Its been obvious since the first few weeks that a genocide was occurring. We truly live in a post truth era where no public institutions will simply say what is happening and have to be dragged with ridiculous levels of evidence to the conclusion that has been obvious for half a year.
A bit misleading imo since “refuses” sounds like they’re saying “no, we won’t back it” when they just didn’t give an answer to it yet.
Said Arikat: “More than 300 bodies have been found. The United Nations is asking or calling for an independent investigation. Would you support such an investigation for this matter?”
Vedant Patel: “Right now, Said, we are asking for more information.”
Said Arikat: “Right.”
Vedant Patel: “That is where — that is squarely where we are leaving the conversation.”
Said Arikat: “Right.”
Vedant Patel: “I don’t have any details to match, confirm or offer as it relates to that. We’re aware of those reports, and we have asked the government of Israel for additional clarity and information. And that’s where I’m at.”
“we have found a mass grave of mutiliated people, in particular women and children showing clear signs of torture and execution. We need an Investigation immediately!”
is:
“Yes you are absolutely right, we will support an immediate investigation. Also we will halt any support for people who are suspected of being responsible.”
“We will do something about it”, “we’re not sure if we are going to do something” and “no we won’t do something” seem like three distinct answers to me. Saying the last one would be a much more definite no than just “we’ll see”. Saying the US refuses to back it makes it sound like the last one imo, which would be a bit misleading.
But we are not talking about “The toilet paper in the school restrooms seems to always be empty.” We are talking about the uncovering of mass graves with strong indications of women and children being executed. Anything below immediate action on the matter is a form of opposition to it.
Or in other words, when you call the firefighters because your house is on fire then “we’ll see if we will do something about the fire, maybe, maybe not.” means that they will let your house burn down.
Firefighters have the assumption that it’s their job to do something about it. I don’t think the same is true for USA here. But even in the firefighter example in news headlines I’d make a distinction between them telling you they’re refusing and them waiting and seeing if their presence is necessary. It makes sense for a news headline imo.
I don’t think so. I think it means they didn’t give a straight answer. What it effectively means is they’re not calling for it right now. But it’s not a definite no for doing it later. I think the distinction, for a headline, matters.
Vedant Patel: “That is where — that is squarely where we are leaving the conversation.”
Yes they’re saying the conversation leaves there under further info.
If you don’t support and investigation right now, then you don’t support an investigation right now. Losing the “right now” makes the meaning less clear.
I’d be fine with saying they don’t support it right now
But that applies for everything. “Right now” would only be relevant if it is clearly implied that in the future they would support it.
Why would they support an investigation in the future if they don’t support it right now? They cannot even “support it in the future” because most evidence will likely be lost over time. Investigations need to happen as soon as possible.