https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/08/us/politics/biden-israel-gaza.html
“There are a lot of innocent people who are in trouble and dying,” the president said in a session with reporters. “And it’s got to stop.”
Judge a man by his actions, not by his words.
I hope the ICJ takes the US, UK, Germany and other genocide enablers to the trial too.
Don't forget Canada.
Hmm, is it me who's wrong about the facts on the ground and the application of international law?
No, it is Canada who is has gone genocidal!
What planet are you on that you've never heard of the Canadian extermination of indigenous peoples?
I have heard of it. Have I heard anyone call it genocide though? I don't think I have. Other than, now this is the second person, whom I consider to be edgelords on the internet until proven otherwise.
You're willfully being ignorant, then. "Canadian indigenous genocide" is the third result down on the autocomplete list on google after typing in "Canadian Indig", and if you click that result you get a ton of sources including a bunch of news articles talking about the genocide using the word genocide, the website for the Canadian human rights museum which calls it a genocide, and even a scientific paper on the trauma effects caused by it.
It was a genocide.
Sounds like someone needs to be doing the Googling they keep preaching about.
stares blatantly
Canada’s policies aimed at assimilating Indigenous people included outlawing languages, cultural practices and political traditions and forcibly removing children from families. These were deliberate attempts to erase a distinct group of people by destroying the essential foundations of their way of life.
I read enough studying law and before that criminal justice with a history minor to know that this quote is completely true and not really that strong of a case by an international law standard. I get their argument though and have a lot of sympathy for the indigenous people throughout North America and the arctic.
“There are a lot of innocent people who are in trouble and dying,” the president said in a session with reporters.
Gee, then maybe you shouldn't have cut funding to the biggest single relief agency in the area just because Israel told you to (archive part 1, part 2), you fucking clod
e; Six pages of evidence (archive) about 12 people in an organization of 13000 that we probably didn't even see (archive) and a bunch of disinformation from Israeli mouthpieces was all it took
You don't have to prove with links that we did that. We were joined in it by a broad, multilateral coalition of partners.
Those who saw the raw intelligence said it was irrefutable and the problem was significantly more widespread than the 13 people directly accused, all of whom the agency immediately fired upon also seeing the intelligence.
The fact that you've said this makes it obvious that you do not know enough about this story to have an opinion on it. You're not following it closely enough snd haven't done your basic homework to come into this conversation.
Literally go and Google it. This thread is filled with abject know nothing's at the peak of Mount Stupid.
You made the claim. You're expending more effort on insults than it would take to back up your claim if you weren't lying.
Yeah, you're just someone who doesn't know what they're talking about well enough to back it up.
Did you see the raw intelligence or are we just going with Israel and their allies saying to us "trust me bro"? Seems unlikely that the UN aid agency is actually a secret Hamas organization. That's very convenient.
What am I your secretary? I wrote what they said in this thread. Some dumbo comes along and says "citation needed."
If that resonated with you, perhaps you also have not followed this story closely enough to know what you're talking about? Try adding the words "state department" or "intelligence briefing" to your Google search string. If you had followed the story closely enough, you'd already know what sources I was referencing in my initial post. Maybe you could disagree with their responses, but saying "citation needed" to the basic facts of the story instantly reveals you as unserious.
This is ass backwards. UNRWA immediately fired the accused employees solely because they were worried about the potential ramifications and figured it wasn’t something worth fighting. They had and have seen zero actual evidence to back it up. Meanwhile, half the west stupidly took this as evidence that the allegations were true and pulled their future funding, while they too have seen zero actual evidence to back up Israel’s claims.
They had and have seen zero actual evidence to back it up.
How do you suppose they knew who to fire?
The IDF came to Washington and showed Congress and the IC the texts, social media messages, and cell phone location data, which was described by people briefed as "highly credible" and "irrefutable."
Anthony Blinken's State Department, Joe Biden's admin, and the foreign affairs committee immediately pulled the money. If the evidence they saw could rationally be disregarded as "stupid," which is your assessment, even though you yourself have not seen the evidence, you are suggesting what exactly, that the cell phone metadata, social media data, and text logs--which sufficed to put the US government into immediate action--were completely forged? You think the DNI and CIA Director got fooled as to the credibility of the intelligence, but not you, you know the truth? That sounds pretty insane.
Occam's Razor: largest employer in a tiny area, terrorist group is extremely popular in that area, some of the employees are accomplices and co-conspirators to that terrorist group?
Half of the budget that was cut was from the USA alone, about 29% of their annual, only 9 nations withdrew funding total.
Biden is SO CRITICAL of Israel that he's ready to send them BILLIONS more dollars without Congressional Approval! THAT will teach Israel to STOP!
Technically he sold them weapons previously, not given them billions, although in the voted down bipartisan border bill the concession of billions given are for Israel AND Palestine humanitarian aid.
He's still a piece of shit, but nuance matters imo.
Yeha, he's just making sure he wins the next elections. He knows this is one of the reasons why people won't vote for him. The fact he is keeping it this tame just shows he really doesn't want to affect his relations with Israel. So, after he wins, everything will stay the same way.
I’m guessing you’re his biographer? Maybe his therapist? Are you him?
Gotta be one of the three to know so much about what his intentions are.
Not really. The war in Gaza is unpopular among the population, but there is pressure for him to send aid to Israel. There are not many ways to slime that one out and have a chance to win the upcoming election. Speak loudly what the masses want to hear, do what he needs to appease the more powerful people who can screw him over.
He's a politician after all, his priority is to maintain power at home, not to stop the war in Gaza.
He’s an American president: Gaza is not, not should be- his priority. America is not the world police. And the sooner people realize this/ the better we’ll all be from it.
Exactly, so he should quit sending kajillions of dollars to help them kill children and covering their ass in the UN security council every time they start slaughtering Palestinians again.
No, it isn’t. It’s just easy to jump to that conclusion when you start there and work your way back.
Maybe he'll even talk about possibly not selling them more of the weapons being used to kill innocents with.
“over the top” is a bit tame in my opinion. i would frankly go as far as to say what they’re doing is “not cool”, maybe even “uncalled for”
Stop talking and pull the aid. Nothing Biden says on the subject matters while he's still sending them aid.
Also, he should reinstate funding for UNRWA and stop aiding the IDF effort to starve everyone in Gaza (*also applicable here in Canada and several other countries). Even if the Israeli allegation that UNRWA staffers are all Hamas-affiliated was true, we're talking about fucking food, medication, and survival essentials for 95% of the world's most starved people (up from 80% as of recently).
*finger wagging strengthens, stern look intensifies*
*wink* *nod* [keeps sending Israel bombs to use against civilians in Gaza]
Now that his criticism is nice and sharp, maybe he can waggle that around in a threatening manner.
Could just demand the immediate resignation of Bibi and his government as a prerequisite for a continued alliance, but that would require a spine.
Yes. Alliances are mutual pacts, and can be broken by either party when the other becomes objectionable or unprofitable. Or just because.
I personally consider "being a genocidal fascist abusing the alliance to cement his rule" a deal breaker that can only be resolved with the removal of the offending party from power.
You don't?
So your approach to weilding America's strength and good will, in the name of human rights, is to abandon allies over 35,000 deaths, most of which are civilians? Okay that's one approach. Not sure how our other allies will feel about it, whether they might stop working with if we try to dictate how they decide to prosecute a war on their border.
What are you going to say to any emerging powers that are considering whether they want to be part of the western world or if they want to hitch their wagons to Chinese or Russian power? How will you live with yourself when you realize your emotions over 35,000 deaths caused you to end the very alliance that stops tens of millions from dying in an Iranian war and the cascade of failed states that would follow?
"Being a genocidal fascist"? Who specifically are you even talking about? Israel is a democracy. They don't have just one person in charge. Are you talking about Netanyahu? You're going to blow up an alliance and risk tens of millions of lives because you don't like one politician, whose entire party seems likely to be defeated at the ballot box? How about giving it one election before we try severe sanctions and whatever else you are suggesting America should do to overthrow a leader and party that was democratically elected because it won't do what we want?
Seems incredibly ignorant and short sighted, something a kid might suggest.
Yes, we absolutely should "abandon" genocidal fascists - who demand billions of dollars in military aid to make everyone in the Middle East our enemies.
That's called "Not being evil people that deserve bullets to the face."
But, hey, it's a free country, it's your right to be on the side of fascism while patting yourself on the back for the mental maturity of defending the status quo at all costs.
One might even note there's a whole political party for your kind!
Yep, they're already struggling as it is. If they had to fight house to house with just rifles they'd stand no chance.
Are we continuing on the series for Biden's campaign ads?
"You all thought he was supporting genocide but look he is slapping Israel's wrist! There you go, now you can vote for him with a clear conscience"
True, but at least he isn't the orange orangutan that wants to kill democracy.
It's so fucking depressing when you have these two as the most likely candidates and the only third option is so unknown that most people won't know who they are and even less vote for them.
Hell, even the NYT doesn't show de la Cruz in the running - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/us/politics/presidential-candidates-2024.html
Unfortunately the US elections often come down to voting for the person you dislike less.
Do I like his stance on Israel? No
But his opponent (Trump) stance/actions is worse
So I will hold my nose and do my civic duty
Basically.
It felt awful voting for him the first time. Now? Lol. You have to keep perspective that this countrys official stance on Israel from the start has been unwavering support. I think even if we got Bernie in 16 he would have found it hard to do much with this one. Congress would still foot the bill no matter what he did or said. Israel has been a geopolitical oasis for US foreign policy, and say what you will about US foreign policy, but abandoning a long term ally weakens your soft powers exponentially.
And on that note, abstaining from voting or voting for the nuclear cheetoh because US foreign policy is horrific is ensuring we do/enable far, far worse. And if youre counting on a revolution in the age of drones to occur after the public is fed up with trump and lgbtq folks are in cages, i got news for you: we have absolutely none of the systems in place to care for a populace after all the current systems at play would die in this supposed revolution.
God. Its just frustrating. I get it, i hate US neoimperialism too, but did u miss the bit where the other big players have their populace more under their thumbs? Bc at least here u still have a functioning vote. If u dont throw it away, that is.
Why do you think trump would be worse on israel? Hes the only president in 50-100 years not to start a war. He got us out of afghanistan. Hes not telling the israelis they have our full throated support. And even more importantly, I cant think of a single way for him personally to get rich off of the israeli genocide, so I can only assume he would have zero interest in prolonging it. Like, honestly, he seems like the least bad option weve had in a long time, because we know exactly how he will behave, and its certainly not as bad as all of the presidents who oversaw mass killings. He will be a buffoon, and he will probably attempt another coup. So what? You think the FBI cant contain a second coup, which they are now expecting? If thats the price we have to pay to get a president who doesnt openly support genocide, im more than willing to pay it.
This sounds like the setup to an Onion article: "Biden calls Israel's response to Gaza, 'over the top.' Says that bombing of refugee camps, 'a bit much,' and the famine cause by aid blockades, 'really cringe.' At press time, President Biden was signing a bipartisan deal to send the Israeli military $20 billion in weapons."
There was a moral imperative in 1948 & 1967 to support Israel against outside aggression who openly stated they wanted to end Israel. There’s now a moral imperative to protect Gazans and their land as was agreed to in Oslo II.
Enjoy your mess Joe, you sleepwalked into this one, crisis by crisis by believing Bibi unconditionally until very recently. Because now Egypt is getting testy:
Netanyahu’s words have also alarmed Egypt which has said that any ground operation in the Rafah area or mass displacement across the border would undermine its 40-year-old peace treaty with Israel. The mostly sealed Gaza-Egypt border is also the main entry point for humanitarian aid.
That’s a big fucking issue, if Egypt is throwing that language around I doubt Jordan is far behind them. I’ll say it again, is the alliance with Israel worth it, if it jeopardizes US relations with literally every other nation in the gulf?
There was a moral imperative to protect Israel when it was massacring and ethnically cleansing 750,000 Palestinians from their land in 1948? No. There was and continues to be a moral imperative to do everything in order to end the existence of the Zionist entity.
I don’t have the energy to dive into the pre-1948 history of Palestine beyond to say this;
While acknowledging the above, the fact is that in 1948 there was a Jewish population there, who were facing a second genocide attempt that decade. The powers that be washed their hands of it, not unlike the Fall of Saigon or Afghanistan, yet we don’t learn from our interventionism. To unwind this problem requires either a robot peace that both sides want, or one of the two getting ethnically cleansed.
Wrong. There was a white supremacist colonialist Zionist presence in Palestine, which aimed to sieze the country for itself and dispossess its natives, which it did through massacres and ethnic cleansing. There was no "second genocide attempt". There was only Palestinian and Arab self defence in the face of an armed, murderous society that sought to dispossess and erase the Palestinian people entirely. The solution is the destruction of the settler colonialist state and that is what will happen.
> 'It does not matter how many there are. We will sweep them into the sea.
Arab League Secretary-General Azzam Pasha, 1948
Idk that certainly sounds like “kill them all”
I’m not denying the origins of Israel, that it was created by colonial powers at the expense of Arabs & Palestinians, nor that it displaced a significant Palestinian population after an organized and protracted campaign of Zionist, Jewish terrorism. However in 1948 the reality is the Jews were there, and the rhetoric from the top was of elimination and eradication - and that is a genocidal act
But one genocide is not better than another. There's no ethical way to take sides here. What we should really do is end our involvement. The obvious way to avoid being complicit in murder is to stop taking part in it. We should end all support for Israel, no weapons no money. They can get humanitarian aid if need be, but no f-16s or cruise missiles.
Isreal can either make friends with their neighbors on their own, or they can risk getting wiped out, their choice.
There is absolutely an ethical side - pro-civilian.
Walking away completely, right now, would just leave a broken Gaza being strangled by blockade, fractured West Bank constantly being raided by the IDF and/or Zionist mobs or eaten away gradually by an illegal settlements with Israeli state support, and the Golan Heights a contested low intensity battlefield. Palestinians and Arabs in Israel would continue to live under an apartheid ethnostate as second class citizens.
Retaining the status quo doesn’t solve any of the harms done by Israel, it’s the easy out.
Honestly, if we ended US financial support for Israel, I think it would make a pretty big difference. Isreal would likely be forced to focus more on stabilizing relations with their hostile neighbors. And any attempt to do that would require employing a very different strategy with Palestine.
The quote from Alec Kirkbride's memoirs:
"when I asked him for his estimate of the size of the Jewish forces, [he] waved his hands and said: 'It does not matter how many there are. We will sweep them into the sea."
It is clear this is referring to the Zionist armed forces that were in fact committing the massacres. This was after the Zionist forces actually pushed the Palestinians of Haifa into the sea under rifle fire. In other instances, the same official declared that equality between Jewish settlers and Palestinians was to be implemented.
All this being said, I will not mince words, the Palestinian people have every right to remove the Zionist colonial presence from their land, and they had that right in 1948 when this militarized settler society put into action its goal of dispossessing the entire Palestinian people.
I hate Israel more than the next guy, but those nations likely wouldn't be sympathetic to the west's form of government anyways.
Israel is not a colony we created because we felt bad for Jewish people. Israel is a colony we created to be able to project power in the middle east.
So, it's not about getting Arab nations to like us. It's about having a place to park stealth bombers those countries don't have the technology to shoot down. It's about having a Mafia group willing to do our dirty work so we don't look that bad doing it
I think it was the great philosopher Eric Cartman who said it best
“You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft pussy protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too."
Don’t get me wrong, I am definitely a soft pussy protestor, but Biden is clearly having his cake and eating it too.
Wow he said a slightly negative sentence about the terrorists he promised to limitlessly fund that genocides brown people. If anybody was wondering why he's unpopular it's this shit.
The administration is clearly over Netanyahu, Blinken had some pretty strong comments on this week’s trip. He also met with Gantz, Eisenkot and Lapid so they’re clearly looking at the post-Netanyahu era.
The post-netanyahu era will look just like the netanyahu era, just like how US presidents will change but the military industrial complex marches along the same line.
Israeli history would say otherwise. When a leader is forced out, there is a change in government policy and position.
Well not for the past 75 years. They have been ethnically cleansing Palestinians and building illegal settlements on Palestinian internationally recognised land for decades. Not to mention the continuous oppression of Palestinians under their occupation and many other horrors.
We can start with Golda Meir and the Yom Kippur War, in 1973. It was thought by Israelis that she was taken by surprise. Israelis waited until the shooting stopped and forced her out in favor of Rabin who made peace and signed the Oslo Accords. Which was his undoing since it was the reason given for his assassination. There are other examples.
It was still a pretty shitty deal for Palestinians. Israel still kept control over their borders, air space, and waters. It didn't address the settlements, it was meant to undermine their attempt for a state, it didn't address refugees. And even though it was a terrible deal for Palestinians, it was still too much for the Israeli right-wing. They do not want peace or true Palestinian sovereignty, and never have for all those decades.
Hard agree. People want Biden to call for Netanyahu to get the Noreaga treatment. That's not how displomacy works.
But this will be the end for Netanyahu, if Israel is to have any credibility. America has work to do on this front right now, too: by making sure that fat orange fuck that wants open war with Iran doesn't get reelected, and end up killing tens of millions of people after the cascade of failed mid-east states that would follow.
Directly after that sentence he proceeded to say in this short video:
He has a stutter! Stop shaming him because he doesn't live up to your speaking privilege.
Yes, he has a stutter and typically does a very good job of working through it.
He didn’t stutter, go watch the linked video and stop shamelessly carrying water for him.
Just click the video it's like 30 seconds. Biden paused for quite a while before making such a massive mistake.
