So literally the entire time so many people were getting all pissed Biden wasn't calling for a cease fire, he was working to get a cease fire, and he actually got it, and didn't slip up one time to stick it to some reporter he hates.
I definitely would have spilled the beans and ruined everything.
And people are still mad at him.
Whether they admit it or not, they like the blowhard.
He didn't. He got a 5-day pause. We'll see if he can extend it to a real ceasefire, but if after four days Palestinians continue getting bombed all criticism against him will still be valid.
I mean, a ceasefire is literally a temporary pause to fighting.
No one was calling for a truce or peace talks.
I mean yes but in the context of this particular conflict a ceasefire is more long-term (usually it falls apart as soon as Israel breaks it but that's beside the point). A 5-day pause to fighting is a different to a ceasefire because a ceasefire would mean this particular massacre comes to an end.
People calling for ceasefire have been continually dismissed and told only a pause is possible. Now that Bidens support is tanking there is at least a pause. We'll see what happens in 4 days,
This seems like a good thing.
It's a start, I hope this time is used to get civilians to safety or to negotiate for meaningful peace. I wonder if Egypt will open the Rafah gate?
The Rafah gate can only be opened with Israeli permission. They own part of it.
They want Egypt to let Palestinians out that way, and have reportedly been negotiating to that effect.
Oh, that's what you meant. In that case, you want them to assist Israel's ethnic cleansing? No thank you.
You think it's better to force Gazan civilians to stay in an active war zone against their will until the ceasefire ends and they start dying again? Gross. Let the people who want out of what critics keep calling an, "open air prison," leave, if that's what they desire. Forcing civilians to be Hamas meat shields or political pawns against Israel isn't a good deed.
And why exactly does it need to be Egypt taking two million refugees and not Israel ending their occupation? The logistics of taking that many people aside, you're talking as if this a natural disaster and not Israel wanting to steal Palestinian land.
And why exactly does it need to be Egypt taking two million refugees
Geography and the fact that they control the only gate that leads to a nation they are not at war with? I saw plans floated elsewhere, (by Israeli right politicians,) to resettle them in multiple countries.
and not Israel ending their occupation
You mean blockade? Israel withdrew its occupation of Gaza in 2005.
you're talking as if this a natural disaster and not Israel wanting to steal Palestinian land.
I'm talking like this is a war, and refugees should be able to leave and not be held hostage. Not everyone values land above lives.
You mean blockade? Israel withdrew its occupation of Gaza in 2005.
Due to the amount of control the blockade gives Israel over Gaza, Gaza is widely considered to still be occupied by Israel. This is the position of the UN among others.
Good news, finally
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.