Hamas no longer poses major threat to Israel, Biden says
Hamas no longer poses major threat to Israel, Biden says
www.politico.com
Just a moment...
46 comments
-
-
Biden telling Israel to stop, without interfering. Complain all you want about Biden, but he just did what you wanted.
-
We demand him to interfer. We demand hi to stop sending weapons and to sanction Israel. We demand war criminals to be brought to justice, instead we get the ICC threatened by the US.
Also the proposal of Biden is practically the same as the peace deal Hamas has accepted a few weeks back and was rejected by Israel, only then for the US to send more weapons, which since have been used to massacre women and children again and again.
-
Israel has actually rejected this "deal" already despite Hamas being in favor. Biden can fuck off and so can the hundreds of his sycophants on Lemmy. Before I get accused of supporting trump. I don't and I can't vote in your bs election anyway so shove that where the fucking sun don't shine.
-
-
You can't call it good faith to say, "hey, cut it out" while checks notes STILL SUPPLYING WEAPONS.
I didn't want him to be a hypocrite if that's what you're implying
-
All he did was create a headline. Nothing will come of it.
-
-
Palestinian civilians would also be allowed to return to their homes across the enclave
Oof.
They'll be welcome to pick up the rubble and extract the remains of their family on their own time and labor.
-
his agreement/plan also called for extensive reconstruction efforts for gaza....
-
Hundreds of thousands of temporary shelters would also be delivered.
Reconstruction will not be overnight and theres a lot of things like schools and hospitals to rebuild too.
The plan is to work with partners towards reconstruction. I know that terminology well: If I am to compare this to how this kind of stuff is handled domestically after say, a natural disaster: a lot of people are going to be left waiting a long time in rubble.
-
Only if it gets to phase 3
-
-
Palestinian civilians would also be allowed to return to their homes across the enclave
Trust me, if Bibi were allowed to craft policy unilaterally this WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Yes, tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed but THEY CAN AND MUST BE REBUILT INSTEAD OF CONVERTED INTO NEW SETTLEMENTS.
-
-
Cool, so you'll stop giving Israel money and/or weapons, right?
Padme stares at Anakin
Right?
-
Legally, he actually can't.
-
-
Likud poses a major threat to Palestine.
-
Likud poses a major threat to Israel.
-
-
After what they just did they just have radicalized way more people than the number of Hamas fighters they managed to kill.
-
Ok, so is he willing to finally enforce a cease-fire?
-
Even if he is, there's probably a law on the books restricting what he can do towards that end, because fucking AIPAC apparently had the advance plans for how the 10/7 war would play out and slapped a shitton of barriers down on cutting aid to israel or consequencing them in any way at the peak of the "criticizing israel is antisemitism!" mindset
-
Even if there's a legal text that enforces providing aid to Israel, there's also legal text forbidding it. If the executive can't solve the contradiction of different laws forcing them to do one thing and its opposite, simultaneously respecting both, they're at a position where they can choose which side they want to give priority to.
-
-
You can't "enforce" a cease fire without invading Israel and physically stop them. Sanctions are wrist slaps.
-
-
The threat is gone, Israel. You can stop killing innocent children now.
Oh I know you won't regardless. Honestly, why do you claim to be "defending yourself" anyway if you're basically doing this?
-
because artificial zionist state (aka Israel)leaders are a threat for themselves
46 comments
Hamas never posed an existential threat to Israel.
“Major” meaning they couldn’t pull off another October 7th
Though really they shouldn't have been able to pull off the first October 7th.
I really think there are two different aspects to the classification of the threat. It’s actually pretty analogous to the Afghanistan War.
First, neither Al Quaeda nor Hamas represent an existential threat to their opponents. The US hasn’t really faced a believable existential threat since the collapse of the USSR, Israel hasn’t really faced one since the 80s. Countries in Eastern Europe face an existential threat from Russia. And so on. Killing 1200 (or 3000) people, no matter how brutally or unjustified or evil it seems, it does not threaten to destroy the state of Israel. It is, of course, now an existential threat to Netanyahu, which is one reason why it’s being pursued with such enthusiasm.
The second aspect builds from the first and questions whether the solution pursued by Israel (and the US) were both efficient (ie proportional to the threat so as not to divert attention and resources from other threats) and effective. They have to be expected to achieve specific and measurable goals and timelines.
The ability to pull off an Oct 7th might have been equally well but more efficiently and effectively with intelligence and commando units, and Israel would have been given free rein by most of the planet to do so.