Yeah, there's an obvious difference. One is happening before a huge terrorist attack and a rise in antisemitic rhetoric and the other is happening after it. So the one happening after it addresses the changes.
What rise in antisemitic rhetoric? Without (wrongly) including things like the campus protests and the general outcry against Israel's violence that has arisen recently (those aren't antisemitism), is there more antisemitism now than in 2022?
You can find plenty of reports on this stuff that talk about the rise generally. And as I mentioned before, while the protests we've seen against Israel have been mostly well meaning there's even just in those protests been antisemitic rhetoric. Just cause the overall group doesn't support those statements doesn't mean there aren't people there who are saying them or putting up signs or whatever. It's still out there. And were not talking shit like "Israel's actions are bad" either.
It's a stretch from that to say that a speech about the Holocaust in 2024 by necessity must bring up the protests as an example of antisemitism. Why didn't he mention grocery stores, and how violence against Jewish people is not okay in a grocery store? What about rock climbing instructors? A bunch of them are undoubtedly antisemitic. The grape juice bottling industry surely has instances of violence against Jewish people.
The thing is, Biden and others repeatedly do count "Israel's actions are bad" as antisemitism. That has been the main official response to the protests. But if you don't count that, I'm not seeing evidence that antisemitism was prevalent enough in the protests to make it an "elephant in the room" when talking about the Holocaust.
You talk about it because it's all over the news and it's directly relevant to the point of the speech.
And if you are just simply gonna says "Well, I just don't believe antisemitism is getting worse no matter what you say" I can't see any way forward here. You have to be careful with this stuff as noted above because there's conflation of anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric but the lists I've read include more then just statements. Supporting this there are also reports from the other end of this of rising anti-muslim incidents.
I didn't say antisemitism isn't getting worse. I said the protests are not a definitive example of them getting worse. The reason it's all over the news and directly relevant is because the media and politicians have specifically, intentionally conflated peaceful protests against Israel's actions with violence against Jewish people. If they weren't making that false equivalence, then the protests would not be relevant to the point of the speech.
The protests are big news. The press fucking loves them, they are all over the news. The speech references them because of that. And these recent are not free of the kind of incidents we've been mentioning either.
There's more than a bit of the "left has agency, right just exists" thing going on with reporting.
Then again a relative of super-bigot Kahane attacked protesters and it's getting barely a peep in the media. The NYT and co have a hate-boner for students which drives a lot of the reporting.
The protestor he hit with the car had to be taken to the hospital, where they were "handcuffed to the bed," because of course they have to arrest the protestor, too.
Police arrested three individuals at the demonstration, including Kahane and the 55-year-old female protester he struck, who sustained a leg injury and was hospitalized. She and a 63-year-old male protester with CUAD were arrested for banging on the hood of the driver’s car when it drove into the crowd, the spokesperson said.
Note to self [takes notes with pencil and pad]: illegal to… hit car… trying to deliberately… kill me
Okay there we go I won’t forget that now. That feels important to remember when I’m being hit with a car by a murderous dipshit
Yeah, there's an obvious difference. One is happening before a huge terrorist attack and a rise in antisemitic rhetoric and the other is happening after it. So the one happening after it addresses the changes.
What rise in antisemitic rhetoric? Without (wrongly) including things like the campus protests and the general outcry against Israel's violence that has arisen recently (those aren't antisemitism), is there more antisemitism now than in 2022?
You can find plenty of reports on this stuff that talk about the rise generally. And as I mentioned before, while the protests we've seen against Israel have been mostly well meaning there's even just in those protests been antisemitic rhetoric. Just cause the overall group doesn't support those statements doesn't mean there aren't people there who are saying them or putting up signs or whatever. It's still out there. And were not talking shit like "Israel's actions are bad" either.
It's a stretch from that to say that a speech about the Holocaust in 2024 by necessity must bring up the protests as an example of antisemitism. Why didn't he mention grocery stores, and how violence against Jewish people is not okay in a grocery store? What about rock climbing instructors? A bunch of them are undoubtedly antisemitic. The grape juice bottling industry surely has instances of violence against Jewish people.
The thing is, Biden and others repeatedly do count "Israel's actions are bad" as antisemitism. That has been the main official response to the protests. But if you don't count that, I'm not seeing evidence that antisemitism was prevalent enough in the protests to make it an "elephant in the room" when talking about the Holocaust.
You talk about it because it's all over the news and it's directly relevant to the point of the speech.
And if you are just simply gonna says "Well, I just don't believe antisemitism is getting worse no matter what you say" I can't see any way forward here. You have to be careful with this stuff as noted above because there's conflation of anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric but the lists I've read include more then just statements. Supporting this there are also reports from the other end of this of rising anti-muslim incidents.
I didn't say antisemitism isn't getting worse. I said the protests are not a definitive example of them getting worse. The reason it's all over the news and directly relevant is because the media and politicians have specifically, intentionally conflated peaceful protests against Israel's actions with violence against Jewish people. If they weren't making that false equivalence, then the protests would not be relevant to the point of the speech.
The protests are big news. The press fucking loves them, they are all over the news. The speech references them because of that. And these recent are not free of the kind of incidents we've been mentioning either.
"The topic of today's speech is the pervasive problem of pedophilia. In unrelated news, I want to make sure to warn anyone going to the Pride demonstration that shenanigans will not be tolerated. Back to the topic at hand..." "What do you mean? I wasn't making any negative associations. My comment about Pride was just because it's a relevant news item!"
He's very clearly calling out the protests as a whole as being violent and antisemitic when neither of those things is true. I'm not sure how his speech could be interpreted any other way. For all the things people could say about Biden, he's actually a pretty good communicator. And he's making his intent clear here.
Yeah, there's an obvious difference. One is happening before a huge terrorist attack and a rise in antisemitic rhetoric and the other is happening after it. So the one happening after it addresses the changes.
What rise in antisemitic rhetoric? Without (wrongly) including things like the campus protests and the general outcry against Israel's violence that has arisen recently (those aren't antisemitism), is there more antisemitism now than in 2022?
You can find plenty of reports on this stuff that talk about the rise generally. And as I mentioned before, while the protests we've seen against Israel have been mostly well meaning there's even just in those protests been antisemitic rhetoric. Just cause the overall group doesn't support those statements doesn't mean there aren't people there who are saying them or putting up signs or whatever. It's still out there. And were not talking shit like "Israel's actions are bad" either.
It's a stretch from that to say that a speech about the Holocaust in 2024 by necessity must bring up the protests as an example of antisemitism. Why didn't he mention grocery stores, and how violence against Jewish people is not okay in a grocery store? What about rock climbing instructors? A bunch of them are undoubtedly antisemitic. The grape juice bottling industry surely has instances of violence against Jewish people.
The thing is, Biden and others repeatedly do count "Israel's actions are bad" as antisemitism. That has been the main official response to the protests. But if you don't count that, I'm not seeing evidence that antisemitism was prevalent enough in the protests to make it an "elephant in the room" when talking about the Holocaust.
You talk about it because it's all over the news and it's directly relevant to the point of the speech.
And if you are just simply gonna says "Well, I just don't believe antisemitism is getting worse no matter what you say" I can't see any way forward here. You have to be careful with this stuff as noted above because there's conflation of anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric but the lists I've read include more then just statements. Supporting this there are also reports from the other end of this of rising anti-muslim incidents.
I didn't say antisemitism isn't getting worse. I said the protests are not a definitive example of them getting worse. The reason it's all over the news and directly relevant is because the media and politicians have specifically, intentionally conflated peaceful protests against Israel's actions with violence against Jewish people. If they weren't making that false equivalence, then the protests would not be relevant to the point of the speech.
The protests are big news. The press fucking loves them, they are all over the news. The speech references them because of that. And these recent are not free of the kind of incidents we've been mentioning either.
"The topic of today's speech is the pervasive problem of pedophilia. In unrelated news, I want to make sure to warn anyone going to the Pride demonstration that shenanigans will not be tolerated. Back to the topic at hand..." "What do you mean? I wasn't making any negative associations. My comment about Pride was just because it's a relevant news item!"
He's very clearly calling out the protests as a whole as being violent and antisemitic when neither of those things is true. I'm not sure how his speech could be interpreted any other way. For all the things people could say about Biden, he's actually a pretty good communicator. And he's making his intent clear here.
Maybe I'm not reading the right part of the speech. This is the part I saw that seemed relevant:
I understand people have strong beliefs and deep convictions about the world. In America, we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech, to debate and disagree, to protest peacefully and make our voices heard.
I understand. That’s America.
But there is no place on any campus in America — any place in America — for antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind — (applause) — whether against Jews or anyone else.
Violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. And we are not a lawless country. We’re a civil society. We uphold the rule of law.
And no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves.
Did I snip off a part that's a better example of him "calling out the protests as a whole as being violent and antisemitic"? Because if that's the section that we're discussing, I'm not sure in the opposite direction you are: how can anyone take that as "calling out the protests as a whole as being violent and antisemitic"?
Like, sure, hate on Columbia, IU, whoever else has had actual shitty responses (I honestly mostly only hear about those two; I imagine mostly because IU is local to me and Columbia is NY/NYPD), but it's not Biden sending in the IN State Police, or the NYPD, or whatever the heck.
Who do you think Biden is calling out when he says that there is no place on any campus for antisemitism, threats of violence and destroying property? Who is he calling violent and lawless then?
Because he is 100% calling someone out for being/doing all those things, @iTunesIsEvil , please explain to me who specifically is Biden refering to in that quote.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
There's no reason to refer to antisemitism within a breath of 'protest' and in the same sentence as 'campus' in a prepared speech in that way unless you're highlighting, specifically, antisemitism in campus protests.
This is basic Robert Cialdini / George Lakoff stuff. Sort of shit they teach you in communications courses.
Trump did a similar thing with immigration. In his prepared speeches, he always addressed immigration immediately before or immediately after talking about violent crime.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
This is real "He was just really tired of that turbulent priest, he wasn't the one who actually got rid of him" territory to be trying to argue that Biden's rhetoric about the pro-Palestinian protestors, where he has been denouncing them and saying they are crossing the lines of acceptable protest, is something that can't be considered a contributing factor to the increased demonization of protestors, nor a sign of encouragement/approval to those who decide to deploy law enforcement to break up these groups.
Biden had a CNN interview, pull quote is "If Israel invades Rafah I'm not supplying the weapons." Says nothing offensive. So presumably would supply Iron Dome, but said no bombs, shells, etc.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Biden says arms shipments will be halted if Israel pursues a "major" invasion of Rafah. Also admits "civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers..."
Defensive / Iron Dome weapons would still be sent. As already mentioned in the thread, one shipment is already paused.
Biden also clarified that Israel hasn't crossed a red line yet and hasn't "gone into the population centers" but they're causing problems.
Who do you think Biden is calling out when he says that there is no place on any campus for antisemitism, threats of violence and destroying property? Who is he calling violent and lawless then?
Because he is 100% calling someone out for being/doing all those things, iTunesIsEvil , please explain to me who specifically is Biden refering to in that quote.
Sure, that's easy. I'm surprised you wanted clarification. The answer is: some of the protestors, and some, uh, "counter-protestors".
Leaving himself some wiggle room just in case the IDF only bombs a small refuge camp or two, just as a little treat.
My limited understanding (since reporting is pretty spotty on a day-old military venture) is that Israel is trying to take over a border checkpoint in Rafah and isn't "going in" in a full invasion.
Still a stupid, counter-productive, disastrous, and morally foul action. But distinct from an actual "major population center" invasion.
Where the specific red line actually is remains a good question. The fact that some arms were already held up suggests its close, but the administration has regularly struggled to seriously enforce threatened consequences.
Leaving himself some wiggle room just in case the IDF only bombs a small refuge camp or two, just as a little treat.
My limited understanding (since reporting is pretty spotty on a day-old military venture) is that Israel is trying to take over a border checkpoint in Rafah and isn't "going in" in a full invasion.
Still a stupid, counter-productive, disastrous, and morally foul action. But distinct from an actual "major population center" invasion.
Where the specific red line actually is remains a good question. The fact that some arms were already held up suggests its close, but the administration has regularly struggled to seriously enforce threatened consequences.
Anybody who believes the latter half of the bolded in the face of the former half is not somebody who be taken at all seriously. Especially since this is a great way to prevent any aid from getting into Rafah so all the IDF has to do is let famine do their work for them.
I think it is fairly safe to grant that antisemitism incidents - even with a very restricted definition - have increased year over year. If for no other reason than they have been trending that way prior to Oct 7th, and it seems impossible they've went down. I think saying much definitively beyond that you are going to have trouble.
As we saw by the Antisemitism Awareness Act(or w/e its exact title) there are strong political forces trying to define any criticism of Israel as antisemitism. This isn't recent, the political advantages of making such claims have been understood by the varying lobbing groups and individuals for years prior to this(again see BDS bills) and there is a constant push to broaden its scope to silence criticism. Additional there have been several first hand accounts of antisemitic attacks that have been debunked. We've clearly seen that violence against protests get misrepresented as them reacting violently. The mainstream media is a best credulous and at worst complicit, in both echoing false claims(which are quietly retracted) and their bias selection of coverage.
I don't know if you accumulated every bit of coverage over every call to genocide issued by Israeli Knesset members, cabinet members, IDF commanders, and all the "Bomb em all" GOP shit birds*, it would have half the coverage "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." "From the River to the Sea" got.
And, when you look overseas particularly in Germany, but in France and the UK as well the level of viewpoint based policing/arrest/other state fuckery is massively worse. If you are a critic of Israel, Germany seems dead set on banning you from entering Germany, or any other country in Europe.
If the refs are crooked, pointing to the scoreboard doesn't mean much.
tinwhiskers on
+3
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
If we aren’t Jewish we need to be careful with the “antisemitism doesn’t exist because I don’t see it” talk because most bigotries are most obvious to those who suffer them. You don’t notice if you are never followed by store security: you only notice the opposite.
Jewish people I know online are reporting lots of antisemitism against them. A lot of it is like “denounce Israel or else you aren’t one of the good ones” which I as a non-Jew find creepy. But it’s not as obvious as Nazi antisemitism.
I do appreciate that people haven't demanded that every post denounce Hamas lately, so I can definitely see where that would get old if you were constantly asked to prove you're not a Zionist
If we aren’t Jewish we need to be careful with the “antisemitism doesn’t exist because I don’t see it” talk because most bigotries are most obvious to those who suffer them. You don’t notice if you are never followed by store security: you only notice the opposite.
Jewish people I know online are reporting lots of antisemitism against them. A lot of it is like “denounce Israel or else you aren’t one of the good ones” which I as a non-Jew find creepy. But it’s not as obvious as Nazi antisemitism.
I do appreciate that people haven't demanded that every post denounce Hamas lately, so I can definitely see where that would get old if you were constantly asked to prove you're not a Zionist
The fact you remember the former and not the latter shows you weren't paying attention.
Leaving himself some wiggle room just in case the IDF only bombs a small refuge camp or two, just as a little treat.
My limited understanding (since reporting is pretty spotty on a day-old military venture) is that Israel is trying to take over a border checkpoint in Rafah and isn't "going in" in a full invasion.
Still a stupid, counter-productive, disastrous, and morally foul action. But distinct from an actual "major population center" invasion.
Where the specific red line actually is remains a good question. The fact that some arms were already held up suggests its close, but the administration has regularly struggled to seriously enforce threatened consequences.
When you are dropping bombs into a 8kmx8km square whose population is now 1.3+ million people, this distinction is farcical. 20,000 people per square km is nearly Manhattan. Its ~20% more than Hong Kong. Its the blitz, but over an area with four times the population density of London.
New Choitner interview in the New Yorker talking about the challenge of making Gaza habitable again
The Ukrainian front line is about six hundred miles long, and in Gaza the front line is twenty-five miles long. According to estimates by unep and U.N.-Habitat, there’s more rubble—thirty-seven million tons—in Gaza than in Ukraine.
The problem I see is if we’re defining our red-line as a physical ‘invasion’ and they turn around and just flatten Rafah from the air like everything they’ve done before, then it’s not actionable and we’re pissing in the wind.
You go in the cage, cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark's in the water, our shark.
+8
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
If we aren’t Jewish we need to be careful with the “antisemitism doesn’t exist because I don’t see it” talk because most bigotries are most obvious to those who suffer them. You don’t notice if you are never followed by store security: you only notice the opposite.
Jewish people I know online are reporting lots of antisemitism against them. A lot of it is like “denounce Israel or else you aren’t one of the good ones” which I as a non-Jew find creepy. But it’s not as obvious as Nazi antisemitism.
I do appreciate that people haven't demanded that every post denounce Hamas lately, so I can definitely see where that would get old if you were constantly asked to prove you're not a Zionist
The fact you remember the former and not the latter shows you weren't paying attention.
I think the former is more memorable because it's been 8 months since there was anything to denounce Hamas for, whereas the IDF hasn't taken a day off
Actually this is pithy and dumb. Neither Fencingsax nor anyone else in this forum controls the IDF's genocide and any ire directed at people here is pointless.
I will say instead that I disagree with your statement and that if you think I haven't been paying attention it is probably because we value different things in regards to this conflict. Also the things that you value are wrong!
The problem I see is if we’re defining our red-line as a physical ‘invasion’ and they turn around and just flatten Rafah from the air like everything they’ve done before, then it’s not actionable and we’re pissing in the wind.
Can't step over a red line and move into population centers if there's no population or intact centers left *taps head galaxy brain like*
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
This paused shipment was for 1,800 2k lb bombs. That is roughly equivalent to what one of the "thousand plane" bombing raids dropped in WW2.
That is 28 bombs per square km in Rafah. Lethal fragmentation radius on a 2000lb bomb is 370m. Break out your old ruler and compass if you need to but I think we all know what the intended result is here.
I'm reminded that when the red army was assaulting Berlin. One of the generals had artillery density(guns per km of the front) that was in essence, a row of guns lined up wheel to wheel across the whole front.
If we aren’t Jewish we need to be careful with the “antisemitism doesn’t exist because I don’t see it” talk because most bigotries are most obvious to those who suffer them. You don’t notice if you are never followed by store security: you only notice the opposite.
Jewish people I know online are reporting lots of antisemitism against them. A lot of it is like “denounce Israel or else you aren’t one of the good ones” which I as a non-Jew find creepy. But it’s not as obvious as Nazi antisemitism.
I do appreciate that people haven't demanded that every post denounce Hamas lately, so I can definitely see where that would get old if you were constantly asked to prove you're not a Zionist
The fact you remember the former and not the latter shows you weren't paying attention.
I think the former is more memorable because it's been 8 months since there was anything to denounce Hamas for, whereas the IDF hasn't taken a day off
Actually this is pithy and dumb. Neither Fencingsax nor anyone else in this forum controls the IDF's genocide and any ire directed at people here is pointless.
I will say instead that I disagree with your statement and that if you think I haven't been paying attention it is probably because we value different things in regards to this conflict. Also the things that you value are wrong!
Which makes Israel blocking food into Gaza because it contains sugar even more ridiculous, because Hamas literally harvest unexploded bombs for parts now in order to make their own.
+1
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
It just occured to me that the Oct 7th attacks killed around 1200 people in a day and that those weren't exactly high grade munitions. If we're assuming IDF the bombing campaigns, ground invasion, and imposed famine conditions are *at least* as efficient as the Oct 7th attacks (which is a very fuzzy assumption I know) we'd currently be looking at 1200*30*8 killed which is 288,000.
Which is over 7 times the current *verified* death count.
My gut says the Hamas attacks were probably not more efficient than the IDF's war.
The problem I see is if we’re defining our red-line as a physical ‘invasion’ and they turn around and just flatten Rafah from the air like everything they’ve done before, then it’s not actionable and we’re pissing in the wind.
I think the president saying bombs are hitting civilians and an immediate (limited) arms hold suggest this time might be different, but the variable red line goalposts is certainly something to be worried about.
Two goats enter, one car leaves
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
If we aren’t Jewish we need to be careful with the “antisemitism doesn’t exist because I don’t see it” talk because most bigotries are most obvious to those who suffer them. You don’t notice if you are never followed by store security: you only notice the opposite.
Jewish people I know online are reporting lots of antisemitism against them. A lot of it is like “denounce Israel or else you aren’t one of the good ones” which I as a non-Jew find creepy. But it’s not as obvious as Nazi antisemitism.
I do appreciate that people haven't demanded that every post denounce Hamas lately, so I can definitely see where that would get old if you were constantly asked to prove you're not a Zionist
The fact you remember the former and not the latter shows you weren't paying attention.
I think the former is more memorable because it's been 8 months since there was anything to denounce Hamas for, whereas the IDF hasn't taken a day off
Actually this is pithy and dumb. Neither Fencingsax nor anyone else in this forum controls the IDF's genocide and any ire directed at people here is pointless.
I will say instead that I disagree with your statement and that if you think I haven't been paying attention it is probably because we value different things in regards to this conflict. Also the things that you value are wrong!
(That last bit sounded funnier in my head)
I was talking about demands to denounce one side over the other. There was a redious period on these very forums where both were being demanded, dependong on which side you were perceived to be on.
+5
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
This paused shipment was for 1,800 2k lb bombs. That is roughly equivalent to what one of the "thousand plane" bombing raids dropped in WW2.
That is 28 bombs per square km in Rafah. Lethal fragmentation radius on a 2000lb bomb is 370m. Break out your old ruler and compass if you need to but I think we all know what the intended result is here.
I'm reminded that when the red army was assaulting Berlin. One of the generals had artillery density(guns per km of the front) that was in essence, a row of guns lined up wheel to wheel across the whole front.
PBS does one of my least favorite things here, which is to cite what is almost certainly a public document without linking it, but it's worth pointing out that "munitions" is a catch-all term that includes everything from 10lb mortars to 2000lb JDAMs. Dropping 300,000 munitions therefore has a range of two orders of magnitude as far as effective yield depending on the composition of what was used.
Not trying to minimize the destruction, just saying that we should be cautious about extrapolating and making comparisons based on that figure.
This paused shipment was for 1,800 2k lb bombs. That is roughly equivalent to what one of the "thousand plane" bombing raids dropped in WW2.
That is 28 bombs per square km in Rafah. Lethal fragmentation radius on a 2000lb bomb is 370m. Break out your old ruler and compass if you need to but I think we all know what the intended result is here.
I'm reminded that when the red army was assaulting Berlin. One of the generals had artillery density(guns per km of the front) that was in essence, a row of guns lined up wheel to wheel across the whole front.
PBS does one of my least favorite things here, which is to cite what is almost certainly a public document without linking it, but it's worth pointing out that "munitions" is a catch-all term that includes everything from 10lb mortars to 2000lb JDAMs. Dropping 300,000 munitions therefore has a range of two orders of magnitude as far as effective yield depending on the composition of what was used.
Not trying to minimize the destruction, just saying that we should be cautious about extrapolating and making comparisons based on that figure.
"Since Israel declared war following Hamas’s deadly attacks in October, more than 70 per cent of all housing stock in Gaza, and more than 80 per cent in parts of northern region have been damaged or destroyed, displacing over 1.5 million persons."
"“All that makes housing ‘adequate’ – access to services, jobs, culture, schools, religious places, universities, hospitals – have all been levelled,” the Special Rapporteur said, adding that the scale and intensity of destruction in Gaza is “far worse” than in Aleppo, Mariupol or even Dresden and Rotterdam during the Second World War."
By going all "well akchually", you ARE minimizing the destruction of Gaza.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
This paused shipment was for 1,800 2k lb bombs. That is roughly equivalent to what one of the "thousand plane" bombing raids dropped in WW2.
That is 28 bombs per square km in Rafah. Lethal fragmentation radius on a 2000lb bomb is 370m. Break out your old ruler and compass if you need to but I think we all know what the intended result is here.
I'm reminded that when the red army was assaulting Berlin. One of the generals had artillery density(guns per km of the front) that was in essence, a row of guns lined up wheel to wheel across the whole front.
PBS does one of my least favorite things here, which is to cite what is almost certainly a public document without linking it, but it's worth pointing out that "munitions" is a catch-all term that includes everything from 10lb mortars to 2000lb JDAMs. Dropping 300,000 munitions therefore has a range of two orders of magnitude as far as effective yield depending on the composition of what was used.
Not trying to minimize the destruction, just saying that we should be cautious about extrapolating and making comparisons based on that figure.
"Since Israel declared war following Hamas’s deadly attacks in October, more than 70 per cent of all housing stock in Gaza, and more than 80 per cent in parts of northern region have been damaged or destroyed, displacing over 1.5 million persons."
"“All that makes housing ‘adequate’ – access to services, jobs, culture, schools, religious places, universities, hospitals – have all been levelled,” the Special Rapporteur said, adding that the scale and intensity of destruction in Gaza is “far worse” than in Aleppo, Mariupol or even Dresden and Rotterdam during the Second World War."
By going all "well akchually", you ARE minimizing the destruction of Gaza.
Munitions covers things that are blowing up today and things blowing up a few years from now, beneath the 3 year old feet of a child of Issac and Rebecca
So I haven't had a chance to see how many other examples there are, but the campus protests in Europe are succeeding in forcing policy changes. Trinity University in Dublin and Barcelona University have both agreed to cut ties with Israeli institutions and divest.
The problem I see is if we’re defining our red-line as a physical ‘invasion’ and they turn around and just flatten Rafah from the air like everything they’ve done before, then it’s not actionable and we’re pissing in the wind.
I think the president saying bombs are hitting civilians and an immediate (limited) arms hold suggest this time might be different, but the variable red line goalposts is certainly something to be worried about.
A super squishy red line is almost worse than no red line. You need three things for a red line
1) A very clear thing that you don't want the other party to do.
2) An action you're going to take if they do do that thing that will make the other party very sad.
3) A belief on the part of the other party that if they do A that you will do B. You have to be credible.
“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said.
Maybe they're being a bit more detailed when talking with Israel, but the public at the moment only has this interview to go on, and what is described is really vague. So Israel can't 'go into Rafah' (but they've already taken over the local border crossing, so...) otherwise they'll lose access to 'the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah and the cities', which... wut? Can they reduce Rafah via air and artillery? What exact weapons will we stop supplying them with if they somehow do manage to cross this red line and would that actually be enough to influence Israel's behavior? What if Israel thinks they already have enough city busting weaponry that they can take Rafah and then deal with any cutoff in supply later because it's not like there's anything left in Gaza to destroy and they're not currently worried about needing to flatten Beirut, Damascus, or Cairo?
And this isn't even getting into the whole credibility issue, where the Biden administration has spent the last seven months or so not taking concrete action against Israel, combined with the last few decades of American policy of, at most, getting grumpy about Netanyahu actively campaigning for Republicans.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
A Republican lawmaker has decided that the violent detention of college students participating in Gaza solidarity protests isn’t enough of a punishment. Instead, he believes the only way to encourage them to stop using their First Amendment right to protest is to ship them off to Gaza.
Tennessee Representative Andy Ogles introduced a new bill into the House Wednesday, proposing that students who were arrested for protesting against Israel’s war on Gaza should be sent abroad to “provide community service” for a minimum of six months in the war-torn territory.
“Any person convicted of unlawful activity on the campus of an institution of higher education beginning on and after October 7, 2023, shall be assigned to Gaza for the purpose of providing community service… for a period not fewer than six months,” the bill reads.
It is not currently clear what the exact parameters of the proposed community service would be, though the bill points to the term’s definition in U.S. Code, which are identified by universities “through formal or informal consultation with local nonprofit, governmental, and community-based organizations.”
Although it’s unlikely to gain momentum, the bill could impact approximately 2,100 students who were arrested while participating in peace protests in recent weeks.
It’s at least the second time Ogles has hatefully condemned the citizens of Gaza and their American allies who want an end to the war. In February, the Tennessee Republican ruthlessly advocated for the complete extermination of Palestine while engaging in a fiery spat with an activist.
“You know what? So, I think we should kill ’em all, if that makes you feel better,” Ogles, a self-described Christian, told a protester asking him about dead Palestinian children. “Everybody in Hamas.”
“Hamas and the Palestinians have been attacking Israel for 20 years. And It’s time to pay the piper,” the lawmaker continued.
Meanwhile, more than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed, and more than 77,000 Palestinians have been injured in the conflict, according to data from the Gaza Health Ministry. Most of the victims have been women and children.
Just, you know, casually legislating dissidents must be exiled to a killing field for forced labor
Red lines are rhetoric positing a kind of exculpatory external entity that decides if you're going to do something or not. Biden will do what he wants to do, which is to continue to support Israel.
Reding the whole speech makes it worse. You can't read a speech like that without looking at what it is trying to accomplish rhetorically. And I think these two paragraphs and the bolded in particular tell you what you need to know.
Germany 1933, Hitler and his Nazi Party’s rise to power by rekindling one of the oldest forms of prejudice and hate: antisemitism. His role didn’t begin with mass murder; it started slowly across economic, political, social and cultural life. Propaganda demonizing Jews. Boycotts of Jewish businesses. Synagogues defaced with swastikas. Harassment of Jews in the street and the schools, antisemitic demonstrations, pogroms, organized riots. With the indifference of the world, Hitler knew he could expand his reign of terror by eliminating Jews from Germany, to annihilate Jews across Europe through genocide, the Nazis called the final solution. Concentration camps, gas chambers, mass shootings. By the time the war ended, six million Jews — one of every three Jews in the entire world — were murdered.
....
It’s in moments like this we have to put these principles that we’re talking about into action. I understand people have strong beliefs and deep convictions about the world. In America, we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech. To debate, disagree, to protest peacefully, make our voices heard. I understand, that’s America. But there is no place on any campus in America — any place in America — for antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind. Whether against Jews or anyone else. Violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. And we are not a lawless country. We’re a civil society. We uphold the rule of law, and no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves.
The Jewish community, I want you to know: I see your fear, your hurt, your pain. Let me reassure you, as your president, you’re not alone. You belong. You always have and you always will. And my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad even when we disagree.
These thing's are meticulously written. That line about boycotts? It's entire purpose is to conflate BDS/Divestment with Naziism. Same with school protests and demonstrations.
It's the same game it's always been. BDS, Antisemitic. College protest antisemitic. Opposing Israel, antisemitic. Opposing apartheid, antisemitic.
This speech isn't just some vague piece of remembrance. It's an open declaration that he will stomp on any attempt to oppose genocide.
And again, the aggregate matters. This is the 3rd speech in a week on "campus protests" and not a word on the hundreds of Palestinians killed in the mean time. Nothing about the 100s of americans assaulted by the police.
And that’s why I took my grandchildren to Dachau, so they could see and bear witness to the perils of indifference, the complicity of silence, in the face of evil they knew was happening.
Whatever writer put that in though... they are either an idiot or an absolute legend.
You are just straight up cherry picking from the speech. Like he's literally just listing off the various ways the Nazis went after Jews and you are picking one item out of the list and going "Aha, this is the real meaning!!!!".
Political speeches aren't lectures. This isnt history of antisemitism it's a speech, that is targeted to a national audience.
Rule of 3. What are the focal points. Nazis, Hamas, Protestors.
College protestors get their own paragraph as the bads, alongside Hamas and the literal nazis. These are who he will stand with Israel against.
The section you are cherry picking from is literally a description of Nazi treatment of Jews. It is, in fact, a speech in part about the history of antisemitism. And you are ignoring most of it and claiming it's only about the one part of that history.
Like if you are going to keep insisting on a naive reading of a speech with countless hours spent crafting every word choice, that's on you. But
This ancient hatred of Jews didn’t begin with the Holocaust. It didn’t end with the Holocaust either. Or after — even after our victory in World War II. This hatred continues to lie deep in the hearts of too many people in the world and requires our continued vigilance and outspokenness. That hatred was brought to life on October 7th of 2023. On the sacred Jewish holiday, the terrorist group Hamas unleashed the deadliest day of the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Driven by ancient desire to wipe out the Jewish people off the face of the Earth, over 1,200 innocent people, babies, parents, grandparents, slaughtered in a kibbutz, massacred at a music festival, brutally raped, mutilated and sexually assaulted.
Thousands more carrying wounds, bullets and shrapnel from a memory of that terrible day they endured. Hundreds taken hostage, including survivors of the Shoah. Now here we are, not 75 years later, but just seven and half months later and people are already forgetting. They are already forgetting. That Hamas unleashed this terror. It was Hamas that brutalized Israelis. It was Hamas who took and continues to hold hostages. I have not forgotten nor have you. And we will not forget.
As Jews around the world still cope with the atrocity and the trauma of that day and its aftermath, we have seen a ferocious surge of antisemitism in America and around the world. Vicious propaganda on social media. Jews forced to keep their — hide their kippahs under baseball hats, tuck their Jewish stars into their shirts. On college campuses, Jewish students blocked, harassed, attacked while walking to class. Antisemitism, antisemitic posters, slogans, calling for the annihilation of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.
Too many people denying, downplaying, rationalizing, ignoring the horrors of the Holocaust and October 7th, including Hamas’s appalling use of sexual violence to torture and terrorize Jews. It’s absolutely despicable, and it must stop. Silence and denial can hide much, but it can erase nothing. Some injustices are so heinous, so horrific, so grievous, they cannot be married — buried — no matter how hard people try.
He literally transitions from the Holocaust, thru Hamas's attack, to talking about college campuses inside of 3 paragraphs, and then ties those protests back to supporting Hamas/Oct 7th in the following sentence.
And later pulls the move in reverse. Talk about the protests, and immediately transition into "I am committed to your safety and Israel". Because it's the protestors that are a danger to the state of Israel.
t’s in moments like this we have to put these principles that we’re talking about into action. I understand people have strong beliefs and deep convictions about the world. In America, we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech. To debate, disagree, to protest peacefully, make our voices heard. I understand, that’s America. But there is no place on any campus in America — any place in America — for antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind. Whether against Jews or anyone else. Violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. And we are not a lawless country. We’re a civil society. We uphold the rule of law, and no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves.
The Jewish community, I want you to know: I see your fear, your hurt, your pain. Let me reassure you, as your president, you’re not alone. You belong. You always have and you always will. And my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad even when we disagree.
Yeah this isn't "We'll keep you safe from 'those people'", but that just makes in more subtle. A call to law and order is a reassurance to maintain power dynamics and hierarchies, always has been, and its clear who he sees as a coequal threat to that.
You are still ignoring all the parts of the speech that don't support your thesis because it's inconvenient. The throughline of the entire thing is antisemitism and how we need to remember where it leads and be vigilant against it. That on what is literally the day of remembrance we need to remember that autisemitism doesn't go away and that if you let it grow it leads to bad things. That you have to be constantly vigilante against it's rise. And it follows a pretty basic "here's the thing, here's what we should do about the thing, here's what I am doing about the thing" format.
So the speech starts by bringing up the issue, links it to the Holocaust (which the event is about) and then also to Oct 7th. Saying that antisemitism is what leads to things like this. And then goes on to talk about how we're already, in the aftermath of that attack, seeing a rise in antisemitism and people forgetting where that goes. And then brings up a list of examples. Which includes the recent protests but is not confined to them. They are just in the middle of the list. Along with other incidents at protests and other incidents outside them as well. And there's every reason to add them to the list because it's both big news right now and relevant to the point. There's 100% been antisemitic rhetoric at these protests and has been since they started back in October of last year. And at no point do I see where he links the current protests to Hamas and Oct 7th, so I've no idea where you are getting that from.
And that's basically the "let's establish the background" portion of the speech. Then we move on to the "so what should we do" where he talks about how the issue of rising antisemitism can't be ignored (because of what he's already talked about). He talks about how free speech is good but that it cannot include hate speech or violence.
And then we move on to the "so here's what I'll do" portion and we get the "I've got your back here" followed by a list of stuff his admin is doing on these issues.
And then we close, as we began, on an anecdote/personal story because that's mandatory.
It's literally a Day of Remembrance ceremony about the Holocaust. And so the whole thing is a call to remember that antisemitism doesn't go away and that it leads to terrible things and so we must stay vigilante against it.
Like, frankly, you are trying to pick out one bit of the larger point here to claim this is only specifically about one thing when he's talking about a broad phenomenon going on. And it also kinda seems like people want to downplay the kind of antisemitic rhetoric we've seen happening and how it makes people feel. And that's why they view this speech as such an affront. Because it's directly about that issue and only that issue because the ceremony is specifically about that topic and so the speech is directly addressing it.
What gets included matters. The proximity of topics and how they are joined together matters. It's not a lecture. It's not just a bullet pointing of events. If say the 2022 version, had included reference to the Tsarist pogroms, I don't think anyone would be going "Ohh well that's obviously not an attempt to highlight Putin's war in Ukraine/Bucha as genocidal, that's just a part of the historical record of antisemitism"- acting like what got included in this speech is somehow itself not just as significant as what wasn't. That is part of the analysis. It should be noted that despite Israel nearly starting a regional war, nothing about Iran or 'nations bent on Israel's destruction' or some other vague obfuscation get included. A state rapidly seeking nuclear weapons, with leaders avowed to the elimination of Israel doesn't out weigh college kids setting up tents. Although in fairness to the writers the later is more likely to cause the end of Israel(the Zionist project), than the former is to end Israel(The Nation or the Project)
I think if this was a speech that talked about racial hatred and was structured the same but centered around the KKK, neo-Nazis, and BLM protests(e: Maybe Black Panthers is a better example) you wouldn't be so obtuse. And that is certainly a speech I could see previous presidents giving- someone can probably find one from the Nixon/Reagan era, including the black panthers or push etc, that does just that. Probably using mostly the same language Biden uses when talking about these protests.
People are probably much more attuned to the slight of hand around that with racial (and increasing LGBTQ) issues in the US, but that's exactly why rhetorical strategies like this work. Even if you are aware of them they feel natural, a good writer makes them flow well. So you don't question why, Auschwitz, Oct 7th, and campus protestors are all put in the "things to be defended against"/enemies column.
Like here the speech goes along with typical benign politician stuff
In my view, a major lesson of the Holocaust is, as mentioned earlier, it is not — was not — inevitable. We know hate never goes away; it only hides. Given a little oxygen, it comes out from under the rocks. We also know what stops hate. One thing: All of us. The late Rabbi Jonathan Sachs described antisemitism as a virus that has survived and mutated over time. Together, we cannot continue to let that happen. We have to remember our basic principle as a nation.
We have an obligation, an obligation to learn the lessons of history so we don’t surrender our future to the horrors of the past. We must give hate no safe harbor against anyone. Anyone. From the very founding, our very founding, Jewish Americans represented only about 2 percent of the U.S. population and helped lead the cause of freedom for everyone in our nation. From that experience, we know scapegoating and demonizing any minority is a threat to every minority and the very foundation of our democracy.
And he transitions to
The Jewish community, I want you to know: I see your fear, your hurt, your pain. Let me reassure you, as your president, you’re not alone. You belong. You always have and you always will. And my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad even when we disagree.
But what is the bridge that is chosen here, what's the transition from generic to 'I am your great defender'. Naziism? Hamas? Terrorism in general? Iran? Nope!
It’s in moments like this we have to put these principles that we’re talking about into action. I understand people have strong beliefs and deep convictions about the world. In America, we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech. To debate, disagree, to protest peacefully, make our voices heard. I understand, that’s America. But there is no place on any campus in America — any place in America — for antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind. Whether against Jews or anyone else. Violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. And we are not a lawless country. We’re a civil society. We uphold the rule of law, and no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves.
College protests! That is a choice, and so is "upholding the rule of law". Go find me a non-horrendous speech on BLM or civil rights protests that uses that phrase-and I don't think that is an accident either. There are lots of other ways to make that point without trotting out that phrase, it's selection is a signal(a dog whistle if you will).
An as an aside, this is another intentional distortion of the fact that violence has mostly been against protestors not from protestors. Violence occurring doesn't make a protest violent, again this same sort of misdirection around say Selma would immediately spike our radar as obvious. Most of us are hyper-trained in critically listening in that context, but here less so.
This isn't an assignment in "English 108: Public Speaking", with an objective of hitting the rubric get an A. The speech has goals beyond getting the people sitting there listening to it to clap a bunch. And the main part of that is shaping the national discourse and narrative. Characterizing the encampments as antisemitic, lawless, and violent, a threat, is in service to that. Conflating them with Naziism and Hamas is in services to that. Echoing the law and order language of Sheriff Skull McCraker, communicates his dismissiveness of student protesters. They aren't legitimate, their grievances aren't even acknowledged as existing. They are a caricature, a mob defined only by its violent lawlessness and (because of the subject o the speech) antisemitism. Which yes is a callback to his earlier reference to the Nazi boycotts/demonstrations to say "We have those same mobs(full of literally the worst people ever, motivate by a senseless hatred, who did the worst thing ever) here now".
The speech absolutely has goals. That's why I outlined them and how it achieves them. It's about antisemitism and how we have to fight it because it leads to bad things. Part of that is establishing where that is occurring these days.
And I think this is the core problem you are having that I mentioned last post and in a few since then: that you don't actually really believe that the antisemitism is happening at these protests too. Or you don't think it matters. But it is and it does. That's why he mentions them in the speech. That's why I said he mentioned them in the speech:
there's every reason to add them to the list because it's both big news right now and relevant to the point. There's 100% been antisemitic rhetoric at these protests and has been since they started back in October of last year.
And that's true regardless of whether you agree with the protestors goals and/or methods or not. The fact that these protests are for a good cause does not negate the fact that antisemitic rhetoric is also present there. The two exist simultaneously. The feelings of the people who see that rhetoric don't cease to exist simply because the overall cause is righteous.
And that's basically the point of bringing it up and bringing it up in the context of free speech and what is and is not acceptable. To say "protesting is ok but you can't have antisemitic rhetoric (or violence) going on while doing that". Because the protests are big news right now and he's basically reiterating the same points he made when he last had to make a statement on them. Protest good, antisemitism and violence bad.
The speech is built around the threat of antisemitism. That it's got a long history and that it's something you can never fully root out. That it keeps coming back. And that it begins small and flourishes into something larger if you don't stop it. And so we must be vigilante against it and stamp it out where we can. And, yes, that it's creeping in again. Online and in public and at protests over Israel's attack on Gaza. And, yes, he is deliberately mentioning the last one. Because what he's talking about is there. Even if you agree with the actual goals of the protests.
The problem I see is if we’re defining our red-line as a physical ‘invasion’ and they turn around and just flatten Rafah from the air like everything they’ve done before, then it’s not actionable and we’re pissing in the wind.
I think the president saying bombs are hitting civilians and an immediate (limited) arms hold suggest this time might be different, but the variable red line goalposts is certainly something to be worried about.
A super squishy red line is almost worse than no red line. You need three things for a red line
1) A very clear thing that you don't want the other party to do.
2) An action you're going to take if they do do that thing that will make the other party very sad.
3) A belief on the part of the other party that if they do A that you will do B. You have to be credible.
“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said.
Maybe they're being a bit more detailed when talking with Israel, but the public at the moment only has this interview to go on, and what is described is really vague. So Israel can't 'go into Rafah' (but they've already taken over the local border crossing, so...) otherwise they'll lose access to 'the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah and the cities', which... wut? Can they reduce Rafah via air and artillery? What exact weapons will we stop supplying them with if they somehow do manage to cross this red line and would that actually be enough to influence Israel's behavior? What if Israel thinks they already have enough city busting weaponry that they can take Rafah and then deal with any cutoff in supply later because it's not like there's anything left in Gaza to destroy and they're not currently worried about needing to flatten Beirut, Damascus, or Cairo?
And this isn't even getting into the whole credibility issue, where the Biden administration has spent the last seven months or so not taking concrete action against Israel, combined with the last few decades of American policy of, at most, getting grumpy about Netanyahu actively campaigning for Republicans.
There's no reason for Biden to be giving specific details here. Especially in an interview like this. Even most of the harshest critics I've seen of Israel in Congress or the like still want to do things like keep Iron Dome supplied. So someone is gonna go make some determination on what counts as "stuff that's ok because it's used defensively or for legitimate purposes" and "what stuff is just gonna get dropped on a Rafah" and stop sending the 2nd one. And that will have been communicated to Netanyahu in some fashion and probably not in super specific detail either because there's really no need for that and neither leader is counting the specific inventory of these shipments anyway.
There's also gonna be a degree of vagueness because you always want to leave yourself wiggleroom. Leaving yourself a degree of discretion is useful. Especially if what you are trying to do is actually get them to stop rather then trying to find an excuse to cut them off. And it's been very obvious all along that the Biden Admin has been much more interested in the first then the second. Often to their own detriment. They don't want to have to cut the Israelis off.
Red lines are rhetoric positing a kind of exculpatory external entity that decides if you're going to do something or not. Biden will do what he wants to do, which is to continue to support Israel.
As long as it advantages him and he can tolerate the critiques for it, sure.
A red line is a tough-sounding rhetorical stance that suggests a line on a map; it suggests military response. It suggests "if you do this we will fight you", we will immediately respond. Even if an action occurs that has a real effect, if it isnt as stark as your audience believes the phrase "red line" should be, you'll lose credibility and influence over it.
Biden isn't tough enough on Israel to believably use the phrase to good effect politically, imo, and his options responses will all be delayed. Dude is fundamentally a deal maker and backdoor gladhander, diplomat. He isnt gonna depose Netanyahu or seize Israeli airfields or whatever would back up the public imagining of an America trying to cow Israel into behaving.
Reding the whole speech makes it worse. You can't read a speech like that without looking at what it is trying to accomplish rhetorically. And I think these two paragraphs and the bolded in particular tell you what you need to know.
Germany 1933, Hitler and his Nazi Party’s rise to power by rekindling one of the oldest forms of prejudice and hate: antisemitism. His role didn’t begin with mass murder; it started slowly across economic, political, social and cultural life. Propaganda demonizing Jews. Boycotts of Jewish businesses. Synagogues defaced with swastikas. Harassment of Jews in the street and the schools, antisemitic demonstrations, pogroms, organized riots. With the indifference of the world, Hitler knew he could expand his reign of terror by eliminating Jews from Germany, to annihilate Jews across Europe through genocide, the Nazis called the final solution. Concentration camps, gas chambers, mass shootings. By the time the war ended, six million Jews — one of every three Jews in the entire world — were murdered.
....
It’s in moments like this we have to put these principles that we’re talking about into action. I understand people have strong beliefs and deep convictions about the world. In America, we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech. To debate, disagree, to protest peacefully, make our voices heard. I understand, that’s America. But there is no place on any campus in America — any place in America — for antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind. Whether against Jews or anyone else. Violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. And we are not a lawless country. We’re a civil society. We uphold the rule of law, and no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves.
The Jewish community, I want you to know: I see your fear, your hurt, your pain. Let me reassure you, as your president, you’re not alone. You belong. You always have and you always will. And my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad even when we disagree.
These thing's are meticulously written. That line about boycotts? It's entire purpose is to conflate BDS/Divestment with Naziism. Same with school protests and demonstrations.
It's the same game it's always been. BDS, Antisemitic. College protest antisemitic. Opposing Israel, antisemitic. Opposing apartheid, antisemitic.
This speech isn't just some vague piece of remembrance. It's an open declaration that he will stomp on any attempt to oppose genocide.
And again, the aggregate matters. This is the 3rd speech in a week on "campus protests" and not a word on the hundreds of Palestinians killed in the mean time. Nothing about the 100s of americans assaulted by the police.
And that’s why I took my grandchildren to Dachau, so they could see and bear witness to the perils of indifference, the complicity of silence, in the face of evil they knew was happening.
Whatever writer put that in though... they are either an idiot or an absolute legend.
You are just straight up cherry picking from the speech. Like he's literally just listing off the various ways the Nazis went after Jews and you are picking one item out of the list and going "Aha, this is the real meaning!!!!".
Political speeches aren't lectures. This isnt history of antisemitism it's a speech, that is targeted to a national audience.
Rule of 3. What are the focal points. Nazis, Hamas, Protestors.
College protestors get their own paragraph as the bads, alongside Hamas and the literal nazis. These are who he will stand with Israel against.
The section you are cherry picking from is literally a description of Nazi treatment of Jews. It is, in fact, a speech in part about the history of antisemitism. And you are ignoring most of it and claiming it's only about the one part of that history.
Like if you are going to keep insisting on a naive reading of a speech with countless hours spent crafting every word choice, that's on you. But
This ancient hatred of Jews didn’t begin with the Holocaust. It didn’t end with the Holocaust either. Or after — even after our victory in World War II. This hatred continues to lie deep in the hearts of too many people in the world and requires our continued vigilance and outspokenness. That hatred was brought to life on October 7th of 2023. On the sacred Jewish holiday, the terrorist group Hamas unleashed the deadliest day of the Jewish people since the Holocaust. Driven by ancient desire to wipe out the Jewish people off the face of the Earth, over 1,200 innocent people, babies, parents, grandparents, slaughtered in a kibbutz, massacred at a music festival, brutally raped, mutilated and sexually assaulted.
Thousands more carrying wounds, bullets and shrapnel from a memory of that terrible day they endured. Hundreds taken hostage, including survivors of the Shoah. Now here we are, not 75 years later, but just seven and half months later and people are already forgetting. They are already forgetting. That Hamas unleashed this terror. It was Hamas that brutalized Israelis. It was Hamas who took and continues to hold hostages. I have not forgotten nor have you. And we will not forget.
As Jews around the world still cope with the atrocity and the trauma of that day and its aftermath, we have seen a ferocious surge of antisemitism in America and around the world. Vicious propaganda on social media. Jews forced to keep their — hide their kippahs under baseball hats, tuck their Jewish stars into their shirts. On college campuses, Jewish students blocked, harassed, attacked while walking to class. Antisemitism, antisemitic posters, slogans, calling for the annihilation of Israel, the world’s only Jewish state.
Too many people denying, downplaying, rationalizing, ignoring the horrors of the Holocaust and October 7th, including Hamas’s appalling use of sexual violence to torture and terrorize Jews. It’s absolutely despicable, and it must stop. Silence and denial can hide much, but it can erase nothing. Some injustices are so heinous, so horrific, so grievous, they cannot be married — buried — no matter how hard people try.
He literally transitions from the Holocaust, thru Hamas's attack, to talking about college campuses inside of 3 paragraphs, and then ties those protests back to supporting Hamas/Oct 7th in the following sentence.
And later pulls the move in reverse. Talk about the protests, and immediately transition into "I am committed to your safety and Israel". Because it's the protestors that are a danger to the state of Israel.
t’s in moments like this we have to put these principles that we’re talking about into action. I understand people have strong beliefs and deep convictions about the world. In America, we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech. To debate, disagree, to protest peacefully, make our voices heard. I understand, that’s America. But there is no place on any campus in America — any place in America — for antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind. Whether against Jews or anyone else. Violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. And we are not a lawless country. We’re a civil society. We uphold the rule of law, and no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves.
The Jewish community, I want you to know: I see your fear, your hurt, your pain. Let me reassure you, as your president, you’re not alone. You belong. You always have and you always will. And my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad even when we disagree.
Yeah this isn't "We'll keep you safe from 'those people'", but that just makes in more subtle. A call to law and order is a reassurance to maintain power dynamics and hierarchies, always has been, and its clear who he sees as a coequal threat to that.
You are still ignoring all the parts of the speech that don't support your thesis because it's inconvenient. The throughline of the entire thing is antisemitism and how we need to remember where it leads and be vigilant against it. That on what is literally the day of remembrance we need to remember that autisemitism doesn't go away and that if you let it grow it leads to bad things. That you have to be constantly vigilante against it's rise. And it follows a pretty basic "here's the thing, here's what we should do about the thing, here's what I am doing about the thing" format.
So the speech starts by bringing up the issue, links it to the Holocaust (which the event is about) and then also to Oct 7th. Saying that antisemitism is what leads to things like this. And then goes on to talk about how we're already, in the aftermath of that attack, seeing a rise in antisemitism and people forgetting where that goes. And then brings up a list of examples. Which includes the recent protests but is not confined to them. They are just in the middle of the list. Along with other incidents at protests and other incidents outside them as well. And there's every reason to add them to the list because it's both big news right now and relevant to the point. There's 100% been antisemitic rhetoric at these protests and has been since they started back in October of last year. And at no point do I see where he links the current protests to Hamas and Oct 7th, so I've no idea where you are getting that from.
And that's basically the "let's establish the background" portion of the speech. Then we move on to the "so what should we do" where he talks about how the issue of rising antisemitism can't be ignored (because of what he's already talked about). He talks about how free speech is good but that it cannot include hate speech or violence.
And then we move on to the "so here's what I'll do" portion and we get the "I've got your back here" followed by a list of stuff his admin is doing on these issues.
And then we close, as we began, on an anecdote/personal story because that's mandatory.
It's literally a Day of Remembrance ceremony about the Holocaust. And so the whole thing is a call to remember that antisemitism doesn't go away and that it leads to terrible things and so we must stay vigilante against it.
Like, frankly, you are trying to pick out one bit of the larger point here to claim this is only specifically about one thing when he's talking about a broad phenomenon going on. And it also kinda seems like people want to downplay the kind of antisemitic rhetoric we've seen happening and how it makes people feel. And that's why they view this speech as such an affront. Because it's directly about that issue and only that issue because the ceremony is specifically about that topic and so the speech is directly addressing it.
What gets included matters. The proximity of topics and how they are joined together matters. It's not a lecture. It's not just a bullet pointing of events. If say the 2022 version, had included reference to the Tsarist pogroms, I don't think anyone would be going "Ohh well that's obviously not an attempt to highlight Putin's war in Ukraine/Bucha as genocidal, that's just a part of the historical record of antisemitism"- acting like what got included in this speech is somehow itself not just as significant as what wasn't. That is part of the analysis. It should be noted that despite Israel nearly starting a regional war, nothing about Iran or 'nations bent on Israel's destruction' or some other vague obfuscation get included. A state rapidly seeking nuclear weapons, with leaders avowed to the elimination of Israel doesn't out weigh college kids setting up tents. Although in fairness to the writers the later is more likely to cause the end of Israel(the Zionist project), than the former is to end Israel(The Nation or the Project)
I think if this was a speech that talked about racial hatred and was structured the same but centered around the KKK, neo-Nazis, and BLM protests(e: Maybe Black Panthers is a better example) you wouldn't be so obtuse. And that is certainly a speech I could see previous presidents giving- someone can probably find one from the Nixon/Reagan era, including the black panthers or push etc, that does just that. Probably using mostly the same language Biden uses when talking about these protests.
People are probably much more attuned to the slight of hand around that with racial (and increasing LGBTQ) issues in the US, but that's exactly why rhetorical strategies like this work. Even if you are aware of them they feel natural, a good writer makes them flow well. So you don't question why, Auschwitz, Oct 7th, and campus protestors are all put in the "things to be defended against"/enemies column.
Like here the speech goes along with typical benign politician stuff
In my view, a major lesson of the Holocaust is, as mentioned earlier, it is not — was not — inevitable. We know hate never goes away; it only hides. Given a little oxygen, it comes out from under the rocks. We also know what stops hate. One thing: All of us. The late Rabbi Jonathan Sachs described antisemitism as a virus that has survived and mutated over time. Together, we cannot continue to let that happen. We have to remember our basic principle as a nation.
We have an obligation, an obligation to learn the lessons of history so we don’t surrender our future to the horrors of the past. We must give hate no safe harbor against anyone. Anyone. From the very founding, our very founding, Jewish Americans represented only about 2 percent of the U.S. population and helped lead the cause of freedom for everyone in our nation. From that experience, we know scapegoating and demonizing any minority is a threat to every minority and the very foundation of our democracy.
And he transitions to
The Jewish community, I want you to know: I see your fear, your hurt, your pain. Let me reassure you, as your president, you’re not alone. You belong. You always have and you always will. And my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad even when we disagree.
But what is the bridge that is chosen here, what's the transition from generic to 'I am your great defender'. Naziism? Hamas? Terrorism in general? Iran? Nope!
It’s in moments like this we have to put these principles that we’re talking about into action. I understand people have strong beliefs and deep convictions about the world. In America, we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech. To debate, disagree, to protest peacefully, make our voices heard. I understand, that’s America. But there is no place on any campus in America — any place in America — for antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind. Whether against Jews or anyone else. Violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest. It’s against the law. And we are not a lawless country. We’re a civil society. We uphold the rule of law, and no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves.
College protests! That is a choice, and so is "upholding the rule of law". Go find me a non-horrendous speech on BLM or civil rights protests that uses that phrase-and I don't think that is an accident either. There are lots of other ways to make that point without trotting out that phrase, it's selection is a signal(a dog whistle if you will).
An as an aside, this is another intentional distortion of the fact that violence has mostly been against protestors not from protestors. Violence occurring doesn't make a protest violent, again this same sort of misdirection around say Selma would immediately spike our radar as obvious. Most of us are hyper-trained in critically listening in that context, but here less so.
This isn't an assignment in "English 108: Public Speaking", with an objective of hitting the rubric get an A. The speech has goals beyond getting the people sitting there listening to it to clap a bunch. And the main part of that is shaping the national discourse and narrative. Characterizing the encampments as antisemitic, lawless, and violent, a threat, is in service to that. Conflating them with Naziism and Hamas is in services to that. Echoing the law and order language of Sheriff Skull McCraker, communicates his dismissiveness of student protesters. They aren't legitimate, their grievances aren't even acknowledged as existing. They are a caricature, a mob defined only by its violent lawlessness and (because of the subject o the speech) antisemitism. Which yes is a callback to his earlier reference to the Nazi boycotts/demonstrations to say "We have those same mobs(full of literally the worst people ever, motivate by a senseless hatred, who did the worst thing ever) here now".
The speech absolutely has goals. That's why I outlined them and how it achieves them. It's about antisemitism and how we have to fight it because it leads to bad things. Part of that is establishing where that is occurring these days.
And I think this is the core problem you are having that I mentioned last post and in a few since then: that you don't actually really believe that the antisemitism is happening at these protests too. Or you don't think it matters. But it is and it does. That's why he mentions them in the speech. That's why I said he mentioned them in the speech:
there's every reason to add them to the list because it's both big news right now and relevant to the point. There's 100% been antisemitic rhetoric at these protests and has been since they started back in October of last year.
And that's true regardless of whether you agree with the protestors goals and/or methods or not. The fact that these protests are for a good cause does not negate the fact that antisemitic rhetoric is also present there. The two exist simultaneously. The feelings of the people who see that rhetoric don't cease to exist simply because the overall cause is righteous.
And that's basically the point of bringing it up and bringing it up in the context of free speech and what is and is not acceptable. To say "protesting is ok but you can't have antisemitic rhetoric (or violence) going on while doing that". Because the protests are big news right now and he's basically reiterating the same points he made when he last had to make a statement on them. Protest good, antisemitism and violence bad.
The speech is built around the threat of antisemitism. That it's got a long history and that it's something you can never fully root out. That it keeps coming back. And that it begins small and flourishes into something larger if you don't stop it. And so we must be vigilante against it and stamp it out where we can. And, yes, that it's creeping in again. Online and in public and at protests over Israel's attack on Gaza. And, yes, he is deliberately mentioning the last one. Because what he's talking about is there. Even if you agree with the actual goals of the protests.
There is The Speech as a sort of over arching item, which is what you keep talking about.
There is also the speech, the word choice, the structure, the nuts and bolts if you will. This isn't the result of a ChatGPT prompt there is intentionality.
It's art. Saying "its canvas red yellow.and blue rectangles" over and over isn't wrong, but it's incomplete.
So sure, maybe it's as simple as you read it. Maybe that it allaigns with his silence on the Palestinians for decades, his continued omission of mentioning the violence against these protestors, his previous dismissals of even considering their positions, and echos the words of segregationist and the back the blue crowd all by chance.
My mom thinks Georgia Okeefe paints flowers, she isn't wrong but...
Posts
The protests are big news. The press fucking loves them, they are all over the news. The speech references them because of that. And these recent are not free of the kind of incidents we've been mentioning either.
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2024/05/08/motorist-charged-with-assault-for-striking-cuad-protester-with-car-at-picket-outside-trustees-home/
Note to self [takes notes with pencil and pad]: illegal to… hit car… trying to deliberately… kill me
Okay there we go I won’t forget that now. That feels important to remember when I’m being hit with a car by a murderous dipshit
"The topic of today's speech is the pervasive problem of pedophilia. In unrelated news, I want to make sure to warn anyone going to the Pride demonstration that shenanigans will not be tolerated. Back to the topic at hand..." "What do you mean? I wasn't making any negative associations. My comment about Pride was just because it's a relevant news item!"
He's very clearly calling out the protests as a whole as being violent and antisemitic when neither of those things is true. I'm not sure how his speech could be interpreted any other way. For all the things people could say about Biden, he's actually a pretty good communicator. And he's making his intent clear here.
Maybe I'm not reading the right part of the speech. This is the part I saw that seemed relevant:
Did I snip off a part that's a better example of him "calling out the protests as a whole as being violent and antisemitic"? Because if that's the section that we're discussing, I'm not sure in the opposite direction you are: how can anyone take that as "calling out the protests as a whole as being violent and antisemitic"?
Like, sure, hate on Columbia, IU, whoever else has had actual shitty responses (I honestly mostly only hear about those two; I imagine mostly because IU is local to me and Columbia is NY/NYPD), but it's not Biden sending in the IN State Police, or the NYPD, or whatever the heck.
Because he is 100% calling someone out for being/doing all those things, @iTunesIsEvil , please explain to me who specifically is Biden refering to in that quote.
This is basic Robert Cialdini / George Lakoff stuff. Sort of shit they teach you in communications courses.
Trump did a similar thing with immigration. In his prepared speeches, he always addressed immigration immediately before or immediately after talking about violent crime.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Biden says arms shipments will be halted if Israel pursues a "major" invasion of Rafah. Also admits "civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers..."
Defensive / Iron Dome weapons would still be sent. As already mentioned in the thread, one shipment is already paused.
Biden also clarified that Israel hasn't crossed a red line yet and hasn't "gone into the population centers" but they're causing problems.
Sure, that's easy. I'm surprised you wanted clarification. The answer is: some of the protestors, and some, uh, "counter-protestors".
My limited understanding (since reporting is pretty spotty on a day-old military venture) is that Israel is trying to take over a border checkpoint in Rafah and isn't "going in" in a full invasion.
Still a stupid, counter-productive, disastrous, and morally foul action. But distinct from an actual "major population center" invasion.
Where the specific red line actually is remains a good question. The fact that some arms were already held up suggests its close, but the administration has regularly struggled to seriously enforce threatened consequences.
Anybody who believes the latter half of the bolded in the face of the former half is not somebody who be taken at all seriously. Especially since this is a great way to prevent any aid from getting into Rafah so all the IDF has to do is let famine do their work for them.
As we saw by the Antisemitism Awareness Act(or w/e its exact title) there are strong political forces trying to define any criticism of Israel as antisemitism. This isn't recent, the political advantages of making such claims have been understood by the varying lobbing groups and individuals for years prior to this(again see BDS bills) and there is a constant push to broaden its scope to silence criticism. Additional there have been several first hand accounts of antisemitic attacks that have been debunked. We've clearly seen that violence against protests get misrepresented as them reacting violently. The mainstream media is a best credulous and at worst complicit, in both echoing false claims(which are quietly retracted) and their bias selection of coverage.
I don't know if you accumulated every bit of coverage over every call to genocide issued by Israeli Knesset members, cabinet members, IDF commanders, and all the "Bomb em all" GOP shit birds*, it would have half the coverage "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." "From the River to the Sea" got.
And, when you look overseas particularly in Germany, but in France and the UK as well the level of viewpoint based policing/arrest/other state fuckery is massively worse. If you are a critic of Israel, Germany seems dead set on banning you from entering Germany, or any other country in Europe.
If the refs are crooked, pointing to the scoreboard doesn't mean much.
I do appreciate that people haven't demanded that every post denounce Hamas lately, so I can definitely see where that would get old if you were constantly asked to prove you're not a Zionist
The fact you remember the former and not the latter shows you weren't paying attention.
When you are dropping bombs into a 8kmx8km square whose population is now 1.3+ million people, this distinction is farcical. 20,000 people per square km is nearly Manhattan. Its ~20% more than Hong Kong. Its the blitz, but over an area with four times the population density of London.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/gazas-unexploded-bomb-crisis?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_brand=tny&mbid=social_twitter&utm_social-type=owned
I think the former is more memorable because it's been 8 months since there was anything to denounce Hamas for, whereas the IDF hasn't taken a day off
Actually this is pithy and dumb. Neither Fencingsax nor anyone else in this forum controls the IDF's genocide and any ire directed at people here is pointless.
I will say instead that I disagree with your statement and that if you think I haven't been paying attention it is probably because we value different things in regards to this conflict. Also the things that you value are wrong!
(That last bit sounded funnier in my head)
Can't step over a red line and move into population centers if there's no population or intact centers left *taps head galaxy brain like*
~ Buckaroo Banzai
That is 28 bombs per square km in Rafah. Lethal fragmentation radius on a 2000lb bomb is 370m. Break out your old ruler and compass if you need to but I think we all know what the intended result is here.
PBS reports in the first 6 months 300,000 Munitions were fired into or dropped on Gaza. An area of only 400 sq km. I'm tired, my math is shot right now. That's what 1 shell or w/e on every vertex on a 13m grid?
I'm reminded that when the red army was assaulting Berlin. One of the generals had artillery density(guns per km of the front) that was in essence, a row of guns lined up wheel to wheel across the whole front.
It doesn't make the news because most are fairly ineffectual or get shot down, but Hamas has been making rocket attacks on the regular. Recently they attacked a crossing. To their credit actually aimed at the IDF for once.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/at-least-10-israelis-hurt-in-hamas-rocket-attack-from-south-gazas-rafah/
Which is over 7 times the current *verified* death count.
My gut says the Hamas attacks were probably not more efficient than the IDF's war.
I think the president saying bombs are hitting civilians and an immediate (limited) arms hold suggest this time might be different, but the variable red line goalposts is certainly something to be worried about.
I was talking about demands to denounce one side over the other. There was a redious period on these very forums where both were being demanded, dependong on which side you were perceived to be on.
PBS does one of my least favorite things here, which is to cite what is almost certainly a public document without linking it, but it's worth pointing out that "munitions" is a catch-all term that includes everything from 10lb mortars to 2000lb JDAMs. Dropping 300,000 munitions therefore has a range of two orders of magnitude as far as effective yield depending on the composition of what was used.
Not trying to minimize the destruction, just saying that we should be cautious about extrapolating and making comparisons based on that figure.
"Since Israel declared war following Hamas’s deadly attacks in October, more than 70 per cent of all housing stock in Gaza, and more than 80 per cent in parts of northern region have been damaged or destroyed, displacing over 1.5 million persons."
"“All that makes housing ‘adequate’ – access to services, jobs, culture, schools, religious places, universities, hospitals – have all been levelled,” the Special Rapporteur said, adding that the scale and intensity of destruction in Gaza is “far worse” than in Aleppo, Mariupol or even Dresden and Rotterdam during the Second World War."
By going all "well akchually", you ARE minimizing the destruction of Gaza.
source: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147272
Munitions covers things that are blowing up today and things blowing up a few years from now, beneath the 3 year old feet of a child of Issac and Rebecca
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
If the pace of reconstruction matches that of previous efforts, UN estimates are at 80 years to rebuild.
The scale of devastation is simply indefensible.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
https://trinitynews.ie/2024/05/breaking-trinity-to-work-towards-total-divestment-from-israel-in-unprecedented-win-for-bds/
A super squishy red line is almost worse than no red line. You need three things for a red line
1) A very clear thing that you don't want the other party to do.
2) An action you're going to take if they do do that thing that will make the other party very sad.
3) A belief on the part of the other party that if they do A that you will do B. You have to be credible.
Maybe they're being a bit more detailed when talking with Israel, but the public at the moment only has this interview to go on, and what is described is really vague. So Israel can't 'go into Rafah' (but they've already taken over the local border crossing, so...) otherwise they'll lose access to 'the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah and the cities', which... wut? Can they reduce Rafah via air and artillery? What exact weapons will we stop supplying them with if they somehow do manage to cross this red line and would that actually be enough to influence Israel's behavior? What if Israel thinks they already have enough city busting weaponry that they can take Rafah and then deal with any cutoff in supply later because it's not like there's anything left in Gaza to destroy and they're not currently worried about needing to flatten Beirut, Damascus, or Cairo?
And this isn't even getting into the whole credibility issue, where the Biden administration has spent the last seven months or so not taking concrete action against Israel, combined with the last few decades of American policy of, at most, getting grumpy about Netanyahu actively campaigning for Republicans.
Just, you know, casually legislating dissidents must be exiled to a killing field for forced labor
The speech absolutely has goals. That's why I outlined them and how it achieves them. It's about antisemitism and how we have to fight it because it leads to bad things. Part of that is establishing where that is occurring these days.
And I think this is the core problem you are having that I mentioned last post and in a few since then: that you don't actually really believe that the antisemitism is happening at these protests too. Or you don't think it matters. But it is and it does. That's why he mentions them in the speech. That's why I said he mentioned them in the speech: And that's true regardless of whether you agree with the protestors goals and/or methods or not. The fact that these protests are for a good cause does not negate the fact that antisemitic rhetoric is also present there. The two exist simultaneously. The feelings of the people who see that rhetoric don't cease to exist simply because the overall cause is righteous.
And that's basically the point of bringing it up and bringing it up in the context of free speech and what is and is not acceptable. To say "protesting is ok but you can't have antisemitic rhetoric (or violence) going on while doing that". Because the protests are big news right now and he's basically reiterating the same points he made when he last had to make a statement on them. Protest good, antisemitism and violence bad.
The speech is built around the threat of antisemitism. That it's got a long history and that it's something you can never fully root out. That it keeps coming back. And that it begins small and flourishes into something larger if you don't stop it. And so we must be vigilante against it and stamp it out where we can. And, yes, that it's creeping in again. Online and in public and at protests over Israel's attack on Gaza. And, yes, he is deliberately mentioning the last one. Because what he's talking about is there. Even if you agree with the actual goals of the protests.
There's no reason for Biden to be giving specific details here. Especially in an interview like this. Even most of the harshest critics I've seen of Israel in Congress or the like still want to do things like keep Iron Dome supplied. So someone is gonna go make some determination on what counts as "stuff that's ok because it's used defensively or for legitimate purposes" and "what stuff is just gonna get dropped on a Rafah" and stop sending the 2nd one. And that will have been communicated to Netanyahu in some fashion and probably not in super specific detail either because there's really no need for that and neither leader is counting the specific inventory of these shipments anyway.
There's also gonna be a degree of vagueness because you always want to leave yourself wiggleroom. Leaving yourself a degree of discretion is useful. Especially if what you are trying to do is actually get them to stop rather then trying to find an excuse to cut them off. And it's been very obvious all along that the Biden Admin has been much more interested in the first then the second. Often to their own detriment. They don't want to have to cut the Israelis off.
As long as it advantages him and he can tolerate the critiques for it, sure.
A red line is a tough-sounding rhetorical stance that suggests a line on a map; it suggests military response. It suggests "if you do this we will fight you", we will immediately respond. Even if an action occurs that has a real effect, if it isnt as stark as your audience believes the phrase "red line" should be, you'll lose credibility and influence over it.
Biden isn't tough enough on Israel to believably use the phrase to good effect politically, imo, and his options responses will all be delayed. Dude is fundamentally a deal maker and backdoor gladhander, diplomat. He isnt gonna depose Netanyahu or seize Israeli airfields or whatever would back up the public imagining of an America trying to cow Israel into behaving.
There is The Speech as a sort of over arching item, which is what you keep talking about.
There is also the speech, the word choice, the structure, the nuts and bolts if you will. This isn't the result of a ChatGPT prompt there is intentionality.
It's art. Saying "its canvas red yellow.and blue rectangles" over and over isn't wrong, but it's incomplete.
So sure, maybe it's as simple as you read it. Maybe that it allaigns with his silence on the Palestinians for decades, his continued omission of mentioning the violence against these protestors, his previous dismissals of even considering their positions, and echos the words of segregationist and the back the blue crowd all by chance.
My mom thinks Georgia Okeefe paints flowers, she isn't wrong but...