Biden needs to stop appeasing Israel
Israel still has a lot of “favours” they can cash in for their genocide
I think you mean a lot of cash to buy favor with.
Fascists aren’t interested in peace, news at 11.
So, Biden said stop. They said no. There is no genocide Joe.
Oh, did Genocide Joe cut off all aid to Israel in response to this? I didn’t hear about that.
You don’t hear about much if you think the president alone has the ability to do that without congress.
Somebody better travel back in time and inform Ronald Reagan.
The MOU happened during Regan. Pick up a history book.
Which is funny, because he was the first one to sign it.
The MOU is non-binding. Even if it wasn’t, even formal treaties do not override domestic power structures. Biden even has the power to dispatch troops against Israel, if he wanted to.
But ok, let’s suppose that the executive, the commander-in-chief, has absolutely zero authority over arms shipments to foreign powers, completely ignoring that it happened before and that the president’s power has expanded considerably since then. Has Biden recinded his threat against the ICC? Has he condemned what Israel is doing as a genocide? For the record, in his time, Reagan accused them of committing “a Holocaust.”
Is there a single actual, material consequences that Biden has imposed on Israel for refusing to comply? Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that his mild criticisms are anything but keyfabe?
I’m not going to defend Biden’s choices, because I don’t agree with them. I also don’t agree with a lot of US foreign policy.
Biden does not have the unilateral ability to dispatch troops against Israel. The President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, can order military actions, but significant military engagements, especially those against allied nations, would require Congressional approval.
Either way, Biden is not the reason the genocide started, and he’s not the reason it hasn’t stopped.
The whole world is letting it happen. And why? My money is on anti-Islam.
No, the president can unilaterally decide to deploy troops anywhere at any time, without congressional approval. The only limit is how long they can stay.
Israel is highly dependent on the US for support, and Biden has plenty of ways that he could disrupt that support, both to whip them into line and to avoid giving weapons to people conducting a genocide. He does none of that, because Genocide Joe is fully on board with everything they’re doing, just as he has spent his entire career giving his full unwavering support to them.
I think Netanyahu is choosing his words carefully to get the ceasefire through (which after all he proposed) without alienating the hard(er) right wing.
Here’s what he actually said:
Israel’s conditions for ending the war have not changed: The destruction of Hamas military and governing capabilities, the freeing of all hostages and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel
Israel will continue to insist these conditions are met before a permanent ceasefire is put in place. The notion that Israel will agree to a permanent ceasefire before these conditions are fulfilled is a non-starter
The thing is that all of those conditions, except for the hostages, are pretty subjective. Biden said in his speech that the capabilities of Hamas and the threat to Israel have already been eliminated. Nothing stops Netanyahu from declaring the same tomorrow.
That leaves the hostages. But in the three phase plan, freeing the hostages comes before the permanent ceasefire. So again, the peace plan is not inconsistent with his latest statements. I think he is simply using a harder posture to help win support.
and ensuring that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel
The only way that can be ensured is by driving out or killing every Palestinian in Gaza.
But this isn’t genocide I’m told.
Not necessarily. If Israel no longer feels threatened by Gaza then for all practical purposes it no longer poses a threat. Which might even be the case right now.
And how would they no longer feel threatened without driving out or killing every Palestinian in Gaza?
Whether or not Israel feels threatened is up to Israel. Biden said Hamas is not capable of another 10/7, which might be sufficient to meet that condition.
They’re still firing rockets into Israel. I would suggest that means that Israel would consider them to be a threat. They’re not doing it from inside of Gaza either.
And every baby the IDF kills creates more Hamas sympathizers and people willing to commit violence for Hamas.
You might consider rockets a threat, but that doesn’t mean the Israeli government considers them a threat.
In other words, there some in Israel who likely believe the military capabilities of Hamas have already been destroyed (like Gantz), and some who likely believe they haven’t (like Ben Gvir). So the government could officially take either position.
Netanyahu just wants to remain in power. He still supports the deal which suggests he is in the first group and is counting on the support of people in the first group. That might include opposition leader Yair Lapid, who promised to support Netanyahu if Ben Gvir leaves the governing coalition.
Israel considers them enough of a threat to have the Iron Dome.
deleted by creator
This has nothing to do with Israel feeling threatened.
Israel wants Palestine for themselves, and they’ll kill everyone there to get it.
Biden said in his speech that the capabilities of Hamas and the threat to Israel have already been eliminated.
Thing is Hamas is not just its armed wing. It’s also a political party, with that comes a government apparatus (as in bureaucrats), and it’s also a charity. It is, after all, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot and, well, ask the Egyptians how hard it is to root out the Muslim Brotherhood.
If with “total destruction of Hamas’ capabilities” they mean the whole thing then that’s just another way to say that they want to keep on going forever. Biden OTOH simply seems to have referred to military capability. Israel, also the more moderate factions, will likely insist on at least dismantling the government apparatus and TBH plenty of Palestinians feel the same. Things are murky because of the war but Hamas rule was not exactly popular, charity nonwithstanding.
and, well, ask the Egyptians how hard it is to root out the Muslim Brotherhood.
You mean the Muslim Brotherhood whose presidential candidate got democratically elected by Egypt? The President who then got couped with the help of the US to install the Sisi regime that is worse than the Mubarak regime, which sparked the Arab spring in the first place?
The Egyptian military doesn’t need US aid to launch a coup. Sure the military will have made sure that the US continues to consider Egypt as an ally but that’s about it. Politically both are taking potshots at each other.
Mursi was democratically elected, yes. Quoting Wikipedia:
Within a short period, serious public opposition developed to President Morsi. In late November 2012, he issued a temporary constitutional declaration granting himself the power to legislate without judicial oversight or review of his acts, on the grounds that he needed to “protect” the nation from the Mubarak-era power structure. He also put a draft constitution to a referendum that opponents complained was “an Islamist coup”. These issues — and concerns over the prosecutions of journalists, the unleashing of pro-Brotherhood gangs on nonviolent demonstrators; the continuation of military trials; and new laws that permitted detention without judicial review for up to 30 days, and impunity given to Islamist radical attacks on Christians and other minorities — brought hundreds of thousands of protesters to the streets starting in November 2012. During Morsi’s year-long rule there were 9,000 protests and strikes.
Is Sisi a champion of democracy? No. But also he was elected, and he’s legitimately popular. Morsi rode to power on an illusion about Brotherhood politics, once they unveiled their true colours Egyptians quickly decided that they’d rather have secular than religious authoritarians in power.
If with “total destruction of Hamas’ capabilities” they mean
That’s just my paraphrase.
The actual wording used by Israel is “destruction of the military and governing capabilities of Hamas”. Both of which arguably have already been destroyed.
He has conveniently ensured that all the hostages can never be freed because a lot of them are have been killed by the IDF already. Probably a bunch of their bodies are buried under so much rubble they’ll never be found in our lifetimes.
The proposal specifies return of “remaining hostages who are alive”.
“Ugh, you mean we both have to stop firing? No deal.”
Good thing it isn’t a “starter”, then, but rather, something to be negotiated for phase 2.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office came a day after Biden outlined the plan, and as families of Israeli hostages held by Hamas called for all parties to immediately accept the proposal.
And a joint statement by mediators the U.S., Egypt and Qatar pressed Israel and Hamas, saying the proposed deal “offers a road map for a permanent cease-fire and ending the crisis” and gives immediate relief to both the hostages and Gaza residents.
Cease-fire talks halted last month after a push by the U.S. and other mediators to secure a deal in hopes of averting a full-scale Israeli invasion of Gaza’s southern city of Rafah.
Families described an aggressive meeting Thursday with Israel’s national security adviser, Tzachi Hanegbi, who told them the government wasn’t ready to sign a deal to bring all hostages home and there was no plan B.
Hamas has said it viewed the proposal “positively” and called on Israel to declare an explicit commitment to an agreement that includes a permanent cease-fire, a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, a prisoner exchange and other conditions.
It leaves Israel the option to renew the war and diminish Hamas’ ability to govern, but over time, said Michael Milshtein, head of the Palestinian Studies Forum in Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University.
The original article contains 967 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
What exactly is a permanent ceasefire?
Israel didn’t start this latest war. If they sign a permanent ceasefire and Hamas attacks them again, would they not be able to fight back?
I’m pretty sure Hamas has no plans to stop attacking Israel even after a ceasefire, they haven’t after any of the previous ones…
It seems someone has not educated themselves on history of what Israel has been doing (1948-2022).
Just because you do not read about it in the main news, it doesn’t mean that nothing has happened. That’s all I have to say.
It seems you’re that uneducated someone; given that FIVE neighboring Arab countries invaded Israel the day after the British left and it declared independence because they were unhappy with the lines that were drawn up by the UN after WW2.
Israel didn’t start shit.
You sound very upset, aggressive and making it immensely personal. I did not expect anything else from Israel supporters.
There’s a very reason they started to attack Israel the day Israel became an actual state but you purposefully left that out of the way.
So I will quote my old, old comment to you and leave it at that. Because there’s no civil discussion with Israel supporters.
Not only that, you suddenly started to bring the past into the discussion when you were first writing about 7th of October 2023 and beyond that. So you Purposefully trying to create confusion. After my quotation, I won’t comment to you anymore.
Israel became an actual state in 1948 by displacing 750 000 Palestinian people and murdering many (men, women and children). Laying sieges, bombarding villages and population centers, setting fires to homes, properties and goods. Planting mines among the rubble to prevent any of the expelled people from returning (source: The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by ilan Pappé).
Hamas did not exist until 1987, they became an actual group only in 1987 because of all the horrifying things Israel had done from 1948 up until 1987. Which is approximately 40 years after what Israel had done to the Palestinian people.
Because israel never planned to respect the partition. The first prime prime minister before the 1948 war said
“After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.”
And yet, they aren’t the ones that started it.
It’s amazing how many backflips people will do trying to defend the Muslim attacks on Jewish people in that area over the last five centuries, while simultaneously saying that Jewish attacks are bad.
Jewish people in that region were legally second class citizens, with different legal rules, of the previous empires behind Muslims.
So they should have waited for israel to attack first? This quote shows that they always planned to steal palestinian land in the future so it’s completely legitimate to stop it before it happen. It’s about jews and muslims it’s just about foreigners succeding in building a state in an already populate place
Yes, North Korea threatens South Korea and Japan all the time, but an invasion wouldn’t be justified just because they threaten.
The present shows that they was right, despite the absence of resistance in the west bank israel is still expanding the illegal settlments and stealing palestinian homes. Even if you believe arabs was wrong to start the war, it doesn’t give israel the right to destroy villages that surrendred like the village of tantura, force displacing people and occupy more land forever
Not to mention that the state of Israel exists today thanks of Jewish terrorism. Read a bit of history and the events preceding the founding of Israel.
The state of Israel exists because the UN made it so when they broke up the Ottoman empire after WW2.
Are you calling WW2 Jewish terrorism?
WW2 started with the attack on Poland, 1st September 1939. By that date, Irgun had already bombed plenty of civilians. The Ottoman empire was broken up after WW1, not WW2.
Perhaps you should educate yourself before opening your mouth: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing.
Tell me that this isn’t a terrorist attack, and mind you this isn’t the only one. So in a way the Jewish state exists today due to Jewish terrorism.
By your logic, the US exists because of American terrorism.
In fact almost every country would exist because of terrorism.
The USA got to do a genocide, so we get to do a genocide! Why are people so unhappy about this? “Never again” just means against us, right? We can still do it?
If both are bad, why is the US not being required to make up for their genocide?
Calling for one to be disallowed, while continuing to allow the results from the other is hypocrisy. It’s not like the US couldn’t give back the land if the same level of will we see towards Gaza existed for native Americans. That’s never going to happen though, Americans are completely comfortable with the results of their genocide at this point.
There’s a huge movement to do so that. Look into land back rights and all that. But the Israel Palestine thing is more urgent because it’s better to stop a genocide from happening in progress right now, then to make up for one that has already happened. The only people comfortable with America’s genocide are the same right wing and centrist people supporting Israel right now.
Close, the us exists because a bunch of europeans moved to a new land and ethnically cleansed the natives.
Pretty sure the US part involved attacking the British government.
Yes.
That’s the main issue with colonial-settler states - they colonize the land (via terror and extermination) and then settle either in borders they’ve drawn up (or even outside if there’s not enough resistance)
Using past native American genocide to justify the current native Levant genocide isn’t the trump card you think it is…
And we can go on a whole debate around “oh but other states got to establish their borders this way in the past - why doesn’t Israel get to do the same?” - because we’re supposed to be more civilized by now and understand that killing people to take their land is an extremely inhumane and reductionist point of view.
The whole phrasing around “a land without people for people without a land” is the same native population erasing shit the European settlers used to colonize the Americas.
If Israel wants to be a brutal colonial state - it gets to decide that - but at least be honest and don’t pretend it has some sort of divine right to do so while expecting to not be met with resistance.
If Israel really wanted a land for its people (while not infringing on the rights of Arabs already living there) they could have assimilated into the already existing population where they are just one of the people living on that territory and not gone for the nuclear option of total dominion over everyone else.
Which is why Israel is so afraid of Hamas and the general resistance - because it understands the world from a dominator-dominee perspective - they cannot envision a world where somebody doesn’t try and take over Israel in return for them doing the same. Since if “every country exists because of terrorism” then the Arabs have as much right to terror and conquest as anyone else - but I doubt you would you defend their rights to do as fervently as Israel’s…
So instead a much less bloody way forward would be to work on dismantling borders for the benefit of everyone instead of stockpiling more and more guns while waiting for the inevitable boom…
The problem with your argument, is that you want to continue to allow the results of the past native American genocide, while disallowing the results of the Israeli conflict. That’s hypocrisy.
Nah - i want both the west and Israel to pay reparations and return as much of the land as possible (not just some nature reserves as pittance) while also apologizing and commemorating the ones that have been displaced.
I wasn’t around when the native American genocide was happening to “disallow” the outcome - but i sure can do something about the one going on right now instead of throwing my hands up and going “well same thing happened with slavery, so I guess we should just sit around and do nothing” while crying “hypocrisy!” - just because bad things occurred in the past isn’t an excuse to keep doing bad things in the future…
What exactly is a permanent ceasefire?
The South Korea-North Korea ceasefire has been in place since 1953
They’ve literally shot at each other hundreds of times, including killing people and sinking ships.
North Korea is actively shitting (literally) on South Korea right now, by dropping feces using balloons.
What part of that is a ceasefire? It’s more of a stalemate.
