They are required by law passed in 2008 to ensure Israel has a “Qualitative Military Advantage” over the area. They can’t just stop giving weapons completely as it is literally illegal.
They would have to show that Israel has more than enough to defend themselves from all likely attackers before they could prevent it, and if they do guess what: they don’t need weapons to keep on keepin on.
No, those laws don’t count because those in power are either scared to stop or don’t want to because they support the genocide.
Functionally, there is no difference between cowardice and enthusiastic complicity. And the enablers of genocide should not get the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks! That’s interesting. So because they are technically sales it’s under the commercial system, but it sounds like the Biden era policy has rules about this type of thing for those too. And also, aren’t these “sales” actually coming from US aid packages anyway?
Really seems like the rules could be applied consistently to justify stopping supporting this:
Well, the State Department has said publicly that the same policy applies to Israel as apply to every other country. In practice, Israel gets special treatment. In practice, arms transfers that, given similar conduct by any other country would not be allowed, are being allowed for Israel. You may recall the Biden administration suspended items that could be used in offensive air-to-ground operations for Saudi Arabia because they were causing civilian casualties. Those civilian casualties are nowhere near the civilian casualties that Israeli air-to-ground operations have caused so far. Yet unconditional transfers of air-to-ground munitions continue.
Yup. The law is firm and sacrosanct and immovable when it requires us to support genocide, but less substantial than air when it requires us to withhold support and we don’t wanna.
Doubtably unless it’s about only interceptor missiles.
There’s a good reason the Biden administration is running more ridiculous press briefings than the CCP and KGB right now. After 10 months of Genocide they are still “investigating” to find if israel ever committed a war crime.
The fact that Israel is wasting ordinance blowing up civilians and brazenly striking into other countries like Iran makes me think they are rather confident in their military capabilities and so we should let them manage with the resources they have.
Could one argue that since Israel pretty clearly possesses nuclear weapons even if they wont directly admit to it, that they should be able to deter attacks that actually stand a chance at threatening the existence of the country due to the threat of those weapons, and therefore already have the required advantage without additional US assistance?
I’m not suggesting they actually use those nukes. I’m suggesting that Iran or such will not actually launch an attack strong enough to credibly threaten to destroy Isreal, because it would be suicide to do so. The use of having nuclear weapons is that if you have them, it never makes sense to push you into condition where you feel you have to use them. Using them offensively in Gaza or the like would not be in Isreals interest for a number of reasons.
If someone’s suggestion sounds so obviously flawed that you feel the need to say that, perhaps you should take a moment and consider if they’re really implying what you think they are.
By literally justifying the removal of Israel’s ability to defend themselves with conventional means because they have nukes the obvious conclusion is you expect nukes to be the means to defend oneself. Considering Israel is commonly believed to have obtained Nukes in '66-67, and the numerous wars that have been fought since then, the belief that ‘the possession of nukes alone is a sufficient deterrent’ is unreasonable.
Have any of those wars come close to actually threatening the state of Israel itself, rather than just their control over territories they’d occupied from someone else? In any case, you’re also making a false assumption that ending US military aid to Israel leaves it conventionally defenseless, or that US weapons have to be stopped from going there in perpetuity. Israel has both a domestic arms industry and other countries it could acquire weapons from, it would just be at increased difficulty and expense. Further, when the objection to sending US arms there is that they are using them to commit genocide, that objection would naturally end should Israel cease those operations.
The point is not “Israel should have nothing left but the nukes, because they can just use those”, but rather “Israel’s nukes mean that a full scale invasion of the country is not likely, so we have room to revoke our current military assistance in order to pressure them to behave better, without much risk of destroying them in the meantime by doing so.”
I feel like cutting them off and pointing out that a qualitative military advantage doesn’t give a nation some magical free pass for genocide isn’t particularly complex. Beyond that, since when does the US government let legalities stop them from doing what they want?
They are also required by the Leahy law to cut off all military aid to any human rights abusers. The State Department confirmed there were war crimes that took place (a number posted as videos by soldiers), but the Secretary of State overrode his own department to illegally give the aid anyway.
All Harris has to do is say she will obey the laws no matter what her feelings may be on the topic. She’s a prosecutor and knows this.
There is a law that makes everything illegal and another law that makes everything legal. It’s purely up to the authoritarian regime masters, aka district attorneys and congress, to decide to do anything or not.
They are required by law passed in 2008 to ensure Israel has a “Qualitative Military Advantage” over the area. They can’t just stop giving weapons completely as it is literally illegal.
They would have to show that Israel has more than enough to defend themselves from all likely attackers before they could prevent it, and if they do guess what: they don’t need weapons to keep on keepin on.
What about the Leahy laws? Isn’t it illegal to continue?
No, those laws don’t count because those in power are either scared to stop or don’t want to because they support the genocide.
Functionally, there is no difference between cowardice and enthusiastic complicity. And the enablers of genocide should not get the benefit of the doubt.
Former State Department Office head thinks so, but still says “Unlike Leahy, human rights concerns can be overridden by other factors. So, for example, a foreign partner’s need for self-defense.”
Thanks! That’s interesting. So because they are technically sales it’s under the commercial system, but it sounds like the Biden era policy has rules about this type of thing for those too. And also, aren’t these “sales” actually coming from US aid packages anyway?
Really seems like the rules could be applied consistently to justify stopping supporting this:
Yup. The law is firm and sacrosanct and immovable when it requires us to support genocide, but less substantial than air when it requires us to withhold support and we don’t wanna.
Doubtably unless it’s about only interceptor missiles.
There’s a good reason the Biden administration is running more ridiculous press briefings than the CCP and KGB right now. After 10 months of Genocide they are still “investigating” to find if israel ever committed a war crime.
I mean, they’ve allegedly been investigating Trump for almost 4 years now.
The fact that Israel is wasting ordinance blowing up civilians and brazenly striking into other countries like Iran makes me think they are rather confident in their military capabilities and so we should let them manage with the resources they have.
Could one argue that since Israel pretty clearly possesses nuclear weapons even if they wont directly admit to it, that they should be able to deter attacks that actually stand a chance at threatening the existence of the country due to the threat of those weapons, and therefore already have the required advantage without additional US assistance?
You’re right. No more weapons to Israel. Guess they’ll just have to use their nukes then.
I really wish people would take a moment and really consider what they are suggesting first.
I’m not suggesting they actually use those nukes. I’m suggesting that Iran or such will not actually launch an attack strong enough to credibly threaten to destroy Isreal, because it would be suicide to do so. The use of having nuclear weapons is that if you have them, it never makes sense to push you into condition where you feel you have to use them. Using them offensively in Gaza or the like would not be in Isreals interest for a number of reasons.
If someone’s suggestion sounds so obviously flawed that you feel the need to say that, perhaps you should take a moment and consider if they’re really implying what you think they are.
By literally justifying the removal of Israel’s ability to defend themselves with conventional means because they have nukes the obvious conclusion is you expect nukes to be the means to defend oneself. Considering Israel is commonly believed to have obtained Nukes in '66-67, and the numerous wars that have been fought since then, the belief that ‘the possession of nukes alone is a sufficient deterrent’ is unreasonable.
Have any of those wars come close to actually threatening the state of Israel itself, rather than just their control over territories they’d occupied from someone else? In any case, you’re also making a false assumption that ending US military aid to Israel leaves it conventionally defenseless, or that US weapons have to be stopped from going there in perpetuity. Israel has both a domestic arms industry and other countries it could acquire weapons from, it would just be at increased difficulty and expense. Further, when the objection to sending US arms there is that they are using them to commit genocide, that objection would naturally end should Israel cease those operations.
The point is not “Israel should have nothing left but the nukes, because they can just use those”, but rather “Israel’s nukes mean that a full scale invasion of the country is not likely, so we have room to revoke our current military assistance in order to pressure them to behave better, without much risk of destroying them in the meantime by doing so.”
I feel like cutting them off and pointing out that a qualitative military advantage doesn’t give a nation some magical free pass for genocide isn’t particularly complex. Beyond that, since when does the US government let legalities stop them from doing what they want?
They are also required by the Leahy law to cut off all military aid to any human rights abusers. The State Department confirmed there were war crimes that took place (a number posted as videos by soldiers), but the Secretary of State overrode his own department to illegally give the aid anyway.
All Harris has to do is say she will obey the laws no matter what her feelings may be on the topic. She’s a prosecutor and knows this.
Is that a self imposed law? Who would even litigate it? Israel can go fuck themselves.
There is a law that makes everything illegal and another law that makes everything legal. It’s purely up to the authoritarian regime masters, aka district attorneys and congress, to decide to do anything or not.