Joe Biden once again reiterates he wants a cease-fire in Gaza

[wbrocks67]

He keeps on saying it, but he's not screaming CEASEFIRE NOW! so those people will continue to ignore it.

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1766827678470898125

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

He also consistently remembers which party is refusing a ceasefire.

[Crumpets]

He keeps on saying it, but he's not screaming CEASEFIRE NOW! so those people will continue to ignore it.

He could literally scream "ceasefire now," but because this cause has morphed into "Israel is perpetrating genocide and needs to face the consequences for it," it would mean nothing to his critics on this issue.

[Beet]

The problem is Biden has redefined cease-fire to mean something lasting six weeks as opposed to a long term solution. If he called for a permanent cease-fire that would be good. But taking credit for that would also men admitting that all the people "screaming cease-fire now" were right.

[7,052,770]

The problem is Biden has redefined cease-fire to mean something lasting six weeks as opposed to a long term solution. If he called for a permanent cease-fire that would be good. But taking credit for that would also men admitting that all the people "screaming cease-fire now" were right.

There's no such thing as a "permanent ceasefire."

Whether it's temporary or "permanent," it will last until someone breaks it again.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The Ceasefire Now movement might have started as a sincere effort but has been hijacked by antisemites from both parties and Russian trolls in another attempt to sow division among Democrats.

[wbrocks67]

The problem is Biden has redefined cease-fire to mean something lasting six weeks as opposed to a long term solution. If he called for a permanent cease-fire that would be good. But taking credit for that would also men admitting that all the people "screaming cease-fire now" were right.

Well first of all, the technical definition of cease-fire is temporary. Any cease-fire will be temporary; it will be broken eventually too by someone. To act as if calling for a permanent cease-fire means a permanent stop will come to fruition is just unrealistic. Biden has also talked about a long-term solution (the two state solution)

The goal posts keep moving: now it's not good enough he wants a cease-fire because we need a 'permanent cease-fire' (again, not the definition of the word and also just unrealistic in this region)

The people who are upset with him need to just be honest at this point and admit that they want him to snap his fingers and the decades-long conflict to instantly be solved, b/c it's clear they'll be okay with nothing less.

[Crumpets]

Do people calling for an immediate permanent ceasefire realize that Israel currently occupies most of Gaza? Or do they not realize that a ceasefire does not automatically entail Israeli withdrawal? Really, the only scenarios where Israel leaves Gaza are either 1) A unilateral decision from Israel to do so (seems unlikely, but not impossible) 2) Hamas militarily defeating Israel (pretty much impossible) or 3) An agreement between Israel and Hamas where Hamas gives major concessions to Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal (also seems extremely unlikely, but weirder things have happened, I suppose). #3 is probably closest to what ceasefire proponents are imagining, but that is only one very unlikely form of what a ceasefire would look like and would still take a huge amount of time.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to see a ceasefire along current lines of control to allow for further negotiations - I'm personally in this camp, at least to some extent. But that comes with the acceptance that Israel will have almost all the leverage in dictating the terms of the peace (even completely aside from any pressure or aid from the US) and will almost certainly lead to a less "free Palestine" than pre-October. So, if it was a "free Palestine" I was looking for, I don't know if "ceasefire now" would be the chant I would go with.

If I were to give some unsolicited advice, I'd say "Resist occupied Gaza!" would be a better slogan, since that does put a modicum of pressure on how Washington and Jerusalem are anticipating the post-war peace to go. Currently the mindset is "We'll figure it out once Hamas is defeated." By emphasizing that resistance will continue with or without Hamas, it puts that assumption into question.

[Vosem]

The problem is Biden has redefined cease-fire to mean something lasting six weeks as opposed to a long term solution. If he called for a permanent cease-fire that would be good. But taking credit for that would also men admitting that all the people "screaming cease-fire now" were right.

But 'ceasefire' has always meant something temporary. The word for a permanent cessation of fire without an actual peace agreement is 'armistice'.

[Lief 🗽]

The activist class does not believe in the English language, so "ceasefire" to them means "Israel unilaterally surrendering and apologizing for 10/7" and not how dictionaries/normal people understand the term.

[GAinDC]

Do people calling for an immediate permanent ceasefire realize that Israel currently occupies most of Gaza? Or do they not realize that a ceasefire does not automatically entail Israeli withdrawal? Really, the only scenarios where Israel leaves Gaza are either 1) A unilateral decision from Israel to do so (seems unlikely, but not impossible) 2) Hamas militarily defeating Israel (pretty much impossible) or 3) An agreement between Israel and Hamas where Hamas gives major concessions to Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal (also seems extremely unlikely, but weirder things have happened, I suppose). #3 is probably closest to what ceasefire proponents are imagining, but that is only one very unlikely form of what a ceasefire would look like and would still take a huge amount of time.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to see a ceasefire along current lines of control to allow for further negotiations - I'm personally in this camp, at least to some extent. But that comes with the acceptance that Israel will have almost all the leverage in dictating the terms of the peace (even completely aside from any pressure or aid from the US) and will almost certainly lead to a less "free Palestine" than pre-October. So, if it was a "free Palestine" I was looking for, I don't know if "ceasefire now" would be the chant I would go with.

If I were to give some unsolicited advice, I'd say "Resist occupied Gaza!" would be a better slogan, since that does put a modicum of pressure on how Washington and Jerusalem are anticipating the post-war peace to go. Currently the mindset is "We'll figure it out once Hamas is defeated." By emphasizing that resistance will continue with or without Hamas, it puts that assumption into question.

I have some terrible news for you: these people aren’t that smart and don’t actually know what they want other than to just be mad about something.

[GAinDC]

The activist class does not believe in the English language, so "ceasefire" to them means "Israel unilaterally surrendering and apologizing for 10/7" and not how dictionaries/normal people understand the term.

This is not about peace to them. It’s about retribution.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I have some terrible news for you: these people aren’t that smart and don’t actually know what they want other than to just be mad about something.

These people didn't have a word to say when evidence of a real genocide surfaced in Ukraine.
Do you really think that they a give a rat's ass about innocent Palestinians getting killed? Their only concern is embarrassing Biden and reelecting Trump.

[wnwnwn]

Do people calling for an immediate permanent ceasefire realize that Israel currently occupies most of Gaza? Or do they not realize that a ceasefire does not automatically entail Israeli withdrawal? Really, the only scenarios where Israel leaves Gaza are either 1) A unilateral decision from Israel to do so (seems unlikely, but not impossible) 2) Hamas militarily defeating Israel (pretty much impossible) or 3) An agreement between Israel and Hamas where Hamas gives major concessions to Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal (also seems extremely unlikely, but weirder things have happened, I suppose). #3 is probably closest to what ceasefire proponents are imagining, but that is only one very unlikely form of what a ceasefire would look like and would still take a huge amount of time.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to see a ceasefire along current lines of control to allow for further negotiations - I'm personally in this camp, at least to some extent. But that comes with the acceptance that Israel will have almost all the leverage in dictating the terms of the peace (even completely aside from any pressure or aid from the US) and will almost certainly lead to a less "free Palestine" than pre-October. So, if it was a "free Palestine" I was looking for, I don't know if "ceasefire now" would be the chant I would go with.

If I were to give some unsolicited advice, I'd say "Resist occupied Gaza!" would be a better slogan, since that does put a modicum of pressure on how Washington and Jerusalem are anticipating the post-war peace to go. Currently the mindset is "We'll figure it out once Hamas is defeated." By emphasizing that resistance will continue with or without Hamas, it puts that assumption into question.

The slogan is Free Palestine...

[GAinDC]

Do people calling for an immediate permanent ceasefire realize that Israel currently occupies most of Gaza? Or do they not realize that a ceasefire does not automatically entail Israeli withdrawal? Really, the only scenarios where Israel leaves Gaza are either 1) A unilateral decision from Israel to do so (seems unlikely, but not impossible) 2) Hamas militarily defeating Israel (pretty much impossible) or 3) An agreement between Israel and Hamas where Hamas gives major concessions to Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal (also seems extremely unlikely, but weirder things have happened, I suppose). #3 is probably closest to what ceasefire proponents are imagining, but that is only one very unlikely form of what a ceasefire would look like and would still take a huge amount of time.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to see a ceasefire along current lines of control to allow for further negotiations - I'm personally in this camp, at least to some extent. But that comes with the acceptance that Israel will have almost all the leverage in dictating the terms of the peace (even completely aside from any pressure or aid from the US) and will almost certainly lead to a less "free Palestine" than pre-October. So, if it was a "free Palestine" I was looking for, I don't know if "ceasefire now" would be the chant I would go with.

If I were to give some unsolicited advice, I'd say "Resist occupied Gaza!" would be a better slogan, since that does put a modicum of pressure on how Washington and Jerusalem are anticipating the post-war peace to go. Currently the mindset is "We'll figure it out once Hamas is defeated." By emphasizing that resistance will continue with or without Hamas, it puts that assumption into question.

The slogan is Free Palestine...

From who? Israel? They should be freed from Hamas

And what happens to Israel and the millions of people in Israel if Palestine is “free”?

[wnwnwn]

Do people calling for an immediate permanent ceasefire realize that Israel currently occupies most of Gaza? Or do they not realize that a ceasefire does not automatically entail Israeli withdrawal? Really, the only scenarios where Israel leaves Gaza are either 1) A unilateral decision from Israel to do so (seems unlikely, but not impossible) 2) Hamas militarily defeating Israel (pretty much impossible) or 3) An agreement between Israel and Hamas where Hamas gives major concessions to Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal (also seems extremely unlikely, but weirder things have happened, I suppose). #3 is probably closest to what ceasefire proponents are imagining, but that is only one very unlikely form of what a ceasefire would look like and would still take a huge amount of time.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to see a ceasefire along current lines of control to allow for further negotiations - I'm personally in this camp, at least to some extent. But that comes with the acceptance that Israel will have almost all the leverage in dictating the terms of the peace (even completely aside from any pressure or aid from the US) and will almost certainly lead to a less "free Palestine" than pre-October. So, if it was a "free Palestine" I was looking for, I don't know if "ceasefire now" would be the chant I would go with.

If I were to give some unsolicited advice, I'd say "Resist occupied Gaza!" would be a better slogan, since that does put a modicum of pressure on how Washington and Jerusalem are anticipating the post-war peace to go. Currently the mindset is "We'll figure it out once Hamas is defeated." By emphasizing that resistance will continue with or without Hamas, it puts that assumption into question.

The slogan is Free Palestine...

From who? Israel? They should be freed from Hamas

And what happens to Israel and the millions of people in Israel if Palestine is “free”?

We are talking about antizionists

[Vice President Christian Man]

He keeps on saying it, but he's not screaming CEASEFIRE NOW! so those people will continue to ignore it.

He could literally scream "ceasefire now," but because this cause has morphed into "Israel is perpetrating genocide and needs to face the consequences for it," it would mean nothing to his critics on this issue.

He could scream "ceasefire now" with the crowd and some of the ceasefire now crew would still find a reason to criticize him. As someone else mentioned, most of these people don't like Biden and are using this as an excuse to project their hatred of him. There are nefarious actors as well, but I think that at the end of the day most of these people have good intentions but are misinformed about the situation. Biden should remember that there are more "ceasefire now" people who'll vote for him in 2024 than there are people who'd abandon him if he does a 180 on his current policy, especially since Trump is in support of Israel as well.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Won't matter.  They redefine "ceasefire" every week to mean whatever Joe Biden isn't saying.

They know perfectly well that if they wanted to advocate for a permanent peace, and reject any temporary ceasefire, the most effective way to do that would be to say "permanent peace now" or "armistice now".

But instead they've chosen to just redefine the word ceasefire to mean something totally different.

And this is because for months they were chanting and screaming for a ceasefire.  But then Joe Biden started work on a ceasefire, so they couldn't support it anymore, they had to switch to chanting and screaming for a permanent peace.  But they didn't want to change their slogan.  So they just redefined all the words in it to match the new thing they wanted.  And we're all just supposed to buy it.