For the second time this month the Biden administration is bypassing Congress to approve an emergency weapons sale to Israel as Israel continues to prosecute its war against Hamas in Gaza under increasing international criticism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 99 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    My guess would be that there are many decades of existing treaties and legislation that allows the executive to do this for Israel. Ukraine's troubles are just under 2 years old

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The war in Ukraine started in 2014.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're absolutely right, and while the person you're responding to is wrong about the Ukraine timeline, they're pretty accurate regarding how far back the US relationship with Israel goes.

    A big part of it is probably the US being the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state in 1948, and there's just been a relatively close relationship between the two ever since.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Agreed. The thing is we’ve been supporting Ukraine for a while now- helping build up their military and supply against the Russian invasion.

    Sure it’s a blink in them eye compared to Israel, but then Israel is established extremely well defended. Remember how Trump held up aid meant for Ukraine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago*

    Oh I agree entirely, I wasn't meaning to sound as such. US government post the year 2000 has always seemed like its stuck in "old ways" of thinking. While Donald Rumsfeld moaned about "lack of imagination" and "unknown unknowns" in respect to 9/11, the reality is the US government and political class do lack imagination, and are largely stuck in routines set down in the 70s/80s/90s that aren't really compatible with the modern world.

    A re-assessment of our relationship with nations like Israel should have been done long ago, and if we're going to continue to be the biggest weapons producer in the world (which is something else I have issue with but is a whole screed of its own), the absolute very least the US could do is actually try to put weapons and training in the hands of people who really need it, who are at the mercy of despotic regimes trying to take over. Which in this instance would be Ukraine.

    Israel doesn't need those weapons, and it can easily be argued that Palestine does.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I was trying to provide an honest, helpful answer about the probable reason why the executive branch can take unilateral decisions about arms to Israel but not to Ukraine.

    The current arrangements for arms supplies to Ukraine go back 2 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The current arrangements for arms supplies to Ukraine go back 2 years.

    the current agreement with Israel doesn't even go back that far. Things change. We've been treating Ukraine as an important partner since at least the Obama administration. Bush Jr wanted them in NATO back in 2008. Nobody is contending that Israel has been an ally for longer. But Ukraine isn't exactly some rando, either. they're a key partner- and were, at least, an up-and-coming regional power house. a power house that Russia saw moving increasingly westward in it's political affiliations. (and Ukraine has historically been one of the world's largest grain suppliers. during the Soviet Era, they produced all the grain for the Soviet Union.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    The history lesson is great. But are you claiming that the treaties and procedures that allow the US executive to supply arms to Israel without congressional say-so and the procedures for supplying arms to Ukraine are the same?

    Because I’m saying that is unlikely- and largely accounts for the current disparity

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [+] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Your own link suggests a Maybe at best.

    The considerable natural resources in Ukraine’s energy sphere remain underexplored and underused today despite the fact that their use could spur economic growth..

    It then goes on to say it would cost about 20 Billion dollars to put in the infrastructure to even begin refining/piping the oil.

    Israel is already pumping and exporting oil. It's also already in bed with the US. From a corporate greed perspective, the choice is easy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    His link says yes, this is an intentionally incorrect response. Either that or you are an idiot speaking with confidence. But your description of Israel as a major oil producing state makes it pretty certain you are lying intentionally.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Israel is officially a US Ally, Ukraine is not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
  • [+] -13 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [+] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    The post above told you everything. Israel is an ally, Ukraine is not. To say that the distinction is merely semantic and not legally significant in every conceivable way shows a total lack of maturity and understanding of how the United States government operates, and how diplomacy and affairs of state are conducted. It's like something a little kid would say honestly.

    Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and as fucked up as it may sound in light of very recent events, Israel represents the only long term chance for hundreds of millions of people in the middle east for human rights. It's not unlike America: It is not the country or the people that are a danger to the world, it is greed and nationalism. What Israel's current government is doing in response to an unprecedented terror attack ks really a domestic issue, affecting a comparative handful of people as to what would be affected by an Iran-Israel war, which is absolutely what would happen if America hangs its ally out to dry, not to mention all the goodwill and credibility we'd lose with our other global partners.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    You're at the peak of Mt. Stupid.

    https://www.dsca.mil/foreign-military-sales-faq

    Do FMS Sales require Congressional Notification?

    Section 36 of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act requires Congressional notification for FMS or DCS sales expected to meet or exceed the following thresholds:

    For North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries, South Korea, Australia, Japan, Israel, and New Zealand: major defense equipment (MDE) of $25M or more; any defense articles or services of $100M or more; or design and construction services of $300M or more.

    For all other countries: MDE of $14M or more; any defense articles and services of $50M or more; or design and construction services of $200M or more.

    For North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries and organizations, South Korea, Australia, Japan, Israel, and New Zealand there is a 15-day statutory notification period.

    For all other countries there is a 30-day statutory notification period.

    Additional Resource: Arms Sales - Congressional Review Process

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    How is democratic genocidal government better than autocratic genocidal government? Wasn't Hitler democratically elected?

    Chance for human rights my ass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah is Iran going to be your mid east human rights beacon?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's the only democracy in the middle east. It's the best hope for government by the people in that entire part of the world. Your dismissiveness of this basic fact of US middle east policy reveals how shallow your knowledge is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If democracy commits genocide what's the benefit of it being a democracy? Please explain. Is it better for a journalist living in the middle east to be murderer by democratic government than autocratic one? Is he less dead?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Explain what? That the world is full of horror and injustice and sometimes choices are hard?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Explain how choosing genocide supports human rights. I you mean that by supporting Israel you're making sure you have a good place to store weapons and can murder people in the region say that. Talking about human rights beacons makes you sound silly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    liberal democracies are breeding grounds for fascism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    this is just a personal attack.

    please show me one fascist regime that has not arisen from a liberal democracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    When the only source for your argument is "because I said so", that makes the person who said it the only logical target for any rebuttal.

    While this person's statements aren't popular here because they're not in complete alignment and support of the Lemmy pro-Palestine position and they're upsetting the groupthink...they are also not incorrect, and nothing they've said actually supports the actions of the Israeli government or even really takes a position on the current fighting in any way. They're just explaining the diplomatic situation and how it informs US actions to other commenters who don't seem to have that perspective.

    If anything they said was wrong, by all means make that point...but so far all I've seen is them explaining a harsh and uncomfortable truth, those who don't want to hear it shooting the messenger, and then when they're sticking to their guns and restating their points, here you are calling it a personal attack.

    What they're saying isn't what people here like hearing, but it's the reality of the bigger picture in many ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    >When the only source for your argument is “because I said so”, that makes the person who said it the only logical target for any rebuttal.

    even if this were what is happening (it's not), this is still not an excuse to break the community rules.

  • source
  • parent