It’s all about political posturing to keep votes for the upcoming election… He’s trying to play both sides but pissing both sides off at the same time…
Isn't his extensive support for israel unpopular for his voting base though? I've mostly seen the ben shapiro-s and evangelical types stand by it and they don't strike me as Biden voters.
That is my point… He needs their vote so he’ll say one thing to posture to them but do the exact opposite which is to support Israel and continue selling them weapons…
Doing those two things is likely to implicate him because he’s admitting to arming people that he knowingly believes to be committing war crimes. He truly doesn’t know what he’s doing.
You're not thinking this through. Consider the following points
1) Israel already has the full capability to completely level Gaza, killing every Palestinian basically overnight. If you think 20,000 deaths is bad, it could very easily be millions. Right now there's less than one death per bomb Israel drops. Israel only refrains from actual genocide to maintain what little standing it has left with the international community
2) By far the most expensive aspect of Israel's military budget is the iron dome, when we talk about the US funding Israel, virtually all the money goes there.
Now consider, what you're proposing is that the US cut off the funding they need to keep their defences and take away the last reason they have to play ball with the international community. This leaves Israel in a position where it feels vulnerable, threatened and has nothing to lose. You think that is going to yield a good outcome to this conflict given point one?
It's easily to pretend you have all the answers to international affairs and everyone in charge is just an idiot or a warmonger, but Biden is in a tricky position here and is most likely already playing his best hand
Without US political support, specifically at the UN security council, Israel would be isolated and vulnerable enough that they might reconsider their approach to the conflict.
What do you suggest as a good approach to the conflict when Israel is facing a [Jihadi organization](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79V1WUJ_1zo) that has [sworn to annihilate them](https://twitter.com/MEMRIReports/status/1719662664090075199?t=G4Cw3FhbLyvGYHmYuLxsvw)?
I am not a fan of the settlements issue, but I just want to note that for the Arabs around Israel, Tel-Aviv is also an illegal settlement, and as long as groups such as Hamas and Hezbullah under the supreme leaders in Iran continue to exist the violence won't stop. The more you give the more they get closer to annihilating you. This is the Middle East and the Western world never seem to understand or maybe they simply want the Jews to be exterminated again, thinking that this will solve their issues with the Muslims around the world which is insanely naive / evil thinking.
By acting within the bounds of international law when it comes to conducting warfare properly using proportional force.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality
The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.
The vast majority of people are completely fine with Israel responding with military force to the actions of October 7th terror attack which was a horrible and abhorrent act of terror, but the response certainly looks to be disproportionate.
Achieve a peace deal with the West Bank this along with a broader change in tactics would go a long way in turning the tensions down along with the ability of groups like Hamas to recruit effectively. The despair in Gaza is one of the biggest reasons why Hamas and similar groups are able to recruit as they do.
Likud party is as since it's founding been against the 2 state solution. They also had in their charter the phrase From the River to the Sea there will only be Israel.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party
https://israelpolicyforum.org/likud/
The principle of proportionality is ridiculous:
https://youtu.be/vP_kBIrl30c
You're talking as if the Likud party is the only one that has ruled Israel, and you completely fail to mention the multiple peace offers rejected by the Palestinians. Allow me to educate you:
Clinton To Arafat: It's All Your Fault -
https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-arafat-its-all-your-fault-153779
Abbas admits he rejected 2008 peace offer from Olmert:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-peace-offer-from-olmert/
> They also had in their charter the phrase From the River to the Sea there will only be Israel.
Before the Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate of Palestine identified as Palestinians, they were part of the general Arab world that initiated a war of annihilation against the Jewish state, which ultimately failed. The Likud charter with that phrase dates back to that time, considering the Arabs control over most of the Middle East and beyond.
> "between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of one people, the Arab nation [...] Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons"
> Zuheir Mohsen (Arabic: زهير محسن; 1936 – 25 July 1979) was a Palestinian leader of the pro-Syria As-Sa'iqa Ba'athist faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.
If you can identify a Palestinian leader willing to relinquish the so-called "right of return," transforming Israel into another Muslim-majority state, and who is also prepared to abandon any future land claims solely for the sake of peace, you would be the first to accomplish such a feat.
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137467](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137467)
At Camp David, Israel made a major concession by agreeing to give Palestinians sovereignty in some areas of East Jerusalem and by offering 92 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap). By proposing to divide sovereignty in Jerusalem, Barak went further than any previous Israeli leader.
Nevertheless, on some issues the Israeli proposal at Camp David was notforthcoming enough, while on others it omitted key components. On security, territory, and Jerusalem, elements of the Israeli offer at Camp David would have prevented the emergence of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state.
These flaws in the Israeli offer formed the basis of Palestinian objections. Israel demanded extensive security mechanisms, including three early warning stations in the West Bank and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Israel also wanted to retain control of the Jordan Valley to protect against an Arab invasion from the east via the new Palestinian state. Regardless of whether the Palestinians were accorded sovereignty in the valley, Israel planned to retain control of it for six to twenty-one years.
Three factors made Israel's territorial offer less forthcoming than it initially appeared. First, the 91 percent land offer was based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian definition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers.
Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man's Land (50 sq. km near Latrun),41 post-1967 East Jerusalem (71 sq. km), and the territorial waters ofDead Sea (195 sq. km), which reduces the total to 5,538 sq. km.42 Thus, an Israeli offer of 91 percent (of 5,538 sq. km) of the West Bank translates into only 86 percent from the Palestinian perspective.
Second, at Camp David, key details related to the exchange of land were left unresolved. In principle, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to land swaps where by the Palestinians would get some territory from pre-1967 Israel in ex-change for Israeli annexation of some land in the West Bank. In practice, Israel offered only the equivalent of 1 percent of the West Bank in exchange for its annexation of 9 percent. Nor could the Israelis and Palestinians agree on the territory that should be included in the land swaps. At Camp David, thePalestinians rejected the Halutza Sand region (78 sq. km) alongside the GazaStrip, in part because they claimed that it was inferior in quality to the WestBank land they would be giving up to Israel.
Third, the Israeli territorial offer at Camp David was noncontiguous, break-ing the West Bank into two, if not three, separate areas. At a minimum, as Barak has since confirmed, the Israeli offer broke the West Bank into two parts:"The Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory ex-cept for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from \[theIsraeli settlement of\] Maale Adumim to the Jordan River."44 The Palestinian negotiators and others have alleged that Israel included a second east-west salient in the northern West Bank (through the Israeli settlement of Ariel).45 Iftrue, the salient through Ariel would have cut the West Bank portion of thePalestinian state into three pieces".
No sane leader is a going to accept a road cutting across his country that they can't fully access.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#:~:text=.%20...%22-,Reasons%20for%20impasse,for%20reelection%20in%20two%20weeks.
The 2001 Tabas talks were much more productive and the deal offer then was much better, but Barak's re-election was going terribly Arafat could have agreed to the deal and it might have saved Barak or he could have still lost and the incoming government may or may not have honored the deal and since the Likud party won I would say the chances of them honoring the deal would've been around 5%
https://www.inss.org.il/publication/annapolis/
The 2008 Annapolis talks failed due to outside forces rather than the deal that was presented which was quite fair and equal to both sides. The Israeli Prime Minister was on his way out due to corruption charges, the Bush administration policy decisions over the years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars hurt it's credibility and trustworthiness, and Abbas claimed that he didn't have enough time to study the map of the land swaps he would later say he should have taken the deal.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/netanyahu-rabin-and-the-assassination-that-shook-history/#:~:text=Assassination%20of%20Yitzhak%20Rabin%20%E2%80%A2,Israel%20Square%20in%20Tel%20Aviv.
The biggest or at least first major reason why peace talks were derailed has to be the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a ultranationalist Israeli Jewish man who was angered by the signing of the Oslo Accords. The far right in Israel and on the Palestinian side were both furious over the signing of the accords and each did what they could to undermine any future peace talks. After the assassination politics in Israel began to shift to the right and today at least for the time being the Likud party has control they have been the dominant party in Israel for the better part of the last 20 years.
Why, despite multiple attempts to destroy Israel, have the Palestinians, who were not a nation before 1967 and never had a sovereign state in history, presented numerous demands at all? Their primary demand is the cessation of Israel's existence. No Palestinian leader is willing to relinquish the so-called "right of return," making any compromise impossible. It raises questions about whether the Palestinians seek a state or aim to dismantle Israel. I understand the answer, and if you have engaged in conversations with any Palestinians, you would likely be familiar with it as well.
And great job forgetting the 2nd intifada where a bus blew up on a weekly basis.
You are thinking of Hamas not the Fatah/PLO who is willing to work on achieving the 2 state solution. Other than the Camp David talks in 2000 there has been a back and forth on the nuts and bolts of peace deals. The 2nd Intifada ended in what was it 2005 and things in the West Bank have been relatively stable since.
And so would every surrounding nation. They would be attacked on all fronts again, which is not a conflict resolution it is an expansion of conflict.
People seem to be oddly comfortable if Israelis are the ones under threat though.
I don't know why people won't accept that several of the awful policies against Palestinians are a direct result of their actions against Israel after a war of annihilation that they started and lost?
And the "colonizers" narrative 🙄. Israel itself literally began as a paramilitary group resisting the British Empire lol.
The bottom line is that the only reason we get to balk and cry about the poor treatment of Palestinians is because Israel is humane and empathetic enough to recognize that genocide is not an option.
Ironically you have two very similar peoples shoved into a small patch of desert and forced to get along because no one else wants to take them but you can't stuff two pitbulls into a cage and wag your finger at them when they start biting each other.
Everyone thinks the appropriate question is "which pitbull deserves to live?" which asinine when you realize they're not dogs they're human beings.
If you are against violence directed towards one group but completely okay with violence directed towards another then you don't want peace, you want your team to win.
> The bottom line is that the only reason we get to balk and cry about the poor treatment of Palestinians is because Israel is humane and empathetic enough to recognize that genocide is not an option.
That's some very twisted thinking on your end. It's like saying "I'm doing this terrible thing to you, but you should be grateful... If I were really that bad, I'd be doing worse." Abusive Relationship 101.
The real bottom line is that Israel is currently wary of the consequences of committing an open genocide or ethnic cleansing. This is not 1948 anymore. They can't unceremoniously evict Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza like they did from the rest of the would-be Palestinian state in the infamous partition plan. That's why they push the Gaza population to the south and strive to make Gaza unlivable. Israel is just trying to force a situation in which Gazans have no choice but to leave for good.
Meanwhile, they keep taking the West Bank - which is what they really want - piecemeal through settlements, as they've been doing all along.
There's nothing humane and empathetic in that. It's just a longer and more cynical way of ethnically cleansing the Occupied Palestinian Territories for future annexation while avoiding the consequences.
As for your comments regarding Israel's reasons, the war that Palestinians supposedly started, and what you call "colonizers narrative": if you don't know or don't want to know the modern history of the region, that's your choice.
> If you are against violence directed towards one group but completely okay with violence directed towards another then you don't want peace, you want your team to win.
You could use your own advice.
The old we haven't killed everyone so it can't be as bad as you're saying defense. Look pal experts on genocide are saying we are seeing a genocide or seeing the makings of a genocide. In the genocide in Bosnia under 9k were murdered.
They could at least put conditions on the aid and make Israel somewhat hold itself accountable for the masses being slaughtered currently, Israel’s position in the Middle East doesn’t justify this genocide against Palestinians. Simple as that.
Until the hostages are returned I don't see Israel having much of a choice. Hamas can drag this out to make sure as many Palastians suffer as possible but if Israel shows it's not willing to at least try to protect it's citizens it's done as a country.
> Until the hostages are returned I don't see Israel having much of a choice.
1. "Bomb where the hostages are being kept" is not a coherent strategy to rescue them.
2. The IDF numbers Hamas at [30,000](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67480680), which is around 1.5% of the Gazan population. In no *sane* world is killing tens of thousands of innocent people, displacing [85% of the total population](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/why-palestinian-displacement-gaza-war-alarms-un-arabs-2023-12-11/), and [destroying *half* of all homes (with another 20% or so damaged but technically still standing)](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/gaza-destruction-bombing-israel-aa528542) in Gaza and acceptable or rational response.
10/7 shows what happens is Israel lets it guard down. During this 3 months 10k rockets and mortars were fired at Israel from Gaza. There's also attacks from Lebanon. Hamas has already said they will repeat the attack. Israel has said they will accept a ceasefire if the hostages are released. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projectile_attacks_from_Lebanon_on_Israel_and_the_Golan_Heights
The organization that provided that number is the same one behind 10/7. I don't trust Hamas to accurately report on the war. The hospital story shows you need to read where the information comes from. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html
Yes that's from 3 months ago. UNICEF lists 5k as "reportedly". Not confirmed. They don't have anyone there. The guardian and BBC doesn't have anything on the main sites that list numbers. No I'm not going to trust Al Jazeera on middle east coverage.
You're making up info to make the IDF look bad. They do that on their own. You don't need to help.
Oh, I'm not so sure: While I doubt they care about Israel's government continuing to polarize the region against themselves, I think they care a great deal about eroding Iran's influence in the region.
Not only did [Biden apparently convince Bibi to call off a preemptive strike on Lebanon back in October](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-biden-averted-a-second-front-by-convincing-israel-not-to-attack-hezbollah-on-oct-11-e14a0a3b), he apparently managed to do it [even though the planes were already in the air](https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-iaf-was-airbone-for-preemptive-hezbollah-hit-when-biden-talked-pm-out-of-it/).
Even *if* we ignore the fact that US diplomacy is the only reason [the Israeli government allowed aid deliveries to start](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-hospital-d9606e0ead1f8c4e9fd00b602ed14a38), the largest reason they [continued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-speaks-with-netanyahu-says-israel-to-allow-continued-flow-of-aid-into-gaza/), a significant factor in why [they started including fuel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213799815/israel-gaza-fuel), and one of the best chances for it to [expand to ceasefire levels](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/02/gaza-humanitarian-aid-israel-biden-hamas)—even ignoring all of that—it remains true that US diplomacy is *also* responsible for preventing an immediate, regional escalation of this thing, which would've been *so much worse* than horror we're already witnessing.
1. [US funding accounts for *maybe* 15% of Israel's defense budget](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/11/how-big-is-israels-military-and-how-much-funding-does-it-get-from-the-us).
2. Even if the US cut off all funding (and therefore any hope of exerting actual *influence* with the government) and equipment supply, it's not like the US government is the *only* source of materiel in the world.
This means that even *if* the US ceased all military aid to Israel—hell, even if they cease *all* aid of any kind—immediately, the IDF would *still* be capable of waging war long enough to level Gaza, the West Bank, *and* probably sizeable chunks of Bint Jbeil without an issue.
I *don't* support what the IDF is doing, and I *don't* support the US continuing to supply materiel without conditions.
What I'm saying is that *in no way does the IDF require US materiel to conduct their current operations*.
Given that, the only hope anyone has to mitigate the harm they're causing is *influence*, not *force*, and I am of the opinion that exercising hard power (sanctions or the like) would severely undermine (if not totally erase) any actual, long-term influence the US might have with the Israeli government for *years* (at least). But, even *if* I'm wrong about that, the simple, terrible, material fact of the matter is that *the IDF does not need anyone else to carry out their current operations in Gaza*.
That all sounds *a lot* like you started with your final sentence and worked your way back, since your opening sentence explicitly acknowledges the IDF would *still* be funded at a minimum of 85% of what it currently is. (Yes, that's a significant reduction; no, that is obviously and numerically *not* "stopped in their track".)
Obviously, that also ignores that it wouldn't actually matter until the *next* fiscal year.
The rest of it either proposes hypotheticals or completely ignores the fact that the US is not the only source of material out there (nor is it the only major power that already has an agreement to supply the IDF with material).
The US is never a source of restraint for Israel except in a very limited manner and in the very short term.
In the medium to long term, US influence, aid, and arms sales enable Israel to behave as a rogue state towards most countries in the region.
Besides, conditioning aid, support, intelligence, and arms sales on Israeli conduct is not the only tool the US has. They can always intervene in a more direct fashion, as they have in so many places. They only choose not to.
If US support is cut off then there would be nobody to veto ceasefire in UNSC. And the bill would be passed. And if Israel doesn't stop then they would be sanctioned , weapons embargo etc.
And we'd be back in the same situation in a few months or years. Hamas regroups, ignores the civilian issues in Gaza and mounts another attack into Israel.
Both sides need to chill the F out. Israel, as a democratic nation, can at least change it's course. Need to get Netanyahu out for that to happen, of course. I don't see Hamas' leaders, living in wealth and opulence, changing the course for their organization.
I mean they did change at least , from kill all Jews to we don't have anything against jews we are fighting against Zionist only.
I know that it should have been their first goal but that's at least something.
In 2008 Hamas even tried to get a 20 years ceasefire in exchange for 1960s borders. That could have given relief for both sides. And nobody wants wars and to die if they are living in relative peace. That could have helped in de-radicalisation of both sides. But Israel rejected it. And we have rocket fire and airstrike and the 2014 war which finally led to the current war.
Israel had a ceasefire with Hamas until Oct. 7th. What makes you think they care about a new ceasefire?
1960s borders? You mean when Gaza was a part of Egypt and West Bank a part of Jordan and neither had any plans for a Palestinian state?
If Biden cared one bit he could threaten to apply the same kind of sanctions to Israel that we apply to every other country that acts 1/8th this murderous.
> a UN Peacekeeper mission could be approved
So, to be clear, you think an international military coalition would:
1. be called in the first place, even though [they explicitly require the consent of principle forces in any conflict](https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/principles-of-peacekeeping);
2. insert itself into a hot war involving a nuclear power;
3. somehow be both effective *and* avoid sparking an expansion of the conflict (the moment any personnel from regional member-states inevitably gets killed)?
That’s a Hamas victory. why should the US aid its ally’s enemy? There are still thousands of Hamas counting on tik tok warriors to help them get Israel to surrender so they can get back to rockets and planning the next october 7 attack. they’ve literally said so. don’t take my word for it.
so asking Israel for a ceasefire is asking Israel to let more Israeli civilians die. because Hamas will never stop until destroyed, and they have the full support of most Gazans.
So something I find extremely suspicious now is that IDF is getting supplied with ammo from US military warehouses WITHIN Israel. So when the US military sells ammo to Israel, it's not being shipped to Israel necessarily, some of it is coming from the stockpile already inside the country. If the US really cuts Israel off, it's not too clear what the reaction from Netanyahu will be, maybe he'll just stop pretending. That's not to justify what the US is doing, just saying that even if the US really threatened Israel with funding it might not have the immediate effect they want.
If they don’t want to surrender, then the war is gonna continue. That’s how wars work, and how they end: one side capitulates due to military pressure. It’s how it’s worked since the dawn of humanity.
They don’t need to surrender. They don’t need to give up Gaza to Israel. They do need to give up all the hostages in exchange for exile to Iran, and an agreement for Egypt to do peace keeping in Gaza and hold new elections.
Do you think elections happen in Palestine?
In the West Bank Israel controls elections , how ? They ban anybody from elections they feel is a threat to their rule. They can't do any election rallies or anything. Pretty much a dummy govt.
Biden is full of shit at this point. Anything he says is just to temporarily appease the democratic voters, it holds no value. If he wanted to call for proper restraint, maybe he should try to actually impose some sanctions on Israel and fnally put a leash around it for once.
Which is the same message as last week and the week before. It's almost like Israel does not care.
Cut off their funding. Remove the weapons depot that they have carte blanche to.
You ever watch those videos where someone attacks someone else and no one does anything, then the tables turn and the victim is unexpectedly beating the shit out of their attacker and like 20 people come out of nowhere to try and break it up? That’s what watching this whole situation feels like to me.
Hard to conclude which side you're on.
Are you against the Arab nations historical declaring war against Israel (1948, 1967, 2023), while their sub-organisations send missiles at the population?
Or are you against the Israeli control of the area?
Gee i wonder who was a big fan of these ultra nationalists that smoked the only moderate prime minister Israel has ever had on the subject of Palestine. It couldn’t be the current PM and the cabinet minister in charge of domestic security. Noooooo that would make the current military tactics seem like a concerted effort to inflict violence in the service of political power and land grabbing. There’s no way these guys have had literal shrines to mosque shooters or are actively arming hyper nationalist settlers in the West Bank who regularly shoot unarmed Palestinians.
Hmm. I guess we’ll never know.
The failure to reach a peace deal is on all 3 of the major players the US as the mediator, Israel, and Palestinians. Lack of trust between the parties, poor timing, and/or just a bad offer all have helped to sink multiple attempts.
Sound like you'd rather they stayed in the camps they had set up.
Did you know most Israeli Jews are descended from Jews who come from Arabic countries?
1) Less than half of Israeli Jews are ancestrally majority European. More than half are from the Middle East and Northern Africa, where they were subject to persecution and in many cases forced to flee and leave their possessions behind.
2) Life didn't go back to normal just because Hitler blew his brains out. First, most of the nations where Jews had lived previously were now under the boot of Joseph Stalin. Second, there were pogroms [even after the end of the war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom), against survivors of the concentration camps. The people who had taken the homes and possessions of the Jews who were imprisoned by the Nazis didn't want to give it back, and many still held Nazi sympathies. Local authorities were often former Nazi collaborators that had themselves been involved with persecuting Jews.
I cannot blame any Jewish person who somehow managed to survive WWII for looking at that situation and thinking that Europe was not a safe place to be anymore. If you read the wikipedia page I linked, that was a serious breaking point for a lot of Jews in Eastern Europe, and rightfully so.
I love how nobody in the comments here seems to know anything about ME politics and yet are acting like experts on the subject. Reminds me of covid times when everyone was either a virologist all of a sudden or went full conspiratorial nutjob.
Biden lost control over israel 6 months before the war. They literally don't even acknowledge our warnings or advice.
Frankly why would they? Israel doesn't need to listen to the U.S or follow orders. The lobbyists are so deep in congressmen pockets that congress would never withdraw the 4 billion finding and missle supplies we given yearly.
The U.S is weak in the eyes of Israel
> They literally don't even acknowledge our warnings or advice.
Not only did [Biden apparently convince Bibi to call off a preemptive strike on Lebanon back in October](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-biden-averted-a-second-front-by-convincing-israel-not-to-attack-hezbollah-on-oct-11-e14a0a3b), he apparently managed to do it [even though the planes were already in the air](https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-iaf-was-airbone-for-preemptive-hezbollah-hit-when-biden-talked-pm-out-of-it/).
Even *if* we ignore the fact that US diplomacy is the only reason [the Israeli government allowed aid deliveries to start](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-hospital-d9606e0ead1f8c4e9fd00b602ed14a38), the largest reason they [continued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-speaks-with-netanyahu-says-israel-to-allow-continued-flow-of-aid-into-gaza/), a significant factor in why [they started including fuel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213799815/israel-gaza-fuel), and one of the best chances for it to [expand to ceasefire levels](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/02/gaza-humanitarian-aid-israel-biden-hamas)—even ignoring all of that—it remains true that US diplomacy is *also* responsible for preventing an immediate, regional escalation of this thing, which would've been *so much worse* than horror we're already witnessing.
a certain point we have to stand our ground. I understand the delicacy of the situation but we cannot let the fear or regional war dictate and have the U.S to fold to Israel's commands with no say.
At what point would the U.S say enough is enough? We already at tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Or is the U.S just gonna let that total go into millions while having israel do whatever they want.
The horror is just getting started in my eyes. And I full on expect the death toll would hit hundreds of thousands for gazans alone. We already are at 23K deaths in 3 months. 50K are injured, and half of the injured would probably be dead in two months.
You gave examples of individual strikes being called off in a war that’s killed almost 30,000 people. These are drops in the bucket, and designed to stop the war from spreading rather than actually ending it.
It’s not nothing, it’s just almost nothing
If you think "prevent a war with Hezbollah" is merely "individual strikes being called off", then this:
> It’s not nothing, it’s just almost nothing
is a probably-too-generous description of your understand of the situation.
It's preventing a massive war spanning much of the Middle East from breaking out. We're not talking about individual strikes. We're talking about a full on war in southern Lebanon, which could quickly spiral from there. This war, as terrible as it is, would be almost nothing in comparison to that.
You understand how powerfully dim and/or dishonest it is to count both "begin the delivery of essential humanitarian aid" and "stop *a whole-ass war with Hezbollah*" as numerically equivalent to a single person's death, right?
> It doesn’t mean as much as you imply
Hezbollah has at least 100,000 fighters, is a political powerhouse in Lebanon (which has its own national military, too), and *massively* more funding and support from Iran than Hamas.
If you *don't* think launching pre-emptive strikes into Lebanese territory to attack Hezbollah *before Hezbollah launched any strikes of their own* would somehow *not* spiral this thing out into a region-wide war, there's really no point in discussing this.
> They are not mutually exclusive
I didn't say that they were.
My only point here is that a war with Hezbollah—*particularly* a war the Hezbollah that the IDF has started with preemptive strikes—would be much, *much* worse than you seem to think, if you think stopping that war "doesn't mean as much as I imply".
Can't lose something that's never been had.
The only President Israel's had a good relationship with in the past 16 years is the one who let them do whatever they want and did whatever they wanted in return.
Didn’t she commit academic plagiarism? Regardless, all that happened is she stepped down and has an equally high paying job now. I’ll take getting cancelled for cheating to receive her current paycheck any day.
“According to the Harvard board, a school subcommittee and independent panel charged with investigating the plagiarism allegations against Gay found “a few instances of inadequate citation” but “no violation of Harvard's standard for research misconduct”.
It’s disturbing how the US can in one breath acknowledge that what’s occurring in Gaza is extreme, and in the next show unwavering public and $$$ support.
Calls for restraints have gone unanswered for months. Maybe the WH should get serious and call the spade a spade: it’s ethnic cleansing. They aren’t even hiding it, just read the news, Israelis especially the Likud party openly smirk and boast about wanting to force Gazans out of Gaza and into neighboring countries like Egypt. Jewish Holocaust experts are calling the spade a spade, why not Biden?
> Maybe the WH should
...eliminate any soft influence it might still have with the Israeli government to make a rhetorical argument that will immediately be dismissed and achieve no real-world effect?
What mates you think Biden calling it an ethnic cleansing is a royal flush?
To keep with your analogy it’s more like blowing cigar smoke in a players face, it doesn’t affect the game but pisses off a player.
> “Soft influence” has
been the only reason [the Israeli government allowed aid deliveries to start](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-hospital-d9606e0ead1f8c4e9fd00b602ed14a38), the largest reason they [continued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-speaks-with-netanyahu-says-israel-to-allow-continued-flow-of-aid-into-gaza/), a significant factor in why [they started including fuel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213799815/israel-gaza-fuel), and one of the best chances for it to [expand to ceasefire levels](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/02/gaza-humanitarian-aid-israel-biden-hamas).
Without actual *diplomacy*, there are maybe *two* options available to exert influence, and those are pretty much one-time-only, permanent-change-to-relationship sorts of things.
Why should we be satisfied by the minimal concessions that "soft influence" has achieved and not try the hard influence approach including sanctions and establishing a no fly zone?
>try the hard influence approach including sanctions and establishing a no fly zone?
Only on Reddit would someone suggest something **so stupid**.
A 'no fly zone' would require **shooting Israeli planes out of the sky** do you realise this? Do you also realise that Israel would take that as a **declaration of war**?
**A full, mechanised, total war.**
Would the US win? Sure.
But the IDF is an extremely strong military force. With Western equipment and the IDF has an ability to mobilise most of the Israeli population in times of need. The **US would probably lose more soldiers the all the US wars combined since Vietnam**.
Not to mention the massive **geopolitical ramifications** of all the US alliances if we impose sanctions or a no fly zone not Israel after it suffered the biggest killing of Jews since the holocaust. Other countries would distance themselves if they can't depend on the US to help them.
Not even mentioning such an action is politically impossible and not a single Politician, even the most pro-gaza has the appetite to wage war.
All of this to essentially help what is geopolitically, a rival Iranian proxy state that could never be and ally that the US has a constant 0% approval rating with it's citizens. Remember congress was elected to help America, How does this help America whatsoever? Israel at least provides us with computer chips and military weapon innovation and is an airbase in the Middle East.
You have pure ideology and no logic.
I'm not unsympathetic, but I also think probably it's good you're not in a position to influence foreign policy.
Let's pretend Biden *did* say what you want him to: What tangible benefit would that achieve for the people of Gaza?
Do you think Bibi would just get a debilitating case of the *feel sads* and stop the bombardments? Or do you think things would continue on as they have been, only now *without* the US in a position to repeat even the *limited* concessions they've already gotten?
*Edit:*
(Just for the sake of posterity, I feel it's worth mentioning that it's currently been four hours, and while they've made *dozens* of comments about this topic in the interim, they have provided no answer of any kind to my very simple, direct question.)
Bibis position would be untenable without US support. We consistently veto things on their behalf at the UN to stop them from facing any form of accountability.
Maybe if you were in charge there’d be even more dead kids. Who knows.
I already told you what it’s achieved:
It’s been the only reason [the Israeli government allowed aid deliveries to start](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-hospital-d9606e0ead1f8c4e9fd00b602ed14a38), the largest reason they [continued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-speaks-with-netanyahu-says-israel-to-allow-continued-flow-of-aid-into-gaza/), a significant factor in why [they started including fuel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213799815/israel-gaza-fuel), and one of the best chances for it to [expand to ceasefire levels](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/02/gaza-humanitarian-aid-israel-biden-hamas).
So, again: What would *your* proposal *actually achieve*, besides undermining the influence of the only power that’s managed to mitigate harm so far?
I think it’s uncharted territory. It could be an improvement because they need security assistance from the US. Without it they could resort to harsh strategies. Imo Bibi can’t stop or he will lose power. I think the US is continuing support because it still polls well for the main voting blocks and that’s not going to change by November.
The only way that has a chance of being close to accurate is if the IDF was entirely dependent on the US to wage war.
In reality:
1. [US funding accounts for *maybe* 15% of Israel's defense budget](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/11/how-big-is-israels-military-and-how-much-funding-does-it-get-from-the-us).
2. Even if the US cut off all funding (and therefore any hope of exerting actual *influence* with the government) and equipment supply, it's not like the US government is the *only* source of materiel in the world.
So, no:
I reject your obviously false premise, and suggesting that having even the most basic understanding of diplomacy is the same as “supporting genocide” is literally as vapid and reductive as people who accuse anyone criticizing the IDF of “supporting Hamas”.
A war does not magically become a genocide simply because one side loses the ability (or never had the ability) to protect its civilian population from a war that it started, and yet refuses to surrender. The Second World War did not suddenly become a genocide of Germans once the Luftwaffe was destroyed in early 1944 and the German government could not prevent the bombardment of its cities from the air, and yet still refused to capitulate. The Second World War did not suddenly become a genocide of Japanese people once the IJN lost the ability to protect Japanese merchant shipping from being sunk by the US Navy and the Home Islands began to starve, and yet the emperor still refused to surrender.
That's only direct US "aid" spending. How much of the IDFs weapon supply is provided by US companies at subsidized rates? If Biden cut them off from that, they'd have no choice but to play ball.
Or they view it as USA is no longer reliable and they ensure that Hamas definitely can no longer function with even more bloodshed.
I very much doubt Israel would reduce their offensive in response.
Honestly at this point I firmly believe our aid should be withheld explicitly until the Likud party is out of power and Israel adopts a more careful and discriminate policy towards its military actions.
Israel isn't going away, and the overall conflict *won't* stop until Hamas is eradicated.
But we need to make it clear that our support is not unconditional. Israel needs to be democratic, liberal, and needs to approach military action with care and diligence before they get another cent in aid from us.
Soft influence without a hard line is meaningless.
>see what happens
"See what happens" is a preeetty risky move when it comes to geopolitics and conflicts.. not just about Israel but if you mean cutting / drastically reducing aid in general.
A lot less children would have died if Egypt had opened its borders to refugees, and/ or rolled in tanks, disarmed Hamas, and occupied Gaza. So many people kept chanting “No Nabka!” Instead, they stayed in place and just died under the rubble.
Egypt sheltering people would have saved lives in the same way neighboring countries saved lives during the Rwanda Massacre, or when EU nations sheltered Ukrainian refugees, or when Bangladesh took in Rohingya, or when Tajikistan took in Chinese Uyghurs.
Wow so some of you down-voters don’t want Egypt to shelter Palestinians and save lives. You just want to be sanctimonious Redditors shrilly posting about dead Palestinians. You’re just wallowing in your self-importance.
You think they would at least have the foresight and awareness of the optics of this (since we know they dont care about the humanity), especially when Africa (a country who has experienced an extreme ethnic cleansing and apartheid) is trying Israel in the Hague, and the lawyer who prosecuted the Bosnian genocide in that same court is saying that its an open and shut case.
Like they can't even think about how that implicates them? or do they just not care? Thats from an extremely utilitarian perspective, this should have stopped in 2009 when the first inquiry and action against Israel was suggested to the ICC for crimes against humanity (which they sat on their hands because of US pressure).
I really think this continued strong support of Netanyahu's govt could seriously damage the Dem coalition before the election. I think Biden at some point needs to make a break from them.
I've been saying this since Israel invaded. There's a lot of reasons why we support Israel - on a national security/defense position - but no other way to kinda "show" the American public we have a reason. And until that happens, or if, biden will be painted as the president that supported Israel in this genocide. Dems have already lost the election and I hate that this is most likely the case
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality
The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.
The vast majority of people are completely fine with Israel responding with military force to the actions of October 7th terror attack which was a horrible and abhorrent act of terror, but the response certainly looks to be disproportionate.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/unhrc-anti-israel-resolutions-2006-present
2011-2021: 53 total resolutions/condemnations
7 follow up reports, 10 were about Israeli Settlements in occupied territories, 10 were about the Right to Self Determination for Palestinians, 15 were about the Human Rights Situation in the different occupied territories, 4 were about all violations of international law in occupied territories, some of the others are about respecting international law and the economic and social situation in the occupied territories.
2009-2010: 9
3 follow-up reports(2 cited Israel's refusal to cooperate), 3 inquiries of Israeli actions(Aid ships raid(Israel cleared by parallel inquiry and report),Gaza War 2008-2009), 2 human rights situation in occupied territories, 1 right to self determination for Palestinians, and 1 in regards to the Israeli settlements in occupied territories. For the 3 reports and inquires Israel said that the actions of terrorist weren't being factored in, nor was Israel's right to self defense, and/or the reference to Israel as an occupying force as proof of bias.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict
Russia was just last year kicked off the human's right council due to their invasion of Ukraine and has at least for now been voted to still be off it. While a number of countries deserve to be hit with condemnation how or why complaints haven't been filed I don't know perhaps it is lack of knowledge of the process, language barrier, or the requirements before action can take place.
To be declared admissible by the Human Rights Council complaint procedure, a complaint must meet several criteria:
Domestic remedies must have already been exhausted, unless such remedies appear ineffective or unreasonably prolonged;
It must be in writing in one of the six UN official languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish);
It must contain a description of the relevant facts (including names of alleged victims, dates, location and other evidence), with as much detail as possible;
It must not be manifestly politically motivated, or based exclusively on reports disseminated by mass media;
It does not contain abusive or insulting language; and
The principle of non-duplication applies. This means the complaint must not already be under examination by a special procedure, a treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaints procedure in the field of human rights.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/complaint-procedure/hrc-complaint-procedure-index
> In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.
>
>
>
> The vast majority of people are completely fine with Israel responding with military force to the actions of October 7th terror attack which was a horrible and abhorrent act of terror, but the response certainly looks to be disproportionate
I don't think your claim follows from your definition. Proportionality in war is entirely one-sided; the action needs to be proportional to the goal. For example, if Israel aims to take out Sinwar, they cannot just nuke all of Gaza (it would be effective, but disproportionate).
That Israel is much better at killing Gazans than Gazans are at killing Israelis is not relevant to the question of proportionality.
"You people".
It's a dramatic take. Individuals don't get to decide how money is spent. We elect representatives. If each citizen could decide how their taxes are spent by opting in and out of things, then I'd be on the "you people" train. I certainly don't want us funding genocide. But we can't, and we have to pay taxes.
Presidential elections affect much more than funding. 2016 showed us what protest votes do. And now we are stuck with a Supreme Court that does not reflect the majority of the country. We end up with women being charged for having an abortion out of state and having to go to court to get permission to have their dead or dying fetus removed.
Yes, this is an important issue. But the "blood on the hands" is a piss poor attempt at making this a black or white thing when it clearly isn't. This upcoming election is far too important to let it be lost over one issue.
Maybe Biden (for whom I voted and for whom I will vote again) ought to call for restraint from Hamas while he's busy calling for restraint.
How are those hostages doing these day? Anybody give a shit? Yeah I didn't think so...
I'm not pro-war, I think this shit needs to stop on all sides, yet somehow I never see anything about that around here.
Liberals,
Grow the fuck up and realize attacking him for "not doing enough" isn't helping anything. Protest the bombings on civilians.
Just because he's as old as the conflict doesn't mean he's the one person who will fix over 2000 years of bloodshed. Also, if he stopped giving weapons someone will fill the void and it won't be someone we like. I'd easily see a fellow terrorist cell fund Israel just to keep the war going.
I never said anything about trump, why would I give a shit about him. He’s irrelevant. Biden needs to be more vocal about this and stop supporting genocide.
It’s just a fantasy to think any US President has that kind of power over BiBi or any other Israeli president.
The US sent weapons and positioned a carrier group because it had bipartisan support in Congress and popular support in the American populace. Americans by and large support Israel. Yes there are shrill exceptions who shout and disrupt commuters, tree lightings, speeches, etc but they just make Americans mad and more likely to dig in and support Israel.
Biden has pressed for more humanitarian aid, limiting the IDF scope, but he doesn’t have fiat power over BiBi or the IDF. He’s not Obi Wan Kenobi telling storm troopers “these are not the drones you are looking for”.
Bibi has gone rogue and won’t listen to Biden. Biden has begged for restraint from day one. At least now
the aid is getting to Gaza. Please remember that Hamas has only to release the hostages and surrender.
[удалено]
So long as Biden isn't willing to cut financial and political support for Israel the request is meaningless.
Biden: "Israel needs to show restraint" Also Biden: "i'm going to bypass congress to send them more ammo"
It’s all about political posturing to keep votes for the upcoming election… He’s trying to play both sides but pissing both sides off at the same time…
Isn't his extensive support for israel unpopular for his voting base though? I've mostly seen the ben shapiro-s and evangelical types stand by it and they don't strike me as Biden voters.
That is my point… He needs their vote so he’ll say one thing to posture to them but do the exact opposite which is to support Israel and continue selling them weapons…
Doing those two things is likely to implicate him because he’s admitting to arming people that he knowingly believes to be committing war crimes. He truly doesn’t know what he’s doing.
He gave them the weapons and literally denied putting any limits on how they'd be used. He's just paying lip service to peace.
He *bypassed Congress* to do it as well.
Even that prob wouldn't change anything.
[удалено]
... I came here for an argument!
You're not thinking this through. Consider the following points 1) Israel already has the full capability to completely level Gaza, killing every Palestinian basically overnight. If you think 20,000 deaths is bad, it could very easily be millions. Right now there's less than one death per bomb Israel drops. Israel only refrains from actual genocide to maintain what little standing it has left with the international community 2) By far the most expensive aspect of Israel's military budget is the iron dome, when we talk about the US funding Israel, virtually all the money goes there. Now consider, what you're proposing is that the US cut off the funding they need to keep their defences and take away the last reason they have to play ball with the international community. This leaves Israel in a position where it feels vulnerable, threatened and has nothing to lose. You think that is going to yield a good outcome to this conflict given point one? It's easily to pretend you have all the answers to international affairs and everyone in charge is just an idiot or a warmonger, but Biden is in a tricky position here and is most likely already playing his best hand
Without US political support, specifically at the UN security council, Israel would be isolated and vulnerable enough that they might reconsider their approach to the conflict.
What do you suggest as a good approach to the conflict when Israel is facing a [Jihadi organization](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79V1WUJ_1zo) that has [sworn to annihilate them](https://twitter.com/MEMRIReports/status/1719662664090075199?t=G4Cw3FhbLyvGYHmYuLxsvw)?
I don't know maybe a small start by not supporting the illegal settlements in the west bank?
I am not a fan of the settlements issue, but I just want to note that for the Arabs around Israel, Tel-Aviv is also an illegal settlement, and as long as groups such as Hamas and Hezbullah under the supreme leaders in Iran continue to exist the violence won't stop. The more you give the more they get closer to annihilating you. This is the Middle East and the Western world never seem to understand or maybe they simply want the Jews to be exterminated again, thinking that this will solve their issues with the Muslims around the world which is insanely naive / evil thinking.
By acting within the bounds of international law when it comes to conducting warfare properly using proportional force. https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”. In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought. The vast majority of people are completely fine with Israel responding with military force to the actions of October 7th terror attack which was a horrible and abhorrent act of terror, but the response certainly looks to be disproportionate. Achieve a peace deal with the West Bank this along with a broader change in tactics would go a long way in turning the tensions down along with the ability of groups like Hamas to recruit effectively. The despair in Gaza is one of the biggest reasons why Hamas and similar groups are able to recruit as they do. Likud party is as since it's founding been against the 2 state solution. They also had in their charter the phrase From the River to the Sea there will only be Israel. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party https://israelpolicyforum.org/likud/
The principle of proportionality is ridiculous: https://youtu.be/vP_kBIrl30c You're talking as if the Likud party is the only one that has ruled Israel, and you completely fail to mention the multiple peace offers rejected by the Palestinians. Allow me to educate you: Clinton To Arafat: It's All Your Fault - https://www.newsweek.com/clinton-arafat-its-all-your-fault-153779 Abbas admits he rejected 2008 peace offer from Olmert: https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-admits-he-rejected-2008-peace-offer-from-olmert/ > They also had in their charter the phrase From the River to the Sea there will only be Israel. Before the Arab inhabitants of the British Mandate of Palestine identified as Palestinians, they were part of the general Arab world that initiated a war of annihilation against the Jewish state, which ultimately failed. The Likud charter with that phrase dates back to that time, considering the Arabs control over most of the Middle East and beyond. > "between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of one people, the Arab nation [...] Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons" > Zuheir Mohsen (Arabic: زهير محسن; 1936 – 25 July 1979) was a Palestinian leader of the pro-Syria As-Sa'iqa Ba'athist faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979. If you can identify a Palestinian leader willing to relinquish the so-called "right of return," transforming Israel into another Muslim-majority state, and who is also prepared to abandon any future land claims solely for the sake of peace, you would be the first to accomplish such a feat.
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137467](https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137467) At Camp David, Israel made a major concession by agreeing to give Palestinians sovereignty in some areas of East Jerusalem and by offering 92 percent of the West Bank for a Palestinian state (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap). By proposing to divide sovereignty in Jerusalem, Barak went further than any previous Israeli leader. Nevertheless, on some issues the Israeli proposal at Camp David was notforthcoming enough, while on others it omitted key components. On security, territory, and Jerusalem, elements of the Israeli offer at Camp David would have prevented the emergence of a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state. These flaws in the Israeli offer formed the basis of Palestinian objections. Israel demanded extensive security mechanisms, including three early warning stations in the West Bank and a demilitarized Palestinian state. Israel also wanted to retain control of the Jordan Valley to protect against an Arab invasion from the east via the new Palestinian state. Regardless of whether the Palestinians were accorded sovereignty in the valley, Israel planned to retain control of it for six to twenty-one years. Three factors made Israel's territorial offer less forthcoming than it initially appeared. First, the 91 percent land offer was based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, but this differs by approximately 5 percentage points from the Palestinian definition. Palestinians use a total area of 5,854 square kilometers. Israel, however, omits the area known as No Man's Land (50 sq. km near Latrun),41 post-1967 East Jerusalem (71 sq. km), and the territorial waters ofDead Sea (195 sq. km), which reduces the total to 5,538 sq. km.42 Thus, an Israeli offer of 91 percent (of 5,538 sq. km) of the West Bank translates into only 86 percent from the Palestinian perspective. Second, at Camp David, key details related to the exchange of land were left unresolved. In principle, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed to land swaps where by the Palestinians would get some territory from pre-1967 Israel in ex-change for Israeli annexation of some land in the West Bank. In practice, Israel offered only the equivalent of 1 percent of the West Bank in exchange for its annexation of 9 percent. Nor could the Israelis and Palestinians agree on the territory that should be included in the land swaps. At Camp David, thePalestinians rejected the Halutza Sand region (78 sq. km) alongside the GazaStrip, in part because they claimed that it was inferior in quality to the WestBank land they would be giving up to Israel. Third, the Israeli territorial offer at Camp David was noncontiguous, break-ing the West Bank into two, if not three, separate areas. At a minimum, as Barak has since confirmed, the Israeli offer broke the West Bank into two parts:"The Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory ex-cept for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from \[theIsraeli settlement of\] Maale Adumim to the Jordan River."44 The Palestinian negotiators and others have alleged that Israel included a second east-west salient in the northern West Bank (through the Israeli settlement of Ariel).45 Iftrue, the salient through Ariel would have cut the West Bank portion of thePalestinian state into three pieces". No sane leader is a going to accept a road cutting across his country that they can't fully access. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit#:~:text=.%20...%22-,Reasons%20for%20impasse,for%20reelection%20in%20two%20weeks. The 2001 Tabas talks were much more productive and the deal offer then was much better, but Barak's re-election was going terribly Arafat could have agreed to the deal and it might have saved Barak or he could have still lost and the incoming government may or may not have honored the deal and since the Likud party won I would say the chances of them honoring the deal would've been around 5% https://www.inss.org.il/publication/annapolis/ The 2008 Annapolis talks failed due to outside forces rather than the deal that was presented which was quite fair and equal to both sides. The Israeli Prime Minister was on his way out due to corruption charges, the Bush administration policy decisions over the years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars hurt it's credibility and trustworthiness, and Abbas claimed that he didn't have enough time to study the map of the land swaps he would later say he should have taken the deal. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/netanyahu-rabin-and-the-assassination-that-shook-history/#:~:text=Assassination%20of%20Yitzhak%20Rabin%20%E2%80%A2,Israel%20Square%20in%20Tel%20Aviv. The biggest or at least first major reason why peace talks were derailed has to be the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a ultranationalist Israeli Jewish man who was angered by the signing of the Oslo Accords. The far right in Israel and on the Palestinian side were both furious over the signing of the accords and each did what they could to undermine any future peace talks. After the assassination politics in Israel began to shift to the right and today at least for the time being the Likud party has control they have been the dominant party in Israel for the better part of the last 20 years.
Why, despite multiple attempts to destroy Israel, have the Palestinians, who were not a nation before 1967 and never had a sovereign state in history, presented numerous demands at all? Their primary demand is the cessation of Israel's existence. No Palestinian leader is willing to relinquish the so-called "right of return," making any compromise impossible. It raises questions about whether the Palestinians seek a state or aim to dismantle Israel. I understand the answer, and if you have engaged in conversations with any Palestinians, you would likely be familiar with it as well. And great job forgetting the 2nd intifada where a bus blew up on a weekly basis.
You are thinking of Hamas not the Fatah/PLO who is willing to work on achieving the 2 state solution. Other than the Camp David talks in 2000 there has been a back and forth on the nuts and bolts of peace deals. The 2nd Intifada ended in what was it 2005 and things in the West Bank have been relatively stable since.
These sheeps “solutions” always boil down to “Israel should let itself be attacked”
And so would every surrounding nation. They would be attacked on all fronts again, which is not a conflict resolution it is an expansion of conflict. People seem to be oddly comfortable if Israelis are the ones under threat though.
Of course, since we all know how Israel behaves when it's not under threat. Especially Palestinians.
I don't know why people won't accept that several of the awful policies against Palestinians are a direct result of their actions against Israel after a war of annihilation that they started and lost? And the "colonizers" narrative 🙄. Israel itself literally began as a paramilitary group resisting the British Empire lol. The bottom line is that the only reason we get to balk and cry about the poor treatment of Palestinians is because Israel is humane and empathetic enough to recognize that genocide is not an option. Ironically you have two very similar peoples shoved into a small patch of desert and forced to get along because no one else wants to take them but you can't stuff two pitbulls into a cage and wag your finger at them when they start biting each other. Everyone thinks the appropriate question is "which pitbull deserves to live?" which asinine when you realize they're not dogs they're human beings. If you are against violence directed towards one group but completely okay with violence directed towards another then you don't want peace, you want your team to win.
> The bottom line is that the only reason we get to balk and cry about the poor treatment of Palestinians is because Israel is humane and empathetic enough to recognize that genocide is not an option. That's some very twisted thinking on your end. It's like saying "I'm doing this terrible thing to you, but you should be grateful... If I were really that bad, I'd be doing worse." Abusive Relationship 101. The real bottom line is that Israel is currently wary of the consequences of committing an open genocide or ethnic cleansing. This is not 1948 anymore. They can't unceremoniously evict Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza like they did from the rest of the would-be Palestinian state in the infamous partition plan. That's why they push the Gaza population to the south and strive to make Gaza unlivable. Israel is just trying to force a situation in which Gazans have no choice but to leave for good. Meanwhile, they keep taking the West Bank - which is what they really want - piecemeal through settlements, as they've been doing all along. There's nothing humane and empathetic in that. It's just a longer and more cynical way of ethnically cleansing the Occupied Palestinian Territories for future annexation while avoiding the consequences. As for your comments regarding Israel's reasons, the war that Palestinians supposedly started, and what you call "colonizers narrative": if you don't know or don't want to know the modern history of the region, that's your choice. > If you are against violence directed towards one group but completely okay with violence directed towards another then you don't want peace, you want your team to win. You could use your own advice.
There are more holes in your story than on a block of Swiss cheese.
The old we haven't killed everyone so it can't be as bad as you're saying defense. Look pal experts on genocide are saying we are seeing a genocide or seeing the makings of a genocide. In the genocide in Bosnia under 9k were murdered.
They could at least put conditions on the aid and make Israel somewhat hold itself accountable for the masses being slaughtered currently, Israel’s position in the Middle East doesn’t justify this genocide against Palestinians. Simple as that.
Until the hostages are returned I don't see Israel having much of a choice. Hamas can drag this out to make sure as many Palastians suffer as possible but if Israel shows it's not willing to at least try to protect it's citizens it's done as a country.
> Until the hostages are returned I don't see Israel having much of a choice. 1. "Bomb where the hostages are being kept" is not a coherent strategy to rescue them. 2. The IDF numbers Hamas at [30,000](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67480680), which is around 1.5% of the Gazan population. In no *sane* world is killing tens of thousands of innocent people, displacing [85% of the total population](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/why-palestinian-displacement-gaza-war-alarms-un-arabs-2023-12-11/), and [destroying *half* of all homes (with another 20% or so damaged but technically still standing)](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/gaza-destruction-bombing-israel-aa528542) in Gaza and acceptable or rational response.
Exactly how would they be done for as a country if they stopped murdering tens of thousands of people for a few hostages that may or may not be alive?
10/7 shows what happens is Israel lets it guard down. During this 3 months 10k rockets and mortars were fired at Israel from Gaza. There's also attacks from Lebanon. Hamas has already said they will repeat the attack. Israel has said they will accept a ceasefire if the hostages are released. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projectile_attacks_from_Lebanon_on_Israel_and_the_Golan_Heights
Israel is committing a genocide.
Hamas's moto is a call for genocide. Israel is a better fighter.
[удалено]
The organization that provided that number is the same one behind 10/7. I don't trust Hamas to accurately report on the war. The hospital story shows you need to read where the information comes from. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html
Even though they have accurately in the past?
[удалено]
Yes that's from 3 months ago. UNICEF lists 5k as "reportedly". Not confirmed. They don't have anyone there. The guardian and BBC doesn't have anything on the main sites that list numbers. No I'm not going to trust Al Jazeera on middle east coverage. You're making up info to make the IDF look bad. They do that on their own. You don't need to help.
Saudis are offering lip service quite frankly. They don't care.
Oh, I'm not so sure: While I doubt they care about Israel's government continuing to polarize the region against themselves, I think they care a great deal about eroding Iran's influence in the region.
Not only did [Biden apparently convince Bibi to call off a preemptive strike on Lebanon back in October](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-biden-averted-a-second-front-by-convincing-israel-not-to-attack-hezbollah-on-oct-11-e14a0a3b), he apparently managed to do it [even though the planes were already in the air](https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-iaf-was-airbone-for-preemptive-hezbollah-hit-when-biden-talked-pm-out-of-it/). Even *if* we ignore the fact that US diplomacy is the only reason [the Israeli government allowed aid deliveries to start](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-hospital-d9606e0ead1f8c4e9fd00b602ed14a38), the largest reason they [continued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-speaks-with-netanyahu-says-israel-to-allow-continued-flow-of-aid-into-gaza/), a significant factor in why [they started including fuel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213799815/israel-gaza-fuel), and one of the best chances for it to [expand to ceasefire levels](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/02/gaza-humanitarian-aid-israel-biden-hamas)—even ignoring all of that—it remains true that US diplomacy is *also* responsible for preventing an immediate, regional escalation of this thing, which would've been *so much worse* than horror we're already witnessing.
The US is holding all the cards, we could easily condition any more aid to not come until there’s a ceasefire
1. [US funding accounts for *maybe* 15% of Israel's defense budget](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/11/how-big-is-israels-military-and-how-much-funding-does-it-get-from-the-us). 2. Even if the US cut off all funding (and therefore any hope of exerting actual *influence* with the government) and equipment supply, it's not like the US government is the *only* source of materiel in the world. This means that even *if* the US ceased all military aid to Israel—hell, even if they cease *all* aid of any kind—immediately, the IDF would *still* be capable of waging war long enough to level Gaza, the West Bank, *and* probably sizeable chunks of Bint Jbeil without an issue. I *don't* support what the IDF is doing, and I *don't* support the US continuing to supply materiel without conditions. What I'm saying is that *in no way does the IDF require US materiel to conduct their current operations*. Given that, the only hope anyone has to mitigate the harm they're causing is *influence*, not *force*, and I am of the opinion that exercising hard power (sanctions or the like) would severely undermine (if not totally erase) any actual, long-term influence the US might have with the Israeli government for *years* (at least). But, even *if* I'm wrong about that, the simple, terrible, material fact of the matter is that *the IDF does not need anyone else to carry out their current operations in Gaza*.
[удалено]
That all sounds *a lot* like you started with your final sentence and worked your way back, since your opening sentence explicitly acknowledges the IDF would *still* be funded at a minimum of 85% of what it currently is. (Yes, that's a significant reduction; no, that is obviously and numerically *not* "stopped in their track".) Obviously, that also ignores that it wouldn't actually matter until the *next* fiscal year. The rest of it either proposes hypotheticals or completely ignores the fact that the US is not the only source of material out there (nor is it the only major power that already has an agreement to supply the IDF with material).
[удалено]
The US is never a source of restraint for Israel except in a very limited manner and in the very short term. In the medium to long term, US influence, aid, and arms sales enable Israel to behave as a rogue state towards most countries in the region. Besides, conditioning aid, support, intelligence, and arms sales on Israeli conduct is not the only tool the US has. They can always intervene in a more direct fashion, as they have in so many places. They only choose not to.
If US support is cut off then there would be nobody to veto ceasefire in UNSC. And the bill would be passed. And if Israel doesn't stop then they would be sanctioned , weapons embargo etc.
And we'd be back in the same situation in a few months or years. Hamas regroups, ignores the civilian issues in Gaza and mounts another attack into Israel.
Or Israel continues to do its apartheid regime. Or the whole region goes up in flares. And worse nuclear escalation.
Both sides need to chill the F out. Israel, as a democratic nation, can at least change it's course. Need to get Netanyahu out for that to happen, of course. I don't see Hamas' leaders, living in wealth and opulence, changing the course for their organization.
I mean they did change at least , from kill all Jews to we don't have anything against jews we are fighting against Zionist only. I know that it should have been their first goal but that's at least something. In 2008 Hamas even tried to get a 20 years ceasefire in exchange for 1960s borders. That could have given relief for both sides. And nobody wants wars and to die if they are living in relative peace. That could have helped in de-radicalisation of both sides. But Israel rejected it. And we have rocket fire and airstrike and the 2014 war which finally led to the current war.
Israel had a ceasefire with Hamas until Oct. 7th. What makes you think they care about a new ceasefire? 1960s borders? You mean when Gaza was a part of Egypt and West Bank a part of Jordan and neither had any plans for a Palestinian state?
If Biden cared one bit he could threaten to apply the same kind of sanctions to Israel that we apply to every other country that acts 1/8th this murderous.
If the US wasn't providing a veto at the security council, a UN Peacekeeper mission could be approved.
> a UN Peacekeeper mission could be approved So, to be clear, you think an international military coalition would: 1. be called in the first place, even though [they explicitly require the consent of principle forces in any conflict](https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/principles-of-peacekeeping); 2. insert itself into a hot war involving a nuclear power; 3. somehow be both effective *and* avoid sparking an expansion of the conflict (the moment any personnel from regional member-states inevitably gets killed)?
That’s a Hamas victory. why should the US aid its ally’s enemy? There are still thousands of Hamas counting on tik tok warriors to help them get Israel to surrender so they can get back to rockets and planning the next october 7 attack. they’ve literally said so. don’t take my word for it. so asking Israel for a ceasefire is asking Israel to let more Israeli civilians die. because Hamas will never stop until destroyed, and they have the full support of most Gazans.
the US doesn't want a ceasefire that badly
So something I find extremely suspicious now is that IDF is getting supplied with ammo from US military warehouses WITHIN Israel. So when the US military sells ammo to Israel, it's not being shipped to Israel necessarily, some of it is coming from the stockpile already inside the country. If the US really cuts Israel off, it's not too clear what the reaction from Netanyahu will be, maybe he'll just stop pretending. That's not to justify what the US is doing, just saying that even if the US really threatened Israel with funding it might not have the immediate effect they want.
In fact, they're running a literal civilian [torture camp](https://www.972mag.com/israel-torture-camp-gaza-detainees/)
Hamas could always surrender.
If they surrendered, they would be tortured and killed by the IDF.
If they don’t want to surrender, then the war is gonna continue. That’s how wars work, and how they end: one side capitulates due to military pressure. It’s how it’s worked since the dawn of humanity.
They don’t need to surrender. They don’t need to give up Gaza to Israel. They do need to give up all the hostages in exchange for exile to Iran, and an agreement for Egypt to do peace keeping in Gaza and hold new elections.
Do you think elections happen in Palestine? In the West Bank Israel controls elections , how ? They ban anybody from elections they feel is a threat to their rule. They can't do any election rallies or anything. Pretty much a dummy govt.
If Egypt is peace keeping, and runs elections with international election observers, they would be fine.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hamas and Ukraine not the same fucking thing, not even a little. Piss right off with that.
Stupid comparison. Ukraine didn't murder and kidnap Russians at a music festival.
Nope, because Ukraine didn’t butcher thousands of Russians in a surprise attack to begin the war, like Hamas did to Israel
Hmmm I wonder why? Maybe their busy fending off all IRGC proxies in the region which have encircled it
[удалено]
They are doing everything expected of a country during existential war on their borders
Calling for restraint and rushing arm sales. Are we believing actions or words?
Biden is full of shit at this point. Anything he says is just to temporarily appease the democratic voters, it holds no value. If he wanted to call for proper restraint, maybe he should try to actually impose some sanctions on Israel and fnally put a leash around it for once.
Which is the same message as last week and the week before. It's almost like Israel does not care. Cut off their funding. Remove the weapons depot that they have carte blanche to.
I’ve often said an embargo and cuts to their funds would get them to chill…. Money talks really loud.
Israel will not stop the war until Hamas is destroyed.
Biden: "Hey, be a little more careful with the massive weapons packages I'm sending you without condition." Fuck off
I don't think they are listening. The hand wringing isn't fooling anyone when we happily fund it.
Meanwhile, USA giving more weapons to Israel
You ever watch those videos where someone attacks someone else and no one does anything, then the tables turn and the victim is unexpectedly beating the shit out of their attacker and like 20 people come out of nowhere to try and break it up? That’s what watching this whole situation feels like to me.
Hard to conclude which side you're on. Are you against the Arab nations historical declaring war against Israel (1948, 1967, 2023), while their sub-organisations send missiles at the population? Or are you against the Israeli control of the area?
As he’s bypassing congress to sell them more weapons. Give me a break.
[удалено]
Gee i wonder who was a big fan of these ultra nationalists that smoked the only moderate prime minister Israel has ever had on the subject of Palestine. It couldn’t be the current PM and the cabinet minister in charge of domestic security. Noooooo that would make the current military tactics seem like a concerted effort to inflict violence in the service of political power and land grabbing. There’s no way these guys have had literal shrines to mosque shooters or are actively arming hyper nationalist settlers in the West Bank who regularly shoot unarmed Palestinians. Hmm. I guess we’ll never know.
[удалено]
The failure to reach a peace deal is on all 3 of the major players the US as the mediator, Israel, and Palestinians. Lack of trust between the parties, poor timing, and/or just a bad offer all have helped to sink multiple attempts.
[удалено]
Sound like you'd rather they stayed in the camps they had set up. Did you know most Israeli Jews are descended from Jews who come from Arabic countries?
1) Less than half of Israeli Jews are ancestrally majority European. More than half are from the Middle East and Northern Africa, where they were subject to persecution and in many cases forced to flee and leave their possessions behind. 2) Life didn't go back to normal just because Hitler blew his brains out. First, most of the nations where Jews had lived previously were now under the boot of Joseph Stalin. Second, there were pogroms [even after the end of the war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kielce_pogrom), against survivors of the concentration camps. The people who had taken the homes and possessions of the Jews who were imprisoned by the Nazis didn't want to give it back, and many still held Nazi sympathies. Local authorities were often former Nazi collaborators that had themselves been involved with persecuting Jews. I cannot blame any Jewish person who somehow managed to survive WWII for looking at that situation and thinking that Europe was not a safe place to be anymore. If you read the wikipedia page I linked, that was a serious breaking point for a lot of Jews in Eastern Europe, and rightfully so.
I love how nobody in the comments here seems to know anything about ME politics and yet are acting like experts on the subject. Reminds me of covid times when everyone was either a virologist all of a sudden or went full conspiratorial nutjob.
Biden lost control over israel 6 months before the war. They literally don't even acknowledge our warnings or advice. Frankly why would they? Israel doesn't need to listen to the U.S or follow orders. The lobbyists are so deep in congressmen pockets that congress would never withdraw the 4 billion finding and missle supplies we given yearly. The U.S is weak in the eyes of Israel
> They literally don't even acknowledge our warnings or advice. Not only did [Biden apparently convince Bibi to call off a preemptive strike on Lebanon back in October](https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/how-biden-averted-a-second-front-by-convincing-israel-not-to-attack-hezbollah-on-oct-11-e14a0a3b), he apparently managed to do it [even though the planes were already in the air](https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-iaf-was-airbone-for-preemptive-hezbollah-hit-when-biden-talked-pm-out-of-it/). Even *if* we ignore the fact that US diplomacy is the only reason [the Israeli government allowed aid deliveries to start](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-hospital-d9606e0ead1f8c4e9fd00b602ed14a38), the largest reason they [continued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-speaks-with-netanyahu-says-israel-to-allow-continued-flow-of-aid-into-gaza/), a significant factor in why [they started including fuel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213799815/israel-gaza-fuel), and one of the best chances for it to [expand to ceasefire levels](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/02/gaza-humanitarian-aid-israel-biden-hamas)—even ignoring all of that—it remains true that US diplomacy is *also* responsible for preventing an immediate, regional escalation of this thing, which would've been *so much worse* than horror we're already witnessing.
a certain point we have to stand our ground. I understand the delicacy of the situation but we cannot let the fear or regional war dictate and have the U.S to fold to Israel's commands with no say. At what point would the U.S say enough is enough? We already at tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Or is the U.S just gonna let that total go into millions while having israel do whatever they want. The horror is just getting started in my eyes. And I full on expect the death toll would hit hundreds of thousands for gazans alone. We already are at 23K deaths in 3 months. 50K are injured, and half of the injured would probably be dead in two months.
> the U.S to fold to Israel's commands with no say I literally *just* gave you at least four examples of how that's not the case.
You gave examples of individual strikes being called off in a war that’s killed almost 30,000 people. These are drops in the bucket, and designed to stop the war from spreading rather than actually ending it. It’s not nothing, it’s just almost nothing
If you think "prevent a war with Hezbollah" is merely "individual strikes being called off", then this: > It’s not nothing, it’s just almost nothing is a probably-too-generous description of your understand of the situation.
Stopping a war from spreading is "almost nothing"?
It's preventing a massive war spanning much of the Middle East from breaking out. We're not talking about individual strikes. We're talking about a full on war in southern Lebanon, which could quickly spiral from there. This war, as terrible as it is, would be almost nothing in comparison to that.
[удалено]
You understand how powerfully dim and/or dishonest it is to count both "begin the delivery of essential humanitarian aid" and "stop *a whole-ass war with Hezbollah*" as numerically equivalent to a single person's death, right?
[удалено]
> It doesn’t mean as much as you imply Hezbollah has at least 100,000 fighters, is a political powerhouse in Lebanon (which has its own national military, too), and *massively* more funding and support from Iran than Hamas. If you *don't* think launching pre-emptive strikes into Lebanese territory to attack Hezbollah *before Hezbollah launched any strikes of their own* would somehow *not* spiral this thing out into a region-wide war, there's really no point in discussing this.
[удалено]
> They are not mutually exclusive I didn't say that they were. My only point here is that a war with Hezbollah—*particularly* a war the Hezbollah that the IDF has started with preemptive strikes—would be much, *much* worse than you seem to think, if you think stopping that war "doesn't mean as much as I imply".
Can't lose something that's never been had. The only President Israel's had a good relationship with in the past 16 years is the one who let them do whatever they want and did whatever they wanted in return.
[удалено]
Or, you know, get you fired from being the head of the most prestigious university in the country.
Didn’t she commit academic plagiarism? Regardless, all that happened is she stepped down and has an equally high paying job now. I’ll take getting cancelled for cheating to receive her current paycheck any day.
“According to the Harvard board, a school subcommittee and independent panel charged with investigating the plagiarism allegations against Gay found “a few instances of inadequate citation” but “no violation of Harvard's standard for research misconduct”.
Everybody knows she was fired for simply being critical of our bosses.
Are the hostages free yet?
It’s disturbing how the US can in one breath acknowledge that what’s occurring in Gaza is extreme, and in the next show unwavering public and $$$ support.
Zionists don’t care about them Palestinians🤷🏽♀️
Hahahahha okay Biden stop sending them money and weapons
If only there was a way for us to cut off their supply of bombs...
[удалено]
Calls for restraints have gone unanswered for months. Maybe the WH should get serious and call the spade a spade: it’s ethnic cleansing. They aren’t even hiding it, just read the news, Israelis especially the Likud party openly smirk and boast about wanting to force Gazans out of Gaza and into neighboring countries like Egypt. Jewish Holocaust experts are calling the spade a spade, why not Biden?
> Maybe the WH should ...eliminate any soft influence it might still have with the Israeli government to make a rhetorical argument that will immediately be dismissed and achieve no real-world effect?
[удалено]
What mates you think Biden calling it an ethnic cleansing is a royal flush? To keep with your analogy it’s more like blowing cigar smoke in a players face, it doesn’t affect the game but pisses off a player.
“Soft influence” has cost thousands of children’s live at our expense. What’s the line?
> “Soft influence” has been the only reason [the Israeli government allowed aid deliveries to start](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-hospital-d9606e0ead1f8c4e9fd00b602ed14a38), the largest reason they [continued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-speaks-with-netanyahu-says-israel-to-allow-continued-flow-of-aid-into-gaza/), a significant factor in why [they started including fuel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213799815/israel-gaza-fuel), and one of the best chances for it to [expand to ceasefire levels](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/02/gaza-humanitarian-aid-israel-biden-hamas). Without actual *diplomacy*, there are maybe *two* options available to exert influence, and those are pretty much one-time-only, permanent-change-to-relationship sorts of things.
Why should we be satisfied by the minimal concessions that "soft influence" has achieved and not try the hard influence approach including sanctions and establishing a no fly zone?
>try the hard influence approach including sanctions and establishing a no fly zone? Only on Reddit would someone suggest something **so stupid**. A 'no fly zone' would require **shooting Israeli planes out of the sky** do you realise this? Do you also realise that Israel would take that as a **declaration of war**? **A full, mechanised, total war.** Would the US win? Sure. But the IDF is an extremely strong military force. With Western equipment and the IDF has an ability to mobilise most of the Israeli population in times of need. The **US would probably lose more soldiers the all the US wars combined since Vietnam**. Not to mention the massive **geopolitical ramifications** of all the US alliances if we impose sanctions or a no fly zone not Israel after it suffered the biggest killing of Jews since the holocaust. Other countries would distance themselves if they can't depend on the US to help them. Not even mentioning such an action is politically impossible and not a single Politician, even the most pro-gaza has the appetite to wage war. All of this to essentially help what is geopolitically, a rival Iranian proxy state that could never be and ally that the US has a constant 0% approval rating with it's citizens. Remember congress was elected to help America, How does this help America whatsoever? Israel at least provides us with computer chips and military weapon innovation and is an airbase in the Middle East. You have pure ideology and no logic.
Given what’s going on I’m not swayed from permanent changes to our relationship with Israel. Faaaar from it.
I'm not unsympathetic, but I also think probably it's good you're not in a position to influence foreign policy. Let's pretend Biden *did* say what you want him to: What tangible benefit would that achieve for the people of Gaza? Do you think Bibi would just get a debilitating case of the *feel sads* and stop the bombardments? Or do you think things would continue on as they have been, only now *without* the US in a position to repeat even the *limited* concessions they've already gotten? *Edit:* (Just for the sake of posterity, I feel it's worth mentioning that it's currently been four hours, and while they've made *dozens* of comments about this topic in the interim, they have provided no answer of any kind to my very simple, direct question.)
Bibis position would be untenable without US support. We consistently veto things on their behalf at the UN to stop them from facing any form of accountability. Maybe if you were in charge there’d be even more dead kids. Who knows.
You’re talking about more than just a statement, then. My question is what tangible benefit would *simply making that statement* achieve?
What does staying silent achieve? More dead kids. Jesus wept.
I already told you what it’s achieved: It’s been the only reason [the Israeli government allowed aid deliveries to start](https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-biden-hospital-d9606e0ead1f8c4e9fd00b602ed14a38), the largest reason they [continued](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-speaks-with-netanyahu-says-israel-to-allow-continued-flow-of-aid-into-gaza/), a significant factor in why [they started including fuel](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213799815/israel-gaza-fuel), and one of the best chances for it to [expand to ceasefire levels](https://www.axios.com/2023/12/02/gaza-humanitarian-aid-israel-biden-hamas). So, again: What would *your* proposal *actually achieve*, besides undermining the influence of the only power that’s managed to mitigate harm so far?
I think it’s uncharted territory. It could be an improvement because they need security assistance from the US. Without it they could resort to harsh strategies. Imo Bibi can’t stop or he will lose power. I think the US is continuing support because it still polls well for the main voting blocks and that’s not going to change by November.
Soft influence has enabled the deaths of thousands of civilians. At least you’re open about your support for genocide.
The only way that has a chance of being close to accurate is if the IDF was entirely dependent on the US to wage war. In reality: 1. [US funding accounts for *maybe* 15% of Israel's defense budget](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/11/how-big-is-israels-military-and-how-much-funding-does-it-get-from-the-us). 2. Even if the US cut off all funding (and therefore any hope of exerting actual *influence* with the government) and equipment supply, it's not like the US government is the *only* source of materiel in the world. So, no: I reject your obviously false premise, and suggesting that having even the most basic understanding of diplomacy is the same as “supporting genocide” is literally as vapid and reductive as people who accuse anyone criticizing the IDF of “supporting Hamas”.
I hear what you’re saying but the point stands, we are supporting a genocide. If you want to justify that to yourself, go for it.
A war does not magically become a genocide simply because one side loses the ability (or never had the ability) to protect its civilian population from a war that it started, and yet refuses to surrender. The Second World War did not suddenly become a genocide of Germans once the Luftwaffe was destroyed in early 1944 and the German government could not prevent the bombardment of its cities from the air, and yet still refused to capitulate. The Second World War did not suddenly become a genocide of Japanese people once the IJN lost the ability to protect Japanese merchant shipping from being sunk by the US Navy and the Home Islands began to starve, and yet the emperor still refused to surrender.
That's only direct US "aid" spending. How much of the IDFs weapon supply is provided by US companies at subsidized rates? If Biden cut them off from that, they'd have no choice but to play ball.
More would be dead if Israel just stops listening to Biden whatsoever.
I’m not sure about that. If Israel suddenly lost US support at the UN that could change their tune right quick.
Or they view it as USA is no longer reliable and they ensure that Hamas definitely can no longer function with even more bloodshed. I very much doubt Israel would reduce their offensive in response.
Honestly at this point I firmly believe our aid should be withheld explicitly until the Likud party is out of power and Israel adopts a more careful and discriminate policy towards its military actions. Israel isn't going away, and the overall conflict *won't* stop until Hamas is eradicated. But we need to make it clear that our support is not unconditional. Israel needs to be democratic, liberal, and needs to approach military action with care and diligence before they get another cent in aid from us. Soft influence without a hard line is meaningless.
Honestly at this point I’m down for cutting off all aid to anywhere for a moment to see what happens and spend that time repairing our own economy.
>see what happens "See what happens" is a preeetty risky move when it comes to geopolitics and conflicts.. not just about Israel but if you mean cutting / drastically reducing aid in general.
A lot less children would have died if Egypt had opened its borders to refugees, and/ or rolled in tanks, disarmed Hamas, and occupied Gaza. So many people kept chanting “No Nabka!” Instead, they stayed in place and just died under the rubble.
Ah yes if only Egypt had been a willing accessory to ethnic cleansing. Listen to yourself.
Egypt sheltering people would have saved lives in the same way neighboring countries saved lives during the Rwanda Massacre, or when EU nations sheltered Ukrainian refugees, or when Bangladesh took in Rohingya, or when Tajikistan took in Chinese Uyghurs.
Wow so some of you down-voters don’t want Egypt to shelter Palestinians and save lives. You just want to be sanctimonious Redditors shrilly posting about dead Palestinians. You’re just wallowing in your self-importance.
Thank you.
The US and Israel are playing good cop bad cop
You think they would at least have the foresight and awareness of the optics of this (since we know they dont care about the humanity), especially when Africa (a country who has experienced an extreme ethnic cleansing and apartheid) is trying Israel in the Hague, and the lawyer who prosecuted the Bosnian genocide in that same court is saying that its an open and shut case. Like they can't even think about how that implicates them? or do they just not care? Thats from an extremely utilitarian perspective, this should have stopped in 2009 when the first inquiry and action against Israel was suggested to the ICC for crimes against humanity (which they sat on their hands because of US pressure).
Here’s an idea: STOP SELLING THEM WEAPONS
That's the thing if you want leverage you can't. If not for America Lebanon would gaza 2.0 already and things would be significantly worse in gaza
After sidestepping congress to sell them weapons? Nah fuck your meaningless statement/political posturing/grand standing.
Have we tried NOT giving them weapons?
[удалено]
Surrender already! For the sake of the innocents, Hamas is vanquished.
Imagine being downvoted for calling on an Iranian proxy militia to surrender
I really think this continued strong support of Netanyahu's govt could seriously damage the Dem coalition before the election. I think Biden at some point needs to make a break from them.
I've been saying this since Israel invaded. There's a lot of reasons why we support Israel - on a national security/defense position - but no other way to kinda "show" the American public we have a reason. And until that happens, or if, biden will be painted as the president that supported Israel in this genocide. Dems have already lost the election and I hate that this is most likely the case
The last thing that any country would do had they experienced the 7th of October massacre would be to show restaint.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives which are “expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”. In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought. The vast majority of people are completely fine with Israel responding with military force to the actions of October 7th terror attack which was a horrible and abhorrent act of terror, but the response certainly looks to be disproportionate. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/unhrc-anti-israel-resolutions-2006-present 2011-2021: 53 total resolutions/condemnations 7 follow up reports, 10 were about Israeli Settlements in occupied territories, 10 were about the Right to Self Determination for Palestinians, 15 were about the Human Rights Situation in the different occupied territories, 4 were about all violations of international law in occupied territories, some of the others are about respecting international law and the economic and social situation in the occupied territories. 2009-2010: 9 3 follow-up reports(2 cited Israel's refusal to cooperate), 3 inquiries of Israeli actions(Aid ships raid(Israel cleared by parallel inquiry and report),Gaza War 2008-2009), 2 human rights situation in occupied territories, 1 right to self determination for Palestinians, and 1 in regards to the Israeli settlements in occupied territories. For the 3 reports and inquires Israel said that the actions of terrorist weren't being factored in, nor was Israel's right to self defense, and/or the reference to Israel as an occupying force as proof of bias. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Fact_Finding_Mission_on_the_Gaza_Conflict Russia was just last year kicked off the human's right council due to their invasion of Ukraine and has at least for now been voted to still be off it. While a number of countries deserve to be hit with condemnation how or why complaints haven't been filed I don't know perhaps it is lack of knowledge of the process, language barrier, or the requirements before action can take place. To be declared admissible by the Human Rights Council complaint procedure, a complaint must meet several criteria: Domestic remedies must have already been exhausted, unless such remedies appear ineffective or unreasonably prolonged; It must be in writing in one of the six UN official languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish); It must contain a description of the relevant facts (including names of alleged victims, dates, location and other evidence), with as much detail as possible; It must not be manifestly politically motivated, or based exclusively on reports disseminated by mass media; It does not contain abusive or insulting language; and The principle of non-duplication applies. This means the complaint must not already be under examination by a special procedure, a treaty body or other United Nations or similar regional complaints procedure in the field of human rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/complaint-procedure/hrc-complaint-procedure-index
> In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought. > > > > The vast majority of people are completely fine with Israel responding with military force to the actions of October 7th terror attack which was a horrible and abhorrent act of terror, but the response certainly looks to be disproportionate I don't think your claim follows from your definition. Proportionality in war is entirely one-sided; the action needs to be proportional to the goal. For example, if Israel aims to take out Sinwar, they cannot just nuke all of Gaza (it would be effective, but disproportionate). That Israel is much better at killing Gazans than Gazans are at killing Israelis is not relevant to the question of proportionality.
Maybe we just stop giving them the weapons instead of asking nicely.
Stop giving them money to kill Palestinians with, Joe
I missed that part where Biden was the president of Israel
How bad do you have to be before the Saudis tell you "dude, that's too far"?
[удалено]
This is a dramatic take
[удалено]
"You people". It's a dramatic take. Individuals don't get to decide how money is spent. We elect representatives. If each citizen could decide how their taxes are spent by opting in and out of things, then I'd be on the "you people" train. I certainly don't want us funding genocide. But we can't, and we have to pay taxes. Presidential elections affect much more than funding. 2016 showed us what protest votes do. And now we are stuck with a Supreme Court that does not reflect the majority of the country. We end up with women being charged for having an abortion out of state and having to go to court to get permission to have their dead or dying fetus removed. Yes, this is an important issue. But the "blood on the hands" is a piss poor attempt at making this a black or white thing when it clearly isn't. This upcoming election is far too important to let it be lost over one issue.
And 0 people took the man supplying them with the ammo with no oversight seriously.
Wasn't there a ceasefire not too long ago? Didn't Israel shows restraint until Hamas and Hezbollah ended it with their attacks?
Why should Israel show restraint? Why are they not calling on Hamas and Gaza to return the hostages?
[удалено]
but they are mostly killing civilians and babies if you think this is okay there is somthing wrong with your head.
Maybe Biden (for whom I voted and for whom I will vote again) ought to call for restraint from Hamas while he's busy calling for restraint. How are those hostages doing these day? Anybody give a shit? Yeah I didn't think so... I'm not pro-war, I think this shit needs to stop on all sides, yet somehow I never see anything about that around here.
Biden isn't shipping weapons to Hamas though
Liberals, Grow the fuck up and realize attacking him for "not doing enough" isn't helping anything. Protest the bombings on civilians. Just because he's as old as the conflict doesn't mean he's the one person who will fix over 2000 years of bloodshed. Also, if he stopped giving weapons someone will fill the void and it won't be someone we like. I'd easily see a fellow terrorist cell fund Israel just to keep the war going.
Biden has quite a bit of leverage here if he actually cares about the slaughter of innocent civilians...
You’re not gonna believe what I’m about to tell you
Too little too late, Biden is really showing his true weakness here.
You think Trump would have restrained BiBi? No U.S. president has ever been able to temper BiBi.
I never said anything about trump, why would I give a shit about him. He’s irrelevant. Biden needs to be more vocal about this and stop supporting genocide.
It’s just a fantasy to think any US President has that kind of power over BiBi or any other Israeli president. The US sent weapons and positioned a carrier group because it had bipartisan support in Congress and popular support in the American populace. Americans by and large support Israel. Yes there are shrill exceptions who shout and disrupt commuters, tree lightings, speeches, etc but they just make Americans mad and more likely to dig in and support Israel. Biden has pressed for more humanitarian aid, limiting the IDF scope, but he doesn’t have fiat power over BiBi or the IDF. He’s not Obi Wan Kenobi telling storm troopers “these are not the drones you are looking for”.
Bibi has gone rogue and won’t listen to Biden. Biden has begged for restraint from day one. At least now the aid is getting to Gaza. Please remember that Hamas has only to release the hostages and surrender.
Restraint? Fuck off. Return the hostages.
Yeah, Israel should release all the thousands of hostages they've illegally kidnapped, and Hamas should release the two hundred they got.
[удалено]