326

In her first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris told CNN it was imperative to reach a ceasefire deal in Gaza, but made it clear that she would not alter President Joe Biden’s policy in the region.

However, when pressed on whether she would stop sending weapons to Israel she told Bash, “No, we have to get a deal done, Dana. We have to get a deal done.”

“Adopting an arms embargo against Israel’s assault on Gaza is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic move to defeat Trump and MAGA extremism. It is difficult for the Democratic candidate to champion democracy while arming Netanyahu’s authoritarian regime” reads a recent letter to Harris from the coalition Not Another Bomb.

Recent polling has repeatedly demonstrated that Democratic voters overwhelmingly support the conditioning of U.S. military aid. A Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) survey from March found that 52% of Americans want the U.S. to halt weapons shipments to Israel in order to force a ceasefire. 62% of Biden voters said “The US should stop weapons shipments to Israel until Israel discontinues its attacks on the people of Gaza,” while only 14% disagreed with the statement.

The numbers from a June CBS News poll were even higher, with more than 60% of all voters and almost 80% of Democrats saying the U.S. shouldn’t send Israel weapons.

“The real question should have been, ‘When are you going to start enforcing U.S. law as it relates to arms shipments’ because what we are doing right now, with this United States policy, is in violation of not just international law, but also of American law, “said the Arab Center’s Yousef Munayyer in an interview with Democracy Now in response to the CNN segment. “Vice-President Harris made it clear in other parts of her interview that she wants to be a prosecutor. She wants to enforce the law, but Israel is clearly getting an exception from the Harris campaign.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I mean, if it was any other ally surrounded by countries that hate them, I'd understand this policy. If Israel wasn't lead by a dickhead and their regime, I'd understand this policy. They literally only exist as a country with our support.

But as is stands now, it's a carrot we should use to leverage peace and, in an ideal world, push for a better coexistence with people they've historically shit on. Giving it away for 'free' makes little sense aside from fear of losing their support and by extension, the election.

If we didn't have foreign money, or PACs in general, would this be different? I would imagine it would be, if we could just fix that shitty system.

this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
326 points (100.0% liked)

World News

32500 readers
566 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS