All of them, frankly. It’s against US law to provide weapons to a nation that is using said weapons to commit human rights violations. My expectation is that the US follows its own laws.
Okay, I can work with that. Do you think ceasing all weapons shipments to Israel tomorrow would create a situation in which more or fewer people would die in the middle east in the next 10 years, and what is your reasoning behind that belief?
Obviously less, to the extent that anyone can predict geopolitical events that far in the future. I think the only counter-argument is the idea that an Israel that isn’t receiving massive amounts of US aid will be invaded, but I don’t find that argument convincing. It’s an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, and even if the US stops arming Israel tomorrow I don’t think Iran or their proxies are dumb enough to think that the US won’t come rushing right back in if Israel is invaded.
I’m not as certain that it would be obviously less, as there are surely myriad factors about which I have no information. But I respect and understand where you’re coming from.
I’m not sure that the regimes propping up Iran wouldn’t take the opportunity to capitalize on a serious draw-down of Israeli munitions, for various reasons, logistical (supply-chain) reasons among them.
Of course. But a mature adult likely wouldn’t have injected the term “disarmed”. Like we were enacting an arms embargo, which we do to dozens Of countries around the world.
Sure, complete adherence to the Geneva conventions is a baseline requirement for any future military aid.
No aid that would affect the long-term health of human habitants such as mines or depleted uranium munitions.
Independent war crime investigations to be performed concurrently and concluded concurrently with internal investigations until some bar of accountability is established. With outstanding penalties to aid for proven falsification in these investigations.
If I had my druthers I would also like an end to mossad spying inside the US and AIPAC funding of our politics.
Is there any middle ground between “not receiving 20 billion a year in weapons” and “disarmed”
The centrist mind may never know.
Of course there is. The US has already stopped sending certain weapons aid to Israel over the situation in Gaza.
I’ll mostly ignore the childish insult, but you can do better at discussing the world like a mature adult, I’m sure.
Oh you mean that one weapons shipment that Biden very publicly refused to send, before he sent many more weapons?
Yes. I do mean that one, and I agree that is was not enough. What additional stoppages do you think should occur?
All of them, frankly. It’s against US law to provide weapons to a nation that is using said weapons to commit human rights violations. My expectation is that the US follows its own laws.
Okay, I can work with that. Do you think ceasing all weapons shipments to Israel tomorrow would create a situation in which more or fewer people would die in the middle east in the next 10 years, and what is your reasoning behind that belief?
Obviously less, to the extent that anyone can predict geopolitical events that far in the future. I think the only counter-argument is the idea that an Israel that isn’t receiving massive amounts of US aid will be invaded, but I don’t find that argument convincing. It’s an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, and even if the US stops arming Israel tomorrow I don’t think Iran or their proxies are dumb enough to think that the US won’t come rushing right back in if Israel is invaded.
I’m not as certain that it would be obviously less, as there are surely myriad factors about which I have no information. But I respect and understand where you’re coming from.
I’m not sure that the regimes propping up Iran wouldn’t take the opportunity to capitalize on a serious draw-down of Israeli munitions, for various reasons, logistical (supply-chain) reasons among them.
Of course. But a mature adult likely wouldn’t have injected the term “disarmed”. Like we were enacting an arms embargo, which we do to dozens Of countries around the world.
Okay, so let’s discuss the level of armament withdraw you think would be appropriate, and the affects varying levels might have.
Sure, complete adherence to the Geneva conventions is a baseline requirement for any future military aid.
No aid that would affect the long-term health of human habitants such as mines or depleted uranium munitions.
Independent war crime investigations to be performed concurrently and concluded concurrently with internal investigations until some bar of accountability is established. With outstanding penalties to aid for proven falsification in these investigations.
If I had my druthers I would also like an end to mossad spying inside the US and AIPAC funding of our politics.