- cross-posted to:
- israel_palestine_pol@lemmy.world
- theguardian@rss.ponder.cat
- cross-posted to:
- israel_palestine_pol@lemmy.world
- theguardian@rss.ponder.cat
You must log in or register to comment.
They are stroking the shaft before getting ready for the gravy
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.
So it would have been super easy, all he would have had to do would be bring the American people, including the Democrats in congress led by Nancy Pelosi, to grasp and agree to the idea that they’ve been abetting monstrous war crimes this entire time, and need to stop, even if the result is not only a reckoning with what US military aid is really enabling, but also the possibility that Israel might get overrun by massive enemies it is completely surrounded by which would, more or less, crush it like a bug without our formidable assistance in terms of military aid and deterrance.
Sounds great. I do actually agree with you that he should have done that. The idea that it would have been super easy I am less convinced by.
but also the possibility that Israel might get overrun by massive enemies it is completely surrounded by which would, more or less, crush it like a bug without our formidable assistance in terms of military aid and deterrance.
While that is a view that has been cultivated by Israel, and would have to be combatted in the electorate and elected officials of the US in case of policy change, it’s not realistic. Considering its primary foes in past conflicts, Egypt and Jordan, are US-aligned and cold-but-cooperative towards Israel; and Syria, which is… not currently in any position to offer serious hostility. The Saudis have no serious interest in destroying Israel, and while Iraq is subverted enough by Iran that, if push came to shove, it might allow Iranian forces to cross, it’s unlikely to take a serious interest in the matter itself. And I don’t think even the clerical fascists of Iran are crazy enough to think they have that kind of long-distance force-projection capability for a serious and sustained war - especially not when the Saudis would love any excuse to fuck with them, whatever claims of detente have been recently.
I don’t think even the clerical fascists of Iran are crazy enough to think they have that kind of long-distance force-projection capability for a serious and sustained war
The former government of Yemen has its hand up. Yes? Something to share with the class?
Israel is 8,500 square miles big. That’s it. There are cities in China that are bigger than Israel.
I mostly agree with the rest of your assessment, although I would argue that a lot of that reluctance to attack Israel from the US-aligned states in the region could change dramatically if the US started making noises about how we weren’t on Team Israel anymore. Some leader might get stars in their eyes about how they could get written into the history of the Middle East forever, and not have to deal with any American aircraft carriers coming around and making him regret it. But assuming that Iran wouldn’t take the opportunity to fuck up Israel with quite a bit of cooperation and safe passage from somebody in the area seems crazy to me.
Iran is 636,000 square miles big. Size isn’t always the determining factor, but they’re also not a weak regional power or shy about picking fights with dangerous opponents.
Again: I think we should have threatened Israel with this type of outcome, if they don’t stop committing a stain on the soul of the world. I’m just saying it is not a small consequence to start tossing around, for someone who works in a building where Israel is for some godforsaken reason regarded as the good guys. Also, Trump seems to love Israel and strongly dislike all arabs, so it’s weird to me that there’s this kind of propaganda realignment that says he’s invested in stopping Israel from what they’re doing. I think he wants to accelerate it, and I think that’s going to be the result.
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”?
I think he would be extremely flattered by the title of peacemaker, just as he would be flattered by the idea that he is the least racist person you’ll ever meet, a great husband, skilled at business, or kind and generous. I think the idea of actually taking steps to be any of those things is abhorrent to him. In particular, the idea of doing unpopular (anti-Israel) things to save the lives of a bunch of Arab terrorists, I think is so laughably incompatible with Trump that it’s very weird that people here and at The Guardian are saying it with a straight face.
People are also saying with a straight face that all anybody had to do was call up Israel and tell them firmly to stop, and that would fix it. I think they’re only saying that so they can imply that Biden is bad because he refused to do that. It’s an absurd thing to say.
So no, you’re saying he can’t be influenced through this kind of flattery. I think you’re giving him too much credit. This guy flip-flopped on a Tik Tok ban just because he started getting followers. He’ll flip on anything if he thinks it will make him popular.
Speaking of popularity, pro-Palestinian viewpoints are extremely popular amongst US youth. I don’t agree with you that this is the unpopular viewpoint. Many news outlets are even claiming a Tik Tok ban is being used to silence majority pro-Palestinian opinions. Like others here, I think it’s crazy to believe he won’t be influenced through this kind of coverage. Furthermore, it would be a shame if Trump’s fragile ego wasn’t taken advantage of in this instance to help bring an end to the genocide. Unfortunately, it seems like some people would rather have the killing continue than manipulate Trump through the mere suggestion that he can bring peace.
Furthermore, it would be a shame if Trump’s fragile ego wasn’t taken advantage of in this instance to help bring an end to the genocide. Unfortunately, it seems like some people would rather have the killing continue than manipulate Trump through the mere suggestion that he can bring peace.
What kind of homeopathic Jedi mind trick is this? I don’t want the killing to continue. That’s why I didn’t want Trump, and why I am attempting to talk sense into people who for some asinine reason are celebrating what a good job he’s going to do of stopping it. I cannot believe that on a supposedly technie / leftist social media platform I am having to explain to people that Trump isn’t a caring or capable individual when they are swearing he’s accomplished a great success for human rights before even coming into office. I cannot fathom what would make any intelligent person, at this point and watching his track record so far, think that.
How popular do you think pro-Palestinian viewpoints are among the news Trump watches, or any of the people he talks to? The people influencing him, I think, mostly think all the Palestinians should die and the faster the better. That’s not going to change because of a story in The Guardian, or The Wall Street Journal, or on Fox News. For one thing, even if he somehow were spurred to action, it would require actual toughness and cleverness in dealing with Netanyahu, which Trump doesn’t have.
It’s absolutely true that Trump can be manipulated to do various things almost without limit, by people flattering him. The degree to which he cares about what pro-Palestinian youth in the United States think has nothing to do with whether they think he’s doing a good job being a peacemaker. It is limited to whether they are going to make a problem which warrants him deploying the National Guard against them with live ammunition.
It’s not a Jedi mind trick to suggest that if Trump can be easily manipulated, those who care should try to influence him towards good. It doesn’t matter if “being good” is Trump’s desire or not. I absolutely agree with Maggoty that Trump would love being credited as a peacemaker, and I think his ego can drive him to want to fulfill that role.
That’s why I didn’t want Trump, and why I am attempting to talk sense into people…
That’s neat, but professing how much you didn’t and still don’t want him isn’t going to do anyone any good at this point. Trump is going to be sworn in next week regardless. Articles like this one from The Guardian are significantly more helpful at influencing a better path forward than constant doomerism. I would absolutely love it if Trump can find any success in the peacemaking process.
I thought about posting “We need to see more fake good stories about Trump in the press. He’ll see them, and start doing good things, and if you don’t agree, you would rather have him do bad thing and you’re bad” to meanwhileongrad or a new post on this community, but I decided it’s not really worth the bandwidth. The two of you are out of your minds.
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.
Yes congress approved a lot of it. But some of it was sent without approval.
Jesus Christ. Okay, I stand corrected.
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?
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.
Who the fuck is upvoting this lol
Sockpuppets, mostly.
No point in pretending the entirety of .ml is anything more than 3 chimpanzees in an oversized trench coat.
I got curious and checked the list. If you have the ability, do yourself a favor and take a look, it’s interesting.
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.
Russia finances multiple groups that finance terror groups in the area. If Israel/Palestine ends then Putin can redirect that funding to Ukraine.
Which terror groups? How much does Russia fund them? Roughly speaking.
They sponsor groups that sponsor other groups the GRU/FSB are no different than the various US intelligence agencies in that regard.
Which groups do they sponsor, and what are the other groups that those groups then sponser? By about how much do they fund them?
Part of the reason that I’m asking is that Russia is estimated to be spending about $400 million per day in Ukraine. It would be surprising to me if funding or defunding a terror group in the Middle East made any dent at all on their ability to do that. But mostly, I’m just asking what you are talking about.
Which groups do they sponser? By about how much?
For perspective the nominal GDP of Russia in 2024 is about 2.18 trillion USD. That means Russia generates about 5.5 billion USD a day. 400 million USD is not that big of a slice of that daily number.
Russia finances Syria and Iran who funnel the money to groups like Al Quaeda, Hezbollah, The Houthi Militia et al. They are doing what the USA did with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan wherethe CIA paid the Pakistani ISI to pay brokers who handed the money out. .
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.
I mean you’ve always needed evidence to claim that reporting from a respectable source is misinformation.
Update: More proof has happened. Netanyahu has said that he won’t let the cabinet vote on the ceasefire yet.
Anyone who has been paying attention to Netanyahu knows that he was planning to kill the cease-fire, and anyone who has been paying attention to Trump knows that the idea that he would finally be the one to reign in Netanyahu, and that’s what’s happening here, is a bunch of raving gibberish. I won’t say there won’t be a short performative cease-fire eventually. But, big picture, the killing will continue and accelerate under Trump, as it was incredibly obvious that it would.
Okay that’s fair enough you got me there.
Update: My proof has happened.
Israel intensifies attacks on Gaza after ceasefire announced Israel intensified strikes on Gaza hours after a ceasefire and hostage release deal was announced, residents and authorities in the Palestinian enclave have said, with dozens of people killed.
Al Jazeera reporter Anas al-Sharif, in northern Gaza, said it had been a “terrifying night”. In a post on X he wrote,
The pace of bombing has increased dramatically in recent hours, and with it the number of martyrs and wounded has increased to an unprecedented level.
He filmed himself at a makeshift morgue with bodies in the background, including those of several small children. “An hour ago, I was documenting the joy of the people of Gaza at the news of the ceasefire, but the Israeli occupation, as usual, continues to commit massacres,” he said.
Another Al Jazeera reporter Hossam Shabat, also reporting from northern Gaza, reported “intensive raids”, adding, “It’s as if we are living the first days of the Israeli aggression”.
Medics cited by Reuters said 32 people were killed late on Wednesday. Strikes continued into Thursday destroying houses in Rafah in southern Gaza, Nuseirat in central Gaza and in northern Gaza, residents said.
Israel’s military made no immediate comment and there were no reports of Hamas attacks on Israel after the ceasefire announcement.
In the occupied West Bank, where Israel has also intensified its attacks since the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack, six Palestinians were killed and another two critically injured on Wednesday evening by an Israeli airstrike on the Jenin refugee camp, the Palestinian news agency Wafa reported.
Sure is a good thing Trump stepped in to do the super-easy thing Biden was always just refusing to do, right?
Ceasefire being announced vs ceasefire being agreed to seem to be separate events here. If there are more attacks after the agreement is officially made, you’ll have been proven correct.
I’ll keep you posted.
No you don’t. You just need to explain your reasons, and then people can make their judgement about what you said.
Okay, let’s talk. Why did multiple people all of a sudden start saying “you need proof for that,” all of a sudden, a couple of weeks ago? It’s exactly the type of low-effort, can be used to disagree with anything, statement that I think would be well-suited to being used by propaganda trolls. This is the perfect community to talk about that, I think.
Like how many times in the history of your account have you said this “You need proof of that” as a super-low-effort way to disagree with what someone said, sort of deflecting away from when they spent a bunch of multiple paragraphs explaining exactly what they meant and some of the factually verifiable reasons why they came to the conclusions that they did? Have you always said that kind of thing? Or have you said it to other people in the last few weeks? Or is this, talking to me, the first time it’s occurred to you to challenge what someone was saying in that exact manner?
Or have you said it to other people in the last few weeks? Or is this, talking to me, the first time it’s occurred to you to challenge what someone was saying in that exact manner?
It’s always been my go to when someone uses conjecture to make a claim that, if true, should have observable effects (and hence, a source). BTW I saw your update, and while that’s bad it’s (unfortunately??? fortunately???) not an indicator that the ceasefire has collapsed. The IDF likes to get in a few extra war crimes before they have to pack up and leave.
What would some of the observable effects be? If what I said were true?
Well that depends: Is the deal real but the reason it succeeded isn’t Trump involvement? Or is it another house of cards that will inevitably collapse? If it’s the latter we wouldn’t see the Palestinian side expressing optimism, and we wouldn’t hear about the whole thing happening within the spans of a few days (a lie would be extended to buy time and give Israel an excuse when they sabotage the deal again). The fact that the deal was finalized this fast and is going to be voted on today discounts this possibility, or at least makes it unlikely, so the observable effects would include Israel delaying the vote and making up excused for why they can’t accept the deal. If Israel votes to accept the deal I think we can
In the former case we’d need a non-Trump explanation for Netanyahu’s sudden change of heart. The observable effects here would be some other change in the situation that would make continuing the war too costly for Israel or for Netanyahu personally, or some recent accomplishment that could be considered a “mission accomplished” for the IDF.
So yeah that’s it. We have an effect (the ceasefire deal) and are looking for causes, and the Trump thing simply makes the most sense to me as a cause.
We have an effect (the ceasefire deal) and are looking for causes, and the Trump thing simply makes the most sense to me as a cause.
Yes, but do you have any proof?
Honestly, my thought process here is very similar to what you just described. I looked at the situation, decided what made the most sense to me, and explained why. See how silly it is for me to ignore everything you said and just demand proof of something that, to both of us, is fundamentally unprovable in a definite logical way?
I am done with the exchange, I was just making a point and was curious how you would respond.
Here ya go
Ahh yes, the time-tested truthiness of a .ml comment.
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
Update: More proof has happened. Netanyahu has said that he won’t let the cabinet vote on the ceasefire yet.
Anyone who has been paying attention to Netanyahu knows that he was planning to kill the cease-fire, and anyone who has been paying attention to Trump knows that the idea that he would finally be the one to reign in Netanyahu, and that’s what’s happening here, is a bunch of raving gibberish. I won’t say there won’t be a short performative cease-fire eventually, although to me it seems a little unlikely. But, big picture, the killing will continue and accelerate under Trump, as it was incredibly obvious that it would.
You’re gonna need some real evidence if you’re claiming The Guardian is publishing straight up lies.
Lies are a little different from horseshit. Or, if you want the technical term, bullshit.
I have no doubt that the Times of Israel actually published the things The Guardian said they published. I also see no reason to doubt that Trump’s negotiator met with Netanyahu’s people. The part that I think is horseshit is the whole narrative:
“They came to realise that Trump speaks at dictation pace, and they will never be able to outflank him from the right.” Trump is incredibly easy to outflank from the right. Putin does it, for example. I don’t actually know what “speaks at dictation pace” means, but if it means Trump is sharp on his feet and says things more quickly or succinctly or meaningfully than other people, then yes, that is false. My proof is any of his speeches or interviews. I’m sure it is technically true that someone said that and is now being quoted in The Guardian. What I’m questioning is why this untrue statement is being published all in the service of fellating Trump in general about his deal-making ability and his forceful treatment of the Netanyahu government.
Netanyahu, as he always does when successful cease-fire deals are announced by the US and Qatar, went out of his way to say that he hasn’t agreed to anything and still wants to work out the details. For all I know, he is planning on some amount of performative agreement to this one, followed by a resumption of the killing after a pretty short time.
Honestly, my proof is to be seen in the future. This cease-fire may, unlike the others, succeed for a short time and then collapse and the killing resume. Or Israel may simply throw it in the garbage as they did the others. The idea that Trump has fixed it now because he’s tougher than the previous State Department, the cunning artifice which The Guardian has assembled out of a series of technically-true statements, will absolutely be shown to be false, probably before too much time has passed.
Update: My proof has happened. Israel just killed a bunch more people with a new round of bombing, including several little kids.
Good thing Trump fixed it. I’ll update you with more proof in the future as more of it happens.
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.
