The U.S. ceasefire resolution in the U.N. that didn't call for a ceasefire.
Between the actions of primary voters writing in the word Gaza or voting uncommitted and the street protests of tens of thousands demanding a ceasefire, Joe Biden is facing real problems in his re-election bid.
Many believe his refusal to shift his support away from Israel will lead to the election of Trump.
While previous wars have put more people in the streets to protest, I haven’t seen a movement having this kind of impact on a presidential election since Eugene McCarthy entered the race. His 42% of the vote in New Hampshire, along with thousands of anti-Vietnam War street protests, forced Lyndon Johnson to pull out of the race in 1968.
President Joe Biden was seething.
In a private meeting at the White House in January, allies of the president had just told him that his poll numbers in Michigan and Georgia had dropped over his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas.
Both are battleground states he narrowly won four years ago, and he can’t afford any backsliding if he is to once again defeat Donald Trump. He began to shout and swear, a lawmaker familiar with the meeting said. (NBC)
In last week’s Illinois primary where uncommitted was not an option and write-ins are not counted or reported, it is estimated that 24% of Illinois Democratic voters left the presidential line blank.
The boycott of the Biden line was not the result of an organized campaign. Rather it was an organic and spontaneous electoral action of resistance.
One way that the Biden administration has responded is by falsely claiming it is for a ceasefire.
After vetoing several ceasefire resolutions in the United Nations, the U.S. this week introduced a ceasefire resolution of its own.
It was rightfully vetoed by China and Russia.
It was a ceasefire resolution that was the diplomatic version of a game of three-card monty.
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and an international adviser to Jewish Voice for Peace interviewed on Democracy Now!
You know, what we’re looking at here is a lot of playing with words. What is different is the language of the Biden administration — we heard it yesterday from Secretary of State Blinken, we’re hearing it from President Biden, we’re hearing it from others — using the word “ceasefire,” saying “immediate ceasefire” in some cases. We’re seeing The New York Times is saying that the U.S. is introducing a resolution at the Security Council calling for an immediate ceasefire.
That’s not the case. What the U.S. resolution calls for — and we should be clear: There has not been a formal distribution of what the U.S. is actually going to put on the table for the vote this morning. There’s at least three different versions circulating around. But they’re all about the same on the critical description. It’s in the first paragraph. The first operative paragraph of the resolution uses the language of an immediate ceasefire, but it doesn’t actually call for a ceasefire. What it does is recognize the importance of a ceasefire, and then says, “And therefore, we should support the negotiations that are underway in Doha, in Qatar.” These are the negotiations that have been underway for weeks. They are mainly focused on the release of hostages, as well as the parameters of a short-term ceasefire, probably six weeks. But the key thing is that the U.S. draft does not call for an actual Security Council call for a ceasefire.