‘Stop bullshitting me’: Biden said to scold Netanyahu in call on truce-hostage deal
Open link in next tab
Cloudflare capcha page
https://www.timesofisrael.com/stop-bullshitting-me-biden-said-to-scold-netanyahu-in-call-on-truce-hostage-deal/
This is no different than the other 5 times we've heard about Biden scolding or begging or setting red lines with Netanyahu behind closed doors, while continuing to send them weapons and protecting them from anyone trying to stop the genocide.
Supporting Israel is not just morally repugnant, it's a mistake.
Biden was the most fanatical supporter of Israel in the 80s. Even Ronald Reagan told Israel to GTFO out of Beirut when he saw the barbarity of the IDF in the early 80s. He said to the then PM of Israel that they were doing a holocaust. Even when the PM tried to admonish Reagan by telling him 'don't tell me about holocaust, I know about the holocaust' Reagan told him to fuck off and withdraw or he will withdraw support.
After hanging up Reagan turned to an aide and said 'I had no idea I had that kind of power'.
•
It’s about 6 months too late, maybe more, but I’ll take it
Now maybe try some kind of fuckin consequences maybe, before another 10% of the population of Gaza gets buried under rubble or dies of scurvy or infection or being shot by a sniper
I agree, but it's all relative. This is coming from Biden who has been a huge supporter of Israel, letting them do pretty much whatever they want to do since forever. This seems like a huge step for the man, given where he's coming from.
edit: Just realized I wasn't super clear. I was referring to the consequences part and how even if we want that, just Biden saying something as was reported is a pretty big step from where we were. I pretty much agree completely with @mozz@mbin.grits.dev.
There have been a ton of reports like this, where he allegedly gives Bibi a talking to behind closed doors, and then publicly continues to fully support him
White House staffers even have a nickname for it. It's called the "hug Bibi strategy" which reportedly has been in place since the Obama administration.
So I think the reports are accurate. Biden seems to think publicly supporting Israel is the best way to arrive at a ceasefire. Of course doing something ineffective and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
What complicates matters is that there are actually good reasons to supply Israel with some military equipment. Many Israelis are living there in 3rd or sometimes 4th generation. Putting the let's call it complicated circumstances of Israels founding aside, they are a people and deserve self-determination (just like the Palestinians do). The often repeated line "Israel has the right to defend itself" is not only a line it's also true. You can't just cut them of from all military assistance. So any policy is going to look kind of contradictory.
All of this isn't me defending the Biden administration. It's just me pointing out, that a substantially different policy would look very similar. You would hear a lot of "friends tell friends the truth" and Israel would only get the weapons they actually need to DEFEND itself (iron dome missiles etc.)
And that's something they should definitely do
Israel would only get the weapons they actually need to DEFEND itself
If I break into your house, is it defense to shoot you when you try to take it back?
Israel, as a settler-colonial ethnostate, is not compatible with the human rights of the Palestinians who live there.
The only solution is to address the reason they Palestinians fire rockets: Return their homes, their right for exiled Palestinians to return, and an end to apartheid. None of this is compatible with the Israeli national project.
Where does the 10% number come from? It's less than 1.5% and it includes Hamas terrorists as well.
•
The thirty-whatever thousand number is direct deaths that can be observed and counted up, I.e. a vast undercount of the actual number.
The Lancet determined a couple of months ago that you could at that point conservatively estimate about 186,000 dead, 7.9% of the population. Conditions haven’t been improving in the couple months since that happened and it was a conservative estimate anyway, so I said 10%. The truth is there’s a lot of uncertainty, it could be higher or lower than that, but saying it’s 1.5% is definitely wrong.
It's not definitely wrong. It's the number of verified deaths. Speculation is speculation. Also 186,000 dead would be 4% of the population.
•
?
Is your impression that the Lancet just has someone speculate on things and then write down whatever, and that’s what they publish? Why would a professionally arrived at and peer reviewed estimate, based on the best available information and with an explanation of where it comes from, not be preferable to the absolute minimum lower bound?
Why is the number of “verified” deaths relevant? I’m interested in the number of deaths. It’s impossible to know that number for sure, of course, but if you are one of those people that died, but your death wasn’t verified, you’re still dead. Saying that the quite large number of people who died but whose death wasn’t verified “don’t count” or something is obvious nonsense.
And the Gaza Strip population was 2.23 million in 2023. 186000 / 2230000 = 8%. Where are you getting 4%?
That’s four specific questions I’m asking.
You and Lancet seem to use a "Gaza strip population" to inflate the number and make it look higher than it is. My number comes from the total population of Palestine people of both Gaza and West Bank.
The number of verified deaths should be relevant. It seems disrespectful not to. Every speculated death should be verified. I'm sure there is a way to verify.
It is possible for the Lancet to be biased in one way or another yes. It is possible sure. There have been credible orgs who have questioned this Lancet estimate.
•
Help me out here. If I start bombing Philadelphia, and I kill 10% of the city, is it relevant that Philadelphia is part of the United States and does that make the 10% number suddenly wrong?
You’re sure there is a way to verify, huh. Well hey, you should go to Gaza and help them verify. I am sure it would be easy once you’re down there, helping them dig out families or schoolrooms from under the rubble and count 1, 2, 3, okay we got 4 corpses in this one. They’re verified now so they count. Boy, only a few hundred thousand houses to go, should be done in no time. Hey guys where is the water fountain? I’m getting thirsty, and when is lunch coming?
I am mostly done; you don’t need to tell me how biased the Lancet is famous for being, or who are these unnamed orgs who are questioning its credibility.
My number comes from the way we get to that "30-whatever thousand number"
Why don't we just say 500 thousand died in this case or even 1 million?
These people have banks and bills there are ways to gather more accurate numbers than guessing. And yes every body found is counted and attempted to be verified by hospital morgues. Dumb****. Don't make jokes.
Yes it makes the 10% number wrong when you attempt to claim a genocide is happening.
You do not seem to understand how peer review let alone scientific research works and what kind of rigor is required to get your research published in an A* journal and I’ll leave it at that.
When journalists and peer-review get a more accurate number of deaths than... The Gaza health ministry ran by the government of Gaza.
Okay.
I said it before. Why don't we just say 500 thousand dead why be so conservative? Why don't we even say it's a million dead!
•
Because that’s… not the estimate that the most accurate process they can come up with leads to?
This sorta reminds me of conversations I’ve had with Trump supporters, where the very idea that you could evaluate a source and one could be more believable than another for reasons other than ideology, (like that one is trying to get the truth and one isn’t), is alien to them.
I mean this person has absolutely no idea what they’re talking about if they think journalists publish in The Lancet just because it’s called a journal so I think any discussion is absolutely pointless.
Yes it is the estimate it lead to. They said they were being very conservative with that number and it could even be as much as 15x higher.
The Gaza health ministry has always been accurate in their numbers.
I don't understand why some people think that the death count is 40K. That number was made by the Palestinian health ministry and they are very accurate... but it wasn't updated because all their facilities have been destroyed. They act like somehow it stopped there just like that.
The lancet is not fucking around with their numbers.
The Palestine health ministry announces an updated death toll nearly everyday. What. Are. You. Talking. About.
The rate it increases is not as consistent with the rate of bombing because they're less able to retrieve and count bodies.
Oh no, not another heated exchange of words.
Anyways, time to ship more 2,000 pound bombs over there.
a senior Israeli official [said] that Netanyahu has been feeling more emboldened to strike Iran since Biden’s July 21 decision to drop out of the 2024 US presidential race.
STOP SENDING ARMS TO ISRAEL! Seriously. If we stopped sending arms today, Israel still has enough ammo to slaughter Palestinians for another 8 months. Stopping arms sales wouldn't hinder the Israelis' war, but it might give enough pause to help Palestinian peace.
If Netanyahu wants Trump in office there's not much out there with a higher impact than getting an American Carrier group sucked into a war with Iran and then publicly saying the democrats aren't willing to really fight. Add in assertions they're putting Americans in danger without letting them defend themselves...
Yeah, Biden dropping out was good but it opened the door to some real fuckery because Biden just cannot bring himself to realize the problem in the ME right now is Israel.
Having the US overthrow yet another government in the ME isn’t going to fix things
And yes the threat is Israel escalating the war to force the US to help
I can think of one ME government that could use a change of leadership. And it's also the one we don't have to attack to change.
If you’re talking about Israel then that’s what I was addressing
If you’re talking about Turkey or Egypt then why?
There is also a theory that people tend do choose more masculine leaders in times of war
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227054-600-war-torn-countries-prefer-masculine-leaders/
Well yea, because warfare has been a "man's game" for well over 2000 years. I heard an interview with an undecided (woman) voter who was concerned that, even if western societies are more equal to women, the leaders from countries that don't give women rights won't respect her and the US by extension. When the interviewer asked her about powerful women in other countries like Germany, she said it's different because "those countries" are smaller than the US.
Stopping arms sales wouldn’t hinder the Israelis’ war,
Gosh if only there were some way to take away those bombs.
Oh well.
Also it would halt any dreams that Israel has of attacking Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. They would not have the supplies in order to wage a war against people who have actual armies.
Bibi:
Why? It works every time with no consequences.
Why anyone would tolerate a guy like this to avoid short-term fallout is a part of politics I can't understand. It seems to me that a single partner being willing to bite the bullet would defeat him.
Did you watch the speech at congress? That's why. I'm not sure Biden ever had those many people in there applauding 40 times. It's revolting.
I mean, that doesn't help explain why. I'm not just talking about the Americans either. He's in a precarious coalition government right now.
I thought you meant why Biden tolerated him, he's the one trying to avoid short-term fallout, congress usually does not get blamed for foreign policy...except in Ukraine...actually lots of exceptions :/
I mean why would anyone tolerate a political actor who's actively famous for perpetually dicking over people who tolerate him. He does it within Israeli politics too; with the forever war they're currently in (so he doesn't have to face an election) being just one example.
•
China's final warning == Russia's final warning == Biden's final warning.
The only reason I see to take this even half seriously is because Biden doesn't have anything left to lose.
Jack if you keep fooling me like this I'm gonna have to send only 2 billion worth of bombs next month. jk I would never do that, I love you mother
„Stopping israel from annihilating the Palestinian people is distancing us from a peaceful solution”
How about, you know, actually let her create and execute foreign policy before you judge her. She’s clearly started distancing herself from Biden’s carte blanche approach, but it’s not a good idea (electorally) to move to fast on that front, because AIPAC throws a LOT of cash around.
•
I deadass told everyone Biden was gonna copycat Obama's policy because he was a VP with no plan of his own.
He did exactly that.
How tf is Kamala going to magically gain a moral conscious overnight, let alone a functioning policy plan that isn't going to be a copy of Biden.
Especially considering she was the least popular candidate in 2020.
30 years of snake oil promises from literally every president and yet people still fall for the ol "let's give them a chance to prove themselves"
actually let her create and execute foreign policy before you judge her.
So we don't get to criticize a candidate before they take office?
If you want to criticize them on their previous actions sure. But she isn't the one sending the bombs. And her only actions so far have been to call for a ceasefire. Making up conversations between her and the Israelis isn't criticizing her, it's propaganda.
She is the one who condemned protestors for protesting against Netanyahu's address before Congress.
The protest organizers let people march with Hamas flags and icons. That's not acceptable in the current political climate.
To be fair, while this may be her likely answer, she hasn't spoken anything definitive on the issue. There is room for optisism even if it isn't high.
I would argue its the reverse, most the media is a corporate/billionaire owned. Billionaire and corporate media isnt going to act in the public's best interest.
Billionaire and corporate media isnt going to act in the public’s best interest
I absolutely agree with that. So why do we trust them on anything at all?
I do think a lot of well-meaning people go into journalism. It just means there's some problems to look out for
Call me when Biden starts doing something about it, Netanyahu isn't going to stop.
This is a convoluted uncharitable interpretation. She specifically condemns support of pro-Hamas graffiti and rhetoric. It's disingenuous to read that as blanket condemnation of all pro-Palestinian protesters.
::: spoiler Times of Israel - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Times of Israel:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - Israel
Wikipedia about this source
:::
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.timesofisrael.com/stop-bullshitting-me-biden-said-to-scold-netanyahu-in-call-on-truce-hostage-deal/
:::
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
•
Are you trying to tell me "Iran said to dismiss US, Arab calls for restraint — even if it sparks war" and "IDF says slain Al Jazeera reporter was a Hamas commando, took part in Oct. 7 massacre" aren't fully credible, highly factual, left-center ways of summarizing what's currently happening in the Middle East?
Mozz I’m gonna admit I used to dislike you, but seeing you post so valiantly for Palestinians lately has really changed my opinion on you.
The bot is accurate. Most people getting mad at Times of Israel are just getting mad because Jews. It's nominally accurate, and most of the political scandals of Israel itself are reported there. It's clearly not propaganda.
•
Want to address the current headlines I quoted in my other comment?
They’ve got a right to express their side of things, of course, but pretending they are “credible” in terms of, you can take credulously the stuff that’s printed there, is absolute hilarilty.
This piece of shit bot rates The Washington Post as a leftist. This thing is beyond crazy. No one with any credibility can defend it.
Well Netanyahu knows he just has to wait about 6 months, and there's a 100% chance Biden won't be president.
If I were him, I'd do whatever I could short term to fuck the republicans long term plans of facism.
Maybe drop some bombs on russia. Hell, maybe drop some bombs on America. What are they going to do? Hold him to consequences? The republicans already made that illegal. I'm thinking maybe Atlanta could be rubble.......or just ALL of Utah. Nothing good ever came of Utah.
Maybe drop a nuke or two on Florida. Biden is essentially in the position every fast food worker eventually finds themselves in. Nothing to lose, and nothing to gain.......except in Bidens case he holds all the power of the US military. Imagine telling your boss that you quit......with an army of tanks.
•
There is a particular type of propaganda account that likes to insert nonsense into the discourse, just to interfere with people who want to have reasonable discussions. This article has more about it -- search for Peter Pomerantsev; he's quoted in that talking about it.
Of course I'm not saying the person you're replying to is doing that. I for-real genuinely have no idea whether it's that, or they're just a person with some odd ideas about geopolitics, and anyway it would be illegal for me to make that type of speculation.
Illegal specifically means against the law, not just against some private space's set of rules.