Biden, Harris, and Blinken are able to continue to posture as brokers of peace while sending billions of dollars in weapons to Netanyahu’s soldiers.

For anyone paying attention, it is now abundantly clear that the U.S.-led Gaza ceasefire talks have become a tool for the perpetuation of Israel’s genocidal war.

What began as a liberatory demand by Rep. Cori Bush and grassroots peace advocates has now been fully co-opted by President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The bad-faith terms of the latest proposal are just the beginning. Hamas is unlikely to agree to the terrible new conditions that Blinken has put on the table, and that rejection will in turn enable Biden, Harris, Blinken, and Netanyahu to further blame Hamas for “rejecting peace.”

This will then buy Netanyahu more time to continue bombing, starving, and killing Palestinians. Then the cycle will repeat itself again, with Blinken soon returning to the Middle East for yet another round of so-called ceasefire negotiations, while the U.S. continues to send Israel even more weapons for its war.

  • enbee@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    0·
    2 months ago

    the Intercept has become a fucking meme of itself. pretty sure Glenn is a fucking hockster like the Vice guy.

  • BaronVonBort@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 months ago

    Ok.

    If the peace talks weren’t happening at all, would the situation be any different? This is at least an attempt. The bigger issue? That Hamas has every belief that the US is not impartial, for obvious reasons, meanwhile Netanyahu is also acting in bad faith and changing terms randomly.

    The argument that “the war continues during peace talks” is objectively true, but misses the point of how peace talks work in any circumstance, much less one as muddy as this.

    I’m for Gaza’s independence and have been for a long time, most likely before many people commenting on similar threads like this have known it existed. But to claim that these talks are nothing more than a red herring is disingenuous at best.

    Israel doesn’t need any excuse to continue their aggression, as it has been doing off and on for the better part of a century. Anthony Blinken isn’t going to magically solve a longstanding international crisis and get to diametrically opposed parties to agree on a treaty more than he’s going to have them agree on where to go to dinner.

    Also we can get into the whole “Netanyahu is funding Hamas secretly” argument but that’s for another time.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      0·
      2 months ago

      I mean, sure, if you remove all other considerations, you might be right.

      But the USA is constantly sending munitions that are used to bomb fucking refugee camps and providing boots-on-the-ground assistance in Intel, training, and likely clandestine ops.

      That’s not peace talks are just slow and violence continues while talks are in progress. That’s a red herring. It doesn’t get much redder than that.

      Israel does not need to bomb refugee camps for its national security. The munitions the USA constantly provides are not necessary for Israel to continue skirmishes with armed combatants. The USA could end lethal aid to Israel while engaging in peace talks and Israel would still exist as a state and it would still have the bullets it needs to kill innocent people. But billions in bombs against a guerilla enemy is ludicrous.

    • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 months ago

      I guess the big thing it does is make Biden and his administration look better and like they are doing something when they really aren’t. It gives people something to point to when protestors and activists ask for real change, and it dissipates energy from the movement. In that way, it would honestly be better if they did nothing than bad faith peace talks.

      • BaronVonBort@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 months ago

        I think the hardest part of all these is that people are looking for simple answers in a situation that is very, VERY complex.

        It’s so tempting and appealing to say “if x would happen this would stop”. No, it wouldn’t. It would change but would not stop.

        I would argue that these talks, from what I’ve heard, are being held in good faith but with bad-faith actors on either side. It’s impossible to reach a deal when both sides are diametrically opposed to the others existence.

        I’m by no means saying the US is an angel here - I mean, look at the hundreds of “peace treaties” we’ve negotiated with banana republics and dictators throughout time. But this is a lose-lose-lose and they’re desperately trying for any kind of a win. I don’t fault them for that, for once.

    • samokosik@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 months ago

      Yeah. Basically to me it seems like everyone wants peace apart from Hamas and Israel. And if these 2 continue being the main actors and continue not wanting peace, it will be extremely tough to establish one.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
        0·
        2 months ago

        Hamas already accepted the ceasefire. Only israel does not want peace. There is no both sides here.

          • DancingBear@midwest.social
            0·
            2 months ago

            It was literally all over the news this week. Hamas accepted the deal and then Netanyahu pulled back.

            If the war ends, Netanyahu loses power and his trials for fraud and corruption resume. He will do anything to stay in power, he gives zero fucks about Israeli hostages or the genocide he is leading.