What to expect when the US Senate finally votes on weapons to Israel
www.middleeasteye.net
Ahead of new administration, this may be last chance lawmakers have to go on record about Israeli human rights violations

On Wednesday, the US Senate will hold a vote on whether to approve the Pentagon’s request to send another $20bn in armaments to Israel, after a year in which the Biden administration has supplied billions of dollars of arms used in Israel’s devastating war on Gaza.

Among the weapons to be approved are 120mm tank rounds, high explosive mortar rounds, F-15IA fighter aircraft, and joint direct attack munitions, known as JDAMs, which are precision systems for otherwise indiscriminate or “dumb” bombs.

Separate resolutions are being brought forward for each weapon type, including its cost to US taxpayers. However, together, the initiative is known as the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs).

As a result of intensive lobbying from pro-Israel groups like Aipac and the Democratic Majority For Israel, no arms transfer to Israel has been blocked.

The resolutions likely to gain the highest levels of support are expected to involve the tank rounds, which have been responsible for killing hundreds of civilians in northern Gaza in particular, and the JDAMs, which caused the death of well-known figures such as Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah in southern Lebanon, and six-year-old Hind Rajab in Gaza City.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    83·
    7 hours ago

    When push comes to shove every democrat falls in line for the center right candidate.

    “Democrats” aren’t enough to win. We need the people who normally aren’t engaged, and the most common reason they give is "both parties only care about the rich’.

    Dems continually moving to the right just depresses turnout and allows Republicans to win

    Including the ‘progressives’.

    Buddy, progressives hold their noses and show up to vote for the least worse option. Personally I’ve been doing it for decades.

    Progressives aren’t the problem, they’re some of the most politically engaged people in America.

    They just get blamed by the neo liberals everytime a neoliberal loses.

    Because:

    We need the people who normally aren’t engaged, and the most common reason they give is "both parties only care about the rich’.

    Dems continually moving to the right just depresses turnout and allows Republicans to win

    If the DNC wants wins elections, they need to start giving Dem voters what they want, not aiming for “slightly more than trump would do”.

    Doesn’t matter that they should still vote D, the politically disengaged won’t vote unless they want the candidate to win or the incumbent out of office.

    When a moderate Dem is in office, that means Republicans win the election

    It’s very very important we finally learn this lesson. So I’m willing to put some time in to help you understand, even if it’s incredibly frustrating explaining this for the millionth time.

    I’m willing to put the time in help.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.worldOP
      13·
      5 hours ago

      Buddy, progressives hold their noses and show up to vote for the least worse option. Personally I’ve been doing it for decades.

      Rewarding Democrats bad behavior is what got you into this mess.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        4 hours ago

        No, neoliberals and Republicans working together to destroy campaign fundraising regulations is what led us down this path.

        The wealthy just buy both parties now in the primary so they don’t have to even worry about the general.

        Not holding our noses and voting for the least worse option just means the Republican wins the general. That won’t make the DNC change the type of candidate they run, they’d rather lose to a Republican and keep their positions at the DNC.

        So we try to fix things in the primary by getting a progressive.

        If we cant then in the general, we still vote D to mitigate the amount of damage.

        Like, that’s not just what I do, it’s what literally every progressive I know in real life has been doing for decades now.

        What have you been doing if not that?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            3 hours ago

            The irony that you can’t see she’s saying the same thing I am is too much bub

            If you really think me and her are disagreeing, then me repeatedly explaining this won’t help anyone

            My advice would be asking someone else for assistance, maybe how I’m explaining it is the problem. But I don’t think it is.

            Edit:

            So no one else has to click on a twitter link:

            I’m afraid that you’re organizing people into a burning house. The Democratic Party has demonstrated that it would rather have Republicans win than to disappoint its donor class & actually embrace the policies that would make the material improvements to those people’s lives that you’re talking about. There’s a reason why Kamala Harris would not support an arms embargo. She took more money from Raytheon than even Donald Trump did. She’s a part of an administration where the secretary of Defense was a Raytheon board member. These are material realities that are constraining the politics of the Democratic Party, & no nice lady coming along or nice man coming along who loves his grandkids & eats an ice cream cone, & put sunshades on and hangs out with Barack Obama can change that reality."

            When election day rolled around, she still did the same as me:

            Advocating for mitigating damage when that was the only other option.

            When talking about next election, she says we need a better candidate. Same thing I’ve been saying.

            Like, I understand that we agree, but trying to get you to understand that has been insanely frustrating