In meetings in Israel, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin conveyed to Israeli leaders that it’s important to observe international rules of warfare.
In meetings in Israel, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin conveyed to Israeli leaders that it’s important to observe international rules of warfare.
As Israel girds for a fearsome ground assault into Gaza, senior Biden administration officials are warning their Israeli counterparts to show restraint and avoid mass civilian casualties and a humanitarian disaster that could turn world opinion against the Jewish state, according to two current and one former U.S. official.
In messages circulated on Friday, State Department staff wrote that high-level officials do not want press materials to include three specific phrases: “de-escalation/ceasefire,” “end to violence/bloodshed” and “restoring calm.”
We uphold the laws of war — the law of war. It matters. There’s a difference.
And repeated something similar today, when asked about retaliation against Hamas:
Hamas and the extreme elements of Hamas don’t represent all the Palestinian people ... there needs to be a Palestinian Authority. There needs to be a path to a Palestinian state ... It would be a mistake for Israel to occupy Gaza again.
They haven't even started yet and already burned through all their good will.
Meanwhile Hamas leaders are probably off in some lavish bunker getting sucked off by their 4 wives while waiting for a Israel to recruit a new army of bereaved future terrorists for them.
Leaked internal emails reveal that the U.S. State Department is discouraging diplomats from advocating for Israeli "de-escalation" in the ongoing conflict with Gaza. The emails instruct officials not to use phrases like "de-escalation/ceasefire," "end to violence/bloodshed," and "restoring calm" in their public statements, indicating the Biden administration's reluctance to push for Israeli restraint. Israel recently ordered over a million residents of northern Gaza to evacuate, and the UN warned of devastating humanitarian consequences. U.S. officials have avoided discussing a ceasefire, focusing on supporting Israel's response to Hamas attacks. Some lawmakers are urging stronger humanitarian calls, but public pressure is delicate due to Israel's significant losses and U.S. support. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is engaged in diplomatic efforts in the region, including visits to influential Arab states.
State and Defense are on the same page, you just need to read between the lines.
They want a targeted strike against Hamas leadership (i.e. not "de-escalation" or a "ceasefire" or an "end to bloodshed") but they don't want unnecessary civilian casualties. In other words less "Shock and Awe", more "Seal Team Six".
I don't know the truth of the matter, these are internal things after all. But what you posted isn't necessarily inconsistent with the article. It's possible they were instructed not to say those things publicly, as your article says, but are privately pushing Israel to restrain themselves, as the above article says.
You're talking about something different. Internal communications within the state department about what language to use is completely different from private communication return Israel.
I mean this is pretty standard when it comes to interpersonal relationships even. If a friend does something questionable I'm likely going to avoid discussing it in public until I can talk to them in private about how bad the thing was.
The US has two parties: One believes the US should keep supporting Israel's genocide of Palestinians, another believes the US should support Israel's genocide of Palestinians harder.
There are no liberals when it comes to Israel in most of the world (props for Ireland for being the exception).
Do you think losing an election is going to make moderate Democrats less shitty? Because 2016 just seemed to turbo charge their left-punching impulses. For progressives, I think the best shot at change is giving the Democratic party supermajorities in Congress and control of the White House, demanding they do the popular things they ran on, exposing all the two-faced hacks who never had any intention of doing those things, and then primarying the hell out of them. Allowing Republicans to win just gives the hacks something to hide behind (and it turbocharges their fundraising when that money could be going to a lot better causes).
Which part of "show restraint and don't kill civilians when taking out the terrorists" strikes you as not "liberal"?
You haven't made it clear at all what you take issue with of telling someone to show restraint. Do you find the very act of retaliation against Hamas for their attack to be unacceptable or something?
Look at this admission of brainlessness on display. You’re telling me you’re so unintelligent you need someone to spoon feed a convincing argument to you.
I’m glad I can take care of my own critical thinking 🤣
“This was act of pure evil... Terrorists purposefully target civilians, kill them. We uphold the laws of war — the law of war. It matters. There’s a difference."
I have personally made the decision to abstain from voting in the 2024 presidential election at this point if Biden is the nominee. I cannot in good conscience vote for another president who clearly learned nothing from the protracted "War on Terror", and who now publicly supports ethnic cleansing by Israel simply to score political points.
Unfortunately with first past the post the only way to vote against the republican candidate is to vote for the Democrat even if he's awful. That's how Biden got elected. And that's why the primaries are so important.