In her first major TV interview during her campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris signaled no change from Biden on Israel policy.
  • vzq
    15·
    1 month ago

    deleted by creator

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      19·
      2 months ago

      It really hasn’t, no. It’s just telling truths that you don’t like as much.

      Other than the headline (which is still factual. It’s against US law to supply weapons when you have a reasonable suspicion that they might be used to commit war crimes. In the case of Israel, it’s a certainty.), the tone of the article is neutral and describes what’s actually going on rather than the rosy picture the likes of Politico usually paint or the fact-averse demonizing Faux News would do.

      If anything has gone downhill, it’s the ability of “Blue No Matter Who” Democrats accepting any criticism of people with a (D) behind their name.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              13·
              2 months ago

              So nothing. You just don’t like that they’re saying the inconvenient truth out loud.

              You guys get as tribalist as the fascists in red hats sometimes 🤦

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  10·
                  2 months ago

                  So if there’s no fabrications or distortion in the article, what makes you lament the state of The Intercept here?

                  If you don’t want people to make assumptions as to what you’re talking about, you could try being much less vague.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        It’s against US law to supply weapons when you have a reasonable suspicion that they might be used to commit war crimes. In the case of Israel, it’s a certainty.

        Human rights violations, not war crimes. The US interprets that as things like torture and rape of captives, not civilian casualties in general.

        More importantly, not “you”. It doesn’t matter what the general public suspects or even considers a certainty. The only thing that matters is what the Secretary of State suspects.

        Finally, there is an exception: the prohibition is lifted if the Secretary of State (again, not you) believes “the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.”

        In law, wording matters. You can certainly argue that the spirit of Leahy Laws is ignored, but it’s easy to see how the text is being followed.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          5·
          2 months ago

          Human rights violations, not war crimes.

          A distinction of no consequence in this case, as the IDF is committing a laundry list of both on a daily basis.

          The only thing that matters is what the Secretary of State suspects.

          Again, irrelevant to the specific example as the Secretary of State ALSO KNOWS.

          if the Secretary of State (again, not you) believes “the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.”

          Which nobody in their right mind would honestly believe. Especially after a few soldiers being questioned on suspicion of torturing and raping Palestinian hostages almost sparked a civil war.

          You can certainly argue that the spirit of Leahy Laws are not being followed

          Because it’s not.

          it’s easy to see how the text is being followed.

          Only if Blinken is honestly as obtuse and naïve as he’s pretending to be. I which case he’s profoundly incompetent to fulfill the duties of the public office he’s been entrusted with.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            2 months ago

            Especially after a few soldiers being questioned

            Those soldiers were arrested. Which is the first step to bringing them to justice, as required by Leahy Laws.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              5·
              2 months ago

              For questioning.

              They hadn’t even been charged with anything yet and still it was so extraordinary that it sparked riots supported by several senior government officials.

              • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                3·
                2 months ago

                Not just questioning. They are still being detained while the prosecutors consider charges.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  4·
                  2 months ago

                  Again, they are a drop in an ocean of routine human rights violations and the fact that actual members of the Knesset and the Netanyahu cabinet support people storming a military base in reaction to the mere questioning of them speaks volumes about how EXTREMELY rare it is for Israeli soldiers to be held accountable for their human rights violations.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          6·
          2 months ago

          Overwhelmingly negatively. He hasn’t been with The Intercept since, though, so that’s sorta like blaming CNN for Tucker Carlson just because he was part of Crossfire ages ago.

  • scops@reddthat.comEnglish
    14·
    2 months ago

    Yeah, it sucks. I still think we have a better shot at pressuring her to take a harder stance on Israel while in office than Trump, so I’m still gonna vote for her.

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    2 months ago

    Why isn’t Trump being mentioned as well? Because he sure as hell would also arm Israel, and probably with more enthusiasm than Harris would. It’s a fair enough criticism of Harris. But Trump should be mentioned in the same breath in this situation.

  • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    2 months ago

    If you’re expecting our government not to be heinous and awful when it comes to foreign affairs you’re gonna have a bad time.