Tlaib, Bush Slam Biden for Deploying Additional Troops to Middle East to Support Israel’s Slaughter
truthout.org
“Deploying more US troops and sending more US bombs will only lead to more suffering and carnage,” said Tlaib.

Outspoken advocates for Palestinian rights, including Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Cori Bush (D-Missouri), have said that bolstering the U.S.’s military presence in the region will only worsen an already catastrophic situation created by Israeli forces over the past year — and could increase the already strong threat of a regional war.

The lawmakers pointed out that only an arms embargo to Israel — as has been ordered by international and domestic law — can result in the de-escalation of tensions that the Biden administration has claimed that it supports.

“The Biden-Harris administration continues to allow Netanyahu and the Israeli government to operate with impunity as they carry out war crimes. After facing no red line in Gaza, in an attempt to remain in power, Netanyahu is now expanding his genocidal campaign to Lebanon, using the same tactics the Biden-Harris administration has endorsed,” Tlaib said in a fiery statement on Wednesday.

“Deploying more U.S. troops and sending more U.S. bombs will only lead to more suffering and carnage,” she said. “The Biden-Harris administration is capable of stopping the bloodshed. President Biden must implement an immediate arms embargo to end the slaughter and de-escalate the risk of a wider regional war.”

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.worldEnglish
    106·
    2 months ago

    I’m convinced Israel is pushing as hard as they can because they know they’ll either 1) continue getting the weapons and, therefore, tacit endorsement of their actions from/by the US, or 2) Biden actually tries to embargo arms to Israel, thereby losing the election for Harris, and then they’ll get the weapons and explicit endorsement from Trump in a few months.

    Politically, the only way they lose is if they stop being aggressive and genocidal, because that would increase the chance of a Harris victory, which means they then might not get to keep picking fights and a Harris administration with four years in front of them might very well enact an arms embargo, hurting Israel’s military in the much longer term.

    Sadly, the only long-term chance of the US doing something about Israel will need to be a) after the election, and b) only if Harris wins. Otherwise Trump will basically allow them to double down on everything they’re doing with even less outcry. Standing on principle here actually increases the harm to Lebanon and Palestine in the long term.

    The US will be busy dealing with mass deportations, the carving out and amputation of many federal departments, and the jailing of opposition politicians. And that’s before it possibly gets worse. So even the limited outcry and opposition in the US will decrease with a Trump victory.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      172·
      2 months ago

      Public polling is showing that Harris would get a big boost in voter support if she and Biden went for a weapons embargo.

      Netanyahu wants Trump as President. If the Biden Administration keeps giving Israel a Carte Blanche as they step it their crimes against humanity, which most democratic voters see as a failure of the Biden Administration, that continued support is much more likely to be a spoiler for Harris.

      The best course of action would have been to pivot many months ago, the next best is to pivot now.

      • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
        67·
        2 months ago

        Public polling is showing that Harris would get a big boost in voter support if she and Biden went for a weapons embargo.

        Source?

        edit: It’s absolutely amazing to me what y’all will downvote.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.worldEnglish
        16·
        2 months ago

        I’m working from the premise that I think everyone can agree with: a Trump presidency will be disastrous for Palestine and Lebanon. With that said, while polls from the IMEU suggest that Harris could gain support from progressives and Independents by endorsing an arms embargo on Israel, these findings largely reflect voters who are already inclined to support her. The polling indicates that those who already lean toward Harris would be even more motivated by such a stance, but it overlooks the potential backlash from other critical voter groups.

        An arms embargo risks alienating moderate Democrats, segments of Jewish voters, and security-conscious Independents who see U.S.-Israel relations as crucial to national security. These groups could view Harris’s support for an embargo as undermining a long-standing alliance and weakening U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Republicans would likely capitalize on this policy shift, using it to energize their base and paint Harris as weak on national security.

        In a national election, the net effect would likely be a loss of support in a race where she already has a roughly 50% chance of losing. The enthusiasm gained from progressives would likely be significantly outweighed by defections from moderates, the mobilization of well-funded, Israel-aligned PACs, and the energizing of conservative opposition.

        The IMEU polling appears to oversample individuals who are already inclined to support an arms embargo on Israel, such as progressives and some Independents. This skews the results by amplifying the potential enthusiasm from voters who are already in Harris’s camp, while under-representing moderates, Jewish voters, and security-focused individuals who might defect if she adopts this position.

        Unfortunately, the pool of voters who would vote for her only if she supports an arms embargo is much smaller than the larger, more diverse groups that could shift away from her if she takes this stance. But, it would be a calculated risk that maybe she should take. No one knows exactly how this would shake out in the election. Based on a broad examination of multiple polls, I’m inclined to believe this will lose her the election.

        I think that the fact one element of Russian disinformation campaigns has been to amplify the question of Gaza in political discourse points to the fact that it’s a “loser” issue for Harris, where she loses if she doesn’t do anything and she loses if she does. But opinions and sentiment change, and maybe there has been enough of a shift in public sentiment that it won’t mortally wound her campaign anymore, but it’s a gamble anyway you slice it. If she takes the risk and loses the election, all of this is moot. Trump will arm and give full-throated support to Israel without regard for what they do.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          61·
          2 months ago

          An arms embargo risks alienating moderate Democrats, segments of Jewish voters, and security-conscious Independents who see U.S.-Israel relations as crucial to national security. These groups could view Harris’s support for an embargo as undermining a long-standing alliance and weakening U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Furthermore, Republicans would likely capitalize on this policy shift, using it to energize their base and paint Harris as weak on national security.

          This is not true, there is no polling to suggest this. In fact, multiple polls suggest otherwise. I don’t know where you are getting the evidence for this other than just vibes

          I get being skeptical of any one poll, but when there is multiple, it becomes evident what the stance of voters are

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.worldEnglish
            15·
            2 months ago

            I’m not basing it on vibes, I’m basing it on a plurality of polls that have been done around this issue over the last six months, which have consistently shown there is only downside risk for Harris for something like supporting an arms embargo. These recent polls are considered low-quality polls by low-rated pollsters.

            That said, I do hope you and these recent polls are right, but I’m dubious about it until we get more data. My inclination is to trust the preponderance of polls heretofore until there is more confirming data. It’s ugly, but because I see the election of Trump as existential for Palestine, stability in the middle east, and because there are nuclear weapons at play, I’m very keen to think first about Harris’s ability to win at this point in the election cycle than immediate action against Israel.

            I don’t like how it is at all, but I recognize that what is already an atrocity will get significantly worse if Trump wins. When the downside risk is four years of unmitigated disaster home and abroad, and with the election only weeks away, I think it’s reasonable to be cautious. I’ll also add, however, that public support of Israel has been consistently eroding for months now, so it’s quite possible sentiment has changed enough that it would have a negligible or positive impact on Harris’s campaign, but the consequences if the polling is wrong or fails to account for knock-on downsides are extreme.

    • MisterScruffy@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1610·
      2 months ago

      So If I want to help the people being genocided, I have to vote for the person doing the genocide and just hope that she has the Intention of changing things in the future even though she has shown zero signs of having that intention.

      This “democracy” isn’t worth saving