7 ms·

> reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians Um. What? Biden'

> reporting suggests that Biden's team has been the only thing between the current situation and abyss that would kill 3-5x as many civilians Um. What? Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times. Biden's team has delivered how many billions of dollars of weapons in the last 8 months? Biden's team has consistently and repeatedly lied in front of the whole world, saying that they see "no evidence" of genocide. This, during the most documented mass murder in all history. This, despite clear and unequivocal genocidal statements from Israeli leadership, media, and populace. How many people have resigned from his team now, saying they can't have this much Palestinian blood on their hands any more? To claim that Biden has prevented deaths in the last 8 months is breathtaking. At every juncture he and the team he still has have been complicit.

tptacek 2y ago
What's your point? I agree with some of this but disagree with most of it, but either way, it doesn't intersect with anything I wrote.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  You seem to be saying in your above comment that Biden's only possible choice is to appease Israel to hopefully get some humanitarian concessions from them. This is probably true due to the reality of American domestic politics, but if we ignore that then other choices are obvious. Treat Israel as we once treated South Africa. Force regime change by isolating them.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Yes, that is what I am saying. Cutting off arms sales to Israel will not prevent a supply blockade of Gaza or a Rafah invasion, both of which are issues that the US has publicly campaigned on --- we don't know what other red lines the US has set up, or how much worse this could yet become. Contrary to popular belief, it's not at all clear that Israel is dependent on the US militarily; we're a small part of their defense budget. I think domestic politics are certainly a factor, but not a big one in an ICC case, because Americans, to a first approximation, do not give a shit about the ICC; further, we aren't a party to the ICC, so it's not as if the administration is being asked to do something or help adjudicate. I want to say again that I think this particular case is well-founded. But an ICC warrant against the leader of a non-signatory is fundamentally a political act, and while I don't take issue with the stated intent of that act, I don't get the theory of change behind it. I put it to you directly: what good comes of this while Netanyahu remains in power?
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      > Yes, that is what I am saying. Cutting off arms sales to Israel will not prevent a supply blockade of Gaza or a Rafah invasion It would if Israel has any sense of self preservation at all. They need the support of the American government more than they need Gazan land.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I think that's unlikely to be true. I think it's a self-serving western myth that Israel, with one of the largest economies and the best trained and resourced military in the region (see the Arab States performance vs. the IRGC in Syria and Yemen for counterexamples) is a US-dependent proxy. The west tried to ice Russia out of supplies for the Ukranian invasion, and that didn't work despite near-unanimity. Israel will just buy bombs from China, which is their next largest trading partner after us. We will lose all influence over Israeli policy, at least until [insert US partisan political argument here]. (I also think it's not at all clear that serious policymakers in Israel "want Gazan land", let alone need it; the messianic nutballs bolstering Netanyahu's coalition are, to put it mildly, not representative of mainstream Israel policy thinking.) A reminder that we're just talking about this stuff here; this is HN, not the UN Security Council. If we're going to have threads like this here, we're going to have to accept that we're having curious conversations, not high-stakes deliberations. So: I can be wrong about all of this stuff, and I'm glad to hear why. But we're not going to solve Israel/Gaza on a thread. (You didn't say anything to prompt that disclaimer, it's just a stress reaction from previous threads).
        bawolff 2y ago
        > Israel will just buy bombs from China Or just make them themselves. That seems fully within their capabilities if push comes to shove. After all, we are talking about bombs not fighter jets.
        Karrot_Kream 2y ago
        I think the biggest thing the US is doing for Israel is discouraging regional actors from getting involved. If the US took no position here either way, the conflict would probably turn into a proxy war pretty quickly. Whether you think that's good or not depends on your viewpoint. I personally prefer that the states in the area, even if they don't necessarily directly represent the Palestinians, negotiate the conflict because they have to deal with the fallout on their own borders/politics. Being able to purchase weapons from the US also gives them significant political latitude internally. When a significant amount of your economy and government spending goes to making weapons, you're going to affect domestic budgets, which will make coalition building much harder especially in a country with as many small parties as Israel. We see this in Russia as well but because Russia is not democratic when it comes to defense allocation, it simply throws its dissidents in jail or encourages them to leave.
- mandmandam 2y ago
  I honestly have no idea how you're not seeing the point. I quoted your text and responded to it. Which of the facts I stated do you disagree with? I'm sure I can find you a source for any of them.
  - adw 2y ago
    I believe that 'tptacek's point could be summarized as "the facts are, in a real sense, not material to this conversation, as we are operating entirely with the domain of realpolitik rather than morality". Biden, in _theory_, could say to Israel that "continued arms supplies are contingent on surrendering Netanyahu and Gallant to The Hague immediately", but a) it's not at all clear that that would work, b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the situation on the ground in Gaza even worse, and c) it would come with serious domestic political repercussions in an election year. I hate all of that too, and it doesn't speak well of us as a society or species, but what _should_ happen and what _would_ happen are two very different things.
    - mandmandam 2y ago
      > tptacek's point could be summarized as "the facts are, in a real sense, not material to this conversation Tptacek is demonstrating this well by editing the part of the comment I quoted, then acting confused. However, I don't subscribe to the idea that facts are not material to discussions involving claims of fact. The claim Biden is preventing deaths in Gaza while sending the bombs that are killing them and vetoing ceasefire resolutions left right and center, even against the will of his own voters, would require stronger evidence than has been provided. Also, international law, including the Genocide Convention, is binding on all signatory states. 'Realpolitik' is not a defense for complicity in genocide. However, let's look at your abc points, ignoring international law for the moment: a) it's not at all clear that that would work We've skipped past the issue, which is that we shouldn't be sending arms at all at this point. We also have other leverage which hasn't been used yet - sanctions, trade restrictions, etc. b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the situation on the ground in Gaza even worse This has merit - Israel did threaten to use more unguided bombs if the arms flow stopped. Too bad Biden's people vetoed the UN ceasefire resolutions three times, against the will of basically the entire planet. What about the realpolitik of that loss in our global standing? c) it would come with serious domestic political repercussions in an election year. Believe it or not, and despite tptacek's claims above that most people don't care, polls in fact show that significantly more registered Democrats disapprove of Biden's handling of the situation in Gaza (sending arms) than approve, and that this is affecting their vote [0]. > "This issue is a stone-cold loser for Biden," said Douglas Schoen, a pollster and strategist who reviewed the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. "He's losing votes from the left, right and center." 0 - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-divide-gaza-war-campus-protests-hurting-biden-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-05-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-divide-gaza-war-...
dralley 2y ago
>Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times. "Calls for ceasefire" that didn't include "calls to release the hostages", to say nothing of the fact that Hamas leadership had already been shouting they would "repeat October 7th again and again until the final destruction of Israel" and so on.
ronjobber 2y ago
I think this here is what Hilary Clinton was talking about recently... she got panned in the media for it, but I'm pretty sure she was right (and I'm by no means a fan).

tptacek 2y ago

What's your point? I agree with some of this but disagree with most of it, but either way, it doesn't intersect with anything I wrote.

lupusreal 2y ago
You seem to be saying in your above comment that Biden's only possible choice is to appease Israel to hopefully get some humanitarian concessions from them. This is probably true due to the reality of American domestic politics, but if we ignore that then other choices are obvious. Treat Israel as we once treated South Africa. Force regime change by isolating them.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Yes, that is what I am saying. Cutting off arms sales to Israel will not prevent a supply blockade of Gaza or a Rafah invasion, both of which are issues that the US has publicly campaigned on --- we don't know what other red lines the US has set up, or how much worse this could yet become. Contrary to popular belief, it's not at all clear that Israel is dependent on the US militarily; we're a small part of their defense budget. I think domestic politics are certainly a factor, but not a big one in an ICC case, because Americans, to a first approximation, do not give a shit about the ICC; further, we aren't a party to the ICC, so it's not as if the administration is being asked to do something or help adjudicate. I want to say again that I think this particular case is well-founded. But an ICC warrant against the leader of a non-signatory is fundamentally a political act, and while I don't take issue with the stated intent of that act, I don't get the theory of change behind it. I put it to you directly: what good comes of this while Netanyahu remains in power?
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    > Yes, that is what I am saying. Cutting off arms sales to Israel will not prevent a supply blockade of Gaza or a Rafah invasion It would if Israel has any sense of self preservation at all. They need the support of the American government more than they need Gazan land.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I think that's unlikely to be true. I think it's a self-serving western myth that Israel, with one of the largest economies and the best trained and resourced military in the region (see the Arab States performance vs. the IRGC in Syria and Yemen for counterexamples) is a US-dependent proxy. The west tried to ice Russia out of supplies for the Ukranian invasion, and that didn't work despite near-unanimity. Israel will just buy bombs from China, which is their next largest trading partner after us. We will lose all influence over Israeli policy, at least until [insert US partisan political argument here]. (I also think it's not at all clear that serious policymakers in Israel "want Gazan land", let alone need it; the messianic nutballs bolstering Netanyahu's coalition are, to put it mildly, not representative of mainstream Israel policy thinking.) A reminder that we're just talking about this stuff here; this is HN, not the UN Security Council. If we're going to have threads like this here, we're going to have to accept that we're having curious conversations, not high-stakes deliberations. So: I can be wrong about all of this stuff, and I'm glad to hear why. But we're not going to solve Israel/Gaza on a thread. (You didn't say anything to prompt that disclaimer, it's just a stress reaction from previous threads).
      - bawolff 2y ago
        > Israel will just buy bombs from China Or just make them themselves. That seems fully within their capabilities if push comes to shove. After all, we are talking about bombs not fighter jets.
      - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
        I think the biggest thing the US is doing for Israel is discouraging regional actors from getting involved. If the US took no position here either way, the conflict would probably turn into a proxy war pretty quickly. Whether you think that's good or not depends on your viewpoint. I personally prefer that the states in the area, even if they don't necessarily directly represent the Palestinians, negotiate the conflict because they have to deal with the fallout on their own borders/politics. Being able to purchase weapons from the US also gives them significant political latitude internally. When a significant amount of your economy and government spending goes to making weapons, you're going to affect domestic budgets, which will make coalition building much harder especially in a country with as many small parties as Israel. We see this in Russia as well but because Russia is not democratic when it comes to defense allocation, it simply throws its dissidents in jail or encourages them to leave.
mandmandam 2y ago
I honestly have no idea how you're not seeing the point. I quoted your text and responded to it. Which of the facts I stated do you disagree with? I'm sure I can find you a source for any of them.
- adw 2y ago
  I believe that 'tptacek's point could be summarized as "the facts are, in a real sense, not material to this conversation, as we are operating entirely with the domain of realpolitik rather than morality". Biden, in _theory_, could say to Israel that "continued arms supplies are contingent on surrendering Netanyahu and Gallant to The Hague immediately", but a) it's not at all clear that that would work, b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the situation on the ground in Gaza even worse, and c) it would come with serious domestic political repercussions in an election year. I hate all of that too, and it doesn't speak well of us as a society or species, but what _should_ happen and what _would_ happen are two very different things.
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > tptacek's point could be summarized as "the facts are, in a real sense, not material to this conversation Tptacek is demonstrating this well by editing the part of the comment I quoted, then acting confused. However, I don't subscribe to the idea that facts are not material to discussions involving claims of fact. The claim Biden is preventing deaths in Gaza while sending the bombs that are killing them and vetoing ceasefire resolutions left right and center, even against the will of his own voters, would require stronger evidence than has been provided. Also, international law, including the Genocide Convention, is binding on all signatory states. 'Realpolitik' is not a defense for complicity in genocide. However, let's look at your abc points, ignoring international law for the moment: a) it's not at all clear that that would work We've skipped past the issue, which is that we shouldn't be sending arms at all at this point. We also have other leverage which hasn't been used yet - sanctions, trade restrictions, etc. b) in the near term it probably causes Israel to make the situation on the ground in Gaza even worse This has merit - Israel did threaten to use more unguided bombs if the arms flow stopped. Too bad Biden's people vetoed the UN ceasefire resolutions three times, against the will of basically the entire planet. What about the realpolitik of that loss in our global standing? c) it would come with serious domestic political repercussions in an election year. Believe it or not, and despite tptacek's claims above that most people don't care, polls in fact show that significantly more registered Democrats disapprove of Biden's handling of the situation in Gaza (sending arms) than approve, and that this is affecting their vote [0]. > "This issue is a stone-cold loser for Biden," said Douglas Schoen, a pollster and strategist who reviewed the Reuters/Ipsos poll results. "He's losing votes from the left, right and center." 0 - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-divide-gaza-war-campus-protests-hurting-biden-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-05-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-divide-gaza-war-...

dralley 2y ago

>Biden's team vetoed UN calls for a ceasefire three times. "Calls for ceasefire" that didn't include "calls to release the hostages", to say nothing of the fact that Hamas leadership had already been shouting they would "repeat October 7th again and again until the final destruction of Israel" and so on.

ronjobber 2y ago

I think this here is what Hilary Clinton was talking about recently... she got panned in the media for it, but I'm pretty sure she was right (and I'm by no means a fan).