There's another dynamic --a really uncomfortable one as far as I'm concerned-- at play with arming Israel, and that is it's role as a surrogate in the region for containing the ambitions of Iran. Yes, we probably have no business in having conflict with Iran, but the theocracy ruling the country certainly has bad intentions toward its neighbors and a willingness to play nice with bad actors. Is ignoring Iran really a viable policy? Is engaging with Iran a way out? I dunno.
This is a comment from elsewhere, but I think worth repeating:
___________________________________
"I thought Kamala did a really interesting job of phrasing her criticisms of trump's policies not as what he "intends" but as what he has stated in the past-- not "he intends to cut Social Security" but "he has often spoken about cutting Social Security." Go pound sand, nitpicking "fact checkers."
She has accomplished for me something I never thought would happen: an articulation of what true patriotism is. After the cynicism engendered by coming of age in Vietnam, of watching the flag wavers support twenty years of pounding Afghanistan--long after Osama left it, a country the terrorists of 9/11 didn't come from--and years of pounding Iraq that didn't in fact have WMDs; after all this, I couldn't see the point of flags and their waving. Now I see a reason to be proud of what we can be, and will be.
I am still disappointed in the position of the administration on Gaza. "Israel has a right to defend itself" is a truism. Hell, RUSSIA has a right to defend itself. The statement begs the question: what is the honorable way of defending oneself?
If you are walking down the street and are confronted with a mugger with a gun, yes, you have a right to defend yourself. You do NOT have the right to haul out your automatic and spray the entire street, including innocent pedestrians and including the homes lining it, on the grounds that there may be bad guys lurking in them.
Yes, Russia does have a right to defend itself. It does NOT have the right to invade another country in the name of reclaiming its "motherland." The motives of the far right in the Israeli government are not really defense, or even solely its dishonorable companion, revenge. They are to take over Gaza--as one member stated, to let the Gazans starve so that the land will be "free" to take over.
These are the things that we have to consider when contemplating what the right to defend oneself entails and to evaluate the good faith of the Israeli government in trying to reach regional peace. I pray that the current plan for a cease fire supported by our government will come to pass. But we have stronger means than phone calls with Bibi to force the opposing parties into stopping the slaughter. Stop the supply of offensive weapons--yes, defensive, but not offensive. We need to use those means."
And in response to someone who talked about the "fine line" she has to walk:
_______________________________
"True. But they could have let the Palestinian supporters speak. Palestinian Americans, and Muslims in general, are as much a part of “all the people” as any others. The “fine line” is, I suspect, influenced by not wanting to offend “pro Israel” donors. I suspect that most Americans are indeed “pro Israel” in the sense of agreeing on its right to exist, but past sufferings, horrific as they have been through the ages, do not justify a government inflicting suffering on others.
We needed a voice that could say “we are pro-Israel” in that broad sense but NOT pro an oppressive government that really does have —and has had for a long time--“two” rules of law for its own citizens, not to mention thousands of people as innocent as those killed on 10/7."
I'm in agreement with your words. Would having a Palestinian speak on stage have made a difference? We'll never know now and will have to wait until November to see if it did. Kamala will need to address how her policies will differ from Biden's and the handling of the middle east will be critical for many. She cannot continue saying "We are working towards a ceasefire and agree that Israel has a right to defend itself"! Of course they do, but not to the degree of killing 40,000 Palestinians and continuing to do so with weapons supplied by us. This may well be the deal breaker that the American people are so anxious to strike with her. Donald Trump would do worse and be worse on all accounts, but here we are! My thoughts and prayers are with her and her decisions. (Go Kamala! Make the right choices)
There's another dynamic --a really uncomfortable one as far as I'm concerned-- at play with arming Israel, and that is it's role as a surrogate in the region for containing the ambitions of Iran. Yes, we probably have no business in having conflict with Iran, but the theocracy ruling the country certainly has bad intentions toward its neighbors and a willingness to play nice with bad actors. Is ignoring Iran really a viable policy? Is engaging with Iran a way out? I dunno.
This is a comment from elsewhere, but I think worth repeating:
___________________________________
"I thought Kamala did a really interesting job of phrasing her criticisms of trump's policies not as what he "intends" but as what he has stated in the past-- not "he intends to cut Social Security" but "he has often spoken about cutting Social Security." Go pound sand, nitpicking "fact checkers."
She has accomplished for me something I never thought would happen: an articulation of what true patriotism is. After the cynicism engendered by coming of age in Vietnam, of watching the flag wavers support twenty years of pounding Afghanistan--long after Osama left it, a country the terrorists of 9/11 didn't come from--and years of pounding Iraq that didn't in fact have WMDs; after all this, I couldn't see the point of flags and their waving. Now I see a reason to be proud of what we can be, and will be.
I am still disappointed in the position of the administration on Gaza. "Israel has a right to defend itself" is a truism. Hell, RUSSIA has a right to defend itself. The statement begs the question: what is the honorable way of defending oneself?
If you are walking down the street and are confronted with a mugger with a gun, yes, you have a right to defend yourself. You do NOT have the right to haul out your automatic and spray the entire street, including innocent pedestrians and including the homes lining it, on the grounds that there may be bad guys lurking in them.
Yes, Russia does have a right to defend itself. It does NOT have the right to invade another country in the name of reclaiming its "motherland." The motives of the far right in the Israeli government are not really defense, or even solely its dishonorable companion, revenge. They are to take over Gaza--as one member stated, to let the Gazans starve so that the land will be "free" to take over.
These are the things that we have to consider when contemplating what the right to defend oneself entails and to evaluate the good faith of the Israeli government in trying to reach regional peace. I pray that the current plan for a cease fire supported by our government will come to pass. But we have stronger means than phone calls with Bibi to force the opposing parties into stopping the slaughter. Stop the supply of offensive weapons--yes, defensive, but not offensive. We need to use those means."
_______________________________________________________
And in response to someone who talked about the "fine line" she has to walk:
_______________________________
"True. But they could have let the Palestinian supporters speak. Palestinian Americans, and Muslims in general, are as much a part of “all the people” as any others. The “fine line” is, I suspect, influenced by not wanting to offend “pro Israel” donors. I suspect that most Americans are indeed “pro Israel” in the sense of agreeing on its right to exist, but past sufferings, horrific as they have been through the ages, do not justify a government inflicting suffering on others.
We needed a voice that could say “we are pro-Israel” in that broad sense but NOT pro an oppressive government that really does have —and has had for a long time--“two” rules of law for its own citizens, not to mention thousands of people as innocent as those killed on 10/7."
I'm in agreement with your words. Would having a Palestinian speak on stage have made a difference? We'll never know now and will have to wait until November to see if it did. Kamala will need to address how her policies will differ from Biden's and the handling of the middle east will be critical for many. She cannot continue saying "We are working towards a ceasefire and agree that Israel has a right to defend itself"! Of course they do, but not to the degree of killing 40,000 Palestinians and continuing to do so with weapons supplied by us. This may well be the deal breaker that the American people are so anxious to strike with her. Donald Trump would do worse and be worse on all accounts, but here we are! My thoughts and prayers are with her and her decisions. (Go Kamala! Make the right choices)