29

Joe Biden has vowed that US commitment to defend Israel against Iran was “ironclad” as concerns rose in Washington that a “significant” Iranian strike could happen within days, in retaliation for the bombing of an Iranian consular building in Damascus.

“We also want to address the Iranian threat to launch a significant – they’re threatening to launch a significant attack in Israel,” Biden said. “As I told Prime Minister Netanyahu, our commitment to Israel’s security against these threats from Iran and its proxies is ironclad. Let me say it again, ironclad. We’re gonna do all we can to protect Israel’s security.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

No, but we need to be more nuanced than this. His vows of “ironclad” support echo the earlier misguided vows.

We can’t be world cops. And certainly can’t allow genocidal maniacs drag us into WW3.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 8 points 7 months ago

No, but we need to be more nuanced than this. His vows of “ironclad” support echo the earlier misguided vows.

It's tone-deaf at minimum. But world politics are often performed on the public stage. I don't know if there was another viable answer he could have given as POTUS.

We can’t be world cops. And certainly can’t allow genocidal maniacs drag us into WW3.

That precludes giving Iran an open shot to make an attack on Israel. That has the potential to set most of the Middle East aflame, metaphorically speaking.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago
We can’t be world cops. And certainly can’t allow genocidal maniacs drag us into WW3.

That precludes giving Iran an open shot to make an attack on Israel. That has the potential to set most of the Middle East aflame, metaphorically speaking.

it does. but so does Israel picking this fight. I don't think anyone has the answer to conflict in the middle east. And nobody has had the answers in very long time. I certainly don't. But constantly defending Israel when it's obviously bullying other nations... is just as bad as letting Iran attack Israel.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 3 points 7 months ago

it does. but so does Israel picking this fight. I don’t think anyone has the answer to conflict in the middle east. And nobody has had the answers in very long time. I certainly don’t. But constantly defending Israel when it’s obviously bullying other nations… is just as bad as letting Iran attack Israel.

Is it? Are two massacres more right than one? If it was a question of "Let Palestinians be genocided OR let Israel be attacked and potentially start WW3", I might be inclined to agree on principle. But it's not an either/or. Iran isn't going to knock out Israel in three days. Genocidaires tend to intensify their genocidal efforts when under attack, not diminish it. Letting Israel get invaded just means that we have a massive body count of Israeli civilians in addition, not instead of the Palestinian genocide.

Defending Israel against outside attack is the less bad option for now.

Ultimately, we should decouple from Israel completely, but even then, the more invasions of sovereign countries are tolerated, the more it will happen. That's one of many, many reasons the Iraq War was such a colossal fucking atrocity.

I would like to emphasize that my position on genocide is the same - the more it is tolerated, the more it will happen, and the moral move would be to put immense pressure on Israel to cease its ongoing operations and restore the flow of aid to Gaza, at minimum.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

Defending Israel against outside attack is the less bad option for now.

welcome to how we got here.

at a certain point, you have to recognize that "not as bad" is still "Bad enough".

Israel and Netanyahu are probably going to accelerate the genocide no matter what we do. Iran getting involved will make it worse. doesn't mean we need to fucking support the genocidal maniac in committing more genocidal maniac- and remember, Netanyahu et al want to have a war with Iran, too.

Your acting like it's somehow hypocritical to condemn both countries. it's not. it's hypocritical to not condemn both countries.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

at a certain point, you have to recognize that “not as bad” is still “Bad enough”.

Fuck man, have you looked at the international scene? The Middle East more than most? We don't have 'good' choices, they're all 'bad enough'. And inaction is a choice just as any other. Inaction SHOULD be chosen in many scenarios - but because it is often the best choice, not because it relieves moral responsibility. It doesn't.

The moral option is to pick the path with the least bad outcome.

Israel and Netanyahu are probably going to accelerate the genocide no matter what we do. Iran getting involved will make it worse. doesn’t mean we need to fucking support the genocidal maniac in committing more genocidal maniac- and remember, Netanyahu et al want to have a war with Iran, too.

No longer supporting the ongoing genocide is a very different issue than allowing Iran to attack Israel. Discouraging Iran from attacking Israel is not supporting one genocide - it is preventing another.

Your acting like it’s somehow hypocritical to condemn both countries.

Am I? News to me. I stated outright that Israel is committing genocide currently. How much harsher do you want me to get in condemnation? Is 'genocide' no longer the lowest sin a country can commit? Do I have to invent a new form of democide to assign them before my condemnation is strong enough?

it’s not. it’s hypocritical to not condemn both countries.

It's not about condemnation. It's about what happens if we allow Iran to provoke a war with Israel. It's inhumane to demand another 100,000+ (assuming it DOESN'T kick off WW3) added to the body count because 30,000+ have already been killed. Why? What does allowing Iran to attack Israel solve?

Materially speaking, what are the effects, and can you answer for them?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Am I? News to me. I stated outright that Israel is committing genocide currently. How much harsher do you want me to get in condemnation?

(snip)

It's not about condemnation. It's about what happens if we allow Iran to provoke a war with Israel.

It’s also an about what happens if we allow Israel to provoke a war with Iran. They’re both escalating.

Remind me again which one is getting billions of dollars worth of weapons?

Biden can “condemn” Israel until he’s blue in the face. But he’s still arming them, still enabling them- and Israel sees that as tacit approval.

Right now, it’s Israel that is destabilizing the Middle East the most. Its attacks on Iranian generals, in Syria, against houthis. Raids in the West Bank. Genocide in Gaza.

this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
29 points (76.4% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1906 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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