Hello everyone,
I hope this is the good place to ask this question, if not, mods, feel free to remove it.
So as you may know, some LW mods on [email protected] and [email protected] have been denying that the US government is supporting Israel in their attacks against Palestine.
In summary, their stance is
That is NOT why Biden is sending arms to Israel. Biden is rightly sending arms to Israel for the “Iron Dome” protection from outside aggression.
Israel misappropriates that support for use in the genocide. That is NOT on Biden. That’s on Bibi and the IDF.
Biden is not complicit in any genocide. Full stop. Never has been.
For some detailed posts
Disclaimer:
- I live in Europe and am not a US citizen, so I might not know enough about the power split between the US President and other representative structures like the Senate and the House of Representatives.
- Linkerbaan, the other of the posts above, is usually suspected to be a Trump supporter or a Russian troll. That may be true or not, and they tend to be quite aggressive in the way they convey their message, but they still seem to make a few points.
The US President impact on providing weapons to Israel
A few recent articles about the US President responsibility about providing the arms to Israel
Do you think that Kamala Harris is likely to agree with the calls for an arms embargo on Israel?
I do not think she will agree with those calling for an arms embargo on Israel.
For one thing, as vice president and before that as a senator, Kamala Harris has consistently supported providing U.S. military aid to Israel. This position is typical of most Democratic Party members, as well as most Republicans.
Opponents of U.S. military aid to Israel often argue that this help is solely a function of domestic politics and reflects the power of the pro-Israel lobby, particularly AIPAC. I think that this view is myopic and exaggerates the power of the pro-Israel lobby. It ignores the fact that the U.S. has its own economic and strategic reasons for supplying that military aid. It is a U.S. national interest, not simply a favor for Israel, and that’s why there is broad, bipartisan support for continuing this military aid.
The Biden administration has been doing contortions to provide military support to Israel without reference to U.S. or international law. It paused a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs in May, citing concerns about civilian harm, and even admitted in a report to Congress that month that U.S. weapons had likely been used in ways inconsistent with the law. But the White House said it didn’t have enough evidence to prove that specific violations had occurred, which would have triggered a suspension of further weapons shipments.
The evidence the Biden administration says it doesn’t have is everywhere. Careful investigations by the United Nations and organizations like mine have been documenting and reporting alleged violations since hostilities started in October, including Israeli forces’ unlawful airstrikes, the use of starvation as a method of warfare and torture of Palestinian detainees. The International Court of Justice has called on Israel three times to open Gaza’s crossings for aid shipments.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/10/debate-tip-candidates-theres-correct-answer-weapons-israel
The fear of Trump
The main argument usually used against people who point that the US President has an impact on the weapons supply to Israel is that
- the Democrats are the lesser evil
- Trump must not pass
While it is generally admitted that indeed Trump was a bad president and should indeed not pass, why do people go all the way to deny the impact of the US President on that matter?
Wouldn’t it possible to both say that Kamala should pass, but at the same time condemn the actions of the US government on that matter?
Genuinely curious, as in Europe is it quite established that the US government chooses to keep providing weapons to Israel.
That’s a pretty good summation, imo. Democrats really don’t want to hear anything about the ethics of sending US arms to Israel while it conducts a genocide right now. Their mentality is something like, “let’s get Kamala elected, and don’t point to any negatives until afterwards”. But the fact is, once Harris is elected (if she wins), she will have very little incentive to change her policy on this issue. This small pre-election window is really the only opportunity available for leftists to campaign for her to change her stance. The activists still “harping on” about this issue recognize that and are doing their best to put pressure on her campaign. Arguably, they are running an ethically principled campaign, assuming their motives are good (i.e., stop the genocide). I get the whole “lesser of two evils” concept and have some sympathy for it, but I also understand why this single important issue is a complete dealbreaker for many leftists.
Having said all that, your disclaimer note about Linkerbaan’s checks out. They are problematic because they do repeat a lot of Russian disinfo talking points, and in classic tankie fashion don’t seem to have any issues with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine while at the same time condemning US support of Israel’s genocide. Personally, I feel that a principled person should be against genocide and war crimes no matter who is conducting them, otherwise they are just a partisan propagandist. But it seems most MLs on lemmy just can’t bring themselves to level any sort of criticism against Russia, China, North Korea or Iran (to name a few), even when it is entirely justified, because of their “critical support” groupthink towards any anti-US/anti-Western state.
If any poster seems to be totally ignoring or justifying genocide and war crimes committed by AES countries, but campaigning relentlessly against “US funded genocide” then personally I think it’s justified to ban them as they are clearly engaging in partisan propaganda. While it’s hard to know 100% for sure what linkerbaan’s true motivations are, I’d agree there are a number of red flags in their post history.
Thank you for your comment