Ah you are correct. They are a non-nato ally as they are out of geographical scope.
This world be applicable though.
It's the NATO agreement. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_treaty_en_light_2009.pdf
Article 5 is the one that got invoked by the Hamas attack
As stated in another thread, at this point Biden has done enough to cover against any legal retaliation however, and 100% command a withdrawal of US support as Israel has actually been using the supplies to commit war crimes
The best way to think of it is that the presidents power is roughly bellcurved relative to how much Congress is in alignment with them. If Congress is completely out of alignment with them they have very little power because congress can pass a vote on what he vetos or issue a stop on any executive action he takes. If Congress is slightly in alignment or out of alignment he becomes able to singlehandedly stop laws and executive actions aren't likely to get overruled and will have up go under judicial review. If Congress is completely in alignment with him, he doesn't need to use his veto powers or executive actions and if he does they likely won't be contested anyway but we're generally better off with Congress passing a law.
Cool, sounds good to me. Thanks again, I was finding myself eagerly anticipating your responses because I was definitely learning some new things about why people dislike his handling of the Gaza genocides. You've made some really good points. I think he's made a good enough case at this point that NATO is no longer applicable in the case of genocide. At least with to protect him from retaliation if he did command a stop of US support to a NATO ally.
There's no congressional approval needed as he is driven by treaty to provide arms, if anything he is compelled by Congress to send arms as long as Israel is at war as a US ally due to NATO.
He's trying to make the argument that Israel committing genocide with those arms is reason to withdraw support, unfortunately the US government moves at a glacial pace on it's best day to the point that the US military is actually somehow faster. Given the number of Democrats that do support Israel, its entirely realistic that he could get successfully impeached if he failed to comply.
Anyway... Thanks for the civil debate but work is starting so I need to go, I'll read your next message bit I probably won't have time to reply.
He actually is in the case that the initial arms shipment was sent, Israel was attacked by Hamas and he had to respond by sending aid. He has gone on record stating that the current war crimes Israel has been committing raise question of the legality of providing further support.
Obviously still remains to be seen if anything will actually come of that though. Words are cheap.
I see, so essentially they would state that it was in defense of the United States because it is was onshore and is there's nothing Congress could do about it.
That's actually really horrifying if someone like trump takes the presidency given his current threats...
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
Biden is legally obligated by treaty to provide Israel with arms. Not doing so would give those maniacs in the house actual reason to impeach
I think you may be shadowbanned or something? Everything you post gets automatically deleted for me.
Only with clearance from Congress though. I actually did not realize that Israel's president did not serve as cic.
That's only a subsection of our obligations. Two paragraphs up are what I was actually talking about. We have multiple bilateral defense agreements with them which essentially boils down to an attack on me must me treated as an attack on you.