Middle East crisis: Lammy to visit Bahrain and Jordan – as it happened
www.theguardian.com
This blog has now closed. You can see all our coverage of the Israel-Gaza war here, and our latest report on Israel’s attacks on Lebanon here.

Benjamin Netanyahu has warned Lebanese people that they could face “destruction and suffering” like the Palestinians in Gaza if they don’t “free” the country from Hezbollah.

“You have an opportunity to save Lebanon before it falls into the abyss of a long war that will lead to destruction and suffering like we see in Gaza,” the Israeli prime minister said in a video address directed to the people of Lebanon.

“I say to you, the people of Lebanon: Free your country from Hezbollah so that this war can end.”

MBFC
Archive

  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2099·
    2 months ago

    Just Bibi casually threatening a second genocide, nothing to see here /s

        • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          I actually thought this was something he really said for a second.

          yep, it was said.

          “We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.” David Ben-Gurion May 1948

          On the 6th of February 1948, during a Mapai Party Council, Ben-Gurion responded to a remark from a member of the audience that “we have no land there” [in the hills and mountains west of Jerusalem] by saying: “The war will give us the land. The concepts of “ours” and “not ours” are peace concepts, only, and in war they lose their whole meaning” (Ben-Gurion, War Diary, Vol. 1, entry dated 6 February 1948. p.211)

          The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today — but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concerns of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.” P. 53, “The Birth of Israel, 1987” Simha Flapan

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          595·
          2 months ago

          And yet he has yet to get off Bibi’s dick.

          Still sending weapons, aid money. no sanctions. Military support when they fuck around are about to find out.

        • Sundial@lemm.eeEnglish
          576·
          2 months ago

          Just because Biden bitches about Netanyahu in private doesn’t mean he’s not supporting Israel unconditionally.

          • yeahiknow3@lemmings.worldEnglish
            523·
            2 months ago

            This comment is so puerile. Joe Biden isn’t a king. Take it up with the vast majority of Americans who have been supporting Israel’s genocide.

          • cygnus@lemmy.caEnglish
            1127·
            2 months ago

            Serious question: what do you think publicly repudiating Israel would do for the democrats’ chances of willing the presidential election? It makes sense for them to say nothing publicly while privately trying to tie down those loose cannons.

              • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.socialEnglish
                156·
                2 months ago

                Honestly I suspect it would do the opposite, Lemmy is a bit of a echo chamber and while users here heavily skew towards favoring Palestine in this, or at least condemning what Isreal is and honestly has long been doing to them, the US as a whole, even the base of the democratic party, has long been at least mildly friendly towards Isreal, and a large fraction will see Hamas’s attack as justifying Isreali action. It’s a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation for the dems I think where their current path angers progressives on the left, and actively sanctioning Isreal would probably anger the more center-right side of the party, and they need both to turn out to win. They probably figure that at the end of the day, the left either is mostly younger people that don’t vote as reliably, or will bite their tongues and vote for them, because, well, if you’re given only two possible futures, both evil, and a choice between them, one has a moral obligation to choose the lesser evil, no matter how evil that lesser is, just because by definition, the greater evil is worse. But the center-right, they probably figure, probably don’t care about what is happening as much, and will feel much less uncomfortable about just voting for the republicans instead if the dem candidate doesn’t do what they want.

                That being said, it doesn’t really much matter, ethically, if not helping kill tens of thousands of innocent people makes it slightly harder to win political power for yourself, it’s still a pretty horrible excuse. Nobody sitting in a jury would let someone go free if they were accused of being an accomplice to a murder, if that accomplice’s defense was “well, I’m running for mayor, and if I didn’t help the murderer, his friends probably won’t vote for me”. Like I get that Kamala isn’t really calling the shots on that, being only vice president currently, but she doesn’t seem like she intends to change how Biden has handled the situation much.

                Don’t get me wrong, I am voting for her, I’m not one of those people that thinks that it is somehow noble to just let the greater evil win if it means not taking an action that helps the lesser evil beat it, I think that the going for the best outcome plausibly available is always the right thing to do and that doing the reverse because “well my hands are clean” is a misguided and self centered way to do ethics, but like damn people (to which I mean the people that actually side with Isreal in this, and the DNC I guess, not they they see my tired internet ranting), just because the other option is as close as the country has come in a century to “literally Hitler” does not mean that you have to emulate Churchill refusing to help the Bengalis.

                • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
                  106·
                  2 months ago

                  They figured it’ll cost them more to condemn Israel. And they’re wrong. Progressive voters’ (a demographic that was essential for Biden’s 2020 victory) enthusiasm is in the ditch and Muslim voters are actively abandoning Harris (another essential demographic) and in doing so giving multiple swing states to Republicans. And I repeat: multiple. Michigan isn’t the only one.

                  That aside, you have to remember that center right democrats don’t care about Israel as much as leftists care about Palestine. Even Democrat voters who would find conditioning aid to Israel objectionable wouldn’t care enough to change their vote on election day, because the people who do care that much are already all republican.

                • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.eeEnglish
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  Political power for themselves, sure, but that also means way less power for the Kremlin asset who will do an incredible amount of damage of elected again.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldEnglish
              183·
              2 months ago

              what do you think publicly repudiating Israel would do for the democrats’ chances of winning the presidential election?

              Would probably improve them. Dramatically so if backed by actions such as stopping all weapons shipments

              It makes sense for them to say nothing publicly while privately trying to tie down those loose cannons.

              First of all, no. It doesn’t make sense to publicly do the opposite of what a majority of the population, including an overwhelming majority of your own base, wants.

              Also, “loose cannons” must be a new fucking record for downplaying 75 years of apartheid rule and an ongoing genocide!

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              51·
              2 months ago

              They’ve polled roughly that question. It would increase support among Democrats and Independents, i.e., the people that matter.

              Nearly half (47%) of Americans say they would be more likely to support a 2024 presidential candidate who continues to support Israel, while 48% say they would be less likely to support a candidate who does so. These sentiments, however, vary by political affiliation. While at least half of Democrats (56%) and independents (51%) say that continuing to give military aid to Israel would make them less likely to support a presidential candidate, most Republicans (62%) say doing so would make them more likely to support a presidential candidate.

              https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/americans-split-continuing-military-aid-israel

            • CmdrShepard42@lemm.eeEnglish
              41·
              2 months ago

              Well it seems currently they’re supporting it, and currently they’re also neck and neck with Trump. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the race is so close despite Trump having dozens of felonies, being so old, and being generally insane?

              • CmdrShepard42@lemm.eeEnglish
                52·
                2 months ago

                Yeah this is exactly what people said about Biden dropping out of the race too.

                • yeahiknow3@lemmings.worldEnglish
                  54·
                  2 months ago

                  Everyone, including Jon Stewart and Nancy Pelosi, wanted Joe Biden to drop out. We all did. But attacking him was a dumb strategy. Unless of course you’re a histrionic child throwing a tantrum.

                  • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
                    41·
                    2 months ago

                    This comment neatly summarizes centrist Democrats to me. “We know that we need to do this to win, but don’t do it because we might not win.” Just like the arguments that LGBTQ groups shouldn’t have been pushing for equality 20 years ago, because it would alienate voters and harm Democrats.

                    Y’know, sometimes voters respect a principled stand, and the courage to push for what’s right.

            • distantsounds@lemmy.worldEnglish
              145·
              2 months ago

              That is not something I would take as fact. Questionable polling at best, and it’s laughable to say it’s what the American people want when they have no say in the matter. The powers at be will not allow candidates to be critical of Israel…ie the PACs that choose which candidates are on the national ticket. I’m sure if the American people were able to vote on this issue, funding to Israel would cease immediately.

            • CmdrShepard42@lemm.eeEnglish
              83·
              2 months ago

              So your justification for supporting genocide is that it gives people better opportunities for career advancement? Well, now I’m convinced it’s a good thing.

                • IAmNotACat@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  21·
                  2 months ago

                  That’s true but as long as his political opponent has a more supportive stance on Israel, the Democratic Party knows that there’s a lot more room to support Israel without haemorrhaging too many voters who don’t align with that value.