• Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    End the material conditions that incentivise this behavior and it will disappear. If politicians are required to pander to voters instead of bribes political donations sanity might return to us.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      26 days ago

      They are required to pander to voters. That’s why Biden disappeared no matter how much he wanted to GenocideJoe2024.

      It’s just that most voters care more about their candidate being old than them being complicit in Genocide.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        26 days ago

        I usually agree with you, Linker. But definitely not here. Lobbying and AIPAC money are the crux of this situation. If it were still illegal bribery, like it actually is in reality, the denial would not be existent.

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            26 days ago

            That is a rare case of listening to constituents. You are right. Usually, they listen to donors over voters.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              26 days ago

              It’s not a rare case they had no choice. Biden was a guaranteed loss.

              Losing just 5% of voters makes enough of a difference for the Democrats to change policy.

              They listen to their donors, but in the end they cannot do that if they don’t get enough votes to get in power.

      • svc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        26 days ago

        Most voters care about their candidate’s ability to be elected.

  • _stranger_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    This lays the facts out pretty well, and it’s from a year ago.

    https://www.justsecurity.org/90010/a-law-and-policy-guide-to-us-arms-transfers-to-israel/

    It appears that the policy up to now is being used as a stick, and the message seems clear, even if it isn’t effective: We don’t want to stop giving you weapons, but your actions are making it politically difficult to continue doing so.

    The question is if Kamala will push harder than Biden, or maintain this status quo. Congress could always pass a law, but there seems to be a hard line of Israel support in Congress, so that seems very unlikely.

    I wanted to add: 15% of Israel’s defense budget comes from the U.S., and a lot of that is grants to buy U.S. weapons. Even if the U.S. turned the money tap off (which Congress would never do), Congress has the power to approve any sale it wants, so Israel would probably just keep getting the weapons using their own cash.

    Congress would essentially need to embargo Israel to prevent more U.S. weapons from getting to them, which is never going to happen, even if ALL the Democrats wanted it, because the Republicans control the House.

    So, the fewer Republicans in the house, the more leverage a non-republican president has. Vote those fuckers out