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.”

  • beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    How hard is it to field a presidential candidate that is not a senior citizen and who doesn’t wish to remain allies with countries engaged in genocide?

    • weew@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The problem is that the countries engaged in genocide allow the US a foothold in the middle East, so they can basically get away with anything. Losing that means throwing away all the military and strategic advantage in that region.

      Tl;dr you may as well wish for a president that wants to demilitarize the US

      • beliquititious@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Honestly, I think it might be a deal breaker for me in November. I’m willing to put up with a lot of meat-brained nonsense, but dead children so out soldiers can have an easier commute to kill more is a nonstarter.

        If I do decide not to vote in a few months, and not voting gives Trump the presidency, it’s what we deserve.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      There are several, Claudia De La Cruz and Jill Stein. The problem is that the US isn’t a democracy and never was.