name, for the obvious reason of his candidacy being completely unviable.
It's almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we'd lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s)
How is this distinct from the current situation, where Israel has killed at least 35,000 people, is starving around a million more, shows no signs of changing course, and also we are giving them bombs to carry it out?
The time to start applying gentle pressure was about 8 months ago.
Well said.
Have the weapon shipments to Israel stopped?
No, neither has the money
It is complicated. I don't bother acting like I know what's going on, I just accept that there is guaranteed to be more complicated reasons than what we are often given. This means the problem is extremely simple:
Critical Thinking Skills and willingness to challenge one's own beliefs.
Which is a strong reason why far too many people continue to parrot the same arguments. Biden could at this point cause an act of God to occur, reset the timeline, and if people remembered we'd still be hearing it.
Israel's pack is against the wall against... Hamas?
They managed to push those bastards back, before they've destroyed the Gaza strip.
What do you think happens when Israel's back is against the wall, they're running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?
Do not misrepresent what you know full well I am talking about.
Supporting ethnosupremacist sociopaths in their genocide for fear of their illegal nuclear arsenal being used to genocide even harder?
They're running out of conventional weapons because they don't have the resources to flatten Gaza?
The demand is to stop the genocide, not to demilitarize Israel.
I always forget ceasefire agreements mean they keep shooting.
Against Iran. Which is Hamas' big brother.
(This comment is not approval of Israel's actions)
The protests don't ask for Israel not defending itself. They demand a stop to the revenge-rampage Israel is carrying out.
My comment has nothing to do with protests and never implies approval of Israel's actions.
What do you think the post was about? O.o
You asked about Israel having their back against the wall (Hamas).
I clarified the bigger challenge Israel would hypothetically be against the wall with would be Iran. That's it.
Edit then you randomly brought protests up into a tightly scoped comment chain.
There was another similar ceasefire a couple of months ago that got vetoed by Chairman Xi Jinping, as well. They say any ceasefire proposal which includes complete release of all Israeli hostages is unacceptable, for some reason.
It's almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we'd lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement
No kidding huh, I can't believe people don't see this. You want to influence Israel? You can't do that if you cut off communication and shun them.
Not continuing to provide them with weapons of war while they are actively committing genocide is not cutting off communication and shunning them.
That's on congress, not Biden.
Incorrect. We already have a law to not ship weapons to people who are credibly accused of what Israel is credibly accused of. As the Chief Executive Biden could simply follow that law which is well within his power to execute.
And yet I don’t see Republicans shooting down any Israel aid bills. Interesting, no?
“It’s Republicans’ fault that the US keeps sending weapons to Israel” doesn’t make sense when Republicans only control the House and Biden has to sign any bills they want passed.
Biden can only stop sales that are below a certain amount. Congress has been approving sales that are above this amount.
Congress has been passing bills that send money and bombs to Israel, and he has threatened to veto them before when Republicans were trying to tack immigration bullshit onto it.
Does that apply to all countries the US has differences with?
It’s almost like if the US just turns its back on Israel, we’d lose our leverage to press a negotiated agreement, which would surely not end with Israel digging in their heels even further. (/s) It’s almost like geopolitics are - wait for it - complicated.
Which would end up with Israel in a war not just with Palestine but probably other countries in the region. And something I feel people forget: Israel has nuclear weapons but doesn't acknowledge them. Which means we don't have a great idea of their nuclear capability. So if Israel's existence is being threatened, there's a good chance to ruin that part of the world for generations and/or start WW3.
Are you saying that if the US stops sending Israel weapons, they will likely start a nuclear war? Bruh
If Israel is fighting for it's survival and it has nukes? Uh yeah? That's why no one's itching to invade Russia even though they are a LOT weaker than expected.
Guess I just don't see the flattening of Gaza and displacement of more than 1 million Palestinian civilians as Israel "fighting for it's survival," nor do I see an immediate cessation of sending US bombs to Israel as leaving them in the dust.
Remember though that Iran has already launched a significant attack on Israel, and it was because of the US and their allies that casualties were heavily curbed. If the US had previously stopped all operations, it could very well have turned into an existential war for Israel.
None of that remotely defends what Israel is doing. And I completely agree we need to stop sending them bombs and additional military support for Gaza. But my point is that there is a potential for a much bigger, possibly nuclear conflict if countries cut all ties.
I get what you're saying, but I'm not certain the Iranian drone attack would have even happened if Israel hadn't been engaged in the raising of Gaza with US backing.
I mean, Israel bombed an Iranian embassy two weeks before that occurred.
I'm in somewhat agreement with you. On the one hand, there are innocent Israelis who need to be protected (here, I don't necessarily buy the nuclear risk, tbh. Continued US protection is more about prevention of civilian casualties, to me ). On the other, our continued support further emboldens Israel to keep fucking shit up over there, so of course they're going to experience aggression from their neighbors.
Unfortunately this starts getting into a game of who-shot-first, which is a bad state to be in.
If anything, all this is a win-win for the "defense" industry.
Edit: also, for the record, and in the context of this thread, even though I'd argue against continued US military support of Israel, and that Biden hasn't been forceful enough on that issue, and that Democrats in general are too comfortable with the status quo regarding free market capitalism for individuals and socialism for the corporations, and that many of them serve their own interests or those of corporations, you still gotta vote for Biden this election, especially if you're in a swing state. The two parties are not the same, even if they do both suck. The degrees of suckage are not equal.
Continued US protection is more about prevention of civilian casualties, to me
I completely agree, and you have a good point that Israel did bomb the embassy first. Technically Iran does seem to support Hamas, but they still doesn't justify what Israel did.
All in all, Israel is inserting itself into these situations. They're being genocidal and aggressive, and prompting responses. They feel justified in lethal force for self defence, only after they purposely put themselves in harm's way. My ideal US policy at this point would be defending civilians and nothing else -- but even then, like you say, it emboldens Israel to continue being a rogue state.
And I agree with your final sentiment completely. Democrats aren't perfect, but Republicans are so terrible by comparison that they make Democrats look like spotless. I see a vote for Biden and Democrats as a means to eventually address the issues with unfettered capitalism and corporate greed -- the Republican party is fractured and in a bad place. Repeated Democrat victories by high margins will destroy their party, and allow us to finally focus on reining in corporations and nationalizing critical industries. We need Republicans out of the way first before we can fix those. You can't fix a house with totally broken plumbing if it's currently on fire.
Second Edit: Let’s also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel’s back is against the wall, they’re running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?
Sounds like Russia.
Great work on the peace deal, fellas. I think we can treat ourselves to another 20 billion of bombs to Israel to celebrate.
Second Edit: Let's also not forget that Israel is a nuclear power. What do you think happens when Israel's back is against the wall, they're running out of conventional weapons, and Iran and/or other groups decide to take advantage?*
Should we allow Russia to just run over Ukraine? They have the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth. Who knows what happens when their backs are against the wall.
I don't really disagree with you, but I do unironically think we should have invaded Israel months ago.