US president’s remarks to Time magazine about PM’s role in conflict draw heavily critical response from Israeli government

US president’s remarks to Time magazine about PM’s role in conflict draw heavily critical response from Israeli government

Joe Biden has said that there is “every reason” to draw the conclusion that Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging the war in Gaza for his own political self-preservation.

Biden made the remarks about the Israeli prime minister in an interview with Time magazine published on Tuesday morning, drawing a sharp response from the Israeli government, which accused the US president of straying from diplomatic norms.

Netanyahu’s popularity plummeted after the 7 October attack by Hamas, which exposed serious flaws in Israeli security. Most political observers say Netanyahu would lose elections if they were held now, and would be forced into opposition, facing court hearings on corruption charges. But elections have been put off until the war is over, or at least until major military operations are deemed to have been completed.

Time asked Biden whether he believed Netanyahu was “prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation”.

“I’m not going to comment on that,” the president said in response, but added: “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.”

  • SuperIce@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1911·
    5 months ago

    If he stopped supplying weapons, the war would stop as Israel wouldn’t have the resources to continue the war on its own.

    • tsonfeir@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2217·
      5 months ago

      The US is not the only country who sells weapons to Israel. And, Israel manufactures weapons too. Having fewer super-cool missiles isn’t going to stop them from using the huge stockpile they already have.

      What a ridiculous American concept that everything revolves around you.

        • tsonfeir@lemmy.worldEnglish
          108·
          5 months ago

          Because the military industrial complex is the ruler of the world and our elected leaders are just for show?

          • electric_nan@lemmy.mlEnglish
            153·
            5 months ago

            Oh I see now… Biden is “striking a difficult balance” between his support for genocide, and his public image of not enjoying it.

            • theprogressivist @lemmy.worldEnglish
              13·
              5 months ago

              You completely diregarded the article. Not that I expected you to read it. You asked why and here’s the answer.

              Legally, the U.S. can’t cut Israel off completely. Since 2008, the U.S. has had to weigh all arms sales to Israel and other countries in the region against the requirement that Israel maintains a “qualitative military edge” against all enemies, both state and non-state actors.

              The Biden administration in late April decided to pause a shipment of 3,500 “dumb” — aka, unguided — munitions that officials expected Israel to use in Rafah: 1,800 of those were 2,000-pound bombs and 1,700 of those were 500-pound bombs. U.S. officials were particularly concerned about the 2,000-pound bombs and the impact the massive weapon would have in a dense urban setting.

              In announcing the pause, Biden for the first time acknowledged that civilians had been killed by these weapons in Gaza.

              “Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers,” Biden said on CNN, referring to 2,000-pound bomb. “I’ve made it clear to Bibi and the war cabinet: They’re not going to get our support, if in fact they go on these population centers.”

              The bombs were approved by Congress in 2021. They had been licensed by the administration, manufactured, and ready to be shipped when the order came down to pause the movement.

              • electric_nan@lemmy.mlEnglish
                22·
                5 months ago

                Ah yes, the law. It can be ignored when necessary and used as an excuse when convenient. How else could Biden be “striking a balance”? If he is bound by this law, why not condemn Israel’s genocide in strongest terms? That would be a balance, eh? And what about the law that says we can’t supply arms for an ongoing genocide? Ah right, he won’t call it a genocide-- conveniently sidestepping that law.