Why the fuck is The Guardian giving Trump credit for the latest supposed cease-fire, and writing about him as if he's skilled at diplomacy?
‘A stern message’: how return of Trump loomed over Gaza ceasefire negotiations
Could be that Trump is responsible, in the same way that Reagan was in '80.
In other words, it wouldn't be the first time fascists deliberately delayed hostage negotiations to fuck over non-fascist US politicians, if that is indeed what happened.
Are you saying Biden wanted to end the war, but couldn't? Because I remember him circumventing congress to send military aid to Isreal, more than once. No one was forcing his hand, they were actually doing the opposite.
Hmm, good point.
What? Congress approved a bunch of aid, but needed to be notified when a chunk above a certain dollar amount got sent, and he skirted the rules to send big chunks without triggering the notifications. That's definitely not good, but it's not going around them to send more. Actually, when he briefly paused the already-approved aid, congress started squawking about how upset they were that he would do that.
When did he go around congress to send aid? I might have missed it but I'm not aware of that happening.
The difference being, we at least got the hostages back after Reagan was done treason'ing to win the election. Netanyahu is still going to kill Palestine, and Trump isn't smart enough or tough enough to stop him, and wouldn't care even if he was.
Because this time around America is fully onboard with mask off fascism. So all the media will start lining up so he doesnt mushroom stamp them.
The Guardian isn't American, though.
I've noticed they have a noticeable trickle of articles that are flaming propaganda like this, though. Absolute lunacy of a type that serves some kind of pro-Trump / pro-Russia viewpoint, and then the other 99% of the time, it's just normal reporting. It's very bizarre.
I could be wrong, but don't they have offices in the UK and US?
They are stroking the shaft before getting ready for the gravy
They're reporting what they got from Israeli media, including The Times of Israel. If you don't like that you can go find a source that disproves those claims.
I read the article. I'm saying that in my opinion, the lede is a bunch of horseshit, and expanded a little about why. The rest of it is pretty factual. My source proving that I think the lede is horseshit is that I'm the one that said it.
I've noticed that "you have to have PROOF in order to say anything, including judgements of opinion, speculation, criticism, and everything else. I have no particular criticism aside from you have to have PROOF." has become a common refrain from a whole series of different people, all of a sudden as of I think a couple of weeks ago. I can't remember hearing it before it started popping up from a few different people. Must be a coincidence.
Here ya go
Ahh yes, the time-tested truthiness of a .ml comment.
It's possible, just possible, that Trump decided he wants credit as a peacemaker. We've said for a year that all Biden needs to do is cut Israel off from weapons. If that's what Trump went with then it's entirely possible.
Because it certainly isn't Biden's doing. He's done nothing but write sternly worded letters and repeat debunked IDF propaganda.
It’s possible, just possible, that Trump decided he wants credit as a peacemaker.
No it isn't.
We’ve said for a year that all Biden needs to do is cut Israel off from weapons.
All the US government needs to do is cut Israel off from weapons.
Biden certainly didn't hesitate to send them anything they needed, but also, the idea that he could have just decided that he wasn't sending the congressionally mandated aid, and it would have worked, and he and the Democrats would have suffered no consequences at all either electoral or geopolitical, is a fantasy.
I agree that he shouldn't have done what he did. But the idea that it would have been easy to cut off aid or make a credible threat to do so is pure fantasy.
There's actually a really good lesson here: That's exactly what Trump tried to do with Ukraine's military aid, and it didn't work, because that's not how it works. He held up the aid, people found out, and he got forced to send the aid anyway, because it's not his decision alone.
Congress would have had to repeal the Leahy Law to get aid going to Israel again. It was absolutely possible and with a proper investigation and airing of the facts Democrats would have backed him. It would be impossible not to. Instead he covered for Israel at every turn, even shutting down government experts trying to raise red flags.
To be clear, you don't believe that Trump, the guy famous for being easy to manipulate by stroking his ego, would be influenced by grandiose titles like "peacemaker"?
There's no real diplomatic skill involved. It's simply threatening to cut off the zios from their tools of genocide. It's super easy and straightforward but genocide joe somehow couldn't figure it out, most likely because he's a brainwashed loser.
It's more likely that Putin amd Trump are planning to cut funding in the middle east because this was all a proxy war for the Ukraine proxy war. And since Trump was elected to obey Putin he will pull out of Ukraine, allowing Russia to pull funding from the middle east.
Is there some kind of /c/aneurysmposting, but for semantics instead of syntax? I read this about 3-4 times and I still can't even follow how you're trying to say funding for Israel is related to Russia, or what you mean by "a proxy war for the Ukraine proxy war."
If I have missed something, and there's some kind of galaxy-brain way in which Israel's operation in Gaza is a proxy war for Ukraine, enlighten me, but I feel like you're spouting advanced nonsense for some reason I can't grasp right now.
In what some Israeli media described as a “tense meeting”, Witkoff delivered his message. The president-elect was emphatic that he wanted a ceasefire-for-hostages deal. Trump wanted the war in Gaza finished. He had other fish to fry.
Seems pretty clear to me, Trump's guy did what we've been demanding Biden and Blinken to do on day one: use the US' leverage to force the Israeli government to take a deal. It was never Hamas that stood in the way of a hostage deal, it was Netanyahu (he was even threatening the families of the hostages to shut up about their family members). The Biden strategy didn't work and possibly even lost the Democrats their election. This is the same deal Biden couldn't push through back in March, rejected by Netanyahu, because the missing ingredient was the US telling Israel to take the deal or no more weapons.
There could be other things going on, obviously, I wouldn't put it past Trump to offer something else in exchange that Biden wouldn't ever offer, or that Netanyahu was deliberately scuttling deals in order to sabotage Biden politically, but in either case, it's another example of Democrats shooting themselves in the foot because they didn't want to listen to the left.
Trump’s guy did what we’ve been demanding Biden and Blinken to do on day one: use the US’ leverage to force the Israeli government to take a deal.
That's what the article says. I do not believe it. I think based on what I know of Trump and Netanyahu, that there may be a small cessation in the fighting or there may not (anywhere from a few days to a few months), and then Israel's slaughter of "Hamas" meaning all the Palestinians in Gaza, will continue unabated and the dying will greatly accelerate as famine and lack of medicine finish the gruesome job that they already have well-underway.
I think your giving credit to Trump as a tough negotiator, and also as someone who cares at all about Israel stopping their current genocidal operation, sounds like it's based more on the idea of telling a narrative about Biden, than on anything resembling reality.
The Biden strategy didn’t work
True. He might as well have finally drawn a line in the sand and tried to overturn decades of US support for Israel's ongoing holocaust, because what he did was a crime against humanity. Why he did it, I don't know, but in any sane world it would be as monstrous a stain on his legacy in the general public's mind just as much as it is in Lemmy's mind.
and possibly even lost the Democrats their election.
You've got to be joking. The price of eggs being high, and the American media landscape being a grand wasteland of propaganda and trash, lost the Democrats their election. If he had come out swinging "in favor of Hamas," as that same American media would have portrayed it, that same American media would have eviscerated him. He might have gotten impeached for it.
You are vastly overestimating the extent to which the American public knows and cares about the killing that's going on in the Gaza strip.
There could be other things going on, obviously, I wouldn’t put it past Trump to offer something else in exchange that Biden wouldn’t ever offer
Yeah, maybe. Like the promise that sometime next year, after some wholly predictable "terrorism" by Hamas, he can start doing the same thing in the West Bank, and the US won't say a word even in these bullshit "stop or I'll say stop again" Biden phone calls, and instead will give him full-throated support and a historic flow of new weapons and diplomatic cover, so that by the end of Trump's presidency Palestine will be no more. I definitely think that's possible. I think it's actually more unlikely than even odds that the Gaza strip will no longer exist, as a place for Palestinians, at the end of Trump's upcoming term. It's happened to plenty of places in what used to be Palestine.
Not that any of that excuses Biden running cover for him for the last year, of course. You're not wrong about Biden's complicity, just about its electoral consequences, I think.
I don't doubt that Israel will just continue bombing whatever they please in Gaza, that was always going to happen. Israel had already killed more than 2000 Gazans before Oct 7 happened in the same year, and similarly they haven't retreated from Lebanon despite the cease fire agreement demanding that as well. That was basically always going to happen no matter who was in charge.
I guess we'll see how it all shakes out, I guess.
That's what the article says. I do not believe it.
You're gonna need some real evidence if you're claiming The Guardian is publishing straight up lies.
I think your giving credit to Trump as a tough negotiator,
It's not about Trump being a tough negotiator; Trump simply doesn't intend to be Netanyahu's bitch like Biden was. He also doesn't give two shits about the Zionist lebensraum project so to him Israel's war is nothing but a headache. Trump proved what we all know: That when the POTUS makes a real demand from Israel that demand is realized. There's nothing to even negotiate.
You've got to be joking.
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/kamala-harris-gaza-israel-biden-election-poll
Because the views of Trump apologists are just as valuable to media as the views of sane folk.
I clocked that in my newsfeed this morning and thought exactly the same.
I expected better from them but lately they have been going downhill.
