Biden slams the Palestinian genocide as "a little too much".
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!
Canada has a long and arguably continuing history of genocide.
It's genocide all the way down huh?
Do any multilateral bodies call it genocide or just edgelords on the internet?
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.
Sorry, I said multilateral bodies. Such as NATO or the UN.
Don't throw out your back moving those goalposts.
Moving them to the thing I originally said? Okay. You moved the goalpost far short of the line when you named a Museum and not some multilateral org and thought you scored a goal. And that's fine, I'm sure that museum has some very smart experts but on the matter of international law on genocide, to me anyway, it matters very much who is making the claim and what nations or groups of nations affirm the claim. I don't think it should be thrown around.
Sounds like someone needs to be doing the Googling they keep preaching about.
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.
[citation needed]
Lol wrecked
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.
You can't just respond to "citation needed" with an ad hominem, my dude.
He can't defend his position, so he falls back to ol'reliable.
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.
I don't know what you think I'm lying about. The WSJ, NYT, CBS, all had coverage and all said the same thing.
So you should have no difficulty at all providing a link.
But you would rather just sling abuse.
At this point I'm not providing links principle, and frankly the number of people who are unable to distinguish fact from opinion or draw rational inferences from credible evidence makes me want to vomit.
The claims made public by Israeli intelligence and reviewed by the publications I cited are that 12 people were involved first hand and provided material support, with their actions being described with specifics and apparently supported by cell phone data and data recovered from computers and social media accounts. It's delusional to think that Israel faked the evidence, publicized the accusations, deceived the US and a chunk of its allies to immediately pull funding. Did they trick the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken into saying the evidence was "highly credible"? Did they trick Chris Smith, Congressman from New Jersey, who was briefed as a member of Foreign Affairs, the former chair of the committee, who said the evidence against UNRWA was "irrefutable" and part of a longstanding history?
It's the largest employer in Gaza. Nothing about some of its employees being friendly to Hamas or providing material support in carrying out a terrorist attack, should surprise anyone at all. There is no credible dispute that the 12 accused were involved. The UNRWA itself doesn't even dispute that the 12 were involved as alleged, like, what does that tell you? And, this isn't even the first time this has happened.
The intelligence wasn't shared publicly to support two other claims made by IDF: that 10% of UNRWA members directly support Hamas and nearly half have close family and friends who are in Hamas. In any event, right after Israeli intelligence came to the US and presented at closed briefings, Blinken and Smith moved their respective branches of government to formally pull funding, and they did, along with a multinational coalition of partners.
My opinion is that the reports are very likely true. My factual evidence in support are the arguments I've made here and elsewhere in this thread. That's how it works. I did support my position with facts.
The fact that I haven't footnoted my post with pin cites and through cites doesn't actually mean anything I've said isn't true, nor do I have an obligation to provide such links, as there is no rational dispute as to the facts as I've laid them out right here.
Like if I'm talking about tides or seasons or something, do I need to reply with links to a flat earther who says "derrpp citation needed"? No, because it's already not a rational thing to say. If someone has followed this story at all, they know where I got the facts I've stated.
nor do I have an obligation to provide such links,
I have no obligation to believe you, and no obligation to waste my time searching for something you insist is true.
You could allegedly easily post a link that backs up your assertions, but haven't. Which means you're either lazy or lying. And a lazy person wouldn't have written multiple paragraphs of haughty obstinacy. So until I get a link, I'm confident that you're lying.
It's not ad hominem. I'm not dude's dad or teacher. He can take four seconds and Google it.
Yeah, you're just someone who doesn't know what they're talking about well enough to back it up.
Now who's making claims without evidence?
Well, I can state an opinion without evidence. Mine is based on your comments above. What you're claiming doesn't fall under the category of an opinion.
That's right they are not opinions. And you could verify them easily.
Although it was 12 people, not thirteen, and only 9 of them were fired, as two were dead. Not sure of the twelfth.
"Just google it bro" is the last resort of people with no confidence in their own statements.
And "I refuse to do even basic research needed in order to have a valid opinion" is the last resort of people with lots of confidence in their own feelings.
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.
That's not what anyone has said.
So what have they said? Maybe you can provide links?
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.
If you refuse to take the time to cite your claims, then you will be rightly dismissed. That is the nature of written discourse. It is not worth our time to attempt to research all of the inane claims made by foolish people online. Most are false or misleading and I’d rather not waste my time on a wild goose chase.
I actually thought your initial point was reasonable and maybe you could have persuaded me and others by offering some good reading. Instead you’ve just acted condescending and rude. I don’t think this is a good faith contribution to the discussion here.
I don't see it that way. I made a cogent argument and presented the basic facts of the story to support my opinion. It's as if I had said "IMO the war in Gaza is really terrible, 30,000 people are dead." And someone said "citation needed." Obviously, that person hasn't done their homework and aren't seriously participating.
The person I was originally replying to said several things that were patently false and I corrected them with a short summary of the actual facts. The one fact that I got wrong was that it was 12 UNWRA employees who directly participated in the attack, and not 13 as I originally wrote from memory.
The person didn't disagree with my opinion of the facts, or suggest it was inadequat support; just said "citation needed," which is the same as calling me a liar, as if I had just made up the facts. How is somebody going to sit here and talk about what the American government knew and did not know if they were not familiar with the statements of the Secretary of State of foreign affairs leadership on the hill? It's asinine.
I agree that it was a snarky way to ask for sources but I still think we should all make an effort to support the factual claims we make online. Otherwise it just devolves into endless back and forth contradictory statements that don’t achieve anything. I get that you feel you accurately summarized the facts, but again, there’s no way for us to verify that without comparing it to the original source. Lots of people take advantage by this by distorting a mostly true idea into something unrecognizable, and this can happen by accident as well due to faults of memory and personal biases.
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.
Next he will tell them to knock it off. That will show them for sure.
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”
Less than chill
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).
I suppose a bowling ball is perhaps sharper than a soggy mattress -_-
*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.
If stern looks killed, Bibi would still be absolutelly fine right now.
If Bibi keeps going like this, he might get grounded, or worse without dessert!
What he needs to say is, “You’ve had your fun. Stop now. If not, we’ll invade.”
No need to invade, just stop giving them new toys.
Could just demand the immediate resignation of Bibi and his government as a prerequisite for a continued alliance, but that would require a spine.
Is that how alliances work? Please tell us more.
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.
Delusional.
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"
It's not slapping their wrist, it's more like wagging his finger.
but he sharpens his criticism!
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.
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.
Well Americans, prepare for Isreal to interfere with your elections.
Provides political, military, and economic support for Israel after they were attacked horrifically. Refuses to set any limits or conditions upon said support
Cannot undo what he has done in the name of geopolitics, increasingly is getting hammered by Muslim voters in the US at large, and voters across the spectrum who sympathize with the Palestinian civilians, and a growing rebellion within his own party
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;
The Nakba was (and remains) a stain on humanity, as a direct result of European nations like Poland, France, and the UK callously using the holocaust as cover for their own anti-Semitic motivations to ‘offload’ their Jewish population into Palestine, at the expense of the locals
The British especially, but the Allied powers as a whole, undermined the crumbing Ottoman Empire by promising self-determination to the Arab rebels, all while having already assigned and divided that land for themselves and their Allies after WW1
Irgun and other Jewish militias were doing A LOT of terrorism, against both the British in charge during Mandatory Palestine, and the existing Arab population and civilians
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
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.
You are correct, I retract my position on the 1948 war and the quote’s context
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.
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
A sad truth but this is the truth of Israel.
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."
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.
I had nothing to do with it, damnit.
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.
Peace is taken through iteration. The Camp David Accords cured some of that.
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:
I'm having flashbacks to HRC's "Cut it out" moment. What a bunch of losers.
Is he irked yet? Because when Brandon gets irked, nothing happens.
Listened to the entire speech. He sounded like a disoriented muppet and he spent most of it defending himself... poorly. He sounded tilted and petty trying to answer questions from the reporters. He defended accusations of memory issues by sounding even more incompetent and citing the wrong country when talking about the middle east negotiations.
And the NY Times biggest takeaway was one line about the Israeli response in Gaza. This is why people shouldn't trust journalists. You're better off just finding primary sources and drawing your own conclusions.
Remember that we Iranians will soon force murrikunt out of middle east and whatever unfortunate president is there will be the clown of history.
It just takes one more idiot like Trump to make a 'mistake' like killing Soleimani for Iran to gather enough support to storm American bases with the ballistic missles it sends satellites to space with. All the filthy American soldiers will be reduced to dust.
Well you are fun... And naïeve... And delusional... Ever considered getting professional help? Spouting rhetoric and slogans like you do really is out there.
I'm not even going to try to give any reasoned response to this, you're just... Dumb.
we can only hope
You guys are aware that if he cuts funding to Israel, he 100% loses the election, right? He's not funding Israel for the funzies, or because he just loves genocide. So why do you keep demanding he cut funding?
"Sure there's a genocide, but think of the votes!!" Meanwhile if you're told that biden will lose votes because he supports genocide, you'll probably respond with "but the other guy!!" So basically we just have to full-throatedly support genocide, huh?
This is so stupid that if it were any other topic I'd accuse you of being a MAGA. Utterly nonsensical.
Meanwhile if you’re told that biden will lose votes because he supports genocide, you’ll probably respond with “but the other guy!!”
Yes. The other guy will make the genocide worse. It's a simple concept. You have one guy who's against the genocide but needs to support it, vs the other guy who is fully on board the genocide train and would happily make it worse.
So yes. What about the other guy is an extremely important thing to say.
So basically we just have to full-throatedly support genocide, huh?
Not unless I want to? What a weird non sequitur. The only people jumping for joy that brown people are getting killed are right wingers. Whom you are helping by asking Biden to sacrifice himself.
israel's goal is the complete removal of the Palestinian people from their lands, whether that's through genocide or other means, they don't care. You're saying that somehow trump will make this worse. How can it get worse than genocide? Regardless, you're saying that no matter who we vote for, we get genocide. So tell the people who have this as their most important issue: what difference does their vote make? For someone who claims that only other people "jump for joy over brown people getting killed" you sure do fight hard to defend someone who is killing "brown people". I dunno, maybe you think you're superior because you imagine others are jumping for joy over death while you, the enlightened democrat, merely just don't care about "brown people" dying in the face of votes.
Speaking of stupid, just because I criticize biden, doesn't mean I'm a trump supporter. It's incredibly stupid to think there are only two sides in this.
21% of the Israeli population are Arabs. Over 2,000,000 people, many are Palestinian. Virtually all of them live perfectly peaceful lives and recognize Hamas for the terrorist organization that it is. There are Palestinians working in the Israeli government, elected to office. They hold seats in Israel's legisture.
How could trump make it worse? Well right now the daily death tolls are steadily decreasing, aid into the region is increasing, the war strategy is becoming more precise, Biden is pressuring Israel to an extent that is unprecedented for America, and oh I don't know: America has future presidential elections scheduled, we're not in a hot war with Iran and have a policy of containment that is has so far staved off another US mid east war.
Cons? A country America does not control has killed 35,000 people in open war against actual terrorists over a period of four plus months, but most of whom are civilians. Let's say the UN finds it to be a case of wanton genocide, let's say the current trend fully reverses and Israel starts using helicopter gunships to mow down fleeing civilians by the hundreds, as in the case of the Rohingya genocide. Let's assume that instead of 1% of the population of Gaza dead, Israel goes full genocide and kills all 2.5 million Gazas and moves in Israeli settlers. That's worst case scenario in your view, right? I just say it seems very unlikely given the current state of the war but let's say this is the slipperiest slope ever.
Or...could have a dictator in America. Could have a guy whose loyalty has again and again been to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and himself. Guy who flagrantly breaks the law on televsion. Has said that he would use collective punishment on terrorists and their families. Trump thinks Bibi is a great, smart, and strong leader. Trump started a hot war with Iran already which only ended because Iran accidentally shot down a civilian airliner.
What if we did have a hot war with Iran? 35,000 sounds bad so bad to you #GenocideJoe (again, heçs president of America, not Israel), right? How does 3,500,000, sound? How does 35,000,000 sound to you? Are those numbers still the same thing in your mind? Population of Iran is 100,000,000. How many would die in the increasingly inhospitable climate of the mid east with a few more failed states to deal with, tens of millions of refugees fleeing to Europe, Africa, and Asia. How about 35,000 people dying every day for months or years on end?
Your sincere concern for Palestinians is humanitarian in nature, right? War with Iran would be an utter catastrophe and make the 2023 Israel-Gaza war seem like a footnote. These are my sincere opinions, anyway.
"aid into the region is increasing" are you counting from when the US pulled funding based on israel's claims (without a shred of evidence)? The war strategy is becoming more precise in that they tell Palestinians exactly where to gather so they can be bombed in a precise location. How is biden pressuring israel when he pushes so hard to get more billions of dollars into their hands? Your idea of pressure is very different from, well, I guess anyone living in reality.
I know you're trying to invoke the "slippery slope" fallacy, but just one look at a map showing israel's constantly expanding borders should make it obvious to anyone that this "slippery slope" is not a fallacy, but real. After israel completes their obvious mission of complete ethnic cleansing, you'll be shrugging your shoulders and probably saying something like "it's regrettable, but that's all in the past, we'll do better in the future".
Yeah, trump is bad, but biden is not any better on this specific and important issue. You know how you get trump re-elected? By being stubborn and ignoring voters. There is a pretty important bloc of Arab-American voters in Michigan (you know, the state Hillary lost in 2016) that have some pretty strong opinions on this matter.
War with Iran is inevitable because that's what israel wants: total domination of the Middle East. Ever wonder why countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya, and others were toppled with great help (or direct action) from the US? All enemies of israel get destroyed and it's no mere coincidence. War with Iran is inevitable and, like the map of israel's ever-expanding bordering, anyone paying even a bit of attention can see this obvious trend.
How can it get worse than genocide?
Harder, faster, more brutal, less consequences.
Look, I can tell you're one of those people for whom words short-circuit your brain. Once you hear a certain word, you stop thinking and just start emoting. Genocide. Pedophile. Guns. It prevents you from thinking about the how and the why because you're blinded by anger.
Depopulation and mass killing are both genocide, but one is worse than the other. Attempting a genocide over 30 years is not as bad as attempting a genocide over 3 months, because we are more likely to stop the former.
It’s incredibly stupid to think there are only two sides in this.
There literally are only two sides, that's how our voting system works.
We as individuals are more than our political system. Well, you certainly aren't, but other people are. israel are doing this genocide as fast as they can and biden is pledging billions in support of them as they do it. Do you think trump would pledge more billions? Do you think he'd pledge US troops to join in? You're dealing in hypotheticals and trying to shut down any criticism of the current president who has the power to stop this. How about we don't have genocide, or is idea too mind-blowing for your supposedly not-short-circuited brain to understand?
Following your logic, the civil rights act should've never been passed since it cost democrats votes from racists.
Do you think trump would pledge more billions?
Yes.
You’re dealing in hypotheticals
Yes.
How about we don’t have genocide
That's not really an option. The most Biden could do is make it a little less genocidey, until Trump wins and then it gets a whole lot more genocidey.
the civil rights act should’ve never been passed since it cost democrats votes from racists.
Democrats won the undying fealty of the single most reliable voter bloc: Black women. Black women vote every time, even when forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Black women always vote Democrat. They will trudge through snow or hurricanes to vote Democrat. Can you say as much for the far left? Realistically, if Biden cut off aid to Israel tomorrow, there's a decent chance you'd find something else he did that you didn't like that you'd use as an excuse to not vote.
More importantly, the Civil Rights Act was popular enough that it couldn't get undone by future administrations. Anything Biden does to help Palestine or thwart Israel will be immediately undone next year when Trump takes over.
Not to mention the very real possibility of the end of our democracy. I know we're talking about Israel here so I won't dwell on it, but it's worth keeping in mind even in terms of helping Palestine long term. Can't help Palestine if we've become a Christian theocracy. Hell, we'd probably have troops there ourselves participating in the massacre.
The possibility of the end of our democracy is precisely because of the many times we've gone along with "this is just how things are" and democrats insisting that we have to work with republicans while republicans kept getting worse and worse, moving the overton window to the right. Democrats need to put their foot down and pull back the overton window to the left, that is how we can make some real changes. Democrats doing this would show people that there is a party that will actually fight for them, a party worth going through the trouble of voting for. I thought this was the lesson that would be learned from 2016 when democrats pushed through a "safe" "centrist" candidate and lost, but instead they've doubled down.
israel doesn't need to have bipartisan support. Yes, aipac has a lot of power, but it's because of this undying support for israel which creates this feedback loop. Doing the right thing is worth it in the long run.
Democrats need to put their foot down and pull back the overton window to the left
Yes, I'm sure a Republican win will definitely help pull things left. What the hell, dude.
Do you think republicans got this bad while winning every single election?
Every single time they win, things get worse. Remember what happened in 2016 when people decided to not vote, so they could send a message to the DNC?
Yes, that was my point, republicans make a tangible difference when they get in while democrats mostly sit with their thumb up their ass. Interesting how trump did more in 4 years than obama did in 8. I do remember when the DNC pushed through an insanely unpopular candidate while also promoting trump as much as they could because they thought he'd be easy to win against. Somehow democrats think they can be smug and say "I told you so" when they're the stupid fucks who lost against a clown that they helped set up as the opponent. It's a joke party and their representative animal being a jackass suits them well.
What's to explain? There's more potential voters for Biden who support Israel than oppose it. Especially given the inconsistent nature of the voters who oppose. Biden is already at risk of losing the election. He can't afford to alienate them.
The far left is a small sliver of the Democratic party. And they don't matter in presidential elections because they mostly live in democratic states. Biden needs the support of moderates in swing states, and that means supporting Israel.
supporting an apartheid state while it commits a genocide doesn't seem like the play you think it is.
I'm sure that's what you want to believe, but it's just not true. The political landscape is what it is right now.
What? It's hurting him, not helping.
If he cuts funding, a large number of people who are currently indifferent would then become very heavily against him.
I’ve called people the wrong name many times, my memories still fine, I think? Where am I? I’ve looked at someone else when talking to a colleague and called them by the name of the person I was looking at instead of who I was talking too.
I wouldn’t call that a huge issue, embarrassing sure, but not exactly a sign of bad memory.
I called my bald 72 year old professor mommy yesterday.
Hey, what you two do in your free time is between y'all.
It’s between me, him and everyone I just shared it with.
jesus, what an extremely late understatement
Biden slams the Palestinian genocide as "a little too much".
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!
Canada has a long and arguably continuing history of genocide.
It's genocide all the way down huh?
Do any multilateral bodies call it genocide or just edgelords on the internet?
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.
Sorry, I said multilateral bodies. Such as NATO or the UN.
Don't throw out your back moving those goalposts.
Moving them to the thing I originally said? Okay. You moved the goalpost far short of the line when you named a Museum and not some multilateral org and thought you scored a goal. And that's fine, I'm sure that museum has some very smart experts but on the matter of international law on genocide, to me anyway, it matters very much who is making the claim and what nations or groups of nations affirm the claim. I don't think it should be thrown around.
Sounds like someone needs to be doing the Googling they keep preaching about.
stares blatantly
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.
Lol wrecked
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.
You can't just respond to "citation needed" with an ad hominem, my dude.
He can't defend his position, so he falls back to ol'reliable.
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.
I don't know what you think I'm lying about. The WSJ, NYT, CBS, all had coverage and all said the same thing.
So you should have no difficulty at all providing a link.
But you would rather just sling abuse.
At this point I'm not providing links principle, and frankly the number of people who are unable to distinguish fact from opinion or draw rational inferences from credible evidence makes me want to vomit.
The claims made public by Israeli intelligence and reviewed by the publications I cited are that 12 people were involved first hand and provided material support, with their actions being described with specifics and apparently supported by cell phone data and data recovered from computers and social media accounts. It's delusional to think that Israel faked the evidence, publicized the accusations, deceived the US and a chunk of its allies to immediately pull funding. Did they trick the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken into saying the evidence was "highly credible"? Did they trick Chris Smith, Congressman from New Jersey, who was briefed as a member of Foreign Affairs, the former chair of the committee, who said the evidence against UNRWA was "irrefutable" and part of a longstanding history?
It's the largest employer in Gaza. Nothing about some of its employees being friendly to Hamas or providing material support in carrying out a terrorist attack, should surprise anyone at all. There is no credible dispute that the 12 accused were involved. The UNRWA itself doesn't even dispute that the 12 were involved as alleged, like, what does that tell you? And, this isn't even the first time this has happened.
The intelligence wasn't shared publicly to support two other claims made by IDF: that 10% of UNRWA members directly support Hamas and nearly half have close family and friends who are in Hamas. In any event, right after Israeli intelligence came to the US and presented at closed briefings, Blinken and Smith moved their respective branches of government to formally pull funding, and they did, along with a multinational coalition of partners.
My opinion is that the reports are very likely true. My factual evidence in support are the arguments I've made here and elsewhere in this thread. That's how it works. I did support my position with facts.
The fact that I haven't footnoted my post with pin cites and through cites doesn't actually mean anything I've said isn't true, nor do I have an obligation to provide such links, as there is no rational dispute as to the facts as I've laid them out right here.
Like if I'm talking about tides or seasons or something, do I need to reply with links to a flat earther who says "derrpp citation needed"? No, because it's already not a rational thing to say. If someone has followed this story at all, they know where I got the facts I've stated.
I have no obligation to believe you, and no obligation to waste my time searching for something you insist is true.
You could allegedly easily post a link that backs up your assertions, but haven't. Which means you're either lazy or lying. And a lazy person wouldn't have written multiple paragraphs of haughty obstinacy. So until I get a link, I'm confident that you're lying.
It's not ad hominem. I'm not dude's dad or teacher. He can take four seconds and Google it.
Yeah, you're just someone who doesn't know what they're talking about well enough to back it up.
Now who's making claims without evidence?
Well, I can state an opinion without evidence. Mine is based on your comments above. What you're claiming doesn't fall under the category of an opinion.
That's right they are not opinions. And you could verify them easily.
Although it was 12 people, not thirteen, and only 9 of them were fired, as two were dead. Not sure of the twelfth.
"Just google it bro" is the last resort of people with no confidence in their own statements.
And "I refuse to do even basic research needed in order to have a valid opinion" is the last resort of people with lots of confidence in their own feelings.
but the only person responsible for supporting your claims is YOU
You are the evidence big dawg, we can all see and evaluate it for ourselves. The claim was about you, you're not invisible.
it is
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.
That's not what anyone has said.
So what have they said? Maybe you can provide links?
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.
If you refuse to take the time to cite your claims, then you will be rightly dismissed. That is the nature of written discourse. It is not worth our time to attempt to research all of the inane claims made by foolish people online. Most are false or misleading and I’d rather not waste my time on a wild goose chase.
I actually thought your initial point was reasonable and maybe you could have persuaded me and others by offering some good reading. Instead you’ve just acted condescending and rude. I don’t think this is a good faith contribution to the discussion here.
I don't see it that way. I made a cogent argument and presented the basic facts of the story to support my opinion. It's as if I had said "IMO the war in Gaza is really terrible, 30,000 people are dead." And someone said "citation needed." Obviously, that person hasn't done their homework and aren't seriously participating.
The person I was originally replying to said several things that were patently false and I corrected them with a short summary of the actual facts. The one fact that I got wrong was that it was 12 UNWRA employees who directly participated in the attack, and not 13 as I originally wrote from memory.
The person didn't disagree with my opinion of the facts, or suggest it was inadequat support; just said "citation needed," which is the same as calling me a liar, as if I had just made up the facts. How is somebody going to sit here and talk about what the American government knew and did not know if they were not familiar with the statements of the Secretary of State of foreign affairs leadership on the hill? It's asinine.
I agree that it was a snarky way to ask for sources but I still think we should all make an effort to support the factual claims we make online. Otherwise it just devolves into endless back and forth contradictory statements that don’t achieve anything. I get that you feel you accurately summarized the facts, but again, there’s no way for us to verify that without comparing it to the original source. Lots of people take advantage by this by distorting a mostly true idea into something unrecognizable, and this can happen by accident as well due to faults of memory and personal biases.
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.
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.
It's a pretty obvious polical move given what we can see.
No, it isn’t. It’s just easy to jump to that conclusion when you start there and work your way back.
Just connect the dots, I believe in you.
Next he will tell them to knock it off. That will show them for sure.
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”
Less than chill
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).
I suppose a bowling ball is perhaps sharper than a soggy mattress -_-
*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.
If stern looks killed, Bibi would still be absolutelly fine right now.
If Bibi keeps going like this, he might get grounded, or worse without dessert!
What he needs to say is, “You’ve had your fun. Stop now. If not, we’ll invade.”
No need to invade, just stop giving them new toys.
Could just demand the immediate resignation of Bibi and his government as a prerequisite for a continued alliance, but that would require a spine.
Is that how alliances work? Please tell us more.
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.
Delusional.
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"
It's not slapping their wrist, it's more like wagging his finger.
but he sharpens his criticism!
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.
Well Americans, prepare for Isreal to interfere with your elections.
They can get in line
Wait I thought this was the queue for complaints!
I've been waiting here for ages
They probably already do
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:
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, 1948Idk 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
The quote from Alec Kirkbride's memoirs:
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.
You are correct, I retract my position on the 1948 war and the quote’s context
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.
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
A sad truth but this is the truth of Israel.
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."
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.
I had nothing to do with it, damnit.
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.
Peace is taken through iteration. The Camp David Accords cured some of that.
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 convinced the president of Mexico, Sisi to open the gate to allow humanitarian material into Gaza.
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.
He also said that the Palestinians and Israelis have one dream, one wish...
I'm having flashbacks to HRC's "Cut it out" moment. What a bunch of losers.
Is he irked yet? Because when Brandon gets irked, nothing happens.
Listened to the entire speech. He sounded like a disoriented muppet and he spent most of it defending himself... poorly. He sounded tilted and petty trying to answer questions from the reporters. He defended accusations of memory issues by sounding even more incompetent and citing the wrong country when talking about the middle east negotiations.
And the NY Times biggest takeaway was one line about the Israeli response in Gaza. This is why people shouldn't trust journalists. You're better off just finding primary sources and drawing your own conclusions.
Remember that we Iranians will soon force murrikunt out of middle east and whatever unfortunate president is there will be the clown of history. It just takes one more idiot like Trump to make a 'mistake' like killing Soleimani for Iran to gather enough support to storm American bases with the ballistic missles it sends satellites to space with. All the filthy American soldiers will be reduced to dust.
Well you are fun... And naïeve... And delusional... Ever considered getting professional help? Spouting rhetoric and slogans like you do really is out there.
I'm not even going to try to give any reasoned response to this, you're just... Dumb.
we can only hope
You guys are aware that if he cuts funding to Israel, he 100% loses the election, right? He's not funding Israel for the funzies, or because he just loves genocide. So why do you keep demanding he cut funding?
"Sure there's a genocide, but think of the votes!!" Meanwhile if you're told that biden will lose votes because he supports genocide, you'll probably respond with "but the other guy!!" So basically we just have to full-throatedly support genocide, huh?
This is so stupid that if it were any other topic I'd accuse you of being a MAGA. Utterly nonsensical.
Yes. The other guy will make the genocide worse. It's a simple concept. You have one guy who's against the genocide but needs to support it, vs the other guy who is fully on board the genocide train and would happily make it worse.
So yes. What about the other guy is an extremely important thing to say.
Not unless I want to? What a weird non sequitur. The only people jumping for joy that brown people are getting killed are right wingers. Whom you are helping by asking Biden to sacrifice himself.
israel's goal is the complete removal of the Palestinian people from their lands, whether that's through genocide or other means, they don't care. You're saying that somehow trump will make this worse. How can it get worse than genocide? Regardless, you're saying that no matter who we vote for, we get genocide. So tell the people who have this as their most important issue: what difference does their vote make? For someone who claims that only other people "jump for joy over brown people getting killed" you sure do fight hard to defend someone who is killing "brown people". I dunno, maybe you think you're superior because you imagine others are jumping for joy over death while you, the enlightened democrat, merely just don't care about "brown people" dying in the face of votes.
Speaking of stupid, just because I criticize biden, doesn't mean I'm a trump supporter. It's incredibly stupid to think there are only two sides in this.
21% of the Israeli population are Arabs. Over 2,000,000 people, many are Palestinian. Virtually all of them live perfectly peaceful lives and recognize Hamas for the terrorist organization that it is. There are Palestinians working in the Israeli government, elected to office. They hold seats in Israel's legisture.
How could trump make it worse? Well right now the daily death tolls are steadily decreasing, aid into the region is increasing, the war strategy is becoming more precise, Biden is pressuring Israel to an extent that is unprecedented for America, and oh I don't know: America has future presidential elections scheduled, we're not in a hot war with Iran and have a policy of containment that is has so far staved off another US mid east war.
Cons? A country America does not control has killed 35,000 people in open war against actual terrorists over a period of four plus months, but most of whom are civilians. Let's say the UN finds it to be a case of wanton genocide, let's say the current trend fully reverses and Israel starts using helicopter gunships to mow down fleeing civilians by the hundreds, as in the case of the Rohingya genocide. Let's assume that instead of 1% of the population of Gaza dead, Israel goes full genocide and kills all 2.5 million Gazas and moves in Israeli settlers. That's worst case scenario in your view, right? I just say it seems very unlikely given the current state of the war but let's say this is the slipperiest slope ever.
Or...could have a dictator in America. Could have a guy whose loyalty has again and again been to Russia, Saudi Arabia, and himself. Guy who flagrantly breaks the law on televsion. Has said that he would use collective punishment on terrorists and their families. Trump thinks Bibi is a great, smart, and strong leader. Trump started a hot war with Iran already which only ended because Iran accidentally shot down a civilian airliner.
What if we did have a hot war with Iran? 35,000 sounds bad so bad to you #GenocideJoe (again, heçs president of America, not Israel), right? How does 3,500,000, sound? How does 35,000,000 sound to you? Are those numbers still the same thing in your mind? Population of Iran is 100,000,000. How many would die in the increasingly inhospitable climate of the mid east with a few more failed states to deal with, tens of millions of refugees fleeing to Europe, Africa, and Asia. How about 35,000 people dying every day for months or years on end?
Your sincere concern for Palestinians is humanitarian in nature, right? War with Iran would be an utter catastrophe and make the 2023 Israel-Gaza war seem like a footnote. These are my sincere opinions, anyway.
Arabs are basically second-class citizens in Israel: https://www.jta.org/2016/04/12/israel/4-ways-jews-and-arabs-live-apart-in-israeli-society
"aid into the region is increasing" are you counting from when the US pulled funding based on israel's claims (without a shred of evidence)? The war strategy is becoming more precise in that they tell Palestinians exactly where to gather so they can be bombed in a precise location. How is biden pressuring israel when he pushes so hard to get more billions of dollars into their hands? Your idea of pressure is very different from, well, I guess anyone living in reality.
I know you're trying to invoke the "slippery slope" fallacy, but just one look at a map showing israel's constantly expanding borders should make it obvious to anyone that this "slippery slope" is not a fallacy, but real. After israel completes their obvious mission of complete ethnic cleansing, you'll be shrugging your shoulders and probably saying something like "it's regrettable, but that's all in the past, we'll do better in the future".
Yeah, trump is bad, but biden is not any better on this specific and important issue. You know how you get trump re-elected? By being stubborn and ignoring voters. There is a pretty important bloc of Arab-American voters in Michigan (you know, the state Hillary lost in 2016) that have some pretty strong opinions on this matter.
War with Iran is inevitable because that's what israel wants: total domination of the Middle East. Ever wonder why countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya, and others were toppled with great help (or direct action) from the US? All enemies of israel get destroyed and it's no mere coincidence. War with Iran is inevitable and, like the map of israel's ever-expanding bordering, anyone paying even a bit of attention can see this obvious trend.
Harder, faster, more brutal, less consequences.
Look, I can tell you're one of those people for whom words short-circuit your brain. Once you hear a certain word, you stop thinking and just start emoting. Genocide. Pedophile. Guns. It prevents you from thinking about the how and the why because you're blinded by anger.
Depopulation and mass killing are both genocide, but one is worse than the other. Attempting a genocide over 30 years is not as bad as attempting a genocide over 3 months, because we are more likely to stop the former.
There literally are only two sides, that's how our voting system works.
We as individuals are more than our political system. Well, you certainly aren't, but other people are. israel are doing this genocide as fast as they can and biden is pledging billions in support of them as they do it. Do you think trump would pledge more billions? Do you think he'd pledge US troops to join in? You're dealing in hypotheticals and trying to shut down any criticism of the current president who has the power to stop this. How about we don't have genocide, or is idea too mind-blowing for your supposedly not-short-circuited brain to understand?
Following your logic, the civil rights act should've never been passed since it cost democrats votes from racists.
Yes.
Yes.
That's not really an option. The most Biden could do is make it a little less genocidey, until Trump wins and then it gets a whole lot more genocidey.
Democrats won the undying fealty of the single most reliable voter bloc: Black women. Black women vote every time, even when forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Black women always vote Democrat. They will trudge through snow or hurricanes to vote Democrat. Can you say as much for the far left? Realistically, if Biden cut off aid to Israel tomorrow, there's a decent chance you'd find something else he did that you didn't like that you'd use as an excuse to not vote.
More importantly, the Civil Rights Act was popular enough that it couldn't get undone by future administrations. Anything Biden does to help Palestine or thwart Israel will be immediately undone next year when Trump takes over.
Not to mention the very real possibility of the end of our democracy. I know we're talking about Israel here so I won't dwell on it, but it's worth keeping in mind even in terms of helping Palestine long term. Can't help Palestine if we've become a Christian theocracy. Hell, we'd probably have troops there ourselves participating in the massacre.
The possibility of the end of our democracy is precisely because of the many times we've gone along with "this is just how things are" and democrats insisting that we have to work with republicans while republicans kept getting worse and worse, moving the overton window to the right. Democrats need to put their foot down and pull back the overton window to the left, that is how we can make some real changes. Democrats doing this would show people that there is a party that will actually fight for them, a party worth going through the trouble of voting for. I thought this was the lesson that would be learned from 2016 when democrats pushed through a "safe" "centrist" candidate and lost, but instead they've doubled down.
israel doesn't need to have bipartisan support. Yes, aipac has a lot of power, but it's because of this undying support for israel which creates this feedback loop. Doing the right thing is worth it in the long run.
Yes, I'm sure a Republican win will definitely help pull things left. What the hell, dude.
Do you think republicans got this bad while winning every single election?
Every single time they win, things get worse. Remember what happened in 2016 when people decided to not vote, so they could send a message to the DNC?
Yes, that was my point, republicans make a tangible difference when they get in while democrats mostly sit with their thumb up their ass. Interesting how trump did more in 4 years than obama did in 8. I do remember when the DNC pushed through an insanely unpopular candidate while also promoting trump as much as they could because they thought he'd be easy to win against. Somehow democrats think they can be smug and say "I told you so" when they're the stupid fucks who lost against a clown that they helped set up as the opponent. It's a joke party and their representative animal being a jackass suits them well.
explain this reasoning
What's to explain? There's more potential voters for Biden who support Israel than oppose it. Especially given the inconsistent nature of the voters who oppose. Biden is already at risk of losing the election. He can't afford to alienate them.
The far left is a small sliver of the Democratic party. And they don't matter in presidential elections because they mostly live in democratic states. Biden needs the support of moderates in swing states, and that means supporting Israel.
supporting an apartheid state while it commits a genocide doesn't seem like the play you think it is.
I'm sure that's what you want to believe, but it's just not true. The political landscape is what it is right now.
What? It's hurting him, not helping.
If he cuts funding, a large number of people who are currently indifferent would then become very heavily against him.
In the same statement, he also calls El-Sisi president of Mexico. This comes also after he said that Hamas' response to the deal was "over the top" two days ago. Not sure if what he even said today has any bearing at all considering it's safe to assume that he doesn't know which country is which. What's ironic is that just before that he said "my memory is good".
I’ve called people the wrong name many times, my memories still fine, I think? Where am I? I’ve looked at someone else when talking to a colleague and called them by the name of the person I was looking at instead of who I was talking too.
I wouldn’t call that a huge issue, embarrassing sure, but not exactly a sign of bad memory.
I called my bald 72 year old professor mommy yesterday.
Hey, what you two do in your free time is between y'all.
It’s between me, him and everyone I just shared it with.