There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

For Many Western Allies, Sending Weapons to Israel Gets Dicey

The governments of Germany and the United States remain the backbone of international military support for Israel, accounting for 95 percent of major weapons systems sent to Israel, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks the global weapons trade. So far, the pressure has not swayed them or Britain, though President Biden this month went further than he ever had, threatening to condition future support for Israel on how it addresses his concerns about civilian casualties and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

. . .

Nevertheless, as the death toll has risen in Gaza, Belgium, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain have all halted arms deals with Israel. The European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell Fontelles, has appeared to discourage sending more weapons, wryly noting in February that “if the international community believes that this is a slaughter, that too many people are being killed, maybe they have to think about the provision of arms.”

The hearings this past week against Germany, at the U.N.’s International Court of Justice, was the most recent chilling factor for Israel’s arms suppliers. And matters could grow even worse if Israel follows through on its plans to invade Rafah, the city in southern Gaza where hundreds of thousands of displaced Gazans are sheltering.

MBFC
Archive

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

A few hours later, in Washington, a top Democrat and Biden administration ally, Representative Gregory W. Meeks of New York, said he might block an $18 billion deal to sell F-15 fighter jets to Israel unless he was assured that Palestinian civilians would not be indiscriminately bombed.

After defending Israel at the briefing and suggesting that the recent advice he had received did not conclude that arms exports should be halted, he said that the British government’s position reflected only “the latest assessment” of the issue, implying some flexibility.

The European Union’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell Fontelles, has appeared to discourage sending more weapons, wryly noting in February that “if the international community believes that this is a slaughter, that too many people are being killed, maybe they have to think about the provision of arms.”

In the Netherlands, a state court in February ordered the government to stop sending parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, calling it “undeniable that there is a clear risk” of the equipment being used “in serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

In Italy, the government halted its arms trade with Israel only weeks after the war in Gaza began, in “a suspension that continues to this day,” Guido Crosetto, the Italian defense minister, told Parliament last month.

Yet Italy ranked as the third-largest foreign supplier of major weapons systems to Israel in the years leading up to the war, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers.

The original article contains 1,484 words, the summary contains 248 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

The defense industry of Israel is a strategically important sector and a large employer, as well as a major supplier of the Israel Defense Forces. The country is one of the world’s major exporters of military equipment, accounting for 10% of the world total in 2007.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_industry_of_Israel

Maybe they should stop being sent weapons?

What next, sending rice to China?

GrymEdm , (edited )

The US’s own Leahy Law prohibits most types of aid or training from going to foreign agents who can credibly be alleged to be committing human rights violations. The US Department of State website says “The U.S. government considers torture, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearance, and rape under color of law as GVHRs when implementing the Leahy law.” Here’s just one UN report from mid-February about “credible allegations of egregious human rights violations to which Palestinian women and girls continue to be subjected in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.” It specifically mentions extrajudicial killings and rape among other offenses, so…is US human rights law actually meaningful or not?

I suppose we’ve gotten to the level of admission where the media is calling continued illegal support “dicey”. Maybe after another few months of killing and starving civilians with Western weapons and aid we can call it “concerning” or “troubling”.

breakfastmtn OP ,
@breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca avatar

I suppose we’ve gotten to the level of admission where the media is calling continued illegal support “dicey”.

This article is about global resistance to sending arms to Israel. It’s “dicey” (meaning risky) because, on top of public pressure, governments are now facing potential legal consequences both locally and internationally. Calling it either “concerning” or “troubling” doesn’t make sense in this context. Ironically, if they used that language, the article would be doing the very thing you’re accusing it of doing.

GrymEdm , (edited )

I think we’re on the same side, and I didn’t downvote you but it’s a weak word. It’s like calling arms sales to organized criminal gangs “dicey”. No, it’s not dicey (which necessarily means there’s a chance it’s alright) - it’s definitively unethical and illegal by the US’s own laws.

breakfastmtn OP ,
@breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca avatar

That’s not what it means. I suspect you’re reacting to the headline without reading the article. It’s not making a moral statement about arms sales. It’s saying that countries are realizing that they face potential legal exposure for continuing those sales/transfers. That’s why it’s risky. No one knows if they’ll actually face those consequences so, in that context, there’s a “chance it’s alright.” Legally – not ethically or morally.

The Leahy Laws are another example of that – they’re frequently criticized for being selectively enforced. The Leahy Laws put Israel aid at risk but it’s not a sure thing, regardless of the moral implications. At the end of the day, if the US believes or chooses to believe that they don’t apply, they probably won’t.

Varyk ,

Not anymore. Thanks to Iran’s attack, any aid reductions to Israel are presumably off the table.

Aid to Israel could easily escalate if this drone attack is not a one-off, which seems unlikely with Israel’s penchant for retaliation.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •