My point was that actual genocide is more important than politics. You appear to be reiterating a belief that it’s the other way around
Isn’t Biden already holding back arms shipments?
Isn’t that why the Republicans are freaking out right now because he isn’t a friend to Israel?
Can you explain because I’m confused.
Kinda I guess, he’s said he would hold back one part of a single shipment, but that is the absolute bare minimum
So why are the republicans freaking out?
When aren’t they freaking out?
When Israel gets what it wants
Ah yes, they definitely weren’t freaking out about othet things before Isreal started the invasion
They weren’t freaking out about Israel until Biden held shipments to Israel.
And my point is they always have something they are freaking out about so why care Republicans are freaking out
The bare minimum used to be calling for a ceasefire.
Some people will never be satisfied, so it’s pointless to try to satisfy them.
Unless. Just maybe, Genocide is more important than playing politics
To most people, Gaza is not the most important issue in this election. So to them, the “bare minimum” on Gaza might be more than enough.
Politically, he can’t. I think he’s actually going further than 90% of other presidents would be prepared to do by delaying arms. He’s even leaned into the ‘pro-Israeli’ crowd and given Israel so much benefit of the doubt lest he be called out as anti-Semitic.
Realistically, I don’t think he enjoys being in this position either, but if the Israeli lobby switch to the Republicans, its cuts off a lot of support.
Don’t forget that Hamas are terrorists, they condoned and supported the October 7th atrocities and from what I’ve heard from the hostages, some of them were not great to their captives to say the least. Hamas do need to be removed from power.
Is Israel going too far? Yes, yes they are… can you win the next election by being seen to support Hamas? Even if what you’re actually doing is trying to protect civilians? Nope. Until someone makes a decision that Israel are actually committing genocide (and in my opinion based on the evidence I’ve observed, this seems very likely), I don’t think the president has a political leg to stand on. Once that decision is made, I believe Israel will see international support begin to fade.
Disclaimer: The use of the word “Israel” is limited to Benjamin Netanyahu, the IDF, the ruling government the Likud party.
Until someone makes a decision that Israel are actually committing genocide (and in my opinion based on the evidence I’ve observed, this seems very likely)
what evidence are you referring to?
The mass graves for starters that were discovered after the IDF left the area. The indiscriminate bombing of hospitals, UN assigned refugee camps don’t go amiss either. The forceful expulsion of millions of people from their homes to ever smaller and smaller parts of Gaza. Perhaps where the IDF told people to go to certain places for safety and then promptly bombed those places.This is supported by statements made my ministers or representatives in the Israeli legislature and government, including current and former ministers. The denial/restriction of aid and water.
This is completely aside from using trumped up evidence absent charges that members of the UN agency were supporting Hamas in order to disrupt funding to a UN refugee agency. They also used this as an excuse to raid hospitals providing necessary medical care, doctors and nurses have been killed. Oh and killing aid workers… repeatedly. I think the first excuse was “it wasn’t us” which turned into “it was us but it was an accident” to “it was us, we deemed them a thread”… another incident was… World Kitchen? That was just such a shitshow for the IDF that someone actually got the boot.
There’s plenty of evidence available, it’s literally everywhere and often published/reported on by international media.
The letter, drafted by unnamed legal and policy staff
A letter written by anonymous lawyers is no better than a letter written by non-lawyers.
There’s a long history in journalism of people speaking the truth – and being willing to identify themselves to the media (as here) – to prove what they’re saying is legit, while still keeping their identity a secret from the public / from their bosses, so they can’t be punished. Seems okay to me.
Maybe so, but analysis from an anonymous lawyer is still no better than analysis from an internet stranger.
What would you think about a letter casting doubt on, say, climate change signed by 50 university professors? I would immediately check their affiliation. If they are all from the Department of Music, then their opinion is no better than anyone else’s.
Likewise, law is a highly subspecialized field. For all I know, the letter was written by a bunch of IP lawyers. In which case, their opinions on potential war crimes would not be particularly valuable.
Oh, come on. You know this isn’t from the damn music department. They actually went out of their way to indicate what were the credentials of the specific sources they talked to.
a DOJ attorney
a DHS attorney
A State Department staffer with more than two decades of policy experience, including in foreign assistance in the Middle East
Yes, I know they aren’t in the music department.
What I said is that they could be IP lawyers (who exist in both DOJ and DHS).
Or in the case of State, likely not a lawyer at all.
Or, with equal validity, I could say they could include Merrick Garland and Jonathan Meyer.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies, as opposed to because they’re doing exactly what’s the standard thing to do when you have an issue with what your employer the United States Govt is doing.
You’re also comparing them to music professors speaking on climate change, when professors have tenure specifically because of this exact issue, so they can speak publicly on controversial issues without being fired for it if they cross someone powerful. Since these people don’t have that protection, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that the reason they’re anonymous is because they want to be able to tell the truth without being fired, and they’re using the exact mechanism built into our society for doing that.
You’re implying that they’re probably anonymous because they’re nobodies
Not at all. If they are anonymous, then they are no better than an internet stranger but also no worse.
We’re all equal here. After all, for all I know you could be Merrick Garland.
And I fully understand why they want to remain anonymous. I’m anonymous too. But claiming the benefits of anonymity means giving up the mantle of authority. You can only earn that by providing your CV.
If only there were a process where some third party could vouch for their credentials while keeping them anonymous
