Quote:An interesting story appeared in Politico late Monday, a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told President Joe Biden where he could stick his "red line." The report cites anonymous administration sources who say that Biden "will consider conditioning military aid to Israel if the country moves forward with a large-scale invasion of Rafah." The interesting part wasn't the potential conditioning of military aid post-invasion; it was the reported demand by the Biden administration for Israel's detailed "credible and implementable" plans for the safety of Palestinian civilians in Rafah both pre-invasion and during the conflict.

Before mentioning the demand, the Politico writers made sure to set the stage with the talking points the anonymous sources undoubtedly wanted out in the wild.

Biden’s openness to taking this step [conditioning] reflects the extreme strains in his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has rejected subtler efforts by the Biden administration to rein in his conduct of the war with Hamas.

Rein in his conduct of the war with Hamas? As Netanyahu said during his weekend interview with BILD, any country attacked the way Israel was by Hamas, whose women and children were raped and murdered in an ambush attack, would harshly retaliate - and probably with much more ruthlessness than Israel has. Since October 7 Hamas has used hospitals as military bases, used civilians as human shields, lied with impunity about civilian casualty numbers, and continued their practice of seizing any humanitarian aid for its own ends - and the mainstream media and members of Biden's administration hide the truth of what's happening.

In light of all of that, and the latest reports that the Biden administration is attempting regime change in Israel, it's no wonder that Biden's relationship with Netanyahu is "strained."

There's no doubt Biden is miffed at Netanyahu for not doing exactly what Biden wants him to (as evidenced by that hot mic moment last week), but Biden's also been clear that cutting off military aid to Israel isn't something he's considering. And, despite Politico's headline and opening paragraph, the quote from an unnamed official isn't specific about Rafah or much of anything else.

While Biden has not made any decision on limiting future weapons transfers, officials said that he very well might do so if Israel launches a new operation that further imperils Palestinian civilians.

“It’s something he’s definitely thought about,” said one of the officials, who like the others, was granted anonymity to speak freely.

Well, sure, any decent Commander in Chief (and I'm not saying Biden fits that description) should definitely think about lots of scenarios and possibilities when it comes to conflicts around the world involving our allies and our military support.

And who are these officials that Politico spoke to? They're described only as "four U.S. officials with knowledge of internal administration thinking." Are they in the White House? Department of Defense? State? One of the intelligence agencies?

Spokespeople for the National Security Council and the White House shot down the speculation and termed "red line" terminology as unproductive, given the "very complex set of policies."

National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said in a statement to POLITICO that “we are not going to comment on speculation by anonymous sources or add to what the president said this weekend.”

But asked about Biden’s willingness to tie aid to future Israeli actions, White House deputy press secretary Olivia Dalton said “he thinks that there are other approaches which we have taken and are taking that are more effective.”

“I don’t think that it’s productive to assign a ‘red line’ sort of terminology to what is a very complex set of policies,” she told reporters aboard Air Force One. “You’ve seen the president be very vocal and forthright about what we think about the situation on the ground and what needs to happen from here.”

As experts cited by Politico noted, Israel is already using "lower-intensity, more-precise military operations, including going into the tunnels to kill or capture Hamas militants." At some point, those operations will have eradicated every part of Hamas they possibly can, and it will be necessary for Israel to actually enter Rafah. So do these anonymous sources think that should never happen?

Likely. However, it seems that what's really happening, and why suddenly we're seeing Rafah all over the news, is that Israel is dragging its feet when it comes to sharing its plans for the area with the U.S.

Israel still has not shared a “credible and implementable” plan to protect civilians in Rafah with the Biden administration, a fifth U.S. official confirmed. The U.S. wants to see one before it gives an implicit green light to Israel’s advance.

Why does Israel need to share this plan, and why do they need an implicit green light from us? If Israel shares a "credible and implementable" plan to protect civilians in Rafah before and during the offensive with the Biden administration, then they're also essentially sharing their battle plan. Once the Biden administration has those plans, people like high-ranking DOD official Ariane Tabatabai, believed to be an Iranian asset, and others like her can share them with Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. If Netanyahu isn't sharing the plan to protect civilians with the U.S., it's with good reason.

UPDATE 3/12/24, 8:45 PM Eastern: On Tuesday, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan called the Politico story referenced above and other similar stories 'uniformed speculation in anonymous officials" and told reporters that, “Our position is that a military operation in Rafah that does not protect civilians, that cuts off the main arteries of humanitarian assistance and that places enormous pressure on the Israel-Egypt border is not something that he can support. We are talking to the Israelis about that. We are working through it.”

Link

Biden and his handlers have no leverage here. The Israelis do not need US assistance to do this, and frankly do not care who likes it or not. To them, this is a matter of national survival and they are not going to leave the possibility of another Oct-7-style attack as something to be negotiated while their own hostages are still being held behind enemy lines. Virtually every word that Biden or his team have uttered on this subject in the past 5 months was just political blather designed to influence the American elections later this year. There is honestly nothing else going on here beyond that.

Israel should give us the middle finger. I would. **** Biden.

Pretty sure Israel doesn't give a crap about what Biden wants to see, at least regarding this particular matter.

I have a way that would permanently protect Israeli civilians. Just nuke Iran and send a couple missles to where some of Hamas' leaders are and take them out.

Seriously, just take out Iran and everyone else will most likely collapse.

credible and implementable plan to protect civilians on an urban battlefield

This is the 1960's all over again and why so many of our wars have become quagmires costing millions more in lives and trillions more in dollars (which also costs lives, since we could use those funds otherwise) because we elect and empower and support people who somehow thinks that wars can or should be 'neat'.

Lunacy.

I used to think that this came from the 'flower child' wing of the left, and that may have been true in the 60's... and of course I think many of their supporters these days are peace lovers....

but I am increasingly convinced that the 'Military Industrial Complex' as a money laundering operation... an easily manipulable part of our GDP and a black hole for secretive operations is the real reason.

Biden himself said something to the effect of us using up our old munitions in Ukraine (and elsewhere) and replacing them with new ones creating jobs. Obviously part of any 'credible' urban military operation that protected civilians would require new/newer technology... so this is just another testing ground for new military tech.

(03-14-2024 09:59 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  I have a way that would permanently protect Israeli civilians. Just nuke Iran and send a couple missles to where some of Hamas' leaders are and take them out.

Seriously, just take out Iran and everyone else will most likely collapse.

You have my vote.

Schumer is calling for the PM to step down and the country to hold a special election... Schumer we don't need to meddle in other countries' elections.

(03-13-2024 03:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Biden and his handlers have no leverage here. The Israelis do not need US assistance to do this, and frankly do not care who likes it or not. To them, this is a matter of national survival and they are not going to leave the possibility of another Oct-7-style attack as something to be negotiated while their own hostages are still being held behind enemy lines. Virtually every word that Biden or his team have uttered on this subject in the past 5 months was just political blather designed to influence the American elections later this year. There is honestly nothing else going on here beyond that.

So you think if we turned off all aid and weapons shipments to Israel (of which Biden has authorized over 100 separate weapons sales to Israel since October 7th small enough to not require congressional approval) that they could continue to operate like this in Gaza forever?

"But in the case of the 100 other transactions, known in government-speak as Foreign Military Sales or FMS, the weapons transfers were processed without any public debate because each fell under a specific dollar amount that requires the executive branch to individually notify Congress, according to U.S. officials and lawmakers who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military matter."

“That’s an extraordinary number of sales over the course of a pretty short amount of time, which really strongly suggests that the Israeli campaign would not be sustainable without this level of U.S. support,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, a former senior Biden administration official and current president of Refugees International."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...a%20recent

(03-14-2024 11:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 03:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Biden and his handlers have no leverage here. The Israelis do not need US assistance to do this, and frankly do not care who likes it or not. To them, this is a matter of national survival and they are not going to leave the possibility of another Oct-7-style attack as something to be negotiated while their own hostages are still being held behind enemy lines. Virtually every word that Biden or his team have uttered on this subject in the past 5 months was just political blather designed to influence the American elections later this year. There is honestly nothing else going on here beyond that.

So you think if we turned off all aid and weapons shipments to Israel (of which Biden has authorized over 100 separate weapons sales to Israel since October 7th small enough to not require congressional approval) that they could continue to operate like this in Gaza forever?

”forever” is a long time, and “operate like this” is open to interpretation.

But just by and by — yes, Israel could sustain itself militarily for a very long time even if the U.S. turned off the faucet today. And I readily admit that was not the case until recently (until 2000, at least, maybe 2010). But it is the case now.

I'd like to see credible and implementable evidence Biden knows what year it is.

(03-14-2024 11:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 11:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 03:04 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Biden and his handlers have no leverage here. The Israelis do not need US assistance to do this, and frankly do not care who likes it or not. To them, this is a matter of national survival and they are not going to leave the possibility of another Oct-7-style attack as something to be negotiated while their own hostages are still being held behind enemy lines. Virtually every word that Biden or his team have uttered on this subject in the past 5 months was just political blather designed to influence the American elections later this year. There is honestly nothing else going on here beyond that.

So you think if we turned off all aid and weapons shipments to Israel (of which Biden has authorized over 100 separate weapons sales to Israel since October 7th small enough to not require congressional approval) that they could continue to operate like this in Gaza forever?

”forever” is a long time, and “operate like this” is open to interpretation.

But just by and by — yes, Israel could sustain itself militarily for a very long time even if the U.S. turned off the faucet today. And I readily admit that was not the case until recently (until 2000, at least, maybe 2010). But it is the case now.

Then we should let them prove it, and at that point we would have no say in what they do other than the same amount we have over ever other sovereign country on the planet. But since Biden has shipped them weapons over 100 times since October 7th below the threshold of congressional approval something tells me they kinda need our stuff.

(03-14-2024 12:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 11:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Israel could sustain itself militarily for a very long time even if the U.S. turned off the faucet today. And I readily admit that was not the case until recently (until 2000, at least, maybe 2010). But it is the case now.

Then we should let them prove it, and at that point we would have no say in what they do other than the same amount we have over ever other sovereign country on the planet.

I have no doubt that will eventually happen someday. Also no doubt that many Americans wish that day would be today. We shall see if Biden’s handlers are among them, or not.

Quote:But since Biden has shipped them weapons over 100 times since October 7th below the threshold of congressional approval something tells me they kinda need our stuff.

Sure, American weapons have made Israel’s burden lighter. And withdrawing those weapons would make their burden heavier. But that’s not the same way you phrased the question before.

If push comes to shove, I think a lot of people would be surprised how many weapons Israel could manufacture on its own, and even more surprised about where Israel would be able to get even more weapons beyond that. (Think about which countries are most fearful of Iran).

(03-14-2024 12:52 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 12:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-14-2024 11:56 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Israel could sustain itself militarily for a very long time even if the U.S. turned off the faucet today. And I readily admit that was not the case until recently (until 2000, at least, maybe 2010). But it is the case now.

Then we should let them prove it, and at that point we would have no say in what they do other than the same amount we have over ever other sovereign country on the planet.

I have no doubt that will eventually happen someday. Also no doubt that many Americans wish that day would be today. We shall see if Biden’s handlers are among them, or not.

Quote:But since Biden has shipped them weapons over 100 times since October 7th below the threshold of congressional approval something tells me they kinda need our stuff.

Sure, American weapons have made Israel’s burden lighter. And withdrawing those weapons would make their burden heavier. But that’s not the same way you phrased the question before.

If push comes to shove, I think a lot of people would be surprised how many weapons Israel could manufacture on its own, and even more surprised about where Israel would be able to get even more weapons beyond that. (Think about which countries are most fearful of Iran).

Biden is ideologically committed to Israel. This is one of his few old school 50 year long held belief that goes back to the days of Golda Meir. It ain't going to be about "convincing his handlers" to stop supporting Israel, he's the one who's all in to forever supporting them. He's giving the most pathetic spin attempts at pretending it's not the case, but he gives the game away every single time. He was asked recently if he has any red line, and at first he says yes if Israel invades Rafah without any plans for the civilians, but then he immediately follows up and says there's no red line to which he'd stop giving aids and weapons to Israel. So there is no red line, nothing exists that would make him change.

Bibi wants to see Credible and Implementable' Plan to Protect Civilians in the United States from sub 80 third world filth