if you don't understand the comments or you're confused, ask for help.
which part don't you understand or cannot find sources for?
"Israel cannot exist in its current state without the aid and protection the US provides it".
israel is a technologically advanced independent country with a functioning government, they have an enormous GDP across various industries, and they receive economic and military support from dozens of other countries.
it benefits Israel to receive billions of dollars every year from the US(as it benefits the US) as a historic mutual defense ally, but Israel is in no way entirely dependent on or explicitly beholden to the US.
"If the US actually wanted Israel to stop murdering civilians, it could have it done tomorrow."
how? there is no evidence for this.
The US is a third party to this conflict that, more obviously than ever, has limited diplomatic control over the actions of the current Israeli government and its military.
80%+ of their weapons over the last 70 years come from the US
we are funding about 15% of their total military budget
50 billion in annual trade between US and israel
More importantly, the US is the world hegemon, and is committed to protecting Israel. Do you think Iran would be so restrained against Israel if US retaliation wasn't guaranteed? The US moved an aircraft carrier into the region following Oct. 7th, do you find that irrelevant too?
And to reiterate, the US provides diplomatic cover to Israel by vetoing (a power that Israel does not possess) any attempt by the international community to hold it accountable.
keep in mind that the point we are addressing is that despite a hypotheticall withdrawal of all US military aid, in no way is Israel unable to continue their invasion/genocide if the US stops supporting Israel altogether.
"- we are funding about 15% of their total military budget".[in recent years specifically, including the injection of military aid immediately after October 7th]
If the US was to completely stop funding israel, Israel would have zero problem funding their military and their national infrastructure by themselves.
"80%+ of their weapons over the last 70 years come from the US"
It's convenient for Israel to buy US weapons, and the US should stop selling them weapons, but if the US completely stopped selling arms to israel tomorrow, it in no way cripples or halts the Israeli military from using their stockpile, purchasing arms elsewhere or producing arms themselves.
"- 50 billion in annual trade between US and israel"
less than 10% of Israeli GDP
we should still sanction them, but it isn't going to make much of a difference in national civilian life or military function.
"Do you think Iran would be so restrained against Israel if US retaliation wasn't guaranteed?"
no for so many reasons, but tell me your theory.
"The US moved an aircraft carrier into the region following Oct. 7th, do you find that irrelevant too?"
no, but go off, how are aircraft carriers irrelevant?
"US provides diplomatic cover to Israel by vetoing..."
Setting aside the arrest warrants and findings by the ICC, the US should stop vetoing the symbolic adjudications by the UN so everybody can point at Israel and yell "shame".
this should happen.
however, if the US stops vetoing the symbolic adjudications, Israel is under no obligation to listen to the UN any more than they have listened to or have been following UN regulations since the UN and israel were established, any more than they listen to the ICC.
it would be nice if the US took stronger economic or political action against Israel, or declared further sanctions.
would any of those actions stop netanyahu, the idf or disrupt national function?
"if you don’t understand the comments" @Varyk
You demand that I provide evidence for things that I didn't say. That might seem tactically clever, but is it honest?
I ask for evidence to support things that you did say and you can only repeat your assertions. Is repetition evidence?