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.”

    • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      Yeah. I suspect many of us knew her stance on this issue before she said it but she really did not need to say it.

      I appreciate the honesty but I do wish that she would avoid this one topic in particular. This is an issue that younger voters feel very strongly about. Younger voter turnout may not be good anyways, but I would really do my best to avoid upsetting that crowd. We’re not trying to make people go back to feeling apathetic regarding the election again.

      • antmzo220@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        I think it’s good she can’t stop saying it. The voters deserve to know that she supports the genocide and to decide for themselves if her support for said genocide of Palestinians is worth whatever other comforts she provides the voter as a group.

        It’s right for people to feel strongly about support for a genocide so the focus shouldn’t be on not “upsetting that crowd” by lying, but on either not engaging in genocide (she’s eliminated this option) or on convincing them that supporting a genocide is worth what else she has to offer.

        (Inb4 whataboutism over Trump, yes he sucks too and is also genocidal, that doesn’t make Harris not pro-genocide and I never said to vote for Trump.)

    • suction@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      Right because Trump will nuke Israel and single-handedly create a Palestinian state from the mountains to the sea. So definitely vote for him.

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

        Biden/Harris Is providing enough money and weapons for Netanyahu to finish the job. While shitlibs are terrified of what Trump MIGHT do, they are distracted from whats actually happening

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      What? Trump advocates to completely glass Palestine. Biden position is to not block Israel from purchasing weapons, but also not getting dragged into a war itself and in fact getting out of Middle East. This is the real reason why West pushes so hard for EVs. US wants completely out, and if Israel wants to fight then let them use their own resources. Bibi would love if US instead of providing weapons would enter and do the job for them.

  • Bertuccio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    I didn’t expect this at all and am deeply hurt.

    I really thought the handpicked second most powerful person in the country would differ significantly in policies from the people who handpicked her.

  • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    The AIPAC queen can’t get enough of headless toddlers and rape squads

  • pocopene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    19 days ago

    As a European citizen: is it really a possibility for any US president not to do so? (Honest question, since from Europe US’s policy is seen as supporting Israel no matter what)

    • doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      Other presidents were able to restrain Israel from trying to enact a “final solution”

  • TommySoda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    As much as I hate to admit this, I don’t think this will change my opinion on her. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s incredibly fucked up that they continue to give them the weapons they use to murder civilians. But I also know that pretty much every president that has been elected since Israel has existed as a country would do exactly the same. The vast majority of politicians are spineless when it comes to Israel and always will be, regardless of party affiliation. No matter who gets elected it will always be the same answer with varying degrees of severity. And even if Harris wanted to do something about it, do you really think she would say anything new until she knew for a fact she was going to win? She’d get ostracized by the majority of her own party and potentially lose a bunch of those fancy endorsements she just received.

    I’m not saying it’s right. In fact, it’s so fucked up it makes my blood boil. I’m just saying that politicians are fucking cowards and always will be.

    • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      But I also know that pretty much every president that has been elected since Israel has existed as a country would do exactly the same.

      Your knowledge is incorrect. Please seek out better sources.

      Reagan said Israel is carrying out a holocaust, and stopped them with a single phonecall. Bush Sr. stopped them by threatening arms embargo as well. Eisenhower and Ford couldn’t stomach their bloodlust either and called them off.

      Israel is a client state of the US, it’s best to think of it as the 51st state. They do what they’re told.

        • K1nsey6@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

          Not just Reagan, Margaret Thatcher did the same thing. Imagine being to the right of people like Reagan and Thatcher.

      • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        That’s what people forget, all it takes is one phone call from a US Pres. Israel is nobody.

      • Saff@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        19 days ago

        What does trump say? Ultimately that’s the only person you need to compare Harris to.

        • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          Pretty similar, promising to negotiate a deal to end the slaughter asap. But there’s no reason to believe any candidate wants to end the genocide.

          If you’re an American who pays for the killing, you should act in solidarity with the victims and their relatives. There should be an #uncommitted group in your state, see what they recommend.

            • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              19 days ago

              The average American has far more power over the genocide than most everyone else in the world, including Palestinians. Any act of resistance an American makes is amplified.

              • Saff@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                19 days ago

                My point is though they only have two options, and both of those options are happy to continue funding war crimes. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Yet people on this platform like to make out that generic mr smith underpaid mechanic in the middle of the US is directly causing children to be murdered. Protesting is the only option but let’s be honest, that just gets ignored. So instead of these relentless posts about Harris continuing funding, why not try to focus on topics where the 2 parties differ to give the people an idea about which party might be best for them in other ways?

                • sub_ubi@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  19 days ago

                  As you said, protest is the only option. One form of protesting is not voting, or voting third party.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  18 days ago

                  There’s a very obvious third option that you’re ignoring.

                  You can’t even imagine it. It’s fascinating, really.

  • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    19 days ago

    I don’t really understand what weapons our government is sending Isreal. Is it that we just aren’t canceling their contracts with our weapons manufacturers? Or we arent banning exports of weapons?

    Our government doesn’t actually make weapons, we give contracts to companies to make them and have limits on who else can buy. Isreal doesn’t need our hand-me-downs.

      • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        19 days ago

        Thank you! That was an informative article. It’s like we are giving them Raytheon gift cards every year. This makes sense, as it’s the military industrial complex doing what it do. More blood for the blood gods, etc.

        What I think is interesting from the break down is how they are supposed only use it for defense, but then when we go “hey I don’t think you are using that for defense!” We don’t stop handing out the gift cards.

        Also when we were struggling to get congressional approval to give them more gift cards, we let them raid our munitions cookie jar we had been storing with them in case we needed it for the past 40 years.

        It sucks, but I can understand why the US is so reluctant to give up their only long term ally in the region, who’s supported us in our unreasonable conflicts against immense global backlash. We also use them to funnel more taxpayer money to military contractors which are spread all over the US, financially benefiting many states in the process.

        As always it’s all about the money.

    • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      20 days ago

      Joe was worse. Not even hardcore liberals could pretend to be excited for him.

      • TommySoda@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        20 days ago

        While maybe not the original intent, his whole candidacy was based on “I’m not Trump.” That’s not a strategy that can work twice.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          20 days ago

          Honestly, Trump is doing so badly right now, that I think it WILL work this time around, too. And it’s great because with that strategy, there’s nothing to be held accountable for except fantasies.