In her first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris told CNN it was imperative to reach a ceasefire deal in Gaza, but made it clear that she would not alter President Joe Biden’s policy in the region.

However, when pressed on whether she would stop sending weapons to Israel she told Bash, “No, we have to get a deal done, Dana. We have to get a deal done.”

“Adopting an arms embargo against Israel’s assault on Gaza is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic move to defeat Trump and MAGA extremism. It is difficult for the Democratic candidate to champion democracy while arming Netanyahu’s authoritarian regime” reads a recent letter to Harris from the coalition Not Another Bomb.

Recent polling has repeatedly demonstrated that Democratic voters overwhelmingly support the conditioning of U.S. military aid. A Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) survey from March found that 52% of Americans want the U.S. to halt weapons shipments to Israel in order to force a ceasefire. 62% of Biden voters said “The US should stop weapons shipments to Israel until Israel discontinues its attacks on the people of Gaza,” while only 14% disagreed with the statement.

The numbers from a June CBS News poll were even higher, with more than 60% of all voters and almost 80% of Democrats saying the U.S. shouldn’t send Israel weapons.

“The real question should have been, ‘When are you going to start enforcing U.S. law as it relates to arms shipments’ because what we are doing right now, with this United States policy, is in violation of not just international law, but also of American law, “said the Arab Center’s Yousef Munayyer in an interview with Democracy Now in response to the CNN segment. “Vice-President Harris made it clear in other parts of her interview that she wants to be a prosecutor. She wants to enforce the law, but Israel is clearly getting an exception from the Harris campaign.”

  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Why?

    Seriously! Why!?

    I don’t remotely understand this policy, and it seems that pretty much noone would vote for it if they could avoid doing so.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Israel is the country equivalent of the US sending an aircraft carrier outside a country it has tenuous relations with yet wants favorable trade. It’s how they cement the Petro-Dollar as the global currency and dominate financial capital.

      Ceasing support for Israel risks hurting US profits, so the US has a monetary interest in propping up the genocidal campaign while pretending to push for a ceasefire to appease domestic tensions, however poorly.

    • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      We gotta make AIPAC happy or else they might stop paying for Pelosi’s yacht.

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        US was saying this over and over and it is finally doing it, which is getting out of Middle East and letting them on their own. This is why there’s also so hard push for EVs.

        The policy is to allow selling weapons, not to give them, it is also not what Bibi hopes that US will enter another war and fight on his behalf.

        • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Trying to claim that the US is trying to get out of the Middle East is both infantile and asinine. As long as there’s natural resources to be stolen, the US will be there. If there was such a fight for EV’s, the US wouldn’t be blocking Chinese EV’s from entering the market.

          • takeda@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            If there was such a fight for EV’s, the US wouldn’t be blocking Chinese EV’s from entering the market.

            So it would switch from being dependent on Saudi Arabia to China?

            • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              If China made a superior product at a good price, yes, I would buy Chinese.

                • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  China doesn’t need to kill off western manufacturers, the West did that. Capitalism has turned the US from a predominantly manufacturing country to a predominant customer service country.

                  • takeda@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    By allowing to import from China.

                    Now you are complaining that they don’t want to destroy their own industry with cars made by cheaper work force and heavily subsided by Chinese government.

    • CluckN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Her husband also made a pledge to, “fight antisemitism” when asked about Israel’s crimes.

      • takeda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Actually this is the opposite. Israel wants US involved and start another war on their behalf. US is pissed and saying what it was saying for a while, that it is getting out of Middle East. If Israel wants to fight a war, US won’t block them from purchasing weapons, but they are on their own.