In an interview with CNN, Harris said she supports a ceasefire deal but made it clear that she would not stop sending Israel weapons if elected.
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.”
You're drawing some pretty premature conclusions from incomplete information. No, I'm against genocide too. But there are some in this thread who would pretend Harris is more pro-genocide than Trump, which is demonstrably false.
Do you see the comment about Harris being a worse candidate than Hillary? No sane adult would say such a thing except as deliberate anti-democratic propaganda.
Because the intent of the sentiment is to get people to not vote for her, which would increase the likelihood of a Trump presidency, which would ultimately result in more genocide.
No sane adult would say such a thing except as deliberate anti-democratic propaganda.
Jesus christ, sit down child. Your political opponents are not all paid shills out to destroy your wonderfully important institutions because they are opportunistic nihilists.
But there are some in this thread who would pretend Harris is more pro-genocide than Trump, which is demonstrably false.
Is it? She's the one who is the VP of the organization funding the genocide. I don't recall Trump directly funding genocide, even going out of his way to circumvent US law. Maybe he did, wouldn't put it past him, but given the information I have at least, Kamala and Joe Biden are demonstrably, empirically more pro-genocide than Trump, who remember, has already been president in the past.
Literally the entire political analysis of liberals on this issue is based on nothing but vibes. Trump is worse than Biden/Kamla on genocide because he has more bad guy molecules in his brain of some dumb shit.