Israel has carried out what are believed to be unilateral "preemptive strikes" on Iran in a major escalation of geopolitical trouble in the Middle East as a state of emergency was declared.
Neither. Internal politics in Israel threatened to break up the government, and starting a war with Iran was the easiest way to stop that. Can’t break up the government now, we’re in a state of emergency!
Bibi would sooner burn down all of Israel than step down from power.
Yep, exactly this. He’d rather destroy the entire country than lose power, in part because as soon as he loses power he’s likely going to prison for the rest of his life.
The moment they stop fighting is the moment they have to collectively come to terms with what they have done as a nation. Netanyahoo has to keep it going.
The US is obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons in order to maintain a “qualitative military edge” against all potential threats. This unfortunately incentivizes Israel to maintain a high threat level, in order to increase the amount of weapons it receives.
Given the interference in Ukraine’s military aid that was also required by law passed by Congress, they are only as binding as the government’s willingness to be bound. Congress can repeal it, and apparently the President can just ignore it because the points are made up and the rules don’t matter.
This explains it in better detail than I could. It isn’t so much a single law, but rather a lot of different laws that all work together to ensure that Israel is given everything it could possibly need for its own defense…even bypassing normal regulatory measures in the process, as long as certain conditions are maintained.
Israel has invested tens of millions of dollars lobbying for, and helping to write, the legislation that guarantees their continuous access to weapons. A lot of it is written directly into defense spending bills that are essential for domestic defense spending as well. So, without a massive shift in policy at the legislative level to disentangle those priorities, that support is legally binding.
“By law”. It’s just a convenient excuse for genocidal immorality. It’s not like words on paper matter to anyone in power in the West, you’d definitely be blind to think otherwise.
Are they running out of people to murder in Gaza? Or do they just need someone to fight back, so they can look oppressed?
Neither. Internal politics in Israel threatened to break up the government, and starting a war with Iran was the easiest way to stop that. Can’t break up the government now, we’re in a state of emergency!
Bibi would sooner burn down all of Israel than step down from power.
Yep, exactly this. He’d rather destroy the entire country than lose power, in part because as soon as he loses power he’s likely going to prison for the rest of his life.
Sounds familiar…
The moment they stop fighting is the moment they have to collectively come to terms with what they have done as a nation. Netanyahoo has to keep it going.
Netanyahoo lmao
The US is obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons in order to maintain a “qualitative military edge” against all potential threats. This unfortunately incentivizes Israel to maintain a high threat level, in order to increase the amount of weapons it receives.
Can you expand on that?
There are agreements but to which extent are they binding? I guess they are not unconditional.
Given the interference in Ukraine’s military aid that was also required by law passed by Congress, they are only as binding as the government’s willingness to be bound. Congress can repeal it, and apparently the President can just ignore it because the points are made up and the rules don’t matter.
Welcome to Whose war is it anyway?
This explains it in better detail than I could. It isn’t so much a single law, but rather a lot of different laws that all work together to ensure that Israel is given everything it could possibly need for its own defense…even bypassing normal regulatory measures in the process, as long as certain conditions are maintained.
Israel has invested tens of millions of dollars lobbying for, and helping to write, the legislation that guarantees their continuous access to weapons. A lot of it is written directly into defense spending bills that are essential for domestic defense spending as well. So, without a massive shift in policy at the legislative level to disentangle those priorities, that support is legally binding.
Yea, that’s a law we passed, right? One which we could repeal, too?
“By law”. It’s just a convenient excuse for genocidal immorality. It’s not like words on paper matter to anyone in power in the West, you’d definitely be blind to think otherwise.
You had me in the first sentence; not gonna lie. The second one, though, just goes off the rails.
“The West” is a bit too broad don’t you think.
I think that’s blinkered, if not blind. Definitely.
And that username… (edit: oh look they just changed it from “ArgumentativeMonotheist” to “YappyMonotheist”)
But being a horny mouse is a-okay?!