this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
135 points (93.0% liked)

politics

18068 readers
4696 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Biden administration last week put a hold on a shipment of U.S.-made ammunition to Israel, two Israeli officials told Axios.

Why it matters: It is the first time since the Oct. 7 attack that the U.S. has stopped a weapons shipment intended for the Israeli military. The incident raised serious concerns inside the Israeli government and sent officials scrambling to understand why the shipment was held, Israeli officials said.

President Biden is facing sharp criticism among Americans who oppose his support of Israel. The administration in February asked Israel to provide assurances that U.S.-made weapons were being used by Israel Defense Forces in Gaza in accordance with international law. Israel provided a signed letter of assurances in March.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The US and Israel have both said it was a logistical problem, not a political or legal problem. CNN

Of course you found the absolute worst take that had no real information and all of the conjecture.

The Biden administration paused a shipment of US-made ammunition to Israel, according to a source familiar with the matter, who did not disclose why the decision was made. The hold is not connected to a potential Israeli operation in Rafah and doesn’t affect other shipments moving forward, the source said.

Asked about the paused shipment, a National Security Council spokesperson cited ongoing security assistance to Israel.

“The United States has surged billions of dollars in security assistance to Israel since the October 7 attacks, passed the largest ever supplemental appropriation for emergency assistance to Israel, led an unprecedented coalition to defend Israel against Iranian attacks, and will continue to do what is necessary to ensure Israel can defend itself from the threats it faces,” the spokesperson said.

[–] disguy_ovahea 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It was the only article released at the time I posted it. Every other article I could find cited it as the source. That’s so discouraging. I really thought there was hesitation in supply.

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] Maggoty 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well shit. I apologize. But now you've got officials saying one thing and then the other. This is usually what we get with the GOP in the white house.

[–] disguy_ovahea 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No apology needed. At first it was only that Axios article, without a named source. Then the CNN article stated that the reasons were unconfirmed. This is the first article citing White House officials, and it’s still not a direct communication.

At this point I’d like to hear of an official change in stance, or at least formal condemnation of the Rafah attack, before being certain that this indicates change.