UN Security Council resolution calls for Gaza ceasefire
bbc.co.uk
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote
You are viewing a single comment
UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an "immediate ceasefire" in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote
This is a pretty big shift for the US, and it means the pressure is finally starting to really register with Biden. If the "uncommited" results in the Michigan primary were enough to get his attention, recent polling that puts him 8 points behind Trump likely changed the debate for the foreseeable future.
Biden is playing diplomatic chess. Netanyahu warned the US before the vote that Israel would not participate in a meeting if the US didn't use its veto. So, now the US didn't. BTW, Hamas launched rockets at Ashdod right before the Security Council voted confirming its status as an equal fighting party in the war before a ceasefire.
What you mean to tell me geopolitical diplomacy is more complicated and delicate than the people screaming "genocide Joe" think it is???? Shocking.
No. It means enough people screaming genocide Joe loudly enough had a small but tangible impact on American foreign policy.
So you're unironically arguing that geopolitical diplomacy IS actually simple? Really?
I recommend you read the second sentence that you declined to quote.
That sentence isn't relevant though is it?
Do you think geopolitics is that simple or nah?
Of course the sentence is relevant. I'm not sure why I should bother writing a reply to you when you apparently stop reading them after the first word. Have a good day.
JFC you aren't even denying it. you guys actually unironically believe it's that simple.
Selective reading makes you look ridiculous.
It's not selective reading. If I make a statement and you say "No" that mea s you're refuting that statement.
Then their second sentence had nothing to do with wether they think these politics are simple or not, hence why I didn't quit it.
The OP is just using bad faith arguments to distracts from that. Which is why they don't even attempt to deny it and just criticise the fact I didn't quote their entire comment instead of responding.
No, you didn't read it properly, and I'd say you're arguing in bad faith or you just cannot read properly as everyone else seems to have done just fine. Ignoring so much of their comment then their intention afterwards makes you look silly. You are wrong, your understanding is wrong.
Then why can't the OP nor you/ anyone else actually give an explanation, or even so much as give a response to an INCREDIBLY simple question. Of "do you think international diplomacy is that simple?"
Again. The conversation went
Me: diplomacy isn't that simple
SB: No. Shouting genocide Joe worked.
The first sentence is them denying my point that diplomacy isn't simple. The second sentence is tangential to that point. And does nothing to explain why they think diplomacy isn't actually simple. He'll I'm not even denying their se and point. Shouting genocide Joe did put pressure on Biden that did shape foreign policy in some small way. But again, its not relevant to the point I was making, so didn't quote it.
Which is why the other commenter is acting in bad faith when they completely ignore my point because I didn't quote their tangential point in my second comment.
I thought this would be fairly obvious to anyone with literacy skills but apparently I need to wrote whole paragraphs to explain what someone replying "no" means.
Do you suppose that Bibi believes there are ramifications for going into Rafah now?
So you're saying that Biden had another motivation here: telling Netanyahu, "the US ain't nobody's bitch, and you don't tell me what to do."
Multiple polls had Biden ahead of Trump before this happened too.
Not in Michigan.
I said elsewhere, "just in time for November." Didn't be fooled.
Don't be fooled by what?