A top aide to Vice President Harris said Thursday that the Democratic presidential nominee does not support an arms embargo on Israel, after the Uncommitted National Movement suggested she was open to discussing a total ban on weapons deliveries from the U.S.
Leaders of the Uncommitted National Movement, born out of opposition toward President Biden’s policy toward Israel, said Harris showed an openness to a meeting to discuss an arms embargo on Israel following a brief exchange with the group’s founders during her Wednesday campaign rally in Detroit.
However, Phil Gordon, Harris’s national security adviser, reiterated her opposition to an arms embargo in a Thursday post on the social platform X.
“@VP has been clear: she will always ensure Israel is able to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups. She does not support an arms embargo on Israel. She will continue to work to protect civilians in Gaza and to uphold international humanitarian law,” he wrote.
Well it was a good 2 weeks before Kamala dropped the act.
Was there an act? I thought she’s known to be fairly pro-Israel (or pro-Zionist I guess)
With her pick of Walz instead of Shapiro and her comment of “not staying silent” there was some slight hope she’d be willing to push back and use real leverage against israel.
Then again, it is a bit ridiculous to expect a career politician who obtained her position by stabbing Palestinians in the back to suddenly grow a backbone and do the right thing after reaching the top.
Wouldn’t matter. As a matter of policy the US is always going to honor its defense commitments to Israel. We’re never going to leave them defenseless against Iran or Hamas. But a commitment to humanitarian aid and an acknowledgement that their current actions constitute genocide would be nice for laying the groundwork to apply some pressure.
Wouldn’t matter. As a matter of policy the US is always going to honor its defense commitments to Israel.
What Israel is doing in Gaza stopped being “defense” a long time ago.
It’s actually useful to consider a distinction between pro-Israel and pro-Zionist. The difference is being able to stand with the Israeli peace protestors and against the ultra-orthodox faction and Netanyahu in their attempts to aggressively expand and consolidate land. Similar to the ability to stand with innocent Palestinians and against hamas.
It’s a specific position that tries to muddy those waters, trying to paint all Israelis as evil invaders regardless of whether they were born there or not, or whether they support the war or not, and hamas as some sort of freedom fighters despite their own oppression and weaponization of the Palestinian people. If you think about it, this is pretty obviously a pro-war position that tries to justify violence and warfare against one particular group of people, though, on the basis of the sins of their ancestors, not necessarily anything they themselves are guilty of. (Beyond being born in the wrong place.)
People should not be punished for the wrongs committed by others, and this includes both innocent Israelis and innocent Palestinians. If someone is unwilling to recognize that either innocent Israelis or innocent Palestinians even exist in the modern day, then that should be a red flag.
Anti-zionism is literally calling for the dismantlement of the Israeli state and all the violent horror that would entail. What Israel is doing in Gaza right now is also horrific, should be condemned, and in no way justified, but the idea that the solution to that problem is to put millions of innocent people under control of an organization which openly states their desire to exterminate them, is insane. It’s literally just information warfare, because no honest geopolitical observer could possibly fine it palatable. To believe that Israeli citizens would just stand by and allow themselves to fall under the thumb of a self avowed Islamist extermination cult without vigorously defending themselves is simple fantasy. There is no reality where that creates a peaceful resolution. Anyone seriously calling for that should be assumed to favor incredible violence against Israeli citizens, which is precisely why it is a position which has been historically linked to white supremacists. And is why literally nobody else was seriously espousing such ideas this time last year
Yeah I’m surprised it took that long for you to settle on a new purity test.
Current Democrat supports Genocide with weapons
New Democrat says she will keep supporting the Genocide with weapons
Do you think my red line for the last 9 months was a VP who promises to legalize weed?
Oh no she didn’t unilaterally and radically turn against 50 years of standing U.S. foreign policy, guess we gotta let the fascist win. /s
Diplomacy is WAY harder than you’re making it out to be. She can’t just say “F Israel” and pull out unilaterally. You have no idea how complicated this all is
Literally just stop sending bombs to israel and the Genocide ends. They had ran out of ammo months ago if Genocide Joe didn’t keep resupplying them.
This is like saying it would be complicated to not send arms to the Nazis if they were a “strategic partner against the Russians” in WW2
It’s weird to pretend that the other guy wouldn’t have an even worse policy.
The situation in Gaza is shitty, but making it a primary election issue without looking at the alternative is asinine.
What do you expect from AIPAC and Billionaires funded Democratic candidate ?
same old same old with Biden’s genocidal policies. Not that the majority of leftists in America care to push the democrats to stop arming Israel. as long as she is not a Republican that’s enough to earn their vote.
The hypocrisy of a country that joined WWII to free Europe from fascism and stop the genocide of the Jews. To end up funding them and becoming complicit of committing genocide on other people.
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Hill:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Search topics on Ground.News
https://thehill.com/policy/international/4818583-harris-camp-shuts-down-talk-of-israel-arms-embargo/
We were never gonna get an arms embargo. It would have been nice, but that wasn’t a thing that was realistically gonna happen. She’s still wants a ceasefire. Still thinks the things happening in Gaza are a “humanitarian crisis,” which isn’t saying genocide but is still more than biden really did. The uncommitted movement, even in prior articles on here, said they’re not expecting an arms embargo, just some sign that things will change. Like a ceasefire and some kinda peace deal. This is just her doing what everyone expected, including uncommitted organizers, supporting Israel but still pushing for change. Now, if the uncommitted organizers move the goal posts, that shows their not willing to compromise at all.
That’s actually a lie. according the NYT the uncommitted organizers who met with Harris before her rally in Michigan requested an arms embargo on Israel.
Here’s the article I’m basing my comment on. This was from a week and a half ago I think? Maybe roughly 2 weeks.
Quote I’m referencing: “Activists say they don’t expect a full-throated embrace of their platform — for the U.S. to stop selling arms to Israel — but say she must give them some indication that in a Harris presidency, U.S. foreign policy would shift.” They’re talking about how they don’t expect an arms embargo, but want change. This is talking to the leaders of the uncommitted movement.
What you’re saying is a shift from what they said back when the article was written. Which happens but is moving the goal posts. Course the article isn’t that good at them talking about what they actually DO want. Good to know they said that in their meeting with Harris, I’ll remember that for future.
