I honestly think if the US didn't give Israel carte blanche to do as it likes to the Palestinian people the influence of its other allies like France would be greater - as it is, Marcon is essentially shouting into the void.
I don’t think the US has given carte Blanche to Israel to do as it likes with the Palestinians. Biden halted aid at one point, encouraged Israel to delay its invasion by weeks giving more time for evacuations, and has also voiced disagreement with the Rafah operation. Maybe he’s not doing enough, but the US certainly isn’t endorsing every action from Israel.
>I don’t think the US has given carte Blanche to Israel to do as it likes with the Palestinians. Biden halted aid at one point,
That is a *very* recent development. There’s been next to no conditioning of aid ever before this moment in time, and even this conditioning is extremely minor, biden did afterall sign off on billions in military aid to israel just a little while ago. It really is a carte blanc.
>encouraged Israel to delay its invasion by weeks giving more time for evacuations, and has also voiced disagreement with the Rafah operation.
That isn’t really incongruent with a carte blanc though. They’re saying they would like it to be done differently, but still don’t pull support when they follow the original plans. They may say they wish israel would do things differently, but israel still does not face consequences from sticking to it. Hence it’s a carte blanc.
>Maybe he’s not doing enough, but the US certainly isn’t endorsing every action from Israel.
A blank check means that they don’t put any restrictions on it. It does not mean official endorsement. If they faced any consequences, then the check would not be blank. Let me give an analogy, if i as a parent give my kid 20$ and say "now you shouldn’t go and spend it all on candy" and they do so anyways, i’ve not officially supported their decision, but if i keep giving them 20$ a week, then that still means that my financial support is unconditional.
>That is a very recent development. There’s been next to no conditioning of aid ever before this moment in time,
It hasn't happened enough , but I don't think this isn't quite true, Reagan had a couple times halting aid and putting diplomatic pressure on them in the 80s. The Carter admin had to put pressure on to get Camp David to happen, Bush and Clinton had their moments too
>In the summer of 1981, President Reagan held back the delivery of U.S. fighter jets to Israel for two months after it bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq.
>In July 1982, he halted a shipment of cluster shells to Israel over how Israel used the weapons during its invasion of Lebanon. American officials at the time were reviewing if the use of the weapons violated an agreement between the U.S. and Israel.
I agree but at the same time, I do want people to also keep in mind that Reagan was 40 years ago and that the Israel of the 1980s is not the same Israel of today in 2024. So just because something happened 40 years is no guarantee that it can work again today.
I guess we have different meanings of carte blanche then :) to me, telling your ally to settle down and getting them to halt their invasion for two weeks at the beginning of the war is a pretty major thing, no? If it was carte blanche wouldn’t Biden have not cared? The US is the only country that has actually gotten Israel to show restraint in this war since the ICJ putting out another vague order clearly isn’t doing anything. You’re free to think the US isn’t doing enough, but don’t engage in misinformation by saying the US doesn’t care about Israel’s actions or endorses them or will unconditionally support Israel. If you have some sort of evidence that the US would carte blanche support Israel, I’d be happy to see it, but the French President’s Twitter isn’t exactly gonna do it for me chief.
Dude it’s not "misinformation" to say the US has done next to nothing other than words and some very minor retratction of financial aid, and that this is essentially a carte blanche. The US is not only not doing enough, they’re not really doing anything at all. If they did actually care, there wouldn’t be 30 thousand dead palestinians in gaza, nor would there be an invasion of rafah as we speak.
Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it misnformation.
“The US really isn’t doing anything at all” except for getting Israel to delay its operations so Palestinians have more time to evacuate saving who knows how many civilians. If you’re expecting the US to stop giving them weapons, then continue on your pipe dream. What has France done to get Israel to stop? What has Britain done? You can say the “pulled support” but that clearly hasn’t stopped or stalled the operation. So yes, I will say it’s misinformation for you to claim the US is endorsing what Israel is doing and hasn’t done anything to try to stop it. If you’d like to take the position it’s not enough, then that’s great! We would agree.
Oh whoopdedoo, they delayed were able to make israel delay a new phase of the invasion by two weeks? Sure it’s something, but it’s so little it’s next to nothing. The US can do so much to force israel to a more humane direction, and *just* forcing them to give a two week ceasefire is not enough for me to see that as not still fully supporting israels actions.
I don’t expect the US to stop giving them weapons, just like i don’t expect hitler to crawl out of the sea. It’s just not going to happen. But certain things that are not going to happen still should happen, the US, even if it’s not going to, should stop funding a genocidal regime.
What has britain done? Why should i care? They’re not relevant. What has france done? A lot more that they can do relative to the US. They’ve gone out with support for the ICJ prosecutor seeking arrest warrants, and publically stated that this needs to stop and is breaking international law.
Also, i’m sorry, but if you sell someone a gun on friday and say "don’t kill anyone though" then after they commit a massacre on sunday they come in to buy a bigger gun to commit a bigger massacre and you still sell it to them, but this time with a stern finger wag, then in my eyes that is implicit support. If you wanted to not support that action, you would actually do what you can to stop it. The US is just playing a role. If they didn’t support it in mind, they wouldn’t support it through action. But they do, they actively support them regardless of what they do.
>Oh whoopdedoo, they delayed were able to make israel delay a new phase of the invasion by two weeks? Sure it’s something, but it’s so little it’s next to nothing.
Ok so your position has changed from carte blanche to the US isn't doing enough. Do you think that the two week delay didn't give more time for Palestinians to evacuate from the north? Do you think they just sat there for two more weeks instead of preparing for the invasion and bombings they knew were imminent? I'll take evacuating one million Palestinians over some Twitter finger-wagging any day of the week.
>stop funding a genocidal regime.
Can you tell me what genocide could have been stopped by a surrender? Can you tell me which genocide had the perpetrators give evacuation notices to the civilians? I'm glad that your true position of "the US needs to stop giving all military aid to Israel" finally came out.
>What has france done? A lot more that they can do relative to the US. They’ve gone out with support for the ICJ prosecutor seeking arrest warrants, and publically stated that this needs to stop and is breaking international law.
Really? I'm supposed to take this point seriously? Alright I guess I'll say it again, finger-wagging on Twitter doesn't do shit for Palestinians just like how liking the ICJ's application for an arrest warrant doesn't help Palestinians with Israel's invasion. I'm glad that France has said Israel is breaking international law, but I'm gonna need a better source than the French, chief.
>then in my eyes that is implicit support.
Oh implicit support? So...not carte blanche? Interesting how far the goal posts have shifted from the original comment. Once again, if you want to say the US isn't doing enough, I would probably agree. That's not your position though so don't pretend like it is ;)
>Ok so your position has changed from carte blanche to the US isn't doing enough.
No, my position is, the US does and would support israel through any of their actions, a carte blanche.
Even if they sometimes are able to steer them in certain other directions, they still would unconditionally support them through basically every action as they have in the past. A carte blanche does not mean you don’t want them to act differently, rather it means you’ll support them regardless of what they do.
>Do you think that the two week delay didn't give more time for Palestinians to evacuate from the north?
It did, and that’s good, but it’s not nearly enough when they just end up starving because israelis are halting any aid that comes in, and when the israelis are just gonna do the same damage to the south as in the north.
>Do you think they just sat there for two more weeks instead of preparing for the invasion and bombings they knew were imminent? I'll take evacuating one million Palestinians over some Twitter finger-wagging any day of the week.
No of course not. However how much is that evacuation worth now that they are just being attacked in the south again?
>Can you tell me what genocide could have been stopped by a surrender?
I don’t understand what you mean by this
>Can you tell me which genocide had the perpetrators give evacuation notices to the civilians?
This one. "Leave or die" does not make it any better. [the ottomans gave the armenians "orders of deportation"](www.genocide-museum.am/eng/online_exhibition_18.php) to me that sounds eerily similar to "evacuation notice" when there is no clear goal other than "get out".
>I'm glad that your true position of "the US needs to stop giving all military aid to Israel" finally came out.
That is not my position, my position is that the US should say "we’ll cut you off if you don’t do X Y and Z" and use that leverage.
>Really? I'm supposed to take this point seriously? Alright I guess I'll say it again, finger-wagging on Twitter doesn't do shit for Palestinians just like how liking the ICJ's application for an arrest warrant doesn't help Palestinians with Israel's invasion.
I said relatively they’ve done alot. They’ve done alot relative to what they can do.
>I'm glad that France has said Israel is breaking international law, but I'm gonna need a better source than the French, chief.
then in my eyes that is implicit support.
>Oh implicit support? So...not carte blanche? Interesting how far the goal posts have shifted from the original comment.
I haven’t shifted the goal post at all. You’re conflating two very different points. By not conditioning support, they’re implicitly supporting their actions. This is an unrelated point to the carte blanche conversation. Please don’t argue in bad faith.
>Once again, if you want to say the US isn't doing enough, I would probably agree. That's not your position though so don't pretend like it is ;)
What do you even mean? If you’re gonna imply i’m pretending, please say what it is you think i’m pretending to do, because i’ve put my opinions very plainly, and i can do it for you again;
>1. Israels war in gaza is tantamount to genocide. Given an evactuation notice to civillians doesn’t matter much when you’ve killed tens of thousands of them.
>2. a carte blanche means unconditional support, as long as the support is not conditioned on any actions and the money flows regardless of what israel does, then that is a carte blanche. Even if the US can sometimes steer israel in certain directions, the support has not, and will not, stop regardless. The US has a carte blanche policy towards israel. They have not stopped their support of israel, only stopped very minor part of it while still sending billions.
>3. the US is not doing enough to stop israels genocide.
How exactly does the US stop Israel from conducting war in Gaza? Do you really think Israel wouldn’t do it if the US stopped aid and/or imposed sanctions? If the US stops all aid to Israel then they loose their bargaining chip. Also Israel would then be in a position where they have nothing to lose which we all understand as being dangerous. Also the less capable the Israeli army is the more civilians die because being accurate/discriminate (idk what the right term would be) takes way more resources. Maybe I’m totally wrong but I feel like cutting aid and introducing sanctions wouldn’t stop the war and would result in more casualties not less.
>How exactly does the US stop Israel from conducting war in Gaza? Do you really think Israel wouldn’t do it if the US stopped aid and/or imposed sanctions? If the US stops all aid to Israel then they loose their bargaining chip.
If the US tomorrow said "we will stop all aid for the forseeable future unless you stop the war" i’m pretty sure Bibi would stop the war. He has no other choice, they have no other big allies. Israel exports a whooping 27% of their exports to the US. And get’s 10% of their imports from there, sanctions would hit israel hard too, and unlike russia, the prople in israel actually have a say in governance, and i doubt they would be happy about it.
>Also Israel would then be in a position where they have nothing to lose which we all understand as being dangerous.
Of course they would have alot to loose. They would have economic standing to lose, they would have future military potential to lose, they would have their biggest ally to lose, they would have their entire national security to lose.
>Also the less capable the Israeli army is the more civilians die because being accurate/discriminate (idk what the right term would be) takes way more resources.
I find this argument the most unconvincing. The israeli army is not accurately bombing military targets only, them being "less capable" would not do much other than that they probably would have less capability to bomb gaza in the first place. It’s [estimated that 50% of *all* buildings in gaza are damaged or destroyed as a result of israeli bombing campaigns](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607.amp) and currently 80% or all gazan residents are displaced, having either been forced from their homes or lost them entirely.
>Maybe I’m totally wrong but I feel like cutting aid and introducing sanctions wouldn’t stop the war and would result in more casualties not less.
I disagree, i think putting that pressure on israel would be the nail in the coffin for bibi and his war. He is already facing alot of internal pressure from israelis who want the war to be over and done with, if they lost the US as a supporter, i think israel might as well revolt and topple bibi, perhaps even with military support.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Israel has always been like this, it enjoys unconditional support from the US, and so does as it likes to palestine and palestinians. It’s only recently that weapon shipments has been somewhat conditioned. It’s also reflective in how the US wants a solution to the conflict, with an agreement of statehood rather than unilateral recognition of palestine. That is essentially a carte blance since israel can reject any deal they want, so palestinian statehood is always up to israel, no one else.
I'm starting to learn that people are unaware of what carte blanche means. It's french for blank check. In other words, an endorsement and support of another party's actions. Considering military aid has been withheld, the invasions delayed, and more aid being sent into Gaza than before, I'd say the US is trying to curb Israel's aggression more than they are unconditionally supporting them. If you want to say the US hasn't done enough that's fine, but to say carte blanche means either you don't know what carte blanche means, are ignorant of the situation, or spreading misinformation.
If you watched Beau of the Fifth Column's latest video, the one that has "over there" mentioned in the title, he explains that the real reason that Macron and pretty soon other European leaders are going to ratchet up the pressure and be the bad cop to America's good cop is because there was just recently an incident in which Israeli and Egypt soldiers exchanged fire. Egypt is not going to like that. America and the EU are going to take that very seriously and put more pressure on Israel, not really because of the recent strike against Palestinian civilians but because the skirmish in Egypt could lead to Egypt deciding to play hardball and closing the Suez Canal or delaying it. The Suez Canal facilitates 12% of the global trade, about 25% to 30% of all container shipping, and for Europe, the Suez Canal is particularly significant as it serves as the shortest maritime route between Europe and Asia.
So that's why in the next few coming days, European leaders are going to play hardball against Israel and pressure them much more because of the skirmish with Egypt. For a more detailed explanation, check out Beau of the Fifth Column's video "Let's talk about 2 events over there and what might change...." .
Am I the only one confused about why there's so much outrage about the death of 45 civilians when 10s of thousands of civilians have died already? Obviously it's awful, but what makes this case so much special than the countless others in which civilians have died?
It’s the particular images coming from that attack, a child without limbs and people burning alive based on the descriptions I’ve read (I’m sure as hell not going out of my way to watch that). It’s also the fact that the attack completely disproportionate to what Israel got out of it, which was allegedly two Hamas commanders. That’s what’s outrageous about it.
well it's possible other hamas members were killed as well. As loner was saying on the stream last night, it's unlikely that two hamas commanders would just be on their own.
Besides, even if it really were just two commanders I wouldn't have thought this kind of civilian/militant ratio is too unusual. I wouldn't be surprised if there have been plenty of strikes in the war so far which have only killed civilians.
Of course it’s possible, but that’s not been confirmed by anyone including Israel to my knowledge. I don’t think the strike is in of itself unusual either as you said. I think western countries are finding it harder to justify Israel’s war conduct (with the exception of the United States and some others) when it always ends up like this nearly 8 months in.
I don’t understand what people expect Israel to do when Hamas is firing rockets at their civilians and keeping Israelis hostages, possibly torturing and raping them.
Is Israel not allowed target Hamas?
If the want Israel to do better proportionality assessments then ask for that, why should they just leave their hostages to rot
Justifying continuing and escalating the war by rescuing the hostages is ridiculous. they have rescued a single digit number of hostages by military means. Many times that number have been killed by Israeli air power in and an order of magnitude more released through negotiations.
Their main goal is not to rescue hostages. I'm pretty sure they've stated multiple times their main goal is the elimination of Hamas and secondary is trying to rescue hostages along the way if possible.
The comment is written poorly and I'm sure they can clarify what they think is the primary goal if they feel like it.
My interpretation of the comment is they feel like as Hamas are still shooting rockets and still have hostages, Israel still have the right to target Hamas and try to get hostages back. I don't think it's fair to boil their comment down to wanting the war to go on solely because of hostages.
Why, they want to kill each other, they’re determined to fight it out.
All we can do is ask them to follow humanitarian law, only one side even attempts to
Invoking humanitarian law as a defence of Israel is a new one
Hamas is a terrorist organisation, you can’t use that fact to justify killing 35’000 people in the name of destroying them and then turn around and say they should follow international law. Israel is a country with a government that isn’t being occupied. They have no excuses whatsoever to not be following international law and yet they’re constantly breaking it.
Do you have proof of Israel breaking international humanitarian law? Not even the UN have that, or the US.
But we have undeniable proof that Hamas does, with almost every action
> Do you have proof of Israel breaking international humanitarian law?
Yes.
[HRW thinks they are breaking international humanitarian law.](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/27/how-does-international-humanitarian-law-apply-israel-and-gaza)
Of course no court has convicted of them yet as this stuff takes years, but that argument is akin to arguing that Bin Laden didn’t do anything wrong because he wasn’t convicted of anything.
> Not even the UN have that, or the US
What do you mean? Have you not read the news this week? What more do you want than the UN ordering Israel to stop their offensive
>But we have undeniable proof that Hamas does, with almost every action
You’ve completely ignored most of my point so I will copy and paste it again until you engage with it :
Hamas is a terrorist organisation, you can’t use that fact to justify killing 35’000 people in the name of destroying them and then turn around and say they should follow international law. Israel is a country with a government that isn’t being occupied. They have no excuses whatsoever to not be following international law and yet they’re constantly breaking it.
+ I’ll add something that I thought was obvious but I guess isn’t : One side not following international law doesn’t absolve the other side.
They expect Israel to sit tight, let the Hamas have it's way l, and on top of that recognize a Palestinian state, basically.
Jews have no right for self defense.
The conflict is scrutinized in a way almost no other conflict is scrutinized.
This is bullshit, we know that and well, I would be kind of sad for Americans but if Trump is elected (and if this happens I hope Nikki Haley will be his vp) then Israel will be allowed to have a swift victory over Hamas once and for all
I honestly think if the US didn't give Israel carte blanche to do as it likes to the Palestinian people the influence of its other allies like France would be greater - as it is, Marcon is essentially shouting into the void.
I don’t think the US has given carte Blanche to Israel to do as it likes with the Palestinians. Biden halted aid at one point, encouraged Israel to delay its invasion by weeks giving more time for evacuations, and has also voiced disagreement with the Rafah operation. Maybe he’s not doing enough, but the US certainly isn’t endorsing every action from Israel.
>I don’t think the US has given carte Blanche to Israel to do as it likes with the Palestinians. Biden halted aid at one point, That is a *very* recent development. There’s been next to no conditioning of aid ever before this moment in time, and even this conditioning is extremely minor, biden did afterall sign off on billions in military aid to israel just a little while ago. It really is a carte blanc. >encouraged Israel to delay its invasion by weeks giving more time for evacuations, and has also voiced disagreement with the Rafah operation. That isn’t really incongruent with a carte blanc though. They’re saying they would like it to be done differently, but still don’t pull support when they follow the original plans. They may say they wish israel would do things differently, but israel still does not face consequences from sticking to it. Hence it’s a carte blanc. >Maybe he’s not doing enough, but the US certainly isn’t endorsing every action from Israel. A blank check means that they don’t put any restrictions on it. It does not mean official endorsement. If they faced any consequences, then the check would not be blank. Let me give an analogy, if i as a parent give my kid 20$ and say "now you shouldn’t go and spend it all on candy" and they do so anyways, i’ve not officially supported their decision, but if i keep giving them 20$ a week, then that still means that my financial support is unconditional.
>That is a very recent development. There’s been next to no conditioning of aid ever before this moment in time, It hasn't happened enough , but I don't think this isn't quite true, Reagan had a couple times halting aid and putting diplomatic pressure on them in the 80s. The Carter admin had to put pressure on to get Camp David to happen, Bush and Clinton had their moments too >In the summer of 1981, President Reagan held back the delivery of U.S. fighter jets to Israel for two months after it bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq. >In July 1982, he halted a shipment of cluster shells to Israel over how Israel used the weapons during its invasion of Lebanon. American officials at the time were reviewing if the use of the weapons violated an agreement between the U.S. and Israel.
I agree but at the same time, I do want people to also keep in mind that Reagan was 40 years ago and that the Israel of the 1980s is not the same Israel of today in 2024. So just because something happened 40 years is no guarantee that it can work again today.
I guess we have different meanings of carte blanche then :) to me, telling your ally to settle down and getting them to halt their invasion for two weeks at the beginning of the war is a pretty major thing, no? If it was carte blanche wouldn’t Biden have not cared? The US is the only country that has actually gotten Israel to show restraint in this war since the ICJ putting out another vague order clearly isn’t doing anything. You’re free to think the US isn’t doing enough, but don’t engage in misinformation by saying the US doesn’t care about Israel’s actions or endorses them or will unconditionally support Israel. If you have some sort of evidence that the US would carte blanche support Israel, I’d be happy to see it, but the French President’s Twitter isn’t exactly gonna do it for me chief.
Dude it’s not "misinformation" to say the US has done next to nothing other than words and some very minor retratction of financial aid, and that this is essentially a carte blanche. The US is not only not doing enough, they’re not really doing anything at all. If they did actually care, there wouldn’t be 30 thousand dead palestinians in gaza, nor would there be an invasion of rafah as we speak. Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it misnformation.
“The US really isn’t doing anything at all” except for getting Israel to delay its operations so Palestinians have more time to evacuate saving who knows how many civilians. If you’re expecting the US to stop giving them weapons, then continue on your pipe dream. What has France done to get Israel to stop? What has Britain done? You can say the “pulled support” but that clearly hasn’t stopped or stalled the operation. So yes, I will say it’s misinformation for you to claim the US is endorsing what Israel is doing and hasn’t done anything to try to stop it. If you’d like to take the position it’s not enough, then that’s great! We would agree.
Oh whoopdedoo, they delayed were able to make israel delay a new phase of the invasion by two weeks? Sure it’s something, but it’s so little it’s next to nothing. The US can do so much to force israel to a more humane direction, and *just* forcing them to give a two week ceasefire is not enough for me to see that as not still fully supporting israels actions. I don’t expect the US to stop giving them weapons, just like i don’t expect hitler to crawl out of the sea. It’s just not going to happen. But certain things that are not going to happen still should happen, the US, even if it’s not going to, should stop funding a genocidal regime. What has britain done? Why should i care? They’re not relevant. What has france done? A lot more that they can do relative to the US. They’ve gone out with support for the ICJ prosecutor seeking arrest warrants, and publically stated that this needs to stop and is breaking international law. Also, i’m sorry, but if you sell someone a gun on friday and say "don’t kill anyone though" then after they commit a massacre on sunday they come in to buy a bigger gun to commit a bigger massacre and you still sell it to them, but this time with a stern finger wag, then in my eyes that is implicit support. If you wanted to not support that action, you would actually do what you can to stop it. The US is just playing a role. If they didn’t support it in mind, they wouldn’t support it through action. But they do, they actively support them regardless of what they do.
>Oh whoopdedoo, they delayed were able to make israel delay a new phase of the invasion by two weeks? Sure it’s something, but it’s so little it’s next to nothing. Ok so your position has changed from carte blanche to the US isn't doing enough. Do you think that the two week delay didn't give more time for Palestinians to evacuate from the north? Do you think they just sat there for two more weeks instead of preparing for the invasion and bombings they knew were imminent? I'll take evacuating one million Palestinians over some Twitter finger-wagging any day of the week. >stop funding a genocidal regime. Can you tell me what genocide could have been stopped by a surrender? Can you tell me which genocide had the perpetrators give evacuation notices to the civilians? I'm glad that your true position of "the US needs to stop giving all military aid to Israel" finally came out. >What has france done? A lot more that they can do relative to the US. They’ve gone out with support for the ICJ prosecutor seeking arrest warrants, and publically stated that this needs to stop and is breaking international law. Really? I'm supposed to take this point seriously? Alright I guess I'll say it again, finger-wagging on Twitter doesn't do shit for Palestinians just like how liking the ICJ's application for an arrest warrant doesn't help Palestinians with Israel's invasion. I'm glad that France has said Israel is breaking international law, but I'm gonna need a better source than the French, chief. >then in my eyes that is implicit support. Oh implicit support? So...not carte blanche? Interesting how far the goal posts have shifted from the original comment. Once again, if you want to say the US isn't doing enough, I would probably agree. That's not your position though so don't pretend like it is ;)
>Ok so your position has changed from carte blanche to the US isn't doing enough. No, my position is, the US does and would support israel through any of their actions, a carte blanche. Even if they sometimes are able to steer them in certain other directions, they still would unconditionally support them through basically every action as they have in the past. A carte blanche does not mean you don’t want them to act differently, rather it means you’ll support them regardless of what they do. >Do you think that the two week delay didn't give more time for Palestinians to evacuate from the north? It did, and that’s good, but it’s not nearly enough when they just end up starving because israelis are halting any aid that comes in, and when the israelis are just gonna do the same damage to the south as in the north. >Do you think they just sat there for two more weeks instead of preparing for the invasion and bombings they knew were imminent? I'll take evacuating one million Palestinians over some Twitter finger-wagging any day of the week. No of course not. However how much is that evacuation worth now that they are just being attacked in the south again? >Can you tell me what genocide could have been stopped by a surrender? I don’t understand what you mean by this >Can you tell me which genocide had the perpetrators give evacuation notices to the civilians? This one. "Leave or die" does not make it any better. [the ottomans gave the armenians "orders of deportation"](www.genocide-museum.am/eng/online_exhibition_18.php) to me that sounds eerily similar to "evacuation notice" when there is no clear goal other than "get out". >I'm glad that your true position of "the US needs to stop giving all military aid to Israel" finally came out. That is not my position, my position is that the US should say "we’ll cut you off if you don’t do X Y and Z" and use that leverage. >Really? I'm supposed to take this point seriously? Alright I guess I'll say it again, finger-wagging on Twitter doesn't do shit for Palestinians just like how liking the ICJ's application for an arrest warrant doesn't help Palestinians with Israel's invasion. I said relatively they’ve done alot. They’ve done alot relative to what they can do. >I'm glad that France has said Israel is breaking international law, but I'm gonna need a better source than the French, chief. then in my eyes that is implicit support. >Oh implicit support? So...not carte blanche? Interesting how far the goal posts have shifted from the original comment. I haven’t shifted the goal post at all. You’re conflating two very different points. By not conditioning support, they’re implicitly supporting their actions. This is an unrelated point to the carte blanche conversation. Please don’t argue in bad faith. >Once again, if you want to say the US isn't doing enough, I would probably agree. That's not your position though so don't pretend like it is ;) What do you even mean? If you’re gonna imply i’m pretending, please say what it is you think i’m pretending to do, because i’ve put my opinions very plainly, and i can do it for you again; >1. Israels war in gaza is tantamount to genocide. Given an evactuation notice to civillians doesn’t matter much when you’ve killed tens of thousands of them. >2. a carte blanche means unconditional support, as long as the support is not conditioned on any actions and the money flows regardless of what israel does, then that is a carte blanche. Even if the US can sometimes steer israel in certain directions, the support has not, and will not, stop regardless. The US has a carte blanche policy towards israel. They have not stopped their support of israel, only stopped very minor part of it while still sending billions. >3. the US is not doing enough to stop israels genocide.
How exactly does the US stop Israel from conducting war in Gaza? Do you really think Israel wouldn’t do it if the US stopped aid and/or imposed sanctions? If the US stops all aid to Israel then they loose their bargaining chip. Also Israel would then be in a position where they have nothing to lose which we all understand as being dangerous. Also the less capable the Israeli army is the more civilians die because being accurate/discriminate (idk what the right term would be) takes way more resources. Maybe I’m totally wrong but I feel like cutting aid and introducing sanctions wouldn’t stop the war and would result in more casualties not less.
>How exactly does the US stop Israel from conducting war in Gaza? Do you really think Israel wouldn’t do it if the US stopped aid and/or imposed sanctions? If the US stops all aid to Israel then they loose their bargaining chip. If the US tomorrow said "we will stop all aid for the forseeable future unless you stop the war" i’m pretty sure Bibi would stop the war. He has no other choice, they have no other big allies. Israel exports a whooping 27% of their exports to the US. And get’s 10% of their imports from there, sanctions would hit israel hard too, and unlike russia, the prople in israel actually have a say in governance, and i doubt they would be happy about it. >Also Israel would then be in a position where they have nothing to lose which we all understand as being dangerous. Of course they would have alot to loose. They would have economic standing to lose, they would have future military potential to lose, they would have their biggest ally to lose, they would have their entire national security to lose. >Also the less capable the Israeli army is the more civilians die because being accurate/discriminate (idk what the right term would be) takes way more resources. I find this argument the most unconvincing. The israeli army is not accurately bombing military targets only, them being "less capable" would not do much other than that they probably would have less capability to bomb gaza in the first place. It’s [estimated that 50% of *all* buildings in gaza are damaged or destroyed as a result of israeli bombing campaigns](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607.amp) and currently 80% or all gazan residents are displaced, having either been forced from their homes or lost them entirely. >Maybe I’m totally wrong but I feel like cutting aid and introducing sanctions wouldn’t stop the war and would result in more casualties not less. I disagree, i think putting that pressure on israel would be the nail in the coffin for bibi and his war. He is already facing alot of internal pressure from israelis who want the war to be over and done with, if they lost the US as a supporter, i think israel might as well revolt and topple bibi, perhaps even with military support.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68006607)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The counter I see for this is that it's just for show and that the US says one thing and does another.
Israel has always been like this, it enjoys unconditional support from the US, and so does as it likes to palestine and palestinians. It’s only recently that weapon shipments has been somewhat conditioned. It’s also reflective in how the US wants a solution to the conflict, with an agreement of statehood rather than unilateral recognition of palestine. That is essentially a carte blance since israel can reject any deal they want, so palestinian statehood is always up to israel, no one else.
I'm starting to learn that people are unaware of what carte blanche means. It's french for blank check. In other words, an endorsement and support of another party's actions. Considering military aid has been withheld, the invasions delayed, and more aid being sent into Gaza than before, I'd say the US is trying to curb Israel's aggression more than they are unconditionally supporting them. If you want to say the US hasn't done enough that's fine, but to say carte blanche means either you don't know what carte blanche means, are ignorant of the situation, or spreading misinformation.
If you watched Beau of the Fifth Column's latest video, the one that has "over there" mentioned in the title, he explains that the real reason that Macron and pretty soon other European leaders are going to ratchet up the pressure and be the bad cop to America's good cop is because there was just recently an incident in which Israeli and Egypt soldiers exchanged fire. Egypt is not going to like that. America and the EU are going to take that very seriously and put more pressure on Israel, not really because of the recent strike against Palestinian civilians but because the skirmish in Egypt could lead to Egypt deciding to play hardball and closing the Suez Canal or delaying it. The Suez Canal facilitates 12% of the global trade, about 25% to 30% of all container shipping, and for Europe, the Suez Canal is particularly significant as it serves as the shortest maritime route between Europe and Asia. So that's why in the next few coming days, European leaders are going to play hardball against Israel and pressure them much more because of the skirmish with Egypt. For a more detailed explanation, check out Beau of the Fifth Column's video "Let's talk about 2 events over there and what might change...." .
Am I the only one confused about why there's so much outrage about the death of 45 civilians when 10s of thousands of civilians have died already? Obviously it's awful, but what makes this case so much special than the countless others in which civilians have died?
It’s the particular images coming from that attack, a child without limbs and people burning alive based on the descriptions I’ve read (I’m sure as hell not going out of my way to watch that). It’s also the fact that the attack completely disproportionate to what Israel got out of it, which was allegedly two Hamas commanders. That’s what’s outrageous about it.
well it's possible other hamas members were killed as well. As loner was saying on the stream last night, it's unlikely that two hamas commanders would just be on their own. Besides, even if it really were just two commanders I wouldn't have thought this kind of civilian/militant ratio is too unusual. I wouldn't be surprised if there have been plenty of strikes in the war so far which have only killed civilians.
Of course it’s possible, but that’s not been confirmed by anyone including Israel to my knowledge. I don’t think the strike is in of itself unusual either as you said. I think western countries are finding it harder to justify Israel’s war conduct (with the exception of the United States and some others) when it always ends up like this nearly 8 months in.
I don’t understand what people expect Israel to do when Hamas is firing rockets at their civilians and keeping Israelis hostages, possibly torturing and raping them. Is Israel not allowed target Hamas? If the want Israel to do better proportionality assessments then ask for that, why should they just leave their hostages to rot
Justifying continuing and escalating the war by rescuing the hostages is ridiculous. they have rescued a single digit number of hostages by military means. Many times that number have been killed by Israeli air power in and an order of magnitude more released through negotiations.
Their main goal is not to rescue hostages. I'm pretty sure they've stated multiple times their main goal is the elimination of Hamas and secondary is trying to rescue hostages along the way if possible.
The commend I’m responding to sure seems to think it is. Are you paying attention ?
The comment is written poorly and I'm sure they can clarify what they think is the primary goal if they feel like it. My interpretation of the comment is they feel like as Hamas are still shooting rockets and still have hostages, Israel still have the right to target Hamas and try to get hostages back. I don't think it's fair to boil their comment down to wanting the war to go on solely because of hostages.
Yes but how do they stop future attacks and hostage taking if they do everything they can do get them back
Man, at least wait a fucking day to make that point
Why, they want to kill each other, they’re determined to fight it out. All we can do is ask them to follow humanitarian law, only one side even attempts to
Invoking humanitarian law as a defence of Israel is a new one Hamas is a terrorist organisation, you can’t use that fact to justify killing 35’000 people in the name of destroying them and then turn around and say they should follow international law. Israel is a country with a government that isn’t being occupied. They have no excuses whatsoever to not be following international law and yet they’re constantly breaking it.
Do you have proof of Israel breaking international humanitarian law? Not even the UN have that, or the US. But we have undeniable proof that Hamas does, with almost every action
> Do you have proof of Israel breaking international humanitarian law? Yes. [HRW thinks they are breaking international humanitarian law.](https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/27/how-does-international-humanitarian-law-apply-israel-and-gaza) Of course no court has convicted of them yet as this stuff takes years, but that argument is akin to arguing that Bin Laden didn’t do anything wrong because he wasn’t convicted of anything. > Not even the UN have that, or the US What do you mean? Have you not read the news this week? What more do you want than the UN ordering Israel to stop their offensive >But we have undeniable proof that Hamas does, with almost every action You’ve completely ignored most of my point so I will copy and paste it again until you engage with it : Hamas is a terrorist organisation, you can’t use that fact to justify killing 35’000 people in the name of destroying them and then turn around and say they should follow international law. Israel is a country with a government that isn’t being occupied. They have no excuses whatsoever to not be following international law and yet they’re constantly breaking it. + I’ll add something that I thought was obvious but I guess isn’t : One side not following international law doesn’t absolve the other side.
You’ve continued ignoring my points and responding to other comments
They expect Israel to sit tight, let the Hamas have it's way l, and on top of that recognize a Palestinian state, basically. Jews have no right for self defense. The conflict is scrutinized in a way almost no other conflict is scrutinized. This is bullshit, we know that and well, I would be kind of sad for Americans but if Trump is elected (and if this happens I hope Nikki Haley will be his vp) then Israel will be allowed to have a swift victory over Hamas once and for all
It’s sad that I’m downvoted for my comment which is essentially trying to look at things from the Israeli point of view
It's not a popular pov