this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2023
242 points (93.5% liked)

worldnews

4836 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.

  2. No racism or bigotry.

  3. Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.

  4. Post titles should be the same as the article title.

  5. No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.

Instance-wide rules always apply.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Jaytreeman@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 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 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 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

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"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 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago

Really? That's the best you can do?

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

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

[–] boredtortoise@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

The USA is Israel's proxy