"Calling for a cease fire" while the US vetoed like 4 cease fire resolutions in the UN, and funding the genocidal state with Israel with money and weapons. lmao

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The US actions in the United Nations have fuck all to do with the Vice President.

[–] basmati@lemmus.org 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They do when the vice president explicitly stated she agrees with and is intending to continue Biden's foreign policy, especially in regards to Israel.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The VP has no involvement with the UN. That might change when she's President, but right now she has no power there. At all. None.

[–] basmati@lemmus.org 4 points 3 weeks ago

Reread, try again.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The rhetoric coming out of the White House, when it has been focused on peace or restraint, rather than continuous war, has been undercut at every turn by its actions. The constant supply of weapons — $17.9 billion of bullets, bombs, shells, and other military aid in the past year — has allowed Israel to keep waging its war on Gaza, and in recent weeks, expand that war to Lebanon and threaten to escalate its conflict with Iran. Despite documentation of U.S. weapons being used in probable war crimes, and credible allegations that Israel is committing genocide in its war on Gaza, the bombs have continued to flow.

https://theintercept.com/2024/10/09/white-house-oct-7-israel-war-gaza/

We can track the rhetoric and actions of the Biden Administration month by month. The US has been supplying the weapons used for Israel's genocide unconditionally for a year. Against international law, against domestic law, against the will of the majority of the population, and all with US taxpayer money. This is pro-genocide foreign policy.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Used for the genocide != why we supplied them. That's the key difference the folks screaming "GEnOcIdE!" can't grasp.

Israel has a right to defend itself, same as any other country. Where they go off the rails is using our support offensively and not defensively, but that doesn't mean we're going to stop supporting them.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's the key difference between unconditional military aid and conditional military aid. The weapons are being used for genocide, and we have continually sent those weapons unconditionally for over a year.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter if it's conditional or not, the Genocide will continue as it's not dependent on our aid. They started it in Gaza before our aid even got there.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It doesn't matter if it's conditional or not, the Genocide will continue as it's not dependent on our aid.

It absolutely does. We are the main provider of weapons. It would be a major pressure point for them to stop, as well as influence other western nations to do the same. It also matters according to US Law (Leahy Law) and International Humanitarian Law.

They started it in Gaza before our aid even got there.

We've been the main provider of military aid for far longer than a year.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We're the main supplier, but they don't need them for the genocide.

Snipers are shooting little kids in the head, bullets are dirt cheap.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ok? They also use far more than just bullets to kill Palestinian children. I don't understand how this is an argument against implementing Conditional Military Aid. Nor against continuing to violate US and International Humanitarian Law.

The only argument I see from that is to not only end supply of military weapons, but also intervene to stop the genocide, which I would agree with.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They do, but they don't need more than that for a genocide.

They've been engaging in a slow motion genocide since the 90s:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They certainly have, with the military and international support by the US and other Western Nations. That's exactly why Israel needs to be pressured by international support to stop and agree to a permanent ceasefire that includes the liberation of Palestine.

I don't understand your position. Do you support conditional aid or an arms embargo? How should the US pressure Israel to stop the genocide?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

My personal preference is more radical than that... full military intervention, separate the Israelis from the Palestinians, arrest Bibi and the rest of Likud and set up full war crimes tribunals.

But nobody has the political capital for that.

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Cool, I agree with that. Considering the settlements in the West Bank, I don't think separation is the right way to go about it. I think integration with equal rights, including right of return, and a regime change with a Bi-National secular government is necessary. I agree with Ilan Pappe and Avi Schlaim on a One-State Solution.

I also agree that practically no one in either the Democratic and definitely Republican Administrations care about a genuine peace. It's all either Financial with the MIC and for some ideological. I think change is only possible with public pressure built with organization and solidarity, both in the US and also other Western Nations.

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

Well, that's long term... I'm thinking short term to stop the genocide.

Once the prosecutions are over then you can think long term integration.