cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/21382196
By JULIA FRANKEL
Updated 6:38 AM EDT, October 14, 2024[unbelievable - of course Biden and Harris will go along with no complaint]
Keeping Netanyahu reliant on us in order to retain the ability to influence his future actions is the only justifiable excuse for our continued military support to the IDF. Once we cut them off, we lose the ability to enact further consequences with surety, which unties Netanyahu’s hands to implement plans like this.
If we are unwilling to enforce consequences for what he is doing now, why mull about the potential to do so later? How bad does it have to get for us to take tangible action against Israel?
This sounds like something a White House press secretary would say to cover for the usual jaded American realpolitik motives behind what we are doing.
Possibility of genocide actually succeeding greater than 10%. That’s where I would draw the line, personally.
This starvation plan absolutely fits the bill.
Isreal is deeply reliant on the US in so many ways that if the US cut off offensive arms shipments Netanyahu would still need to kiss America’s ass or face severe economic stress… and if the US went so far as to embargo Isreal the economy would literally collapse and the country would likely face immediate food shortage issues as all its neighbors would start an embargo as well - including the absolutely vital Egypt.
I think that’s some wishful thinking. An actual embargo of non-military trade with an American ally after an attack would be very unpopular with moderate American voters. Additionally, there are other trading partners in the world.
If you’re just talking about non-military aid, that’s not a very large sum of money to lose. Few million here and there.
https://www.foreignassistance.gov/cd/israel/
Pretty sure Egypt is a net food importer too, not an exporter.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/5/egypt-reliant-on-imports-buys-more-russian-wheat
I’d clarify that most of my statement was specific to a military embargo - the rest of my statement was just emphasizing how much more Isreal had to lose if they managed to piss off America to that point… I also think it’s unlikely that America would ever embargo Isreal.
I mentioned Egypt not because they’re a direct food exporter but because they control the Sueze Canal and nearly all Isreali food import is coming through there - a restriction of Isreali bound ships through the canal would literally kill the country - domestic food production and European imports (now that Ukraine is off the table) is absolutely insufficient.
You’d have to close both the Suez and the Strait of Gibraltar, otherwise you’re just raising the price. Also, embargos are “I won’t trade with you.” They usually don’t involve blockades or closing of sea lanes. An embargo is a passive action, you’re just stopping doing something. An actual halting of neutral merchants passing through your waters is an active measure, you’re taking an action that harms both the target and cuts into the profits of the merchants that would otherwise be making money. It’s a bolder action overall.
But yea, theoretically possible.
Also US is very dependent on Israel’s military as well. Its the ONLY place in the world US can test its weapons and technology on “live production”. Also the money that it sends to Israel every year is in EMF form. Israel can only use this on US soil with US companies. Its basically money the US gov spends on boosting its defense industry and technology.
Also unrelated to security, many big US tech companies base their RND in Israel. Including Google, Nvidia, facebook, Amazon and mostly Intel. Intel researches, develops, tests and produces all their chips in Israel. All those companies and many more will be deeply impacted by sanctions to Israel.
US and Israel’s intelligence community is deeply intertwined. Each country is deeply based on each other over technology, means, equipment. FBI and CIA cannot compromise that.
I know thr chances of getting a peace keeping force into gaza (it would have to be US led) is slim especially in a US election year but do those chances improve the day after the election regardless of who won?
There are vast differences between the candidates on hundreds of issues, but each brings only death to people there .
One winner would be less crass about it, but her winning would make the issue go away for most of the USA population, since it’s not a campaign threat anymore . But if the other won, most would forget it also, because the county here would be in crisis .
So the next two or three weeks is the most people on social sites will care and write about it. Then, a decline of interest. That means even less political will to help.
