That’s a much longer-term issue. I would argue that the current sales of ammunition, while distasteful, are little more than token support to a supposed ‘ally’.
moving aircraft carriers in to defend them
Alright, that one is to discourage a full-fledged war from breaking out. And I’m pretty sure that will not be any better for the Palestinian people than the current scenario.
running interference at the UN,
Fair enough on that one.
providing diplomatic cover, etc.
We’ve actually been more standoffish to Israel than I’ve ever seen before in terms of public statements. I think the nakedness of it has rattled some people in the State Department.
You also specifically said it was just part of their long term support. Why is it such an emergency that we provide those weapons now if it’s little more than a token gesture?
Ah, that would tie in to both the fact that Israel is a major purchaser of US equipment and that we don’t want Israel to be invaded, because God fucking knows how that will end.
The first is that when a country buys weapons from another, they want to know that they can continue to purchase the supplies that let them continue to operate those weapons. If not, well, they won’t purchase arms from that country anymore - if they will cut you off for policy disputes, then you’re at their mercy, and that’s unacceptable to most nations. A reputation for continuing to supply the weaponry we sell even to those we have disputes with, such as Turkiye and Egypt, is valuable to have for this reason. And while the profit motive is often championed as the reason for the sales, the real cause for its importance is influence - it’s much easier to integrate and cooperate with countries which use the same systems and have economic ties to you.
The second is that Israel isn’t about to literally run out of artillery shells for their current rate of genocide, but a perception of reduced supply could embolden other actors in the region to take aggressive action while stockpiles are lower. One of the major sales recently was of tank shells, which are not being used in large amounts in Gaza at the moment (most of it is being done by artillery and airstrikes) - a sale to shore up stockpiles to ward off the prospect of an intervention by a hostile neighbor. A war breaking out would be… disastrous. For Palestinians and everyone else.
Now, all this being said, I still think that we shouldn’t sell them anything at this moment, reputation be damned. But I also think it’s not a major contributor to the ongoing genocide, and it’s not much more than a continuation of prior policies.
Yeah, super standoffish. You can tell by how it’s made no fucking difference, while the US sells them hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs and shells.
But they crooked an eyebrow while doing it, and that’s what really matters.
That’s a much longer-term issue. I would argue that the current sales of ammunition, while distasteful, are little more than token support to a supposed ‘ally’.
Alright, that one is to discourage a full-fledged war from breaking out. And I’m pretty sure that will not be any better for the Palestinian people than the current scenario.
Fair enough on that one.
We’ve actually been more standoffish to Israel than I’ve ever seen before in terms of public statements. I think the nakedness of it has rattled some people in the State Department.
Didn’t Biden push through a sale specifically for this “war” though?
Hence the ‘current sales of ammunition’.
Don’t forget directly providing intelligence https://theintercept.com/2024/01/11/israel-air-force-targeting-intelligence/
You also specifically said it was just part of their long term support. Why is it such an emergency that we provide those weapons now if it’s little more than a token gesture?
Ah, that would tie in to both the fact that Israel is a major purchaser of US equipment and that we don’t want Israel to be invaded, because God fucking knows how that will end.
The first is that when a country buys weapons from another, they want to know that they can continue to purchase the supplies that let them continue to operate those weapons. If not, well, they won’t purchase arms from that country anymore - if they will cut you off for policy disputes, then you’re at their mercy, and that’s unacceptable to most nations. A reputation for continuing to supply the weaponry we sell even to those we have disputes with, such as Turkiye and Egypt, is valuable to have for this reason. And while the profit motive is often championed as the reason for the sales, the real cause for its importance is influence - it’s much easier to integrate and cooperate with countries which use the same systems and have economic ties to you.
The second is that Israel isn’t about to literally run out of artillery shells for their current rate of genocide, but a perception of reduced supply could embolden other actors in the region to take aggressive action while stockpiles are lower. One of the major sales recently was of tank shells, which are not being used in large amounts in Gaza at the moment (most of it is being done by artillery and airstrikes) - a sale to shore up stockpiles to ward off the prospect of an intervention by a hostile neighbor. A war breaking out would be… disastrous. For Palestinians and everyone else.
Now, all this being said, I still think that we shouldn’t sell them anything at this moment, reputation be damned. But I also think it’s not a major contributor to the ongoing genocide, and it’s not much more than a continuation of prior policies.
Yeah, super standoffish. You can tell by how it’s made no fucking difference, while the US sells them hundreds of thousands of tons of bombs and shells.
But they crooked an eyebrow while doing it, and that’s what really matters.
More stand off ish in the press. And only in recent years after almost a century of colonialism