US Election November 5th

[Ed Weber]

I thought Biden would be the start of a more "moral" American foreign policy.
His behaviour in relation to Gaza, the left bank and towards Palestinians would rival the worst behaviours of any of his predecessors.
He has openly supported, financially, politically and militarily Israel in their genocide and ethnic cleansing.

“A decent man”- Not how I would describe him. “A mass murderer” would be closer to the mark.

What do you do when an ally does something contrary to your previous commitments?
Biden is the president of the U.S. and while may have some influence, has no real say in what Israel does. Ally is not code for babysitter.
Plenty of blame to go around, lets just make sure it's pointed in the right direction.

 

[Spectric]

You will always be judged on your actions, our new PM lost seats in the last election because of his open support for genocide and Israel and Biden is no different to many other past presidents where history has judged them along with many other world leaders. I do wonder what some of the past presidents would have done when Israel stuck two fingers up at them though, would they have just taken it on the chin.

 

[Ed Weber]

It's pretty mach a lose, lose situation.
No matter what you do, someone is going to be angry, right or wrong.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You will always be judged on your actions, our new PM lost seats in the last election because of his open support for genocide and Israel ...

In all the probably hundreds of conversations in the weeks up til the election I didn't hear Israel mentioned once.

 

[martin45]

Ed Weber said:
"What do you do when an ally does something contrary to your previous commitments?
Biden is the president of the U.S. and while may have some influence, has no real say in what Israel does. Ally is not code for babysitter."

He could have cut off the supply of bombs, rockets, and missiles for the slaughter but he didn't.

He could have stopped the diplomatic protection he was giving Israel in the UN, but again he didn't.

He had plenty of options to stop the slaughter but instead he supported it!

 

[martin45]

Spectric said:
You will always be judged on your actions, our new PM lost seats in the last election because of his open support for genocide and Israel and Biden is no different to many other past presidents where history has judged them along with many other world leaders. I do wonder what some of the past presidents would have done when Israel stuck two fingers up at them though, would they have just taken it on the chin. (my bold)

It took Israel 20 minutes to stop when Ronald Regan made a phone call. I don't think even the most ardent apologists of Israel would call Ronald Regan a peacenik!

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/0...eagan-telephoned-Israeli-Prime/8829397972800/

 

[martin45]

Ed Weber said:
"It's pretty mach a lose, lose situation.
No matter what you do, someone is going to be angry, right or wrong."

Definitely when there's 40,000 plus people murdered by your lack of action!

 

[martin45]

I wonder how Trump would have reacted if Netanyahu had treated him with the same disrespect that he showed to Biden?

Its not often a country gives the old forked fingers to an American president and gets rewarded!

 

[Ed Weber]

Yes, it's such an easy position to be in when you only look at one side.
Being a head of state is not as simple as your posts would suggest. Knee-jerk reaction are rarely the answer.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

The Gaza apologists perhaps ought to reflect on the brutality of Hamas on 7th October.

Israel has every right to defend itself. The US and Europe are right in supporting a democracy rather than the terrorist, dictatorship and unstable which "govern" many parts of the Middle East,

The above is not to suggest all is OK:

• the Israeli response appears "disproportionate" in the context of the impacts on the civilian population (see next bullet)
• Hamas have lost the battle, yet will not surrender. Hamas, who operate embedded in the civilian infrastructure must take some responsibility for impact on civilian population
• the stated strategy of eliminating Hamas seems flawed - they will return under another banner with numbers reinforced by the fall out from the destruction and death wrought
• it is unclear if there is a wider strategy at play to force the international community to actively find a solution - something they have failed to do in 75 years of instability and conflict.

Genocide is a damning accusation - according to the UN definition:

To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

Israel will claim (with some justification) that their goal is the defeat of Hamas, a terrorist group who started the current conflict. That civilians were caught in the cross-fire, given Hamas tactics was inevitable.

None of this makes it good or acceptable - but a step change is required to find a more permanent stable solution, without which conflict will repeat every 5-15 years!

 

[TRITON]

The Gaza apologists perhaps ought to reflect on the brutality of Hamas on 7th October.

Israel has every right to defend itself. The US and Europe are right in supporting a democracy rather than the terrorist, dictatorship and unstable which "govern" many parts of the Middle East,

The above is not to suggest all is OK:

• the Israeli response appears "disproportionate" in the context of the impacts on the civilian population (see next bullet)
• Hamas have lost the battle, yet will not surrender. Hamas, who operate embedded in the civilian infrastructure must take some responsibility for impact on civilian population
• the stated strategy of eliminating Hamas seems flawed - they will return under another banner with numbers reinforced by the fall out from the destruction and death wrought
• it is unclear if there is a wider strategy at play to force the international community to actively find a solution - something they have failed to do in 75 years of instability and conflict.

Genocide is a damning accusation - according to the UN definition:

To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

Israel will claim (with some justification) that their goal is the defeat of Hamas, a terrorist group who started the current conflict. That civilians were caught in the cross-fire, given Hamas tactics was inevitable.

None of this makes it good or acceptable - but a step change is required to find a more permanent stable solution, without which conflict will repeat every 5-15 years!

Lets also then look at Russia

Russia invaded Ukraine over perceived threats They have that right don't they ?
Yet Russia only has the civilian death rate in 2 years of total war(actually I don't really class it as total, but thats another point) that Israel reached in 3 months

The difference is the Russians are fighting a heavily armed national military, with all the toys(on both sides)
Were Russia to adopt the Israelis way of fighting, the civilian death toll would be over a million. But it isnt.
The Ukrainian people make up the Ukrainian military, they also produce/fix/etc weaponry, so according to the rules you're setting down, Russia would be well within its rights to carpet bomb entire cities, and make civilians as big a target as the Israelis.

What do you think would be the western reaction if Russia did that ?.

Who then are the targets Israel is focusing on ?
The Palestinian people, civilians specifically.
So all this nonsense about Hamas are embedded in the population and thus the Israelis are legitimized in bombing them is utter nonsense. The Israelis are targeting the population, not to try to kill Hamas, but to kill civilians.

We have a term for that. We call it ethnic cleansing.

 

[Fergie 307]

The Israelis have always tended to push the relationship with the US as far as possible, their current government being worse than most.
That is why it is so important for the President to slap them down when they get out of line, since the US is really the only country that can exercise any meaningful control over them.
Reagan is a great example. He regarded the Israeli response to actions by the PLO as completely over the top, so told them to stop.
As far as I am aware the precise details of that conversation have never been released, so we don't know what was said. What does seem clear is that Reagan is described by various people as having been pretty mad about what was going on.
Whatever you might think of his politics Reagan tended to be pretty direct, so I can imagine he didn't mince his words. Even the implied threat of a reduction of US support for Israel would have been enough to make any Israeli premier take notice.
But Biden is not cut from the same cloth. I doubt he would be as forthright, and even if he were, I doubt it the Israelis would believe he would actually do anything, so they could happily ignore him.
So the various vague requests from the US to reduce civilian casualties were met with an assurance from the Israelis that they were doing that, and both sides seem to have found that satisfactory.
Meanwhile the arms continue to flow, and the civilian deaths to continue.
I very much doubt Reagan would have stood for such nonsense, or that the Israelis would have doubted for a moment that he would have taken action had they ignored him.
Trump doesn't give a s**t about the Palestinians, and has frequently suggested that Israel needs to "get on with the job", so god knows what his policy will be but it seems a fair bet it won't be an improvement.
The only hope might be if someone can appeal to his vanity, and persuade him that a peace deal would reflect well on him. He would no doubt claim it was "the greatest peace deal ever made, no one else could have done this".
That might persuade him to exert some pressure on Israel, I very much doubt that anything else will.

 

[Cabinetman]

Trump has said that neither the Russians or Hammas would have dared start the wars as they did had he been President, I do tend to agree with him and that it was Biden weakness that allowed them. He also has said the war in Ukraine will be over very soon after he wins in November. We shall see.

 

[TheUnicorn]

I can't understand, given that Kamala Harris has polled so badly for years now, why the democrats seem to have chosen to accept her as their candidate. She will have to work doubly hard just get back to a neutral position with voters, putting trump squarely ahead.

 

[spiritburner]

He needed to go sadly he was a good politician, but I think he lost his marbles, at least now Trump will have a new rival and it's quite possible he could lose the tables have turned in the last 24 to 48 hours and although I'm not a left-wing supporter I hate to think of Trump running the US and probably the rest of the world the guy is a narcissistic megalomaniac not to mention a convicted felon and a misogynist. People seem to forget that including women in the Republican party and I find it amazing that they put up with it.

You have to look at the way you do deals in business to see the way he deals in politics. He's an *** stripper.

 

[stuart little]

I reckon Harrison Ford should stand, as he has previously 'played' POTUS!
After all, look back at Ronny Reagan, that was his best roll when he 'played' POTUS! The special effects were pretty good too, look at how realistic the assassination attempt appeared!

 

[Rhossydd]

Lets also then look at Russia
Russia invaded Ukraine over perceived threats They have that right don't they ?

There's a massive difference between "perceived threats" and actual attacks. Hamas have been rocketing and bombing Israel for years.

 

[whereistheceilidh]

In all the probably hundreds of conversations in the weeks up til the election I didn't hear Israel mentioned once.

Then you certainly listen to different conversations or use different news souces to those I do.

 

[Fergie 307]

He needed to go sadly he was a good politician, but I think he lost his marbles, at least now Trump will have a new rival and it's quite possible he could lose the tables have turned in the last 24 to 48 hours and although I'm not a left-wing supporter I hate to think of Trump running the US and probably the rest of the world the guy is a narcissistic megalomaniac not to mention a convicted felon and a misogynist. People seem to forget that including women in the Republican party and I find it amazing that they put up with it.

You have to look at the way you do deals in business to see the way he deals in politics. He's an *** stripper.

I see Trump is already whining about the money he has spent campaigning against Biden now he has withdrawn. No doubt his fans will cough up yet more for the campaign against Harris. Perish the thought that it should be about policies rather than personalities.
Personally I would love to see her win. Not least because Trump hates to lose, but to lose to a woman would probably be a particularly bitter pill for the creep to swallow.

 

[woodieallen]

.... He also has said the war in Ukraine will be over very soon after he wins in November. We shall see.

Presumably because he will remove all support for Ukraine thereby letting his master, Pukin, take the entire country over. Who's next? Poland?