• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.

    While continuing to send the weapons anyway, as much as he possibly can without congressional approval.

    His public pretense at being a moderating influence means less than nothing as long as he keeps being an active supplier of the genocide.

    • lutillian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      There’s no congressional approval needed as he is driven by treaty to provide arms, if anything he is compelled by Congress to send arms as long as Israel is at war as a US ally due to NATO.

      He’s trying to make the argument that Israel committing genocide with those arms is reason to withdraw support, unfortunately the US government moves at a glacial pace on it’s best day to the point that the US military is actually somehow faster. Given the number of Democrats that do support Israel, its entirely realistic that he could get successfully impeached if he failed to comply.

        • lutillian@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Cool, sounds good to me. Thanks again, I was finding myself eagerly anticipating your responses because I was definitely learning some new things about why people dislike his handling of the Gaza genocides. You’ve made some really good points. I think he’s made a good enough case at this point that NATO is no longer applicable in the case of genocide. At least with to protect him from retaliation if he did command a stop of US support to a NATO ally.