this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
41 points (71.6% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3534 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A top aide to Vice President Harris said Thursday that the Democratic presidential nominee does not support an arms embargo on Israel, after the Uncommitted National Movement suggested she was open to discussing a total ban on weapons deliveries from the U.S.

Leaders of the Uncommitted National Movement, born out of opposition toward President Biden’s policy toward Israel, said Harris showed an openness to a meeting to discuss an arms embargo on Israel following a brief exchange with the group’s founders during her Wednesday campaign rally in Detroit.

However, Phil Gordon, Harris’s national security adviser, reiterated her opposition to an arms embargo in a Thursday post on the social platform X.

“@VP has been clear: she will always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups. She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law,” he wrote.

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

We were never gonna get an arms embargo. It would have been nice, but that wasn't a thing that was realistically gonna happen. She's still wants a ceasefire. Still thinks the things happening in Gaza are a "humanitarian crisis," which isn't saying genocide but is still more than biden really did. The uncommitted movement, even in prior articles on here, said they're not expecting an arms embargo, just some sign that things will change. Like a ceasefire and some kinda peace deal. This is just her doing what everyone expected, including uncommitted organizers, supporting Israel but still pushing for change. Now, if the uncommitted organizers move the goal posts, that shows their not willing to compromise at all.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah and Biden wants a ceasefire too. If only there was a way to achieve that oh wait they can stop giving israel 2000 pound bombs to burn children alive.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago

SE Michigan: "Wow look at all this red that magically appeared out of nowhere"

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Oh no she didn't unilaterally and radically turn against 50 years of standing U.S. foreign policy, guess we gotta let the fascist win. /s

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

We just need better alliances in the middle east already; standing willingly behind a genocidal regime was and will always be a terrible plan. Which country would simultaneously form an alliance as well as ensure the safety of Palestinian civilians?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It’s weird to be ok with supporting genocide

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It’s weird to pretend that the other guy wouldn’t have an even worse policy.

The situation in Gaza is shitty, but making it a primary election issue without looking at the alternative is asinine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

“Look, sometimes you just gotta shut up and accept a genocide” is a pretty crappy election slogan.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

This is an issue, not an election issue. You can oppose genocide and not be a MAGA idiot. It’s weird having to apologize for supporting an ethnic cleansing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Diplomacy is WAY harder than you're making it out to be. She can't just say "F Israel" and pull out unilaterally. You have no idea how complicated this all is

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Supporting genocide is ok when it’s complicated? It’s so difficult not sending 2000lb bombs lmao

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Centrists pretend anything they don't want to do is too complicated.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Literally just stop sending bombs to israel and the Genocide ends. They had ran out of ammo months ago if Genocide Joe didn't keep resupplying them.

This is like saying it would be complicated to not send arms to the Nazis if they were a "strategic partner against the Russians" in WW2

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

Not for centrists it isn't.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 month ago

The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Hill:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://thehill.com/policy/international/4818583-harris-camp-shuts-down-talk-of-israel-arms-embargo/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support