State Department official resigns after Biden administration says Israel not blocking Gaza aid
State Department official resigns after Biden administration says Israel not blocking Gaza aid
Stacy Gilbert resigned in protest against State Department report that says Israel isn't blocking aid to Gaza
A career State Department official resigned from her post on Tuesday, saying she could no longer work for the Biden administration after it released a report concluding that Israel was not preventing the flow of aid to Gaza.
Stacy Gilbert, who served as a senior civilian-military advisor to the State Department's Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM), sent an email to staff saying she was resigning because she felt the State Department had made the wrong assessment, The Washington Post reported, citing officials who read the note.
The report was filed in response to President Joe Biden issuing a national security memorandum (NSM-20) in early February on whether the administration finds credible Israel's assurances that its use of US weapons do not violate either American or international law.
The report said there were reasonable grounds to believe Israel on several occasions had used American-supplied weapons "inconsistent" with international humanitarian law, but said it could not make a definitive assessment - enough to prevent the suspension of arms transfers.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Explained: https://lemmy.world/comment/10340530
Still no answer? And now some Hexbear style edgelord memes from you and your sockpuppet?
How fun!
President Joe Biden has a diminished chance of winning the 2024 election based on the way his campaign is being conducted and current polling data. He’s unlikely to win if the trends, which have persisted for over 600 days, stay consistent.
In response, you introduce an unrelated issue— that I need to posit an alternative candidate otherwise, I support Donald Trump. This is irrelevant to the original argument concerning Biden’s campaign performance and polling.
By shifting the discussion to my perceived political preferences and pretending I owe you an alternative, you are diverting attention away from the actual argument about Biden’s campaign. This move aims to sidestep the evaluation of Biden’s campaign effectiveness and polling issues.
You are not engaging with or refuting the evidence presented regarding Biden’s campaign strategy and polling numbers. Instead, you are focus on attacking or questioning my political stance, which is not the topic of discussion.
The goal of this is to move the conversation away from a factual analysis of Biden’s reelection chances based on objective criteria (campaign strategies and polling) to a subjective and unrelated debate about political allegiances.
Your binary thinking implies that not supporting Biden equates to supporting Trump, which is a logical fallacy itself—false dilemma. Neither this, or your previous fallacy are true or relevant to the discussion at hand.
You have yet to answer the question;
Who instead of Biden would you suggest has a chance to win November?
President Joe Biden has a diminished chance of winning the 2024 election based on the way his campaign is being conducted and current polling data. He’s unlikely to win if the trends, which have persisted for over 600 days, stay consistent.
In response, you introduce an unrelated issue— that I need to posit an alternative candidate otherwise, I support Donald Trump. This is irrelevant to the original argument concerning Biden’s campaign performance and polling.
By shifting the discussion to my perceived political preferences and pretending I owe you an alternative, you are diverting attention away from the actual argument about Biden’s campaign. This move aims to sidestep the evaluation of Biden’s campaign effectiveness and polling issues.
You are not engaging with or refuting the evidence presented regarding Biden’s campaign strategy and polling numbers. Instead, you are focus on attacking or questioning my political stance, which is not the topic of discussion.
The goal of this is to move the conversation away from a factual analysis of Biden’s reelection chances based on objective criteria (campaign strategies and polling) to a subjective and unrelated debate about political allegiances.
Your binary thinking implies that not supporting Biden equates to supporting Trump, which is a logical fallacy itself—false dilemma. Neither this, or your previous fallacy are true or relevant to the discussion at hand.
I know you think you’re being clever, but seeing as how you’ve already been banned for trolling and harassment once today, it’s probably not a good idea to go to another community with the same tired shit.
I’m asking in good faith that you simply answer a question:
Who has a better chance- that THAT IS CURRENTLY RUNNNG- to beat Trump?
Come back with you copy pasta again, and you’re admitting you’re out of gas. I’ve allowed you to troll here because you’ve made my point for me quite clearly.
There not much more for it at this point that to just ignore you.
No, you've not been having this discussion in good faith. You are a troll trying to change the conversation to "something else, anything else".
If you were you would stay focused on the issue at hand: Bidens viability.
You don't seem to realize that your attempt to derail the question isn't worth engaging with. And it works against you when I can put you on display like this. Its a non-sequiter and irrelevant to the point that Bidens chances are what they are, and if you are truly strategic about where to place your support, you need to consider the viability of the candidate. Your question is a basic, non-sequiter, trollish bait, and not worth engaging with.
I’ve allowed you to troll...
Jesus fucking christ dude YOU are the troll. You are literally intentionally engaging in fallacy to distract from Bidens clear lack of viability as a candidate.
The only value you offer is that I get to put you on display.
And its working. See how the conversation has shifted.
Putting the apologists, the trolls like you, those who are truly ignorant, on display: it works. Its effective at showing people what you are about. And people are getting it. They see the rhetorical slight of hand you are engaging in.
They see your the flaws in your argument; your intention to distract rather than address. I never entered into a conversation with you about anything other than Bidens viability, so that's where we'll stay.
and I know you can feel it underfoot. Support for Biden is collapsing. Its in the polling data, its on social media.
In a few weeks it will be all over the cable news channels. We're about 12 days from the next sets of polling data getting released. Bidens' going to be coming in mid to low 30's to maybe 40's. Maybe 41-42 in the aggregate if he's lucky.
The question was asked from the beginning. And has not changed. YOU have been side-stepping the topic with every response. So let’s stop with the projection.
Who would you offer if not Biden, to win against Trump? You failed to answer it SEVERAL times. This proving a point I made in another thread about this exact thing.
You cannot answer it without revealing how flimsy your agenda really is.
Thanks for playing along. I’m not going to block you as I normally would with trolls that spam bad-faith nonsense, because you need to be called out when you post misinformation and trollish propaganda that you have been banned for in the past by mods in other communities-
but I won’t respond to this discussion any further.
And any response from you is proof of intent to troll.
And any response from you is proof of intent to troll.
If you don't meet whatever I demand of you, YOUR A TROOLLLL
Jesus fucking christ you are juvenile.
Thanks!