cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601

“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”

Reads like a bloody Onion article.

  • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.eeEnglish
    353·
    2 months ago

    So we throw away the “rules based international order” and return to the pre-1914 unilateral rules and all the brutal wars that bought? So much better, amirite? Might makes right, and we’ve got the might for now!

    The US stance on Israeli leadership is decimating our ability to wield soft power influence. We are global hypocrites blocking ANY action, whilst expecting the world to fall in line to support Ukraine against Russian revanchism - even NATO members dissent from the US position. The global south is turning to China/OPEC+ trading blocs. They already tried to break the petrodollar, which would be a huge blow if successful.

    Even taking a realpolitik approach, without soft power all those US military bases used for ‘power projection’ lose their local consent, and become occupation sites inside non-allied nations. The Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan is a chill spot for launching COIN drone missions - whereas the Conoco base in Syria is constantly under drone and rocket attack.

    Supporting Bibi’s wars of aggression is a stupid play on multiple levels.

    • Soup@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      718·
      2 months ago

      I never said it was good to support it (though I’m sure that won’t stop people from reporting me for being a genocide apologist). Only that it’s a very complicated and nuanced thing to just assume it should be easy to simply stop because we want it to.

      Nothing would make me happier than to see the issue resolved and for people to stop being hurt. But that’s not for me to decide. With a vote or otherwise.

      And that’s because it’s a very complicated agreement. Nations don’t just decide to break them. Regardless of your strong opinions on the matter.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.eeEnglish
        195·
        2 months ago

        Maybe stop sending them billions in weapons then, eh?

        I see at least three actions in that statement:

        1. Stop giving them billions in free weapons
        2. Stop giving them any weapons
        3. Stop them

        #1 should have happened a long time ago imo, if not used as a leverage to prevent an Israeli ground invasion of Rafah, the West Bank, Lebanon, striking enrichment at Natanz. “Free bombs for crimes against humanity” is a bad moral play, bad politics, and bad diplomacy outside the US:Israel sphere.

        #2 Is politically hard normally, impossible in an election cycle. I hate it, but here we are in the house we built. Make FEC the only campaign funds - it’s OUR government, not the highest bidder’s.

        #3 The US’s geopolitical track record shows that we’ll tolerate some awful, terrible people if they’ll get ‘on our side’ even if there’s a trend of massive and foreseeable blowback, the diplomatic corps don’t learn lessons.

        • Soup@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          638·
          2 months ago

          And my point is:

          1. It’s more complicated than that
          2. It’s more complicated than that
          3. it’s more complicated than that.

          What I’m trying to say is that none of us are experts on the subject. And those that are suggest that, guess what?

          Yeah. It’s more complicated than that.

          And I chose to believe the experts on the matter. But when they’re ready to argue music theory, I’ll eat their lunch. 😀