this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
61 points (95.5% liked)

politics

18986 readers
3881 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

"For months, Netanyahu and his government have consistently ignored American counsel as to how to prosecute the war in Gaza against Hamas after the Oct. 7 terror attacks. Biden and his aides were repeatedly frustrated by Israel’s widening war aims within Gaza — with a devastating impact on Palestinian civilians — even at the cost of a deal to free the remaining hostages.

Biden deemed Israel’s response “over the top” and did stop one shipment of American arms to Israel. But even as pressure grew from fellow Democrats to create distance from Netanyahu, Biden’s reflexive instinct was to support Israel despite the swelling humanitarian crisis. As his influence over Netanyahu shrunk, the president’s anger grew. Phone calls between the two men were increasingly turned into shouting matches, according to one of the officials and one other senior official not authorized to discuss private conversations. Biden told confidants that he did not believe his Israeli counterpart wanted a cease-fire deal, arguing that Netanyahu was trying to perpetuate the conflict to save his political future and assist Trump in November’s election, the officials said."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (14 children)

Not like they have bilateral signed and legally binding defense pacts or anything.

I'm not saying the US shouldn't be twisting those levels levers and at least warning of decreased investment (which I believe is probably going on now for a few months privately) but immediately breaking ties, probably illegally breaking a defense treaty, and creating an immediate and huge power vacuum doesn't seem like it's going to save any more lives. I'd guess it would embolden Iran and full on war rather than this intensifying skirmishes would be happening.

You don't turn around 75 years of investment on a dime.

I personally think there needs to be stabilization and the US/NATO work on improving relations with iran using divestment with Israel as the carrot over the next 10 years. Work to re-establish the nuclear deal and start to pull money from Israel over time.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 17 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Not like they have bilateral signed and legally binding defense pacts or anything.

It's not like the US has laws banning the delivery of weapons to states that are guilty of breaking humanitarian law, either

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Yep, international law be like that sometimes. It's complicated.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

It's neat how it's always complicated in favor of things that centrists want to do.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)