this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
223 points (93.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4099 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
 

Senator Rand Paul has faced criticism for previously trying to block funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system following Hamas' attack against Israel over the weekend.

Hamas fired rockets at Israel while dozens of fighters infiltrated the border by air, land and sea in areas near the Gaza Strip on Saturday morning. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a televised address on Saturday that Israel was now at war, launching its own attacks against Hamas in Gaza.

As of Monday afternoon, 900 people have been killed in Israel and 493 killed in Gaza, according to the Associated Press, with thousands injured on both sides.

United States leaders pledged support for Israel. Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, was one of many lawmakers to share a statement of support.

"My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Israel. These horrific and violent acts of terrorism should be universally condemned," Paul wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

Critics, however, quickly noted that Paul has previously sought to block funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system. The Iron Dome is Israel's missile defense system that is capable of defending the country against short-range rockets. The U.S., which has provided billions of dollars to Israel, has also provided funding for the defense system.

Paul in 2021 raised concerns about legislation that would allocate $1 billion to Israel for the Iron Dome which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. He blocked the Senate from casting a quick vote on the funding, instead suggesting the Iron Dome funding should have come from an aid package already approved for Afghanistan, Politico reported at the time.

He ultimately blocked the funding four times, but it later passed in 2022 after months of delays.

Paul has never opposed funding the Iron Dome and has maintained support for Israel. Still, his critics drew attention to his blocking the funding following his statement over the weekend.

Newsweek reached out to Senator Paul's office via email for comment.

"You literally tried your best to withhold aid for the Iron Dome," wrote attorney Bradley P. Moss on X, formerly Twitter.

"Rand Paul may just want to sit this one out. Paul blocked funding for Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defensive shield for several months. (It was eventually passed in an omnibus bill in March of 2022)," Georgetown University Professor Don Moynihan posted on X.

While some social media users were critical of his record on Iron Dome funding, others defended him, arguing that his concerns about funding for the defense system can coexist with his support for Israel.

Paul, who has embraced a largely libertarian stance on foreign policy, has joined most other U.S. politicians in being a strong supporter of Israel. He sought to block the funding not out of opposition to Iron Dome funding but due to concerns about the price, he said at the time.

"Both of these sentiments can co exist," posted X user Jessica Lubien.

"It's not the USA's business to provide "aid" to other Countries," wrote @mail_american.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mammal@lemmy.world 84 points 1 year ago (12 children)

I don't like the guy either, but why is it controversial to expect a country to pay for their own defense?

Heck, as I remember it the issue wasn't even to build the thing. It was mainly funding to replace ammunition.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 33 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If he were to actually stand by his principles, he wouldn't be pledging to stand by them now. It's the hypocrisy being called out here.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago

Weak strategy. No Republican has ever lost a career over being outed as a hypocrite.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Exusia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's probably man reasons, however Israel trades a lot of weapons and combat data about the Dome and other systems to the US.

They're like the US's testing grounds for experimental stuff now, because it's not actively at war. Give the Israeli special forces an experimental rifle, see how it does in actual combat against Hamas, get data. That's how the iron dome has gotten so effective, the US defense firms are the ones tweaking it with actual intercepts, not tests that don't account for all variables.

[–] Assman@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Dead people can't buy F35s

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 66 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I find it a bit absurd how quickly Republicans like McCarthy have stumbled over themselves to basically write a blank check to Israel while simultaneously playing hardball with Ukraine who arguably is fighting the more "just" war.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Why do they prefer Israel to Ukraine?

Is it because trump was such a Putin fan?

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

They're mostly Christians and Christians need isreal to be Israeli or the end days can't happen. No joke, it's quite literally why Israel exists.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Zionism is one hell of a drug.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You sure it wasn’t to have a place to put all the Jews after WW2?

As a military asset though it’s good to have an ally in that location and it is one of the better options

The added bonus that Islam has been made out to be America’s enemy

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Quite sure.

Convenient ≠ moral.

It always was, Islam in America is a very rough story.

[–] UristMcHolland@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Israel is a military asset

[–] elderflower@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Insane it's controversial to expect that other countries pay for their own defense.

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 27 points 1 year ago (7 children)

It's insane to not call out the hypocrisy of refusing to assist an ally, and then when they get hit turn around and pledge undying support.

Rand Paul is a con artist just like his father.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Very weird take.

Giving defensive capabilities to your allies is a way of projecting force. It's a way of protecting yourself, by maintaining powerful allies that will stand with you, distract your enemies, and all these things. That kind of spending is not fundamentally different than any other military spending, so unless you're against any kind of military spending -- a totally reasonable stance -- I don't see why this is viewed as such a negative thing.

We've crippled the military capacity of one of the US's major adversaries by giving less than a percent of our military spending to Ukraine over the last year without risking American lives. That's a bargain, any way you cut it.

The question should be return on investment, not just Trump-style "WHY DON'T THEY PAY FOR THEMSELVES?! CURIOUS!". Are we getting defensively beneficial returns from supplying Israel with tech like this or not? I'm very skeptical that a well-armed Israel makes the US safer, but that's a totally, totally, totally different question from 'why don't they pay for themselves'.

[–] whatupwiththat@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

This is "Big Picture Thinking" something the GOP Never does...unless its against minorities...

[–] Maeve@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Always enough for war, never enough for the poor.

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

Russia has a nuclear arsenal that can flatten all US and European cities. Comparing Russia to Hamas is silly. Hamas can not threaten anybody they aren't immediately adjacent to. Hamas is not a threat to US/Europe more than, say, Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka or PKK in Turkey are/were.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So your claim is that the defense projects the US funds in Israel exclusively for their conflict with Hamas and nothing else? That we should somehow de-fund that particular conflict while paying for its defense versus more globally-threatening adversaries like Iran? And somehow that will work?

Or maybe that Israel is a worthless ally to the US in the region so we shouldn't care if they get wiped off the map?

Or is the claim that Israel doesn't need the US's aid, it will be just fine without it and breaking off that defense relationship will have no negative impacts on the US?

Any way you cut it, your sentiment of 'countries should pay for only their own defense' doesn't make sense. Those defensive packages are an investment that is seen as having returns. They are intended to promote security and prosperity both for the one receiving AND the one sending. It's reasonable to debate on whether the juice is worth the squeeze, but you were rejecting the very premise that you should squeeze if you want juice.

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

defense versus more globally-threatening adversaries like Iran?

If US/Europe withdraw entirely from Middle East, there would be no reason to be afraid of Iran. Iran never carried out hostile actions against Western nationals, companies or forces outside the territory/coastal waters of Iran or its allies. Conversely, Westerners shot down Iranian airliners full of innocent people (Iran Air Flight 655). I dislike theocratic regimes of all kinds, but the West has been constantly belligerent vis-a-vis Iran (most recently by imposing sanctions on Iran after US explicitly said they'd lift them if Iran stopped their nuclear programme, which IAEA said they were compliant with) They are an evil dictatorship, but they are harmful to themselves.

Or maybe that Israel is a worthless ally to the US in the region so we shouldn't care if they get wiped off the map?

The premise that the strongest military in the Middle East will be wiped off if they don't receive US money is absurd.

Or is the claim that Israel doesn't need the US's aid, it will be just fine without it and breaking off that defense relationship will have no negative impacts on the US?

US has gained NOTHING from allying with Israel. Israel does not fight any entity or state that threatens the US homeland. Israelis bombed US ships (USS Liberty). Israelis were caught spying on the US government and selling US secrets countless times. Meanwhile US got involved in countless wars in the Middle East for Israel and received zilch back. A worse relationship with Israel would be a huge win for the US.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You aren't responding to the premise.

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

On the contrary, I addressed the central point. Your argument is that it's cheaper to supply allies than fight a ground war yourself, guess that's true and does apply to Ukraine because the adversary there is a credible threat to the West.

In the case of Israel, I contend that the savings are there only in the sense that you "save" $200 if you go and buy a $1000 TV you don't need that's $200 off, but if you never bought the TV in the first place you'd be $800 better off.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That wasn't my central point. It's something from an example I used as a throwaway in a post that was very crystal clear in its premise.

You're making the argument you want to make. May as well just be talking to yourself.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 15 points 1 year ago

Every time I read about Rand Paul I realize how sane his next door neighbor is.

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Russian asset, all that needs to be said. (Well, aside from “lock him up!”)

[–] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Quick, blame Fauci! It works for everything else! Right, Brillo-head?

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Hamas fired rockets at Israel while dozens of fighters infiltrated the border by air, land and sea in areas near the Gaza Strip on Saturday morning.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during a televised address on Saturday that Israel was now at war, launching its own attacks against Hamas in Gaza.

Critics, however, quickly noted that Paul has previously sought to block funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system.

The Iron Dome is Israel's missile defense system that is capable of defending the country against short-range rockets.

Paul in 2021 raised concerns about legislation that would allocate $1 billion to Israel for the Iron Dome which was supported by both Democrats and Republicans.

Paul, who has embraced a largely libertarian stance on foreign policy, has joined most other U.S. politicians in being a strong supporter of Israel.


The original article contains 500 words, the summary contains 138 words. Saved 72%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Zellith@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this the same Iron Dome that the US funded and then Israel refused to share with its funder? Or am I misremembering history a bit there?

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

You're entirely mistaken. I think your misremembering because they wouldn't provide it to Ukraine, and for good reason: the risk of it being captured and then sent over to Iran, would be a critical and catastrophic blow. It would allow them to engineer newer missiles and rocket artillery to evade Iron Dome interceptors.