30
Biden Is Bankrolling Israel’s War Amid Growing Financial Hardship at Home (theintercept.com)
submitted 8 months ago by gitgud@lemmy.ml to c/usnews@beehaw.org
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] megopie@beehaw.org 28 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Frankly I don’t like the “but we could be spending this better at home” argument because the people making that argument invariably would refuse to actually do so, and instead just give out another tax cut.

That money would never end up going in to a single payer healthcare system, SNAP, education or building out more sustainable infrastructure. We don’t do these things not because we don’t have the money for it, we don’t do these things because they would undermine the influence of large financial and corporate interests.

There is a much better argument to not fund Israel, and it is that they’re attempting to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip, have flaunted all of the treaties and agreements they made for near on 20 years, and they’re current leadership was undemocratically put in power.

[-] eveninghere@beehaw.org 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Guessing it's Russian propaganda or sympathy towards Gazans, the latter I find these days in The Intercept.

This article weirdly ignores the attached budget for Ukraine, which is the actual point of Biden's proposal.

[-] megopie@beehaw.org 5 points 8 months ago

Because Ukraine is generally a fairly popular foreign ally with little mainstream controversy around supporting them. So if you wanted to undermine support for them, easier to knee cap support for the bill from the other direction.

[-] SalaTris@beehaw.org 2 points 8 months ago

I don’t know: Does that framing take away from the international law argument? How long has that argument been in play and how has that worked so far? It’s a powerful framing in that it illustrates the power that money being used to fuel hate could instead have for some semblance of good. Even if it’s impractical among today’s US elected officials. Also, arguments like this are how to get negotiation leverage. In general in this political climate, while we might want to be prepared to compromise I challenge the wisdom of leading with a compromise. I say different strategies need to be tried until something sticks.

[-] megopie@beehaw.org 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The framing is a poor one, it is built on a fundamental lie about how money works in the US government. It’s a very weak framing that only ever convinces people who already wanted to defund a foreign effort. More importantly, most of this bill isn’t tied to Israel, it’s tied to other efforts like Ukraine, so really what this is arguing for is to stop supporting Ukraine. Most of the funding for Israel comes through other channels.

So to support this framing is to just undermine support for Ukraine and do little to stop Israel. Support for Ukraine is non-negotiable.

[-] SalaTris@beehaw.org 1 points 7 months ago

Can you elaborate on what specifically the “lie” is? The logical side of me takes the words “truth”, “fact”, and “lie” very seriously, and I worry that we too often use them to express a point of view including pragmatism. I’m genuinely curious!

[-] al4s@feddit.de 8 points 8 months ago

I don't think money is the real issue here. It's already budgeted for the military anyways - if it's used to help other countries that's a good thing in my book. Well unless it's "helping" by funding the bombing of civilians, but what do I know.

[-] gitgud@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

I partially agree with you, in that if that money could be used to help other countries that would at least be providing value to the world. Unfortunately I don't believe it's being used that way in this case. Money going to Israel is being used to massacre Palestinian civilians en masse (culminating in what is very likely, and I consider, a genocide), and money going to Ukraine is going to prolong a conflict that the USA has been explicitly preventing from reaching any potential diplomatic resolution. Yes, it would be ideal if Russia pulled out of Ukraine and left them alone but Russia won't do that when it holds the best cards and the best chance for that was earlier in the war when Ukraine had lots of military funding that wasn't being diverted to the Gaza Genocide and most of its troops and fighting-age population weren't crippled or dead.

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 4 points 8 months ago

I don’t see how the US could possibly be the one precenting a diplomatic solution in Ukraine? Russia continues to presue maximum war aims, including having officially amexed whole regions into the the Russian Federation that has not at any point in the conflict been held by Russia, and maintaining that any peace not only mandates that Ukraine can not at any point in the future join any defensive alliance or pact but also that Ukraine stops holding elections in favor of its leaders being appointed solely by Moscow.

The territory thing is important because the Ukrainian constitution specifically requires that any change in the nations borders be approved by a public referendum in which all citizens can vote. Given that current polling shows about 2 to 4 percent support for such a referendum, such a deal is unlikely to be approved anytime soon.

Militarily, it is important to note that the Russian government is not and has never been the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union’s was an alliance of dozens of nations where the majority of its military production were in nations like Ukraine, Germany, and Poland. Russia has large reserves of Soviet equipment in fields that it has been rebuilding, but a limited ability to produce fully new equipment. Hence why for instance they are buying up large portions of the North Korean ammunition stockpiles to make up for a lack of domestic supply.

On the other hand, Ukraine’s production is in the other hundred and ninty some odd nations that make up the gobal economy. Supporting it has made up a relatively small percentage of that economy, which is why in 2023 for instance the US provided over twice as many old tanks to Romania alone than it did to Ukraine. More importantly, the US can build thouse new tanks without starting by pulling a rusted shell out of a field first.

Given that at the current rate of Russian advancement it will take them decades to get back to where they were a few years ago, and over a century to fully concur all of Ukraine, the general strategy has been to let the dictator burn though his stockpiles and foreign exchange reserves while training the Ukrainians on stuff like tanks and air defense that entered production after the fall of Soviet Union.

[-] Zworf@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The territory thing is important because the Ukrainian constitution specifically requires that any change in the nations borders be approved by a public referendum in which all citizens can vote. Given that current polling shows about 2 to 4 percent support for such a referendum, such a deal is unlikely to be approved anytime soon.

That number seems a bit unbelievably low to me.

If such a deal could be reached and Russia would get the Donbass and some other areas they already have now, why would 96-98% Ukrainians really not want that if it finally brings this terrible war to an end? After all those regions like the Donbass were already nothing but war-torn cesspools (think MH17!) where most of their remaining inhabitants actually prefer to be under the Russian regime for whatever reason. I don't think a normal Ukrainian that just wants to live without war will actually care whether they get these regions back. There's nothing left standing there anyway.

Personally if I were a Ukrainian from Kiev I would definitely not want to risk dying over some distant area full of rebel farmers. Just give them to Putin and see how they like being under his regime (I imagine, not very much). I would just want to live my life again and I wouldn't care about my country's borders being a little smaller. It's just some lines on a map. A matter of 'national pride' is not worth dying over. And life in Ukraine is basically at a standstill. People can't plan for the future, build a career, buy a home etc. That can't continue forever.

The question of course is whether Putin would actually stop forever or if it would just offer him a respite to build up his forces again for round 2. I would assume it would be most likely. But of course, so could Ukraine. Besides, Putin is getting old. We never thought that after Beria and Cruchev someone like Gorbachev would come but he did. Someone else could stand up after Putin and peace might well last.

But anyway, if they want this to continue, so be it. I just think it's unlikely Russia will ever be completely beaten back even if NATO did get involved (and it won't because it would lead to terrible escalation) and who wants another 10 years of war? Yes, Russia was wrong for attacking Ukraine and has committed terrible war crimes but at this point I think a compromise should be reached to stop further loss of life. Ukraine has fought very well to push them back but whatever little Russia has now is not important enough to die over IMO. Lately the victories have been very hard-fought with very nasty losses. Even if the war ended with the current status quo, Ukraine should be really proud of what they have achieved. They would have beaten back the lion.

PS: This might sound harsh sure but I really don't see what they have to gain by fighting to the bitter end to get that Donbass back.

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago

It’s about the level of support most civilian populations tend to show towards an invading force that’s actively bombing them. How many civlians during the German Blitz do you think would have supported trading Dover to the Nazi’s in exchange for a temporary ceasefire? How about for a second time after the first ceasefire was broken by another ground invasion?

A lot of Ukrainians lived in the occupied regions before been being forced from their homes. Plenty more currently live in the areas that Russia has officially declared as part of its territory but which are currently held by Ukraine. Far from some lines on a map, a very large part of the population have at least one family member who didn’t flee faster than the Russians during the initial attack and who either have been living in fear, had their children taken, or were shot in the street. In both of the first two situations, people tend to be very dedicated to the idea of getting their family currently being held by the Russians back.

None of this is likely to convince people to give the people who did it land it has never held on the promise that in a few years the exact same thing will happen again.

They know that Russia is just another nation with a military about equal to theirs, and that ultimately there are dozens of nations with more powerful militaries on their side.

They also know that Russia cannot do this forever. That the weapons Russia now uses were built in nations that are firmly on Ukraine’s side in this conflict. That Russia’s war chest of foreign extange reserves, pool of manpower that have yet to be conscripted, and fields of stockpiled vehicles continue to get smaller every day. That the Russian military is useing older and older vehicles at the same time that the Ukrainian military is using newer and newer ones.

Russia has been forced to cut its losses on the battlefield before after all, it is neither impossible nor unlikely that it will again.

[-] Zworf@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It’s about the level of support most civilian populations tend to show towards an invading force that’s actively bombing them. How many civlians during the German Blitz do you think would have supported trading Dover to the Nazi’s in exchange for a temporary ceasefire? How about for a second time after the first ceasefire was broken by another ground invasion?

That 2-4% would not be support for Russia, but for a negotiated treaty that involves giving up some territory (how much to be determined of course). It can't be stated that those 2-4% would just want Russia to win because if that is the case no referendum is needed because the constitution would no longer apply.

And I was thinking of an actual resolution to the conflict with UN support and backed by an international coalition (after all, if Russia is at the negotiating table a security council resolution becomes a possibility too!). Not just a temporary ceasefire.

A lot of Ukrainians lived in the occupied regions before been being forced from their homes. Plenty more currently live in the areas that Russia has officially declared as part of its territory but which are currently held by Ukraine. Far from some lines on a map, a very large part of the population have at least one family member who didn’t flee faster than the Russians during the initial attack and who either have been living in fear, had their children taken, or were shot in the street. In both of the first two situations, people tend to be very dedicated to the idea of getting their family currently being held by the Russians back.

I know it's terrible, but would you risk your remaining children serving in the army just for some payback? I wouldn't. It will only lead to more death and it won't bring those murdered back. I would just want it to be over and for court proceedings and inquiries to start. And for all the abducted children it's also better for all of this to end sooner rather than later so they can be brought back before they're brainwashed.

Don't forget WWII was one of very few that ended in a very decisive victory. Many other wars end up in a stalemate. Like the Korean war. Even the mighty US could not hold on to Afghanistan and things are now as bad as they were before the war. Despite being a massively overpowered force (it was clearly an asymmetric war).

I see this kinda going the same way into a gruelling meatgrinder. I don't see many human conflicts resolved with one side being the 100% winner. And there is no guarantee that Ukraine will win if it continues. Especially when it comes to meatgrinding wars, Russia has the population and strict regime to keep throwing people into it. It's basically their MO, it's how they beat the Germans as well. Ukraine loses less but there are much fewer people to replace them with and also less motivated than at the start (the people really willing to fight already are).

And don't forget, Russia still has nukes and Ukraine doesn't. That will always hang over this conflict like a dark cloud. I wouldn't put it past Putin to use them even if he lost just out of spite. Not saying we should give in to Putin just because of that but we shouldn't put him in a situation where he has nothing left to lose.

I'm sure many people are more patriottic than me (especially in the US people seem to be very patriottic). Just 2-4% sounds low, that's all. But anyway, if that is their wish, ok, fair enough. I do hope they will be victorious. I just don't think the human price will be worth it, and talks should at least start.

None of this is likely to convince people to give the people who did it land it has never held on the promise that in a few years the exact same thing will happen again.

By the way this is of course all part of the negotiation. Right now there is no talk whatsoever, and Ukraine is in a very good position, I could imagine this ending up with Russia walking away with only to the land they control (which is all pretty devastated). Ukraine is starting to withdraw from places now and they might not have such a good negotiating position later. Especially if Trump wins, don't forget! Nothing can be taken for granted then. NATO could even fall apart as he has suggested.

[-] millie@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago

How is this perspective different during an invasion of a hostile, genocidal force than simply copping to cowardice and collaboration?

[-] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Frankly do not agree with your assessment especially about Ukraine. Russia still retains maximal aims. Ukraine still retains the ability to militarily defeat Russia but the west has been a day late and a dollar short. Manpower. That is a Ukranian political decision. Ukrainian losses have been not that large compared to their population. Similar in ratio to Russian losses to their population.

Gaza is harder. No good solution. The residents of Gaza choose this by choosing Hamas as their government and starting a war with Israel. Iran is similarly responsible.

Edit: The amount of money the US has put into either conflicts is minimal, had been spend largely in the US, and has no relation to social funding.

[-] gitgud@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

Ukraine still retains the ability to militarily defeat Russia but the west has been a day late and a dollar short.

I think that may have been the case at one point, but if you look up Ukraine and prosthetics, and compare to the population and military strength you'll see that it's more than a day late at this point. Even if you're of the opinion that deaths aren't that high, prostheses need paints a grim picture for the future of that conflict. Countries like France were trying to negotiate settlements and ceasefires earlier in the war but the US kept blocking them and hinging financial and military support on not negotiating, which is how we got where we are there.

The residents of Gaza choose this by choosing Hamas as their government and starting a war with Israel. Iran is similarly responsible.

First, I disagree. Hamas was elected decades ago and there have been no elections since, and more than 50% of Gaza was children before Oct 7th. The majority of people who live in Gaza did not elect Hamas.

Secondly, even if this was the case, what were Gazans going to do about their situation, protest? Israel controls and controlled flow of trade (via a blockade), water, and electricity into Gaza before this conflict. A huge percentage of the Gaza population had injuries from IDF soldiers deliberately shooting them in the kneecaps from earlier protests or getting too close to the fences they erected. On top of that, Israel helped fund Hamas and got them into power, so Oct 7 was just Israel reaping what it sowed. Gaza was an open air prison hosting a slow genocide before this conflict, all that's happened now is Israel moving up the timetable.

[-] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 months ago

All that money is used to buy American weapons and products. That's how it works. That money is paid back to American companies.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 8 months ago

Well the CEOs of Raytheon, Haliburton, and Lockheed-Martin are doing fine, fwiw. I think though that the issue is rather than funnel money to those dudes, people would like to keep their money to spend it on things they need, like food or bills.

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago

I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that the money would be spent on food aid. After the fall of the Soviet Union for instance, congress explicitly passed a law preventing spending on defense from being redirected toward domestic issues. A large deficit also wasn’t seen as much of an issue when we halved the corporate tax rate in 2017.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

Well because if they don't take my money for bomb building, I will spend it on food, to aid my living.

I wasn't saying the government would, they prefer to spend it on military, instead of letting me spend it on my food, that's actually kinda the whole thing.

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago

Except we’ve already cut taxes to half to a third of what they were in the 60s, and most people made more than enough to spend on food then.

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago

Yet people are spending 11% of their income on food due to rising prices and inflation and wages haven't really balanced out like in the 60s where my stepmom could pay for college with her summer job as a grocery bagger.

All I know is, if I had more money in my acct, it would get spent on food and bills.

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 1 points 8 months ago

But the extra dollar less in taxes won’t do anything about shrinking wages or raising housing costs and you’ll just be back to where you were when your employer pays you less because after all, taxes are so much lower now.

this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
30 points (100.0% liked)

U.S. News

2242 readers
129 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
rs5th@beehaw.org
Powderhorn@beehaw.org