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 could be at the end of Bernie's second term right now if Hillary hadn't staged a hostile takeover of the DNC during the primary.
trump would have been nothing more than a dated joke from TV reruns, Covid would have been handled appropriately, pretty much everyone would be measurably better off.
Dont forget what the moderate branch stole from us, they're still the ones running shit. That's not just an expression, literally the same people from back then are still running the DNC and in the current administration, they're literally still the ones running shit.
Part of the recipe for far right fascists to rise to power requires liberals’ “compromise.”
Liberals are just pro-Oligarchy - they think Money should be above the one power which is led by elected leaders: the State - which is against Democracy just like the Fascists, just with a different and more subtle mechanism determining those whose power is above the power of the vote.
They're just a different kind of Far-Right from the Fascists, which is why it is so easy for them to support Zionists - which are ethno-Fascists, the same sub-type of Fascism as the Nazis - even while they commit a Genocide.
People with even the slightest shred of Equalitarian values wouldn't ever support those commiting ethnic cleansing.
Oh yes, timeline 4861707079. I do enjoy that one, shame about the gazelles going extinct though.
No but vote blue no matter who amirite.
No possible way another lunatic will replace Trump by next election, he's just a one of a kind republican candidate totally nor representative of a systemic problem.
Who do you think people here should vote for in November?
Harris - because Trump is a fucking disaster... that doesn't mean the DNC is beyond criticism though.
Absolutely.
The reason HRC won the primary is that she got 17 million votes and Sanders only got 13 million.
....because the media and DNC conspired to make Bernie look like he was a crazy person who had no chance (basically the opposite of what they do for Trump). They used classic "tail wagging the dog" tactics to gaslight the left, downplay Bernie's support, and coronate Hillary.
If they hadn't been actively sabatoging him the entire fucking time he had an excellent chance.
Are you saying that the DNC has mind control powers over 4 million Americans, making them vote for Hillary despite themselves?
Because if that were true, Hillary would be president.
This is such a deeply bad faith argument but, yea, that's what advertising is and several media outlets coordinated with the campaign to box out Sanders and portray his ideas as fringe.
I mean, what you're describing is simply politics. Who gave you the idea that media are supposed to stay neutral in an election?
When the Michigan Chronicle and Houston Defender endorse Harris and say Trump is dangerous to democracy, that's politics. On the opposite side, Fox News has been portraying all Democrats as fringe for decades. They are not merely allowed to do that, that's what we expect the media to do in a democracy.
I don't disagree - the media does have an implicit bias... but rarely do they cooperate directly with a campaign. Donna Brazile was fired over how overt it got.
The Sanders/Clinton primary was an example of how powerful dark money can be in campaigns and is a terrible portent of how centrists can create an uneven playing field where money rather than policy or appeal will dictate the winner.
I'd clarify that nothing the Clinton campaign did was illegal - but they absolutely prevented us from having a fair election.
Media is supposed to be neutral and was until the 90s. Media is not supposed to take any particular side. You're confusing the medias right and responsibility to criticize government with extreme bias against part of government.
Media : plural of medium. The media "are" biased. That's inherent. With the internet, the media were supposed to be infinity minus one. That's probably the 90s you're dreaming of. Look up the history of yellow journalism. There's fantastic journalism out there, and some of it is mainstream.
That's not true. Media have been endorsing and supporting particular candidates since the beginning.
One hundred years ago, the NYT endorsed John Davis for president over Calvin Coolidge. They weren't neutral.
In 1941, following such mistakes that were obviously bad ideas, and following the Nazis ridiculously good use of the media to gain and maintain power, the fairness doctrine was passed in the US. Until Clinton's repeal of the doctrine all media that reported orr discussed politics had to do so with equal weight to all sides of an issue and without bias towards any group.
The media working for politicians or political parties leads to Nazis, every time. Just like liberals compromising or choosing a moderate approach.
all media
Not true. The fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast media on public airwaves. It has never applied to newspapers (the NYT endorsed Eisenhower in 1952) or cable news.
And it was repealed in 1987, under Reagan. However, broadcast media (not newspapers or cable news) are still subject to the equal time rule.
The reason that these rules only affect broadcast media is that there is a limited number of broadcast licenses, but no limit to the number of newspapers or cable channels. It has nothing to do with Nazis, in fact the equal time rule originated in 1927.
And how was it that Hillary and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ensured this was the voting outcome?
Hillary won her voters by campaigning. That is how you win voters.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had nothing to do with it, because she doesn't have a mind control device.
Except she didn't campaign in most states, hence her loss in even democrat leaning swing states in the general election.
Do you truly believe that money has no influence in politics?
Money is a necessary part of politics. Which means that if you want to win, you need donors. And if your opponent wins over more donors than you do, that's on you. Do you think it's unfair that people are way more willing to donate to Harris than Trump?
You literally just said: the people with the most money should control the government.
No, that's not what I said.
Having more money provides an advantage, but so do many other things like media endorsements, union endorsements, incumbency, etc.
Plenty of candidates who outspent their opponents went on to lose their elections.