this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
102 points (93.2% liked)

politics

19115 readers
3805 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“The truth is that from a legal perspective, these resolutions are not complicated,” Sanders said during a press conference Tuesday, alongside Sens. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Peter Welch, D-Vt.; and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. “They are cut and dry. The United States government is currently in violation of the law, and every member of the Senate who believes in the rule of law should vote for these resolutions.”

Despite aid groups reporting that Israel has continued to block humanitarian aid into Gaza, the White House overlooked the blown deadline last week, saying that it will continue to provide weapons to Israel. The decision stands in direct violation of existing U.S. law preventing the government from sending weapons to countries that block U.S.-backed humanitarian assistance.

With the Biden administration unwilling to act and legislation targeting pro-Palestinian nonprofits still advancing, pro-Palestinian advocates and their allies in Congress argue that passing the joint resolutions is likely the last real opportunity for Democrats to address the crisis in Gaza before Republicans take control in January.

Despite Democrats’ unwillingness to vote for conditioning military aid to Israel in the past, Araabi hopes that at least some of the lame-duck senators who won’t be returning in January will take this opportunity to cement an anti-genocide record.

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JustZ 1 points 39 minutes ago

Spoiler alert: no.

[–] RustyEarthfire 5 points 9 hours ago

This would also have to pass the House, which it would not. I agree with Bernie's statement and respect his choice to put the resolution forth on principle. I do not respect the article author or commentors who are either ignorant of basic U.S. civics, or choosing to be deliberately deceptive in order to place blame solely on Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Any Democrat that sits on this, instead of voting in line with Sanders and other voices of conscience, is supporting Trump at this point.

The party line that Trump will be worse for Palestine will no longer work. And I will be writing the Democrat from my state to let them know as much.

[–] Rapidcreek 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

It's only because this Senate session is under Democratic control that this is being voted on in the first place. After the new year, and new session, it will be under Republican control, and something like this will never make it to the floor. So yeah, penalize those that will allow a vote versus those that won't. Same thought process that gives you President Trump.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Writing my senator isn't penalizing anyone. Nice straw man though.

[–] Rapidcreek 1 points 38 minutes ago

You are penalizing yourself, so have at it.

[–] Feathercrown 9 points 19 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 20 hours ago

Democrats: “should we stop enabling genocide, now that we have absolutely no reason not to?

Gee!

Hmmmm

I dunno maybe?! :D probably not tho lol”

[–] ReiRose 3 points 17 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

If the logic is "selling these is causing war crimes" they'd have to defined the entire US military. The US regularly breaks the same laws.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Can you give an example from, say, the last decade? Just one example will do.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

I mean, trump pardoned a bunch of us government contracted (by the military) mercenaries who were convicted(by a US federal Court) of killing Iraqi civilians in 2014. The act of pardoning such criminals is in itself a war crime, and occurred in 2020.

[–] Rapidcreek -1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

It wasn't a bunch, it was one guy. He was court marshalled, and his own men testified against him. He was found guilty and stripped of rank. He was about to be sentenced to federal lockup for war crimes. THEN Trump pardoned him against the wishes of the US Military. I think your apples and oranges comparison failed.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

You asked for one example, I gave you one. Literally the incoming commander in chief committing a war crime 4 years ago.

[–] Rapidcreek 0 points 18 hours ago

I didn't ask you. I clarified for you

[–] Carmakazi 5 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Not this decade, but during the battles of Fallujah we gave the civilians there 24 hours to evacuate, and then after that the official rules of engagement were pretty damn close to "everyone left is presumed to be an Al Qaeda militant." They were allowed to shoot people with phones or radios in their hands on sight. We also bombed the fuck out of that city, including with white phosphorous. We know WP was used because there was a recorded friendly fire incident with it.

And all of this was basically reprisal for the killings of those four Blackwater mercenaries.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 17 hours ago

Not this decade

So, no?

I can answer for you. The US betrayal of their Kurdish allies was evil and that was fairly recent.

[–] Rapidcreek -1 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The reason white phosphorus was used in Fallujah. If you've ever been to an Arab city, you'll note that sometimes in markets, cloth is hung over the streets. This cloth provides shade to shoppers. Fallujah had more of that than usual, it masked movement from sight overhead. So, to get rid of it, they dropped white phosphorus to burn it away.

[–] kreskin 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

right, also known as a war crime.

[–] JustZ 0 points 37 minutes ago

No. Read the law.

[–] Rapidcreek -2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)
[–] Carmakazi 6 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

A logical and strategic justification. Still a literal warcrime.

[–] JustZ 0 points 37 minutes ago (1 children)
[–] Carmakazi 1 points 23 minutes ago (1 children)

Protocol on incendiary weapons states that using them in civilian area, such as in a marketplace in an urban area that was not properly evacuated, is prohibited.

And we actually signed that one, which is surprising considering how many protocols and treaties we are not party to.

[–] JustZ 1 points 18 minutes ago

It was used as flares not as an incendiary.

[–] Rapidcreek -3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Not really. White phosphorus is used for many things, mostly making smoke. It only becomes a crime when you use it against people.

[–] kreskin 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

And, blocked user. You have yourself a nice day now "rapidcreek"

[–] Rapidcreek 0 points 5 hours ago

Sorry if the truth offends you.

[–] givesomefucks 6 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (2 children)

Well, let's see what Chuck Schumer probably thinks...

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind=Q05&recipdetail=S

Number 7 on one of the few bipartisan lists in DC, nestled right between hos buddies Mitch McTurtle and Rafael "Ted" Cruz...

One of the few areas Biden is really head and shoulders above the rest though.

But Israel pays way too much money to both parties for either party's leaders to actually do what's best for America.

They're gonna do what's best for their campaign donations.

Edit:

Since some people may be surprised number 2 doesn't sound familiar, it's this guy:

https://apnews.com/article/bob-menendez-new-jersey-senate-resignation-9941e49020a032da3861f5f5cf118ec2

One of the most corrupt Dems to ever be held accountable (technically the trial is still happening).

He was Hillary's co-campaign chair in 07 when she lost to Obama, and then Obama made him chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for some fucking reason. He was indicted shortly after in 2018, but charges were then dropped for 5 years till 2023 when he was committing crimes and accepting bribes from foreign government with a legitimately trumpian level of skill at hiding his crimes.

Like, at one point I remember him trying to argue that storing gold bars inside of the suits in his closet was a totally normal thing and not related to him googling how to smuggle gold bars into America while he was in Qatar and just accepted gold bars as bribe...

[–] JustZ 1 points 35 minutes ago

What's best for America is containing Iran.

So... Not sure what your going on about. It would be grossly negligent for a US president to break or alliance with Israel and let Iran run the middle east for the next century. You think human rights are under threat now, but you think we should let Iran run things. Seems either ignorant or hypocritical.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

One of the few areas Biden is really head and shoulders above the rest though.

You get that result if you set the filter to "all" election cycles, but not if you set it to one of the more recent ones. The "all" figure is influenced by the fact that Biden is old and has been through many election cycles.

[–] givesomefucks 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The “all” figure is influenced by the fact that Biden is old and has been through many election cycles.

Compared to all the sprin chickens on the list like Mitch McConnell?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

You do have a point there.

[–] Zak 4 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Probably not. US international relations is heavily driven by an amoral power calculus.

Israel is a major foil to Iran. Iran is an ally of Russia and China and a threat to US interests in the region. Barring an extreme amount of pressure from constituents, which has not reached that threshold as far as I can tell, most US politicians will tolerate almost any human rights abuse from Israel.

[–] BMTea 3 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

This is superficial. Neither Russia nor China are particularly antagonistic to Israel or the Gulf states, even if they see the US as a foe in their own region. Russia for example is very careful about balancing its relations with the Gulf, Israel and Iran. China, views Iran as a potential foothold to the region, but China actually benefits from the US presence, it is far more energy import dependent than the US and has no desire to fuel instability by helping Iran pursue offensive goals.

The actual reason that Iran and the USA are enemies has to do with the US' sectarian alignment with Sunni powers and Jewish nationalism, and more complicated reasons relating to politicial and religious struggles in the entire region that Iran happens to be one side of (i.e anti-monarchism, clericism, etc). And an institutional (and not necessarily rational) hatred of Iran in the US top brass due to its role in helping Iraqis and Lebanese fight American soldiers.

You cannot talk about this issue in terms of "Russia-China-Iran" balancing without mentioning the deeper and much more relevant issues that make US-Israel relationship exceptional on a globsl level: post-Holocaust philosemetism, anti-Islamism, anti-Arabism and (very underreported) Christian piety that actually motivates US-Israel policy. And the Israel lobby, which is so deeply engrained that Israel is treated more or less like the 51st state.

Politics goes far beyond amoral power calculus. You could have justified a ceasefire and even an embargo on Israeli arm transfers in accordance to amoral power calculus, but for Biden, Blinken and the rest, this is a moral question relating to a transcendent moral and religious cause, steeped in centuries of historical memory.

I have zero doubt that Joe Biden believes that by helping murderous racist Netanyahu slaughter and expel the people of Gaza, he has placed himself in the company of Cyrus the Great and other deliverers of Jews rather than Idi Amin and Radovan Karadzic. The GOP puts such things in explicitly religious terms and thus appear less rational or calculating. But it's not even that well-hidden in the case of Biden and Blinken given what we know of their careers and lives.

[–] Keeponstalin 1 points 13 hours ago

That's a great analysis. Do you have any books or articles to share on the subject?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 16 hours ago

It's more like choosing to stand with Israel against Iran(ian proxies). The same reason they stood with Saudi-Arabia killing so, so many children in Yemen.

These top dog politicians don't care for religious or moral matters, that's just for show

[–] [email protected] 0 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

lol

They definitely will not.