Fun fact, there’s a 2008 law that specifically forces the president to give Israel all the best military hardware.
It was passed by W on his way out the door, and due to the Democratic party being compromised as hell, there’s never been enough votes to get rid of it, and any time the president might want to hold things back, they get sued under that law.
Biden and Obama both could have used the leahy law on day one. We have evidence going that far back that Israel systematically commits war crimes, including occupying Palestine in an illegal manner. To be clear there is a way they could have done it legally. But things including extending their own, civilian, legal system into the occupied areas preclude it being legal.
What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can’t find that law.
I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.
There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.
I just read that law and it’s far from clear that it requires any aid to Israel at all.
Section 1 just defines the title.
Section 2 provides a statement of findings.
Section 3 covers US policy towards Israel. This is the closest I could find to something requiring assistance. Policy statements don’t bind the president. At best they serve as guidelines for future legislation.
Section 4 talks about actively defending Israel but brackets the whole thing in “should”. That has a specific legal definition that includes, “but it’s not required.”
Section 5 simply extends some deadlines that were going to expire.
Section 6 mandates some reports.
Section 7 defines terms.
The language in the Leahy Act is considerably stronger and more explicit. “No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter…”
There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.
Fun fact, there’s a 2008 law that specifically forces the president to give Israel all the best military hardware.
It was passed by W on his way out the door, and due to the Democratic party being compromised as hell, there’s never been enough votes to get rid of it, and any time the president might want to hold things back, they get sued under that law.
Biden and Obama both could have used the leahy law on day one. We have evidence going that far back that Israel systematically commits war crimes, including occupying Palestine in an illegal manner. To be clear there is a way they could have done it legally. But things including extending their own, civilian, legal system into the occupied areas preclude it being legal.
What law is that? I keep hearing about it but I can’t find that law.
I did find several that prohibit the US from providing aid to countries that commit human rights violations but nothing that requires the US to give anyone any military hardware.
PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.
https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf
There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.
I just read that law and it’s far from clear that it requires any aid to Israel at all.
Section 1 just defines the title.
Section 2 provides a statement of findings.
Section 3 covers US policy towards Israel. This is the closest I could find to something requiring assistance. Policy statements don’t bind the president. At best they serve as guidelines for future legislation.
Section 4 talks about actively defending Israel but brackets the whole thing in “should”. That has a specific legal definition that includes, “but it’s not required.”
Section 5 simply extends some deadlines that were going to expire.
Section 6 mandates some reports.
Section 7 defines terms.
The language in the Leahy Act is considerably stronger and more explicit. “No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter…”
PDF warning but anyone wanting to peep the law - it’s here.
https://www.congress.gov/112/statute/STATUTE-126/STATUTE-126-Pg1146.pdf
There’s actually very explicit language that Congress wrote into the law basically ensuring the president, or the executive at large, has to support Israel militarily.
So there isn’t really an easy way for a president to unilaterally untangle us from our military alliance with Israel even if they want to. It will take a literal act of Congress to change the course of the State Dept when it comes to Israel as a lot of what is wrong is prescribed by law as necessary.