US president says he is 'very close' to presenting proposal to free remaining hostages as Israelis protest over latest deaths

Per the rules, this is the original headline. However, the interesting part is that he’s preparing a Gaza offer that he says will be “final”.

They’ve hewn very close to the whole “unconditional support” thing, so I’m curious what that means exactly.

  • fluxion@lemmy.worldEnglish
    291·
    2 months ago

    He added that the US would not give up, and would “push as hard as we can” for a deal.

    If denying future arms shipments isn’t on the table then this statement is a lie

  • Sunforged@lemmy.mlEnglish
    195·
    2 months ago

    “You’re not doing enough, so here’s another 10 billion in arms funding. You have to spend that in America though because I am very upset with you Bibi.”

  • NeuronautML@lemmy.mlEnglish
    11·
    2 months ago

    Oh it’s final this time. 5 more years of this and Israel will see their supply drying up, you know, maybe, possibly.

    Oh, oh, now you done it, that’s another 10000 children. You’re very very close to the limit, mister. You better watch out or, you’ll get slighly less aid next time! We’re not kidding this time.

  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    241·
    2 months ago

    Hopefully, this means that Bibi repeatedly humiliating the US finally broke through the fucking insane inflexible support the US has had for Israel the past 40 years.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
      167·
      2 months ago

      You’d think.

      But Biden is still gargling those balls; and still hasn’t stopped weapons shipments.

      Guess 4.2 million . Is a lot of loyalty.

  • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    2 months ago

    Lmao I read that as “Biden not doing enough to secure Gaza hostage deal, says Biden,” and got real confused.

  • eestileib@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1610·
    2 months ago

    Biden probably means that Netanyahu hasn’t murdered enough children, and will follow up by sending more weapons.

  • MisterScruffy@lemmy.mlEnglish
    325·
    2 months ago

    If only Biden had some kind of leverage he could use on Bibi like putting conditions on arms exports oh wait he completely refuses to do that so this is just bs rhetoric

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgOPEnglish
      151·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, I’m not sure what the plan is if they turn down the “final” offer. The last time the US bluffed, that I know of, was the red line in Syria, and that involved a place Americans don’t care about, and would have involved another American war in the Middle East to respond to.

      I find “China’s final warning” and actual consequences for Israel equally unlikely. Is there a third option?

      • Malidak@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        2 months ago

        The US will never stop supporting Israel. They are too dependent on it geopolitically. I believe we may see some more inner political movement against Netanjahu supported by certain US agencies. He will not survive this conflict as prime minister. This will of course not help Palestinians in the long run but it may help with a ceasefire and as a result help the democrats in the upcoming election which would be the main goal right now.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
        75·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, I’m not sure what the plan is if they turn down the “final” offer.

        You’re not? The plan is to enable genocide no matter what.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    862·
    2 months ago

    Hmmm, let’s see, Netanyahu has been non-stop bombing Gaza since… last October.

    It’s almost October again. It’s nearly been a full year since the actual initial attack.

    There was never a justification to still be bombing nearly a year later after one attack.

    It’s clear Netanyahu has no intention to stop.

  • Justin@lemmy.jlh.nameEnglish
    81·
    2 months ago

    I’m honestly seeing parallels to how Milosevic had a limit for how long he could delay a cease fire

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.nameEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        Just a historical comparison I’m making based on the Wikipedia articles for the Kosovo War.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

        A NATO-facilitated ceasefire between the KLA and Yugoslav forces was signed on 15 October 1998, but both sides broke it two months later and fighting resumed. When the killing of 45 Kosovar Albanians in the Račak massacre was reported in January 1999, NATO decided that the conflict could only be settled by introducing a military peacekeeping force to forcibly restrain the two sides.[50] Yugoslavia refused to sign the Rambouillet Accords, which among other things called for 30,000 NATO peacekeeping troops in Kosovo; an unhindered right of passage for NATO troops on Yugoslav territory; immunity for NATO and its agents to Yugoslav law; and the right to use local roads, ports, railways, and airports without payment and requisition public facilities for its use free of cost.[51][35] NATO then prepared to install the peacekeepers by force, using this refusal to justify the bombings.

        It took years of fighting, but eventually both sides’ refusal to sign a ceasefire was used as justification for NATO to neutralize the military forces in the region.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgOPEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          Oh, I see. I thought you meant they gave Milosevic a specific 6-month deadline or something.

          If this was a conflict pretty much anywhere else, I think it would have gotten the standard UN ethnic spat protocol from the get-go. Instead, we’re at least back to the 90’s in international law.