The genocide in Gaza is as American as it is Israeli. The U.S. won’t stop it.
The desire for a ceasefire in the United States, certainly among Democrat voters, is clear. So why does the U.S. continue to act the way it does?
You're viewing a single thread.
blech, no it isn't.
Americans largely do not support this genocide.
The israeli government, most Israeli citizens, and the idf are supporting and continuing a genocide they have perpetrated for decades.
The US is one of many countries that sells weapons to Israel and provides them with aid, continuing over half a century of mutual support.
that does not make the US equally culpable as the Israeli government and military making the decision to continue genocide and defy the UN.
The Israeli government and the IDF are choosing to perpetuate this genocide.
"why isn’t the U.S. stopping Israel, as it surely could simply by pausing the constant flow of weapons?"
One of the reasons is that pausing us weapon shipments would not stop Israel at all.
The US is one of a couple dozen countries regularly supplying Israel with weapons.
Israel has a huge stockpile of weapons, and even if they had zero weapons, one country not selling them weapons would not stop the other two dozen countries selling weapons to them after fifty years or more of providing military support.
another reason is that playing this final card removes any tangible control the us has on the situation politically.
at this point, i personally think a sale of weapons pause is the right idea, but the joint Chiefs of staff highly value Middle Eastern stability that they maintain through strong Israeli military support and are not going to sever ties with their largest and most powerful ally in the Middle East without a reason to (go to the protests).
there are lots of reasons why the US hasn't paused weapons shipments, but this article isn't going to supply any real answers because they're pushing a short-sighted, ill-informed, inaccurate opinion piece rather than critically and realistically analyzing the situation.
Stopping weapons sales is not the "final" card the US can play. The US could also stop vetoing UN resolutions that seek to hold Israel accountable, it could stop providing economic aid, it could even divest funds tied to Israel or go as far as sanctioning them until they stop committing genocide. Israel cannot exist in its current state without the aid and protection the US provides it. The US holds the leverage in this situation to get Israel to comply with any demand, but Joe Biden would rather lie to the media (who happily and uncritically repeat the lies) via his State department and allow Netanyahu to continue slaughtering civilians unchecked. If the US actually wanted Israel to stop murdering civilians, it could have it done tomorrow.
Exactly. The US government does not want to stop it.
"Israel cannot exist in its current state without the aid and protection the US provides it".
israel is a technologically advanced independent country with a functioning government, they have an enormous GDP across various industries, and they receive economic and military support from dozens of other countries.
it benefits Israel to receive billions of dollars every year from the US(as it benefits the US) as a historic mutual defense ally, but Israel is in no way entirely dependent on or explicitly beholden to the US.
"If the US actually wanted Israel to stop murdering civilians, it could have it done tomorrow."
how? there is no evidence for this.
The US is a third party to this conflict that, more obviously than ever, has limited diplomatic control over the actions of the current Israeli government and its military.
"The iron dome is funded and built with American hardware"
this is partly correct, as obama matched the billions of dollars israel spent on the iron dome.
"If the US disassembled it..."
the US has no right or obligation to "disassemble" another countries infrastructure any more than Nigeria has the right to disassemble the French metro; this is a non-starter.
"Israel would be unable to act with impunity towards its neighbors..."
this is entirely incorrect as Israel does not require US funding to maintain the iron dome, their military, or their aggression.
The annual GDP of Israel is something like 600 billion now, taking away the 3 billion the US gives them each year isn't going to make the difference you think it will, even ignoring all of the other countries that fund israel.
"this is absolutely incorrect,"
I'd be interested to see your evidence @Varyk
USpol
IsraelPalestineConflict
Israel
Palestine
WarCrimes
CrimesAgainstHumanity
genocide
none of those sources are at all relevant to the topic: provide evidence for either of these baseless statements:
"Israel cannot exist in its current state without the aid and protection the US provides it".
this statement is incorrect, as explained above.
"If the US actually wanted Israel to stop murdering civilians, it could have it done tomorrow."
this statement is incorrect, as explained above.
I didn't mention any "sources" @Varyk
I said that I'd be interested to see your evidence. You've tacitly conceded that you have none.
USpol
IsraelPalestineConflict
Israel
Palestine
WarCrimes
CrimesAgainstHumanity
genocide
if you don't understand the comments or you're confused, ask for help.
which part don't you understand or cannot find sources for?
"Israel cannot exist in its current state without the aid and protection the US provides it".
israel is a technologically advanced independent country with a functioning government, they have an enormous GDP across various industries, and they receive economic and military support from dozens of other countries.
it benefits Israel to receive billions of dollars every year from the US(as it benefits the US) as a historic mutual defense ally, but Israel is in no way entirely dependent on or explicitly beholden to the US.
"If the US actually wanted Israel to stop murdering civilians, it could have it done tomorrow."
how? there is no evidence for this.
The US is a third party to this conflict that, more obviously than ever, has limited diplomatic control over the actions of the current Israeli government and its military.
I'd prefer not to write an entire essay and nitpick points, but here's a decent article I found: https://www.axios.com/2023/11/04/us-israel-aid-military-funding-chart Key points I'm seeing:
More importantly, the US is the world hegemon, and is committed to protecting Israel. Do you think Iran would be so restrained against Israel if US retaliation wasn't guaranteed? The US moved an aircraft carrier into the region following Oct. 7th, do you find that irrelevant too? And to reiterate, the US provides diplomatic cover to Israel by vetoing (a power that Israel does not possess) any attempt by the international community to hold it accountable.
keep in mind that the point we are addressing is that despite a hypotheticall withdrawal of all US military aid, in no way is Israel unable to continue their invasion/genocide if the US stops supporting Israel altogether.
"- we are funding about 15% of their total military budget".[in recent years specifically, including the injection of military aid immediately after October 7th]
If the US was to completely stop funding israel, Israel would have zero problem funding their military and their national infrastructure by themselves.
"80%+ of their weapons over the last 70 years come from the US"
It's convenient for Israel to buy US weapons, and the US should stop selling them weapons, but if the US completely stopped selling arms to israel tomorrow, it in no way cripples or halts the Israeli military from using their stockpile, purchasing arms elsewhere or producing arms themselves.
"- 50 billion in annual trade between US and israel"
less than 10% of Israeli GDP
we should still sanction them, but it isn't going to make much of a difference in national civilian life or military function.
"Do you think Iran would be so restrained against Israel if US retaliation wasn't guaranteed?"
no for so many reasons, but tell me your theory.
"The US moved an aircraft carrier into the region following Oct. 7th, do you find that irrelevant too?"
no, but go off, how are aircraft carriers irrelevant?
"US provides diplomatic cover to Israel by vetoing..."
Setting aside the arrest warrants and findings by the ICC, the US should stop vetoing the symbolic adjudications by the UN so everybody can point at Israel and yell "shame".
this should happen.
however, if the US stops vetoing the symbolic adjudications, Israel is under no obligation to listen to the UN any more than they have listened to or have been following UN regulations since the UN and israel were established, any more than they listen to the ICC.
it would be nice if the US took stronger economic or political action against Israel, or declared further sanctions.
would any of those actions stop netanyahu, the idf or disrupt national function?
Not in any material way.
"if you don’t understand the comments"
@Varyk
You demand that I provide evidence for things that I didn't say. That might seem tactically clever, but is it honest?
I ask for evidence to support things that you did say and you can only repeat your assertions. Is repetition evidence?
USpol
IsraelPalestineConflict
Israel
Palestine
WarCrimes
CrimesAgainstHumanity
genocide
"You demand that I provide evidence for things that I didn't say."
nope.
"That might seem tactically clever, but is it honest?"
I disagree that you making things up and avoiding answering is tactically clever, and it is definitely dishonest.
"I ask for evidence to support things that you did say and you can only repeat your assertions."
this is also untrue
"Is repetition evidence?"
If you were this confused about basic definitions, I can see why you're having trouble.
what do you need help with specifically?
which fundamental facts are you having trouble finding sources for?
I'm explaining the facts clearly with respect to the topic and responding directly to your comments.
that is not hasbara.
If you are having trouble finding sources for certain fundamental facts, tell me what those facts are.
I will provide you with sources.
If you are trying to discredit the facts by consistently avoiding or misrepresenting my argument without any evidence, it's not going to work.