cross-posted from: https://lemmy.crimedad.work/post/138601

“That son of a bitch, Bibi Netanyahu, he’s a bad guy,” said Biden privately, according to Woodward. “He’s a bad fucking guy!”

Reads like a bloody Onion article.

  • BMTea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This is a nice little rant, but there is nothing “complicated” about the Leahy law or the State Department discretion unless you’re literally a child or have some kind of cognition issue. It’s straight forward. If Biden wants to stop sending weapons, all he has to do is tell his Secretary of State “hey, stop sending weapons on account of the law says we can’t” and it’s done.

    • Soup@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Cool. And in your little make believe world, there’s zero repercussions for doing that?

      This is EXACTLY my point. You don’t know how it works.

        • Soup@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          They audacity to accuse someone of living in a make believe world while simultaneously thinking that ending decades-long trade agreements is easy.

          And what’s up with the name calling man? Don’t you know that that’s taken as conceding the argument? You’re not going to give up this early, are you?

          • BMTea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s not a “decades-long trade agreement” to begin. Do you think it’s NAFTA or something? Maintaining Israel’s QME is written into law but very vaguely define, and the Leahy law can be invoked to stop all offensive weapons while still allowing defensive weapons - such as interceptor missiles - through. You’re a complete midwit grasping at straws. You haven’t outline a single concrete objection, you rely on vagueries to hide your ignorance.

              • BMTea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                You have brought up exactly one concrete claim - that the arms relationship is a “decades-long trade agreement” - and it was embarrassingly wrong. I can see why you find the topic so complicated, you seem to not know the first thing about it.

                • Soup@lemmy.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  The US Israel FTA (Free Trade Agreement) was began in 1985. 1985 to 2024 is how many years exactly?? And the weapons sent is a direct result of the 10 Year Memorandum wish is in addition to the FTA.

                  It wouldn’t have happened without it. And it’s pretty safe to assume that canceling one, cancels the other. Which again, illustrate my point- NUANCED and COMPLICATED

                  Lastly… The fact that you seem to be incapable of counting excuses you from this discussion.

                  • BMTea@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    I’ll spell this out for you.

                    The US Israel FTA does not include military sales, which are regulated in separate treaties.

                    The 10 year memorandum is a memorandum (meaning non-binding) and only deals with financial assitance and missile defense - which I already mentioned. It can be cancelled at literally any time.

                    Neither agreement affects the other. You should Google a little more thoroughly. Or better yet, stop arguing about topics you don’t understand.

                    This is the last time I’m responding to you. I get the impression you’re just here to feed your ego.

                    This is not a constructive way to learn about topics you’re unfamiliar.