From within the Israeli military’s main headquarters in Tel Aviv, Antony Blinken participated in the frantic discussions of the Israeli War Cabinet.
From within the Israeli military’s main headquarters in Tel Aviv, Antony Blinken participated in the frantic discussions of the Israeli War Cabinet.
It’s an offshoot of The Intercept, which is quite easy to look up. The article seems to quite clearly point out that it is Israeli politicians claiming they had Blinken’s approval and backing for their actions. They are quite likely lying in retrospect, but the article does give all the information available on the topic.
It also links to other sources for every statement and claim in it.
But, hey, feel free to try and downplay the straightforward information presented in the article.
I just went through the entire thing again. Only the top 1/4 of this article even mentions Blinken being involved in any kind of discussions, and aside from links to Twitter to specific sources named, there is absolutely no links to corroborating statements, evidence, or otherwise proof that Blinken was involved in any of the discussions at all.
Feel free to link if you find it though.
You seem to misunderstand the claim being made. The article is stating that Blinken was involved in creating the policy that said Israel had the right to fire on anyone they deemed to have been compromised by Hamas. Blinken absolutely was involved in drafting and approving that policy.
After the multiple humanitarian aid bombings conducted by the IDF, Israeli politicians have been claiming that they’ve just been setting forth the policy agreed to by Blinken and the US. And there has been no evidence that Blinken or the US government as a whole has pushed back on that or changed their stance on the policy in question in the months since.
I’m not misunderstanding anything at all. I’m saying there is literally no statement in this article that even says that aside from the title. It’s making logic leaps without any proof even hinting in that direction.
You’re also doing the same thing by insinuating that just because he was there, he MUST have been involved somehow, when even the article says he wasn’t even in the room, or directly interfacing in the discussion.
What do you think I’m missing in the article, please quote.
Also, puhleeeaze with this bullshit about the US being involved with military targets and such. It’s absolutely not the case, and even news came out yesterday about Biden in Woodward’s new book calling Netanyahu a scary “son of a bitch”. Does that sound like he’s off doing the US’s agreed to things off a list, or like the psychotic maniac he truly is doing what we wants to do. They know they are our only Ally in that part of the world, and WE know they’ll be wiped off the map in a heartbeat if we don’t somehow arm and support them. You can’t have it both ways.
It’s right there in the article.
Then later on it says:
Further on regarding the WCK strike: