• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s really adorable that you don’t think the U.S. government, which has given Israel billions of dollars worth of weapons over the years and is sending them more and more as they bomb Gaza to ruin isn’t behind Israel 100% no matter what they do.

    I’m not sure why that isn’t totally obvious to you like it is almost the entire rest of the world, but…

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It’s cool if you want to paint the entire problem with broad strokes, but don’t minimize the understanding of those who want the details. Accuracy is important to some of us.

      In the general sense of right vs. wrong, we’re in absolute agreement that it’s wrong. I’m just discussing how the government can do something about it.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t need you to send me news of atrocities I’ve already seen. I need the State Department to determine them to be in violation of international law so our President can do something about it without facing a trial.

          If you’ve been reading my comments with intent to understand, rather than looking for points to combat with general opinions, you’d already know that.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            5 months ago

            It was a 25-page UN report on genocide which, in fact, says that they are violating international law, and not a news article.

            So, again, how did the U.S. miss those really obvious details?

            Like I said, it’s a 25 page report so take your time reading it and tell me why the U.S. missed those details since you seem convinced that the U.S. assessment is correct.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Again, you’re missing the point. It’s not about the UN report, or even the impending trial of Israel for genocide by the ICJ.

              POTUS does not listed to news, protesters, the UN, the ICC, or the ICJ. They listen to US intelligence reports provided by the State Department. They can deviate from following advisement if backed by the support of Congress. Without either, they would be challenged by Congress in the form of an impeachment hearing.

              Like it or not, this is how the US government is structured. Knowing how it works allows us to find the problem.

              In this case, the problem is suppressed intelligence in the State Department. That doesn’t mean Biden is free to amend legislation without repercussion. He can mandate reassessment, investigate the suppression, or take action against advisement and inevitably face impeachment from Republicans.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Yet again, I am asking why the state department claims it is inconclusive and Biden accepts that claim if it is conclusive without any suppressed intelligence?

                • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  @Flying: Something is getting lost in the sauce. This guy is in agreement with you. They’re simply pointing out how the executive branch executes their decisions and who they are beholden to. The US president can read UN reports, but ultimately they are beholden to the state department and the intelligence reports they get which clearly should be reevaluated. That’s it.

                  They are not saying there isn’t validity in news articles or UN reports. Is that making sense?

                  • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    The state department is not some magically neutral apolitical arbiter, time and time again we see that the president’s political appointees at the top direct the department to act in a way he wants. That means biasing reports; burying reports that say what the president doesn’t want public and commissioning reports to say what the president ultimately wants.

                    Didn’t we all see how the president leaned on the CIA to play up WMD claims in Iraq?

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  It appears you’ve arrived at the source of the problem. This is exactly what I was saying at the start of our conversation. He’s not allowed to dismiss the findings without a reassessment. So what do you think he should do?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I don’t know, how about ask for a reassessment?

                    Or how about acting on that red line he said Israel couldn’t cross and then crossed…