So when Trump tries to overthrow the largest government of the free world it takes 4 years for his trial to start, but when Biden backs his military allies it takes less than a month?
Let’s not compare apples to oranges.
Biden isn’t less deserving of scrutiny because he is the better president. He is backing a genocide, that should be put to him.
Will anything happen? No, because America doesn’t have justice left in stock.
US diplomatic efforts have been consistently pressuring Israel to restrain their actions. What people don’t get, and what makes that statement seem insane to you, is that our ability to influence Israel is entirely dependent on our public support and, even so, is severely limited.
Let’s say we go hard against Israel, cut off their access to US weapons manufacturing, and cut off their aid. Suddenly one of the three great regional powers in the Middle East is up for grabs and Russia eagerly steps into the void. Now Russia has two of the three in their orbit, the other being Iran. Iran happens to be the best regional ally of the Palestinians, but Russia will put an immediate end to that. Now the situation for the Palestinians is even worse, unless you think the US is going to threaten military intervention against Israel.
Biden has said some braindead shit on the topic, like taking this moment to call himself a Zionist, but the actions his administration have actually taken have been the best available in a very bad situation. The current government of Israel is basically their version of MAGA. They are going to do what they are going to do, and there is nothing we can do to stop it, short of putting boots on the ground ourselves. (Even if we wanted to, we are historically shit at these kinds of actions.). The best we can do is advise restraint and try to keep the conflict from becoming regional. We did manage to keep Israel from doing a major strike on Lebanon that could easily have sparked a much broader conflict.
America let itself get to this point, putting your hands up complaining that you don’t have many options isn’t acceptable when you publicly defend and prop up a genocidal regime.
No fucking kidding, but I wasn’t complaining. You clearly think virtue signaling about how much you care about the Palestinians is more important than being the adult in the room and actually doing what’s in their best interests and the interests of a region that could very easily fall into a much bigger conflict.
Biden is POTUS, not a social media talking head. If he were to verbally condemn Israel, it would make the situation worse, not better. As Israel’s friend, we have a seat at the table and a chance to influence things. As Israel’s critic, we are left with terrible to no options. I’m glad we don’t have a president who craves social media likes over all else.
Your influence isn’t doing shit, typical American shite pompous bullshit leader of the free world but shies away from the difficult conversation because even if you recognize it is the right thing you don’t want to the consequences.
America put all these pieces on the board and is now acting like they can’t do anything but give stern commentary.
I don’t crave social media likes, I’d love to see less dead children even if it means POTUS has to answer some tough questions. Where does the buck stop again?
Your influence isn’t doing shit,
The fact that Israel and Lebanon aren’t at war right now says you are wrong.
American shite pompous bullshit leader of the free world but shies away from the difficult conversation
It’s been widely reported that Biden and netanyahu have had the difficult conversations, but maybe you are talking to me. I’m certainly trying, but you sure do make it difficult.
America put all these pieces on the board
LOL. These pieces were on the board long before America even existed as a country. Even so, this isn’t a “America bad” conversation, we are discussing the Biden administration’s handling of the current crisis. I give America a large part of the blame too BTW, I just don’t need to signal it in every conversation.
I’d love to see less dead children even if it means POTUS has to answer some tough questions.
What questions? All I see from you are rants. I’m all for tough questions, and I’m hardly a fan of Biden.
Where does the buck stop again?
Which buck? If we are talking about the genocide, then I’d send the bill to the government perpetrating it and Hamas. Hamas’s attack on Israel was intended to provoke exactly the response it’s getting from the far right wing government that Israel elected. Even now, Hamas is continuing to provoke Israel to ensure that it keeps happening. Israel isn’t going to back off, and Hamas will continue using their response to drive recruitment. Is the US supposed to talk them out of it, or are we supposed to put boots on the ground to stop it? Either one would have about the same level of success.
deleted by creator
He’s actually passed a lot of protectionist policies which are fairly new in terms of how expansive they are.
He has 100% done more for Americans than Trump and with more grace and poise.
I really doubt that, as I’m not american. Trump was hitting it out of the park for americans, literally stomping my head of state in negotiations. admittedly trudeau isn’t all that bright. anyways, protectionist policies aren’t a good idea. Setting up a situation protectionism isn’t needed is better. Trump forced trudeau into allowing importation of american milk to canada, it used to be a given not.
He did nothing of the sort. Trump forcing Trudeau to let American milk into Canada isn’t much of a win for Americans. You sound uneducated on current events.
Ah here you clearly have a viewpoint set and that’s not going to change.
The policies Trump was putting in place were also protectionist, just poorly so. He also floundered on COVID killing his countrymen.
I’m not going to continue s conversation with anyone that thinks Trump was the more intelligent of any two people in a room. Much less a world leader.
you have no idea how fucking stupid trudeau is
You have no idea how much of an Albertan you sound like.
What isn’t mentioned is that there’s a kind of tit for tat norm in politics. If you damage the soft negotiation power that comes from co-operation retaliation is normal. Forcing a group to do something completely against their interests because you took advantage of the size of your resources (hard power) isn’t actually difficult… It’s just that you destroy goodwill and open the door to future “screw you” style retaliation.
“Stomping our head of State” isn’t exactly difficult when there as many Canadians in the world as there are Californians. He basically tanked steel trade because it would cause outsized harm to a smaller country the costs of which which ended up being borne by the US industries to force milk onto a market where it generally isn’t wanted. American milk contains artificial growth hormone which domestic milk doesn’t and threatening to tank our domestic food security because Canadian milk isn’t Government subsidized like American milk is means that we can’t compete on price is a dick move.
Since then that coercive deal has been taken apart by the courts and that Milk deal has all but been rescinded as of November last year. The Biden admin did their best to make it stick but Trumps abysmal understanding of the law extends to international trade law and the flaws were there from the beginning.
Trump damaged a lot of America’s good diplomatic standing for temporary victories and there was a lot of America’s long standing dirty laundry that other nations were already overlooking due to soft goodwill policy. The only advantage Trump had was that people were banking on him being a temporary nuisance. If he returns to power he does invite a lot of opportunities for international retaliation. Canada is a notorious soft diplomacy country. A future Trump lead US might not like what closed door handshakes may be in it’s future.
The US justice system goes soft on fascism. Always has, from operation paperclip to across the board leinency for j6 convictions. Hope this clears things up.
While I agree with the rest of your comment, and Comey waiting until after the election to let certain things be known is fucked, but this isn’t any federal organization in the US, this is basically a memo from a bunch of legal and civil groups worldwide saying ‘we think Biden is enabling genocide’ or at least didn’t prevent it. Aside from that…
Operation paperclip wasn’t a ‘lets go get some of the hardest hardcore Nazis we can because Nazis, fuck yeah!’, it was because they were some of the best minds in engineering, science, and technology. This was right after the US had shown the world the bomb. So they had focused their energy on making a megaweapon, and next was likely seeing what else they could achieve with the knowledge gained from it, with new minds. Propulsion, time travel, advanced small weaponry, gravity manipulation, It’s not often you get to go steal over a thousand of the best minds from a very intelligent now-former superpower. I’m sure it was a free-for-all of ideas with them being mostly not workable, and many came to fruition and were used to advance other technologies, and some we’re keeping secret for when we really need them. I don’t speak on this with authority, only common sense.
There were over 1,600 people taken in OP paperclip. Many, but not all, were former members and some former leaders of the Nazi party.
largest government of the free world
By what measure? I would contest both the largest government and sadly the free world bits nowadays as well.
Trump took four years because the US prosecutor took four years. The court is the same, the prosecutor could have filed earlier, but “the case needed to be airtight”. This takes less than a month because these people just went in and did the thing.
If you know any history involving US activity across the planet, you’d know that being a genocide embracing war criminal comes with being a US president, it’s part of the job.
yep. Former presidents don’t travel internationally much, they stick to Canada, Mexico, England.
People sued Trump really quick too. This is civil not criminal.
I’d wager the ongoing thousands of violent deaths might have something to do with the difference in urgency here.
oh look. the muppet doesn’t understand the difference between filing and trial, and is unclear on media prevarication.
Uh uh um your mom
Trump was getting sued constantly before and during his presidency. You do understand the difference between civil and criminal trials right?
The amount of tribalism in this thread is disgusting.
lol textbook protection
Biden can’t be bad because that would mean Trump good. And Trump is bad so Biden Good!
That’s not how the courts work here.
Where?
Well, let’s see, the lawsuit was filed in the United States, in a US court, and under US laws.
So, obviously, I’m talking about Outer Mongolia.
I was going to guess Rabul. Oops.
How so? The article is about them having Amicus briefs with the court in the very real lawsuit against Biden and selected cabinet members.
I’m referring to the lawsuit itself. It may be “very real”, but it’s also complete nonsense.
US courts don’t rule on political questions, nor do they decide US foreign policy, nor do they provide advisory opinions. This lawsuit fails to state a cognizable claim and seeks relief that is beyond the power of the judiciary to grant.
The courts can’t force him to support Palestine, that’s true. But they can enforce US laws against giving weapons and aid to war criminals. That seems to fall pretty neatly under “do everything possible to stop Israel”.
Acting like this is above our laws is not going to help us or them.
Which US laws are you talking about?
The Leahy Act.
“The DoD Leahy law is similar to the State Leahy law. Since 1999, Congress included the DoD Leahy law in its annual appropriations act. The DoD Leahy law is now permanent in Section 362 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It requires that DoD-appropriated funds may not be used for any training, equipment, or other assistance for a foreign security force unit if the Secretary of Defense has credible information that such unit has committed a GVHR. The law allows for two exceptions to this restriction. The first in cases where the Secretary of Defense (after consultation with the Secretary of State) determines that the government of that country has taken all necessary corrective steps. This first exception is also known as “remediation.” A second exception exists if U.S. equipment or other assistance is necessary to assist in disaster relief operations or other humanitarian or national security emergencies.”
deleted by creator
I don’t think that works. You’d still have a situation where the plaintiffs are asking the court to decide US foreign and defense policy.
No. That’s the law as passed by Congress. Either it’s enforceable or it isn’t.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In late December, 77 groups — representing tens of thousands of lawyers, civil society leaders, and activists from six continents — filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit that Palestinian human rights organizations, residents of Gaza, and U.S. citizens with family members impacted by Israel’s ongoing assault brought against the Biden administration.
Top administration officials have been dismissive of the case before the ICJ as well, with White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby calling it “meritless, counterproductive, and completely without any basis in fact whatsoever,” and Blinken deriding it on similar terms.
In late October, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked a biblical verse about an enemy of ancient Israel that has long been cited to justify killing Palestinians.
The plaintiffs responded to the administration’s motion to dismiss on December 22, arguing that there is precedent for U.S. courts to adjudicate questions surrounding genocide and that their legal challenge is about more than the actions of a foreign state.
(The Biden administration is facing another federal lawsuit that accuses it of failing to protect Palestinian Americans stuck in Gaza, drawing a contrast to its efforts to help Israeli dual nationals.)
Correction: January 10, 2024, 4:45 p.m. ETA previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked Amalek in November; in fact, he made those comments in late October.
The original article contains 1,484 words, the summary contains 222 words. Saved 85%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
they will be arrested and whipped and imprisoned with only bread and water >))))
Biden can point to literally dozens of battles, sieges, and wars that the US was directly involved in and resulted in similar levels of civilian casualties, with no genocide accusations. This is not going anywhere.
Well, sheer number of civilian causalities isn’t genocide. Israel is stealing land and pushing away Palestinians from their homes. Even if Palestinians weren’t murdered and just forced to emigrate that would still wipe their culture
Is Israel stealing land in the Gaza strip? Unlike the West Bank there are no settlements and the border is a clearly defined wall. I agree if they forcibly resettle the population and claim the strip for themselves that would be ethnic cleansing, but they haven’t done that.
Pushing civilians out of a city during war is common practice (see literally any Eastern Ukrainian city). Pushing them out of their country is not. Gaza is essentially an urban city-state which conflates these two actions.
Unlike the West Bank
Unlike a specific case that completely proves my point? Palestinians have homes in the west bank and Israel is still colonizing that land
We’re talking about Gaza in this thread. Any evidence of stealing land in Gaza?
I love how you still can’t counter my point that what Israel is doing in the west bank is ethnic cleansing. You’re argument is honestly hilarious, I don’t even want to report it so more people can read how stupid you are
Frankly, genocide or not, there should be consequences for the high amount of civilian casualties in those US conflicts.
Sure, but that’s a moral argument relating to the justification of different wars, weighing of collateral damage, etc. This is a legal case based on the genocide convention of 1948, and if there is no genocide, it falls apart.
Right. But there is a genocide occurring.
Yeah but not if you just deny it. The right have great succes denying genocide too. 6 million 6 schmilion amirite?
Did the US ever kill 1% of a country’s population in less than four months? Iraq took years to reach 0.5% and it was a big fucking deal.
I’m going to assume you’re posting in good faith until proven otherwise.
The US never fought an urban country the size of Las Vegas, so a country-scale comparison is poor. We have however engaged in city-scale battles lasting several months, many of which killed 1% of the civilian population. A pretty good recent example is Mosul. There are several more egregious examples in the world wars, Korea, Vietnam, etc. notably we carpet bombed Tokyo for months killing several percent of the population.
Be careful not to ask why a country is packed into the size of Vegas or you may realize that was a coordinated campaign by the same people who are now claiming it’s impossible to not slaughter innocents because of the way THEY designed the strip.
Intentionally brining about conditions that lead to destruction in whole or part of a group is genocide, literally as written, in the Geneva Convention. Israel is the reason it’s so populated there, so when they blame the density, they blame themselves.
I’m well aware of the history and parallels with Jewish ghettos. These are somewhat confounded by repeated rejected offers of a two-state solution over 70 years, periods on unilateral Israeli withdrawal, the election of Hamas, decades of terror attacks on Israeli civilians with popular support, and a recent 9/11 scale massacre which also has popular support.
Also not to nitpick, but Israel didn’t create or design the Gaza strip. That was Egypt, who controlled it for 20 years without giving them citizenship or letting them leave.
Here’s a cool Netanyahu quote:
Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas.
This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank
- Speaking to Likud members of the Knesset (March 2019), as cited in “Another Concept Implodes: Israel Can’t Be Managed by a Criminal Defendant”, Haaretz (9 October 2023)
Here’s a compact 5 minute video about Hamas origins and how israel propped them up themselves.
That’s probably good, but why isn’t Russia facing similar charges?
They are, have been convicted in the ICJ, that Israel has also been cited to. Putin has an active arrest warrant in a lot of the world as a result. Do you think Biden will get one?
One genocide does not justify another either way.
Removed by mod
Probably because Russia is an international pariah state that doesn’t even bother responding to legal accusations anymore, while Israel is only working its way up to that status currently.
Id love when that happens, TBH.
Also, why didn’t the Bush administration ever face anything for the invasion of Iraq and legalizing torture?
I wonder whether the people pushing these charges are being compensated by China/Russia for it.
I think #1 was because the usa literally made a law/policy statement declaring they would invade if ever charges were filed.
Yeah that’s bullshit.
I wonder how many of these groups actually give a shit about Palestinians, and which ones are using their dire situation to push some bullshit political agenda… They have to know nothing real will come of this, and I’m sure there are many who just love the timing of this. How convenient for them.
They have to know nothing real will come of this, and I’m sure there are many who just love the timing of this. How convenient for them.
Even if they have no foreign ties, it makes sense to do this now, as pressuring Biden and the US has the best effect now, as the genocide is still happening and Biden has something (the election) to lose.
Also, labelling people who are doing things inconvenient to the current mainstream is very much Russia-like. Please be better. Trump is a clear and present threat, but there are ways other than Trump to slide into fascism.
Oh fuck off
If we don’t do fascism then the fascists will do fascism first!
Many Republicans are feigning support for Gazans because they know that certain Leftists will fall for the ruse and abstain from voting for Biden.
“Failed to prevent” Talk about a nonsense piece of drivel that would be dismissed with the most severe prejudice possible by a court.
We’re actively blocking the rest of the world’s efforts to stop netanyahu’s genocide. That clearly makes us a responsibility party. The intercept is one of the few sources of actual journalism in the US.
Have you actually read this lawsuit? It asks for things that US courts simply cannot do.
The Intercept? Are you kidding me?! They are openly committed to advocacy journalism. They don’t even make a pretense of trying to be fair-minded, objective or operating in good-faith. Greenwald is an attorney who’s openly said that he approaches journalism the same way he approaches a case as a litigator.
I am a journalist by formal academic training --though I don’t really work in the business anymore-- and I can tell you for a fact that The Intercept is basically a case study in how many different ways a publication can violate SPJ’s code of ethics. They are a fucking disgrace to the profession and it’s galling that people like you take them seriously.
Why’d you leave journalism?
Are they doing something other than vetoing UN resolutions? Cause those are about as effective as protest voting for third parties in US elections.
Cause those are about as effective as protest voting for third parties in US elections.
They’re that ineffective when you have a veto power in your back. Otherwise they can do a lot.
BTW, did anybody notice this is the ONLY source reporting this trash?
Perhaps buy them all a dictionary first?
DOZENS OF LEGAL and civil society organizations from around the world have thrown their weight behind a U.S. lawsuit accusing President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin for failing to “prevent an unfolding genocide” in Gaza.
US does something: “US WORLD POLICE LEAVE OTHER COUNTRIES ALONE”
US doesn’t do something: “DOING NOTHING IS LITERALLY THE SAME AS GENOCIDE, YOU ARE LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE”
DOING NOTHING
Selling them all those guns, moving aircraft carriers in to defend them, running interference at the UN, providing diplomatic cover, etc.
The rest of the world is trying to stop the IDF and the lunatics that netanyahu put in charge from continuing their genocide and we are active in preventing that.
Selling them all those guns,
That’s a much longer-term issue. I would argue that the current sales of ammunition, while distasteful, are little more than token support to a supposed ‘ally’.
moving aircraft carriers in to defend them
Alright, that one is to discourage a full-fledged war from breaking out. And I’m pretty sure that will not be any better for the Palestinian people than the current scenario.
running interference at the UN,
Fair enough on that one.
providing diplomatic cover, etc.
We’ve actually been more standoffish to Israel than I’ve ever seen before in terms of public statements. I think the nakedness of it has rattled some people in the State Department.
Didn’t Biden push through a sale specifically for this “war” though?
Hence the ‘current sales of ammunition’.
You also specifically said it was just part of their long term support. Why is it such an emergency that we provide those weapons now if it’s little more than a token gesture?
Ah, that would tie in to both the fact that Israel is a major purchaser of US equipment and that we don’t want Israel to be invaded, because God fucking knows how that will end.
The first is that when a country buys weapons from another, they want to know that they can continue to purchase the supplies that let them continue to operate those weapons. If not, well, they won’t purchase arms from that country anymore - if they will cut you off for policy disputes, then you’re at their mercy, and that’s unacceptable to most nations. A reputation for continuing to supply the weaponry we sell even to those we have disputes with, such as Turkiye and Egypt, is valuable to have for this reason. And while the profit motive is often championed as the reason for the sales, the real cause for its importance is influence - it’s much easier to integrate and cooperate with countries which use the same systems and have economic ties to you.
The second is that Israel isn’t about to literally run out of artillery shells for their current rate of genocide, but a perception of reduced supply could embolden other actors in the region to take aggressive action while stockpiles are lower. One of the major sales recently was of tank shells, which are not being used in large amounts in Gaza at the moment (most of it is being done by artillery and airstrikes) - a sale to shore up stockpiles to ward off the prospect of an intervention by a hostile neighbor. A war breaking out would be… disastrous. For Palestinians and everyone else.
Now, all this being said, I still think that we shouldn’t sell them anything at this moment, reputation be damned. But I also think it’s not a major contributor to the ongoing genocide, and it’s not much more than a continuation of prior policies.
More stand off ish in the press. And only in recent years after almost a century of colonialism
I do kind of agree, this is a bit much, but we are giving them lots of weapons, like i understand maintaining the alliance & there is a large jewish lobby in the USA but like the ammunition would be much better spent in Kharkiv or Robotnye vs Gaza City imo.
I mean, I’m in support of stopping aid to Israel entirely, and have been for years, since this is not in any way a new genocide.
But let’s not pretend that the timing is anything but an excuse to beat on the “US BAD” drum.
But let’s not pretend that the timing is anything but an excuse to beat on the “US BAD” drum.
I would disagree.
It’s a valid tactic to shame the US in order to move public opinion in a way that affects democrats. That’s a legit strategy to remove the biggest roadblock to holding Israel accountable, not just a chance for cheap political point-scoring.
I’m sure it will also be used for that by some but so what? We are bad. We’re a state. Any organization that holds power based on their control of violence is by definition evil. And worse, we’re a global imperial power, the worst kind of state. Maybe you think we’re the lesser evil, but we’re still quite obviously bad. All countries are vermin.
All countries are vermin.
Truest statement of 2024
As true now as it was in the neolithic.
I would disagree. It’s a valid tactic to shame the US in order to move public opinion in a way that affects democrats. That’s a legit strategy to remove the biggest roadblock to holding Israel accountable, not just a chance for cheap political point-scoring.
But will it? Bringing charges against the Biden administration are unlikely to cause the Biden administration to change course, because such would be immediately jumped on by pro-Israel Democrats (ie the majority) and the entire Republican Party. It’s unlikely to change opinions here in the US for the better, because Republicans want genocide, while Democrats have already largely made up their minds as to whether Israel’s response is disproportionate or not.
That leaves a small number of swing voters to change - but the only change that would be noticeable by them would be an abandonment of the anti-Israel elements of the Democratic Party for not being anti-Israel enough. In every other scenario, their opinions on Israel are immaterial due to the overwhelming support from the other two, larger groups.
My point isn’t that we shouldn’t be calling out Israel’s genocide for what it is. We absolutely should be. My point is that apportioning blame to the Biden administration or attempting to hold the US government legally responsible for someone else’s genocide is counterproductive at best.
But will it?
By itself almost certainly not, but it’s rare for any one thing to change policy. Maybe something interesting comes out in court, or the government’s arguments make it look particularly bad. Probably not, but equally I doubt it’s going to backfire strongly.
I don’t know, man. It probably won’t backfire on the people bringing the suit, but it very easily could damage Biden at no expense to the pro-Israel wing. Which, in case anyone else reading this needs it to be said, would have even less desirable results regarding the ongoing genocide.
Put another way, if Biden ends up punished at the ballot box, pro-Israel voters are a MUCH larger bloc than us anti-Israel voters. The sad strategic answer of the next candidate will not be “Biden lost pro-Israel votes AND anti-Israel votes by stepping away from Israel; I had better step even further away in the hopes that it’ll be good enough for them this time!” it will be “Anti-Israel voters won’t help me if I step away from Israel, so it’s better to just go all-in on uncritical support for genocide to keep pro-Israel voters”.
When an official begins to step away from long-standing policy embedded deep into the institutions of government, the answer shouldn’t be to drag them for not stepping away far enough. It should be to emphasize that the move is good, and should be repeated.
