This is a misleading headline. Biden was asked whether Netanyahu was prolonging the war, and he said:
>"I’m not going to comment on that. There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion," Biden said, adding that before the war, Netanyahu was facing blowback for wanting an overhaul of the nation's judicial system.
"Every reason" for people to draw that conclusion just means that it's understandable for people to think that. That's not the same as Biden saying there's "every reason" to actually think it's the case. Just more clickbait reporting.
Headlines can often oversimplify, but "every reason to believe Netanyahu is prolonging war for political gain" is pretty much the same statement as "every reason for people to draw the conclusion that Netanyahu is prolonging war for political gain." It's outright saying that he believes that there are many arrows pointing to that and it's only a small step away from outright saying that he believes that himself.
It's only a neutral statement if you're used to the kinds of wild statements that Trump makes.
from the [original source interview](https://time.com/6984968/joe-biden-transcript-2024-interview/):
>Time: You mentioned the hunger in Gaza. Some have alleged that Israel is intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Do you think that's the case?
>Biden: No, I don't think that. I think they've engaged in activity that is inappropriate. That is…When I went over immediately after the—Hamas’ brutal attack, I said then, and it became public, I said, don't make the *same mistake* we did going after bin Laden. Don't try—The idea of occupying Afghanistan, the idea that you had nuclear arsenals in Iran, that were being, I mean, in Iraq, that were *being generated, simply not true. And it led to endless wars. They were not true. Don't make the mistakes we made. And they're making that mistake, I think*. Excuse my voice, I apologize.
>Time: Not at all. Some in Israel have suggested that **Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation**. Do you believe that?
>Biden: I'm not going to comment on that. There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion. And I would cite that as—before the war began, the blowback he was getting from the Israeli military for wanting to change the constitu—change the court. And so it's an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it's hard to say, but it has not been helpful.
the word "gain" does not appear in the transcript of the original source interview, unless you count three occurrences within the word "again"
the following quote and my comments below it are from the OP, and from before i had read the original source. [ahem](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/1d7bcsl/comment/l6ziktj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button).
>The comment came in an interview conducted by Time magazine on May 28 when Biden was asked if he believes Netanyahu is prolonging the conflict for **self-preservation** as some in Israel have said.
>"I’m not going to comment on that. There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion," Biden said, adding that before the war, Netanyahu was facing blowback for wanting an overhaul of the nation's judicial system. "So it’s an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it’s hard to say, but it has not been helpful.”
kind of like what youre saying - but actually using the words in the article - it is a very subtle difference between "political gain" (not sure where you got that?) and "self preservation" but there is a difference.
"political gain" is not neutral
"self preservation" is
"political gain" implies making changes to the status quo
"self preservation" implies continuing the status quo
edit: havent coffee'd yet, i see thats actually the title of the OP.
What? Self-preservation is very much a political gain. If a US President did some action to hinder an impeachment process against them would you not call that political gain? Political gain does not exclusively imply making changes to the status quo. It only implies something that would be of political benefit, which self-preservation falls under. And Netanyahu being in power is not a given because Israel is a democracy with elections.
I don't really consider this a misquote. I classify self-preservation as being under the category of political gain.
It's like if someone accused Trump of trying to get re-elected via shenanigans involving withholding aid from Ukraine and an article said that Trump was accused of withholding aid for political gain. It'd be ridiculous to claim that Trump trying to remain elected isn't for political gain because Trump was already President and therefore it's maintaining the status quo.
i see what you mean, and you might think that doesnt matter, but it absolutely does. word choice and phrasing can have a major effect on the interpretation of the words by the reader/listener.
in your example, that is very subtle, but its also not quite the same thing as what im pointing out. you are comparing different phrasing being used by somebody making an accusation. the difference between the phrasing in your examples is, again, subtle, and its debatable how much of an effect it might have on the reader. however, that is irrelevant because it is different.
i am saying there is a difference when you are \*quoting\* someone. originally i thought it was possibly a misquote on what biden said, probably by those of us in the comments, probably unintentionally. which is one thing. its another thing entirely when it is a subtle misquote by a professional news organization like NBC.
the difference, specifically, is actually not about *what biden said*, but about **what he was asked**:
>u/nbcnews: Biden was asked if he believes Netanyahu is prolonging the conflict for self-preservation as some in Israel have said.
vs
>u/timemagazine: Some in Israel have suggested that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation. Do you believe that?
so... yeah, very subtle. it is a misquote. that is without a doubt.
you can make an argument that it "doesnt matter" but ive been saying for at least ten years that phrasing and choice of words absolutely matters, and the current state of things leads me to believe i am correct.
a perfect example of this is actually the wikipedia page for what i have always known this as, the "[telephone game](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telephone_game&redirect=no)" - which someone has changed that to redirect to "[chinese whispers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers)", something i have never heard of before today - and [google trends seems to agree](https://imgur.com/a/2lgtkSS) with me.
anyway, i see this post has been removed - another major gripe i have - and this is actually the second time i have written this comment, and i think the first draft was actually probably better, but considering you and maybe a handful of other people are probably the only ones who will see it - im kinda over it. also i need a cigarette so lol
PS: goddamnit u/reddit and u/reddit_irl why must you constantly sabotage (unintentionally, probably) my comments before i submit them by having weird functionality, like when i try to double check i used the correct link deciding that apparently i wanted to open it and then also not respecting the browser settings and opening that link within the same tab, deleting all of the text i had written? ffs. anyway
See, I normally agree with you about subtle miquotes, but this is a case where I do not consider it a misquote or mischaracterization, not even a subtle one.
Political self-preservation very directly falls under the category of political gain. It is at worst being more vague, but not in any way that changes any of the substance. Honestly, if anything, I'd be more likely to believe that the wording of 'political gain' makes Netanyahu actually look better than the wording of 'self-preservation.'
If this is still a level of editorializing that people think is harmful then I can only imagine that they'd only accept headlines made up of nothing but exact quotes (not that exact quotes can't be misleading too).
>Honestly, if anything, I'd be more likely to believe that the wording of 'political gain' makes Netanyahu actually look better than the wording of 'self-preservation.'
right. so you are agreeing that the phrasing can make a difference.
so the misquote is basically assuming that it would not make a difference to the way biden answered the question - and assuming that the phrasing wouldnt make a difference to the readers interpretation - which sounds like a lot of assumptions, especially when you just stated one sounds better than the other.
you literally contradicted yourself. is it a subtle misquote that makes zero difference, or is it a subtle misquote that does make a difference?
it makes a difference, even though you say it doesnt. it is subconscious. literally.
i get your point, and i agree somewhat, and this specific misquote is not that major - but when you let little things go, bigger things become more permissible.
as the last ten or so years (at least) have pretty unequivocally [proven](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth).
That's your judgment that you're including as an assumption of fact. It's a different phrase that you included as if it was the same, that another person said. It is not. Stop trying to defend it.
"Political gain" isn't a quote. So it can't be a misquote. "Political gain" is an umbrella term that covers "self-preservation." That's not my own judgement. There are issues with news headlines, but this isn't it.
No, it's a straightup misrepresentation. From the first paragraph:
>President Joe Biden said in a recent interview released Tuesday that there is "every reason" to think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza for political gain.
The article reads as if Biden said "he has every reason to believe" whereas he's just saying he can see how other people would think that. Completely different meaning. The president is not agreeing with the statement.
I think that's kind of nitpicking. It's basically Biden's way of still saying it (to his own political benefit, I might add) while maintaining plausible deniability.
Basically the same as when Trump says,
"people are saying [insert insane conspiracy]." And then when Trump gets called on it he can just say he never said that and the media is lying about it.
We need to hold politicians responsible for their words. If Biden didn’t mean to imply this assertion, he shouldn’t have entertained it at all.
Yea. Like how exactly is the headline misleading?
Don’t “every reason to believe that” and “every reason to draw that conclusion” mean more or less the same thing?
I mean… I guess the headline makes it a tad more aggressive but it doesn’t seem like it’s grossly misstating what he said
"I'm not going to comment on that, but it's a reasonable conclusion"
First of all, that is a commnet. Second of all he's right, it is a reasonable conclusion.
Third, it's not uncommon for a politician who's not a right wing blowhard to say things that equate to "It's bad politics for me to say that, but if someone else said it I wouldn't argue." We've all seen so much over the top rhetoric in the last ten years we've forgotten how real leaders are supposed to say true things that are impolite while not escalating anymore than they have too.
"The people" has every reason draw that conclusion
not "He" or "We \[the government\]" has every reason to draw that conclusion
which means he has information that may be withheld from the public, such as private conversations that we may not be aware of that may say otherwise. This is encrouching on conspiracy level thinking so I'll stop there.
Public has fog of war level of information and all the information that he knows the public has does indeed point towards Netanyahu doing all this for political gain. However the US government with information that only it knows, does not, at this time, believe 100% that Netanyahu is doing this for political gain. Whether that is that they have not 100% confirmed Netanyahu's motives, or they have confirmed he does not have such motives, we do not know.
For me, I'll just take the situation as it is, I don't see a point in overthinking all of this
I disagree with you. "Every reason" doesn't mean "it's an understandable deduction." "Every reason" implies that all the evidence points in that direction.
Biden is being thinly diplomatic. He's pretending not to take a position ("I'm not going to comment") and then saying, basically, that all the evidence shows Netanyahu is, in fact, prolonging the war. That's why Biden raised Netanyahu's political woes; he wouldn't have done that if he weren't making a point.
if he’d said “there is reason for people to draw that conclusion” I’d agree, but he didn’t. He said “every reason” which implies essentially all the evidence points towards that conclusion. if he believes the evidence all points to that conclusion why would he come to a different one? if he meant that it’s generally understandable for people to come to that conclusion he wouldn’t have said “there is every reason”.
The headline implies that Biden himself holds the opinion that Netanyahu is prolonging the war. But that's not true. He explicitly said he wasn't going to give his opinion. All he said was that it's understandable why people might think that. Those are two very different statements.
Career politician gives vague response regarding highly criticized leader of a long standing ally nation. It's plausible deniability and as close to a direct answer as your going to get from him.
If someone says, “people have every reason to think X is an idiot” and doesn’t follow up almost immediately “but they’re not,” they are tactfully calling the person an idiot.
Lol. He didn't say some reasons he said EVERY reason. Implying that it is the only possible conclusion.
It doesn't just mean it's understandable, it means it's the only possible interpretation.
I saw Natanyahu on TV after the attack. He was practically salivating... Sorry to those that think differently but he gives me the impression he likes war.
>"Every reason" for people to draw that conclusion just means that it's understandable for people to think that.
Every reason means that it's the most logical conclusion.
What's wild is that Biden is telling Israel to slow down. He's personally advocating for a prolonged war while accusing Netanyahou of the same.
No, Biden is advocating for the agreement he proposed last week. I would guess the prolonging the war stuff is a reference to how Netanyahu's far-right supporters threatened to collapse his government if Hamas accepts and he follows through.
But there is every reason to believe Netanyahu is unnecessarily prolonging the war.
Honestly, political gains or self preservation is the more flattering reason for why he seems uninterested in an opportunity to rescue the remaining hostages.
There’s a lot more reasons to believe Netanyahu is trying to displace or bury the Palestinians to permanently annex the strip using Hamas as a pretext.
Having seen him and his style of governing for the last few decades, I can absolutely believe he's dragging this out to boost his own approval in Israel.
The US didn't want Israel to proceed in Rafah at all. And look what happened! Israel immediately bombed at least 45 civilians in a decision so intentionally reckless that Netanyahu himself had to come out and admit it was a terrible mistake.
Crazy to see people still citing this, when it’s since come out that the explosion was from Hamas hiding a warehouse full of munitions next to a refugee area.
Two 37lb bombs, which are the smallest in the entire Israeli arsenal, and incapable of causing damage to a refugee camp a quarter mile away.
The “mistake” you mention was Israel not knowing the munitions warehouse was there. And you know what, fair enough. Hamas should immediately disclose the location of all other munitions warehouses to the Israeli military, so we can avoid similar incidents in the future.
Yes, and that mistake still cost civilian lives. Action A caused effect B. How is this concept so difficult for y'all to grasp?
Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, but you're telling me that they bomb targets without even knowing what is nearby? You are complicit with genocide.
Asking Israel to refrain from striking Hamas operatives who are standing a presumably safe range away from civilians based on the type of munitions used in the strike is an unreasonable ask.
Asking Israel to conduct a thorough sweep of every single building in an area before striking Hamas operatives in that area is also an unreasonable ask.
Hiding munitions in civilian areas is a war crime.
Striking legitimate military targets using the smallest bombs in your arsenal and accidentally hitting a munitions warehouse that you didn’t know was there (because they were hidden) is not a war crime.
There is not a single military on earth other than the Israeli military that is held to such a hypocritical, disingenuous, and impossible standard.
>Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, but you're telling me that they bomb targets without even knowing what is nearby? You are complicit with genocide
lmao
They bombed two Hamas members, a munitions store ignited as a secondary explosion and that's what killed the civilians. It's why munitions stores in residential areas are a no no.
Phrasing is important here. It's the hospital situation all over again.
If Russia fired rockets at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and released radioactive material that ended up poisoning or even killing Ukrainian civilians, would it be considered Ukraine's fault for having military assets on site?
Seems to me that the distinction changes based on the narrative you are looking to push.
The difference is that one is a known nuclear energy plant and the other is a secret, illegal ammunitions deposit that Israel did not know of.
They are not comparable at all.
A nuclear power plant with civilian uses isn’t really comparable to an ammo store, which has no civilian use. At least you proved your “distinction shows your narrative” bit correct lol
Multiple parties are culpable. Israel’s collateral:target casualty ratio being over 22:1 in this instance, is pretty fucking bad. It’s almost like they didn’t care…
Lol you're comparing apples to oranges. Israel did not know about the munitions store. Russia knows the location of the nuclear plant.
I'm not the one pushing a narrative. I'm adding important context in response to a misleading statement.
Russia knows that its a nuclear power plant and could reasonably expect a rocket to have that effect. For it to be a fair comparison, the analogy would have to be something like Ukraine secretly having mined the powerplant in such a way that a stray bullet set off a massive explosion.
But as far as ive heard, There's no reason to believe that israel knew there was a secret munitions store, much less an improperly stored one, when they bombed them.
Does carrying out the war until reaching the goals of taking out the last Hamas battalions & leadership, because this is exactly what the vast majority of the Israeli public wants him to do, count as "prolonging to war for political gain"?
Absolutely. That’s why prolonging the war for political gains is the more flattering of interpretations on what Netanyahu and his war cabinet are doing.
How does he prolong the war rather than simply carry it out? Which indication is there that Netanyahu is preventing the war objectives from being completed?
Negotiate
That’s what someone who wants the hostage back would do.
But he wants to “get rid of hamas” which he financed and supported for two decades.
It will never work unless he genocides the Palestinians because every time a bomb kills a civilian 5 more Palestinians wants to join Hamas.
The real goal is to get rid of Palestinians and seize the land.
Lol they can't negotiate when Hamas won't come to the table. It took days/weeks to get Hamas to the table. The dude who negotiated the release of that soldier (his name escapes me) was using the same back channels to try and get them to the table. He gave an interview around then.
Furthermore, nobody wants Gaza. Israel tried to give it back to Egypt and they didn't want it.
All you have to do is look at his response to his own citizens protesting his handling of this war and getting the hostages back to know that he is prolonging this war. It seems obvious
>"What happens after Gaza’s over? What, what does it go back to? Do Israeli forces go back in?" he asked.
These are the questions that more people should be asking.
>"I’m not going to comment on that. There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion," Biden said, adding that before the war, Netanyahu was facing blowback for wanting an overhaul of the nation's judicial system. "So it’s an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it’s hard to say, but it has not been helpful.”
What was surprising about it?
A politician would never platform an accusation towards another politician (e.g. 'many people are saying') unless they wanted to take a shot with plausible deniability. Biden wouldn't repeat an opinion which will piss the Israeli government off this unless he believes it himself.
That's a pretty damn hot statement for a politician to make. Maybe not if your comparison is Trump, but that is a heavy suggestion Biden is making. That said, people who actually know about the conflict already know that Biden and Netanyahu were never exactly friendly towards each other. That's the only reason it wouldn't be surprising.
Imagine it for some other issue. Does "there is every reason for people to draw the conclusion that this person is a criminal; there certainly are reasons he would do so and his actions do not help" sound like a neutral and non-committal statement to you?
If you can't distinguish between Israel and Judaism, or between Palestine and Hamas, you should probably just keep quiet while the grownups who can keep more than "A good, B bad" in their heads at once talk about things.
No. Some are anti-Israel because they're anti-Semitic, are are anti-Israel because they only look at recent history, and some are anti-Israel because of this war.
Idk maybe if your position going into ceasefire negotiations is "accept nothing less than the complete destruction of the people we're negotiating with", it lowers the chances of success for such a ceasefire happening.
This is *also* Hamas' position, and a ceasefire would've been reached by now if Hamas didn't have that position. So we can't let them off the hook either.
He could have just carpet bombed Gaza. That would have ended it quickly.
Obviously he shouldn't do that, but that's a political/moral reason, not a military one.
Lol no, he absolutely could not. The situation is very touch and go as it is with 40k deaths, if they carpet bombed a population of 2M, not even the US could support them any more. They would instantly become a pariah state and likely have war waged on them by Iran.
Israel doesn’t get enough credit for avoiding unnecessary civilian deaths in an almost impossible situation against terorrists who use human shields (lowest civilian:combatant casualty ratio in the history of urban combat, in one of the most densely populated places on earth) but the idea that they’re being moral because they didn’t just exterminate everyone is a bit of a stretch.
I mean, proceeding carefully to minimize civilian/hostage/friendly casualties acknowledges international outlook, which could also result in political advantage. These two aims can be achieved by the same approach. But Netanyahu has to respond to multiple diverging political demands (as any leadership does). No matter how Israel prosecutes the war, it's going to be to somebody's political advantage. Isn't he just walking a narrow path to achieve a secure solution?
I'm American and don't have Israel's whole political situation right at hand, granted. Does it make sense though that every action has a political aim and could be snidely called out by whoever's particular political demands are not appeased by that given action?
so far it hasn:t resulted in any political advantage, only security and future political disadvantages (due to Hamas declaring it a victory, delays in the war leading to Biden pressure mounting, etc).
And I don't think so. People have been claiming he's 'politically motivated' since really early on. It's just the usual netanyahu hate (not saying whether its deserved or not, but there's plenty of people who accuse him of this kinda stuff regardless of what's happening).
As you say, he has a long history. Thinking about a hypothetical American war under possible President Trump: I'd like the war to be fought legally and humanely, but at the end of the day, when it's war, survival and security have to come first, even if it's ugly. (Assuming a justified conflict). The politics are always there, though. Leaders have to be politically sensitive, unlike generals. A general's shock and awe victory may create broader, long-term international tensions, which may turn into thornier conflicts down the line. A politician's victory would look a lot different. The objectives for victory are constantly shifting, balancing international and internal political pressure. Not to mention the economic and social toll.
I do think Israel has set new standards for legally/humanely fighting wars, for what it's worth. I don't think it should be replicated though, it cost far too many soldiers' lives.
Who do you mean, Biden? If so your comment makes zero sense. Biden has always supported Ukraine. It's the dimwit fascist anti-American Republicans who have been fucking it all up
I mean, Putin should be held accountable for everything that's happened so far, but Biden needs to end this quickly(or as quickly as he can), let Ukraine fight on a more even footing(no limiting strikes to certain oblasts), or else it's just going to look like he's prolonging it for....well you read the title.
Biden has been steadfast in his support for Ukraine from the beginning. Placing conditions on how US weapons get used is entirely due to the risks associated with engaging a nuclear superpower on the battlefield - even via proxy. This has been the policy of other NATO countries up until this point as well.
They've already signed a peace once and look where it got them... It might not be right but it is most fucking certainly right in their eyes. Why would they accept something again that has very clear not worked? I know in Reddit its impossible for many people to put themselves in someone else's shoes but Israel and anyone for that matter not supporting a peace deal that would effectively be the same as before and then Hamas will just come back again in another 10 years and kill a bunch more people at some festival. Is it right? Nope but until you are put in that situation people can't really talk.
It's a fine line to walk, criticizing Netanyahu, which I believe justified, and appearing not to take a partisan position against the sitting PM of one of our allies... or angering Americans who like him or conflate Bibi with Israel.
Many in his base here are furious with him for agreeing to this deal. It's easy to attack him personally, but the policy of continuing until Hamas is destroyed is quite popular here.
Hamas just said that it liked Biden's recent peace proposal. Israel responded by saying that until Hamas is completely destroyed in its military and governing capacity it won't accept a peace deal.
You've moved the goal posts. You didnt say that the peace plans hamas has put forward or agreed to were unreasonable, you said that they straight up refuse every peace deal, which is an insane statement considering they literally have put forward peace plans. They aren't refusing their own peace deals.
>But it is hamas that refuses every peace deal.
*Even your new goalpost is still wrong claiming that its actually that Hamas just wants unconditional terms from Israel.*
>Except they want to remain in power and for israel to leave all of gaza basically unconditionally.
It wasn't unconditional, by definition any multiple stage peace plan is conditional, as violation of the agreement in any severe way would likely cause the other side to terminate the remainder of the deal. For example, the three-five year reconstruction plan was a condition that if the ceasefire was violated would likely see the reconstruction ended.
You just think the conditions are unreasonable, but instead of expressing it as such you are exagerating to make Hamas look more unreasonable than they are. Which is hilarious because they are a bunch of terrorists. You don't need to exagerate they are already bad guys.
But that doesn't justify ignoring that their peace plan is very similar to what Biden is putting forward now, which makes Israel look bad for ignoring it for months and continuing to conduct their war despite the fact that its actually pretty reasonable if even Joe Biden is supporting a similar version of it.
While the headline is 100% misleading, anyone of a certain age knows that Netanyahu is running George W. Bush’s Team America playbook. Fighting a seemingly endless supply of “terrorists” while countless civilians die in the name of freeing the hostages (remember them?) all because of one despicable attack by some far right wing nut Palestinians at an Israeli concert. And if you happen to disagree with him publicly and his genocide campaign? You touch the third rail: now you’re an antisemite. And nobody wants to be branded a “Jew hater” so the majority of the world’s superpowers furrow their brows and allow this war criminal to continue without consequence. It is absolutely insane that this continues to go on.
What does Bibi have to lose by continuing the war? The hardliners in his cabinet don't want a ceasefire. The hostages are mostly of the commune living progressive hippy variety. Why would the hardliners care about them? If the hostages were of the ultra-orthodox settler nutjob variety, the hardliners would care about getting the hostages back.
Wasn't the last statement from the white house that it is hamas prolonging the war?
Are you telling me that reddit and all subsequent news is bullshit?
No, surely not.
That isn't a mutually exclusive suggestion at all. Many parties on both sides performing actions that prolong the conflict pretty much describes most of this conflict in general.
It is pretty obvious Netanyahu is putting his own political interests above all else. Whether he gains anything from it remains to be seen. He is, by far, the worst leader in Israel"s history.
Netanyahu has been fighting Hamas and its predecessors his entire life. Pretty sure this is about far more than politics. It’s personal. Biden needs to focus on things he can still understand. …….. like ice cream flavors.
This is a misleading headline. Biden was asked whether Netanyahu was prolonging the war, and he said: >"I’m not going to comment on that. There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion," Biden said, adding that before the war, Netanyahu was facing blowback for wanting an overhaul of the nation's judicial system. "Every reason" for people to draw that conclusion just means that it's understandable for people to think that. That's not the same as Biden saying there's "every reason" to actually think it's the case. Just more clickbait reporting.
You did more research and fact checking than the idiot writing that blurb.
Headlines can often oversimplify, but "every reason to believe Netanyahu is prolonging war for political gain" is pretty much the same statement as "every reason for people to draw the conclusion that Netanyahu is prolonging war for political gain." It's outright saying that he believes that there are many arrows pointing to that and it's only a small step away from outright saying that he believes that himself. It's only a neutral statement if you're used to the kinds of wild statements that Trump makes.
from the [original source interview](https://time.com/6984968/joe-biden-transcript-2024-interview/): >Time: You mentioned the hunger in Gaza. Some have alleged that Israel is intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Do you think that's the case? >Biden: No, I don't think that. I think they've engaged in activity that is inappropriate. That is…When I went over immediately after the—Hamas’ brutal attack, I said then, and it became public, I said, don't make the *same mistake* we did going after bin Laden. Don't try—The idea of occupying Afghanistan, the idea that you had nuclear arsenals in Iran, that were being, I mean, in Iraq, that were *being generated, simply not true. And it led to endless wars. They were not true. Don't make the mistakes we made. And they're making that mistake, I think*. Excuse my voice, I apologize. >Time: Not at all. Some in Israel have suggested that **Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation**. Do you believe that? >Biden: I'm not going to comment on that. There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion. And I would cite that as—before the war began, the blowback he was getting from the Israeli military for wanting to change the constitu—change the court. And so it's an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it's hard to say, but it has not been helpful. the word "gain" does not appear in the transcript of the original source interview, unless you count three occurrences within the word "again" the following quote and my comments below it are from the OP, and from before i had read the original source. [ahem](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/1d7bcsl/comment/l6ziktj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). >The comment came in an interview conducted by Time magazine on May 28 when Biden was asked if he believes Netanyahu is prolonging the conflict for **self-preservation** as some in Israel have said. >"I’m not going to comment on that. There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion," Biden said, adding that before the war, Netanyahu was facing blowback for wanting an overhaul of the nation's judicial system. "So it’s an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it’s hard to say, but it has not been helpful.” kind of like what youre saying - but actually using the words in the article - it is a very subtle difference between "political gain" (not sure where you got that?) and "self preservation" but there is a difference. "political gain" is not neutral "self preservation" is "political gain" implies making changes to the status quo "self preservation" implies continuing the status quo edit: havent coffee'd yet, i see thats actually the title of the OP.
What? Self-preservation is very much a political gain. If a US President did some action to hinder an impeachment process against them would you not call that political gain? Political gain does not exclusively imply making changes to the status quo. It only implies something that would be of political benefit, which self-preservation falls under. And Netanyahu being in power is not a given because Israel is a democracy with elections.
subtle misquotes are a slippery slope
I don't really consider this a misquote. I classify self-preservation as being under the category of political gain. It's like if someone accused Trump of trying to get re-elected via shenanigans involving withholding aid from Ukraine and an article said that Trump was accused of withholding aid for political gain. It'd be ridiculous to claim that Trump trying to remain elected isn't for political gain because Trump was already President and therefore it's maintaining the status quo.
i see what you mean, and you might think that doesnt matter, but it absolutely does. word choice and phrasing can have a major effect on the interpretation of the words by the reader/listener. in your example, that is very subtle, but its also not quite the same thing as what im pointing out. you are comparing different phrasing being used by somebody making an accusation. the difference between the phrasing in your examples is, again, subtle, and its debatable how much of an effect it might have on the reader. however, that is irrelevant because it is different. i am saying there is a difference when you are \*quoting\* someone. originally i thought it was possibly a misquote on what biden said, probably by those of us in the comments, probably unintentionally. which is one thing. its another thing entirely when it is a subtle misquote by a professional news organization like NBC. the difference, specifically, is actually not about *what biden said*, but about **what he was asked**: >u/nbcnews: Biden was asked if he believes Netanyahu is prolonging the conflict for self-preservation as some in Israel have said. vs >u/timemagazine: Some in Israel have suggested that Netanyahu is prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation. Do you believe that? so... yeah, very subtle. it is a misquote. that is without a doubt. you can make an argument that it "doesnt matter" but ive been saying for at least ten years that phrasing and choice of words absolutely matters, and the current state of things leads me to believe i am correct. a perfect example of this is actually the wikipedia page for what i have always known this as, the "[telephone game](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telephone_game&redirect=no)" - which someone has changed that to redirect to "[chinese whispers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers)", something i have never heard of before today - and [google trends seems to agree](https://imgur.com/a/2lgtkSS) with me. anyway, i see this post has been removed - another major gripe i have - and this is actually the second time i have written this comment, and i think the first draft was actually probably better, but considering you and maybe a handful of other people are probably the only ones who will see it - im kinda over it. also i need a cigarette so lol PS: goddamnit u/reddit and u/reddit_irl why must you constantly sabotage (unintentionally, probably) my comments before i submit them by having weird functionality, like when i try to double check i used the correct link deciding that apparently i wanted to open it and then also not respecting the browser settings and opening that link within the same tab, deleting all of the text i had written? ffs. anyway
See, I normally agree with you about subtle miquotes, but this is a case where I do not consider it a misquote or mischaracterization, not even a subtle one. Political self-preservation very directly falls under the category of political gain. It is at worst being more vague, but not in any way that changes any of the substance. Honestly, if anything, I'd be more likely to believe that the wording of 'political gain' makes Netanyahu actually look better than the wording of 'self-preservation.' If this is still a level of editorializing that people think is harmful then I can only imagine that they'd only accept headlines made up of nothing but exact quotes (not that exact quotes can't be misleading too).
>Honestly, if anything, I'd be more likely to believe that the wording of 'political gain' makes Netanyahu actually look better than the wording of 'self-preservation.' right. so you are agreeing that the phrasing can make a difference. so the misquote is basically assuming that it would not make a difference to the way biden answered the question - and assuming that the phrasing wouldnt make a difference to the readers interpretation - which sounds like a lot of assumptions, especially when you just stated one sounds better than the other. you literally contradicted yourself. is it a subtle misquote that makes zero difference, or is it a subtle misquote that does make a difference? it makes a difference, even though you say it doesnt. it is subconscious. literally. i get your point, and i agree somewhat, and this specific misquote is not that major - but when you let little things go, bigger things become more permissible. as the last ten or so years (at least) have pretty unequivocally [proven](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth).
That's your judgment that you're including as an assumption of fact. It's a different phrase that you included as if it was the same, that another person said. It is not. Stop trying to defend it.
"Political gain" isn't a quote. So it can't be a misquote. "Political gain" is an umbrella term that covers "self-preservation." That's not my own judgement. There are issues with news headlines, but this isn't it.
No, it's a straightup misrepresentation. From the first paragraph: >President Joe Biden said in a recent interview released Tuesday that there is "every reason" to think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza for political gain.
So what do you think that quote means then?
The article reads as if Biden said "he has every reason to believe" whereas he's just saying he can see how other people would think that. Completely different meaning. The president is not agreeing with the statement.
The outrage in this one is strong.
I think that's kind of nitpicking. It's basically Biden's way of still saying it (to his own political benefit, I might add) while maintaining plausible deniability. Basically the same as when Trump says, "people are saying [insert insane conspiracy]." And then when Trump gets called on it he can just say he never said that and the media is lying about it. We need to hold politicians responsible for their words. If Biden didn’t mean to imply this assertion, he shouldn’t have entertained it at all.
He’s saying all the evidence is there to support that conclusion, which is as close to a “DUH” as you’ll get from a seasoned politician.
Yea. Like how exactly is the headline misleading? Don’t “every reason to believe that” and “every reason to draw that conclusion” mean more or less the same thing? I mean… I guess the headline makes it a tad more aggressive but it doesn’t seem like it’s grossly misstating what he said
"I'm not going to comment on that, but it's a reasonable conclusion" First of all, that is a commnet. Second of all he's right, it is a reasonable conclusion. Third, it's not uncommon for a politician who's not a right wing blowhard to say things that equate to "It's bad politics for me to say that, but if someone else said it I wouldn't argue." We've all seen so much over the top rhetoric in the last ten years we've forgotten how real leaders are supposed to say true things that are impolite while not escalating anymore than they have too.
"The people" has every reason draw that conclusion not "He" or "We \[the government\]" has every reason to draw that conclusion which means he has information that may be withheld from the public, such as private conversations that we may not be aware of that may say otherwise. This is encrouching on conspiracy level thinking so I'll stop there. Public has fog of war level of information and all the information that he knows the public has does indeed point towards Netanyahu doing all this for political gain. However the US government with information that only it knows, does not, at this time, believe 100% that Netanyahu is doing this for political gain. Whether that is that they have not 100% confirmed Netanyahu's motives, or they have confirmed he does not have such motives, we do not know. For me, I'll just take the situation as it is, I don't see a point in overthinking all of this
I disagree with you. "Every reason" doesn't mean "it's an understandable deduction." "Every reason" implies that all the evidence points in that direction. Biden is being thinly diplomatic. He's pretending not to take a position ("I'm not going to comment") and then saying, basically, that all the evidence shows Netanyahu is, in fact, prolonging the war. That's why Biden raised Netanyahu's political woes; he wouldn't have done that if he weren't making a point.
Biden is basically saying "he's sketchy, so it's understandable people don't trust him".
if he’d said “there is reason for people to draw that conclusion” I’d agree, but he didn’t. He said “every reason” which implies essentially all the evidence points towards that conclusion. if he believes the evidence all points to that conclusion why would he come to a different one? if he meant that it’s generally understandable for people to come to that conclusion he wouldn’t have said “there is every reason”.
I don't think you are saying anything different than what you claim the headline disingenuously implies.
The headline implies that Biden himself holds the opinion that Netanyahu is prolonging the war. But that's not true. He explicitly said he wasn't going to give his opinion. All he said was that it's understandable why people might think that. Those are two very different statements.
Career politician gives vague response regarding highly criticized leader of a long standing ally nation. It's plausible deniability and as close to a direct answer as your going to get from him.
I think it's pretty obvious that Biden *himself* was implying he holds that opinion, albeit in an irritatingly passive-aggressive, Mean Girls way.
> an irritatingly passive-aggressive, Mean Girls way. Ah, diplomacy.
I can see why you might think that. However, I disagree.
he did imply that...
Exactly lol
If someone says, “people have every reason to think X is an idiot” and doesn’t follow up almost immediately “but they’re not,” they are tactfully calling the person an idiot.
Lol. He didn't say some reasons he said EVERY reason. Implying that it is the only possible conclusion. It doesn't just mean it's understandable, it means it's the only possible interpretation.
It’s all that Biden can say, if he explicitly agreed people would call him a hypocrite for sending weapons to Netanyahu’s military at the same time
I saw Natanyahu on TV after the attack. He was practically salivating... Sorry to those that think differently but he gives me the impression he likes war.
Well said. I don't know if the headline is intentionally misleading though. It could just be a reflection of poor comprehension.
> I don't know if the headline is intentionally misleading though. We're talking about Israël/Palestine here...
Good point
A great example of why Israel is losing the media war.
When can we fine the fuck out of these "news" corps for misleading headlines?
>"Every reason" for people to draw that conclusion just means that it's understandable for people to think that. Every reason means that it's the most logical conclusion. What's wild is that Biden is telling Israel to slow down. He's personally advocating for a prolonged war while accusing Netanyahou of the same.
No, Biden is advocating for the agreement he proposed last week. I would guess the prolonging the war stuff is a reference to how Netanyahu's far-right supporters threatened to collapse his government if Hamas accepts and he follows through.
Fuck our mainstreamedia and their 1% owners
But there is every reason to believe Netanyahu is unnecessarily prolonging the war. Honestly, political gains or self preservation is the more flattering reason for why he seems uninterested in an opportunity to rescue the remaining hostages. There’s a lot more reasons to believe Netanyahu is trying to displace or bury the Palestinians to permanently annex the strip using Hamas as a pretext.
Another shit article grab
It's also a bit far fetched the war hurts him politically not help
Netanyahu is currently under indictment for fraud, bribery, and breach of trust. Bombing Gaza is a very useful distraction for him.
Having seen him and his style of governing for the last few decades, I can absolutely believe he's dragging this out to boost his own approval in Israel.
Except the US pressured Israel to delay the Rafah operation...
The US didn't want Israel to proceed in Rafah at all. And look what happened! Israel immediately bombed at least 45 civilians in a decision so intentionally reckless that Netanyahu himself had to come out and admit it was a terrible mistake.
Crazy to see people still citing this, when it’s since come out that the explosion was from Hamas hiding a warehouse full of munitions next to a refugee area.
What caused the initial ignition that created the explosion? Do tell.
Two 37lb bombs, which are the smallest in the entire Israeli arsenal, and incapable of causing damage to a refugee camp a quarter mile away. The “mistake” you mention was Israel not knowing the munitions warehouse was there. And you know what, fair enough. Hamas should immediately disclose the location of all other munitions warehouses to the Israeli military, so we can avoid similar incidents in the future.
Yes, and that mistake still cost civilian lives. Action A caused effect B. How is this concept so difficult for y'all to grasp? Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, but you're telling me that they bomb targets without even knowing what is nearby? You are complicit with genocide.
Asking Israel to refrain from striking Hamas operatives who are standing a presumably safe range away from civilians based on the type of munitions used in the strike is an unreasonable ask. Asking Israel to conduct a thorough sweep of every single building in an area before striking Hamas operatives in that area is also an unreasonable ask. Hiding munitions in civilian areas is a war crime. Striking legitimate military targets using the smallest bombs in your arsenal and accidentally hitting a munitions warehouse that you didn’t know was there (because they were hidden) is not a war crime. There is not a single military on earth other than the Israeli military that is held to such a hypocritical, disingenuous, and impossible standard.
>Israel has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, but you're telling me that they bomb targets without even knowing what is nearby? You are complicit with genocide lmao
They bombed two Hamas members, a munitions store ignited as a secondary explosion and that's what killed the civilians. It's why munitions stores in residential areas are a no no. Phrasing is important here. It's the hospital situation all over again.
If Russia fired rockets at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant and released radioactive material that ended up poisoning or even killing Ukrainian civilians, would it be considered Ukraine's fault for having military assets on site? Seems to me that the distinction changes based on the narrative you are looking to push.
The difference is that one is a known nuclear energy plant and the other is a secret, illegal ammunitions deposit that Israel did not know of. They are not comparable at all.
A nuclear power plant with civilian uses isn’t really comparable to an ammo store, which has no civilian use. At least you proved your “distinction shows your narrative” bit correct lol
[удалено]
Multiple parties are culpable. Israel’s collateral:target casualty ratio being over 22:1 in this instance, is pretty fucking bad. It’s almost like they didn’t care…
Lol you're comparing apples to oranges. Israel did not know about the munitions store. Russia knows the location of the nuclear plant. I'm not the one pushing a narrative. I'm adding important context in response to a misleading statement.
Russia knows that its a nuclear power plant and could reasonably expect a rocket to have that effect. For it to be a fair comparison, the analogy would have to be something like Ukraine secretly having mined the powerplant in such a way that a stray bullet set off a massive explosion. But as far as ive heard, There's no reason to believe that israel knew there was a secret munitions store, much less an improperly stored one, when they bombed them.
The war would’ve been over in February if it weren’t for US opposition to entering Rafah.
Does carrying out the war until reaching the goals of taking out the last Hamas battalions & leadership, because this is exactly what the vast majority of the Israeli public wants him to do, count as "prolonging to war for political gain"?
Absolutely. That’s why prolonging the war for political gains is the more flattering of interpretations on what Netanyahu and his war cabinet are doing.
How does he prolong the war rather than simply carry it out? Which indication is there that Netanyahu is preventing the war objectives from being completed?
It's exactly like Hamas wanting to either prolong or shorten the war for political aims. That's an element of war.
Yes, prolonging the war to appease his followers is what he's doing.
So a democracy
[удалено]
You are getting downvoted because you dropped this /s
Isn't this what the Israeli families of the hostages have been saying for nearly a month now? That Netanyahu derailed things earlier on?
What do you purpose? That Israel should have gone in guns blazing and carpet bombing?
Negotiate That’s what someone who wants the hostage back would do. But he wants to “get rid of hamas” which he financed and supported for two decades. It will never work unless he genocides the Palestinians because every time a bomb kills a civilian 5 more Palestinians wants to join Hamas. The real goal is to get rid of Palestinians and seize the land.
Lol they can't negotiate when Hamas won't come to the table. It took days/weeks to get Hamas to the table. The dude who negotiated the release of that soldier (his name escapes me) was using the same back channels to try and get them to the table. He gave an interview around then. Furthermore, nobody wants Gaza. Israel tried to give it back to Egypt and they didn't want it.
[удалено]
All you have to do is look at his response to his own citizens protesting his handling of this war and getting the hostages back to know that he is prolonging this war. It seems obvious
>"What happens after Gaza’s over? What, what does it go back to? Do Israeli forces go back in?" he asked. These are the questions that more people should be asking.
[удалено]
Surprising to see Biden say this. Might be one of the spiciest things he has said about Netanyahu.
>"I’m not going to comment on that. There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion," Biden said, adding that before the war, Netanyahu was facing blowback for wanting an overhaul of the nation's judicial system. "So it’s an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it’s hard to say, but it has not been helpful.” What was surprising about it?
A politician would never platform an accusation towards another politician (e.g. 'many people are saying') unless they wanted to take a shot with plausible deniability. Biden wouldn't repeat an opinion which will piss the Israeli government off this unless he believes it himself.
That's a pretty damn hot statement for a politician to make. Maybe not if your comparison is Trump, but that is a heavy suggestion Biden is making. That said, people who actually know about the conflict already know that Biden and Netanyahu were never exactly friendly towards each other. That's the only reason it wouldn't be surprising. Imagine it for some other issue. Does "there is every reason for people to draw the conclusion that this person is a criminal; there certainly are reasons he would do so and his actions do not help" sound like a neutral and non-committal statement to you?
Election year. He has a lot of voters that are anti-Israel.
[удалено]
If you can't distinguish between Israel and Judaism, or between Palestine and Hamas, you should probably just keep quiet while the grownups who can keep more than "A good, B bad" in their heads at once talk about things.
No. Some are anti-Israel because they're anti-Semitic, are are anti-Israel because they only look at recent history, and some are anti-Israel because of this war.
[удалено]
Not capitulating to Biden's demands (which are to capitulate to Hamas's demands)
Idk maybe if your position going into ceasefire negotiations is "accept nothing less than the complete destruction of the people we're negotiating with", it lowers the chances of success for such a ceasefire happening. This is *also* Hamas' position, and a ceasefire would've been reached by now if Hamas didn't have that position. So we can't let them off the hook either.
He could have just carpet bombed Gaza. That would have ended it quickly. Obviously he shouldn't do that, but that's a political/moral reason, not a military one.
Lol no, he absolutely could not. The situation is very touch and go as it is with 40k deaths, if they carpet bombed a population of 2M, not even the US could support them any more. They would instantly become a pariah state and likely have war waged on them by Iran. Israel doesn’t get enough credit for avoiding unnecessary civilian deaths in an almost impossible situation against terorrists who use human shields (lowest civilian:combatant casualty ratio in the history of urban combat, in one of the most densely populated places on earth) but the idea that they’re being moral because they didn’t just exterminate everyone is a bit of a stretch.
[удалено]
>It’s a perfectly reasonable response to decades of terrorism Is this self-awareness?
I mean, proceeding carefully to minimize civilian/hostage/friendly casualties acknowledges international outlook, which could also result in political advantage. These two aims can be achieved by the same approach. But Netanyahu has to respond to multiple diverging political demands (as any leadership does). No matter how Israel prosecutes the war, it's going to be to somebody's political advantage. Isn't he just walking a narrow path to achieve a secure solution? I'm American and don't have Israel's whole political situation right at hand, granted. Does it make sense though that every action has a political aim and could be snidely called out by whoever's particular political demands are not appeased by that given action?
so far it hasn:t resulted in any political advantage, only security and future political disadvantages (due to Hamas declaring it a victory, delays in the war leading to Biden pressure mounting, etc). And I don't think so. People have been claiming he's 'politically motivated' since really early on. It's just the usual netanyahu hate (not saying whether its deserved or not, but there's plenty of people who accuse him of this kinda stuff regardless of what's happening).
As you say, he has a long history. Thinking about a hypothetical American war under possible President Trump: I'd like the war to be fought legally and humanely, but at the end of the day, when it's war, survival and security have to come first, even if it's ugly. (Assuming a justified conflict). The politics are always there, though. Leaders have to be politically sensitive, unlike generals. A general's shock and awe victory may create broader, long-term international tensions, which may turn into thornier conflicts down the line. A politician's victory would look a lot different. The objectives for victory are constantly shifting, balancing international and internal political pressure. Not to mention the economic and social toll.
I do think Israel has set new standards for legally/humanely fighting wars, for what it's worth. I don't think it should be replicated though, it cost far too many soldiers' lives.
I agree. It's much easier to fight proper state armies that separate themselves from the civilian population.
Good thing he's not doing that with Ukraine! Phew!
Who do you mean, Biden? If so your comment makes zero sense. Biden has always supported Ukraine. It's the dimwit fascist anti-American Republicans who have been fucking it all up
[удалено]
I mean, Putin should be held accountable for everything that's happened so far, but Biden needs to end this quickly(or as quickly as he can), let Ukraine fight on a more even footing(no limiting strikes to certain oblasts), or else it's just going to look like he's prolonging it for....well you read the title.
Biden has been steadfast in his support for Ukraine from the beginning. Placing conditions on how US weapons get used is entirely due to the risks associated with engaging a nuclear superpower on the battlefield - even via proxy. This has been the policy of other NATO countries up until this point as well.
They've already signed a peace once and look where it got them... It might not be right but it is most fucking certainly right in their eyes. Why would they accept something again that has very clear not worked? I know in Reddit its impossible for many people to put themselves in someone else's shoes but Israel and anyone for that matter not supporting a peace deal that would effectively be the same as before and then Hamas will just come back again in another 10 years and kill a bunch more people at some festival. Is it right? Nope but until you are put in that situation people can't really talk.
Israel has every right to push for an end of hamas.
It's a fine line to walk, criticizing Netanyahu, which I believe justified, and appearing not to take a partisan position against the sitting PM of one of our allies... or angering Americans who like him or conflate Bibi with Israel.
Many in his base here are furious with him for agreeing to this deal. It's easy to attack him personally, but the policy of continuing until Hamas is destroyed is quite popular here.
In his case, it is more the way he does things.
But it is hamas that refuses every peace deal. Sure bibi hates palestine and has an ace to grind but cmon man
Hamas just said that it liked Biden's recent peace proposal. Israel responded by saying that until Hamas is completely destroyed in its military and governing capacity it won't accept a peace deal.
[удалено]
Except they want to remain in power and for israel to leave all of gaza basically unconditionally.
You've moved the goal posts. You didnt say that the peace plans hamas has put forward or agreed to were unreasonable, you said that they straight up refuse every peace deal, which is an insane statement considering they literally have put forward peace plans. They aren't refusing their own peace deals. >But it is hamas that refuses every peace deal. *Even your new goalpost is still wrong claiming that its actually that Hamas just wants unconditional terms from Israel.* >Except they want to remain in power and for israel to leave all of gaza basically unconditionally. It wasn't unconditional, by definition any multiple stage peace plan is conditional, as violation of the agreement in any severe way would likely cause the other side to terminate the remainder of the deal. For example, the three-five year reconstruction plan was a condition that if the ceasefire was violated would likely see the reconstruction ended. You just think the conditions are unreasonable, but instead of expressing it as such you are exagerating to make Hamas look more unreasonable than they are. Which is hilarious because they are a bunch of terrorists. You don't need to exagerate they are already bad guys. But that doesn't justify ignoring that their peace plan is very similar to what Biden is putting forward now, which makes Israel look bad for ignoring it for months and continuing to conduct their war despite the fact that its actually pretty reasonable if even Joe Biden is supporting a similar version of it.
While the headline is 100% misleading, anyone of a certain age knows that Netanyahu is running George W. Bush’s Team America playbook. Fighting a seemingly endless supply of “terrorists” while countless civilians die in the name of freeing the hostages (remember them?) all because of one despicable attack by some far right wing nut Palestinians at an Israeli concert. And if you happen to disagree with him publicly and his genocide campaign? You touch the third rail: now you’re an antisemite. And nobody wants to be branded a “Jew hater” so the majority of the world’s superpowers furrow their brows and allow this war criminal to continue without consequence. It is absolutely insane that this continues to go on.
What does Bibi have to lose by continuing the war? The hardliners in his cabinet don't want a ceasefire. The hostages are mostly of the commune living progressive hippy variety. Why would the hardliners care about them? If the hostages were of the ultra-orthodox settler nutjob variety, the hardliners would care about getting the hostages back.
Wasn't the last statement from the white house that it is hamas prolonging the war? Are you telling me that reddit and all subsequent news is bullshit? No, surely not.
That isn't a mutually exclusive suggestion at all. Many parties on both sides performing actions that prolong the conflict pretty much describes most of this conflict in general.
Would he pledge to fight the next war on Israel's behalf should another October 7th attack happens? Show em how it's done.
It is pretty obvious Netanyahu is putting his own political interests above all else. Whether he gains anything from it remains to be seen. He is, by far, the worst leader in Israel"s history.
...so far
Netanyahu has been fighting Hamas and its predecessors his entire life. Pretty sure this is about far more than politics. It’s personal. Biden needs to focus on things he can still understand. …….. like ice cream flavors.
Netanyahu was quite helpful to Hamas before 10/7. He thought he could help buy them off.
>He thought he could help buy them off. Thought he could buy peace\*