No one said it was Trump. The US has been giving financial aid to Israel for over 50 years. You are misinformed because you believe Trump will fix it. News flash he was already president and he didn’t fix shit.
…what? You just said Abraham accords are the reason for this conflict… That’s the same as saying Trump is to blame…
And just because I’m rightfully assigning blame to Biden, the current sitting US president and self-proclaimed biggest support of Israel, doesn’t mean I support Trump.
Feel free to creep on all of my comment history, my political leanings should be pretty self-evident.
Don’t you feel gross telling people that if they say Biden’s policies have allowed the situation to get out of control, it means they support Trump?
I mean, you do understand that ultimately Israel is our client state and entirely dependent upon our aid for their survival, right?
They literally could not be prosecuting this war if we stopped shipping them weapons, and they would never have attacked Iran if we didn’t have our CSG and accompanying missile destroyers sitting in between them.
First, Israel has access to several “emergency” supply caches in the area (that we actively replenish).
Secondly, any aid we cut off, say in March 2024 when it was overly clear what Israel was doing, they would still not be close to emptying their stockpile.
Thirdly, AIPAC would galvanize congress, the media, and then they would be shoveling aid to Israel and overriding Biden’s veto.
Fourthly, the US doesn’t have a monopoly on weapons export. I guarantee that other countries who are antagonist towards the US would step hand over fist to supply Israel with everything they need – or worse – because it weakens the US.
That isn’t hyperbole. It’s geopolitics.
So what’s worse?
A rogue client state that is itching to attack Iran and start wwIII with shout 50% of Congress in a death cult which requires Israel to exist to be destroyed so that sky lord can come and save them.
Or India getting a free field test of their armament?
One of those two options feeds the military industrial complex and the economy by extension. The other makes Pakistan enter the conflict. Now you have a regional war.
None of these things are good. But calling your congressman is a better use of your energy than yelling at idiots on Lemmy.
Just so we’re clear, your position is that Biden is at fault, but if he wasn’t supporting this genocide, it would actually be worse?
It’s late, and I’m watching the fights, so I don’t have my full attention to spare, but I had enough available to read your comment and see that that you’re being earnest in your argument, and your analysis is not disingenuous.
That’s important to me, because while it’s really bad, it also means that you’re probably not a bad person.
For starters, it’s all counterfactuals, and while that alone means it’s a just barrel of formal and informal fallacies, it’s also based on deeply flawed, or just grossly uneducated, misunderstandings of a wide range of fields, ranging from international relations, to military procurement and sustainment.
I’m not trying to be mean, and to be fair, I have an academic background in multiple fields related to these subjects, so I’m not pulling my criticism out of my ass.
But another fight is about to start, so my text to speech comment must end.
The TLDR is that bad people are bad and will be bad regardless of who they buy thier weapons from.
It’s beyond shitty and I am totally against it.
Unfortunately, at least if we’re selling the weapons, we have at least some say in how their used.
All of this is against the Arms Export Control Act. We are literally ignoring the law by continuing to ship these weapons. Congress has turned a blind eye to all of it. Largely due to the threat of being primaried by a pro-AIPAC candidate. We have already seen it repeatedly during the Democrat primary where the progressive anti-genocide incumbents were replaced by Zionist representatives, or at least people willing to look the other way for the big check.
Multiple states have laws against protesting Israel that if you want to do business with the state, you have to support Israel. So much for freedom of speech.
The only solace I have is that the person Kamala Harris has tapped for Secretary of State was a huge proponent of the Iran deal and that we might possibly have some cooler heads if she wins vs this death cult. I can’t say that it will be peace, but at least she won’t be putting up a Trump tower on the West Bank…
Here is a playlist from a channel with a better handle on foreign policy than I’ll ever have.
They cover multiple topics, including some of the points that I have raised. Obviously it’s unlikely to change your position, but at least you’ll have insight into how things are. Foreign policy isn’t about morals or right from wrong. It’s about power.
Point the rest of us to where anyone in this thread said that Trump’s actions started the Israel conflict rather than just escalating what was already going on.
Bruh. You seem to have not read my comment or the one you just quoted. The quote is not claiming that Trump started the conflict. That quote is stating that he escalated it. Try again, but make sure you look up the difference between “start” and “escalate” before you do.
I just looked it over again, and it looks like I just walked into a big comment minefield here. Your first comment in the thread is a bit of a mess, someone took it the wrong way and replied to what they thought you were saying, and then you took that the wrong way and replied to what you thought they were saying, and the whole thing spiraled until a certain commenter with attention problems (me) skimmed over the whole thing and assumed you were just a trumpet being defensive.
Do you not understand that you cited only two events, and both of them occurred during the Trump administration…?
I’m actually at a loss for words, because if you don’t grasp how your comment is explicitly stating Trump is to blame, I don’t know what else to tell you.
You said the escalatory actions were the Abraham accords, and moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
I just pointed those were both actions taken by the Trump administration.
So what requires a historical account? Do you mean you just want to site random historical events with no context, and if anyone points out when they happened, that’s somehow a bad faith argument, or an unfair standard to apply…?
Oh my God… Did you really just read those “trigger events” in some article, have no idea what they actually were, or when they happened, but still decided to cite them in support of your argument…?
No one said it was Trump. The US has been giving financial aid to Israel for over 50 years. You are misinformed because you believe Trump will fix it. News flash he was already president and he didn’t fix shit.
…what? You just said Abraham accords are the reason for this conflict… That’s the same as saying Trump is to blame…
And just because I’m rightfully assigning blame to Biden, the current sitting US president and self-proclaimed biggest support of Israel, doesn’t mean I support Trump.
Feel free to creep on all of my comment history, my political leanings should be pretty self-evident.
Don’t you feel gross telling people that if they say Biden’s policies have allowed the situation to get out of control, it means they support Trump?
I mean, you do understand that ultimately Israel is our client state and entirely dependent upon our aid for their survival, right?
They literally could not be prosecuting this war if we stopped shipping them weapons, and they would never have attacked Iran if we didn’t have our CSG and accompanying missile destroyers sitting in between them.
Me: post factual events
You:
Me: Who are you arguing with here? It isn’t me.
I said they were escalations in the conflict
Not saying that the situation is good.
Only one candidate is going to make this worse for Palestine, as a political favor. Recognition of the annexed West Bank.
https://forward.com/fast-forward/618034/miriam-adelson-funding-trump-israel/
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Did I call you a Trump voter?
Is Biden running for reelection?
So you honestly think that Israel thinks that they’re the client state?
AIPAC owns the majority of the House and Senate.
Even if Biden stopped aid, there’s enough votes to override the veto.
Think critically and not with regurgitated talking points.
Here’s an article from 12 years ago that is still relevant:
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/america-israel-aipac-and-iran-the-client-state-factor/254103/
No, you just did whataboutism.
Which is why I separated my other commentary, and addressed it in general, and not directly at you.
Because while it’s related to your comment, you hadn’t crossed that bridge yet, but there’s no shortage of that in these comments, read up and down.
Israel knows their client state, including the IDF and political leadership. Do you even read Israeli newspapers regularly?
I’m well aware of AIPAC, and the extent of their lobbying and influence operations.
None of that has anything to do with what I’ve been talking about.
It absolutely does, Biden is a Zionist.
He is a proud and open one.
Could he cut off lethal aid? Absolutely!
But what would that accomplish?
First, Israel has access to several “emergency” supply caches in the area (that we actively replenish).
Secondly, any aid we cut off, say in March 2024 when it was overly clear what Israel was doing, they would still not be close to emptying their stockpile.
Thirdly, AIPAC would galvanize congress, the media, and then they would be shoveling aid to Israel and overriding Biden’s veto.
Fourthly, the US doesn’t have a monopoly on weapons export. I guarantee that other countries who are antagonist towards the US would step hand over fist to supply Israel with everything they need – or worse – because it weakens the US.
That isn’t hyperbole. It’s geopolitics.
So what’s worse?
A rogue client state that is itching to attack Iran and start wwIII with shout 50% of Congress in a death cult which requires Israel to exist to be destroyed so that sky lord can come and save them.
Or India getting a free field test of their armament?
One of those two options feeds the military industrial complex and the economy by extension. The other makes Pakistan enter the conflict. Now you have a regional war.
None of these things are good. But calling your congressman is a better use of your energy than yelling at idiots on Lemmy.
Signed - a fellow idiot.
Just so we’re clear, your position is that Biden is at fault, but if he wasn’t supporting this genocide, it would actually be worse?
It’s late, and I’m watching the fights, so I don’t have my full attention to spare, but I had enough available to read your comment and see that that you’re being earnest in your argument, and your analysis is not disingenuous.
That’s important to me, because while it’s really bad, it also means that you’re probably not a bad person.
For starters, it’s all counterfactuals, and while that alone means it’s a just barrel of formal and informal fallacies, it’s also based on deeply flawed, or just grossly uneducated, misunderstandings of a wide range of fields, ranging from international relations, to military procurement and sustainment.
I’m not trying to be mean, and to be fair, I have an academic background in multiple fields related to these subjects, so I’m not pulling my criticism out of my ass.
But another fight is about to start, so my text to speech comment must end.
The TLDR is that bad people are bad and will be bad regardless of who they buy thier weapons from.
It’s beyond shitty and I am totally against it.
Unfortunately, at least if we’re selling the weapons, we have at least some say in how their used.
All of this is against the Arms Export Control Act. We are literally ignoring the law by continuing to ship these weapons. Congress has turned a blind eye to all of it. Largely due to the threat of being primaried by a pro-AIPAC candidate. We have already seen it repeatedly during the Democrat primary where the progressive anti-genocide incumbents were replaced by Zionist representatives, or at least people willing to look the other way for the big check.
Multiple states have laws against protesting Israel that if you want to do business with the state, you have to support Israel. So much for freedom of speech.
The only solace I have is that the person Kamala Harris has tapped for Secretary of State was a huge proponent of the Iran deal and that we might possibly have some cooler heads if she wins vs this death cult. I can’t say that it will be peace, but at least she won’t be putting up a Trump tower on the West Bank…
Here is a playlist from a channel with a better handle on foreign policy than I’ll ever have.
They cover multiple topics, including some of the points that I have raised. Obviously it’s unlikely to change your position, but at least you’ll have insight into how things are. Foreign policy isn’t about morals or right from wrong. It’s about power.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZOMlO2_17fsBGC7TrCwoFafQZbE6aj0P&si=eYX1XvPa0xsSWceD
Point the rest of us to where anyone in this thread said that Trump’s actions started the Israel conflict rather than just escalating what was already going on.
It’s like three or four comments up, did you even look?
Or does your extensive knowledge of Middle Eastern history not extend back that far?
In case you’re still confused, both of those actions were taken by the Trump administration, and it was the sole content of that comment.
Bruh. You seem to have not read my comment or the one you just quoted. The quote is not claiming that Trump started the conflict. That quote is stating that he escalated it. Try again, but make sure you look up the difference between “start” and “escalate” before you do.
Removed by mod
I just looked it over again, and it looks like I just walked into a big comment minefield here. Your first comment in the thread is a bit of a mess, someone took it the wrong way and replied to what they thought you were saying, and then you took that the wrong way and replied to what you thought they were saying, and the whole thing spiraled until a certain commenter with attention problems (me) skimmed over the whole thing and assumed you were just a trumpet being defensive.
I wrote:
Are you seriously claiming I said Trump started the conflict? What does the word “escalation” mean to you?
Do you not understand that you cited only two events, and both of them occurred during the Trump administration…?
I’m actually at a loss for words, because if you don’t grasp how your comment is explicitly stating Trump is to blame, I don’t know what else to tell you.
Such a standard would require every response to include a whole historical account.
No… what are you talking about?
You said the escalatory actions were the Abraham accords, and moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
I just pointed those were both actions taken by the Trump administration.
So what requires a historical account? Do you mean you just want to site random historical events with no context, and if anyone points out when they happened, that’s somehow a bad faith argument, or an unfair standard to apply…?
Oh my God… Did you really just read those “trigger events” in some article, have no idea what they actually were, or when they happened, but still decided to cite them in support of your argument…?