US lawmaker urges Biden to do more to obtain ceasefire
Progressive US Congresswoman Cori Bush has called on the Biden administration to use leverage such as arms sales to Israel to push for a ceasefire.
“We introduced our #CeasefireNOW Resolution #OTD [on this day] a year ago. A permanent ceasefire then could have saved thousands of lives [and] helped free hostages and those arbitrarily detained,” Bush, who lost her recent re-electing bid to a pro-Israel opponent after a massive spending campaign by pro-Israel groups, said in a social media post.
“President Biden can save lives today by imposing an arms embargo [and] securing a permanent ceasefire.”
Report: Biden official told aid groups Israel too important to face military aid cutoff
The US news outlet Politico has reported that a Biden administration official told humanitarian groups that the White House would not consider suspending arms transfers to Israel, even if it was blocking humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Under US law, blocking humanitarian aid, as Israel has been doing for months, is supposed to trigger the suspension of weapons transfers.
The report focuses on an August 29 meeting between humanitarian official Lisa Grande and more than a dozen aid organisations, where Grande allegedly stated that the US could use pressure in forums such as the UN but would not consider ending arms supplies.
Critics have said for months that the administration’s efforts to pressure Israel to let more aid into Gaza are useless so long as arms transfers, the largest source of US leverage over Israel, are not in danger of being suspended.
Why has the US changed its tone regarding Israel’s ‘starvation policy’ in Gaza?
Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, Marwan Bishara, highlights the shift in tone from the US ambassador to the UN, noting that while American diplomats have historically balanced their support for Israel with occasional reservations, this latest statement goes further.
He emphasises that it feels more like a reprimand, especially when addressing the “so-called policy of starvation”. Bishara suggests that this change is significant, not just in rhetoric, but because it reflects the stark reality on the ground.
