The historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. used to say, “All wars are popular for the first 30 days.” The economist and political critic John Kenneth Galbraith came up with a Veblen-esque description of this familiar phenomenon:
Almost any military venture receives strong popular approval in the short run; the citizenry rallies to the flag and to the forces engaged in combat. The strategy and technology of the new war evoke admiration and applause. This reaction is related not to economics or politics but more deeply to anthropology. As in ancient times, when the drums sound in the distant forest, there is an assured tribal response. It is the rallying beat of the drums, not the virtue of the cause, that is the vital mobilizing force.
But this does not last. It did not as regards the minor adventures in Grenada [1983-Reagan Administration] and Panama [1989-Bush I Administration], nor as regards the war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein [the Gulf War of 1990-91, also during Bush I]. The effect of more widespread wars has been almost uniformly adverse. World War I, although it evoked the most powerful of patriotic responses at the time, has passed into history largely as a mindless and pointless slaughter. (1)
And he observed: “the Korean and Vietnam wars, both greatly celebrated in their early months, ended with eventual rejection [by the American public] of the wars themselves and of the administrations responsible.”
If you want a current example of beginning-of-war zealotry, you can check out chronic warmonger Niall Ferguson’s celebratory essay of June 14, “Israel’s Attack Restores the Credibility of the West.” And, no, he doesn’t mean the West’s credibility as a promoter of international law and sensible restraint when it comes to war. (If you want to hear more from him, there is a YouTube interview available from The Free Press, “Who Will Win the Israel-Iran War?” with assistance from a gushing Dexter Filkins. I won’t link it here because, well, it’s nauseating.)
If Trump intervenes directly in the war against Iran, we will probably see some kind of upward blip in support for that action. Though it would likely be more short-lived than usual.
Gideon Levy in a column Sunday remarked on the rally-around-the-flag in Israel:
Israelis like wars, especially when they begin. There has not been a war yet which Israel – the entire country – has not rooted for at its onset; there has yet to be a war – other than the 1973 Yom Kippur War – that did not lead the entire country to express wonder at Israel's amazing military and intelligence capabilities, at its onset. And there has yet to be a war that did not end in tears.
Menachem Begin embarked on the first Lebanon war in a state of euphoria. He left it in a state of clinical depression. Begin as a parable. There is a good chance that this will also happen at the end of the war against Iran. We already have a euphoric beginning – war photo albums are already going to press – but this could well end in depression. (2)
And he speculates on how quickly and drastically the mood in Israel could turn:
The first days of a war are always our nicest ones, the most intoxicating and pleasing ones. Look how we destroyed three air forces in 1967, or how we killed 270 traffic policemen on the first day of the 2009 Cast Lead operation in Gaza. It's always the same hubris, touting the achievements of the army and Mossad.
On Friday, there were already people who, after only 100 sorties, were envisioning replacing Iran's regime. This swollen pride is always accompanied by a sense of righteousness. There was no choice in 1967 or in 1982 – no wars were more just than those two. On Friday, again, there was no other choice. The beginning is like something out of a movie; the end may be something out of a Greek tragedy. [my emphasis in bold]
Breaking Points gives us a good description of the professionalism (NOT!) of the Trump 2.0 regime is expressing itself in the current crisis: (3)
We may be about to see how the Orange Anomaly, aka, our Peace President, handles a serious war. We have some previous experience in how that could go. The last song in this medley that starts at 4:00 in the video is likely to be particularly relevant. (4)
Notes:
(1) Galbraith, John Kenneth (1992): The Culture of Contentment, 166-7. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Trump posted on his “Truth Social“ account: “Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!” [my emphasis in bold] (1)
According to Wikipedia, there are 16.8 million people in the Tehran metropolitan area.
The US getting involved directly in a regime-change war in Iran would be one of the worst disasters in the history of American foreign policy. And that’s saying a lot.
I remember back in 2006 (or maybe 2007) hearing a presentation by then-former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in San Francisco about the situation at the time in the Middle East. Someone asked him what a direct war with Iran would look like. Usually not short on words, he just shook his head in dismay at the thought.
Amos Harel, an experience interpreter of the tea leaves being displayed by Netanyahu’s rogue government, has an informative article about Netanyahu’s outlook on the war with Iran that he has initiated. I’m including a link to the full column below. (2)
Briefly, these are some key points he makes:+
Despite the rally-around-the-flag impulse at the beginning of any war, the grim reality of Netanyahu’s war on Iran is already setting in.
From Israel’s viewpoint, this is a regime-change
war: “it's … clear that Israel is trying to promote the downfall of the [Iranian]
regime.” (That goal is not at all feasible without direct American intervention,
an action which would inflict huge costs on US forces, even more so than in
Iraq.)
Iran’s government will
also benefit from a rally-around-the-flag effect.
“Israel began the war
brilliantly, but the military operation is far from over.” There is no exist
strategy, in other words.
The war could well become
“a long war of attrition for which Israel isn't prepared.”
“[We] shouldn't ignore
the basic fact that almost all recent governments failed to do anything to
eliminate one critical gap. A sizable percentage of Israelis – tens of percent
– have no accessible protection from
rockets in the form of a
nearby shelter or safe room. And many of them live in major cities.“
“[N]obody prepared the
[Israeli] public for the differences between missile fire from the Gaza Strip
or Yemen and what residents of greater Tel Aviv and Haifa have experienced over
the past few nights.
“[P]erhaps the most dangerous – touches on a war of attrition. Israel could
find itself in the same situation as Ukraine, which has been at war with Russia
for more than three years. But at least Ukraine enjoys strong international
support.”
David Hearst of the British Middle East Eye provides an overview of the situation in this interview from June 16. He accurately describes Netanyahu as “a messianic leader … whose life’s ambition has been exactly the war that we’re now seeing.” (3)
There is, of course, no shortage of flaming warmonger takes on the situation. That of Ian Bremmer in a June 16 interview with Preet Bharara is one example. (4)
Israel has initiated a war of aggression against Iran.
From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: (1)
This wasn’t a “one-off” attack. It was a major attack against Iran’s nuclear program and included the targeted assassinations of several senior Iranian officials and senior nuclear scientists. At least some of them carried out by strikes on their residences.
It was clear that the United States approved the attack. Trump even stated publicly that the US would take part in defending Israel against counterattacks. Israel is already being struck by Iranian counterattacks, including in Tel Aviv, where many key Israeli military facilities are located.
Lubna Masarwa reports that the attacks are making people there aware that Iranian strikes are much more serious than anything Hamas has ever been able to inflict:
Orly Noy, a Jerusalem-based journalist, told [Middle East Eye] that Iran's attacks had shattered the myth that Israeli leaders had often repeated to the Israeli public: that they were immune to any and all reprisal attacks.
"The Israeli public has been convinced over the years that it can exist here in the region while deeply disdaining all its neighbours and rampaging in a thuggish and murderous manner against everyone - whenever and however it wants - relying solely on brute force.
"That's why there was something so substantial about the sight of the bombed-out buildings in Ramat Gan [a city in the Tel Aviv district]," he said.
"They are so similar to the images we're used to seeing from Gaza. Those sooty grey skeletons of buildings, that billowing cloud of dust, that carpet of ash and rubble covering the street, those images of children's dolls in the hands of rescue teams.
"The scale is, of course, completely different, but these images are nevertheless a momentary rupture of this disturbed fantasy that we are immune to everything," he added. (2)
Democracy Now! Has brief takes from Trita Parsi and the critical-minded Israeli journalist Gideon Levy: (3)
Amos Harel gives this status report:
As could have been anticipated, the Iranians have recovered from the initial shock of the attack. Hamas and Hezbollah recently found replacements, albeit sometimes less skilled, for senior officials assassinated by Israel. Iran is much more organized, and after some command positions were reassigned, the order for retaliatory strikes was given Friday evening. By Saturday morning, over 200 ballistic missiles had been launched in four barrages, along with more than 40 drones. The interception rates remained high, but the 10 or so missiles that landed in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area were enough to cause unprecedented damage.
Three civilians were killed and about 75 were wounded by the missiles, while millions spent long hours in shelters and safe rooms. The scale of the destruction was striking, resembling a more lethal and precise version of the Iraqi Scuds fired at Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan in 1991, during the Gulf War.
The damage caused is immense and extensive, and the images are likely to persuade most residents to be more attentive to the Home Front Command's instructions, which, in the case of the Houthi missiles (usually a single missile per barrage that was intercepted) had come to be seen more as recommendations. (4)
Harel, who seemingly has very well-informed perspectives on the Israeli’s government war politics, also writes about the US role:
The coordination between Israel and the United States on the eve of the attack was tighter than it seemed. President Donald Trump did express concern about an Israeli attack on Iran a few hours before the bombing began, but in hindsight, it appears to have been an attempt to maintain distance in case the attack failed.
Trump likes "winners." Once it was clear that the opening strike was successful, he quickly jumped on the bandwagon. The president said Friday that he hopes the Israeli attack will convince the Iranians to return to negotiations on a new nuclear deal, while displaying more flexibility toward his demands. This is still very much in doubt, and in any event, that's not what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants.
Trump gave Netanyahu the green light he asked for for the first operation. (In the preliminary meetings, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir presented the support of the Americans as a precondition for launching the operation.)
Now the prime minister needs the Americans for two additional important things: first, to join in so as to cause more severe damage to Iran's nuclear program and second – an even more ambitious scenario – to help topple the regime. The IDF says it was not assigned this mission, but already Saturday afternoon the prime minister declared, "We will strike every site and every target of the Ayatollah's regime."
The question about the extent of the American involvement seems to be not whether it will be pulled further into the war, but whether the Trump 2.0 regime is willing to say no to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government on any major demand. Peace President Trump has shown himself to be remarkably inept in diplomacy generally, including with Israel. And if he has any clear strategic concept on the Middle East or anywhere else, he’s managing to keep the evidence well hidden.
Richard Haass is (for better or worse!) probably literally the best-credentialed member of the US foreign policy establishment of any person alive. Katie Couric interviews him on the Middle East situation. It gives a good idea of the kinds of things that could go wrong in the current situation. Really wrong, I should say. (5)
That the Israeli-Iran War is a disaster is a given. The question is how big a disaster it will be and particularly how much the incompetent Trump 2.0 Administration gets drawn into it.
Bernie Sanders warns, "The U.S. must make it clear that we will not be dragged into another Netanyahu war.” (6)
Iran also has a drastic new incentive to develop nuclear weapons.
How this works out well for anybody – except for war profiteers, of course! – I can’t even picture.
Since China is officially the main competing superpower to the US, it’s worth paying attention to the official Chinese positions on foreign policy crises. China Daily is an English-language publication of the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party so it’s ready source for the official public stances, although that doesn’t mean it is giving detailed analysis of the country’s diplomatic positions. This short article, “Iran FM: If Israeli attacks stop, 'our responses will also stop',” basically quotes Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi but does not describe China’s official position. (7)
The Carnegie Endowment in 2024 published an analysis on “Cooperation Between China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.” (8) The authors suggest that a balancing strategy by the US based on more cooperation with China over matters related to Iran would be a option, although at the moment that would seem to go against the official US policy of treating China as its main international competitor:
The best way for the United States to halt or reverse the trend toward greater cooperation between the four states is thus to seek to attenuate China’s relationship with the other three. Iran, North Korea, and Russia would be very weak and isolated from the world without China’s support. Beijing’s actual and potential role as a leader, organizer, and proponent of cooperation between these powers also looms large because alliances and groups often rely on strong leadership for their sustainment.
As tensions between the four states and the West have increased, China has been more willing to play that leadership role, but it is not clear how much it would sacrifice in its positive economic relations with the United States and its allies in Europe and Asia in order to organize deeper cooperation among these economically weak partners. China is deeply integrated into the world economically and politically in ways that the other three countries are not. China benefits from the existing world order far more than the other three and prefers different end states from them when it comes to international rules of the road, for example. China wants reforms of the world order, but what Russia, Iran and North Korea seek more resembles an outright revolution. Russia moreover now sees its relationship with Europe as almost entirely adversarial whereas China seeks to sustain a positive economic and political relationship with the wealthy European nations. [my emphasis]
They add, “If America … does not find a mode of coexistence with China that reduces the tension in their relationship and Chinese perception of threat, Beijing is likely to conclude that its best option is to double down on its relationship with these other U.S. adversaries.”
The Bulletin also provides this analysis from Dan Drollette, Jr.:
For months (if not longer), there had been speculation that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, would not be able to resist this tempting target, even if the two countries have historically avoided directly targeting each other’s territories. After all, the strengths of Iran’s proxies were close to an all-time low, its anti-aircraft capabilities were degraded, and it seemed that Iran was on a path to revving-up its nuclear capabilities—making it appear that now was the time to risk an attack. In their 2024 Bulletin article, “Why Iran may accelerate its nuclear program, and Israel may be tempted to attack it” authors Darya Dolzikova and Matthew Savill described this situation in detail, and wrote that there was another motivation for Netanyahu as well: timelines. They said: “[Israel] could attempt a strike in a short period—maybe days or weeks—whereas it would probably take Iran several months to a year from the point of decision to have a viable weapon…”
And they make this grim point: “What this [Israeli] attack means for the future of de-escalation in the Middle East—and indeed any deal over Iran’s uranium enrichment program—does not look promising.” [my emphasis] (9)
Kyle Kulinski is a good commentator and perceptive political analyst. He uses a bit more colorful language that I’m usually inclined to. But his quick take on the early information about the alleged assassin of the Democratic Speaker of the Minnesota House is worth hearing. (The usual cautions about the early information on an event like this apply here, too.) (1)
The Independent reports:
At the time of the shootings, he was reportedly driving a black SUV with emergency lights, fully outfitted to be identical to a real police vehicle. He also wore a fake badge and full police-style uniform.
The impersonation has deeply disturbed law enforcement officials. ...
“This individual exploited the trust that comes with our uniform,” said Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson. “It’s a betrayal that strikes at the heart of public safety.”
The first shooting occurred around 2 a.m. at Sen. Hoffman’s home. He and his wife were both shot multiple times.
A short time later, around 3:30 a.m., officers responded to the Hortman residence, where a man dressed as a police officer was found at the door. When police approached, he shot Mark Hortman, fired at officers, and then ran into the home. (2)
The suspect as of this writing is someone who was a manager at a private security agency, aka, a rent-a-cop, of which the US has a large number. So he was presumably more able than the average MAGA chud of putting on a reasonable impersonation of a real cop.
Given Trump 2.0’s militarized response to protests, I can’t help but recall how bizarre the far-right gun culture is.
I could have sworn that for decades, the NRA and assorted other ammosexual types have been insisting that the Second Amendment gives people the right to own any kind of weapon they choose so that when the jackbooted thugs from the federal government show up – or when white people somehow feel vaguely threatened by seeing somebody they think looks like they might be black or Latino or Asian – they have the right to gun them down, no questions asked.
Castle doctrine! Stand your ground! All freedom depends on unlimited proliferation of small arms with no regulations!
So, imagine my surprise when I looked at the website of the National Rifle Association and there was not a word about the President federalizing the California National Guard or even preparing to send Marines to shoot American citizens protesting against, well, illegal raids by ICE goons wearing masks, not wearing badges or police uniforms, often refusing to even identify themselves as law enforcement, and generally acting like, well, jackbooted thugs.
Imagine that! It couldn’t be that NRA was just trying to maximize weapons sales by gun manufacturers, could it? Surely they couldn’t be that cynical and hypocritical, could they?
The reality of the far-right paramilitary culture is very different in actual practice from their rhetoric about defending your home against break-ins.
Notes:
(1) Major Breaking: Pro-Trump T*rrorist k*lls Minnesota Dems: Israel Attack Iranian Oil. (Presumably he uses the *’s to avoid being screened out on some searches.) Secular Talk YouTube channel 06/14/2025. <https://youtu.be/qe8Y8cbIOBM?si=nOSnx6860u3Kd-N-> (Accessed: 2025-14-06),
Juan Cole explains what Israel is doing with the full support of Peace President Trump:
Israel is now waging war on people in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran, in what appears to be an attempt to establish itself as a regional hegemon and to quash any regional opposition to its plans to ethnically cleanse the over 5 million Palestinians it militarily occupies. ...
Ironically, Trump himself paved the way to this war by trashing the 2015 nuclear deal concluded by the UN Security Council with Iran, which effectively blocked Iran from ever militarizing its program. Iran faithfully adhered to its prescriptions until 2019, a year after Trump tore up the treaty and placed “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. Had the 2015 deal remained in place, it is difficult to imagine the Security Council putting up with Netanyahu’s military adventurism, which might have attracted serious sanctions. [my emphasis] (3)
I hope it doesn’t happen. But, it’s looking depressingly like Peace
President Trump, having completely bungled diplomacy on the Russia-Ukraine War (1),
and on Israel’s war on Palestinian civilians in Gaza (2), and on nuclear
nonproliferation with Iran, has greenlighted a massive Israeli attack on Iran.
Which could easily escalate to a war with the US directly attacking Iran.
Even though he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth, not a new practice for him. Haaretz reports:
Israel is "fully ready" to carry out a military strike against Iran, U.S. officials have confirmed, as Tehran prepares for a large-scale retaliatory attack that could involve hundreds of ballistic missiles targeting Israeli territory. Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump warned that an Israeli strike "could very well happen" and that it might derail efforts to reach a new nuclear agreement with Iran.
Trump said he would "love to avoid a conflict" with Iran, but added that Tehran must offer greater concessions in ongoing negotiations over its nuclear program. "It's very simple, not complicated. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon," he said during a bill signing ceremony at the White House. "Iran has to give us some things they're not willing to give us right now."
Asked whether he was trying to prevent Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from launching a military operation, Trump said the U.S. has had "very good discussions" with Iran and made clear he opposed an Israeli strike for now. "It would blow it. It might help it, actually. But it could also blow it," he said of the potential impact on diplomacy. (3)
Trump 2.0 adopted the Israeli position that Iran should not be allowed to have any kind of uranium enrichment at all, even the kind that was allowed under the previous JCPOA agreement that the Obama Administration negotiated, which Trump 1.0 discontinued and the Biden Administration never got around to re-entering.
U.S. President Donald Trump had previously warned that Israel or America could launch airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiators failed to reach a deal on Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program. A sixth round of Iran-U.S. talks is scheduled to begin Sunday in Oman, and as tensions simmer some American government staffers deemed nonessential have begun leaving the Gulf region. (4)
The US has announced withdraws of US personnel from the Middle East, also an indication that war could be imminent. As Kelley Beaucar Vlaho explains:
Trump repeated that Iran would be stopped from developing a nuclear weapon either way. “But it would be nicer to do it without warfare, without people dying."
Now we know Israel would prefer that the U.S and/or Israel destroy Iran's nuclear program militarily. Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government have expressed growing frustration with Trump's diplomatic path (the negotiations are headed into their sixth round of talks). Iran lashed out earlier this week when it insisted it knows where Israel's secret nuclear weapons arsenal is and threatened to strike it if they were attacked, too.
Interestingly, CNN reported Wednesday that in a phone call with Netanyahu on Monday, Trump warned against a military intervention. This might indicate Israel is more committed to action than has even been reported. (5)
We’ll soon see. But a war with Iran – for Israel or the US – would be a seriously bad thing:
White House envoy Steve Witkoff privately warned top Senate Republicans last week that Iran could unleash a mass casualty response if Israel bombs their nuclear facilities, according to a U.S. official and a source with direct knowledge.
Why it matters: With Israel preparing to strike Iran quickly if Witkoff's diplomacy fails this weekend, President Trump's envoy sounded the alarm about what would come next. Iran's retaliation could overwhelm Israel's defenses and cause heavy damage, he said. Axios report:
• Iran has also vowed to strike U.S. targets in the region in the event of an attack on its nuclear sites. The U.S. is in the process of withdrawing diplomats and military families who could be in harm's way.
• Trump told reporters Thursday that he doesn't want to say an Israeli strike "is imminent" but that "it might very well happen." Trump stressed he wants to avoid conflict but said that will require concessions that Iran has been unwilling to make. (6)
This is a break-up song that the late, great Nanci Griffith used to double as a political protest song, like in this video. (1) If she were still with us, I’m sure she would be applying it to protests against Trump’s second attempt at a violent coup, now playing out in California:
I woke up this morning hearing this speech that Gavin Newsom gave Tuesday evening California time. (2)
Before the last week, I didn’t have a whole lot good to say about Gavin Newsom. He’s been a real Mugwump in his politics. But the last few days, he’s been taking the kind of stand that pro-democracy politicians need to take against anti-democracy movements who use xenophobia to try to do away with democratic government and the rule of law.
One of the more bizarre moments of the Trump regime’s response to pro-democracy/pro-rule-lf-law protesters was the ridiculous clown Kristi Noem, the Director of Homeland Security (!?!) – also known as ICE Barbie (which is kind of an insult to Barbie) – is making false accusations against Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum.
Claudia Sheinbaum responded on social media after Kristi Noem, Donald Trump’s homeland security secretary, accused her of “encouraging violent protests”.
Sheinbaum reposted a video of her daily news conference the previous day, in which she had condemned violent demonstrations and urged Mexicans living in the United States “to act peacefully”.
“We have always been against” violent protests, she wrote on Twitter/X.
“On the other hand, our position is and will continue to be the defense of honest, hardworking Mexicans who support the United States economy and their families in Mexico,” she added. (4)
Kristi Noem vs. Claudia Sheinbaum is about as uneven a comparison as we could imagine.
Sheinbaum is a serious, experienced politician, and a very popular one in her country at the moment.
Kristi Noem enjoys shooting puppies. She also seems to be auditioning for the starring role in Ilsa, She-Wolf of the DHS.
Since assuming office, Noem has played a starring role in the second Trump administration, executing the White House’s immigration agenda with fierce loyalty and an eye for the television cameras.
The former South Dakota governor has toured the southern border on horseback, dressed in tactical gear to accompany agents on a raid in New York and posed in a notorious Salvadorian prison with a $50,000 Rolex on her wrist. (5)
Mexico’s very popular social-democratic President Claudia Sheinbaum is expressing solidarity with its citizens in the United States facing repressive actions by the Trump Administration:
"The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (SRE) of the Government of Mexico expresses its deep concern about the recent operations carried out by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE) in various cities of the United States, particularly in Los Angeles," the statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs begins. It makes a "respectful but firm" call to the American authorities to ensure that these processes comply with the rule of law and human rights, while the consular assistance and protection mechanisms available have been activated: "Our consulates have intensified their efforts to inform the Mexican community about their rights and the actions they can take in the event of an immigration operation," it says.
The Government of Claudia Sheinbaum is expressing its "disagreement with practices that criminalize migration" and put the safety and well-being of [Mexican] nationals in U.S. territory at risk, and communicates that they will continue to use the diplomatic and legal channels available to get this message across.
"Migration must be addressed from a comprehensive, human perspective and with regional co-responsibility. Mexico reiterates its willingness to continue collaborating with the Government of the United States in the search for solutions that privilege respect for human rights, the law, and shared development," it says. [my emphasis] (1)
Scheinbaum herself said:
We do not agree with this manner of dealing with the migratory phenomenon. It is not with raids or violence that the migratory phenomenon is going to be addressed. [That will be accomplished by] sitting down, working on a comprehensive, immigration reform that takes into account all Mexicans who are on the other side of the border, that's our position. [emphasis in original] (2)
And also:
First of all, we want to say that we have, it must be said, the Mexicans who live in the United States are good men and women, they are honest men, who went to the United States to seek a better life for themselves and to contribute to their families, they are not criminals, they are good men and women, Honest. They have all the solidarity of their government. ...
Our migrant brothers and sisters go there seeking better opportunities, most of them have already been working there for many years. For example, there are many of our fellow men and women neighbors and those who live in New York, they call it "PueblaYork", because New York would not be what it is if it were not for the poblanos who are there. Los Angeles, California would not be what it is if it were not for the Mexicans who are there. They migrate out of necessity, and from there they send resources to their families [in Mexico]. [emphasis in original]
La Opinión, the most widely read Spanish-language publication in the US, and the second most-read newspaper in Los Angeles – which generally is not taken to be a particularly lefty paper – carries this report by Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera:
The political situation in the United States is in a critical one; the former empire is continuing its sharp decline. This is clearly reflected in the immigration issue and, as an example, the recent events in the city of Los Angeles, which led Donald Trump to decide to deploy 2,000 members of the National Guard in response to protests against the raids operated by ICE [Immigration and Border Enforcement] and CBP [Customs and Border Control] to advance the mass deportations that the current U.S. President has been promising so much. (3)
Both ICE and CBP are part of the federal Department of Homeland Security, the creation of which was a misguided initiative of the Democratic Party during the Republican Presidency of George W. Bush, aka, the Cheney-Bush Administration.
This is clearly reflected in the immigration issue and, for instance, the recent events in the city of Los Angeles, which led Donald Trump to decide to deploy 2,000 members of the National Guard in response to protests against the raids operated by ICE and CBP to advance the mass deportations that the current U.S. President has been promising so much.
Correa-Cabrera gives this plausible characterization, as well:
In effect, this seems to be an unfortunate "spectacle" that puts an increasingly unstable, violent and divided country on display. Trump seems to be opening not one front, opening all kinds of them and confronting multiple actors on a wide variety of issues, leaving his country's society more polarized and more vulnerable than ever.
Miles Taylor was the chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump 1.0 Administration. In this MSNBC report, he talks about how the grownups back then restrained Trump’s police-state mentality. And how Trump spoke about invoking the Insurrection Act as “using my magical powers.” (1)
The Trumpistas no doubt saw Newsom’s recent pandering to rightwingers as weakness. And they were right to think so. But, for the moment, Newsom is acting like a real Democrat who fights for the Constitution and for his own side.
Not convicting Trump on the impeachment charges after his criminal insurrection at the US Capitol was one of the worst decisions Congress ever made. That would have prevented him from running for President again and would have allowed the Trump insurrectionists to be prosecuted without Trump being able to pardon them.
I have to give California Gavin Newsom credit for his stand at the moment. He may go back to pandering to sleazy rightwing podcasters and bitching about The Trans and homeless people, like he has been doing for months. But here, he’s sounding more than a bit like Jerry Brown telling Trump to stick it: (2)
I didn’t know Newsom had it in him. I just hope he keeps it up for a while!
This was the Trump plan all along. Conduct provocative and illegal raids again and again. Create melodramatic scenes of cruelty against men, women, and children, deliberately violate the law – and eventually you get violent clashes with the ICE officials, aka, masked goons who often don’t wear uniforms or badges or identify themselves as law enforcement – acting deliberately in a lawless fashion. All they are missing are the brown uniforms.
You get scenes of resistance that either are violent or can be falsely portrayed as violence against the lawless ICE goons. And then Trump 2.0 can use that to escalate violent state repression. Trump has now taken the step of federalizing the California National Guard in order to protect lawless ICE goons deliberately violating the law on Trump’s direction.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law School, said in a text to The Times that Trump has the authority under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws.”
But he called the move very troubling. Such deployment typically happen during “extreme circumstances. ... Here it seems it was an early response. And I fear that is to send a message to protesters of the willingness of the federal government to use federal troops to quell protests.”
In the most serious recent incident of protest violence, a crowd gathered Saturday near a Home Depot at 6400 Alondra Blvd. in Paramount for a demonstration that escalated over the course of the day into a fiery and tumultuous clash with federal agents.
The protest began without violence as demonstrators chanted “ICE go home” and “No justice, no peace.” Some protesters yelled at deputies, and a series of flash-bang grenades was deployed.
“What are you doing!” one man screamed out. [my emphasis] (1)
Kyle Kulinski gives a passionate summary of the situation. Hew notes, “This was the plan from the beginning.” (2)
California’s Democratic Senator Adam Schiff posted:
I don’t plan to engage in any sterile abstract discussions about the right of resistance in these situations. Kyle is right. “This was the plan from the beginning.” Schiff’s post makes the same point.
Experienced organizers and people engaging in protests have to be careful about provocateurs. And organizers know how to do this. Any time there’s a large protest in a city, somebody is liable to break a window, which critics will happily mis-label as “violence.” Trump himself during his first terms as President notoriously tweeted, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts." The phrase “dates back to the civil rights era and is known to have been invoked by a white police chief cracking down on protests and a segregationist politician.” (4)
What might be a legitimate reason to use force against protesters? Well, take the hypothetical case of an armed mob breaking into the US Capitol, chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” and wounding and killing police officers in the protests. Most people not in the MAGA cult would think that was a legitimate reason to employ force against protesters.
Some rando breaking a store window during a protest march is not.
The distinction is always important. For any remotely decent person, anyway. I posted on May 2 about one of the best-publicized ICE raids that occurred in Oklahoma when ICE thugs showed up at night with a warrant for people who not longer lived in a house and terrorized a woman and her daughters to stand outside the house in the rain in their underwear. (I haven’t seen any report on whether ICE returned the money and property the woman claimed they stole.)
I usually don’t quote myself a lot. But this is what I wrote at the time about that incident. And ICE’s continuing conduct bears out the concerns expressed there:
The aspiring rightwing terrorists who refer to themselves as “patriot militia” types have been saying since forever that we need an unlimited flood of pistols, rifles, shotguns, and combat rifles among American citizens because that’s the only sure protection against jack-booted thugs from the federal gubment bustin’ into your house, holding you illegally, stealing your stuff, and doing things like making you and your children stand outside at night in the rain in your underwear. We’ll see how many Second Amendment enthusiasts are willing to criticize this action in public. [06/08/2025: I haven’t yet heard of any of them doing that, but maybe I just missed it …]
According to the “castle doctrine” and “stand-your-ground“ concepts that the "Second Amendment people" have been promoting and even getting enacted into state laws, if an individual or an armed gang of thugs come busting into your house at night, it actually would be legal to shoot them.
It’s highly advisable for people who keep loaded guns available in their houses for self-defense to stay well-trained on how to use them. And I believe the usual law-enforcement advice is still that if you hear someone breaking into the house, getting out of the house if possible is the preferable approach. And also to call emergency services right away, and also for single-home units to have an alarm system that is connected to the local police department.
The truth of it is that what Melissa [the woman who was terrorized by ICE] referred to, that busting into a house could get the home invaders shot. And presumably the pervy migra [ICE] goons would immediately respond with deadly force without a second thought, since a lot of them are working at ICE anyway because they could pass police academy training to meet the standard to be local cops.
And if a house alarm connected to the local police went off and the cops showed up and saw people carrying guns outside the house and some of them were masked, the cops themselves could be the ones who initiate the shooting. I don’t know if la migra makes a practice of notifying the local cops of raids like this beforehand. And even Kristi Noam’s thuggish operation probably wouldn’t care if they killed a few actual police officers because they would then blame it DEI programs, or treasonous mayors, or something, and use that as a reason to be even more unprofessional.
My guess is that at least some bad operators in the Trump 2.0 regime are hoping for shootouts to happen so they can use it to promote the narrative that they are fighting terrorists and gang members and violent criminals.
I’m Old Enough To Remember way back earlier this year when the US Opus Dei Vice President J.D. Vance scolded the Rumanian constitutional court for throwing out the results of an election due to evidence the far-right candidate’s campaign had been generously assisted by illegal Russian assistance.
He also said it was a menace to free speech and democracy that other democratic parties in Germany rejected the idea of forming a government that would include the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party.
But by the end of May, the US Republicans were complaining that the EU’s governing body the European Commission wasn’t doing more to push Poland to elect the rightwing candidate in Sunday’s Presidential race.
I think there may be a pattern here …
U.S. Republican lawmakers are reproaching the European Commission for taking a hands-off approach to Poland’s presidential election despite what the Americans say is a bias in favor of establishment centrist candidate Rafał Trzaskowski.
Brian Mast, chair of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, wrote a letter, signed by other House members, to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to express “profound alarm over reported developments in Poland that may undermine the integrity of its democratic processes.” (1)
As it turned out, the Trumpista candidate of the Law and Justice Party (PiS) did win a bare majority in the Polish Presidential race last Sunday:
Conservative Karol Nawrocki’s victory in Poland’s weekend presidential runoff has set the country on a more nationalist course — and cast doubt on the viability of the centrist government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk after the defeat of his liberal ally.
Nawrocki, who was supported by U.S. President Donald Trump, won 50.89% of votes in a very tight race against Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, who received 49.11%, according to the final results of Sunday’s runoff published Monday morning. (2)
The President in Poland is the head of state and has veto power over budgets passed by Parliament, so he does have the ability to influence policy and legislation. However, the head of government is the Prime Minister, an office current held by Donald Tusk.
Deutsche Welle reported on the Presidential vote: (3)
Tusk is the head of a centrist coalition headed by his Civic Coalition party. He has called for a formal vote of confidence that is scheduled for June 11 to reaffirm his own position as Prime Minister. Since taking office in December 2023, he has moved to meet some of the objections the EU has had for authoritarian measures taken by the previous PiS government. A central issue is that the PiS had taken substantial steps to nullify the independence of the judiciary, a common goal of authoritarian governments. Tusk’s government has made substantial progress in that direction.
Dan Perry reports:
Anyone wondering what motivates the ferocity of the Trump administration’s attack on higher education and scientific research in America might look at the numbers behind this past weekend’s victory of the Trump-aligned presidential candidate in Poland.
Karol Nawrocki, a nationalist who narrowly defeated liberal the pro-European Rafał Trzaskowski, is no ordinary conservative. The former boxer and football hooligan with alleged ties to organized crime is backed by the Law and Justice (PiS) party, which governed Poland from 2015 to 2023 with a Trumpian determination to mutate the country’s hard-earned democracy into authoritarianism. So he is backed by Trumpworld.
During its stint in government, PiS did all it could to neuter the independent judiciary, attack independent news media, consolidate political control over the civil service and undermine civil society. Nawrocki is now positioned to block the fixes being attempted by centrist Prime Minister Donald Tusk and engineer his replacement. [my emphasis] (4)
Can there be a Nationalist International?
Since nationalism and xenophobia are characteristic elements of authoritarian rightwing political movements – certainly including the Trumpified Republican Part currently in power in the US – it seems surprising that far-right nationalist parties would cooperate politically across national borders. The idea of a Nationalist International is bizarre on its face. Although not a few conservatives found things to admire in Mussolini. (5)
But this is not new. Mussolini was certainly an Italian nationalist and that was a central feature of his politics. But far-right parties in Europe, including Hitler’s National Socialist (Nazi) Party, looked to Mussolini’s Italian model for his own politics. But Germany supported Italy’s colonial war in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) of 1935-1936, now known as the Italo-Ethiopian War or the second Italo-Ethiopian War. Hitler’s and Mussolini’s government actively supported Francisco Franco’s revolt against the Spanish Republic.
But when Hitler’s government first attempted to annex Austria in 1934, Mussolni’s government backed Austria’s new “Austrofascist” dictatorship against Hitler Germany:
Faced with a severe economic crisis caused by the Great Depression, [Austrian Chancellor Engelbert] Dollfuss decided against joining Germany in a customs union, a course advocated by many Austrians. He was in part dissuaded by a League of Nations loan of $9,000,000 and by the fear of Allied countermeasures. Severely criticized by Social Democrats, Pan-German nationalists, and Austrian Nazis, he countered by drifting toward an increasingly authoritarian regime. The Italian leader Benito Mussolini became his principal foreign ally. Italy guaranteed Austrian independence at Riccione (August 1933), but in return Austria had to abolish all political parties and reform its constitution on the Fascist model. Dollfuss’ attacks on Parliament, begun in March 1933, culminated that September in the permanent abolition of the legislature and the formation of a corporate state based on his Vaterländische Front (“Fatherland Front”), with which he expected to replace Austria’s political parties. In foreign affairs he steered a course that converted Austria virtually into an Italian satellite state. Hoping therewith to prevent Austria’s incorporation into Nazi Germany, he fought his domestic political opponents along fascist-authoritarian lines.
In February 1934 paramilitary formations loyal to the chancellor crushed Austria’s Social Democrats in bloody encounters. With a new constitution of May 1934, his regime became completely dictatorial. In June, however, Germany incited the Austrian Nazis to civil war. Dollfuss was assassinated by the Nazis in a raid on the chancellery. [my emphasis] (6)
In this case, Hitler’s Italian model Mussolini supported Austria against Germany. But as seen above, Mussolini required Austria to adopt a fascist model of government in return for Italy’s support. But Italy’s reliance on Germany to finance its Ethiopian war and the German-Italian cooperation in supporting Franco’s rebellion in Spain made Italian fascism dependent on German fascism.
When Hitler first became Chancellor of Germany in January 1933, he was seen at first as a junior partner in the fascist “Nationalist International” alignment. When Italian King Victor Emmanuel III dismissed Mussolini‘s government in 1943 and arrested him, Germany freed him and made him head of a new “Italian Social Republic,” (aka, the “Salò Republic”) a rump puppet state of Nazi Germany. (7) That brought the process full circle, with Mussolini as a figurehead for a foreign government.
All this is a reminder that in a world of nation-states, ideology can be shared across borders. But nations also form their own conceptions of what is their countries’ national interest. And defending The Nation is of course the focus of nationalism.
This is one of the reservations I have about the democracy-vs.-autocracy discussions of the moment. Having similar ideologies and/or political systems doesn’t mean countries are automatically friendly to each other in foreign policy. One of the most spectacular examples was the Sino-Soviet split, the decades-long between the Communist states of China and the USSR. Today, still-Communist China and no-longer-Communist rightwing authoritarian Russia are close geopolitical allies.
Another example might be the current deterioration in relations between the United States and Canada. But that may not fit so well, since the current American government is pushing hard to turn the current US liberal democracy into some form of authoritarian government.
Poland and the current European realignment
Although far-right European parties may admire Trumpism as a form of politics and even of Vladimir Putin’s approach to politics and government.
But it doesn’t mean that all of them are wanting to defer to Russia in foreign policy. Speaking of Italy and Mussolini, the current Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is head of the Fratelli d’Italia party. That party is not a immediate successor party to Mussolini’s Fascist Party. But it proudly shares some of its heritage, including some organizational continuity.
Profil notes that one of Fratelli d'Italia’s [FdI] predecessor organization was the Movimento Sociale Italiano (MSI), which “existed from 1946 until 1995. Its founder Giorgio Almirante, a former propagandist of Mussolini, collaborated with the National Socialists after [Mussolini’s] overthrow in 1943.” (8)
Historian Joshua Arthurs explained in 2022 in an interview with Profil:
Arthurs: I find the question of whether Meloni is a post-fascist complicated. Her party, Fratelli d'Italia, has taken many different forms over the decades, often playing a double game. On the one hand, it presents itself to the mainstream as a conventional, conservative party. Meloni has already announced that she will support Ukraine in the war and rely on a policy of continuity in relation to the EU and NATO. On the other hand, "Fratelli d'Italia" uses symbols related to the period of Italian fascism (1922–1943) and the dictator Benito Mussolini. Meloni's party has repeatedly drawn historical revisionist references and tried to gloss over this period....
The Movimento Sociale Italiano changed over the decades. Until the end of the 1980s, "MSI" had very few supporters, a maximum of 8 percent. It was a fringe party for fascist nostalgics that was shut from the government. In 1989, with the end of the Cold War, not only Europe changed, but also Italy. The old parties that had dominated the country until then collapsed and the "MSI" took on a new form, henceforth called "Alleanza Nazionale".
Profil: Giorgia Meloni was active in its student organization.
Arthurs: In the 1990s, the Alleanza Nazionale tried to distance itself from the fascist past. Their party leader at the time wore suits like a businessman and traveled to Israel to apologize for Italy's role in fascist anti-Semitism. At that time, a kind of rebranding of the extreme right took place. The "Alleanza Nazionale" even entered Berlusconi's government in 1994 and later founded a party with him. Many MPs, including Meloni, were dissatisfied with this development. From their point of view, the party moved too far away from its fascist roots. So they separated and founded the "Fratelli d'Italia" in 2012. [my emphasis in bold] (9)
So, the democratic component of Meloni’s and her party’s perspective is more than a little dubious. But unlike various other far-right parties in EU countries, Meloni’s Fratelli d'Italia and the PiS in Poland are not fans of Russia’s foreign policy orientation. The historical reasons are perhaps more dramatically obvious in the case of Poland, which has had centuries of experience with Russia that have often not been happy ones.
The same is true for Poland and Germany, although Polish grievances against Germany have more to do with reparations for the damage done to Poland in the Second World War.
In the current situation in which European leaders are taking very seriously for the moment the need to establish a military deterrence capability not so heavily dependent on the United States as the current NATO arrangement is, Poland and Italy are among the five largest European military powers, along with Britain, France, and Germany. They currently have a strong incentive to cooperate with each other on the new independent-deterrence goal. So in this case, even if Poland and Italy have governments that ideologically lean towards the authoritarian-right view, that also have strong incentives to cooperate closely with the countries with a more distinctly democratic orientation.
Still, election interference by Russia is a real concern. And so is election interference from the Trumpistas in Washington. So the EU has good reason to stick to its basic principles of democracy and rule-of-law. The EU itself is unlikely to be the coordinating center of the new European security arrangements. Although the EU does have its own military cooperation functions, called the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). And the EU Treaty does include a mutual defense obligation. But NATO member Britain is no longer an EU member. And when it comes to improved, independent self-defense capability, the European allies will certainly try to improve defense cooperation with NATO member Türkiye. Even though Türkiye is currently more part of the “authoritarian” spectrum than the liberal-democratic one.
But the EU as such will have to play a larger geopolitical role than before: in economic policy, on trade, in diplomatic relations. That will include increasing the attraction of the EU in its Eastern Partnership (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia) and its Western Balkan Partnership. The EU makes important decisions and laws that are binding on its individual members, so maintaining democratic institutions and a secure rule of law are critical for maintaining the EU’s internal legitimacy.
So it matters a lot whether EU member states maintain their democracy standards. It’s often mentioned that on formal foreign policy positions, the EU must have the unanimous support of all its members. While this is a real limitation, it doesn’t mean that the EU is unable to conduct any foreign policy. The European Commission, the executive body of the EU, can take foreign policy actions when it has substantial support from a majority of members. The EU often seems like a plodding, obtuse instrument. But it still gets things done.
(5) “After meeting Benito Mussolini in Rome in1927, Winston Churchill, then a Conservative member of Parliament, said that had he been an Italian, he would have ‘wholeheartedly’ supported the Fascist leader's ‘triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.’" Delzell, Charles (1988): Remembering Mussolini. Wilson Quarterly 12:2, 118. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/40257305>
(7) Koenig, Duane (1945): The Establishment of Mussolini’s Neo-Fascist State. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 8:4. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/24313323>
Remember back when now-Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was White House Press Secretary during Trump 1.0? Holly Meyer reported at the start of the first Trump Administration:
Remember back when now-Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was White House Press Secretary during Trump 1.0? Holly Meyer reported at the start of the first Trump Administration:
"I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president," Sanders said, according to CBN News. "That's why he's there and I think he has done a tremendous job in supporting a lot of the things that people of faith really care about." (1)
That simplistic kind of religious take doesn’t hold up well to serious secular or religious scrutiny.
This was really just a way of her saying that God is on Trump’s side which happened to also be her side. And it essentially takes political democracy as a hollow, meaningless shell. If God is making the choice of rulers, does it matter what the political institutions are?
In fact, the Christian Right fundamentalist religious segment actually puts a high emphasis on personal choice, blaming individuals for their own sin and making the individual’s choice on religious beliefs and affiliation the critical difference between going to Heaven or burning for eternity in Hell.
James Hudnut-Beumler, a Vanderbilt professor of religious history, gives a good, concise explanation of how a very selective use of Christian Scripture can be used to say that only leaders they support were put there by God.
It is rooted in an interpretation of Romans 13 that claims Christians need to obey leaders because God put them in positions of power for a purpose, Hudnut-Beumler said. In that section of the Bible, the Apostle Paul is explaining how to handle an oppressive, external authority, he said.
"Contemporary evangelicals, because they are so biblically driven, when they find a leader they particularly like, they love to go to Romans 13 in thinking about why people should obey or why God has perhaps raised up this leader in this time and what providential role this leader, in this case President Trump, should have," Hudnut-Beumler said. [my emphasis]
It strikes me that a more responsible Christian view than the Huckabee-
Sanders one would be to see the US as a democracy in which citizens have a responsibility to choose between less-than-godlike candidates. And that God expects Christians to try seriously to make responsible choices.
Given the shortage of divine qualities among both voters and candidates, presumably God isn‘t entirely thrilled with either the elected officials or the very human voters who choose them.
Hudnut-Beumler there is politely observing that even Christians who are sincerely trying to apply their religious beliefs to contemporary political choices are attracted to a God-is-on-our-side view. It’s a way of dismissing personal and collective political responsibility without seriously thinking through the implications of the actions of governments being controlled by a Divine Being. While at the same moment ignoring the also-very-Christian notion of free will.
It also leads to such confused foolishness as that of one of the best known American Christian Zionists, John Hagee, leader of the Christians United For Israel (CUFI) group.
The staunchly pro-Israel, Evangelical pastor is the leader of America’s most prominent Christian Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel, and has used that influence to lobby the US government on a variety of issues—including Trump’s controversial choice to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (something foreign policy experts recommended against). But beyond his controversial Evangelical lobbying, Hagee has wielded his beliefs to rally against gay marriage and adoption, women, and even Jewish people.
“God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land,” the pastor claimed in a 1999 sermon. (He apologized almost a decade later, saying that “I grappled with the vexing question of why a loving God would allow the evil of the Holocaust to occur…I regret if my Jewish friends felt any pain as a result.”)
After Hurricane Katrina killed nearly 2,000 people, Hagee blamed it on gay people. “There was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.” (He later semi-apologized, saying, “Neither I nor any other person can know the mind of God concerning Hurricane Katrina. I should not have suggested otherwise.”) [my emphasis] (2)
Notice that his qualification there is classic non-apology apology, with a touch of superficial humility. His Hurricane Katrina comment, of course, was an obvious endorsement of the ideas that God wants to kill people who are gay or tolerant of gays.
Here is a new interview with religious studies professor Anthea Butler on Christian nationalism and Christian Zionism: (3)
(3) The growing influence of Christian Nationalism and Christian Zionism in the United States – UpFront. Al Jazeera English YouTube channel 05/30/2025. <https://youtu.be/nM8bXD2FpQ4?si=6T-czPMrvwuNqiXL> (Accessed: 2025-31-05).
Gideon Levy talks about the state of Israeli public opinion on the Gaza War: (1)
Dahlia Scheindlin recently analyzed the grim results of polling among Israelis toward the current war on Gaza civilians, referring in particular to a survey conducted by Tamir Sorek of Pennsylvania State University:
Every so often something forces Israelis to confront the terrible things their society has done. This can happen anywhere. The Israeli historian Elazar Barkan wrote a whole comparative study about how countries acknowledge their historic guilt. But it's ironic that in the midst of the most brutal action Israel has ever perpetrated, it was a public opinion survey that sparked such a reckoning. ...
Within days I began receiving anguished inquiries about the results. Friends, colleagues, peace activists, journalists and strangers wrote in from Australia to Uruguay to down the block, asking if it could possibly be true that 82 percent of Israeli Jews support "the transfer (expulsion) of residents of the Gaza Strip to other countries?" No less than 54 percent of Jewish respondents were "very" supportive.
Other findings were grim: A majority of 56 percent of Jews supported the "transfer (forced expulsion) of Arab citizens of Israel to other countries." And when asked directly whether they agreed with the position that the IDF, "when conquering an enemy city, should act in a manner similar to the way the Israelites acted when they conquered Jericho under the leadership of Joshua, namely, to kill all its inhabitants?" nearly half, 47 percent, agreed. (2)
These reports on Israeli attitudes toward the current genocidal war its government is waging against Palestinians are reminders that knowledge about the Holocaust as such does not necessarily make people more self-critical about the ideas and attitudes that can and do wind up supporting genocidal actions of crimes like forcible ethnic cleansing. The latter requires some substantive understanding of the historical situations in which actual genocides have occurred, and a basic sense of moral justice and historical responsibility. (3)
Notes:
(1) The international community must impose sanctions to end the war: Gideon Levy. The Hindu YouTube channel 06/02/2025. <https://youtu.be/a3aDIsRvj5E?si=R7SL85Oln6DVcQG0> (Accessed: 2025-04-06).
