Why the hell not? The only thing keeping the UN off Israel’s back is the US. And by itself Israel has no veto so the UN could actually do something.
Likewise, why do you think a us president that intervened in Israel militarily would get impeached? The presidency is structured so that the president has a lot of leeway in military action, which presidents have used to great effect. E.g. Iraq was horrible and based on a lie but nobody got impeached after
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Why the hell not? The only thing keeping the UN off Israel’s back is the US. And by itself Israel has no veto so the UN could actually do something.
Likewise, why do you think a us president that intervened in Israel militarily would get impeached? The presidency is structured so that the president has a lot of leeway in military action, which presidents have used to great effect. E.g. Iraq was horrible and based on a lie but nobody got impeached after
deleted by creator