Sanders Files to Force First-Ever Vote in Congress on Blocking Weapons to Israel
Sanders Files to Force First-Ever Vote in Congress on Blocking Weapons to Israel
“There is a mountain of documentary evidence” that Israel uses US weapons to violate the law, Sanders said.
On Wednesday, Sanders introduced six resolutions blocking six sales of different weapons contained within the $20 billion weapons deal announced by the Biden administration in August. The sales include many of the types of weapons that Israel has used in its relentless campaign of extermination in Gaza over the past year.
“Sending more weapons is not only immoral, it is also illegal. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act lay out clear requirements for the use of American weaponry – Israel has egregiously violated those rules,” said Sanders. “There is a mountain of documentary evidence demonstrating that these weapons are being used in violation of U.S. and international law.”
This will be the first time in history that Congress has ever voted on legislation to block a weapons sale to Israel, as the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project pointed out. This is despite the U.S. having sent Israel over $250 billion in military assistance in recent decades, according to analyst Stephen Semler, as Israel has carried out ethnic cleansings and massacres across Palestine and in Lebanon.
The resolutions are not likely to pass; even if they did pass the heavily pro-Israel Congress, they would likely be vetoed by President Joe Biden, who has been insistent on sending weapons to Israel with no strings attached.
However, Sanders’s move is in line with public opinion. Polls have consistently found that the majority of the public supports an end to Israel’s genocide; a poll by the Institute for Global Affairs released this week found, for instance, that a majority of Americans think the U.S. should stop supporting Israel or make support contingent on Israeli officials’ agreement to a ceasefire deal. This includes nearly 80 percent of Democrats.
You're viewing a single thread.
We coulda had the OG and instead they chose HRC. SMH
Fun fact: Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary in head-to-head matchups against Trump.
The same establishment that derailed Sanders and propped Hillary up were the same ones trying to force Biden down our throats while castigating any dissent.*
*I know the progressives supported Biden until the end, but this was purely a strategic reason where if anything, their calls for Biden to step aside might've had the opposite effect.
Yes. 2016 was rock paper scissors for elections
How much did Bernie outperform Trump? Do you have links to hand?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your analogy but how was Hillary better than Bernie?
She was in lockstep with the democratic party, whereas Bernie would have been a gremlin in the machine.
She was better in the eyes of the party (because she won the primary).
That's not why she was better in the eyes of the party, lol
Fun fact: your guy lost, get over it
Whew, more salt than the dead sea.
So long as you learned from your mistake, little buddy :)
Say here's another fun fact! More Sanders supporters would go on to support Hillary than did Hillary supporters go on to support Obama in 2008 when she lost the primaries.
Guess they didn't get over it :(
Holy fuck that's a level of disingenuous worthy of Trump himself. You're comparing absolute numbers instead of percentages? Oldest bullshitting trick in the book.
So did Hillary, wasn't her turn I guess
Correct. And we're over it.
IDK man, that comment you made wasn't very high in terms of over it energy.
Hillary is gone, dude, we're not constantly bringing up the glory days of what could have been.
but you did
No, I literally didn't. Someone else did.
I don't often downvote comments, as I think that often that's just a censorious way to say "I disagree". But this comment so obviously adds nothing of value to the conversation, and indeed poisons it with petty grievance. So I feel totally justified in downvoting this comment.
Still not over it, I see
Excuse me, we had to go with the obvious choice that would win /s
I won a porterhouse from a steakhouse over Hilary losing.
I’d rather I hadn’t won. The bet was made in primary season, and that Hilary would get the nomination and lose the election. (There was a second part that said if Bernie won the nomination he’d be POTUS)
I'd eat a hundred well-done steaks from Denny's topped with ketchup if it meant we didn't have to deal with Trump again.
I’m in tinfoil hat territory, but it’s logical that Hillary was promised the Sec State position and superdelegate support for conceding to Obama and not making it a convention fight. It explains why the r’s only attacked her for 8 years outside Obama, they knew they didn’t have to attack any other potential candidate.
I don't think that's tinfoil hat at all. I mean it seems like a very logical explanation and the same thoughts I had when I was watching it happen.
I still remember when Hillary went to Obama before conceding and most were speculating it was going to be about a cabinet position and her running after Obama did.