New York Times: Criticizing the US administration’s position towards the war in Gaza
The New York Times criticized the US administration’s position regarding the war in Gaza, after a long call that took place between President Joe Biden and the Israeli Prime Minister.
The New York Times added that the time has come for the US government to firmly inform Israel that the war in Gaza won’t achieve its goals, and that the solution lies in the complete withdrawal of the Israeli army in exchange for the release of all detainees.
According to the New York Times, Biden repeated himself in a 45-minute phone call with Netanyahu, after which he declared explicitly that he did not ask for a ceasefire in Gaza.
According to the White House, the call, which Biden described as a private conversation, stressed the urgent need to protect the civilian population and allow civilians to move safely away from combat areas.
The US President’s flexible position regarding what is happening in Gaza sparked harsh criticism, as the New York Times described the Israeli Prime Minister’s position as putting his electoral needs ahead of the interests of the Israelis themselves.
The New York Times indicated that the time has come for the US government to firmly inform Israel that the war in Gaza won’t achieve its goals, and that the solution lies in a complete ceasefire with the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Gaza, in exchange for the release of all detainees.
The long phone call between Biden and Netanyahu also discussed the goals and stages of the Israeli military campaign and its expected strategy.
Biden told reporters in Washington that he didn’t ask Netanyahu for a ceasefire during the phone call, adding, “I had a long conversation with Netanyahu today, and it was a private conversation”.
“I didn’t ask for a ceasefire,” he said in response to a question.
It’s not known whether the US administration will soon change its position on the Israeli military operations that have been ongoing in the Gaza Strip for 11 weeks, as if the killing of more than 20,000 people isn’t enough to make such a decision yet.
