• AgentDalePoopster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    All of them, frankly. It’s against US law to provide weapons to a nation that is using said weapons to commit human rights violations. My expectation is that the US follows its own laws.

    • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      22 days ago

      Okay, I can work with that. Do you think ceasing all weapons shipments to Israel tomorrow would create a situation in which more or fewer people would die in the middle east in the next 10 years, and what is your reasoning behind that belief?

      • AgentDalePoopster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days ago

        Obviously less, to the extent that anyone can predict geopolitical events that far in the future. I think the only counter-argument is the idea that an Israel that isn’t receiving massive amounts of US aid will be invaded, but I don’t find that argument convincing. It’s an open secret that Israel has nuclear weapons, and even if the US stops arming Israel tomorrow I don’t think Iran or their proxies are dumb enough to think that the US won’t come rushing right back in if Israel is invaded.

        • LengAwaits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          22 days ago

          I’m not as certain that it would be obviously less, as there are surely myriad factors about which I have no information. But I respect and understand where you’re coming from.

          I’m not sure that the regimes propping up Iran wouldn’t take the opportunity to capitalize on a serious draw-down of Israeli munitions, for various reasons, logistical (supply-chain) reasons among them.