In her first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris told CNN it was imperative to reach a ceasefire deal in Gaza, but made it clear that she would not alter President Joe Biden’s policy in the region.
However, when pressed on whether she would stop sending weapons to Israel she told Bash, “No, we have to get a deal done, Dana. We have to get a deal done.”
“Adopting an arms embargo against Israel’s assault on Gaza is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic move to defeat Trump and MAGA extremism. It is difficult for the Democratic candidate to champion democracy while arming Netanyahu’s authoritarian regime” reads a recent letter to Harris from the coalition Not Another Bomb.
Recent polling has repeatedly demonstrated that Democratic voters overwhelmingly support the conditioning of U.S. military aid. A Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) survey from March found that 52% of Americans want the U.S. to halt weapons shipments to Israel in order to force a ceasefire. 62% of Biden voters said “The US should stop weapons shipments to Israel until Israel discontinues its attacks on the people of Gaza,” while only 14% disagreed with the statement.
The numbers from a June CBS News poll were even higher, with more than 60% of all voters and almost 80% of Democrats saying the U.S. shouldn’t send Israel weapons.
“The real question should have been, ‘When are you going to start enforcing U.S. law as it relates to arms shipments’ because what we are doing right now, with this United States policy, is in violation of not just international law, but also of American law, “said the Arab Center’s Yousef Munayyer in an interview with Democracy Now in response to the CNN segment. “Vice-President Harris made it clear in other parts of her interview that she wants to be a prosecutor. She wants to enforce the law, but Israel is clearly getting an exception from the Harris campaign.”
Your knowledge is incorrect. Please seek out better sources.
Reagan said Israel is carrying out a holocaust, and stopped them with a single phonecall. Bush Sr. stopped them by threatening arms embargo as well. Eisenhower and Ford couldn’t stomach their bloodlust either and called them off.
Israel is a client state of the US, it’s best to think of it as the 51st state. They do what they’re told.
Imagine being worse than Reagan 💀
Not just Reagan, Margaret Thatcher did the same thing. Imagine being to the right of people like Reagan and Thatcher.
That’s what people forget, all it takes is one phone call from a US Pres. Israel is nobody.
What an amazingly simplistic view of geopolitics.
Israel is a nuclear client state. One overzealous president is all it takes to launch a nuke at Pakistan and cause a global calamity.
Pakistan? You mean Iran?
What does trump say? Ultimately that’s the only person you need to compare Harris to.
Pretty similar, promising to negotiate a deal to end the slaughter asap. But there’s no reason to believe any candidate wants to end the genocide.
If you’re an American who pays for the killing, you should act in solidarity with the victims and their relatives. There should be an #uncommitted group in your state, see what they recommend.
Removed by mod
The average American has far more power over the genocide than most everyone else in the world, including Palestinians. Any act of resistance an American makes is amplified.
My point is though they only have two options, and both of those options are happy to continue funding war crimes. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Yet people on this platform like to make out that generic mr smith underpaid mechanic in the middle of the US is directly causing children to be murdered. Protesting is the only option but let’s be honest, that just gets ignored. So instead of these relentless posts about Harris continuing funding, why not try to focus on topics where the 2 parties differ to give the people an idea about which party might be best for them in other ways?
As you said, protest is the only option. One form of protesting is not voting, or voting third party.
That’s not protesting, that’s being apathetic and lazy. If you want to protest get out onto the streets, call your local representatives and rally like minded locals. Not voting will only lead to the party that is even more opposite to your beliefs to win.
I’m aware of the mainstream opinion on third party voting. It conflicts with the consensus among US historians, I think for obvious reasons. Women’s suffrage, 17th amendment, many labor laws, etc. originate from third parties.
Voting for a third party is the opposite of laziness and apathy. You’re intentionally spending the time and effort to place a vote which you know will not succeed, entirely because you believe in doing the right thing, even when it isn’t popular.
The US needs a revolution, the current system is impossible to change without it. All you can do is harm mitigation.
There’s a very obvious third option that you’re ignoring.
You can’t even imagine it. It’s fascinating, really.