The war on Gaza continues

The Israeli government’s genocide and attempted ethnic cleansing in Gaza continue in full swing. Along with continuing aggressive measures against Palestinians in the West Bank. (1)

Genocide is the most serious kind of crime. Ethnic cleansing, if it in itself doesn’t necessarily constitute genocide, is also an extreme serious crime. Israel should not be doing this. The United States should certainly not be funding and supporting. Neither should any other democratic government in the world.

CNN reports this week:

It has become a familiar refrain: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that he is “changing the face of the Middle East.”

It is, he says, “a war of rebirth.”

It is, in a sense, undoubtedly true.

Israel has troops in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. It’s vowed to demilitarize huge swaths of all three – backed by an unquestioning ally in the White House. The war in Gaza, which Israel restarted earlier this month, looks increasingly like it will lead to occupation for months or even years to come. [my emphasis] (2)

This is not brand new. Netanyahu was praising Trump over a month ago for his ethnic-cleansing proposal, as the Times of Israel reported:

At the start of a cabinet meeting hours after his return from Washington, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declares that his meetings with US President Donald Trump, and his other US meetings, resulted in “tremendous achievements that can ensure Israel’s security for generations.” …

While he does not give specific details of the possibilities, Trump has spoken about his vision of the US taking over Gaza after the war, clearing it of its residents and turning it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Israeli and US officials have insisted that the displacement would be both voluntary and temporary, despite Trump initially saying that it would be a permanent measure. …

Referring to Trump’s plan for post-war Gaza, Netanyahu says that the president came up with a “revolutionary, creative vision” that will “open up many possibilities” for Israel.

While Israel had been constantly told that the PA is needed in post-war Gaza, Trump’s vision is “completely different, and much better for the State of Israel.” It is “revolutionary, creative and we are discussing it. He is very determined to carry it out. And it also opens up many possibilities for us.” (3)

Dahlia Scheindlin, author of the book The Crooked Timber of Democracy in Israel: Promise Unfulfilled (2023) about the country’s democratic institution, has been reporting on Netanyahu’s ongoing efforts to undermine the independent justice system in Israel in order to stay in power and out of jail:

Much has been made of Benjamin Netanyahu's capacity to lie. His precisely curated external image – his speeches, video statements and posts, plus his Knesset, government and court appearances – show something more complex.

What his outward image shows is a man who has constructed a parallel universe, rich with his values and convictions, adoring audiences, thunderous applause, his umbrage and victimization, triumph about fictional, fabricated successes. In his world, there is a great void where awful real-world events are happening which are his fault or responsibility or both. But before his eyes lie only open roads.

One could go back years or decades, but take a slice of the last week. At the start of a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Netanyahu declared somberly just how much he cares about the families of the hostages Hamas is holding in Gaza, in contrast to the "lies" that he does not care. [The families have very good reason to think he does not care.] …

In his universe, the [anti-Netanyahu Israeli] protestors are a subset of shadowy bureaucrats, the "deep state" hidden within the large majority of innocent civil servants. Yes – all those tens or hundreds of thousands of people are lawless, violent scofflaws in his mind, and members of the tiny clique of the nefarious deep state. (4)

Notes:

(1) Bibi CONFIRMS Trump Gaza Plan. Breaking Points YouTube channel 04/01/2025. <https://youtu.be/JMl9MwU2txs?si=noY8zTqASwcqXP5a> (Accessed: 2025-01-04).

(2) Kevor, Mick (2025): Israel again expands Gaza war as Netanyahu vows he’s changing the Middle East. The endgame is unclear as ever. CNN World 03/31/2025. <https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/31/middleeast/israel-netanyahu-strategy-gaza-future-intl/index.html> (Accessed: 2025-01-04).

(3) Times of Israel (2025): Netanyahu: Trump’s post-war Gaza vision ‘much better for Israel’; vows to use fire as needed to protect Gaza border. 02/09/2025. <https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-outcome-of-meeting-with-trump-will-ensure-israels-security-for-generations/> (Accessed: 2025-01-04).

(4) Scheindlin, Dahlia (2025): The Escape Artist: How Netanyahu Lies and Why People Still Believe Him. Haaretz 04/01/2025. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-04-01/ty-article/.premium/the-escape-artist-how-netanyahu-lies-and-why-people-still-believe-him/00000195-f187-d470-addd-f5efd2050000?gift=7f86b4a423fd4b41aa5be967b8d01de6> (Accessed: 2025-01-04).

John Mearsheimer debates a Putin advisor on Russia-Ukraine

I can’t kick the habit of listening to John Mearsheimer on the Russia-Ukraine War. In this new one, he discusses the issue with a Putin adviser, Sergey Karaganov. It should go without saying that we should assume that Karaganov is reflecting the official Russian perspective. But it’s interesting to hear the nuances he uses in presenting the official position of the moment. And I’m also fascinated by how Mearsheimer approaches the discussion, knowing as he does details of the official Russian positions as well as describing his own perspective. (1)

As always with Mearsheimer, if listening to him doesn’t irritate you in some way, you’re probably not paying attention. But his perspective is really not as depressing as it may sound if you’re not used to hearing him talk at some length in this way.

I only wish we could hope that Donald Trump’s ham-and-cheese-sandwich buddy and Special Envoy to Everywhere Steve Witkoff is talking to Mearsheimer and other actual experts. But it takes consider imagination even to picture it.

Instead, the American negotiating team in general sounds like contestants on Amateur Hour: (2)

Vlad Mykhnenko of the University of Oxford refers to the rebalancing theory that Mearsheimer mentions of drawing the Russians into more of alignment with the US against the Chinese. The idea itself seems fairly obvious. But the comedy actors on Saturday Night Live would have a better chance of negotiating such a thing that Steve Witkoff and his current team do. Mykhnenko (beginning at 17:50 in the video):

We've learned from a couple of international relation theories which are connected to [the] MAGA movement, the Make America Great movement, is that they're trying to pretend they’re orchestrating some three-dimensional geopolitical chess of peeling Russia away from the People's Republic of China, and in that way weakening their Pacific enemy and strengthening the ties with Russia some way …

So, the official line is, this [is] kind of a clever reverse Nixon maneuver, when Richard Nixon allegedly peeled away the Chinese from the Russians back in 1972. And that they believe that was the death knell of the Communist regime [in the Soviet Union]. They think they if they orchestrate the reverse maneuver, that that will get the same results.

I do think that the theory is delusional and is based on misreading of the history. But also I believe that even [if] the theory is not delusional it will not be possible to create such a maneuver. Because the Russian economy is entirely dependent on its largest neighbor and the largest economy that [has] effectively been propping up Russia for the last three years.

In light of that, do you think there could be some play here - again, potentially giving a lot of credit to Trump - of attempting to turn one of China's allies, Russia, against them, in bringing them into the into the fold of the West?

What we're learning from the Signalgate - this [is] the scandal of American high officials using mobile phones to plan bombing campaigns overseas - is that the level of competence isn't that great. And the level of understanding of the situation on the ground isn't that great.

And, hence, I'm afraid Donald Trump isn't Richard Nixon. And Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz isn't exactly Henry Kissinger. [If that were so,] then I'm going to write massive books of history of diplomacy, right? So as much as we can be critical of Nixon’s and Kissinger’s mental acumen, it was, I'm afraid, much higher than the current Administration possesses.

This is something to always keep in mind when John Mearsheimer talks about a strategy of power-balancing among the US, China, and Russia, he’s speaking from a “realist” model of international relations, which assumes power-balancing factors exert great objective pressure on national decisionmakers. But he’s also aware that actual foreign policy is made by human beings with various levels of competence, integrity, morality, and good sense. He regularly cites the US relationship with Israel as one in which the US for decades has supported Israel despite what the demands of normal international power politics would demonstrate.

And actual competence in diplomacy does matter.

Notes:

(1) 'Ukraine Will Be Eliminated' John Mearsheimer and Putin Advisor Discuss US-Russia Relations. Al Arabiya English 04/01/2025. <https://youtu.be/I4n7JCmQfbc?si=OXWLPzArO42P42e3> (Accessed: 2025-01-04).

(2) Black Sea Ceasefire: Team Trump has no idea what it’s doing | Prof Vlad Mykhnenko. Times Radio YouTube channel 03/27/2025. <https://youtu.be/x_ft7ouZIs0?si=rUx-ng7pME9G5pK4> (Accessed: 2025-02-04).

No Confederate “Heritage” Month Series This Year

I first started in 2004 making daily posts in April of each year focused on debunking the racist and reactionary Lost Cause ideology associated with “Confederate Heritage” groups and celebrations.

This year I’m not planning to do daily posts on the topic. It’s not because rightwing ideology around American history and the Civil War in particular has become less aggressive. On the contrary. The project has actually become much bigger with Trump 2.0 by being absorbed into the larger anti-democracy MAGA ideology: which is first and foremost the worship of the Orange Anomaly, Donald Trump.

And it’s certainly not as though ethnonationalist Republicans have given up on idolizing the Confederacy. USA Today just reported:

• President Trump signed an executive order calling for the reinstatement of monuments and memorials removed for ideological reasons.
• The debate over Confederate memorials centers on whether they represent heritage or  glorification of slavery and intimidation.
• Numerous Confederate statues, monuments, school names, and park names have been changed or removed in Florida since 2015. (1)

Kevin Levin, who covers Civil War memory issues regularly, comments on this story:

This offers a nice summary of the Confederate monuments/statues that have recently been removed in Florida, but none of them were located on federal property. It's hard to imagine why they should be concerned with Trump's recent executive order. The other thing to keep in mind is that there is no reference to the Confederacy in the executive order. (2)

Kevin has actually made a career out of Civil War Memory, which is also the name of his Substack newsletter. He also does live video chats on his Substack page. As he writes in a recent post, the Trumpista era of historical revisionism is looking to become far more intense that anything we’ve seen before. Trump lieutenants like Steve Bannon and Steve Miller see themselves as leaders in a culture war against “woke,” by which they mean, well, any kind of democratic notion of equality before the law.

Kevin notes in one of his recent newsletters:

As a historian of the Civil War era and historical memory, I often find myself asking groups to think about some of the toughest and most divisive questions about our collective past.

In doing this important work, I have always felt as if I was pushing back against a certain amount of resistance. For example, there are some people who refuse to see any acknowledgement of the history and legacy of slavery as anything other than an attempt to dismiss the entire experiment that is the United States of America or as a threat to some narrow idea of ‘American Exceptionalism.’

Such people have always been with us and always will, but that element in our society has been emboldened in recent months and in ways that I never could have anticipated just a few months ago. The war on history and history education that we are currently witnessing has never before been so openly conducted by the President of the United States. [my emphasis] (3)

So, I expect to be doing posts this month on issues relating to the politics of history. But not exclusively or daily on the Confederate “Heritage” scam as such.

The quote from William Faulkner that I see cited more than any other is actually a line from one of Faulkner’s characters in Requiem for a Nun, Gavin Stevens: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” (4)

The past does impose a heavy mortgage on the present. But for post-truth zealots like today’s Trumpistas, history doesn’t exist in its own right, only as ideology to serve the Leader’s goals of the moment.

With Trump 2.0 already entangled in conflicts with the courts, whose judicial independence has been seriously compromised by the corrupt, rogue Supreme Court of the present moment. But judicial and legal issues are also a processing of the past and its adaptation to the present. The democratic concept of “rule of law” has a very specific history. Modern democratic theory assumes that for laws to be legitimate, they have to be made by representatives of the people, not just by a sovereign or a dictator or an oligarchic clique.

As Maximilian Pichl puts it, the “rule of law in not merely a negligible add-on to democracy, but its foundation." (5)

Jürgen Habermas formulated it as a dictum: “No autonomous law without a realized democracy.” (6)

There is such a thing as a democratic view of history. Which among other things, people have to argue about what exactly that means. And, as Kevin mentions in his description of Trump’s 2025 Executive Order for the Gleichschaltung of the Smithsonian Museum: “It’s incredibly sloppy and does little more than highlight the typical fascist-minded talking points about how our understanding of history must be forced to align with ideas of past greatness.” (7)

And “useful history” is not just what is explicitly included in constitutions, laws, and judicial precedents. Nationalism is a real phenomenon: it often has its dark side, but it is real. One recent example we see as a response to the military threats that Trump 2.0 is making against Canada, repeatedly threatening to annex it as American territory, i.e., a 51st state. Faced with these challenges people draw not only on their current positions but also on history for both understanding and inspiration.

Laurence Mussio of the Canadian Globe and Mail recently reached back to the 1840s, when American military belligerence was at one of its most toxic moments: the Mexican-American War, aka, la guerra de Estados Unidos contra México, took place in 1846-48.This was during the Presidency of James K. Polk, whose signature slogan, “Fifty-four Forty or Fight” was a threat to militarily seize the then-British territory of Oregon.

In January, 1846, Lewis Cass of Michigan spoke on the floor of the U.S. Senate, giving a full-throated defence of American expansionism. “Oregon belongs to the United States by the right of destiny and the spirit of our institutions,” the senator thundered, his words carefully noted in Toronto’s newly established Globe newspaper. …

As the crisis unfolded, another veteran of 1812 – Colonel Étienne-Paschal Taché, a warrior, physician, statesman and future premier of Canada – rose to address the Legislative Assembly of the United Province in April, 1846. The galleries were filled to capacity as members debated a new militia bill. In that charged atmosphere, Taché delivered words that would resonate down the decades: “Be satisfied we will never forget our allegiance till the last cannon which is shot on this continent in defence of Great Britain is fired by the hand of a French Canadian.”

The assembly erupted in cheers at this extraordinary declaration. A mere nine years earlier, French Canadians had taken up arms against the Crown in the Rebellions of 1837-38. Now, confronted with American aggression, former rebels had transformed into steadfast defenders of British sovereignty. External threat had achieved what decades of internal politics could not: a fundamental realignment of loyalties. (8)

The point is not whether such analogies are perfect. They never are. The point is that the past, including the past that no person currently alive experienced themselves, is part of how we understand and form emotional response to events in the present.

Mussio doesn’t completely resist the common impulse to get a bit maudlin about such things, concluding with this:

The question persists: Are we prepared, like earlier generations of Canadians, to choose principle over prosperity? History suggests that when truly pressed, Canadians find reserves of resolve. It’s likely that senator Lewis Cass, with his firsthand experience fighting Anglo-Canadian forces, would grudgingly acknowledge that when threatened, the Canadian spirit proves more resilient than anticipated.

But maudlin can also be emotionally evocative for many people.

I’ll conclude by noting that the US expansionism of the 1840s against Mexico was very much driven by the desire of the planter class in the South to expand the number of slave states in the Union. Including Texas, which had broken away from Mexico before the Mexican-America War and become a half-assed “nation” when Mexico abolished slavery in its territory in 1829. Thirty-six years before the United States did so with the 13th Amendment of 1865.

Notes:

(1) Bridges, C.A. (2025): Are Florida’s Confederate statues coming back? Trump orders restoration of monuments. <https://eu.jacksonville.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/28/confederate-monuments-florida-will-trumpexecutive-order/82702263007/> USA Today Network 03/28/2025. (Accessed: 2025-29-03).

(2) Levin, Kevin (2025): Substack Note 03/28/2025. <https://substack.com/@kevinmlevin/note/c-104090007> (Accessed: 2025-29-03).

(3) Levin, Kevin (2025): Only Through History Can We Move Forward Together. Civil War Memory 03/23/2025. <https://kevinmlevin.substack.com/p/only-through-history-can-we-move> (Accessed: 2025-29-03).

(4) Requiem for a Nun (1951), Act 1, Scene 3.

(5) Pichl, M. (2024): Law statt Order.Der Kampf um den Rechtsstaat, 226. Berlin: Suhrkamp. My translation from German.

(6) Habermas, Jürgen (1997 [5.Auflage]): Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats, 599. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. My translation from German.

(7) Levin, Kevin (2025): Trump Targets Smithsonian Institution. Civil War Memory 03/28/2025. <https://kevinmlevin.substack.com/p/trump-targets-smithsonian-institution> (Accessed: 2025-29-03).

(8) Mussio, Laurence (2025): A new nationalism is emerging in Canada. Globe and Mail 03/29/2025. <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-new-nationalism-is-emerging-in-canada/> (Accessed: 2025-30-03).

The European center parties’ stumbling and bumbling on countering xenophobic politics

The far-right parties in the EU countries, like the Republican Party in the United States, have made ethnonationalism and outspoken hostility to immigrants and especially refugees a key part of their political project.

Political experience in the last two decades in Britain, France, Italy and other countries has shown that center-right parties trying to win anti-immigrant votes away from the far-right parties by adopting their xenophobic appeals have wound up weakening themselves and strengthening the far right. (1) Since the xenophobic appeals are fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-rule-of-law, center parties validating the far right’s key anti-immigrant rhetoric increases the far right’s credibility on those issues.

Pushing back on the anti-democracy politics of the far right also requires demystifying the demagogic anti-immigrant rhetoric. It means bringing forward facts and practical considerations. But it also has to involve refuting false claims over immigration but also defanging the emotional edge of the right’s rhetoric and their anecdotes, which are often dishonest and highly misleading. Xenophobia lives on anecdotes.

This panel discussion from the Europe Calling European webinar group does into these questions in some detail. The comments by immigration expert Judith Kohlenberger of the Vienna University of Economics and Business are particularly good.

Video Europe Calling (English Version): (2)

Video Europe Calling (German Version): (3)

Notes:

(1) Biebricher, Thomas (2023): Mitte/Rechts. Die Internationale Krise des Konservatismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

(2) Europe Calling #206 "Migration - What does a restrictive immigration policy do to a society?" (EN). Europe Calling YouTube channel 11/05/2025. <https://youtu.be/QeEuFqHasDY?si=wWdU0YUHyF5tn5xR> (Accessed: 2025-26-03).

(3) Europe Calling #206 “Was macht eine restriktive Einwanderungspolitik mit der Gesellschaft?” (DE). Europe Calling YouTube channel 11/05/2025. <https://youtu.be/E9sRW_ah7VQ?si=Z5hmbb0RAhaL1pCk> (Accessed: 2025-26-03).

Realism, morality and Trump 2.0 diplomatic incompetence

This recent interview with Über-Realist John Mearsheimer is a great example of why I find his analysis simultaneously informative and frustrating. The realist foreign policy theories give particular emphasis to economic and political power factors and tend to minimize the practical effect of ideological and moral considerations when it comes to the actual behaviors of great powers, in particular.

But here we have Mearsheimer sounding like a rightwinger’s stereotype of moralistic leftwingers. Speaking of the ongoing Gaza genocide, he says (after 11:50 in the video), “This is what’s happened to American values! The United States is supporting an apartheid state that’s engaged in genocide. Do you need to know any more?” (1)

And his affect suggests that he’s earnestly outraged by this development. He seems to think that his interviewer Andrew Napolitano, who has been highly critical of Israel’s policies since October 7, 2023, is insufficiently agitated by the facts they’re discussing.

They also talk about the Signal Chat incident.

On the Russia-Ukraine War and the possibility of war with Iran, Mearsheimer does not see a lot of grounds for optimism. On the latter, he thinks Trump himself would prefer not to go to war with Iran at this point. But he also notes that Trump’s senior advisors tend to be pro-Israel hawks. And that Trump himself has a record of being very accommodating to the demands of Israel and of his pro-Israel donors like Marian Adelson.

Europe and the new diplomatic vocabulary

Mearsheimer stresses the peacekeeping or “security” force that Ukraine and the main European allies are discussing as an essential element of a settlement of the war is effectively a dead letter. The forces that Britain and France could commit to such an arrangement are limited. And he notes that both Germany and Poland have said they would not contribute soldiers to such a force.

The Russians have said they will not accept such a force in Ukraine. And there is every reason to believe at this point that they are serious about that and will not accept any agreement that involves stationing forces from NATO countries in Ukraine.

Robert Fox, defense editor of the conservative London Evening Standard argues that the European allies are determined to draw the line against Russian aggression in Ukraine. (2)

But what does that mean? As Fox indicates, that could be a 4-5 years’ commitment to actively supporting Ukraine in a war with Russia. This is a policy that could and probably will function as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Europe will defend Ukrainian sovereignty, which is also defending the current system of international law. Which is more-or-less equivalent (but not exactly) to what the US at least through the Biden Administration calls “the rules-based international order.”

On the other hand, as Europe reconfigures its defense posture to be able to operate without its current US-dominated NATO configurations, they will being doing so with the knowledge that they have a selfish interest in keeping the Russian fighting in Ukraine for as long as possible. It was pretty clearly the Biden Administration’s assumption that a longer war in Ukraine rather than a shorter one would weaken Russia. The practical benefits to the European allies of a longer rather than shorter Russia-Ukraine War would be that it would buy time for Europe to de-NATO-ize its defense posture without having to face a potential new military crisis against European countries that are currently NATO alliance members. Especially with the Trump Administration actually threatening (with God-only-knows what level of seriousness) NATO allies Denmark and Canada with military attacks.

Fox also comments on the lack of diplomatic competence in the Trump 2.0 regime. And how that is very much a part of the current urgency for the European allies to distance themselves sooner rather than later from their current dependency on NATO structure.

And he mentions that the only realistic possibility of a security or peacekeeping force for any peace or armistice agreement that might be reached would have to be a UN force. He doesn’t specify it, but this would almost certainly have to exclude any NATO member forces.

Notes:

(1) Prof. John Mearsheimer : Killing Without Purpose. Judge Napolitano-Judging Freedom YouTube channel 03/27/2025. <https://www.youtube.com/live/n69N9h4A8N4?si=Cul6Qn75BcuIo6im> (Accessed: 2025--28-2025).

(2) Putin’s war will be over in a few months. Times Radio YouTube channel 05/28/2025. <https://youtu.be/uB9JrjoXH6c?si=HmE0Bmx0rHVPEP4w> (Accessed: 2025--28-2025).

Trump 2.0 Incompetence and Authoritarianism

Laura Rozen has a good brief analysis of the cinematic emphasis of the Trump 2.0 regime. She says that the recent national security Signal Chat Group Scandal “it is the most important journalism about the Trump administration second term that has appeared to date.”

As a journalist covering US foreign policy, I spend hours trying to figure out who is making decisions and where and how decisions are getting made, under the presumption that there are deliberations taking place and it is a matter of trying to find out about them.

The “Houthi PC Small Group” Signals messages that the Atlantic published showed that those deliberations are, to a stunning degree, barely taking place in the Trump administration, even in matters of war, except the way you might debate a news article or TV show with a group of friends, while paying attention to six other things, and making dinner, over the course of a few hours. [my emphasis] (1)

Malicious and shockingly amateurish; Experts on authoritarianism will presumably not be surprised at this observation because authoritarian governments are very often not efficient because the lack of effective restraints on their actions is conducive to incompetence and corruption.

I’m embarrassed at having learned only a couple of years ago that the familiar trope that at least Mussolini made the trains run on time isn’t even true: It is a myth that, whatever his faults, Benito Mussolini, dictator of Italy in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, made the trains run on time. He didn’t.” (2)

It’s not that this is something that recently came to light. I just had never read into this particular claim before a couple of years ago. Brian Cathcart wrote in 1994:

But did Mussolini really do it? Did Il Duce, in his 20 years of absolute power, really manage to make the railway service meet its timetable? The answer is no.

Like almost all the supposed achievements of Fascism, the timely trains are a myth, nurtured and propagated by a leader with a journalist's flair for symbolism, verbal trickery and illusion. (3)

It was selected tourist trains that ran on time. And even they didn’t always:

The notion that the trains were running on time was none the less vigorously put about by the Fascist propaganda machine. 'Official press agents and official philosophers . . . explained to the world that the running of trains was the symbol of the restoration of law and order,' wrote [American journalist George] Seldes. It helped that foreign correspondents in Rome were very carefully controlled and that the reporting of all railway accidents or delays was banned. [my emphasis]

Jeffrey Goldberg, Anne Applebaum, and other journalist with The Atlantic just discussed at the New Orleans Book Festival the authoritarian transformation the Trump 2.0 Reality TV Show is implementing. (4)

A notable theme in their discussion is that the Trump 2.0 crew isn’t trying to hide the radicalism of their program.

Notes:

(1) Rozen, Laura (2025): The Hollowness of the Always-on-TV Trump administration. Diplomatic 03/27/2025. <https://diplomatic.substack.com/p/the-hollowness-of-the-always-on-tv> (Accessed: 2025-28-03).

(2) Making trains run on time. The Economist 11/03/2018. <https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/11/03/making-trains-run-on-time> (Accessed: 2025-28-03).

(3) Making Italy work: Did Mussolini really get the trains running on time? The Independent 04/03/1994. <https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rear-window-making-italy-work-did-mussolini-really-get-the-trains-running-on-time-1367688.html> (Accessed: 2025-28-03).

(4) Atlantic journalists discuss politics and media after the Signal breach. The Atlantic YouTube channel 03/28/2025. <https://youtu.be/gwCjUE-NUW4?si=p0027hbsZMQ0kko2> (Accessed: 2025-28-03).

How bright is the Trump 2.0 foreign policy?

The foreign policy scholar Dan Drezner publishes in thorough respectable foreign policy journals. He is also negatively impressed by the incompetent diplomacy of the Trump 2.0 Administration, which, as he notes, is even worse than the Trump 1.0 version, which was also pathetic.

The title he chose for his latest Substack column is, “American Foreign Policy Is Being Run by the Dumbest Motherfuckers Alive.” (1) His main point in the column is that even though Trump came into his second Presidency with a more coherent team of MAGAists and the whole Project 2025 blueprint for vandalizing democratic government, his approach to diplomacy is still remarkably incompetent.

On the one hand, that incompetence could have the side benefit of limiting the damage Trump 2.0 can do in some ways. But the idea of having democratic governance that works well means that the everyday functioning of public institutions needs to be competent and effective. Including foreign policy, which is a field whose implementation does require a great deal of professionalism to be done right. But as Drezner puts it:

In two short months, the second Trump administration’s abject incompetence has managed to make his bumbling first-term crew look like a paragon of professionalism. Trump’s needless, groundless hostility towards Canada — egged on by advisor Peter Navarro and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick — has managed to turn one of the friendliest neighbors in international relations history into a prickly porcupine of a neighbor, complete with consumer boycotts and everything.

Drezner points out that in the international arena, China is potentially the biggest beneficiary from even the DOGE cuts Co-President Elon Musk is making. Foreign policy wonks tend to think in terms of various kinds of power-balancing, and China is the current “rising hegemon” in the world in foreign-policy-wonk terms. So “China will benefit” is kind of a default argument that can be used against any policy you don’t like on Trump’s part.

But Trump operates in a world in which being able to claim the publicity of having made a good “deal” is the primary goal in international negotiations. And not the substantive practical and strategic benefit for the country that it will produce. Drezner quotes from a column he did back in early June 2017, after only a few months of Trump 1.0:

It’s hard to overstate just how badly Trump has navigated the global stage. The Chinese and Saudis have figured out how to buy him off with a couple billion dollars and some flattery. There is zero evidence of any appreciable policy gains. U.S. leadership is being constantly questioned. Whatever soft power resided in the United States has dissipated. Outside of the Persian Gulf, Trump’s approach has done nothing but alienate allies and bolster potential rivals. [my emphasis]

Drezner stresses the particular idiocy in purely practical terms of Trump’s lunatic threats to annex Canada:

In two short months, the second Trump administration’s abject incompetence has managed to make his bumbling first-term crew look like a paragon of professionalism. Trump’s needless, groundless hostility towards Canada — egged on by advisor Peter Navarro and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick — has managed to turn one of the friendliest neighbors in international relations history into a prickly porcupine of a neighbor, complete with consumer boycotts and everything. [my emphasis]

It's always important to keep in mind that there are economic and geopolitical trends that shape the international environment in which countries operate. But it’s also worth keeping in mind this observation of John Kenneth Galbraith’s from 1977 with reference to the beginning of the First World War – which also was driven by larger trends – on what he called the Stupidity Problem:

There was a final consideration, one that it is always thought a trifle pretentious to stress. Rulers in Germany and Eastern Europe, generals in all countries, held their jobs by right of family and tradition. If inheritance qualifies one for office, intelligence cannot be a requirement. Nor is its absence likely to be a disqualification. On the contrary, intelligence is a threat to those who do not possess it, and there is a strong case, therefore, for excluding those who do possess it. This was the tendency in 1914. In consequence, both the rulers and the generals in World War I were singularly brainless men.

None was capable of thought on what war would mean for his class - for the social order that was so greatly in his favor. There had always been wars. Rulers had been obliterated. The ruling classes had always survived. To the extent that there was thought on the social consequences of war, this was what was believed. (2)

The book was based on a documentary series, and this is the episode that corresponds to the cited portion: (3)

Notes:

(1) American Foreign Policy Is Being Run by the Dumbest Motherfuckers Alive. Drezner’s World 03/24/2025. (Accessed: 2025-27-03).

(2) Galbraith, John Kenneth (1977): The Age of Uncertainty, 137-8. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

(3) The Age of Uncertainty Episode 5 (16:45ff in the video). sveinbjornt YouTube channel 10/17/2011. <https://youtu.be/sxAoymq_SEA?si=kj8j9mAhLbfh1iZD> (Accessed: 2023-22-12).

High Diplomacy with Trump 2.0

Laura Rozen makes a valid point that should be clear to people who have been following the Trump 2.0 government’s amateurish negotiations over the Russia-Ukraine War with particular reference to the recent “proximity” talks in Saudi Arabia.

She reported on June 211 “that the U.S. side aspires to make enough rapid progress to be able to announce a ceasefire deal in short order. It also hoped to hold some sort of trilateral meeting with all three parties as early as Tuesday [March 25].” (1)

Even if I thought the Russia position was correct and represented the best option for the world, I would still say this is shockingly dumb diplomacy on the Trump team’s part:

The American side is far less experienced than its Russian counterparts. And some of its members show a disturbing predilection to be spun and deceived by the Russians.

Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who has become the administration’s chief counterpart with the Russians, this week gushed about the Trump/Putin phone call on Tuesday, and expressed the conviction that Putin was acting in good faith.

While Ukraine reported hundreds of Russian drones and missiles continued to attack Ukrainian cities following the Trump/Putin phone call, Witkoff said that he believed what the Russians were evidently falsely telling him, that Russia had shot down its own drones based on an order by Putin.

“Pres. Putin issued an order within ten minutes of his call with the president directing Russian forces not to be attacking any Ukrainian energy infrastructure,” Witkoff said in a video interview on Wednesday posted to Twitter.

“The Russians tell me this morning that seven of their drones were on their way when President Putin issued his order and they were shot down by Russian forces,” Witkoff said. [my emphasis] (1)

This screenshot from The Independent today would give you the impression that Paul McCarney is now conducting the ceasefire talks on the Russia-Ukraine War.

Maybe we should wish for that instead of having Trump’s real-estate crony and now US Special Envoy to Everywhere Steve Witkoff handling it.

I mean, McCartney would at least have the wit to say, “Now, I haven’t done this kind of thing before. But I can see that this bloke Putin is lying to me.”

Notes:

(1) Rozen, Laura (2025): As it rushes to finalize Ukraine ceasefire, signs US team vulnerable to Russia manipulation. Diplomatic 05/21/2025. <https://diplomatic.substack.com/p/as-trump-rushes-to-finalize-ukraine> (Accessed: 26-03-2025). The March 25 meeting to which she refers is apparently the one that did take place this week, which produced an alleged ceasefire in the Black Sea for purposes of grain exports, though at this writing it’s not clear (to put it “dilopmatically”!) whether Russia has actually accepted that ceasefire arrangement.

The Trumpistas and Romania

Romanian politics is currently giving us an example of how the Russian and the American governments are meddling in the upcoming Presidential election. Under the newly-realigned perspective of the US under Trump 2.0, the Putin and Trump governments would have like to see the hard-right candidate Călin Georgescu elected President. But this whole rule-of-law thing made complications for the plan.

Aside from maybe associating it with Transylvania and Dracula, most Americans know that Romania is somewhere in eastern Europe and not much else. One of the events of the already-cluttered record of the Trump 2.0 regime was Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech to the Munich Conference in February, thanks to which we now have a whole new round of uses of the Munich Analogy, which lives on as a sort of inextricable ankle bracelet around Western foreign policy discussions. The tacit endorsement by Vance of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in this year’s German parliamentary election appears to have drawn more attention in the reporting I’ve seen than the Romanian part.

Our Opus Dei-adherent Vice President told the conference:

[T]he threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values—values shared with the United States of America.

Now, I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don’t go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany, too. [my emphasis] (1)

Le Monde gives this background to Vance’s cheap propaganda claim, which (surprise! surprise!) has an Elon Musk connection:

The American vice president was referring to a comment by French former European Commissioner Thierry Breton. Breton, speaking on the radio station RMC was reacting to a discussion between Alice Weider, the head of Germany's far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) party, and Elon Musk, held on X, on January 9. Breton pointed out that the platform's owner had "the right to say what he wants," but not on social media platforms. Indeed, these platforms, as long as they are made available in Europe, are subject to the European Digital Services Act (DSA) regulation, which requires digital platforms to monitor speech and content on them, notably to prevent misinformation or illegal content.

Urging the EU and its member states to enforce their laws on online content, Breton then said the following sentence: "Let's apply our laws, in Europe, when they risk being circumvented and can, if not applied, lead to interference. We've done it in Romania, we'll obviously have to do it, if necessary, in Germany." At the time, the sentence was taken out of context and widely shared on social media. Some saw it as an admission that Europe had annulled the elections in Romania, and that it might do the same in Germany. As reported by Libération, this claim was echoed by Musk himself, who portrayed Breton as the "tyrant of Europe." The former commissioner's response to the billionaire was that the EU has no power to cancel any election in its member states. [my emphasis]

Călin Georgescu was the far-rightist, Putinist-oriented ultranationalist candidate which Vance and Musk were defending there. He did win the first round of Presidential elections last November. But because he had been found to have violated electoral laws, the second round of the election was cancelled, and a new election scheduled for this May. The Romanian Constitutional Court has excluded Georgescu from the May election but also ruled that this would not restrict him from participating in a future Presidential election. (2)

Musk is angry at the EU for making regulations requiring content moderation on social media platforms:

Romania has become ground zero in a global struggle over how speech is regulated online. Its top constitutional court in December canceled the win of ultranationalist Călin Georgescu in the first round of the presidential election after security services warned Russia was mounting “aggressive” hybrid attacks on social media. Georgescu has been barred from running in the do-over election scheduled for May.

ANCOM oversees the Digital Services Act in Romania, the European Union's social media rulebook that governs how platforms like TikTok and X moderate online speech.

"We’ve never seen something like” what happened in the November 2024 presidential election, Popescu said. (3)

Edmond Jäger in an analysis of the election-annulment situation notes that the Romanian Constitutional Court’s authority to annul the election in those circumstances was not entirely clear. But he also describes the pattern of online promotional activity to boost Georgescu’s candidacy and argues that those did constitute illegal campaign donations. (4)

The EU’s anti-disinformation platform EU vs. Disinformation can be frustratingly vague in its reporting. But this general description on the Romanian election situation seems plausible:

The Kremlin’s disinformation machine has also set its sights on Romania, fabricating an upside down world where the EU supposedly controls Romania’s judicial system like puppet masters.

Pro-Kremlin outlets have frantically spread baseless claims that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen personally orchestrated the prosecution of the former presidential candidate Calin Georgescu and even threatened to restrict Romania’s EU funding unless he was removed from the electoral process.

These feverish conspiracy theories, fuelled by Russia’s notoriously unreliable Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), lack any connection to reality. The real situation is far more mundane: the Romanian authorities charged Georgescu with multiple criminal counts(opens in a new tab) including promoting fascist organisations and election finance violations, following their own legal procedures and finally putting a full stop on Georgescu’s presidential bid(opens in a new tab).

Unsurprisingly, pro-Kremlin disinformation has framed this straightforward legal process as ‘EU tyranny‘, portraying Romania as a helpless victim of ‘Brussels despotism’. This manufactured narrative serves Moscow’s broader strategy of undermining trust in democratic institutions while positioning pro-Kremlin candidates as ‘popular victims’ of Western persecution. (5)

Edmund Jäger would presumably not consider the decision to have been so obviously “straightforward.”

Euronews summarized the situation this way:

Dubbed the "TikTok Messiah," Georgescu came out on top in the first round of Romania's presidential elections in December.

However, the country's constitutional court annulled the vote following the declassification of intelligence reports showing Russian involvement in influencing voters through social media to support the then-relatively unknown candidate.

Georgescu is also facing criminal proceedings including anticonstitutional acts and misreporting his campaign finances.

The charges also revolve around his support for sympathisers of the Iron Guard, a pre-World War II fascist and antisemitic movement and political party, which is illegal under Romanian law. [my emphasis] (6)

Georgescu is not a nice guy. But his was good enough for the far-right propaganda outlets supporting him and another rightwing candidate:

Along with TikTok, actors also coordinated on Facebook to support Georgescu and AUR candidate George Simion. The Finnish cyber research firm Check First has detailed in a report how a large network supported the two right-wing radical candidates. A few accounts also acted as clients as well as suppliers of commercials. In addition, a lot of content was copied one-to-one from the same accounts across different media. In doing so, they did not leave out any relevant medium: In addition to TikTok, the same content can be found on Telegram and Facebook, on websites and on television. Unlike Tik-Tok and Facebook, the websites and the TV station in question can be associated with Russia. The station, for example, is owned by the Moldovan oligarch Ilan Sor, who repeatedly organizes political campaigns in the Republic of Moldova on behalf of Russia. The websites, in turn, belong to a network that disseminates Russian government propaganda in various languages under the name "Pravda". [Jäger; my emphasis]

The media environment continues to evolve, and so do the challenges in detecting such efforts by foreign governments to illegally and illegitimately interfere with elections.

Vladimir Bortun observed in December that the election ironically also reflected the general deference to the US in Romanian politics, noting that after the Court’s decision:

Surprisingly, both Georgescu and the pro-Western candidate who had made it into the second round, Elena Lasconi from the neoliberal Save Romania Union (USR), criticized the decision. So did Donald Trump Jr, who deplored this “[George] Soros/Marxist attempt at rigging the outcome and denying the will of the people.” This compelled both candidates to write to his dad and argue their case, like schoolchildren in front of the headmaster. Lasconi — ostensibly the candidate defending democracy, the rule of law, and all the rest — started by praising Trump “for the great things you have done, and will continue to do, to put America first and for your continuous fight for the American people.” Georgescu went as far as suggesting that this is in fact a plot to drag NATO into the war in Ukraine and thereby block Trump’s investiture in January. His characterization of Trump echoed the old Wallachian delegations kowtowing to the sultan: “They want to stop the Peace-Maker Donald Trump from keeping world peace.” [my emphasis] (7)

To get back to Dracula, Romanian authorities earlier this month arrested six people for treason:

Investigators say the group established contacts with foreign agents in Romania and Russia and “took steps to negotiate with external political-military actors regarding Romania’s withdrawal from NATO”.

They also allegedly sought to overthrow the constitutional order, dissolve political parties, install a new government, adopt a new constitution and change the country’s name, flag, and national anthem.

Some of the suspects allegedly made repeated contact with foreign agents, both within Romania and Russia. ...

Among those detained was 101-year-old Radu Theodoru, a retired general, who has a long history of promoting anti-Semitic rhetoric and Holocaust denial.

According to prosecutors, Theodoru was the honorary leader of an organisation known as the Vlad Tepes Command Centre, which describes itself as a structured military entity. Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler, in English) was a medieval ruler notorious for his brutality and served as an inspiration for the Dracula legend. Some in Romania regard him as a symbol of strong leadership and radical justice. [my emphasis] (8)

How long before JD Vance starts telling us what a noble guy Vlad the Impaler was?

Vlad Ţepeş (1456-1462)

Notes:

(1) Bernard, Philippe, et al (2025): Behind the words of JD Vance's historic Munich speech. Le Monde 02/21/2025. <https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2025/02/21/behind-the-words-of-jd-vance-s-historic-munich-speech_6738424_23.html> (Accessed: 2025-25-03).

(2) Parzkava, Dato (2025): Georgescu free to try his luck in other presidential elections, Romanian court says. Politico 03/14/2025. <https://www.politico.eu/article/calin-georgescu-romania-elections-romanian-constitutional-court/> (Accessed: 2025-25-03).

(3) Garito, Eliza (2025): Romanian media watchdog defies Musk over censorship claims. Politico 03/24/2025. <https://www.politico.eu/article/romanian-social-media-watchdog-defies-elon-musk-censorship-speech-claims/> (Accessed: 2025-25-03).

(4) Jäger, Edmond (2025): Mit TikTok zur Wahlmanipulation. Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 3/2025, 29-32. Translations from the German are mine.

(5) EU vs. Disinformation. The old deceiver 03/20/2025. <https://euvsdisinfo.eu/the-old-deceiver/> (Accessed: 2025-25-03).

(6) Brazar, Aleksander (2025): Romanian constitutional court unanimously rejects Calin Georgescu's candidacy, sparking protests. Euronews 03/11/2025. <https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/11/romanian-constitutional-court-unanimously-rejects-calin-georgescus-candidacy-sparking-prot> (Accessed: 2025-25-03).

(7) Bortun, Vladimir (2025): Romania’s Election Isn’t Just About Geopolitics. Jacobin 12/12/2024. <https://jacobin.com/2024/12/romania-election-nationalism-neoliberalism-georgescu> (Accessed: 2025-25-03).

(8) Chiriac, Marian (2025): Romania Detains Six for Alleged Treason, Ties to Russia. Balkan Insight 03/06/2025. <https://balkaninsight.com/2025/03/06/romania-detains-six-for-alleged-treason-ties-to-russia/> (Accessed: 2025-25-03).

Trying to separate the signal from the noise on the Russia-Ukraine War negotiations

A situation like the current stage of the Russia-Ukraine War presents the frustrating challenge of trying to understand what really happening, as opposed to what various interested parties are asserting. And also to understand negotiating strategies of the various parties, which obviously overlaps with the first problem.

Times Radio (as in Times of London) has been featuring an interesting set of perspectives on the situation that often confront the viewers and listeners with both those problems. One of their guests has been Bill Browder (1), who is a founder and former CEO of of the Hermitage Capital hedge fund and whose grandfather was Earl Browder, Chairman of the US Communist Party from 1935 to 1945. A fact that journalists understandably consider an interesting factoid. A 2017 CNN report describes Bill as being “a Red Diaper baby turned capitalist,” the red diaper label being a longtime phrase to describe people whose parents were Communists. It goes on to describes Bill B’s business dealings in Russia led to his become “becoming, like his grandfather, a victim of the very dictatorship he once defended.” (2)

It’s as though “Russia” is some timeless entity that has been fundamentally the same since Ivan the Terrible took over as the first tsar in 1547. But for a lot of pundits, that kind of assumption passes as deep historical knowledge. In the case of the Browders, during Earl’s time as Communist Party Chairman for the US, Russia was part of the Soviet Union, which was a Communist country whose chief leader during Earl’s chairmanship in the US was Joseph Stalin. The Russia headed by Vladimir Putin who became the nemesis of Bill Browder was a country that had gone through a major and bitter transition after 1992 from a centralized Communist economy and government to being a capitalist oligarchy with an authoritarian government whose democratic roots were never more than paper-thin, and which was no longer part of a Soviet Union.

Otherwise, Russia in Ivan’s time was pretty much the same as in was in Earl and Bill’s and Vlad Putin’s time.

(Would Earl have been happy that his grandson became a prominent critic of a very capitalist post-Soviet Russia? Who knows?)

I mention this because evaluating negotiations is not the same as understanding how particular problems arose in the first place. Bill Browder has his own issues with Putin’s regime and is definitely hostile to it. But he also has had a lot of experience with it and has examined Putin’s governance and negotiating style closely.

This Times Radio segment is a good example of how we can parse negotiating approaches differently than how we evaluate the underlying macro issues. It looks at the dubious qualifications and questionable performance of Trump’s current favorite ham-and-cheese- sandwich real estate crony and current star international negotiator Steve Witkoff in dealing with Russia over the Ukraine war.

It’s titled “Steve Witkoff is a *Kremlin lover’, which probably gives him too much individual credit for his positions. It’s painfully obvious that Witkoff is there to make a deal on terms very favorable to Russia because that’s what the Orange Anomaly wants. But Russia is also known for its hardheaded negotiating style – that approach does have a longer continuity than Putin’s position heading it up. So having someone on the American side as chief negotiator who is interested in giving in to Russia’s position is suboptimal to put it mildly if we’ re interested in seeing any kind of reasonably stable end to the current war that doesn’t create even worse problems. (3)

In this podcase, Andrew Neil observes, of a segment in which the sad silver-spoon baby Tucker Carlson (an heir to the Swanson fortune) interviews Witkoff:

You know, it's what happens when you have two idiots beside a microphone and neither of them knows what they're talking about.
I mean, one is just a busted flush mad American broadcaster. But the other is the president's Special Envoy and he knows nothing about what he's talking about: I mean, this guy's a property billionaire. He's never been involved in this level of geopolitics. He doesn’t know anything about it.

By chance, Tucker and Witkoff manage to turn an accurate observation of the moment - when they scoff at the notion that Russia might have territorial designs beyond Ukraine – into stereotypical sophomoric nonsense. It has been a weakness of the Ukraine-hawks’ common talking points to blandly state as fact that Putin’s immediately goal in the war was to take control of Ukraine. But the actual approach that Russia took in the first year of the current war (2022) looked as though it was based on a goal of potentially occupying and controlling the four eastern provinces of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson – along with Crimea, which they annexed in 2014 – and installing a compliant government in Kiev.

Those were illegitimate and illegal aims. But they were also not the same as aiming at a near-term annexation of all Ukraine.

And in the real world, if Russia were to be successful in that more limited goal of a puppet regime in Ukraine, that doesn’t mean they would move immediately to start absorbing Poland, Finland, and the Baltic states. As a practical matter, the European NATO members do have to prepared to deter and defend against any such attempts by Russia. But those risks don’t emerge overnight, any more than the Russia-NATO disputes over Ukraine emerged from the blue in January of 2022.

But the segment of Carlson and Witkoff in the video has Tucker cackling like a stoned kid after Witkoff sneers at the idea that “the Russians are gonna march across Europe,” which I don’t hear even the most enthusiastic hawks saying. Cackling Carlson comments, “Why would they want that? I wouldn’t want those countries. Like, why would they?”

As they say in the American South, “Somethin’ about that boy just ain’t right.”

As much as I’ve been complaining about the ill effects of the use of the Munich Analogy in trying to explain any and all foreign policy challenges, hearing Trump’s chief negotiator on Russia-Ukraine and the Middle East making a stoned-airhead version of the argument with Tucker Carlson is pretty grim.

Notes:

(1) Trump team casting Putin as a ‘good guy’ has made my ‘blood boil’ | Sir Bill Browder. Times Radio YouTube channel 03/24/2025. <https://youtu.be/bkkRUTzQVbo?si=lvf7Jc2K5EAZ3U9x> (Accessed: 2025-24-03).

(2) Weiss, Michael (2017): Bill Browder, from red diaper baby to Putin’s nemesis. CNN 07/28/2017. <https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/28/opinions/bill-browder-opinion-weiss/index.html> (Accessed: 2025-24-03).

(3) Steve Witkoff is a ‘Kremlin lover’ | Andrew Neil. Times Radio YouTube channel 03/24/2025. <https://youtu.be/65bwJmKcBzE?si=j_uHyROJr2AjRzw3> (Accessed: 2025-24-03).

A really strange political alliance: Netanyahu’s Likud Party and European anti-Semites

The radical right in Europe has come up with an alibi for themselves: We can’t be anti-Semitic because we support Israel when they make war on Muslims.

Now the Israeli Likud Party of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has joined the Patriots for Europe, a grouping of European far right parties, as ab “observer member.” As David Issacharoff explains:

The move comes amid a broader shift by the Israeli government toward establishing ties with far-right European parties that have long been boycotted by Israel due to their history of antisemitism and neo-Nazi affiliations. ...

It raises questions about Israel's evolving stance toward groups like Austria's Freedom Party, a member of the Patriots bloc, founded by a former SS general, and Germany's Alternative for Germany party, the AfD, which emerged as the country's second-largest party in last month's federal elections, surpassing the incumbent Social Democrats.

The AfD is deeply rooted in neo-Nazi culture, and Germany's Jewish community describes it having a "blatantly antisemitic ideology." The Freedom Party, in whose ranks antisemitic and neo-Nazi incidents occur with great regularity, has been described as "antisemitic to its core."

This is a sad but not surprising development. This is a feature of the same Likud/Netanyahu position that tries to identify anti-Semitism as primarily criticism of the State of Israel.

The US Christian nationalists justify their support of Israel largely by a bizarre and crassly anti-Semitic reading of Biblical prophecy in which a gigantic war in Israel will kill off most of the Jews in the world and then Jesus can make his Second Coming.

European far-right groups celebrate Israel’s hostility to Muslim because it fits with the Islamophobia that they use as a key argument in their hatred of immigrants.

The Foreign Ministry declined to respond to Haaretz's inquiries about whether it still officially boycotts Austria's Freedom Party or to comment on its stance toward the AfD, which won 20 percent of the vote in Germany's recent election. Ahead of Austrian elections last fall, Haaretz reported that the Israeli embassy in Vienna's boycott of the Freedom Party "has not changed."

A spokesperson for Foreign Minister Sa'ar did not respond when asked whether Netanyahu adviser Bulshtein's open discussions with the Freedom Party violate Israel's long-standing policy of boycotting the party. Likud has also refused to comment on its stance regarding formal ties with the Freedom Party and the AfD, or whether Netanyahu approved his party's decision to join the Patriots.

The whole concept of a Nationalist International is bizarre. But it’s not new. Fascist parties and regimes in the 1920s and 1930s lent political support to similar groups in other countries. Very dramatically with Germany’s and Italy’s support for Francisco Franco’s rebellion against the Spanish Republic during the Spanish civil war.

This is Part 1 of a six-part 1983 BBC documentary on that conflict: (2) 

Notes:

(1) Israel's Lost Taboo: How Netanyahu's Party Is Officially Embracing Europe's Far-right Extremists. Haaretz 03/17/2025. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-03-17/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israels-lost-taboo-how-netanyahus-party-is-embracing-europes-far-right-extremists/00000195-9e70-d865-ad95-9f7df0170000?gift=36a5b5fd0faa4bdbae9f962ca19f3f81 (Accessed: 2025-18-03),

(2) https://youtu.be/Lu5f9hp0IP4?si=uUDewRp2YRdpcig1">THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR - Episode 1: Prelude To Tragedy. Military Man YouTube channel 07/24/2025.

The Peace President’s war diplomacy

The erratic diplomacy of the Trump Administration is heavily oriented toward producing “great television” moments in which the Orange Anomaly can announce some new alleged breakthrough which he can claim to be the greatest achievement of its kind in history.

The overall characteristic is blustering and threatening for the rightwing TV audience while haphazardly making agreements that have no meaningful strategic importance because Trump famously focuses on “transactional moments” in which he claims he won over an incalcitrant opponent. All this taking place in a context where he has forced the European NATO allies into a drastic reorientation of their defense strategies because they can no longer count on the US to stand behind the European allies – or even Canada! – in an international crisis.

Along with Trump’s ham-and-cheese-sandwich buddy Steve Witkoff as his real-estate Kissinger, he also also has a special envoy, Adam Boehler, on the case:

The White House … nodded through Israel's reimposition of a blockade that has once again choked off food, water and fuel to the enclave - further evidence of Israel's genocidal intent.

But while all this was going on, Trump also dispatched to the region a special envoy, Adam Boehler, to negotiate the release of the few dozen Israeli hostages still held in Gaza.

He was given permission to break with 30 years of US foreign policy and meet directly with Hamas, long designated a terrorist organisation by Washington. (1)

Boehler was a Trump nominee to be a Special Presidential Envoy, which requires Senate approval, but now isn’t. But apparently he’s going to go on doing the same thing anyway:

A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Boehler withdrew his nomination to avoid divesting from his investment company. The move was unrelated to the controversy sparked by his discussions with the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

"He still has the utmost confidence of President Trump," said the official.

"This gives me the best ability to help Americans held abroad as well as work across agencies to achieve President Trump’s objectives," Boehler told Reuters in a brief statement.

Boehler recently held direct meetings with Hamas on the release of hostages in Gaza. The discussions broke with a decades-old policy by Washington against negotiating with groups that the U.S. brands as terrorist organizations.

The talks angered some Senate Republicans and some Israeli leaders. According to Axios, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer expressed his displeasure to Boehler in a tense phone call last week. (2)

The Peace President is finding it quite a challenge to cut one of his famous deals in the tangled diplomacy of the Middle East!

Juan Cole warns that Trump’s latest attacks on Yemen aren’t exactly a model of peaceful diplomacy:

The bombing comes in response to the decision of leader Abdelmalik al-Houthi to react to Israel’s blockade of food and aid on Gaza, where a million minors are in danger of malnutrition, by again targeting Red Sea shipping and Israel itself. Al-Houthi said Monday, “The Israeli enemy’s insistence on preventing aid from entering the Palestinian Strip is a major act of aggression and a terrible, horrific crime that cannot be tolerated.”

That is, in order to support the total war on Gaza of the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and in order to pursue his monstrous plan to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians of Gaza, Trump is drawn into making war on yet another Middle Eastern country. Such a war is dangerous. What if the Houthis managed to kill US seamen on the naval vessels in the Red Sea that are supporting the bombing campaign? Wouldn’t he have to send in troops? Does he realize how costly in blood and treasure a Yemen ground war would be? [my emphasis] (3)

Notes:

(1) Cook, Jonathan (2025): The forever wars may be over, but Trump is no peacemaker. Middle East Eye 03/14/2025, <https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/us-forever-wars-may-be-over-trump-no-peacemaker> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

(2) Layne, Nathan & Pamuk, Humeryra (20025): White House withdraws nomination for U.S. hostage envoy. Reuters 03/15/2025. <https://www.reuters.com/world/white-house-withdraws-nomination-hostage-envoy-2025-03-15/> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

(3) Cole, Juan (2025): rump’s Air War on Yemen Escalates as Civilian Population Suffers Food Insecurity, Cholera Epidemic. Informed Comment 03/18/2025. <https://www.juancole.com/2025/03/escalates-population-insecurity.html> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

US invasion of Canada

Trying to find some coherent pattern in Trump’s ideas is often a futile task. Especially on foreign policy.

But we can at least look for some context. Hank Kennedy gives us an overview of the history of American aspirations for annexing Canada:

In Tragedy of American Diplomacy [1959], [William Appleman] Williams wrote that by “expanding its own economic system throughout much of the world [the United States] has made it very difficult for other nations to retain their economic independence.” When Williams wrote that in 1959, there was little if any question that Canada’s future political independence from the United States was secure. That this is no longer the case paints a stark portrait of the direction of American expansionism under the new regime. (1)

The two actual American attempts to seize territory from Canada were in 1775, priori to the Declaration of Independence but the revolutionary movement was in progress, when the Continental Army tried to take Quebec. The other was during the War of 1812. Michael Filimowicz (2024):

The U.S. launched multiple invasions into Upper and Lower Canada (modern-day Ontario and Quebec), all of which failed. American generals were disorganized, supply lines were poorly maintained, and their troops were often reluctant to fight. Meanwhile, Canadian militia, Indigenous allies led by Tecumseh, and British regulars punched far above their weight. The Americans burned York (now Toronto), but the British burned down Washington, D.C., in retaliation. Not exactly a success story. (2)

That, by the way, was the only time before January 6, 2021, that hostile forces took violent possession of the US Capitol. (3)

A writer for Vice did an article in 2017 speculating about what would happen if the US invaded Canada. He ended the piece with, “God, I hope this article doesn’t give anyone ideas.” (4)

Richard Maass at War on the Rocks observes, “Since World War II, the prohibition of coercive territorial expansion has been a central feature of both international law and U.S. foreign policy.” (5) The departures that various Presidential administration have made from the “rules-based international order” since then are well known. But the US has not attempted “coercive territorial expansion” in the old classical imperialist mode during that time. At least until now.

After President Woodrow Wilson first worked to outlaw conquest via the League of Nations, Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman made territorial integrity a central principle of the United Nations system. Ever since, the United States has led efforts to deter and punish would-be conquerors from Saddam Hussein to Vladimir Putin. Indeed, the understanding that the United States does not seek to dominate other countries is central to arguments that those countries should prefer its brand of international order over alternatives ... .

Notes:

(1) Kennedy, Hank (2025): Imperialism, Eh? The Progressive 03/05/2025. <https://progressive.org/latest/imperialism-eh-kennedy-20250305/> (Accessed: 2025-16-03).

(2) Filimowicz, Michael (2024): Why America Failed to Conquer Canada, Despite Invading It Twice: A Historical Review with a Hypothetical Twist. Medium 12/02/2024. <https://medium.com/michael-for-president/why-america-failed-to-conquer-canada-despite-invading-it-twice-a-historical-review-with-a-e79873fc184d#> (Accessed: 2025-16-03).

(3) Burning of the Capitol During the War of 1812. Architect of the Capitol YouTube channel 04/27/2023. <https://youtu.be/-21tV-IYufw?si=UdP9Yk7ZXzIOCYPZ> (Accessed: 2025-16-03).

(4) Lamoureux, Mack (2017): What Would Happen in the Minutes and Hours After the US Invaded Canada? Vice 01/13/2017. <https://www.vice.com/en/article/what-would-happen-in-the-minutes-and-hours-after-the-us-invaded-canada/> (Accessed: 2025-16-03).

(5) Maass, Richard (2025): The 51st State That Never Was: Why the United States Didn’t Annex Canada. War on the Rocks 02/14/2025. (Accessed: 2025-16-03).

Official end of the Gaza ceasefire, i.e., Israel launches a massive new military campaign

Ynet News, the online outlet of the centrist Yedioth Ahronoth Israeli news service, reports on Israel’s new escalation in Gaza and Peace President Trump’s position on it: (1)

The Peace President expressed his support for Israeli military escalation:

"As President Trump has made it clear - Hamas, the Houthis, Iran, all those who seek to terrorize not just Israel, but also the United States of America, will see a price to pay. All hell will break loose," the White House spokesperson said.

Trump had previously publicly warned using similar words, saying that Hamas should release all hostages in Gaza or "let hell break out."

Canada’s CBC News reported: (2)

Reuters on Tuesday had a live feed of news updates on the new Gaza strikes, “Israel Gaza Live: More than 325 reported killed in Israeli strikes, Hamas says ceasefire overturned.” (3)

The Guardian reported early Tuesday morning:

The Israel Defence Force (IDF) said the new air offensive would continue for as long as necessary and could extend beyond airstrikes, raising the prospect that Israeli ground troops could resume fighting.

Civil defence teams in Gaza said they were overwhelmed. The Palestinian Red Crescent said its teams dealt with 86 killed and 134 wounded, but others were brought to hospitals by private cars.

Officials from Nasser hospital in Khan Younis, al-Aqsa hospital in central Gaza and al-Ahli hospital in Gaza City, which have all been extensively damaged in the war, said that altogether they had received about 85 dead. Witnesses reported bloody scenes with “body parts, corpses and the injured filling the floors of the hospitals”.

Hamas and Israel have accused each other of failing to respect the terms of the January ceasefire agreement. Earlier this month, Israel blocked deliveries of aid from entering Gaza and cut off remaining electricity supplies in a bid to pressure Hamas. (4)

There is a long history with Israel and phased ceasefire agreements, ones in which the first stage is agreed upon and implemented with the later phases to be negotiated separately. And the later phases are scrapped when Israel launches massive attacks, routinely claiming that the Palestinians are at fault. (5) The current situation fits that pattern.

As Emir Nader reports for BBC News:

In recent days, the United States and Israel have cast Hamas's preference for sticking close to the terms of the original ceasefire deal - instead of renegotiating its terms - as a "refusal" to extend the ceasefire.

US envoy Steve Witkoff accused Hamas of "publicly claiming flexibility while privately making demands that are entirely impractical without a permanent ceasefire."

While, in late February, Israeli officials had already briefed local press that its military wouldn't withdraw from key sites in Gaza in a breach of the ceasefire agreement.

While we cannot know the detail of the negotiation talks that have taken place behind closed doors - what we do know is that Israel halting aid entering Gaza 17 days ago was an attempt to force Hamas into offering new concessions.

That hasn't worked so far and now it appears Israel has returned to violence in order to try to extract a new deal, one that is more favourable for its political leaders, and one that offers fewer wins to Hamas. (6)

Al Jazeera provided this early report: (7)

Amos Harel reports that Netanyahu’s decision to launch a new massive attack on Gaza which the American Peace President has fully supported was heavily affected by the ongoing political crisis, the result of the Israeli Prime Minister’s attempt to establish an Orbanist-type authoritarian rule in Israel itself and of his effort to avoid being tried on corruption charges:

It was Israel's government that failed to uphold the agreement when it didn't complete the promised withdrawal of IDF forces from the Gaza Strip in recent weeks, particularly from the Philadelphi route along the Gaza-Egypt border.

Hamas refused to turn a blind eye and move forward with the release of hostages under the new mediation proposals put forward by the Americans, which caused the negotiations to stall. In response, Israel resumed fighting early Tuesday morning.

What follows may include more massive airstrikes, but also the implementation of a new and wide-ranging ground maneuver in Gaza, led by the new IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, in hopes of finally defeating Hamas.

Zamir has said that carrying out the plan would require several IDF divisions. This would again require a large-scale reserve call-up – for the first time under conditions where there is no real public consensus on the justification for returning to war. [my emphasis] (8)

Alon Pinkas is also warning of a new stage in Netanyahu’s movement to Orbanizue Israeli governance, focusing on Netanyahu’s firing of Ronen Bar as head of the Shin Bet, one of Israel’s three intelligence services (along with Mossad and military intelligence). Pinkas calls it “a fundamental constitutional crisis that is not your standard Israeli political emergency.” (9)

In a functioning democracy with multiple layers of effective checks, balances and guardrails, the dismissal of the head of an internal security agency is not a defining moment. In a functioning democracy, the head of the Shin Bet is both replaceable and even expendable.

But Israel under Netanyahu is not a functioning democracy but rather, a liberal democracy being coerced into transforming to a quasi-authoritarian illiberal democracy. ...

This is Israeli democracy's "to be or not to be" moment. ...

This is Israel's "Weimar moment," and its fragile, brittle, precarious democracy is being lethally challenged by a desperate, unhinged man who has waged war on his own country for the past two years. If you think this is hyperbole, look at the Weimar Republic and think of Israel being in a "Weimar moment" ever since Netanyahu instigated his constitutional coup in January 2023. [my emphasis]

The war that began on October 7, 2023 is the longest that Israel has fought in its history. And it’s happening at the same time that Netanyahu and his supporters are working to undermine its democratic form of government.

Notes:

(1) 'Take Trump seriously': WH warns 'terrorists in the Middle East' after cease-fire collapse. Ynet News 03/08/2025. <https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rjggyli3yl> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

(2) Israel sends barrage of airstrikes into Gaza. CBC News YouTube channel 03/18/2025. <https://youtu.be/ZMn2H0MU1zo?si=_wP3kwq_EySl3REJ> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

(3) Reuters 02/18/2025. <https://www.reuters.com/world/israel-hamas-live-updates-israeli-air-strikes-across-gaza-more-than-200-reported-2025-03-18/> (Accessed: 2025-18-03 5:42 EDT).

(4) Burke, Jason & Tantes, Malak (2025): Israeli strikes kill hundreds in Gaza. The Guardian 03/18/2025. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/18/israel-gaza-strikes-deaths-latest-update> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

(5) Center for Preventive Action (2025): Israeli-Palestinian Conflict 01/22/2025. Council on Foreign Relations. <https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/israeli-palestinian-conflict> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

(6) Nader, Emire (2025): Why the Gaza ceasefire has not held. BBC News 03/18/2025. <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq6yp5d5v9jo> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

(7) Israel launches strikes across Gaza Strip, killing dozens and ending ceasefire. Al Jazeera English YouTube channel 03/1/8/2025. <https://youtu.be/JiDOxu723uI?si=vp9MsmnEeQiwDEJN> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

(8) Harel, Amos (2025): Israel's Renewed Gaza Offensive Exposes Netanyahu's Real Goal: Political Survival Through Endless War. Haaretz 03/18//2025. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-03-18/ty-article/.premium/israels-renewed-gaza-offensive-exposes-netanyahus-goal-political-survival-through-war/00000195-a83b-d922-af9d-be3f58640000> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).

(9) Pinkas, Alon (2025): Netanyahu's Firing of Shin Bet Head Is Israel's 'Weimar Moment'. Haaretz 03/17/2025. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-03-17/ty-article/.highlight/netanyahus-firing-of-shin-bet-head-is-israels-weimar-moment/00000195-a460-d2f3-abfd-f4fb227d0000> (Accessed: 2025-18-03).