I'm curious why you think Trump's approach to Israel is more important to Saudi Arabia than his approach to Iran. I would think that Iran is actually a bigger issue for the Saudis than Israel. It certainly affects them a lot more. And I expect they probably will like Trump's approach to Iran better than Biden's.
But it will bother those representatives, which is why they're not going to grant their approval without at least some public support. And Congress's next election is 2026, not 2028, so if they lose their seats in 2026, that affects Trump's ability to do what he wants rather directly.
Feel free to point that out to Trump. He sometimes seems to miss the memo about when he shouldn't discard people.
I hadn't actually made that point, but, as you bring it up: it Trump's approach to Israel is more important than his approach to Iran, to the Saudis. This is because the US has largely been sidelined on this issue. China has brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, in which the two reestablished diplomatic relations. The second round of these talks was quite recent:
it wasn't hard for me.
Hard for me in what way?
Go, international justice!
www.bbc.com
apnews.com
Hamas could have had a ceasefire a long time ago if they had given up their hostages. Right now, a ceasefire benefits Hamas. Why should Israel agree to one?
The worst of the weapons? That's not how your source describes them. Your source just says offensive weapons, but most weapons are offensive. And they include stuff like precision kits for bombs, which help reduce civilian casualties.
You say that like there's only one block. And I never made that claim. I did claim that Hamas could have that ceasefire if Hamas really wanted it.
I really believe that the families of the hostages can't influence Hamas but they might influence Israel, so Israel is the only party they're trying to pressure.
The ICC is an irrelevant joke.
Tell me: What agencies are empowered by these arrest warrants? By what authority will they execute these arrests? Who is bound by the decisions of this court?
The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes and the like committed by citizens of its 125 signatory states and over such acts committed within those states. The court has jurisdiction over alleged war crimes in Gaza because the "State of Palestine" is one of the 125 signatories. All signatory states have a duty to arrest and transport to The Hague anyone subject to ICC arrest warrant. As of this morning, at least France and the Netherlands have stated that they will comply with arrest and transport Netanyahu and Gallant should they travel to their countries.
www.nbcnews.com
Bwahahahahahahaha!
So you are saying that Hamas accepted the existence of an Israeli state within the 1967 border and the claims that it wanted to destroy Israel were untrue? That perhaps negotiations with Hamas on the basis that they accepted the existence of Israel could have been entered into in 2017?Well, yes I do.
Hamas accepts Palestinian state with 1967 borders
Khaled Meshaal presents a new document in which Hamas accepts 1967 borders without recognising state of Israel.www.aljazeera.com
The UK has announced that it would arrest Netanyahu if he came under UK jurisdiction.
No. The fact that they were not willing to recognize the state of Israel should have clued you in.
Well, yes I do.
Hamas accepts Palestinian state with 1967 borders
Khaled Meshaal presents a new document in which Hamas accepts 1967 borders without recognising state of Israel.
It would have been, but it's been over a year since the Hamas attack and Israel still hasn't gotten the job done. All it's managed to do so far is turn most of the World against it. I was expecting better. The US gave Israel $17.9 billion in military aid, and what did we get for it? Being accused of supporting war crimes. This shouldn't have happened. Despite misgivings about the inevitable horrors of war, we gave them all the support they could ever have expected and more. And they screwed it up.
Just to reinforce this point:
So irrelevant that those under such arrest warrants are unable to travel to any of the signatory countries, under threat of arrest?
But implicitly accepting a Palestinian state within 1967 boundaries is accepting the existence of Israel. People posting here don't seem to understand that you don't start with opposing sides in agreement, negotiations start with conflict and end with an agreement people can live with. As part of the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland, Ireland had to change its constitution, to recognise Northern Ireland, people didn't start with saying we won't negotiate peace until Ireland changes its constitution, this was the end result not the start.
www.jpost.com
Sweeping platitudes will not change the fact the Hamas wants to destroy Israel. By force. Without compromise. Stop making excuese for terrorism.
All the pro-Hamas side has is this kind of strawman. Sad, really.
Who started this current war?
Israel.
Again, who are you talking to? Actual people on this forum, or just the voices in your head?
