I’m sure the Israelis always planned for Genocide but I’m sure Biden was working to prevent it.
So the op is about how Biden was not doing anything to prevent it and how he was just letting them do whatever they wanted. Did you actually read any part of it?
Are you just arguing old talking points whenever you see people being critical of how Biden handled the situation?
I know this is a wordy response but you included a full fucking amnesty international article in your reply so if anything mine is much more concise.
The Amnesty International article your shared calls on USA, Germany, UK, and other key EU members to end shipments of arms to Israel. Full stop, that was never going to happen. To remove the largest strategic military position in the region is absolutely not on the table, whether we like it or not that is a fact. All of those nations, to some extent, heavily limited arms deals to Israel after the occupation began, which was good.
Hypothetically, if we did cut off all arms to Israel, then they would be surrounded by very angry adversaries that they have been fighting for almost a century. Israel would just become another slightly different genocide and you would be sitting there explaining it to the next generation the same way the old belligerent honkies are trying to explain it to us now.
The best possible outcome, in my opinion, would have been the USA removing Netanyahu from power by not acknowledging his authority after his previous removal for corruption and forcing a new election to be held in Israel.
The most realistic outcome would be propping up the Israelis, conditionally to the extent that they could lose some land to adversaries if they’re not following the rules, and also propping up Palestine starting with the rebuilding of their infrastructure and peacekeeping with foreign troops such that any attack on Palestinians could result in conflict with those nations.
1 which wasn’t an actual ceasefire, just a temporary one which Israel could use to rearm, which is why others vetoed it. There was even a vote later to have it turn into a permanent ceasefire but then the usa vetoed that.
The draft does not include provisions supporting ongoing diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire - an element of the U.S. resolution.
And
RUSSIA, CHINA OBJECTED TO U.S. RESOLUTION
Russia’s ambassador to the U.N., Vassily Nebenzia, said the U.S.-led resolution was “exceedingly politicized” and contained an effective green light for Israel to mount a military operation in Rafah, a city on the southern tip of the Gaza Strip where more than half of the enclave’s 2.3 million residents have been sheltering in makeshift tents.
“This would free the hands of Israel and it would result in all of Gaza and its entire population having to face destruction, devastation, or expulsion,” Nebenzia told the meeting.
He said a number of non-permanent members of the Security Council had drafted an alternative resolution and said there was no reason for members not to support it.
China’s U.N. ambassador, Zhang Jun, criticized the text proposed by the U.S. for not clearly stating its opposition to a planned military operation by Israel in Rafah, which he said could lead to severe consequences. He said Beijing also supported the alternative.
When you have to start your argument with a fucking Merriam Webster definition, you should realize that your argument is shit. (This is of course the royal “you”)
If you look back on your exchange with Gofer you’ll find that you brought up a topic completely different from Gofer’s point not once but twice. No matter your political beliefs, that’s not good faith discussion. If anything it’s the sort of thing we (as in everyone to the left of Reagan) make fun of when right wingers and tankies do it.
Gofer presented an article. I continued the discussion presented to me. If you don’t want your statement to include the entirety of an article, then maybe just quote a piece of it and use the article as citation.
That’s the problem when they focus on the aesthetics and ‘optics’ over the truth.
The evidence is overwhelming and has been for well over a year, from reports by international human rights organizations to polls on support for the weapon embargo
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/
So the op is about how Biden was not doing anything to prevent it and how he was just letting them do whatever they wanted. Did you actually read any part of it?
Are you just arguing old talking points whenever you see people being critical of how Biden handled the situation?
I know this is a wordy response but you included a full fucking amnesty international article in your reply so if anything mine is much more concise.
The Amnesty International article your shared calls on USA, Germany, UK, and other key EU members to end shipments of arms to Israel. Full stop, that was never going to happen. To remove the largest strategic military position in the region is absolutely not on the table, whether we like it or not that is a fact. All of those nations, to some extent, heavily limited arms deals to Israel after the occupation began, which was good.
Hypothetically, if we did cut off all arms to Israel, then they would be surrounded by very angry adversaries that they have been fighting for almost a century. Israel would just become another slightly different genocide and you would be sitting there explaining it to the next generation the same way the old belligerent honkies are trying to explain it to us now.
The best possible outcome, in my opinion, would have been the USA removing Netanyahu from power by not acknowledging his authority after his previous removal for corruption and forcing a new election to be held in Israel.
The most realistic outcome would be propping up the Israelis, conditionally to the extent that they could lose some land to adversaries if they’re not following the rules, and also propping up Palestine starting with the rebuilding of their infrastructure and peacekeeping with foreign troops such that any attack on Palestinians could result in conflict with those nations.
I love you ignored the part of it being a genocide which is why I linked it.
And ignored the part of reading the article about how Biden refused to stop the genocide.
Now your argument is somehow rebuilding Palestinian land and doing peacekeeping, which again was something the us under Biden vetoed at the un
The US also proposed ceasefires to the UN which were also Vetoed by China.
1 which wasn’t an actual ceasefire, just a temporary one which Israel could use to rearm, which is why others vetoed it. There was even a vote later to have it turn into a permanent ceasefire but then the usa vetoed that.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-security-council-fails-pass-us-resolution-calling-immediate-ceasefire-gaza-2024-03-22/
And
I’m sure Russia and China are real worried about those people. /s
Excellent rebuttal to refute evidence showing Biden did anything to stop the genocide.
10/10
You’re the one defending their veto while condemning others.
Explaining the one they did that you claim is only thing that prevented biden from acting
Still haven’t shown anything that resolves biden of supporting the genocide
Dude, you know you’ve lost the plot when you’re resorting to deflecting and whataboutism.
When you have to start your argument with a fucking Merriam Webster definition, you should realize that your argument is shit. (This is of course the royal “you”)
Clearly my good faith discussion was wasted on you and Gofer.
If you look back on your exchange with Gofer you’ll find that you brought up a topic completely different from Gofer’s point not once but twice. No matter your political beliefs, that’s not good faith discussion. If anything it’s the sort of thing we (as in everyone to the left of Reagan) make fun of when right wingers and tankies do it.
Gofer presented an article. I continued the discussion presented to me. If you don’t want your statement to include the entirety of an article, then maybe just quote a piece of it and use the article as citation.
Sigh why do I even bother? Say hello to the concentration camps for me.
My favorite part is this all they can do is repeat already disproven talking points.
That’s the problem when they focus on the aesthetics and ‘optics’ over the truth.
The evidence is overwhelming and has been for well over a year, from reports by international human rights organizations to polls on support for the weapon embargo