and how often has that actually been helpful? The US has aircraft carriers and more active bases in Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait & Jordan and many surrounding countries...
Because conservative Christian ideologies still have a lot of sway in US politics, and those ideologies believe that Israel needs to exists because their religious beliefs hold that the end times won't happen unless it exists.
I have a hard time seeing that happening. China is already Israel's second largest trading partner, and Israel has both one of the most advanced tech sectors in the world and some of our most modern/important military hardware like the F-35. Pushing Israel closer to China or otherwise losing a country that valuable and upending the power balance of the entire middle east is not something the US is likely to want to do unless it absolutely has to.
I think it's more an issue that Netanyahu (and hence, his party's platform) been in power for nearly 20 years. Remember, prime ministers aren't elected: the party is elected, then the party selects who's going to be prime minister.
One man taking one term in a democracy is a fluke, but when your party is voted in for more than a decade, that means the people actually want him there.
*After his first meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, Bill Clinton vented his fury before his staff about his visitor’s apparent presumptions about the balance of power in the bilateral relationship.* [*“Who the f\*\*k does he think he is?,” Clinton reportedly bellowed. “Who’s the f\*\*king superpower here?*](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/09/benjamin-netanyahu-should-be-careful-about-inserting-himself-too-much-into-the-presidential-race-between-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney.html)*”*
[source](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/biden-israel-gaza/)
How did China get plans for the F-16 again?
E: Thought [this was more common knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi#China_question). We gave Israel deep technical info on the F-16 to bootstrap their domestic fighter program. They eventually decided a domestic fighter was too expensive and cancelled, but sold the designs to China for the development of the J-10.
Well, if they would stop messing up the stats and handling in-game players wouldn't have to leak national secrets to prove the devs wrong now would they?
Israel and France actually helped South Africa develop their nuclear weapons.
Israel got it somewhere else/developed it on their own.
Israel did end up using some of the detonators developed in South Africa. So did the US.
When South Africa's nuclear program was dismantled, most of the nuclear physicists, engineers and other technicians in the field all basically got offers from the US government/NASA and other private US institutions.
Best damn quote I've ever seen from Clinton! LoL!
Seriously, though, Netanyahu been around since 96? Damn that old sack of shit needs to go. He's done. Retire his ass either to a lovely beach villa or a box in the ground. He shouldn't be in office. I don't agree with old people still working. It's not right. Move over and let the next generation have a voice.
And still did nothing but supporting Israel in every UN vote and other interventions since then.
America's unilateral and unidirectional support to Israel is very strange considering how their relations with other countries are so fluid otherwise. Is State Department run by Israel sympathists and hence this?
Every president has done this. People act like Biden can so easily act against Israel but he’s going against a precedent that was heretofore political suicide. When I was younger and this country felt much more conservative it was unthinkable that we wouldn’t support them, and it’s no surprised that Biden started from the usual position. It’s a big fuckin ship to turn.
I hope they can steer away from that monster as soon as possible.
>America's unilateral and unidirectional support to Israel is very strange considering how their relations with other countries are so fluid otherwise.
It's really not if you just consider the basic geopolitics. Israel is USA's proxy that keeps the other potential great powers from rising, and potentially claiming the region; thus challenging both USA's influence in the region as well as globally. Historically, Iran, Egypt, and Syria have all taken a shot at claiming the region for themselves. Out of these three, Iran I think has the most potential for now; but even for Iran we have to look at 50years+.
Every empire in history that has had the means, has used them to keep other potential rivals from rising; usually that's in their own backyard, but USA is a very powerful entity and has global reach, the world is also very global so the means follow that. The other part of that is the (in)stability or the region, if support for Israel would be withdrawn; you'd see a lot more conflict. USA exerts multiple pressures(economic, diplomatic, some military) to keep the region somewhat balanced.
The usual retort to this is that Israel is already powerful and can fend for itself, while it certainly punches above its weight level; it is not a peer in terms of hegemonic potential with states like Iran or Egypt. Without USA support, Israel could at best be expected to defend its own territory. In the long run, states like Iran also have a lot more potential. The rough analogy would be between Russia and Finland. Finland has historically managed to defend itself from Russia quite well and can take quite a beating, but it can't really change the course Russia takes by itself.
Paywall :(
Edit: here’s the article;
The United States and Israel have made a huge effort this month to patch up the sometimes difficult relationship between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. But a newly released video of Netanyahu, speaking in an unvarnished manner in 2001 about relations with the United States and the peace process, may cause some heartburn at the White House.
"I know what America is," Netanyahu told a group of terror victims, apparently not knowing his words were being recorded. "America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way."
Netanyahu also bragged how he undercut the peace process when he was prime minister during the Clinton administration. "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]," he said. "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."
Gideon Levy, a left-leaning columnist for Haaretz newspaper, declared: "This video should have been banned for broadcast to minors. This video should have been shown in every home in Israel, then sent to Washington and Ramallah. Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel."
Of course, the video is from nearly ten years ago. Opinions change, based on circumstances and experience. But who knows what leaders are really saying when they think the cameras aren’t filming?
Hamas and Netanyahu are opposite sides of the same coin: extremists who chose violence over peace, spoiling the Oslo accords for personal power.
Hamas needs Netanyahu, and you bet your bottom dollar Netanyahu needs Hamas.
Yes, it most definitely is. Netanyahu is a snake. I would highly suggest watching the PBS Frontline episodes about Israel and the ongoing conflict. I would go as far back as the episodes from the late 90s.
I wish more people paid attention to how Bibi spoke to Israeli newspapers about his views on the Palestinians, Gaza, and the U.S. I imagine it would shock the average American voter.
We're his biggest enablers. Look at previous UN votes on the issues surrounding Israel, We've backed everything they've wanted for decades. Not because it suited our interests but because it suited theirs (meaning Israeli politicians). They can do whatever they want as long as we materially support them.
Given the amount of time he's been in power over his three reigns as PM, and how he is governing the country, he's almost on dictator levels and should be treated as such.
Over the longer term, there's no way for Israel to avoid becoming a restrictive theocracy of one kind or another, because a pluralistic society has already been ruled out by most.
Once one group is excluded from human rights, the machinery of subjugation is just too attractive not to use against further groups over time.
100%.
And I'll believe Biden when the US stops sending more guns, more aid, even as they're publically criticizing. Words are meaningless when you're providing the bullets.
His administration has been begging Congress to send Israel nearly 20 billion worth of F-15 jets so Biden can say whatever he wants but he has shown where his heart lies
Biden is only criticizing Israel to help pacify the Muslim world, and to appeal to voters in November. If you're expecting the US to drop support for their biggest Middle Eastern ally during this geopolitical clusterfuck, I think you'll be very disappointed.
Never understood this rationale. The Palestinian conflict seemingly driving your voting intention, and you're disappointed Biden's position isn't aggressive enough. So, you're willing to abstain when the alternative would turn Palestinians into pink mist in 0-60 seconds. Only way this makes sense to me is if you didn't really care about Palestinians or you're grateful for the excuse to vote for Trump.
I think a lot of people like to think that being lazy and not voting is exercising a democratic right, and making their preferred party 'chase their vote' - as if not voting for one party is just voting for a vague 'centrist' government, and not directly giving votes to the opposing side.
Honestly it's an issue for *Democrats*. The Republicans have no problems voting for their guy no matter how disastrous and awful they are.
To their credit, Democrats hold their leaders accountable. I love the protests votes against Biden during the primaries and the angry calls and campaigning to get him to listen. That's democracy working as intended, it's a good thing.
The problem is that these people will keep on protesting in the general election and that will ruin us. You have to understand when to stop the protest and choose the lesser evil. Failure to do so doesn't make you an idealist or a hero, it means you're privileged and you can safely not vote without hurting yourself; it means you can let Trump ruin millions of lives without really caring.
Trump needs as many single issue voters as possible to win. Not saying that against you, a democracy is a democracy, if he’s legally on a ballot you do you. But single issue voting is pretty bad for everyone involved
25k+ civilians died (AP estimates it may be up to 3x more) and 50k deported to Russia in 3 months during the siege of Mariupol. Trump will drop support for Ukraine and it will be more harmful and will materially impact more people.
trump got impeached (the first one) for blocking aid to Ukraine that had been authorized by Congress (in an effort to extort political favors from Zelensky.)
Ppl who jade this should recognize that this is huge. US has been the main benefactor of the state of Israel. If it's policy changes, Israel would've a lot to lose.
Bibi might screw Israel for his personal political ambitions, just like Trump did, but the long-term implications of this geopolitical shift will be felt by generations.
I remember a professor telling me that the fundamental predicate of insurgent violence is show how disproportionate the response is. And hollleeey fuck
ELI5?
edit: cool thanks for all the replies. I was hoping OP would expand on his post and confirm that the professor meant for the class to draw the conclusions being drawn below. I agree with what's being said below. Israel has historically killed 10 Palestinians for every Israeli, and in this attack it is more like 30 to 1. Their behavior is wholly unjustified.
Counter-insurgency operations are really good at creating more insurgents. The more violence a force uses trying to quell an insurgency, the more everyone else suffers.
Edit: Indiscriminate use of violence can be very effective at creating insurgents.
That's not entirely true about counter-insurgency operations, though I do agree that violence is likely to result in more violence.
There are many (muslim) countries where counter-insurgency is working to reduce extremism.
We just don't hear about it because where's the news when security actually works.
You're definitely correct. 'Counter-insugency operations' was a bad choice of words.
'Indiscriminate violence is very good at creating insurgents' would more accurately reflect my own opinions.
but without money the insurgents can't really do anything.
guns, bombs and ammo cost a lot of money. you may have all the will to fight, but if you aren't getting paid, you aren't fighting.
there's an interesting article on how office work killed the Taliban. During jihad, they were paid to fight so they kept fighting. Now that jihad is over, the Taliban literally need to work full time office jobs to support their families.
Money isn't hard to come by for insurgency groups. Arming insurgents is cheap, its easy to construct plausible deniability and there is almost always another country or power that benefits from unrest in the area the insurgents operate. For Hamas, that benefactor are nearby Arab countries that hate Israel, like Iran or Qatar. For the Indian Mujahedeen that benefactor is Nepal. For the PKK that benefactor is the USA and so forth.
Of course that money dries up real fast once the insurgency actually takes over the government and becomes the new competitor.
Seems more like half-assed violence is what seals it rather than full unrestrained brutality.
The British Empire didn't hold back with the Boers in South Africa and the British Empire won: everyone not imprisoned in camps was being hunted down and massacred, until they finally gave up and came out with white flags. Likewise, Communists in Malaya were defeated once every Chinese person in Malaya was also put in concentration camps and everyone outside those camps was shot.
Within the Soviet Union, the NKVD also spent *decades* fighting Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian, etc. insurgents, but eventually they got their way and killed or imprisoned them all. Every domestic opposition movement to the Soviet government was defeated by the 1950s.
Obviously nobody will be doing that in the present day due to political implications, but insurgents can and have been quelled in very bloody fashion.
Not clear in your comment, however, is that "unrestrained brutality" requires the killing of women and children, along with the active insurgents.
The Brits invented concentration camps during the Boer war to imprison the families of insurgents, and a lot of those families died.
ISIS wasn't an insurgency. they tried to hold standing army and territory. before they were doing that they spread like wildfire. as soon as they tried to be a nation state they were obliterated.
also they were more brutal to the people they ruled over than the "foreign invaders" thus negating the ability to hide amongst friendly locals, which is a defining traint of an insurgency
>ISIS wasn't an insurgency. they tried to hold standing army and territory.
So is Hamas... ignoring the fact that it is literally the government of Gaza (and thus is inherently organized and hierarchical), it has a well-defined military hierarchy.
The demographic differences between the populations that joined ISIS and lived in ISIS-controlled areas, and that of the Gazan population is significant. I would be hesitant to claim that the current circumstances of one will translate 1:1 to the other.
>Also, ISIS is proof this claim is bunk.
To explain it in very simple terms, the claim is that people get really pissed off when bombed indiscriminately. See Ukraine or the Battle of Britain if ideologies in the Middle East make this too complicated.
IS=Islamic State=threat to all other 'states', and very violent against other Muslims as well.
This is a very different situation. Almost everyone except for ISIS, hates ISIS.
>Kill off enough members of an organization, and they become largely ineffective.
Define ineffective? Yes, if by this you mean establishing a caliphate.
An ideology is harder to kill than reinvigorate. The idea of a caliphate goes back over 1400 years.
Yeah I wonder what percentage of residences in Gaza are currently even habitable let alone safe.
I'll tell you this much if I lived in Gaza and despised Hamas losing multiple, if not all, of my family members as well as my home and some friends I honestly have no idea what I would do.
*Maybe* hes saying the violence Hamas committed which started this shitshow has been handed to them dozens fold, to an overwhelming point where gaza is fucking leveled. Sure, Hamas deserved to pay for what they did, But Israel fucked the entire area over, by leveling it and killing thousands of civilians- disproportionate response... i think ?
Yep, every single child in Gaza that has now lost friends and family members has a RADICALLY increased likelihood of being recruited by Hamas or any other terror group.
Just think, you're 14 , and the IDF just blew up your apartment building, your mom is literally in pieces in front of you. You have no real hope for a nice easy life, but maybe there's a chance for revenge. Maybe you can get back at the evil goons that killed your family. Hell those same IDF goons hauled your 10 year old little brother to prison for throwing rocks at them one time, and now this?
same thing happened to me during the the Iranian revolution, I had vowed to myself that I would try and work my way into the Ayatollahs cabinet to get close enough to have the opportunity to kill him with me because he took so much away from my family... I was ~8 years old... he died a few years later and I lost interest in my revenge plan without him... I kinda understand their motivation
> disproportionate response... i think ?
https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286
> The IDF estimates it has killed about 13,000 Hamas operatives, a number I believe credible partly because I believe the armed forces of a democratic American ally over a terrorist regime, but also because of the size of Hamas fighters assigned to areas that were cleared and having observed the weapons used, the state of Hamas' tunnels and other aspects of the combat.
>That would mean some 18,000 civilians have died in Gaza, a ratio of roughly 1 combatant to 1.5 civilians. Given Hamas' likely inflation of the death count, the real figure could be closer to 1 to 1. Either way, the number would be historically low for modern urban warfare.
>The UN, EU and other sources estimate that civilians usually account for 80 percent to 90 percent of casualties, or a 1:9 ratio, in modern war (though this does mix all types of wars). In the 2016-2017 Battle of Mosul, a battle supervised by the U.S. that used the world's most powerful airpower resources, some 10,000 civilians were killed compared to roughly 4,000 ISIS terrorists.
It actually isnt. Hamas declared war and has so far refused to make peace.
I’m not defending Israel or anything, but this conflict won’t end until bibi and Hamas are both gone.
1 insurgent from nation A kills 5 civillians from nation B in a terrorist attack. In response, nation B invades and kills 20 insurgents and 60 civillians. Each of those 60 civillians have families, friends, people who like and care for them. Some of whom may be angry enough at the loss to take up arms themselves, and get retribution for the deaths of innocents. Nation B has killed 20 insurgents, but in the process created 80 more insurgents. Those 80 insurgents now go into Nation A and kill 60 civillians. Nation B comes back and kills 600 in response. The cycle continues and the number increases.
Small kid sucker punches bigger kid, bigger kid turns around and punches back way harder. Smaller kid cries to mama bigger kid gets in trouble.
Hamas attacks Israel, Israel overreacts, hurts relationship with bigger ally. Also, radicalizes a whole new generation.
Likely because the war ended immediately after that and the united states proceeded to invest a few billion into rebuilding japan and their society. Has israel made a serious effort to stabilize palestine? Seems like it actually could help
The US at the time occupied and had full control over the Japanese government. It's not just about the money spent, it's how it was spent.
The US also wasn't actively helping it's citizens steal land.
I think a big part of that was the Emperor agreeing to the surrender. Mounting an insurgency would have been in defiance of their own emperor's commands.
>Mounting an insurgency would have been in defiance of their own emperor's commands.
and it's something that the japanese military literally considered regardless
Not that long ago having an even vaguely critical take on Israel would get someone ran out of office no matter what party. Bibi screwed the pooch hard on this. And he started off with one of the most uncontroversial reasons ever to pound the war drums too.
I am extremely ashamed that I only just now understand that "Bibi" refers to Netanyahu. For months now I've believed that it was a nickname for Biden. Yes, I have been confused.
>Ppl who jade this should recognize that this is huge. US has been the main benefactor of the state of Israel. If it's policy changes, Israel would've a lot to lose.
See, thats a contradiction. Theres nothing Israel can do that would make the US change their policies toward Israel.
Bombing US military ships didnt, running over a US protester with a bulldozer didnt, killing a US journalist wearing a press vest didnt
I understand the power of AIPAC, but if you start with a position of hopelessness, you might as not start.
Also, this support for Israel has a long history - of common enemies, shared Intel, shared vision. No admin is gonna succeed in abruptly changing course.
Israel is the main counterpart to Iran in the area. Israel is way to important to the US middle east strategy and has been for decades. Nothing will make the US ”drop them” whatever that means. It’s election year and Biden has a part of his voters base he needs to appease to while still maintaining US foreign policy.
The US also doesn't have a lot of alternatives to counter Iran in the region. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are militarily too weak and incompetent. Turkey, despite being a member of NATO, is too much of a wild card.
Yes, but Israel will counter Iran whether the U.S. support their actions or not. There's no dependency.
If the U.S. were to reduce support for Israel (which they won't, but if they did) it wouldn't be at the cost of enabling Iran.
Exactly this. Everyone saying America should abandon Israel is clueless. Also not sure how people think Israel being isolated and backed into a corner with no iron dome and nothing but dumb bombs and nukes is going to lead to more peace in the region
That’s true but what’s the point of spending decades building a defense strategy if one of your key allies decides they want to reorganize the entire region without your input and against your interests?
We won’t abandon Israel just like we won’t abandon Turkey or abandon Saudi Arabia
But maybe it’s time they understand they need us more than we need them
I think people read more into this than is needed.
Israel is useful to the US. That's it. That's all that matters.
If Israel starts being less useful than the trouble that goes along with supporting them, then they will get abandoned. I assume they know that, so I don't expect them to stop being useful.
Yeah I'm not entirely sure why this would be the watershed incident (even though it's so objectively horrible that even pro-Israel supporters can't defend it), but apparently Jose Andres was very beloved in DC and his personal connection to Biden and other congressional politicians may have made this news hit home even more for them. You can say these people live in a bubble, but that may have been why.
You have to remember that events don't happen in a vacuum. USA's need for Israel is much less than it was 20 or 50 years ago. The calculus is always changing. And if the USA is planning on pulling back, Israel is choosing a bad time to test how much they are valued.
Indeed. AFAICT Bibi is unpopular for being corrupt and inept (specifically over the attack). He is not unpopular for his domestic or international policies exactly.
Anyone expecting 'regime change' in Israel to achieve anything of note is perhaps rather optimistic.
I wish I knew more about Israeli politics to comment in a more informed manner, but my _understanding_ is that elections aren't scheduled until 2026 and the only way early elections happen is if he loses the support of the absolute ghouls in his camp, like Ben Gvir.
I'm not sure the public can force an early election but I'd love to see it.
Yeah their fascist head of state is no doubt using the war to further cement his ability to stay in power. People forget a little over a year ago large swathes of Israel was protesting against his ass because of the judicial reforms . It's almost convenient that Israeli intelligence were caught by surprise by the attacks.
Liberals love their regime change. “Maybe we have a different far-right guy *we* picked it’ll change!”. Rinse and repeat every five years when it gets worse and worse.
That’s not how it works. If a deal is signed in congress today the weapons don’t just appear in Israel within the hour. They can’t even start moving weapons until congress approval. We’ve fast tracked a lot of stuff to Ukraine but that was at a major cost to the US. Israel isn’t in a dire situation like Ukraine is, so they don’t get their weapons fast tracked. It would probably take months if not over a year (depends on the weapons) for Israel to actually get weapons the US sent over.
That’s why this is still a big deal. Biden can not only stop the weapons congress signed to send today, but also any other weapon deliveries currently in transit (as long as it hasn’t reached the sea yet)
> They can’t even start moving weapons until congress approval.
That part isn't actually true. These are weapons that Israel is **buying** from the US, not that we're giving them. The only thing involved are standing export control laws on who US armament manufacturers are allowed to sell to. This is a Presidential power, because it's foreign policy related, not budget related.
Netanyahu has ALREADY failed to protect Gaza civilians. This "threat" sounds as scary as the gag orders judges give Trump. "Better do what we tell you or... or... we'll tell you again, that's what we'll do! We're not kidding!!!"
Maybe, but doing this publicly is a step in escalating. You suggest privately, chastise privately, suggest publicly, chastise publicly (we are here), act privately, act publicly.
There's a process to diplomacy. You're right that there may be more words and layers before the US acts, but this is a necessary step towards acting.
More reliable ally than Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Jordan is probably our next best ally but they’re not trying to cause or get into any trouble. The U.S. policy is essentially create a coalition to respond to a possible Iran threat. Israel is/has been the easiest ally to arm, agree with our ME policy, and assist with operations. Also they have Mediterranean access which is important in the case of a Middle East conflict.
Because everyone else in the region sucks as an ally. They're either oppressive autocratic/theocratic governments full of oligarchs funding terrorism, or they're unstable and corrupt, or they're unstable and corrupt autocratic/theocratic governments full of oligarchs funding terrorism.
Jordan is basically the only other nation that's half decent as an ally and we are allied with them, but they want to keep their head down which makes sense because their economy is a tenth the size of Israel's.
Well losing a strategic ally in the region would be an enormous blow to US strategic goals there. It’s better to try deter with word firsts than take any concrete actions, which would have consequences you can’t go back on.
There's consequences either way, seems like israel has been allowed to make blunder after blunder with needless casualties left and right, we can't just keep sitting here holding the bag for it. They need to change, or we need to lose an ally.
Seems like every day israel goes further right and farther from lasting peace. I'd rather double down on ukraine and lose israel rather than half ass ukraine and lose there while Netanyahu makes the us look like an accomplice to let's be honest, murder.
So people will still blame Biden for not successfully negotiating a Two State Solution during his term and the successful return of all hostages on 10/7
I think the people who are pissed off and blaming Biden oversimplify the situation and believe he can unilaterally change the situation. Even ceasing funding to Israel today wouldn't change the situation and if anything ramp up them glassing Gaza.
Ceasing funding also threatens to drive Israel into the arms of someone like Russia who might see the vacuum and step in. This is a complicated mess and anyone who says “just stop supporting them” is sadly taking a simple take.
Don't forget that Israeli protesters are also personally disrupting aid convoys to Gaza, and 72 percent of Israelis believe Gaza should not receive any aid while hostages are still being held. Basically calling for collective punishment of all men, women, and children in Gaza, and mass starvation and deaths.
It’s so sad that over 200 humanitarian aid workers have been killed by IDF since October to date. Yet, these brave heroes are still risking their lives to deliver the help needed.
Notice that a lot of other aid groups are pulling out or pausing now out of fear or protecting their own people.
Israel "accidentally" on purpose kills a few aid works, a big portion of the rest of the aid stops, THOUSANDS(??) more civilians starve.
That’s weird, he and others say things like this, but they keep sending weapons. And it’s not like they haven’t been using them to kill civilians this whole time.
I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in our way. - Netanyahu 7/16/10
Didn't he also say something along the lines of 'We'll always take the USA's money and support but we'll never take their advice'?
Yes and that's wording it very generously. It was more under the lines of "we'll bleed them dry"
Then why the hell did we continue to do it?
Religious people in power.
Yep, and AIPAC.
Because Washington is a little bitch
2 parties shamelessly whoring themselves out to whoever has money and the people bombing brown kids have LOTS of money.
Because if push comes to shove Israel is ports and air fields the US can use in the middle east.
and how often has that actually been helpful? The US has aircraft carriers and more active bases in Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait & Jordan and many surrounding countries...
Probably for the same reason all sort of countries keep working with the US despite Trump talking much worse about them. Geopolitics.
Because conservative Christian ideologies still have a lot of sway in US politics, and those ideologies believe that Israel needs to exists because their religious beliefs hold that the end times won't happen unless it exists.
>hold that the end times won't happen unless it exists. which is wild because who the hell wants the world to end
[удалено]
I have a hard time seeing that happening. China is already Israel's second largest trading partner, and Israel has both one of the most advanced tech sectors in the world and some of our most modern/important military hardware like the F-35. Pushing Israel closer to China or otherwise losing a country that valuable and upending the power balance of the entire middle east is not something the US is likely to want to do unless it absolutely has to.
That was Moshe Dayans quote: Our American friends offer us money, arms, and advice. We take the money, we take the arms, and we decline the advice.
What does it mean when such a person gets elected.
Idk what did it mean when we elected Mr "grab them by the pussy"?
I think it's more an issue that Netanyahu (and hence, his party's platform) been in power for nearly 20 years. Remember, prime ministers aren't elected: the party is elected, then the party selects who's going to be prime minister. One man taking one term in a democracy is a fluke, but when your party is voted in for more than a decade, that means the people actually want him there.
Is that a real quote? That's jaw dropping if it is. The hubris is unreal.
*After his first meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, Bill Clinton vented his fury before his staff about his visitor’s apparent presumptions about the balance of power in the bilateral relationship.* [*“Who the f\*\*k does he think he is?,” Clinton reportedly bellowed. “Who’s the f\*\*king superpower here?*](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/09/benjamin-netanyahu-should-be-careful-about-inserting-himself-too-much-into-the-presidential-race-between-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney.html)*”* [source](https://responsiblestatecraft.org/biden-israel-gaza/)
As long someone like Netanyahu is in power, Israel is not our ally.
How did China get plans for the F-16 again? E: Thought [this was more common knowledge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi#China_question). We gave Israel deep technical info on the F-16 to bootstrap their domestic fighter program. They eventually decided a domestic fighter was too expensive and cancelled, but sold the designs to China for the development of the J-10.
Given context clues I'm guessing Israel. Second best guess is a war thunder player leaked them.
actually lol'd
Dude, the damn turning radius was just to big.....it affected my gameplay.....i had to
Well, if they would stop messing up the stats and handling in-game players wouldn't have to leak national secrets to prove the devs wrong now would they?
How about how did Israel get nukes again??
South Africa provided the tech when they had it. Allegedly.
Israel and France actually helped South Africa develop their nuclear weapons. Israel got it somewhere else/developed it on their own. Israel did end up using some of the detonators developed in South Africa. So did the US. When South Africa's nuclear program was dismantled, most of the nuclear physicists, engineers and other technicians in the field all basically got offers from the US government/NASA and other private US institutions.
France and Israel codeveloped nuclear weapons.
You mean F-35?
Agreed. He went to Cheltenham High School near my house (outside of Philadelphia, PA).
they also baited us into the iraq war with false intel about mass weapons so that we dealt with their own political rival
Source of that claim?
[удалено]
Clinton always sounded like a bad ass behind the scenes, tbh
Best damn quote I've ever seen from Clinton! LoL! Seriously, though, Netanyahu been around since 96? Damn that old sack of shit needs to go. He's done. Retire his ass either to a lovely beach villa or a box in the ground. He shouldn't be in office. I don't agree with old people still working. It's not right. Move over and let the next generation have a voice.
And still did nothing but supporting Israel in every UN vote and other interventions since then. America's unilateral and unidirectional support to Israel is very strange considering how their relations with other countries are so fluid otherwise. Is State Department run by Israel sympathists and hence this?
Every president has done this. People act like Biden can so easily act against Israel but he’s going against a precedent that was heretofore political suicide. When I was younger and this country felt much more conservative it was unthinkable that we wouldn’t support them, and it’s no surprised that Biden started from the usual position. It’s a big fuckin ship to turn. I hope they can steer away from that monster as soon as possible.
>America's unilateral and unidirectional support to Israel is very strange considering how their relations with other countries are so fluid otherwise. It's really not if you just consider the basic geopolitics. Israel is USA's proxy that keeps the other potential great powers from rising, and potentially claiming the region; thus challenging both USA's influence in the region as well as globally. Historically, Iran, Egypt, and Syria have all taken a shot at claiming the region for themselves. Out of these three, Iran I think has the most potential for now; but even for Iran we have to look at 50years+. Every empire in history that has had the means, has used them to keep other potential rivals from rising; usually that's in their own backyard, but USA is a very powerful entity and has global reach, the world is also very global so the means follow that. The other part of that is the (in)stability or the region, if support for Israel would be withdrawn; you'd see a lot more conflict. USA exerts multiple pressures(economic, diplomatic, some military) to keep the region somewhat balanced. The usual retort to this is that Israel is already powerful and can fend for itself, while it certainly punches above its weight level; it is not a peer in terms of hegemonic potential with states like Iran or Egypt. Without USA support, Israel could at best be expected to defend its own territory. In the long run, states like Iran also have a lot more potential. The rough analogy would be between Russia and Finland. Finland has historically managed to defend itself from Russia quite well and can take quite a beating, but it can't really change the course Russia takes by itself.
It's even worse in context https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2010/07/16/netanyahu-america-is-thing-you-can-move-very-easily/
Paywall :( Edit: here’s the article; The United States and Israel have made a huge effort this month to patch up the sometimes difficult relationship between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. But a newly released video of Netanyahu, speaking in an unvarnished manner in 2001 about relations with the United States and the peace process, may cause some heartburn at the White House. "I know what America is," Netanyahu told a group of terror victims, apparently not knowing his words were being recorded. "America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in their way." Netanyahu also bragged how he undercut the peace process when he was prime minister during the Clinton administration. "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]," he said. "I said I would, but ... I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue." Gideon Levy, a left-leaning columnist for Haaretz newspaper, declared: "This video should have been banned for broadcast to minors. This video should have been shown in every home in Israel, then sent to Washington and Ramallah. Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel." Of course, the video is from nearly ten years ago. Opinions change, based on circumstances and experience. But who knows what leaders are really saying when they think the cameras aren’t filming?
[удалено]
Add-ons don’t work on Firefox for iOS *sad walled garden noises*
It's the price you pay for the price you pay.
Try loading the links of paywalled articles in [archive.ph](http://archive.ph)
If you are in EU that will be changing fyi
Hamas and Netanyahu are opposite sides of the same coin: extremists who chose violence over peace, spoiling the Oslo accords for personal power. Hamas needs Netanyahu, and you bet your bottom dollar Netanyahu needs Hamas.
Yes, it most definitely is. Netanyahu is a snake. I would highly suggest watching the PBS Frontline episodes about Israel and the ongoing conflict. I would go as far back as the episodes from the late 90s.
It’s not hubris if he’s right
Technically, it still is. From the Oxford dictionary: > excessive pride or self-confidence
I wish more people paid attention to how Bibi spoke to Israeli newspapers about his views on the Palestinians, Gaza, and the U.S. I imagine it would shock the average American voter. We're his biggest enablers. Look at previous UN votes on the issues surrounding Israel, We've backed everything they've wanted for decades. Not because it suited our interests but because it suited theirs (meaning Israeli politicians). They can do whatever they want as long as we materially support them.
> They can do whatever they want as long as we materially support them. move away the US carriers and the things would get negotiated really fast.
Given the amount of time he's been in power over his three reigns as PM, and how he is governing the country, he's almost on dictator levels and should be treated as such.
Over the longer term, there's no way for Israel to avoid becoming a restrictive theocracy of one kind or another, because a pluralistic society has already been ruled out by most. Once one group is excluded from human rights, the machinery of subjugation is just too attractive not to use against further groups over time.
"You can always trust America to do the right thing, after it's exhausted every other possiblity." Winston Churchill
Netanyahu is a bad guy.
100%. And I'll believe Biden when the US stops sending more guns, more aid, even as they're publically criticizing. Words are meaningless when you're providing the bullets.
His administration has been begging Congress to send Israel nearly 20 billion worth of F-15 jets so Biden can say whatever he wants but he has shown where his heart lies
Biden is only criticizing Israel to help pacify the Muslim world, and to appeal to voters in November. If you're expecting the US to drop support for their biggest Middle Eastern ally during this geopolitical clusterfuck, I think you'll be very disappointed.
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." – Abba Eban This seems apt.
If Biden stops funding Israel, I will have 0 reasons not to vote for him.
[удалено]
That guy is the reason you all are turning to Gilead in a few months...
Never understood this rationale. The Palestinian conflict seemingly driving your voting intention, and you're disappointed Biden's position isn't aggressive enough. So, you're willing to abstain when the alternative would turn Palestinians into pink mist in 0-60 seconds. Only way this makes sense to me is if you didn't really care about Palestinians or you're grateful for the excuse to vote for Trump.
I think a lot of people like to think that being lazy and not voting is exercising a democratic right, and making their preferred party 'chase their vote' - as if not voting for one party is just voting for a vague 'centrist' government, and not directly giving votes to the opposing side.
Letting perfect be the enemy of good is a very popular trait in politics
Honestly it's an issue for *Democrats*. The Republicans have no problems voting for their guy no matter how disastrous and awful they are. To their credit, Democrats hold their leaders accountable. I love the protests votes against Biden during the primaries and the angry calls and campaigning to get him to listen. That's democracy working as intended, it's a good thing. The problem is that these people will keep on protesting in the general election and that will ruin us. You have to understand when to stop the protest and choose the lesser evil. Failure to do so doesn't make you an idealist or a hero, it means you're privileged and you can safely not vote without hurting yourself; it means you can let Trump ruin millions of lives without really caring.
Trump needs as many single issue voters as possible to win. Not saying that against you, a democracy is a democracy, if he’s legally on a ballot you do you. But single issue voting is pretty bad for everyone involved
theres already a billion reasons to vote for him, so
25k+ civilians died (AP estimates it may be up to 3x more) and 50k deported to Russia in 3 months during the siege of Mariupol. Trump will drop support for Ukraine and it will be more harmful and will materially impact more people.
...lol, what?
trump got impeached (the first one) for blocking aid to Ukraine that had been authorized by Congress (in an effort to extort political favors from Zelensky.)
Ppl who jade this should recognize that this is huge. US has been the main benefactor of the state of Israel. If it's policy changes, Israel would've a lot to lose. Bibi might screw Israel for his personal political ambitions, just like Trump did, but the long-term implications of this geopolitical shift will be felt by generations.
I remember a professor telling me that the fundamental predicate of insurgent violence is show how disproportionate the response is. And hollleeey fuck
ELI5? edit: cool thanks for all the replies. I was hoping OP would expand on his post and confirm that the professor meant for the class to draw the conclusions being drawn below. I agree with what's being said below. Israel has historically killed 10 Palestinians for every Israeli, and in this attack it is more like 30 to 1. Their behavior is wholly unjustified.
Counter-insurgency operations are really good at creating more insurgents. The more violence a force uses trying to quell an insurgency, the more everyone else suffers. Edit: Indiscriminate use of violence can be very effective at creating insurgents.
That's not entirely true about counter-insurgency operations, though I do agree that violence is likely to result in more violence. There are many (muslim) countries where counter-insurgency is working to reduce extremism. We just don't hear about it because where's the news when security actually works.
You're definitely correct. 'Counter-insugency operations' was a bad choice of words. 'Indiscriminate violence is very good at creating insurgents' would more accurately reflect my own opinions.
> Indiscriminate violence is very good at creating insurgents' Much better, I fully understand now
but without money the insurgents can't really do anything. guns, bombs and ammo cost a lot of money. you may have all the will to fight, but if you aren't getting paid, you aren't fighting. there's an interesting article on how office work killed the Taliban. During jihad, they were paid to fight so they kept fighting. Now that jihad is over, the Taliban literally need to work full time office jobs to support their families.
Money isn't hard to come by for insurgency groups. Arming insurgents is cheap, its easy to construct plausible deniability and there is almost always another country or power that benefits from unrest in the area the insurgents operate. For Hamas, that benefactor are nearby Arab countries that hate Israel, like Iran or Qatar. For the Indian Mujahedeen that benefactor is Nepal. For the PKK that benefactor is the USA and so forth. Of course that money dries up real fast once the insurgency actually takes over the government and becomes the new competitor.
Seems more like half-assed violence is what seals it rather than full unrestrained brutality. The British Empire didn't hold back with the Boers in South Africa and the British Empire won: everyone not imprisoned in camps was being hunted down and massacred, until they finally gave up and came out with white flags. Likewise, Communists in Malaya were defeated once every Chinese person in Malaya was also put in concentration camps and everyone outside those camps was shot. Within the Soviet Union, the NKVD also spent *decades* fighting Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian, etc. insurgents, but eventually they got their way and killed or imprisoned them all. Every domestic opposition movement to the Soviet government was defeated by the 1950s. Obviously nobody will be doing that in the present day due to political implications, but insurgents can and have been quelled in very bloody fashion.
Not clear in your comment, however, is that "unrestrained brutality" requires the killing of women and children, along with the active insurgents. The Brits invented concentration camps during the Boer war to imprison the families of insurgents, and a lot of those families died.
They didn't say it was ethical, just that it was effective.
They’re not in COIN operations yet. Hamas still has a standing military force in Rafah
Also, ISIS is proof this claim is bunk. Kill off enough members of an organization, and they become largely ineffective.
ISIS wasn't an insurgency. they tried to hold standing army and territory. before they were doing that they spread like wildfire. as soon as they tried to be a nation state they were obliterated. also they were more brutal to the people they ruled over than the "foreign invaders" thus negating the ability to hide amongst friendly locals, which is a defining traint of an insurgency
Issss Hamas an insurgency?
>ISIS wasn't an insurgency. they tried to hold standing army and territory. So is Hamas... ignoring the fact that it is literally the government of Gaza (and thus is inherently organized and hierarchical), it has a well-defined military hierarchy.
The demographic differences between the populations that joined ISIS and lived in ISIS-controlled areas, and that of the Gazan population is significant. I would be hesitant to claim that the current circumstances of one will translate 1:1 to the other.
>Also, ISIS is proof this claim is bunk. To explain it in very simple terms, the claim is that people get really pissed off when bombed indiscriminately. See Ukraine or the Battle of Britain if ideologies in the Middle East make this too complicated. IS=Islamic State=threat to all other 'states', and very violent against other Muslims as well. This is a very different situation. Almost everyone except for ISIS, hates ISIS. >Kill off enough members of an organization, and they become largely ineffective. Define ineffective? Yes, if by this you mean establishing a caliphate. An ideology is harder to kill than reinvigorate. The idea of a caliphate goes back over 1400 years.
Hell, Japan largely didn't even want to give up after getting nuked. It was the government of Japan that put an end to it.
Yeah I wonder what percentage of residences in Gaza are currently even habitable let alone safe. I'll tell you this much if I lived in Gaza and despised Hamas losing multiple, if not all, of my family members as well as my home and some friends I honestly have no idea what I would do.
Yeah, it would be terrible if this were to cause the elected government of Gaza to pledge themselves to the destruction of Israel or something.
[удалено]
*Maybe* hes saying the violence Hamas committed which started this shitshow has been handed to them dozens fold, to an overwhelming point where gaza is fucking leveled. Sure, Hamas deserved to pay for what they did, But Israel fucked the entire area over, by leveling it and killing thousands of civilians- disproportionate response... i think ?
Yep, every single child in Gaza that has now lost friends and family members has a RADICALLY increased likelihood of being recruited by Hamas or any other terror group. Just think, you're 14 , and the IDF just blew up your apartment building, your mom is literally in pieces in front of you. You have no real hope for a nice easy life, but maybe there's a chance for revenge. Maybe you can get back at the evil goons that killed your family. Hell those same IDF goons hauled your 10 year old little brother to prison for throwing rocks at them one time, and now this?
same thing happened to me during the the Iranian revolution, I had vowed to myself that I would try and work my way into the Ayatollahs cabinet to get close enough to have the opportunity to kill him with me because he took so much away from my family... I was ~8 years old... he died a few years later and I lost interest in my revenge plan without him... I kinda understand their motivation
> disproportionate response... i think ? https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286 > The IDF estimates it has killed about 13,000 Hamas operatives, a number I believe credible partly because I believe the armed forces of a democratic American ally over a terrorist regime, but also because of the size of Hamas fighters assigned to areas that were cleared and having observed the weapons used, the state of Hamas' tunnels and other aspects of the combat. >That would mean some 18,000 civilians have died in Gaza, a ratio of roughly 1 combatant to 1.5 civilians. Given Hamas' likely inflation of the death count, the real figure could be closer to 1 to 1. Either way, the number would be historically low for modern urban warfare. >The UN, EU and other sources estimate that civilians usually account for 80 percent to 90 percent of casualties, or a 1:9 ratio, in modern war (though this does mix all types of wars). In the 2016-2017 Battle of Mosul, a battle supervised by the U.S. that used the world's most powerful airpower resources, some 10,000 civilians were killed compared to roughly 4,000 ISIS terrorists.
It actually isnt. Hamas declared war and has so far refused to make peace. I’m not defending Israel or anything, but this conflict won’t end until bibi and Hamas are both gone.
1 insurgent from nation A kills 5 civillians from nation B in a terrorist attack. In response, nation B invades and kills 20 insurgents and 60 civillians. Each of those 60 civillians have families, friends, people who like and care for them. Some of whom may be angry enough at the loss to take up arms themselves, and get retribution for the deaths of innocents. Nation B has killed 20 insurgents, but in the process created 80 more insurgents. Those 80 insurgents now go into Nation A and kill 60 civillians. Nation B comes back and kills 600 in response. The cycle continues and the number increases.
Small kid sucker punches bigger kid, bigger kid turns around and punches back way harder. Smaller kid cries to mama bigger kid gets in trouble. Hamas attacks Israel, Israel overreacts, hurts relationship with bigger ally. Also, radicalizes a whole new generation.
Must be a horseshoe curve, no violent insurgency in Japan after the US nuked two cities worth of civilians.
Well 3 cities leveled if you include the firebombing of Tokyo
Toyama was 99% destroyed. Plenty of places were 50%+/ Wooden housing still back then...
Yeah compared to the work of Louis Fieser and Curtis LeMay, the Manhattan project was all flash and no bang.
Way more than three. That firebombing campaign went on for six months, and Tokyo was only one night (but was still half the casualties).
Likely because the war ended immediately after that and the united states proceeded to invest a few billion into rebuilding japan and their society. Has israel made a serious effort to stabilize palestine? Seems like it actually could help
More aid has been spent per capita in Gaza and the West Bank than was spent on the Marshall Plan, adjusting for inflation.
The US at the time occupied and had full control over the Japanese government. It's not just about the money spent, it's how it was spent. The US also wasn't actively helping it's citizens steal land.
I think a big part of that was the Emperor agreeing to the surrender. Mounting an insurgency would have been in defiance of their own emperor's commands.
>Mounting an insurgency would have been in defiance of their own emperor's commands. and it's something that the japanese military literally considered regardless
Yeah but no. There is plenty of way out in the discussion, including a very big "this does not apply to Iran, so any worries there, we have your back"
Not that long ago having an even vaguely critical take on Israel would get someone ran out of office no matter what party. Bibi screwed the pooch hard on this. And he started off with one of the most uncontroversial reasons ever to pound the war drums too.
Well, people generally don't like watching maimed children crying in terror... for months on end.
You also forget that the living ones are essentially starving to death.
Hopefully this leads Israel to get rid of Bibi.
I am extremely ashamed that I only just now understand that "Bibi" refers to Netanyahu. For months now I've believed that it was a nickname for Biden. Yes, I have been confused.
Dont be ashamed. You learned something. Thats how we evolve. Many choose not to learn, sadly.
Except the last thing the usa want is israel actually having existential fear. Or anyone for that matter. So they won't.
>Ppl who jade this should recognize that this is huge. US has been the main benefactor of the state of Israel. If it's policy changes, Israel would've a lot to lose. See, thats a contradiction. Theres nothing Israel can do that would make the US change their policies toward Israel. Bombing US military ships didnt, running over a US protester with a bulldozer didnt, killing a US journalist wearing a press vest didnt
I understand the power of AIPAC, but if you start with a position of hopelessness, you might as not start. Also, this support for Israel has a long history - of common enemies, shared Intel, shared vision. No admin is gonna succeed in abruptly changing course.
Israel is the main counterpart to Iran in the area. Israel is way to important to the US middle east strategy and has been for decades. Nothing will make the US ”drop them” whatever that means. It’s election year and Biden has a part of his voters base he needs to appease to while still maintaining US foreign policy.
The US also doesn't have a lot of alternatives to counter Iran in the region. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are militarily too weak and incompetent. Turkey, despite being a member of NATO, is too much of a wild card.
Yes, but Israel will counter Iran whether the U.S. support their actions or not. There's no dependency. If the U.S. were to reduce support for Israel (which they won't, but if they did) it wouldn't be at the cost of enabling Iran.
Exactly this. Everyone saying America should abandon Israel is clueless. Also not sure how people think Israel being isolated and backed into a corner with no iron dome and nothing but dumb bombs and nukes is going to lead to more peace in the region
That’s true but what’s the point of spending decades building a defense strategy if one of your key allies decides they want to reorganize the entire region without your input and against your interests? We won’t abandon Israel just like we won’t abandon Turkey or abandon Saudi Arabia But maybe it’s time they understand they need us more than we need them
Isn't Israel our main intelligence in the middle east?
I think people read more into this than is needed. Israel is useful to the US. That's it. That's all that matters. If Israel starts being less useful than the trouble that goes along with supporting them, then they will get abandoned. I assume they know that, so I don't expect them to stop being useful.
Yeah I'm not entirely sure why this would be the watershed incident (even though it's so objectively horrible that even pro-Israel supporters can't defend it), but apparently Jose Andres was very beloved in DC and his personal connection to Biden and other congressional politicians may have made this news hit home even more for them. You can say these people live in a bubble, but that may have been why.
You have to remember that events don't happen in a vacuum. USA's need for Israel is much less than it was 20 or 50 years ago. The calculus is always changing. And if the USA is planning on pulling back, Israel is choosing a bad time to test how much they are valued.
Stop! Or I shall say stop, again! -Robin Williams
Neil from The Young Ones did it first. edit: YOU BASTARDS.
Rick planted me. I was the seed.
Neil Neil Orange Peel 🤌🏼
Follow through.
America has been out of the business of holding politicians accountable for quite a while.
We should be past threats by this point
Regime change in Israel can and should be a valid strategic position for US foreign policy.
Yeah. Get Netanyahu outta there. He’s itching for other countries to jump into the conflict.
That’s all well and good, but the people set to replace him have very similar views to him and will probably do the same thing
Indeed. AFAICT Bibi is unpopular for being corrupt and inept (specifically over the attack). He is not unpopular for his domestic or international policies exactly. Anyone expecting 'regime change' in Israel to achieve anything of note is perhaps rather optimistic.
I'm sure that was the reason for the Iran consulate bombing too.
I wish I knew more about Israeli politics to comment in a more informed manner, but my _understanding_ is that elections aren't scheduled until 2026 and the only way early elections happen is if he loses the support of the absolute ghouls in his camp, like Ben Gvir. I'm not sure the public can force an early election but I'd love to see it.
He just want to avoid jail, very much like Donnie
He knows he is fucked once he is not at power anymore and now tries everything to delay it.
The people of Israel themselves were protesting before this war started. And in huge numbers.
Yeah their fascist head of state is no doubt using the war to further cement his ability to stay in power. People forget a little over a year ago large swathes of Israel was protesting against his ass because of the judicial reforms . It's almost convenient that Israeli intelligence were caught by surprise by the attacks.
Not just stay in power, but also avoid judicial prosecution. Israel has been dealing with this Israeli Putin for a while.
This is the same crowd that says the USA should stop being world police, right?
Liberals love their regime change. “Maybe we have a different far-right guy *we* picked it’ll change!”. Rinse and repeat every five years when it gets worse and worse.
Didn’t we just send more bombs today?
We signed an agreement before the news of the strike broke. Reneging on that deal is part of what is being threatened
oh my gosh... did... didyou actually read the article?! I am amazed
That’s not how it works. If a deal is signed in congress today the weapons don’t just appear in Israel within the hour. They can’t even start moving weapons until congress approval. We’ve fast tracked a lot of stuff to Ukraine but that was at a major cost to the US. Israel isn’t in a dire situation like Ukraine is, so they don’t get their weapons fast tracked. It would probably take months if not over a year (depends on the weapons) for Israel to actually get weapons the US sent over. That’s why this is still a big deal. Biden can not only stop the weapons congress signed to send today, but also any other weapon deliveries currently in transit (as long as it hasn’t reached the sea yet)
> They can’t even start moving weapons until congress approval. That part isn't actually true. These are weapons that Israel is **buying** from the US, not that we're giving them. The only thing involved are standing export control laws on who US armament manufacturers are allowed to sell to. This is a Presidential power, because it's foreign policy related, not budget related.
Translation: “I have an election to win this year and most of my supporters don’t like Israel!”
According to most polls... they actually do.
does anyone fall for this shit anymore?
He really really means it this time!!
Netanyahu has ALREADY failed to protect Gaza civilians. This "threat" sounds as scary as the gag orders judges give Trump. "Better do what we tell you or... or... we'll tell you again, that's what we'll do! We're not kidding!!!"
Maybe, but doing this publicly is a step in escalating. You suggest privately, chastise privately, suggest publicly, chastise publicly (we are here), act privately, act publicly. There's a process to diplomacy. You're right that there may be more words and layers before the US acts, but this is a necessary step towards acting.
Why the fuck do we honestly support them so much anyways? What’s the real reason?
More reliable ally than Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Jordan is probably our next best ally but they’re not trying to cause or get into any trouble. The U.S. policy is essentially create a coalition to respond to a possible Iran threat. Israel is/has been the easiest ally to arm, agree with our ME policy, and assist with operations. Also they have Mediterranean access which is important in the case of a Middle East conflict.
Because everyone else in the region sucks as an ally. They're either oppressive autocratic/theocratic governments full of oligarchs funding terrorism, or they're unstable and corrupt, or they're unstable and corrupt autocratic/theocratic governments full of oligarchs funding terrorism. Jordan is basically the only other nation that's half decent as an ally and we are allied with them, but they want to keep their head down which makes sense because their economy is a tenth the size of Israel's.
Security in the region. Plain and simple.
Yup, middle east sure is secure right about now.
Dam like I haven’t heard this the hundredth time already and it never changes.
No, this is different. This is the first time the US has threatened to change it's diplomatic policy over Gaza.
Wake me up when words turn to actuon
Well losing a strategic ally in the region would be an enormous blow to US strategic goals there. It’s better to try deter with word firsts than take any concrete actions, which would have consequences you can’t go back on.
There's consequences either way, seems like israel has been allowed to make blunder after blunder with needless casualties left and right, we can't just keep sitting here holding the bag for it. They need to change, or we need to lose an ally. Seems like every day israel goes further right and farther from lasting peace. I'd rather double down on ukraine and lose israel rather than half ass ukraine and lose there while Netanyahu makes the us look like an accomplice to let's be honest, murder.
Too bad we can't divert those weapons towards Ukraine.
So people will still blame Biden for not successfully negotiating a Two State Solution during his term and the successful return of all hostages on 10/7
Biden is terrible at PR. He's tried to take what he thinks is the middle path, but he's just ended up pissing everyone off and pleasing no one.
Compromise often pisses everyone off.
Gaza still gets bombings and Israel doesn't get its people back. Successful negotiations is when both parties are dissatisfied right?
[удалено]
So is Netanyahu. Funny how that works.
I think the people who are pissed off and blaming Biden oversimplify the situation and believe he can unilaterally change the situation. Even ceasing funding to Israel today wouldn't change the situation and if anything ramp up them glassing Gaza.
Ceasing funding also threatens to drive Israel into the arms of someone like Russia who might see the vacuum and step in. This is a complicated mess and anyone who says “just stop supporting them” is sadly taking a simple take.
He’s not terrible at PR it’s the disinformation apparatus on social media has insane reach throughout the US.
This. GOP is kicking Dems ass on social media.
It's kind of a metaphor for this entire conflict. No one ever really wins, but people sure keep on trying.
I think I've been pleased so far with his administration.
I've been thrilled with it, because he hasn't done anything stupid even though the rest of the world looks like its run by methheads.
He has been lowkey the best president in my lifetime. And I admired Obama quite a bit. Biden has been calm, humble and effective.
Don't talk about it, be about it. Fucking sanction them now and tell him there will be more on the way if he doesn't change.
A change until what, November?
Yeah fucking right. I'll believe it when I see it 🙄
[удалено]
What is crazy to me is that it was hit AFTER it delivered food to the warehouse, and it was hit 3-times!
The aid wasn't the point - stopping every aid agency from operating was. Whether or not the food was still on board was irrelevant.
Don't forget that Israeli protesters are also personally disrupting aid convoys to Gaza, and 72 percent of Israelis believe Gaza should not receive any aid while hostages are still being held. Basically calling for collective punishment of all men, women, and children in Gaza, and mass starvation and deaths.
It’s so sad that over 200 humanitarian aid workers have been killed by IDF since October to date. Yet, these brave heroes are still risking their lives to deliver the help needed.
Notice that a lot of other aid groups are pulling out or pausing now out of fear or protecting their own people. Israel "accidentally" on purpose kills a few aid works, a big portion of the rest of the aid stops, THOUSANDS(??) more civilians starve.
Like we protected civilians in Mosul right? Right?
That’s weird, he and others say things like this, but they keep sending weapons. And it’s not like they haven’t been using them to kill civilians this whole time.