The ceasefire will force Netanyahu to form agreements within international law. Biden has already restored the sanctions, that Trump had previously repealed, on Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Expansion is off the table. The only claim Israel can make is for return of hostages and request an end to attacks. If they fail to negotiate, or breach agreements afterward, Biden will have a documented platform for amendment of existing munitions supply.
Had the State Department not suppressed the intelligence that would have led to conclusive findings of war crimes, he could have already justified amendment of support against the direction of Congress.
I’m saying the inconclusive State Department report has his hands tied. Congress has already voted in favor of military aid. If Biden acts against the advisement of both branches, he’ll be exposed to an impeachment hearing for acting in bad faith. He needs the State Department to provide an accurate and conclusive report, or be at the table for negotiations for first-hand accountability, to justify amendment of existing support agreements without repercussion.
You don’t have to like it, but this is how the government is structured.
Who are “they?” Blinken or Biden? Biden’s proposal for ceasefire takes the State Department out of the equation and allows him to assess the conflict with direct oversight.
He’d be acting in bad faith without support of either the State Department or Congress.
Biden has three options:
Mandate reassessment from the State Department, hoping the report will be conclusive of crime justifying amendment of support
Investigate suppressed intelligence in the State Department, eventually leading to a reassessment of intelligence
Amend existing agreements against advisement from the State Department and Congress and face the impending impeachment hearing
Ah yes, the famously anti-Israel congress that would definitely be against Biden’s administration saying that they couldn’t find conclusive evidence of something that lots of other parties have found very conclusive evidence for.
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…
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.
That’s untrue, Congress already passed the Lehy law and arms shipments are already bound by that. Biden could have followed the law and stopped weapons shipments based on that or the other law that block aid to countries that block humanitarian aid. Instead Biden bypassed Congress to give more weapons faster, when he didn’t do that for Ukraine.
Biden’s bypass was before he mandated a pause in munitions delivery pending a State Department investigation of breach of international law. I don’t believe he was interested in stopping the supply before that. Once the investigation returned inconclusive, he was limited in his actions without repercussion. Amending existing agreements against advisement of Congress and State Department intelligence would leave him exposed to impeachment by Congress for acting in bad faith.
Now that there’s reason to believe Blinken’s report was inconclusive due to suppression of intelligence, Biden can mandate a reassessment. Directly overseeing the ceasefire will stop causality sooner, allow for aid to Gaza more quickly, and allow him to deviate from Congress and the State Department if Israel negotiates in bad faith or breaches the agreement.
No. It’s more likely Biden leaned on the State Department to bury their findings. The organization is controlled by political appointees, remember. Typically their reports are a fait accompli. And no, there’s zero talk by Republicans on impeaching Biden over Israel, so you keep repeating this idea with no backing or evidence behind it. The president has broad discretionary powers in foreign policy and can restrict aid as he sees fit, and the courts including SCOTUS have consistently ruled in favor of the presidency on the issue.
Israel is absolutely working in bad faith, and Biden is enabling it. See Biden’s red line not being breached by airstrikes and literal tanks into Rafah according to Israeli government and with Biden rushing to agree after the fact, with excuses that tanks are merely on roads or that the airstrikes are limited under a new just-made up-threshold.
I don’t need evidence to assume the President is speaking truthfully. You should be providing evidence to the contrary. Innocent until proven guilty.
Your ignorance to checks and balances is the source of your confusion. Yes, the President can absolutely amend the aid without support of Congress or justification from US intelligence. Going against the advisement of both the Legislative and Executive Branches would absolutely have him checked by the Judiciary Branch in the form of an impeachment hearing.
lol, as a political scientist that’s ridiculous and false. The Judicial Branch does not have a role in impeachment aside from Chief Justice having a role in the Senate trial. Impeachment is a political process conducted by the Legislative Branch. And impeachment “for high crimes and misdemeanors” does not include wielding his congressionally-authorized power to condition aid or hold aid when the country in question violates the Leahy Laws (which require the US to hold military aid to a country that violates human rights without accountability.
Political scientists don’t troll Lemmy for debates. I’m guessing you’re like me, and took some poli-sci classes in college. That makes you a graduate. Employment as a political science professor, researcher, author, or qualified pundit makes you a political scientist.
You’re right. The Senate holds the trial and votes on impeachment. That’s my mistake. Still, Biden does not have the support of Congress to go against the intelligence advisement of his own branch. You really think Republicans in Congress would let him amend existing contracts without any substantiated justification?
I think he needs to mandate a reassessment by the State Department while overseeing the negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Netanyahu negotiating in bad faith, or verification of war crime by intelligence, will give him a firm platform for amendment of support to Iron Dome munitions only.
This isn’t some deep state conspiracy that has him trapped. He can go to the intelligence community at any time and get the no bullshit assessments to back up using the Leahy Law. The state department turns out these turd reports because he wants them to.
What are you talking about, the Israeli government just announced a record breaking set of new settlement expansion lands. What sanctions did Biden restore or did Trump even add? Biden sanctioned less than 10 individual settlers and then repealed those sanctions under pressure.
Trump repealed 50-year-old sanctions preventing Israel from developing on Palestinian territory in 2019. Netanyahu was so grateful, he named a new settlement after Trump in Golan Heights.
It’s a US policy that sanctions Israel’s ability to develop on Palestinian territory. How is that not the same? Are you really arguing the semantics of restoring vs. creating new legislation?
Your link merely says that Biden declared the settlements illegal, with no sanctions behind it. He is not restricting US aid money to the settlements or settlers, nor is he sanctioning businesses doing business in these illegal settlements. Your article points out that Israel defied Biden’s legal opinion and is expanding settlements anyway without US doing anything to stop it. Once again, where are the sanctions?
Sanctions on just 4 people? There’s hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers, thousands of attacks a year, and hundreds of Palestinians dead in the last 12 months even before October 7. Even 4 per settlement is insultingly low, not 4 in all of the OPT. You can’t even round up to the nearest 10 people; even you know this is a worthless gesture that is nothing more than a political talking point. And Biden walked back those sanctions after pressure from Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich; Israeli banks can now do business with the sanctioned individuals in a special exemption.
The ceasefire will force Netanyahu to form agreements within international law. Biden has already restored the sanctions, that Trump had previously repealed, on Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. Expansion is off the table. The only claim Israel can make is for return of hostages and request an end to attacks. If they fail to negotiate, or breach agreements afterward, Biden will have a documented platform for amendment of existing munitions supply.
Had the State Department not suppressed the intelligence that would have led to conclusive findings of war crimes, he could have already justified amendment of support against the direction of Congress.
Are you saying Biden simply isn’t aware of the genocide, or that he’s completely powerless to have stopped the military aid?
I’m saying the inconclusive State Department report has his hands tied. Congress has already voted in favor of military aid. If Biden acts against the advisement of both branches, he’ll be exposed to an impeachment hearing for acting in bad faith. He needs the State Department to provide an accurate and conclusive report, or be at the table for negotiations for first-hand accountability, to justify amendment of existing support agreements without repercussion.
You don’t have to like it, but this is how the government is structured.
Do really you think the report would have been inconclusive if they didn’t want it to be?
Who are “they?” Blinken or Biden? Biden’s proposal for ceasefire takes the State Department out of the equation and allows him to assess the conflict with direct oversight.
He’d be acting in bad faith without support of either the State Department or Congress.
Biden has three options:
Mandate reassessment from the State Department, hoping the report will be conclusive of crime justifying amendment of support
Investigate suppressed intelligence in the State Department, eventually leading to a reassessment of intelligence
Amend existing agreements against advisement from the State Department and Congress and face the impending impeachment hearing
Ah yes, the famously anti-Israel congress that would definitely be against Biden’s administration saying that they couldn’t find conclusive evidence of something that lots of other parties have found very conclusive evidence for.
I don’t understand the point you’re making. Congress does not report to the State Department.
Congress is the Legislative Branch.
The State Department is part of the Executive Branch.
Deviating from advisement of both branches will find Biden in an impeachment hearing for acting in bad faith.
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…
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.
That’s untrue, Congress already passed the Lehy law and arms shipments are already bound by that. Biden could have followed the law and stopped weapons shipments based on that or the other law that block aid to countries that block humanitarian aid. Instead Biden bypassed Congress to give more weapons faster, when he didn’t do that for Ukraine.
Biden’s bypass was before he mandated a pause in munitions delivery pending a State Department investigation of breach of international law. I don’t believe he was interested in stopping the supply before that. Once the investigation returned inconclusive, he was limited in his actions without repercussion. Amending existing agreements against advisement of Congress and State Department intelligence would leave him exposed to impeachment by Congress for acting in bad faith.
Now that there’s reason to believe Blinken’s report was inconclusive due to suppression of intelligence, Biden can mandate a reassessment. Directly overseeing the ceasefire will stop causality sooner, allow for aid to Gaza more quickly, and allow him to deviate from Congress and the State Department if Israel negotiates in bad faith or breaches the agreement.
No. It’s more likely Biden leaned on the State Department to bury their findings. The organization is controlled by political appointees, remember. Typically their reports are a fait accompli. And no, there’s zero talk by Republicans on impeaching Biden over Israel, so you keep repeating this idea with no backing or evidence behind it. The president has broad discretionary powers in foreign policy and can restrict aid as he sees fit, and the courts including SCOTUS have consistently ruled in favor of the presidency on the issue.
Israel is absolutely working in bad faith, and Biden is enabling it. See Biden’s red line not being breached by airstrikes and literal tanks into Rafah according to Israeli government and with Biden rushing to agree after the fact, with excuses that tanks are merely on roads or that the airstrikes are limited under a new just-made up-threshold.
I don’t need evidence to assume the President is speaking truthfully. You should be providing evidence to the contrary. Innocent until proven guilty.
Your ignorance to checks and balances is the source of your confusion. Yes, the President can absolutely amend the aid without support of Congress or justification from US intelligence. Going against the advisement of both the Legislative and Executive Branches would absolutely have him checked by the Judiciary Branch in the form of an impeachment hearing.
lol, as a political scientist that’s ridiculous and false. The Judicial Branch does not have a role in impeachment aside from Chief Justice having a role in the Senate trial. Impeachment is a political process conducted by the Legislative Branch. And impeachment “for high crimes and misdemeanors” does not include wielding his congressionally-authorized power to condition aid or hold aid when the country in question violates the Leahy Laws (which require the US to hold military aid to a country that violates human rights without accountability.
Where did you even hear such a phony claim?
Political scientists don’t troll Lemmy for debates. I’m guessing you’re like me, and took some poli-sci classes in college. That makes you a graduate. Employment as a political science professor, researcher, author, or qualified pundit makes you a political scientist.
You’re right. The Senate holds the trial and votes on impeachment. That’s my mistake. Still, Biden does not have the support of Congress to go against the intelligence advisement of his own branch. You really think Republicans in Congress would let him amend existing contracts without any substantiated justification?
I think he needs to mandate a reassessment by the State Department while overseeing the negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Netanyahu negotiating in bad faith, or verification of war crime by intelligence, will give him a firm platform for amendment of support to Iron Dome munitions only.
This isn’t some deep state conspiracy that has him trapped. He can go to the intelligence community at any time and get the no bullshit assessments to back up using the Leahy Law. The state department turns out these turd reports because he wants them to.
What are you talking about, the Israeli government just announced a record breaking set of new settlement expansion lands. What sanctions did Biden restore or did Trump even add? Biden sanctioned less than 10 individual settlers and then repealed those sanctions under pressure.
Trump repealed 50-year-old sanctions preventing Israel from developing on Palestinian territory in 2019. Netanyahu was so grateful, he named a new settlement after Trump in Golan Heights.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48656431
After Israel attempted to contract development on the West Bank, Biden restored the sanctions in the beginning of this year.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-administration-restores-u-s-policy-calling-israeli-settlements-illegitimate-under-international-law
Biden restored US policy, he didn’t sanction Israel.
It’s a US policy that sanctions Israel’s ability to develop on Palestinian territory. How is that not the same? Are you really arguing the semantics of restoring vs. creating new legislation?
Your link merely says that Biden declared the settlements illegal, with no sanctions behind it. He is not restricting US aid money to the settlements or settlers, nor is he sanctioning businesses doing business in these illegal settlements. Your article points out that Israel defied Biden’s legal opinion and is expanding settlements anyway without US doing anything to stop it. Once again, where are the sanctions?
He’s sanctioned settlers since reinstating the law.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-sanctions-3-israeli-west-bank-settlers-and-their-outposts-for-violence-against-palestinians
Sanctions on just 4 people? There’s hundreds of thousands of illegal settlers, thousands of attacks a year, and hundreds of Palestinians dead in the last 12 months even before October 7. Even 4 per settlement is insultingly low, not 4 in all of the OPT. You can’t even round up to the nearest 10 people; even you know this is a worthless gesture that is nothing more than a political talking point. And Biden walked back those sanctions after pressure from Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich; Israeli banks can now do business with the sanctioned individuals in a special exemption.