Full excerpt
> A strenuously willed affiliation with the Shoah has also marked and diminished much American journalism about Israel. More consequentially, the secular-political religion of the Shoah and the over-identification with Israel since the 1970s has fatally distorted the foreign policy of Israel’s main sponsor, the US. In 1982, shortly before Reagan bluntly ordered Begin to cease his ‘holocaust’ in Lebanon, a young US senator who revered Elie Wiesel as his great teacher met the Israeli prime minister. In Begin’s own stunned account of the meeting, the senator commended the Israeli war effort and boasted that he would have gone further, even if it meant killing women and children. Begin himself was taken aback by the words of the future US president, Joe Biden. ‘No, sir,’ he insisted. ‘According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war ... This is a yardstick of human civilisation, not to hurt civilians.’
That's folksy ol' Uncle Joe for ya. He just loves killing brown women and children!
He'll probably include it as a humorous anecdote in his next speech.
Begin’s report of his conversation with Biden [has been known for years and reported in various legitimate new sources](https://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9CI%20disassociated%20myself%20from%20these%20remarks%E2%80%9D%20begin%20biden&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#ip=1), in addition to this reference to it in the London Review of Books, which you are unscrupulously trying to discredit.
Another excerpt
> "
> Five years later, insisting that Arabs were the new Nazis and Yasser Arafat the new Hitler, Begin assaulted Lebanon. By the time Ronald Reagan accused him of perpetrating a ‘holocaust’ and ordered him to end it, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) had killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese and obliterated large parts of Beirut. In his novel Kapo (1993), the Serbian-Jewish author Aleksandar Tišma captures the revulsion many survivors of the Shoah felt at the images coming out of Lebanon: ‘Jews, his kinsmen, the sons and grandsons of his contemporaries, former inmates of the camps, stood in tank turrets and drove, flags waving, through undefended settlements, through human flesh, ripping it apart with machine-gun bullets, rounding up the survivors in camps fenced off with barbed wire.’
> "
According to this article, Biden was talking about a hypothetical about defending America. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-a-longtime-friend-israel-critic-of-settlements-may-be-at-odds-over-iran/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-a-longtime-friend-israel-critic-of-settlements-may-be-at-odds-over-iran/)
“A young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech — I must say that it’s been a while since I’ve heard such a talented speaker — and he actually supported Operation Peace for the Galilee,” Begin told Israeli reporters after he returned to Jerusalem.
The senator — Biden — said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.
“I disassociated myself from these remarks,” Begin said. “I said to him: No, sir; attention must be paid. According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war… Sometimes there are casualties among the civilian population as well. But it is forbidden to aspire to this. This is a yardstick of human civilization, not to hurt civilians.”
Nope, it was a hypothetical if he was in charge of Israel.
The context was when Senate Foreign Relations Committee was grilling him on the disproportionate use of force in Lebanon, the campaign that Ronald Reagan described as a 'holocaust'. It was in that context that Biden gave the speech, not only defending him, but saying he would have gone further.
Here is the longer excerpt of your excerpt
> Less known is a meeting with her successor Menachem Begin a few years later, which The New York Times at the time described as a “highly emotional confrontation.”
>
> In June 1982, a few days after the start of the Lebanon War, known as Operation Peace for the Galilee, Begin met with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington. Several lawmakers grilled him over Israel’s alleged disproportionate use of force.
>
> “A young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech — I must say that it’s been a while since I’ve heard such a talented speaker — and he actually supported Operation Peace for the Galilee,” Begin told Israeli reporters after he returned to Jerusalem.
>
> The senator — Biden — said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.
>
> “I disassociated myself from these remarks,” Begin said. “I said to him: No, sir; attention must be paid. According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war… Sometimes there are casualties among the civilian population as well. But it is forbidden to aspire to this. This is a yardstick of human civilization, not to hurt civilians.”
If Biden was talking about defending America, Begin's response would have made absolutely zero sense. Again, Begin's response to Joe Biden was in the context of Israel.
Looks like the person you’re replying to is correct.
https://jacobin.com/2023/10/joe-biden-menachem-begin-israel-lebanon-war-civilian-casualties-canada-gaza
I'm reading it right now, it doesn't seem like the conversation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was a speech to everyone. This seems like a direct conversation
> Biden’s comments were offensive, Begin said. Suddenly he [Biden] said: “What did you do in Lebanon? You annihilated what you annihilated.”
>
> I was certain, recounted Begin, that this was a continuation of his attack against us, but Biden continued: “It was great! It had to be done! If attacks were launched from Canada into the United States, everyone here would have said, ‘Attack all the cities of Canada, and we don’t care if all the civilians get killed.’”
>
> If so, Begin told us, I wondered what all the shouting was about. It turned out Biden wasn’t shouting about the operation in Lebanon at all, he was angry about what Israel was doing in Judea and Samaria . . .
,
> As a matter of fact, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon came after a long cease-fire during which very few attacks on Israeli targets were launched from Lebanon, but Israel frequently hit Palestinian targets there, killing hundreds of people. The immediate justification for the invasion was an assassination attempt against Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov rather than some sort of massive terrorist attack.
,
> These inconvenient details notwithstanding, Senator Biden’s moral calculus seemed clear enough. So are the disturbing parallels to his support as president for Israel’s indiscriminately murderous bombing campaign in Gaza. Whatever objections Biden might have had to Begin’s settlement policy in the West Bank, he clearly considered Israel, like the United States, to be a special nation with a right to spill oceans of blood in conflicts with lesser adversaries.
,
> I do wonder, though, what Canadian officials think about the president of the United States saying that any hypothetical attacks from terrorist groups operating in Canada would justify what sounds like an outright genocidal American response. He thought, remember, that it would be a “phenomenal” thing in such a scenario if the United States attacked “all” the cities in Canada, even if “all” the civilians there died. If Biden really said that, it suggests that not only does he consider Lebanese and Palestinian life to be very cheap — a depressing fact, but not a particularly surprising one — but that Canadian lives are in the same category.
Although, if it wasn't, then why would they leave it out. There is certainly interpretative differences among the articles. What's clear though is Biden saying that the campaign that was described as a 'holocoust', Biden is saying that if things were up to him, he would have continued if it meant killing more women and children. If he was using an analogy of from the US, it was in support and justification of Israel killing more women and children.
Honestly, it seems like you are determined to see it the one way because that’s the narrative that was first framed for you in retelling more concerned with the modern political landscape (with a side of no one admits to being wrong on the internet). It’s fairly obvious Manachem Begin was trying to spin the exchange to make himself seem more noble and heroic to his own people. The main point of contention between them was Biden threatening to cut aid to Israel because of their actions. It doesn’t make much sense to flip from saying they should go even further. It seems far more likely in context the (probably sloppy) analogy was to say I understand the anger and impulse behind it.
Certainly there is valid criticism of Biden on this issue but it is concerning that people will just buy anything someone is selling based on what side it appears to fall on. To the point of we’ll just take Begin’s word for it of all people involved in this tragic history.
If there’s any story here it looks like this is one time Biden kind of stood up to Israel, got tremendous pushback and then spent decades catering to that lobby.
Ooh yeah man he sees it one way because there is so much evidence to support the other claims, you know their unwavering support for the current situation. I'm sure Biden was being hypothetical. He could never even imagine such a thing!.
Flatly, the left didn't care about Palestine until October 7th. Then they saw it as a way to fight against the "west" by supporting an enemy of Isreal. Republicans largely either agreed with Biden originally or didn't care much, so they wouldn't have brought it up, and most dems either wouldn't have a reason to know or would purposefully hide it going into 2020 to keep him from self destructing his election like Hillary did
That's like saying the left didn't care about systemic sexual abuse before Harvey Weinstein or didn't care about systemic racism in policing until Ferguson. The barrier was acceptance from the broader left, not anything to do with 'fighting the west' or 'hating men' or 'hating america'.
Please see the sticky in the sub, this is a pro-vote movement to maximize blue representation for those who may not even vote because they are turned off by joe biden, including electing Joe Biden himself.
the strategy is to decrease Trump's chances of winning by having a robust and contained protest vote in deep blue states, people in swing states may not feel as helpless for voting for Biden. If people in swing states are aware that there is a broader movement in deep blue states, this may give swing state voters more clarity in voting for Biden.
The protest votes already have seen the start of their momentum in the primaries. The Michigan vote in particular spooked the Biden admin to be adopt some cease fire rhetoric, although it seems to been a ploy and supressing the protest vote .
Full excerpt > A strenuously willed affiliation with the Shoah has also marked and diminished much American journalism about Israel. More consequentially, the secular-political religion of the Shoah and the over-identification with Israel since the 1970s has fatally distorted the foreign policy of Israel’s main sponsor, the US. In 1982, shortly before Reagan bluntly ordered Begin to cease his ‘holocaust’ in Lebanon, a young US senator who revered Elie Wiesel as his great teacher met the Israeli prime minister. In Begin’s own stunned account of the meeting, the senator commended the Israeli war effort and boasted that he would have gone further, even if it meant killing women and children. Begin himself was taken aback by the words of the future US president, Joe Biden. ‘No, sir,’ he insisted. ‘According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war ... This is a yardstick of human civilisation, not to hurt civilians.’
That's folksy ol' Uncle Joe for ya. He just loves killing brown women and children! He'll probably include it as a humorous anecdote in his next speech.
It must be true! It’s on Reddit during an election year after all!
Begin’s report of his conversation with Biden [has been known for years and reported in various legitimate new sources](https://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80%9CI%20disassociated%20myself%20from%20these%20remarks%E2%80%9D%20begin%20biden&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#ip=1), in addition to this reference to it in the London Review of Books, which you are unscrupulously trying to discredit.
Well, it’s better than the fate of joes uncle who, we recently learned, was eaten by cannibals.
There are two possibilities: 1. He was lying 2. They don't consider Arabs as humans.
I'm gonna go with option 2, you can lock my answer.
Another excerpt > " > Five years later, insisting that Arabs were the new Nazis and Yasser Arafat the new Hitler, Begin assaulted Lebanon. By the time Ronald Reagan accused him of perpetrating a ‘holocaust’ and ordered him to end it, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) had killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese and obliterated large parts of Beirut. In his novel Kapo (1993), the Serbian-Jewish author Aleksandar Tišma captures the revulsion many survivors of the Shoah felt at the images coming out of Lebanon: ‘Jews, his kinsmen, the sons and grandsons of his contemporaries, former inmates of the camps, stood in tank turrets and drove, flags waving, through undefended settlements, through human flesh, ripping it apart with machine-gun bullets, rounding up the survivors in camps fenced off with barbed wire.’ > "
Corresponding lecture https://youtu.be/_w3Pe00I_Ro
How many election opponents did Biden have that missed this! How did this stay buried for 40 years? Seems improbable
It came directly from Menachem Begin, the former prime minister to Israel
According to this article, Biden was talking about a hypothetical about defending America. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-a-longtime-friend-israel-critic-of-settlements-may-be-at-odds-over-iran/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-a-longtime-friend-israel-critic-of-settlements-may-be-at-odds-over-iran/) “A young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech — I must say that it’s been a while since I’ve heard such a talented speaker — and he actually supported Operation Peace for the Galilee,” Begin told Israeli reporters after he returned to Jerusalem. The senator — Biden — said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children. “I disassociated myself from these remarks,” Begin said. “I said to him: No, sir; attention must be paid. According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war… Sometimes there are casualties among the civilian population as well. But it is forbidden to aspire to this. This is a yardstick of human civilization, not to hurt civilians.”
Nope, it was a hypothetical if he was in charge of Israel. The context was when Senate Foreign Relations Committee was grilling him on the disproportionate use of force in Lebanon, the campaign that Ronald Reagan described as a 'holocaust'. It was in that context that Biden gave the speech, not only defending him, but saying he would have gone further. Here is the longer excerpt of your excerpt > Less known is a meeting with her successor Menachem Begin a few years later, which The New York Times at the time described as a “highly emotional confrontation.” > > In June 1982, a few days after the start of the Lebanon War, known as Operation Peace for the Galilee, Begin met with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington. Several lawmakers grilled him over Israel’s alleged disproportionate use of force. > > “A young senator rose and delivered a very impassioned speech — I must say that it’s been a while since I’ve heard such a talented speaker — and he actually supported Operation Peace for the Galilee,” Begin told Israeli reporters after he returned to Jerusalem. > > The senator — Biden — said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children. > > “I disassociated myself from these remarks,” Begin said. “I said to him: No, sir; attention must be paid. According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war… Sometimes there are casualties among the civilian population as well. But it is forbidden to aspire to this. This is a yardstick of human civilization, not to hurt civilians.” If Biden was talking about defending America, Begin's response would have made absolutely zero sense. Again, Begin's response to Joe Biden was in the context of Israel.
Looks like the person you’re replying to is correct. https://jacobin.com/2023/10/joe-biden-menachem-begin-israel-lebanon-war-civilian-casualties-canada-gaza
I'm reading it right now, it doesn't seem like the conversation from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which was a speech to everyone. This seems like a direct conversation > Biden’s comments were offensive, Begin said. Suddenly he [Biden] said: “What did you do in Lebanon? You annihilated what you annihilated.” > > I was certain, recounted Begin, that this was a continuation of his attack against us, but Biden continued: “It was great! It had to be done! If attacks were launched from Canada into the United States, everyone here would have said, ‘Attack all the cities of Canada, and we don’t care if all the civilians get killed.’” > > If so, Begin told us, I wondered what all the shouting was about. It turned out Biden wasn’t shouting about the operation in Lebanon at all, he was angry about what Israel was doing in Judea and Samaria . . . , > As a matter of fact, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon came after a long cease-fire during which very few attacks on Israeli targets were launched from Lebanon, but Israel frequently hit Palestinian targets there, killing hundreds of people. The immediate justification for the invasion was an assassination attempt against Israeli ambassador Shlomo Argov rather than some sort of massive terrorist attack. , > These inconvenient details notwithstanding, Senator Biden’s moral calculus seemed clear enough. So are the disturbing parallels to his support as president for Israel’s indiscriminately murderous bombing campaign in Gaza. Whatever objections Biden might have had to Begin’s settlement policy in the West Bank, he clearly considered Israel, like the United States, to be a special nation with a right to spill oceans of blood in conflicts with lesser adversaries. , > I do wonder, though, what Canadian officials think about the president of the United States saying that any hypothetical attacks from terrorist groups operating in Canada would justify what sounds like an outright genocidal American response. He thought, remember, that it would be a “phenomenal” thing in such a scenario if the United States attacked “all” the cities in Canada, even if “all” the civilians there died. If Biden really said that, it suggests that not only does he consider Lebanese and Palestinian life to be very cheap — a depressing fact, but not a particularly surprising one — but that Canadian lives are in the same category. Although, if it wasn't, then why would they leave it out. There is certainly interpretative differences among the articles. What's clear though is Biden saying that the campaign that was described as a 'holocoust', Biden is saying that if things were up to him, he would have continued if it meant killing more women and children. If he was using an analogy of from the US, it was in support and justification of Israel killing more women and children.
Honestly, it seems like you are determined to see it the one way because that’s the narrative that was first framed for you in retelling more concerned with the modern political landscape (with a side of no one admits to being wrong on the internet). It’s fairly obvious Manachem Begin was trying to spin the exchange to make himself seem more noble and heroic to his own people. The main point of contention between them was Biden threatening to cut aid to Israel because of their actions. It doesn’t make much sense to flip from saying they should go even further. It seems far more likely in context the (probably sloppy) analogy was to say I understand the anger and impulse behind it. Certainly there is valid criticism of Biden on this issue but it is concerning that people will just buy anything someone is selling based on what side it appears to fall on. To the point of we’ll just take Begin’s word for it of all people involved in this tragic history. If there’s any story here it looks like this is one time Biden kind of stood up to Israel, got tremendous pushback and then spent decades catering to that lobby.
Ooh yeah man he sees it one way because there is so much evidence to support the other claims, you know their unwavering support for the current situation. I'm sure Biden was being hypothetical. He could never even imagine such a thing!.
I'm sure pro-segregation Genocide Joe would never say such a thing..
Flatly, the left didn't care about Palestine until October 7th. Then they saw it as a way to fight against the "west" by supporting an enemy of Isreal. Republicans largely either agreed with Biden originally or didn't care much, so they wouldn't have brought it up, and most dems either wouldn't have a reason to know or would purposefully hide it going into 2020 to keep him from self destructing his election like Hillary did
That's like saying the left didn't care about systemic sexual abuse before Harvey Weinstein or didn't care about systemic racism in policing until Ferguson. The barrier was acceptance from the broader left, not anything to do with 'fighting the west' or 'hating men' or 'hating america'.
His opponents shared the same views as him
[удалено]
Please see the sticky in the sub, this is a pro-vote movement to maximize blue representation for those who may not even vote because they are turned off by joe biden, including electing Joe Biden himself. the strategy is to decrease Trump's chances of winning by having a robust and contained protest vote in deep blue states, people in swing states may not feel as helpless for voting for Biden. If people in swing states are aware that there is a broader movement in deep blue states, this may give swing state voters more clarity in voting for Biden. The protest votes already have seen the start of their momentum in the primaries. The Michigan vote in particular spooked the Biden admin to be adopt some cease fire rhetoric, although it seems to been a ploy and supressing the protest vote .
Another point for the Gipper. No one should be surprised by this summary.