Joe Biden has vowed that US commitment to defend Israel against Iran was “ironclad” as concerns rose in Washington that a “significant” Iranian strike could happen within days, in retaliation for the bombing of an Iranian consular building in Damascus.

“We also want to address the Iranian threat to launch a significant – they’re threatening to launch a significant attack in Israel,” Biden said. “As I told Prime Minister Netanyahu, our commitment to Israel’s security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad. Let me say it again, ironclad. We’re gonna do all we can to protect Israel’s security.”

    • @TropicalDingdong
      link
      -10
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Its what the left has been saying for months/ years/ decades. There is no saving Democrats from themselves.

  • livus
    link
    fedilink
    162 months ago

    Well looks like Israel’s strategy of hastily bombing nearby countries has paid off.

    • @WhatAmLemmy
      link
      72 months ago

      It’s like a mafioso protecting their child. They may disapprove of the childs rogue actions, but they’ll commit whatever crimes necessary to protect them.

      They may also encourage/direct the child to commit crimes, but publicly disapprove. “Here’s billions of dollars of weapons, but don’t go and do a genocide (wink wink)”.

  • FuglyDuck
    link
    English
    102 months ago

    fucking hell biden.

    is he embracing “genocide Joe”?

    • PugJesus
      link
      fedilink
      16
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      our commitment to Israel’s security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad.

      “Hey Iran, feel free to attack Israel” would not exactly be a recipe for LESS death and destruction in the Middle East.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        English
        72 months ago

        No, but we need to be more nuanced than this. His vows of “ironclad” support echo the earlier misguided vows.

        We can’t be world cops. And certainly can’t allow genocidal maniacs drag us into WW3.

        • PugJesus
          link
          fedilink
          82 months ago

          No, but we need to be more nuanced than this. His vows of “ironclad” support echo the earlier misguided vows.

          It’s tone-deaf at minimum. But world politics are often performed on the public stage. I don’t know if there was another viable answer he could have given as POTUS.

          We can’t be world cops. And certainly can’t allow genocidal maniacs drag us into WW3.

          That precludes giving Iran an open shot to make an attack on Israel. That has the potential to set most of the Middle East aflame, metaphorically speaking.

          • FuglyDuck
            link
            English
            02 months ago
            We can’t be world cops. And certainly can’t allow genocidal maniacs drag us into WW3.
            

            That precludes giving Iran an open shot to make an attack on Israel. That has the potential to set most of the Middle East aflame, metaphorically speaking.

            it does. but so does Israel picking this fight. I don’t think anyone has the answer to conflict in the middle east. And nobody has had the answers in very long time. I certainly don’t. But constantly defending Israel when it’s obviously bullying other nations… is just as bad as letting Iran attack Israel.

            • PugJesus
              link
              fedilink
              32 months ago

              it does. but so does Israel picking this fight. I don’t think anyone has the answer to conflict in the middle east. And nobody has had the answers in very long time. I certainly don’t. But constantly defending Israel when it’s obviously bullying other nations… is just as bad as letting Iran attack Israel.

              Is it? Are two massacres more right than one? If it was a question of “Let Palestinians be genocided OR let Israel be attacked and potentially start WW3”, I might be inclined to agree on principle. But it’s not an either/or. Iran isn’t going to knock out Israel in three days. Genocidaires tend to intensify their genocidal efforts when under attack, not diminish it. Letting Israel get invaded just means that we have a massive body count of Israeli civilians in addition, not instead of the Palestinian genocide.

              Defending Israel against outside attack is the less bad option for now.

              Ultimately, we should decouple from Israel completely, but even then, the more invasions of sovereign countries are tolerated, the more it will happen. That’s one of many, many reasons the Iraq War was such a colossal fucking atrocity.

              I would like to emphasize that my position on genocide is the same - the more it is tolerated, the more it will happen, and the moral move would be to put immense pressure on Israel to cease its ongoing operations and restore the flow of aid to Gaza, at minimum.

              • FuglyDuck
                link
                English
                -22 months ago

                Defending Israel against outside attack is the less bad option for now.

                welcome to how we got here.

                at a certain point, you have to recognize that “not as bad” is still “Bad enough”.

                Israel and Netanyahu are probably going to accelerate the genocide no matter what we do. Iran getting involved will make it worse. doesn’t mean we need to fucking support the genocidal maniac in committing more genocidal maniac- and remember, Netanyahu et al want to have a war with Iran, too.

                Your acting like it’s somehow hypocritical to condemn both countries. it’s not. it’s hypocritical to not condemn both countries.

                • PugJesus
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 months ago

                  at a certain point, you have to recognize that “not as bad” is still “Bad enough”.

                  Fuck man, have you looked at the international scene? The Middle East more than most? We don’t have ‘good’ choices, they’re all ‘bad enough’. And inaction is a choice just as any other. Inaction SHOULD be chosen in many scenarios - but because it is often the best choice, not because it relieves moral responsibility. It doesn’t.

                  The moral option is to pick the path with the least bad outcome.

                  Israel and Netanyahu are probably going to accelerate the genocide no matter what we do. Iran getting involved will make it worse. doesn’t mean we need to fucking support the genocidal maniac in committing more genocidal maniac- and remember, Netanyahu et al want to have a war with Iran, too.

                  No longer supporting the ongoing genocide is a very different issue than allowing Iran to attack Israel. Discouraging Iran from attacking Israel is not supporting one genocide - it is preventing another.

                  Your acting like it’s somehow hypocritical to condemn both countries.

                  Am I? News to me. I stated outright that Israel is committing genocide currently. How much harsher do you want me to get in condemnation? Is ‘genocide’ no longer the lowest sin a country can commit? Do I have to invent a new form of democide to assign them before my condemnation is strong enough?

                  it’s not. it’s hypocritical to not condemn both countries.

                  It’s not about condemnation. It’s about what happens if we allow Iran to provoke a war with Israel. It’s inhumane to demand another 100,000+ (assuming it DOESN’T kick off WW3) added to the body count because 30,000+ have already been killed. Why? What does allowing Iran to attack Israel solve?

                  Materially speaking, what are the effects, and can you answer for them?

  • @Chocrates
    link
    10
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    How does Biden not have aides telling him that this is the one issue that will get us a Trump dictatorship

    The US needs to disavow Israel completely, not give them any weapons, and truly help Palestine.

    • Patapon Enjoyer
      cake
      link
      12
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Dems would rather risk Trump than upset Israel

      Dems would rather risk Trump than upset the military industrial complex

      Dems would rather risk Trump than upset finance and real state oligarchs.

      And most crucially, Dems would prefer Trump to any actual change. Their reelection money is contingent on things staying the way they are

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      42 months ago

      Eh, we don’t need to disavow them completely and burn a bridge with an ally. We just need to try literally anything to make them stop picking fights and committing war crimes. Like maybe stop funding their military and sending them weapons. Then maybe further sanctions. Problem is we are doing the opposite, and we seem to fully endorse Israel’s military objectives.

      • @Chocrates
        link
        22 months ago

        I don’t know, it’s gotten to the point that I don’t think Israel should exist in its current form. They can’t be allies if we want to disband their state and build some kind of secular government to govern the region.

  • @Ultragigagigantic
    link
    2
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Should we go back to those “Biden talks tough to isreal” posts and link this to the blue conservatives?

    Work to pass electoral reform in your state. Getting rid of First Past The Post voting is crucial to the people getting representation in government.

    • @LinkerbaanOP
      link
      02 months ago

      They probably enjoy Palestinians being massacred at this point.

  • @rayyy
    link
    -12 months ago

    If he supports Israel he will lose the election. If he doesn’t deny them arms he will lose the election.
    People are going to look really stupid when history reveals all that Biden is doing to prevent this.

  • theodewere
    link
    fedilink
    -5
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    just give us an excuse, Iran… plenty of new systems to test out…