Israel has carried out what are believed to be unilateral "preemptive strikes" on Iran in a major escalation of geopolitical trouble in the Middle East as a state of emergency was declared.
The US is obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons in order to maintain a “qualitative military edge” against all potential threats. This unfortunately incentivizes Israel to maintain a high threat level, in order to increase the amount of weapons it receives.
This explains it in better detail than I could. It isn’t so much a single law, but rather a lot of different laws that all work together to ensure that Israel is given everything it could possibly need for its own defense…even bypassing normal regulatory measures in the process, as long as certain conditions are maintained.
Israel has invested tens of millions of dollars lobbying for, and helping to write, the legislation that guarantees their continuous access to weapons. A lot of it is written directly into defense spending bills that are essential for domestic defense spending as well. So, without a massive shift in policy at the legislative level to disentangle those priorities, that support is legally binding.
Neither. Internal politics in Israel threatened to break up the government, and starting a war with Iran was the easiest way to stop that. Can’t break up the government now, we’re in a state of emergency!
Bibi would sooner burn down all of Israel than step down from power.
Yep, exactly this. He’d rather destroy the entire country than lose power, in part because as soon as he loses power he’s likely going to prison for the rest of his life.
Are they running out of people to murder in Gaza? Or do they just need someone to fight back, so they can look oppressed?
The US is obligated by law, to keep sending them weapons in order to maintain a “qualitative military edge” against all potential threats. This unfortunately incentivizes Israel to maintain a high threat level, in order to increase the amount of weapons it receives.
Can you expand on that?
There are agreements but to which extent are they binding? I guess they are not unconditional.
This explains it in better detail than I could. It isn’t so much a single law, but rather a lot of different laws that all work together to ensure that Israel is given everything it could possibly need for its own defense…even bypassing normal regulatory measures in the process, as long as certain conditions are maintained.
Israel has invested tens of millions of dollars lobbying for, and helping to write, the legislation that guarantees their continuous access to weapons. A lot of it is written directly into defense spending bills that are essential for domestic defense spending as well. So, without a massive shift in policy at the legislative level to disentangle those priorities, that support is legally binding.
Neither. Internal politics in Israel threatened to break up the government, and starting a war with Iran was the easiest way to stop that. Can’t break up the government now, we’re in a state of emergency!
Bibi would sooner burn down all of Israel than step down from power.
Yep, exactly this. He’d rather destroy the entire country than lose power, in part because as soon as he loses power he’s likely going to prison for the rest of his life.