• BilliamBoberts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m genuinely curious what you expect Biden should do other than ask Netanyahu and the leaders of Hamas to agree to a ceasefire? No shade what so ever. I just dont see what options he has to sway these two sovereign nations.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        He asks Israel for ceasefire. Then he cuts funding if they don’t listen. Israel will do literally anything to maintain that pipeline of cash.

        No one is asking for them to disarm, or allow Hamas to strike. People are just asking for Israel to stop with the warcrimes while support groups can figure out how to aid the Palestinians.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Then he cuts funding if they don’t listen.

          Then Israel cuts political funding and a whole pile of Democrats lose their next election. Most people have ZERO idea how much political power AIPAC has in the United States.

          President Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden won’t be cutting a damn thing.

          AIPAC has bent and twisted US Domestic politics for it’s own benefit for at least the last twenty years and party doesn’t matter.

          Democrat 1

          Democrat 2

          Republican 1

          Republican 2

          Literally every President and Vice President and the major POTUS candidates for at least the past two decades has spoke at AIPAC. Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush Jr, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. ALL of them.

          Kamala Harris? Yup.

          New Speaker of the House Mike Johnson? AIPAC was his single largest donor!

          It’s not just leadership either, AIPAC will fund dozens of US Congresspeople so they can go to Israel and meet with Israeli Officials.

          If there’s another single issue lobbying group out there with more political power I’m unaware of them. AIPAC flexes so hard that even the NRA is jealous.

          Israel will do literally anything to maintain that pipeline of cash.

          That pipeline of cash isn’t going anywhere no matter what Israel does or doesn’t do. They are driving the bus, not riding in it.

          • eestileib
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’ve described the situation.

            Which is why so many people are marching and phoning their representatives etc. We know it’s not going to change on its own, and we can’t live with doing nothing.

          • Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Playing this out. Democrats lose power over lost political funding. AIPAC now ensures it’s largest gov. ally effectively slips into single party representation. That remaining party is aligned nearly completely to an orange figure head that supports fascism openly. Overseas, ironically, the country created as a result of WWII fascism becomes any ally to the world’s largest fascist superpower. Sounds like we’re fscked any way you slice this.

          • gastationsushi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Unpopular donors are very inefficient and could easily spend x10 their opponent to eke out a win in a primary. Also, donors like to be bipartisan. Meaning they never openly spend on just 1 party in November because they want a good relationship with both parties.

            The DNC wants to help Israel without any consequences, so they are pretending to be powerless here. But for arguments sake, if AIPAC tried to hurt the DNCs chances in November over a growing antiwar movement. They would permanently damage Israel’s reputation with liberal democracies across the globe because Trump is an unpopular guy.

            • ImFresh3x
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Except Israel isn’t unpopular with most voters, unfortunately, especially in contested states and districts.

              • gastationsushi@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I don’t know how to reply here. You ignored so much of my comment, I’d believe you if you said your reply was meant for another.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What did they British government do when proto-isreali terrorists partook in a campaign of assassinations and civilian bombings that used schools, temples and hospitals to stage attacks and store weapons?

    • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Israel is a proxy state. A ridiculous amount of Israeli GDP is actually American aid.
      If Biden wanted the bombing the to stop, it would stop.

      • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m curious, why do you think he actually wants it to continue? Geopolitical strategy is an ugly and complicated beast but most people seem to think it’s as simple as “old man wants genocide”.

        • brightpants@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          His argument is a simplification, yes, of course it’s not as simple as “old man wants genocide”. It’s more like “old man doenst really mind genocide thst much as long as he gets to keep the influence over a proxy state and also his own home state”

          • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s fair, thanks for expanding. Now I ask, do you think any other US president would do the same in his shoes? Why or why not?

        • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve heard about oil off the coast of Gaza. I’ve heard some stories about a canal.
          My personal theory:

          Saudi Arabia and Israel were just about to normalize relations. Iran didn’t like that, and pushed Hamas to attack in Oct. Meanwhile, there’s some oil depletion stuff happening worldwide except USA and Canada. If the middle east got itself together it could be a global power to rival the US or China. This kind of destabilizing war does a lot to stop that from happening.

          I don’t think it’s any one thing though.

          • SeedyOne@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Interesting thought, though wasn’t it revealed the plan for the attack started a few years ago? That might weaken the normalized relations aspect but it still could be something they saw coming maybe.

            • Jaytreeman@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I wasn’t aware, but I don’t think that changes anything.
              The US has plans for an invasion of Canada. Doesn’t mean that it’s going to happen anytime soon

        • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Biden was falling asleep during the presidential debates. He’s a senile old man and obvious figurehead who’s just doing as he’s told IMHO

      • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That makes no sense. Congress legislates and the executive executes that legislation. The President can’t put further requirements on aid.

        • dx1@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          He can veto the legislation, and (more contentiously) he can issue executive orders blocking the implementation of the legislation. Or least of all, use his human mouth to speak words against the legislation (the “bully pulpit”).

          • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            So he should veto legislation he hasn’t gotten, write an executive understanding order, which again can not set new conditions, or speak against aid to an ally. Doesn’t seem to be cease fire material to me.

            • dx1@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              “He hasn’t gotten”? He drafted the request:

              https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-drafts-100-billion-foreign-aid-package-including/story?id=104059871

              write an executive understanding order, which again can not set new conditions,

              He is bound by existing conditions, e.g. the ratification of the Geneva Convention, not to facilitate genocide. He is currently being sued for this.

              edit: To be sure, the reason I wrote this is contentious, the actual scope of EOs (not to be confused with a private MOU, which isn’t applicable nor legally binding) is contentious. The reason we have the executive branch to begin with, in terms of checks and balances, is to ensure there can be a refusal to implement. Although it’s a non-issue in this case since he’s asking for it, it would only become an issue with a 2/3 majority ready to force legislation through and with him actually opposed to it. Disclaimer, not a lawyer, just know some fundamentals.

              • Rapidcreek@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                He hasn’t gotten"? He drafted the request:

                The legislation is not on the desk, you know that but are being obtuse

                He is bound by existing conditions, e.g. the ratification of the Geneva Convention, not to facilitate genocide.

                Has the International Criminal Court charged anyone on genocide? The President is bound by the legislation in front of them, not your feelings.

                • dx1@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I will never understand how people have the nerve to leave comments about things they don’t understand or know anything about.

      • dx1@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think one state runs the other. IMO, the same organization runs both, plus other European colonial powers and proxy/puppet states. It’s basically impossible otherwise to account for this kind of like, inexplicable synchronicity that they have with absolutely indefensible policies.

        • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I hate to feed into conspiracy theories but there’s absolutely a freemason shadow government or something deeper going on internationally.

          • dx1@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Truth is the truth. Doesn’t take much imagination to see why that type of idea is stigmatized so much.

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get people fear endangering their jobs, but isn’t it kind of toothless to say “we’re Biden staffers signing this letter” followed immediately by “anonymously”?