- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
President Biden told Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a call on Saturday that the U.S. won’t support any Israeli counterattack against Iran, a senior White House official told Axios.
America is already involved …
Without the billions of dollars we give them, and the military support of putting troopa and ships right off the coast, Israel never would have attacked Iran to begin with.
But even if that wasn’t true, Biden has a horrible record of not assisting with Israels genocides.
As it says, counterattack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/middleeast/iran-israel-damascus-strike.html
What Iran just did was the counterattack.
Will it do any good to attempt to explain it again? Or the fact that grammatically there was an attack last night, so a response to that would be a counterattack? Probably not.
Let’s just call it the counter-counterattck
So by your logic, every act of aggression involving Israel…
Has been a counterattack for foreign governments seizing land from natives and giving it to a religious group to found Israel?
Gotta say, never thought I’d agree with you. But yeah, that’s accurate.
Attack. Counterattack. It’s really very simple, and it doesn’t matter where in the world it happens.
I think they just mistakenly believe that the conflict that’s been going on for 40 years started last week.
I’ve been seeing that a lot lately.
In my experience in the US at least, most of the people I interact with seem to believe Israel has always been it’s own sovereign nation, and the only conflicts that have arisen have been started by others.
Also Current
genocide“defensive attacks” againstGaza civilians“hamas” also totally just started this past year, definitely not an ongoing extermination.
Yep, it should have said counter-counter-attack to Iran. Btw attack on Iran after attack on Lebanon after genocide in Gaza is ok, Biden approves.
Removed by mod
I believe that when Biden says he won’t put US troops into harm’s way he means it.
Just ignore them, it’s a troll account.
Maybe, maybe not, either way they’re right
You’re correct that the messenger does not change the truth of the message, but in this particular instance, they’re also simply incorrect irrelevant of their sincerity. They say that no one believes a thing and they got downvoted. That itself shows that in all likelihood most people who have seen the comment disagree, suggesting that at least some believe it. The only way to defend the statement is to try to argue that those people don’t count, which would be special pleading.
He also meant when he said Palestinian deaths were unacceptable but then he let 20,000 extra ones die before making the ultimatum to Netanyahu that his advisors and supporters asked him to do 5 months ago.
He also said “30,000 Palestinians are dead, we cannot let it be 60,000” but watch by the end of the summer when Famine sets in and Joe has nothing but disapproving press releases.
I believe it. Biden has been publicly fed up with Israel’s shit for a while now. I predicted this exact response yesterday.
So fed up he’ll conveniently drop a few more billion dollars of ammunition on Israel’s shores
Removed by mod
OMG you’re that 2 day old account that said NATO wants war.
GO outside and touch some grass. Why do I even bother.
Edit: just incase anyone is actually wondering, the way U.S. Treaties work means Biden is essentially legally obligated to continue providing aid until he is legally forbidden from doing so. The president does not have full control of foreign policy; although the president has some capacity to act independently, they are still bound by the will of congress.
That’s being intentionally misleading. Biden bypassed Congress twice to give Israel more weapons. That’s not something he was obligated to do, and proof he is NOT “bound by the will of Congress.”
As Bernie Sanders and other senators have pointed out, US law says arms transfers must stop if we have a credible concern the weapons are used for war crimes or if the receiving country is actively blocking US aid. Both of those things are happening but Biden is claiming he hasn’t seen any of this so he won’t enforce the actual laws and treaties on the books.
Biden’s hands are not tied like you’re pretending they are.
intentionally misleading
Even if I am wrong, which is certainly possible, it is uncharitable of you to say that I’m being dishonest.
Biden bypassed Congress twice to give Israel more weapons.
I’m not terribly surprised to learn about that; early on, he was very supportive of Israel, and publicly appeared to view the situation differently than he appears to do so now. As such, when this happened is extremely important: if it was prior to the State of the Union Address, then it’s absolutely irrelevant to my evaluation of his current motivation and my prediction of his potential actions.
US law says arms transfers must stop if we have a credible concern the weapons are used for war crimes
Yes, I’m aware. As I state in another comment, my hope is that his current trend of escalating criticism is an effort to maneuver himself and the majority of congress into a position where he cut off aid without political backlash against his position by congress or against the united states from their allies. Time will tell if this is a show or if he’s sincere.
it is uncharitable of you to say that I’m being dishonest
Because you insist that Biden is not the one ordering weapons shipments and that he is bound by law to do so, and when I give evidence that the law says otherwise you say “yes I am aware.”
And yes, Biden bypassed Congress twice in December and then approved another last month. He doesn’t even do that for Ukraine.
The honest thing to do would be to acknowledge the mistake and withdraw your claim.
So you knew I was dishonest because of the content of the reply I gave when you said I was dishonest? 🤨
Sounds legit. Every part of your comment is without flaw. I’m sure you read all of mine; it’s the perfect response.
People keep saying that. But I have read those treaties.
QME is so vaguely defined that it’s essentially useless
The treaties were enshrined in law, which is more specific. For example:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $3,300,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel which shall be disbursed within 30 days of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel under this heading shall, as agreed by the United States and Israel, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less than $815,300,000 shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles
We are also deliberately ignoring the war crimes they are committing so that we can still supply them
Removed by mod
Great news. Hopefully that means if Israel does it anyway they will pay a price too heavy to bear, and we can put the whole “escalate to cover our Gaza situation” thing to bed.
If you cheer on Iran’s strikes on Israel, remember that in addition to Jewish Israelis, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims & Christians could lose their lives in the attack. Iranian projectiles endanger Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus, Amman, Lebanon, Syria & Iraq. War’s not an online game
remember that in addition to Jewish Israelis, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims & Christians could lose their lives in the attack.
Why would I care about them more?
Iranian projectiles endanger Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus, Amman, Lebanon, Syria & Iraq.
As do Israeli ones. And of course these are all rounding errors compared to what else is happening in Gaza.
I find it truly amusing when the Ceasefire Now crowd celebrates future attacks.
Isreal doesn’t fly many air to ground missles. They use airplanes.
Im really curious as to what you think comes out of those airplanes. Maybe flowers? Love letters?
You see. I remark that missiles have landed in a lot of places putting a lot of different people in jeopardy. The response is “Isreal does too”. Then i inform that Israel doesn’t fly missiles. Comprende
I don’t comprehend. Can you explain?
Read each from the top and when you get here I’ll explain it again
I was not celebrating future warfare. I was hoping to avoid it, and you or anyone else can read it.
“Hopefully that means if Israel does it anyway they will pay a price too heavy to bear,”
That wasn’t you huh.
Even if we’re lying by omission of context,
if Israel does it anyway
What does that even mean?
Some retaliation seems necessary. Unless someone hits back the israeli bullying will continue. Bidens refusal to tell israel to stop trying to start WW3 is what got us here to begin with.
The Iranian strikes were targeted on israeli air bases. Ironically one person that was critically injured was a Palestinian girl hit by the shrapnel of an interception.
While sad, the Iranian attack did achieve its goals. Create an expensive interception barrage for israel while not resulting in major escalation.
Provided Israel doesn’t say fuck it, we’re going nuclear.
I don’t see Iran going so hard that’s on the table. The last strike was beautifully calibrated to re-establish deterrence while doing little politically useful damage, for example.
The real goal here for Israel is to bolster Netanyahu’s hold on power. Iran would just have to hit back hard enough it makes his situation worse, not better, and they could safely do that without the US umbrella. Of course, it all depends on what “won’t support” means. Time for me to read the article.
Edit: Still not clear.
Other articles I’ve seen were worded differently. They were clear we won’t attack Iran
Who are “they” and “we” in this context?
We - Americans. They Israel
Yeah, that’s what I worry about. Usually when it comes to the US on Israel “wouldn’t support” means “would silently disapprove”.I have seen nothing to suggest we will cut aid or weapons. Just we won’t directly attack Iran.
I’m pro-Israel but the best way to end the escalation is to stop sending weapons at this point. I don’t see Iran attacking again unless Israel counter attacks.
We need to say stop it and make it clear, you counter attack and we cut aid.
Iran cannot invade Israel. Israel cannot invade Iran. Israel attacked a consulate. They started this and we can stop it
I thought that said “weren’t” for whatever reason. Yeah, that’s good then.
I’m not sure other pro-Israel people would call that pro-Israel, but I agree.
Allergies. It’s possible there are some typos. My eyes are on fire. Pro-Israel doesn’t mean pro-escalation when they act poorly. We have rules to how the world works and they violated those by attacking the consulate. Now they are trying to escalate a conflict with Iran.
We don’t need a war in the Middle East right now. We can reduce that by reducing aid.
American has become so partisan. You can support something but still have a redline.
Give us the facts then and skip the journos opinions
Good. Next he needs to hold Israel accountable to the International law agreement for the weapons the US has provided.
My hope is that he’s building up to that. The continued escalation in criticism suggests that’s what he’s doing; immediately cutting off aid will signal to other allies that he’s capricious and having an insufficient legal justification will open him up to impeachment and removal. Of course, it could all be show for the base.
No one actually believes that. This coming from the same guy that says ceasefire while they replenish weapons and draft an additional aid package.
Why would Netanyahu believe him? I certainly don’t. Slaughtering tens of thousands of people has gotten the same kind of “warnings” followed by billions more in lethal aid.
right? this is just their PR talking.
So they won’t be warming up the 52’s on Diego Garcia.
