Israel/Hamas War Superthread

[GMDino]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/22/israel-seizes-800-hectares-of-palestinian-land-in-occupied-west-bank?fbclid=IwAR0Oq0VlPYDSZ4aNLANjffnaR9lUdE8alSsr-2g0bdwH8IxHWCMex6mXExA

Quote:Israel seizes 800 hectares of Palestinian land in occupied West Bank

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s announcement comes despite international pressure against Israel’s building of illegal settlements.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich lives in an Israeli settlement and has consistently backed settlement building [File: Maya Alleruzzo/AP Photo]
Published On 22 Mar 202422 Mar 2024

[/url][url=https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Israel%20seizes%20800%20hectares%20of%20Palestinian%20land%20in%20occupied%20West%20Bank&source=sharethiscom&related=sharethis&via=AJEnglish&url=https%3A%2F%2Faje.io%2Fl25xp4][/url]
Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has declared 800 hectares (1,977 acres) in the occupied West Bank as state land, in a move that will facilitate the use of the ground for settlement building.

The announcement on Friday came as United States Secretary of State [url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/22/us-top-diplomat-holds-talks-in-israel-as-netanyahu-vows-rafah-invasion]Antony Blinken visited Israel for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Smotrich underlined the government’s determination to press ahead with settlement building in the West Bank, despite growing international opposition.

“While there are those in Israel and in the world who seek to undermine our right to Judea and Samaria and the country in general, we promote settlement through hard work and in a strategic manner all over the country,” Smotrich said, using Biblical names for the area of the West Bank that are commonly employed in Israel.

The denomination of the land in the Jordan Valley as state land follows a similar designation of 300 hectares (740 acres) in the Maale Adumim area of the West Bank, which the Palestinians want as the core of a future independent state.

The US said last month that Israel’s expansion of settlements in the West Bank was inconsistent with international law, signalling a return to longstanding US policy that had been reversed by the previous administration of Donald Trump.

The change brought the US back into line with most of the world, which considers the settlements built on Palestinian territory Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war to be illegal. Israel itself disputes this view, citing the Jewish people’s historical and Biblical ties to the land.

Earlier this month, UN Human Rights Chief Volker Turk said, “The establishment and continuing expansion of settlements amount to … a war crime under international law.”


‘Complicity and cover’
Palestinian authorities condemned the land seizure and expansion of settlements.

The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the latest move a “crime” that is part of an “official policy racing against time to annex the West Bank and eliminate the possibility of creating a Palestinian state”.

“There are no morals, values, principles or international resolutions that can stop the extremist right,” the ministry said in a statement.

“The international failure to protect our people is complicity and cover for Israel’s ongoing evasion of punishment,” it added.
Smotrich, the influential leader of one of the hard-right pro-settler parties in Netanyahu’s coalition, himself lives in a settlement and has consistently backed settlement building.

Israeli settlement watchdog Peace Now said the announced seizure is the single largest since the 1993 Oslo Accords, and “2024 marks a peak in the extent of declarations of state land”.

Peace Now called the timing of the announcement a “provocation” as it came during the visit by Blinken, who has been critical of settlement expansion by Netanyahu’s government.

International pressure for a resumption of efforts to reach a two-state solution, with an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, has grown amid efforts to end the nearly six-month war in Gaza.

Little progress has been made in achieving Palestinian statehood since the signing of the Oslo Accords. Among the obstacles impeding it are expanding Israeli settlements.


SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

[Arturo Bandini]

https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/1bmuvm7/to_be_a_kid_in_palestine/

The kid was Hamas. Nothing to see.

[GMDino]

(03-25-2024, 05:36 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/1bmuvm7/to_be_a_kid_in_palestine/

The kid was Hamas. Nothing to see.

Hamas must have been hiding in his shirt or mouth!  

[Arturo Bandini]

(03-25-2024, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Hamas must have been hiding in his shirt or mouth!  

It wasn't even in Gaza. It's business as usual.

BTW, a cease fire has been voted at the UN but I definitely doubt it will be enforced. Bibi doesn't care. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

Good, Less places for Hamas to hide.

[GMDino]

UN passes resolution for a cease fire.

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240669997/united-nations-security-council-cease-fire-resolution-gaza-israel-war

US abstains rather than vetoes over lack of Hamas being mentioned.

Israel announces they will no longer tell the US about their battle plans as they say that are playing a large offensive in the strip...again.

Quote:Israel cancels high-level talks in Washington after cease-fire vote clears the U.N.

UPDATED MARCH 25, 20242:43 PM ET 
By 
Jaclyn Diaz
, 
Michele Kelemen


The United Nations Security Council meets on the situation in the Middle East, including the war in Gaza, at U.N. headquarters in New York on Monday.
Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images
JERUSALEM — The United Nations Security Council has voted 14-0 in favor of a resolution demanding a cease-fire in Gaza for the rest of Ramadan. The United States abstained from the vote, clearing the way for the measure to pass.

The U.S. decision to abstain drew a swift response from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who cancelled a visit by an Israeli delegation that had been set to travel to Washington, D.C., for talks on Israel's planned military operation in Rafah, in southern Gaza.

"Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear last night that if the US withdraws from its principled position, he will not send the Israeli delegation to the US. In light of the change in the American position, Prime Minister Netanyahu decided that the delegation would not go," the prime minister's office said in a statement.


State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said Netanyahu's statement was "a bit surprising and unfortunate."

The U.S. abstention was seen as a sign of a growing rift between the two close allies. Washington is urging Israel not to launch an offensive in Rafah — where more than a million Palestinians are sheltering. Israel says it has to go in to destroy remaining Hamas battalions there.

The high-level delegation, led by Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi, was due to meet with Biden administration officials to hear U.S. concerns over the Rafah operation and discuss an alternative strategy.

Despite the cancellation, a planned visit by the Israeli defense minister, Yoav Gallant, continued. Gallant was in Washington on Monday to meet with Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and National Security Adivser Jake Sullivan.

What this resolution says
The cease-fire resolution calls for the immediate, unconditional release of all hostages taken captive by Hamas during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel that killed 1,200 people. Israel's military offensive in Gaza in response to the attack has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health.

Ramadan is set to end in just over two weeks, on April 9, so if any cease-fire does manifest from the vote it may only be short-lived.

Monday's vote followed several failed attempts by the Security Council at brokering a cease-fire resolution — including one as recently as three days ago.

The U.S. had supported calls for a cease-fire only if they were directly connected to the release of some 130 hostages still in captivity under a deal being negotiated by diplomats from four nations.

"This resolution further explicitly recognizes the painstaking, non-stop negotiations being conducted by the Governments of Egypt, Israel, Qatar, and the United States to achieve such a release in the context of a ceasefire, which would also create space to surge more lifesaving humanitarian assistance for Palestinian civilians, and to build something more enduring," said Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a statement.
But because the final text of the resolution did not include "key language we view as essential, notably a condemnation of Hamas, we could not support it," Blinken added.

U.S Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield is now urging Security Council members to put pressure on Hamas to accept a deal being negotiated in Doha.

GOATS AND SODA
There's already 'catastrophic' hunger in Gaza. Who decides when to call it a 'famine?'

"We're getting closer to a deal for an immediate cease-fire with the release of all hostages, but we're not there yet," said Thomas-Greenfield after the vote.

National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby was adamant that the vote did not reflect a change in U.S. policy.

"We have been clear and we've been consistent in our support for a cease-fire as part of a hostage deal," Kirby said on a call after the vote with reporters. He reiterated that because the final text did not include a condemnation of Hamas for the Oct. 7 attacks, the U.S. abstained rather than voting in favor of the resolution.
"It seems like the prime minister's office is choosing to create a perception of daylight here when they don't need to do that," Kirby said.

He added, "Of course we still have Israel's back."

Representatives for Hamas and Israeli are still in Qatar for indirect negotiations over a cease-fire, but remain far apart on several details.

MIDDLE EAST CRISIS — EXPLAINED
Blinken urges Netanyahu not to attack Rafah as cease-fire resolution fails at the U.N.

Hamas said it welcomed the call from the Security Council for an immediate cease-fire, but called on the international body to pressure Israel to adhere to the cease-fire and stop the war.

U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, "This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable."

Jaclyn Diaz reported from Jerusalem. Michele Kelemen reported from Washington, D.C.

[Mike M (the other one)]

BOOM there it is.

"Hamas said it welcomed the call from the Security Council for an immediate cease-fire, but called on the international body to pressure Israel to adhere to the cease-fire and stop the war."

Ofc they welcome it. They need re-load time.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2024, 10:39 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: BOOM there it is.

"Hamas said it welcomed the call from the Security Council for an immediate cease-fire, but called on the international body to pressure Israel to adhere to the cease-fire and stop the war."

Ofc they welcome it. They need re-load time.

Biden worried about losing Michigan and some of the youth vote.  Be on notice America's allies, if it's politically expedient for Biden to stab you in the back he will do it.  For those naturally inclined to twist statements, I'd be fine with a call for a ceasefire, if it mentioned both combatants.  Can someone explain to me why a ceasefire call would only mention one side of the conflict?

[GMDino]

I guess they should have asked the resident experts in foreign policy? 

All seriousness aside Israel has made it clear this is no longer self defense and is now a war to destroy everyone and everything in Gaza.  This resolution only demands a cease-fire and places no blame on Israel for "starting" it.  (Honestly Netanyahu sounds like a child.)  BOTH sides should want their hostages back.  Israel should read the room and see that their plans are causing them to lose even more face with the rest of the world.

Does it mean Hamas will stop? No. Of course not.  But let's at least help the civilians and get the hostages exchanged and then they can got back to killing everyone, right?

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/25/1240669997/united-nations-security-council-cease-fire-resolution-gaza-israel-war

Quote:What this resolution says

The cease-fire resolution calls for the immediate, unconditional release of all hostages taken captive by Hamas during the Oct. 7 attack on Israel that killed 1,200 people. Israel's military offensive in Gaza in response to the attack has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health.


Ramadan is set to end in just over two weeks, on April 9, so if any cease-fire does manifest from the vote it may only be short-lived.

Monday's vote followed several failed attempts by the Security Council at brokering a cease-fire resolution — including one as recently as three days ago.


The U.S. had supported calls for a cease-fire only if they were directly connected to the release of some 130 hostages still in captivity under a deal being negotiated by diplomats from four nations.


"This resolution further explicitly recognizes the painstaking, non-stop negotiations being conducted by the Governments of Egypt, Israel, Qatar, and the United States to achieve such a release in the context of a ceasefire, which would also create space to surge more lifesaving humanitarian assistance for Palestinian civilians, and to build something more enduring," said Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a statement.


But because the final text of the resolution did not include "key language we view as essential, notably a condemnation of Hamas, we could not support it," Blinken added.


U.S Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield is now urging Security Council members to put pressure on Hamas to accept a deal being negotiated in Doha.

There's already 'catastrophic' hunger in Gaza. Who decides when to call it a 'famine?'
"We're getting closer to a deal for an immediate cease-fire with the release of all hostages, but we're not there yet," said Thomas-Greenfield after the vote.


National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby was adamant that the vote did not reflect a change in U.S. policy.


"We have been clear and we've been consistent in our support for a cease-fire as part of a hostage deal," Kirby said on a call after the vote with reporters. He reiterated that because the final text did not include a condemnation of Hamas for the Oct. 7 attacks, the U.S. abstained rather than voting in favor of the resolution.


"It seems like the prime minister's office is choosing to create a perception of daylight here when they don't need to do that," Kirby said.

He added, "Of course we still have Israel's back."


Representatives for Hamas and Israeli are still in Qatar for indirect negotiations over a cease-fire, but remain far apart on several details.

MIDDLE EAST CRISIS — EXPLAINED

Blinken urges Netanyahu not to attack Rafah as cease-fire resolution fails at the U.N.
Hamas said it welcomed the call from the Security Council for an immediate cease-fire, but called on the international body to pressure Israel to adhere to the cease-fire and stop the war.


U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, "This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable."

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-security-council-demands-immediate-ceasefire-gaza-2024-03-25/

Quote:Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the failure of the U.S. to veto the resolution was a "clear retreat" from its previous position and would hurt Israel's war efforts and bid to release more than 130 hostages still held by Hamas.


"Our vote does not, and I repeat that does not represent a shift in our policy," White House spokesperson John Kirby told reporters. "Nothing has changed about our policy. Nothing."

Following the U.N. vote, Netanyahu canceled a visit to Washington by a high-level delegation that was due to discuss a planned Israeli military operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where some 1.5 million Palestinians have sought shelter.


The U.S. was perplexed by Israel's decision and considered it an overreaction, said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.


Washington had been averse to the word ceasefire earlier in the nearly six-month-old war in the Gaza Strip and had used its veto power to shield ally Israel as it retaliated against Hamas for an Oct. 7 attack that Israel says killed 1,200 people.

But as famine looms in Gaza and amid growing global pressure for a truce in the war that Palestinian health authorities say has killed some 32,000 people, the U.S. abstained on Monday to allow the Security Council to demand an immediate ceasefire for the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, which ends in two weeks.


"It was the Hamas massacre that started this war," Israel's U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan said. "The resolution just voted upon makes it seem as if the war started by itself... Israel did not start this war, nor did Israel want this war."

Hamas welcomed the Security Council resolution, saying in a statement that it "affirms readiness to engage in immediate prisoner swaps on both sides."


Lebanon's caretaker prime minister, Najib Mikati, said countries should pressure Israel to stop attacking Lebanon. The Israeli military and Lebanese armed group Hezbollah have been trading fire across the southern Lebanese border. Hezbollah did not immediately comment on the U.N. vote.


FAMINE IMMINENT
















Item 1 of 7 Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations Riyad Mansour addresses the Security Council on the day of a vote on a Gaza resolution that demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan leading to a permanent sustainable ceasefire, and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, at U.N. headquarters in New York City, U.S., March 25, 2024. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly
[1/7]Palestinian Ambassador to the United Nations Riyad Mansour addresses the Security Council on the day of a vote on a Gaza resolution that demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan leading to a permanent sustainable ceasefire, and the immediate and unconditional release of all... Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab Read more

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield said the U.S. fully supported "some of the critical objectives in this non-binding resolution," but added that Washington did not agree with everything in the text, which also did not condemn Hamas.


"We believe it was important for the council to speak out and make clear that any ceasefire must come with the release of all hostages," Thomas-Greenfield told the council. "A ceasefire can begin immediately with the release of the first hostage and so we must put pressure on Hamas to do just that."


China's U.N. Ambassador Zhang Jun said Security Council resolutions are binding.


"For the millions of people in Gaza, who remain mired in an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, this resolution - if fully and effectively implemented - could still bring long awaited hope," he told the council.


Deputy U.N. spokesperson Farhan Haq said Security Council resolutions are international law, "so to that extent they are as binding as international law is."


However, ultimately if there is no ceasefire in Gaza, it is unlikely the Security Council will take any further action.


The resolution also "emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip and reiterates its demand for the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale."


Guterres urged Israel on Monday to lift all obstacles to aid into Gaza and allow convoys of the U.N. Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA into the north of the coastal enclave.


Famine is imminent and likely to occur by May in northern Gaza and could spread across the enclave by July, according to a U.N.-backed report by a global authority on food security released last week.


Displaced Palestinians in Rafah hoped a ceasefire would be implemented.


"We hope that this time there will be a ceasefire so that things will calm down and people can go back to their homes - enough bloodshed, destruction, martyrs, and death," Wafaa Al-Deais told Reuters as she made tea on a fire outside a tent.


The U.S. has vetoed three draft council resolutions on the war in Gaza. It has also previously abstained twice, allowing the council to adopt resolutions that aimed to boost aid to Gaza and called for extended pauses in fighting.


Russia and China have also vetoed two U.S. drafted resolutions on the conflict - in October and on Friday.


"This must be a turning point," an emotional Palestinian U.N. envoy Riyad Mansour told the Security Council after the vote on Monday. "This must lead to saving lives on the ground."

And while I am personally very sorry that it does not meet what you wanted even the US realized that they had to do something to avoid what is happening to the civilians there while still supporting Israel on the larger scale.  If Israel wants to turn its back on its largest and best supporter that will be on them.  The US will continue to support them if as they act like the US sided with Hamas.

Also, I'm well aware that I will be told I am wrong and I don't understand anything. 

I just feel that some kind of declaration needs to be made.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2024, 11:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: I guess they should have asked the resident experts in foreign policy? 

Awesome, we have to be experts in the field before commenting in this forum now?  I guess you're limited to threads about selling concrete now.

Quote:All seriousness aside Israel has made it clear this is no longer self defense and is now a war to destroy everyone and everything in Gaza. 

Destroying Hamas is self defense, especially after they started this conflict.  I guess the US should have been forced into a ceasefire after the Battle of Midway.

Quote:This resolution only demands a cease-fire and places no blame on Israel for "starting" it.  (Honestly Netanyahu sounds like a child.)  BOTH sides should want their hostages back.  Israel should read the room and see that their plans are causing them to lose even more face with the rest of the world.

Sure, a ceasefire.  So answer this direct question, why does it not mention both sides of the conflict?  This is deliberate, they didn't type this up in five minutes and then submit it.  Why does the demand not include both combatants?  Did they run out of ink?

Quote:Does it mean Hamas will stop? No. Of course not.  But let's at least help the civilians and get the hostages exchanged and then they can got back to killing everyone, right?

The hostages that Hamas are claiming they don't even the location of?  What happens when you get a ceasefire but no hostages returned?  The guys who gleefully slaughtered civilians, engaged in gang rape and then kidnapped toddlers and infants don't strike me as very trustworthy.

Quote:And while I am personally very sorry that it does not meet what you wanted even the US realized that they had to do something to avoid what is happening to the civilians there while still supporting Israel on the larger scale.  If Israel wants to turn its back on its largest and best supporter that will be on them.  The US will continue to support them if as they act like the US sided with Hamas.

Yes, it is very odd that I would want a demand for a ceasefire to mention all sides engaged in the conflict. So again, why is that?

Quote:Also, I'm well aware that I will be told I am wrong and I don't understand anything. 

I just feel that some kind of declaration needs to be made.

You have an excellent opportunity to show you know something by responding to the direct question in this post.

[hollodero]

(03-26-2024, 11:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Biden worried about losing Michigan and some of the youth vote.  Be on notice America's allies, if it's politically expedient for Biden to stab you in the back he will do it.

Well, aside from NATO that always was true for American foreign policy. The Kurds alone can tell lengthy tales about that.

(03-26-2024, 11:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For those naturally inclined to twist statements, I'd be fine with a call for a ceasefire, if it mentioned both combatants.  Can someone explain to me why a ceasefire call would only mention one side of the conflict?

I guess a reason would be that right now, Israel is on the offensive and Hamas does not, or cannot, do much offensive firing on their own. Note, this is not meant as a justification, it seems odd to me as well.

[Mike M (the other one)]

What boggles me is Israel said they would release 2k Gazans per day, but Hamas only wants 30 specific prisoners in exchange for 1 Israeli (IDF Women, Elderly, Children).

No matter how you try to spin that, it shows he's not interested in the well-being of the Gazans, only wants to build their army back up... for you know, another planned attack.

Whatever happened to the days of the US not negotiating with Terrorists?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2024, 12:35 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, aside from NATO that always was true for American foreign policy. The Kurds alone can tell lengthy tales about that.

I wish I could argue with that.  Abandoning the Kurds still rankles with me.

Quote:I guess a reason would be that right now, Israel is on the offensive and Hamas does not, or cannot, do much offensive firing on their own. Note, this is not meant as a justification, it seems odd to me as well.

We can certainly say it was intentional, because it was.  This begs the question why?  Why give Hamas, and by proxy, Iran such a major political victory?  

https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/03/26/hamas-leader-haniyeh-travels-iran-meetings-iranian-officials/

“Although this resolution came late and there may be some gaps that need to be filled, the resolution itself indicates that the Israeli occupation is experiencing unprecedented political isolation,” Haniyeh told a press conference in Tehran.



The Hamas chief, who is reportedly a billionaire and lives a life of luxury abroad in Qatar, also argued that Israel is “losing political cover and protection even in the Security Council” and that “the US is unable to impose its will on the international community.”

Outstanding job, Joe.  You just strengthened Iran's position in the region, handed Hamas a major propaganda victory and simultaneously made the US look like a *****.  


If I'm Israel I'd make a statement that they were amenable to a ceasefire, but since the UN resolution didn't mention with who the ceasefire should be with they'll have to keep fighting Hamas.

[Belsnickel]

(03-26-2024, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Outstanding job, Joe.  You just strengthened Iran's position in the region, handed Hamas a major propaganda victory and simultaneously made the US look like a *****.  

Let's be clear, continuing to aid Israel while saying "we really don't like what you're doing" makes us look like a ***** to the international community.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2024, 06:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Let's be clear, continuing to aid Israel while saying "we really don't like what you're doing" makes us look like a ***** to the international community.

Does it, though?  Consider the alternative, which we just witnessed.  A massive political and propaganda win for both Hamas and Iran, enhancing their position in the region, while lessening that of Israel.  Now ask yourself the following, if other Arab nations sense that the US no longer has Israel's back, are they more or less likely to fund efforts to attack and destabilize that nation or less?  Everyone here knows, well almost everyone, that if they had the power Israel's neighbors would eliminate the country entirely.  Giving them more leeway to do so seems like a poor choice.

At some point we'll have to come to terms with the fact that the end game here is Israel dominant enough not to be eff'ed with or no more Israel.  There is some wiggle room in the middle, but the spineless move in the UN was not that and certainly contributed to the latter.

[Belsnickel]

(03-26-2024, 07:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Does it, though?  Consider the alternative, which we just witnessed.  A massive political and propaganda win for both Hamas and Iran, enhancing their position in the region, while lessening that of Israel.  Now ask yourself the following, if other Arab nations sense that the US no longer has Israel's back, are they more or less likely to fund efforts to attack and destabilize that nation or less?  Everyone here knows, well almost everyone, that if they had the power Israel's neighbors would eliminate the country entirely.  Giving them more leeway to do so seems like a poor choice.

At some point we'll have to come to terms with the fact that the end game here is Israel dominant enough not to be eff'ed with or no more Israel.  There is some wiggle room in the middle, but the spineless move in the UN was not that and certainly contributed to the latter.

It does, because it looks like Israel gets to just walk all over us. When we continue to provide unconditional aid to a country that has explicitly expressed differences in position to the extent Israel has really makes us look like pushovers. I get what you're saying, here, but we were already looking like bitches and there is no graceful way out of that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2024, 07:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It does, because it looks like Israel gets to just walk all over us. When we continue to provide unconditional aid to a country that has explicitly expressed differences in position to the extent Israel has really makes us look like pushovers. I get what you're saying, here, but we were already looking like bitches and there is no graceful way out of that.

Given your position, what would have been the correct way out?  This UN resolution?

[Belsnickel]

(03-26-2024, 07:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given your position, what would have been the correct way out?  This UN resolution?

The correct way out would have been conditioning aid earlier on. At this point, any action we take is coming from a position of weakness.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-26-2024, 08:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The correct way out would have been conditioning aid earlier on. At this point, any action we take is coming from a position of weakness.

You're on to something here, but you're drawing some flawed conclusions.  First off, the US cannot be in a position of weakness in regard to Israel.  We not only provide a military guarantee, the strongest in the world, but we control the purse strings that enable Israel to exist as it does.  Hence we cannot be in a position of weakness, we can only be perceived as such.   Which brings me to my second point.  You don't put conditions on aid, or expectations for behavior out in the open.  You do it in private.  Doing so publicly lends itself to your perception of a position of weakness, which no one ever wants to be seen in.  Doing so publicly hardens positions and makes way for obdurate behavior, precisely because of the the unflattering alternative.

You make it clear that you have red lines, that if crossed have consequences.  Then you back that up if it happens.  That's the time you go public, when the line has already been crossed.  One thing though, you must never threaten an action that you don't plan on carrying out, that would only show you don't have the courage to follow through.  What Biden did was cut Israel's legs out from under them in as public a forum as possible, handing a major win to terrorists the world over.  I have my issues with his doddering person, but this is one of the worst foreign policy blunders in US history, and the repercussions of it are going to be far and long reaching.  Hamas is going to bed with a huge smile on their face today.  All those civilians they willingly offered up for death achieved a major goal of their organization.  

[Dill]

(03-26-2024, 08:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're on to something here, but you're drawing some flawed conclusions.  First off, the US cannot be in a position of weakness in regard to Israel.  We not only provide a military guarantee, the strongest in the world, but we control the purse strings that enable Israel to exist as it does.  Hence we cannot be in a position of weakness, we can only be perceived as such.   Which brings me to my second point.  You don't put conditions on aid, or expectations for behavior out in the open.  You do it in private.  Doing so publicly lends itself to your perception of a position of weakness, which no one ever wants to be seen in.  Doing so publicly hardens positions and makes way for obdurate behavior, precisely because of the the unflattering alternative.

You make it clear that you have red lines, that if crossed have consequences.  Then you back that up if it happens.  That's the time you go public, when the line has already been crossed.  One thing though, you must never threaten an action that you don't plan on carrying out, that would only show you don't have the courage to follow through.  What Biden did was cut Israel's legs out from under them in as public a forum as possible, handing a major win to terrorists the world over.  I have my issues with his doddering person, but this is one of the worst foreign policy blunders in US history, and the repercussions of it are going to be far and long reaching.  Hamas is going to bed with a huge smile on their face today.  All those civilians they willingly offered up for death achieved a major goal of their organization.  

Can't untangle this. Just a few counter comments then.

Looks like conditions on aid "in private" weren't working. And keeping Israel's legs under them without conditions has worked against our FP priorities.

Not using our aid and influence to force Israel into good faith dialogue with the PLO is THE foreign policy blunder here, an ongoing blunder over decades, and taken a step further by recognizing the illegal annexation of Golan and the movement of our embassy to Jerusalem. 

The Gaza war and looking "weak" now are the long and far-reaching repercussions of THAT blunder. Re-assigning the cause of future "repercussions" to the present moment, because the US finally showed a little temporary backbone, will just ensure more blunder. 

Last thing people advising the president should be worried about is whether Hamas "has a huge smile on their face" 
or whether prevention of mass famine would constitute some hyperbolic "major win to terrorists the world over."  

These are the worst possible parameters for setting policy goals.