Blinken: When Hamas saw pressure on Israel, it backtracked from hostage deal (www.jpost.com)

submitted 2 days ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/politics@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The absence of world pressure on Hamas to surrender and release the hostages held in the Gaza Strip since the October 7 massacre has been “astounding,” Blinken said. “Why there hasn’t been a unanimous chorus around the world for Hamas to put down its weapons, to give up the hostages, to surrender – I don’t know what the answer is to that,” he said

Asked whether he thought Israel had abided by laws of war in Gaza, Blinken cited the humanitarian aid provided by Israel to Gaza. “We’ve found periods of time where, no, we didn’t think they [Israel] were doing enough... There’s a big difference between intent and result, whether it’s under the law or under any one standard,” he said.

Asked why the US administration continued to transfer weapons to Israel, Blinken reiterated the United States’ commitment to its defense. Asked whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had listened to the Biden administration, especially regarding the May operation in Rafah in southern Gaza, he said: “What Israel wound up doing in Rafah was very different from what they were planning to do before we engaged with them.”

Blinken refuted reports that Netanyahu had barred a hostage deal from being achieved in July. “What we’ve seen time and again is Hamas not concluding a deal that it should have concluded,” he said. “There have been times when actions that Israel has taken have, yes, made it more difficult. But there’s been a rationale for those actions, even if they’ve sometimes made getting to a conclusion more difficult.”

top 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

In a just world Blinken would hang. Unfortunately…

[-] phar@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 day ago

"“Why there hasn’t been a unanimous chorus around the world for Hamas to put down its weapons, to give up the hostages, to surrender – I don’t know what the answer is to that,” he said"

There was. It was just very short lived because in no time, Israel was murdering innocent civilians and children in droves. Funny how that distracts people.

[-] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also Hamas did accept the ceasefire deal in June/July. Then Israel went nu-uh and changed the terms.

[-] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 37 points 2 days ago

For fucks sake, what a willfully blind genocide apologist.

“There have been times when actions that Israel has taken have, yes, made it more difficult. But there’s been a rationale for those actions, even if they’ve sometimes made getting to a conclusion more difficult.”

There’s been a rationale?! Seriously? There hasn’t been a real rationale other than terror and ethnic cleansing for a long time. Blinken continuing to try to justify Israel’s atrocities makes me sick.

[-] GeeDubHayduke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

The rationale was "de-escalation through escalation," remember?

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This really highlights why Blinken should not be allowed to be in any postion of power in the US government at all. He's a mouthpeice for far right zionism and Netenyahu. He's as bad or worse than Trump.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

He’s a mouthpeice for far right zionism and Netenyahu.

Which is why Biden appointed him, and why lemmy's centrists defend him.

[+] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world -12 points 1 day ago

He's as bad or worse than Trump.

This is a crazy ass statement.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

At a certain point you have to address the table how it is set and not how it might be set. We have a pro genocide administration now, and basically, the lack of a willingness to address that was a significant factor in the 2024 loss to the Republicans. That lack of concern was mostly predicated on a "whataboutism", regarding Trump, that his administration "would be worse". Worse is irrelevant when what we have is bad enough, and the act of making this about Trump acted as a form of static interference, preventing any real pressure on the administration from addressing their deeply unpopular policies.

So if you (the royal you, not you in particular necessarily) we're out there making the argument that Trump "would be worse", that person should be thought of as being a contributing factor both to the genocide in Gaza as well as the Democrats lose in 2024.

[-] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago

I'm not the one making the comparison here. Saying that Biden's secretary of state is "as bad or worse than Trump", who already served 4 years as POTUS and killed millions of people, is fucking crazy. That's all. Anthony Blinken simply hasn't had the power to cause as much damage as Trump has already caused.

Blinken is a piece of shit, and has supported monstrous actions. He is no where near as bad as Donald Trump, even based on actions they've both already taken.

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

"Yeah, I know it looks likes the aftermath of a Stephen King movie in Rafah now. But before we got involved it was going to be a Cronenberg movie."

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

I mean we just can't believe anything coming from the US State department.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 23 points 2 days ago

What a piece of shit.

[-] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago

Secretary of Genocide. Him and Merrick Garland can both rot in hell asap.

this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025

27 points (75.5% liked)

politics

19283 readers

2369 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News