Yes, we both know that Israel has had 67 UN resolutions against them and ignored each one previously. But the only reason they can continue to ignore those resolutions is the continued application of the Negroponte Doctrine and US support of their actions, including the $3.8 billion in US weapons they get each year along with bonuses like the $14 billion specifically for the genocide. Concessions for Hamas are largely related to the hostages, unless Israel just wants them to lay down all arms so they can go door to door and do away with all males of age.
So what good is a ceasefire? It signifies that there is a limit to acts that the US and world can support.
Symbolic action is still action, I agree.
Just don't pretend it means Israel immediately stops.
Are the US and Israel willing to destroy their strategic partnership over this?
It's possible, which would mean the US would probably have to reach out for a rapprochement with Iran.
The NDP motion that just passed is a good example, it was watered down significantly but provides two lines that if applied drastically change Canada's relationship to Israel, support for all ICC and ICJ charges.
But earlier you argued anything watered down was bad.
Glad to see you are being more pragmatic.
That the support for the ICJ and ICC got through is a good thing long term, in my view.
Biden is single handedly allowing the genocide to continue
And this is where it is time to no longer take you seriously because you are back in magical pony land.
Sigh.
This is not a war between two equal parties.
Of course it isn't.
But you are saying one thing when it is convenient for your position and another when it isn't.
This is a slaughter by a US backed nuclear state against 2 million refugees living in a concentration camp.
If Hamas declared a ceasefire now would anything change? Would Israel stop attacking, allow all aid through and retreat from Gaza?
Israel is the military occupying power, the choice to end the genocide lies with them.
I don't disagree.
Israel has vastly more power in the situation.
But you are on the record saying that any ceasefire proposed that one side doesn't like isn't real and is just a cynical move.
That doesn't change if the two sides have different power levels.
Maybe you shouldn't be so black and white with what you think a ceasefire is and how it is used or useful.
The global call for a ceasefire is a call to end the genocide.
Which is a good thing but is also just sentiment unless you can get both sides to agree to the ceasefire, as you yourself pointed out.
The cynical statement is to declare that its because people hate Israel because they are antisemitic.
Actually, I would say that "hating Israel" is pretty anti-semitic.
Hating the government of Israel isn't.
Hating all ethno-states might let you get away with hating Israel, but then you have to also hate a lot of countries on the planet.
I supported the temporary truce and was angry when Netanyahu declared he would resume the genocide.
There have been no other full ceasefires that I can recall, in the past only Hamas declared unilateral ceasefires.
When did Hamas declare a unilateral ceasefire, even a temporary one?
As in, "We will stop all activity from this date to that date, regardless of what you do"?
Outside of very short informal pauses, I can't remember either side doing that.
You think the fact that Israel was mentioned only once in 2000 words doesn't imply that concessions were one sided?
Did you listen to the speech?
I did.
She literally says she is blocking it because it doesn't blame Israel.
The diplomatic language - that Israel is condemned - is clearly more important to her than
agreeing to a ceasefire.
She would rather people continue to be killed than accept the UN isn't going to scold Israel enough.
At least, that's how the edited version you tweeted comes across.
