Donald Trump is reportedly advising Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which would be a violation of the Logan Act.

He may not be in office, but Donald Trump has been speaking with the powers that be about Israel’s war on Gaza—but it’s not in an effort to end the genocide.

Instead, Trump has allegedly been talking with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avert a cease-fire deal, fearing that doing so could help Vice President Kamala Harris win in November, according to PBS.

“The reporting is that former President Trump is on the phone with the Prime Minister of Israel, urging him not to cut a deal right now, because it’s believed that would help the Harris campaign,” said PBS’s Judy Woodruff Monday night. “So, I don’t know where—who knows whether that will come about or not, but I have to think that the Harris campaign would like for President Biden to do what presidents do, and that’s to work on that one.”

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    3 months ago

    That is, if your problem is actually with the genocide, and not just a weird personal vendetta against Joe Biden.

    Again, do you realize who is currently holding office?

    • ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world
      8·
      3 months ago

      This you?

      Netanyahu has not demonstrated any interest in a ceasefire.

      So, the person actually running the country that’s committing the genocide you’re so against has less culpability than an ally that’s NOT committing genocide? Did i follow those mental gymnastics correctly?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        Netanyahu > Biden > every other nationally elected leader on good terms with Israel > Howard Kor and Elliot Brandt > Jamie Dimon > a long list of senators and governors > Lachlan Murdoch > Ben Shapiro > Donald Trump

        • ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world
          6·
          3 months ago

          Is “underpantsweeevil” some euphemism for “shit take” that I’ve never heard before?

          ETA: explain how Shapiro, who ISN’T ACTIVELY INTERFERING WITH A CEASEFIRE DEAL is higher on your list than Trump?

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          3 months ago

          You when Joe Biden pushes towards a cease fire: 😠🤬😡😠🤬

          You when Donald Trump actively interferes with cease fire efforts: 🙈🙉🙊🤡😇

    • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
      7·
      3 months ago

      A guy pushing for a cease fire.

      You know who’s the subject of the article in the OP? Donald Trump, the guy actively trying to prevent a cease fire.

      • ZMoney@lemmy.world
        4·
        3 months ago

        If you live in a state in which your vote will not matter anyway, you are better off voting for a candidate who actually wants a ceasefire. Jill Stein will secure more funding for the Green party if she breaches the 5% threshold. This bickering over which corporate oligarch party is less genocidal will get us nowhere.

        • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          3 months ago

          1. I live in a state where I can’t throw my vote away

          2. We’re talking about Donald Trump illegally interfering with cease fire efforts here, please let’s try and keep things on topic

            • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              3 months ago

              IDK, maybe by condemning Donald Trump for being unequivocally worse for the genocide could sway Trump voters to vote for someone else? You know, like the exact thing you were trying to get people to do by condemning Biden?

              If you cared about stopping genocide, you’d be unequivocally against the candidate that wants to accelerate it.

              • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                2·
                3 months ago

                Of course, the only thing that could get me to vote for Trump would be if he somehow managed to convince everyone that his administration would stop assisting Israel in the commission of genocide.

                Sadly, the same applies to the Democrats. They are taking a big risk with their bet that they can win the election without the enthusiastic support of anti-genocide voters, but it’s their election campaign and they’re entitled to conduct it as they wish. Any success or failure at the ballot box is on them, and these attempts to project responsibility onto the voters are entirely transparent.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      7·
      3 months ago

      Again, do you realize who isn’t currently holding office, has no responsibility or need to be involved in the situation, and is inserting themselves into the situation in an attempted to make sure the genocide continues?
      And this person actively trying to make sure the genocide continues wants to hold office.