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.
āSending 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 ā Israel has egregiously violated those rules,ā said Sanders. āThere is a mountain of documentary evidence demonstrating that these weapons are being used in violation of U.S. and international law.ā
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, Sandersās move is in line with public opinion. Polls have consistently found that the majority of the public supports an end to Israelās 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 officialsā agreement to a ceasefire deal. This includes nearly 80 percent of Democrats.
I see some contradictory statements here, perhaps you could clarify those for me.
You believe the Democrats to be unwilling to improve on social matters, be it both domestic and foreign, correct? They may state that they hold these beliefs, but you donāt expect them to make a meaningful change, which is why you donāt see a path to improvement under Harris. I hope I understood you correctly here.
At the same time however, you seem to believe that electing Trump will lead to a civil war. Who exactly do you expect to start said civil war here? It wonāt be Trump as heās already in power, and it wonāt be the Democrats either because they donāt genuinely believe in liberty/democracy. If they wonāt even vote for it, how can you expect them to fight for it? Iād argue electing Trump reduces the chance of a civil war, even according to your own logic. And even if a group other than the Democrats were to take up arms, that group would certainly be smaller than a Trump-led government backed by the US army. Trump would win in that case, and any hopes of progress would be dashed completely.
Any side with a shot at winning a civil war would have to be either the Democrats or the Republicans. Since the Democrats wouldnāt start a civil war (too spineless), the Republicans have to. And Iād posit to you that the only way they would do so is if Trump loses the election and contests it, riling up his base. We know that his base is radical enough for it (see Jan 6), and Trump is too much of a narcissist to refuse the chance. In this scenario, Biden/Harris would have to use the army to put down the insurrection, and the political momentum from that might give people a shot at improving things in the way you want. Arguably thereās historical precedent for this, with Lincoln having the momentum to ban slavery during the civil war.
You also seem to, and I quote ābelieve in the American peopleā. But that same people makes up the US army, makes up and and supports both political parties and also seems entirely complacent to keep voting for the same two sets of douchebags and not push for electoral reform in any meaningful way. In fact, you donāt even seem to think that the Democrats could be pressured into change, not even on the matter of Palestine. Either the Democrats are unwilling to change a position in exchange for power, or said pressure isnāt as big as you seem to think it is, and most Americans just donāt care enough (which would also put a pretty big dent in the whole ācivil warā-plan.
Frankly, it seems to me that the accelerationist civil war strategy makes more sense when you elect Harris. But Iām not sure if itās worth pursuing at all, since I canāt think of any historical precedent where this has worked out.
Social matters
Did I mention social matters? I mention foreign policy pretty exclusively, with a smattering of climate urgency.
Civil war
Iām pretty sure thatās inevitable in 2025 regardless of who wins. If Trump wins, most Americans will be upset and will resist, more strongly than last time. Even if the democratic party doesnāt want democracy or liberty, many of the people do.
If Harris and the republicans win, the people who want democracy will be on the side of the broken state, fighting a lost cause. If Trump wins, those people will be fighting against the state to build something new.
Iād rather fight for a better system over defending a broken one. I see war and unrest as inevitable.
I donāt think that the system will allow us to change the democratic party, not because the people donāt want it, but because the democratic party wonāt allow it while they are in power. The people are NOT represented by any party or any part of our government.
