Biden’s Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew on the current situation with Israel (as of January 12)

I don’t claim to be familiar with the Byzantine nuances of Ambassadorial rhetoric even in situations far less tangled than US-Israeli relations. But the following sounds to me a lot like Joe Biden’s US Ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, giving the Israeli government hasbara (propaganda) marketing ideas to sell its policies – in this case including literal genocide – to the American public:

He also lamented Israel’s failure to provide real-time responses to unfolding events in Gaza, saying he and others have urged their Israeli counterparts in vain, “on many, many, many occasions, often in the middle of the night: If you want to frame this story, get information out there more quickly, because you know there’s going to be a report out there that you think is inaccurate.”

“America has been fed a media coverage of this war that Israel has just not done an effective job countering,” Lew said. “And there’s only so much you can do through diplomatic channels to fix that.”

Public opinion in America “is still largely pro-Israel,” he noted. But “what I’ve told people here that they have to worry about when this war is over is that the generational memory doesn’t go back to the founding of the state or the Six Day War, or the Yom Kippur War, or to the intifada even. It starts with this war, and you can’t ignore the impact of this war on future policymakers — not the people making the decisions today, but the people who are 25, 35, 45 today and who will be the leaders for the next 30 years, 40 years.” [my emphasis] (1)

Lew is a former Secretary of the Treasury (2013-2017) who also served as Obama’s Chief of Staff (2012-2013) and as Director of the Office of Management and Budget (2010-2012). . So he’s been around.

Ambassador Jack Lew

I guess I missed the fact that FOX News, CBS, and nearly every major US newspaper and other news outlets were feeding the American public a relentlessly critical view of Israel’s vicious war in Gaza. The New York Times, for instance, provided relentlessly critical reporting and never passed on unfounded hasbara propaganda stories … oh, wait:

The fear among [New York] Times staffers who have been critical of the paper’s Gaza coverage is that [filmmaker Nat] Schwartz will become a scapegoat for what is a much deeper failure. She may harbor animosity toward Palestinians, lack the experience with investigative journalism, and feel conflicting pressures between being a supporter of Israel’s war effort and a Times reporter, but Schwartz did not commission herself and [Adam] Sella to report one of the most consequential [and badly flawed] stories of the war. Senior leadership at the New York Times did. (2)

Lew wants everyone to know, in his words:

I’ve spent a lot of the time that I’m here encouraging, on the military side, to do things in a careful, targeted way; encouraging, on the humanitarian assistance side, to make a bureaucratic system and a security system work so you don’t cross over into famine or malnutrition. ...

There are some things that, depending on what circumstance you’re in, look very different. In terms of the military operations, we have urged that Israel think hard about whether the value of [certain] military operations is worth the civilian risk. I’ve spent a lot of time with military leaders trying to understand how they think about that. [my emphasis]

Ambassador Lew, I think that advice was a monumental failure.

And all the advice in the world did nothing to restrain the Netanyahu government. Only credible threats of military aid reduction – and actual implementation of it – would have restrained Netanyahu’s actions. And Lew’s boss in the White House did nothing of the sort, with the one notable exception of withholding some 2000-lb. bombs from Israel last summer. If that itself was anything more than a PR stunt. As Reuter reported at the time:

The Biden administration has sent to Israel large numbers of munitions, including more than 10,000 highly destructive 2,000-pound bombs and thousands of Hellfire missiles, since the start of the war in Gaza, said two U.S. officials briefed on an updated list of weapons shipments.

While the officials didn't give a timeline for the shipments, the totals suggest there has been no significant drop-off in U.S. military support for its ally, despite international calls to limit weapons supplies and a recent administration decision to pause a shipment of powerful bombs.

Experts said the contents of the shipments appear consistent with what Israel would need to replenish supplies used in this eight-month intense military campaign in Gaza, which it launched after the Oct. 7 attack by Palestinian Hamas militants who killed 1,200 people and took 250 others hostage, according to Israeli tallies. [my emphasis] (3)

Nauseating rhetoric about how mass killing of civilians was somehow tragically necessary is unfortunately a routine part of war propaganda. It doesn’t make it any less sickening.

“The message we’ve stuck to, with quite a bit of discipline, is: Free the hostages, ceasefire, pathway to end the war,” Lew says. Obviously, serious pressure on Israel to stop war crimes and withholding of weapons that would have reduced Israel’s ability to carry out a genocide were not part of that undoubtedly disciplined message.

Lew is evidently very proud of the role the US played:

If you look at the military action in Rafah, there are places for people to move back to in Rafah, because it was a targeted and intelligence-driven military action. You have not heard a word of criticism from the White House, the State Department, the Defense Department, from the United States, of the operation in Rafah. It’s a mistake when people say, as they sometimes do, “You told us not to, and we did.” It was done in a way that limited or really eliminated the friction between the United States and Israel, but also led to a much better outcome. [my emphasis]

Lew apparently lets his message discipline slip a bit at one point and admits, “We [the US] are probably the only country in the world now that gives Israel the benefit of the doubt.”

On Biden, Lew makes a comment that he apparently intends as praise, though not everyone would consider it praiseworthy: “given the personal support that the president has shown [for Netanyahu’s war], and not just shown — the president’s personal support is not four years in the making, it’s 50 years in the making. It comes from his heart.”

Notes:

(1) Horovitz, David (2025): The ambassador’s farewell warning: You can’t ignore the impact of this war on future US policymakers. The Times of Israel 01/12/2025. <https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-ambassadors-farewell-warning-you-cant-ignore-the-impact-of-this-war-on-future-us-policymakers/> (Accessed: 2025-19-01). The text of the interview with Lew is unusually long for this kind of newspaper report, so it provides a snapshot of official US positions at the moment. The full article prints out to 44 pages.

(2) Scahill, Jeremy & Grim, Ryan & Boguslaw, Daniel (2024): “Between the Hammer and the Anvil”: The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé. The Intercept 02/28/2024. <https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/> (Accessed: 2025-19-01).

(3) Pamuk, Humeyra & Stone, Mike (2024): Exclusive: US has sent Israel thousands of 2,000-pound bombs since Oct. 7 Reuters 11/29/2024. <https://www.reuters.com/world/us-has-sent-israel-thousands-2000-pound-bombs-since-oct-7-2024-06-28/> (Accessed: 2025-19-01).

For Trump’s Second Inauguration Day

Deutsche Welle English documentary on the decades leading up to the Republican Party to embrace Trumpism: (1)

Deutsche Welle English documentary on the decades leading up to the Republican Party to embrace Trumpism: (1)

From FRANCE 24 English on US allies and the Trump II Administration: (2)

One caution: One of the panel members in that segment is Craig Copetas, identified as a “European Correspondent at [rightwing] Newsmax (!!!). Although what he says doesn’t sound as Trump-sycophantic as one would expect from Newsmax; still, consider the source. At least a couple of the panel give him looks as though they are thinking, “How many did he have before he came on?” Or maybe, “Looks like coke to me.” He goes worse the longer he goes. At one point he says (apparently admiringly) that Elon Musk controls the media. One of the others immediately breaks in, “Controls the media?!”

But one of their panelists is Yasha Mounk, who is a political scientist with a solid reputation. He has some sensible comments in the segment on Ukraine and Trump’s “transactional” wheeler-dealer negotiating style. His comments on that are really perceptive. So are those of Anatasizy Shapochkina of the Eastern Circles Think Tank. Mounk comes off as a bit superficial on the question of social media regulation.

Daniel Drezner gives us his overview of what we might expect for Trump II foreign policy: (3)

Qasim Rashid has a template of suggestions for pro-human-rights advocates who oppose the Trump immigration plans likely to be put in place soon. (4)

Notes:

(1) The rise of the ultra-right in the US. DW News YouTube channel 01/18/2025. <https://youtu.be/jrhREluLdBs?si=e5LI4KX8Hfgz5J5F> (Accessed: 2025-19-01).

(2) Four more years: Have allies figured out how to deal with Trump? France 24 English YouTube channel 01/17/2025. <https://youtu.be/Uh1XmLDl-50?si=Cy4jCdGFiK4SzhAc> (Accessed: 2025-19-01).

(3) Indian Diplomacy: US Foreign Policy Under Trump 2.0. DD India YouTube channel 01/18/2025. <https://youtu.be/U9_OIZHzHaE?si=ZCMoF0n_17LfEn4x> (Accessed: 2025-19-01).

(4) Rashid, Qasim (2025): Trump's Mass Anti-Immigrant Raids to Begin. Let’s Address This (Substack) 01/19/2025. <https://www.qasimrashid.com/p/trumps-mass-anti-immigrant-raids> (Accessed: 2025-19-01).

Donald Trump, peacemaker and master diplomat?

The former Israeli diplomat Daniel Levy gives his current view (as of January 16) of the dynamics in the Gaza ceasefire arrangement. Trump clearly wanted to have a 1981-style Inaugural event in which some of the hostages could be released and he could claim to be some kind of peacemaker because of the ceasefire. (1)

Levy and others are making the valid point that Trump’s intervention in pushing Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire – which as of this writing has not yet begun its implementation – as an example of how a US President (even an about-to-be one) can influence Israeli behavior when he wants to. And they make the related point that it shows how completely deferential Joe Biden has been to Netanyahu since October 7, 2023. Even to the point of backing an actual genocide by Netanyahu’s government.

I haven’t seen much discussion of whether Trump’s transition team adhered to American law in its technically unofficial diplomatic dealings with Israel.

Biden’s weakness in dealing with Netanyahu seems to be some combination of ideology (Biden calls himself a Zionist), conventional Democratic calculations about the need to be seen as “pro-Israel,” the obvious deterioration in his cognitive health, and just plain old Cold War-type arrogance. (“Let’s remember we are the United States of America. There is nothing, nothing, nothing beyond our capacity when we do it together.”) (2)

Trump will not institute any kind of peace process with any reasonable hope of resolving the Palestinian issue. Trump is too erratic to assume he’s closely following the views of any particular person, much less an actual foreign policy expert. But the views of his son-and-law and his first Administration’s lead person on Trump’s version of a Middle East peace process, Jared Kushner, may give us some indication of how Trump sees Middle East diplomacy:

Kushner was a senior foreign policy adviser under Trump’s presidency and was tasked with preparing a peace plan for the Middle East. Critics of the plan, which involved Israel striking normalisation deals with Gulf states, said it bypassed questions about the future for Palestinians.

His remarks at Harvard gave a hint of the kind of Middle East policy that could be pursued in the event that Trump returns to the White House, including a search for a normalisation deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

“Gaza’s waterfront property could be very valuable ... if people would focus on building up livelihoods,” Kushner told his interviewer, the faculty chair of the Middle East Initiative, Prof Tarek Masoud. Kushner also lamented “all the money” that had gone into the territory’s tunnel network and munitions instead of education and innovation.

“It’s a little bit of an unfortunate situation there, but from Israel’s perspective I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up,” Kushner said. “But I don’t think that Israel has stated that they don’t want the people to move back there afterwards.” [my emphasis] (3)

Masoud [the interviwer] replied that there was “a lot to talk about there”.

Kushner also said he thinks Israel should move civilians from Gaza to the Negev desert in southern Israel.

He said that if he were in charge of Israel his number one priority would be getting civilians out of the southern city of Rafah, and that “with diplomacy” it could be possible to get them into Egypt. (3)

The latter two ideas would constitute “ethnic cleansing,” by the way. Even in the unlikely event that Egypt agreed to it.

Trump in his first term recognized the Golan Heights, Syrian territory illegally occupied by Israel, as part of the State of Israel.

It’s a real possibility and likelihood that in his second term, Trump will do the same for Israel and the West Bank (4), which Netanyahu’s party and ruling coalition consider to be a legitimate part of Eretz Israel (Greater Israel).

Levy notes in the interview, “Israel still has troops across the border in sovereign Lebanese territory. is conducting strikes in Lebanon Israel has seized a part of Syria beyond the already occupied [the Golan Heights] and annexed [the] Golan Heights, is bombing in Syria.”

As John Mearsheimer points out, the Israeli army, aka, the Israeli Defense Forces, aka, the World’s Most Moral Army, is organized and staffed to fight short wars. (5) This one that began on October 7, 2023 is far and away the longest war that Israel has ever fought, even with the previous ceasefire, with a short ceasefire in November 2023, less than a week. The IDF relies heavily on draftees.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made a remarkable admission in at speech to the Atlantic Council on January 14:

Now, more than 15 months later [after Oct 7, 2023], Hamas’s military and governance capacity has been decimated, and the masterminds behind the attack have been killed. ...

We have long made the point to the Israeli Government that Hamas cannot be defeated by a military campaign alone – that without a clear alternative, a post-conflict plan and a credible political horizon for the Palestinians, Hamas, or something just as abhorrent and dangerous, will grow back.

That’s exactly what’s happened in northern Gaza since October 7th. Each time Israel completes its military operations and pulls back, Hamas militants regroup and re-emerge because there’s nothing else to fill the void. Indeed, we assess that Hamas has recruited almost as many new militants as it has lost. That is a recipe for an enduring insurgency and perpetual war. [my emphasis] (6)

It's surprising that Blinken would say so clearly that the results of over 15 months of massive killings of civilians – justified with Israel’s cynical claims that civilians are “human shields” for Hamas – that we’ve just had another “war on terror” failure. Of course, recruiting “new militants” does not mean that Hamas is back to a pre-October 7 level of preparedness. And it’s international “axis of resistance” has been weakened.

It's still a remarkable admission of failure and an affirmation (even if unintentional) that the Biden Administration’s unconditional support for Israeli’s war didn’t achieve the military goal that allegedly justified it. Including the US violating its own laws on providing weapons in such situations.

Iran has also just a new Strategic Partnership Agreement with Russia. It stops short of including a direct mutual defense commitment. But it walks up to the edge of it, and is clearly a move by Russia to discourage the US and Israel from mounting military attacks on Iran.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian deepened military ties between their countries on Friday by signing a 20-year strategic partnership that is likely to worry the West.

Under the agreement, Russia and Iran will boost cooperation in a range of areas including their security services, military drills, warship port visits and joint officer training.

Neither will allow their territory to be used for any action that threatens the other and will provide no help to an aggressor attacking either nation, according to the text, which also said they would work together to counter military threats. ...

Putin said work on a potential gas pipeline to carry Russian gas to Iran via Azerbaijan was progressing despite difficulties. He added that, despite delays in building new nuclear reactors for Iran, Moscow was also open to potentially taking on more nuclear [reactor] projects. (7)

In other words, Trump when he takes office Monday in the Capitol building he sent his supporters to storm on January 6, 2021 will be facing a far messier situation in the Middle East than he faced when he first took office eight years earlier. With the Russia-Ukraine war added to it, a situation that is not going to be easily settled in a way that bolsters his rightwing-isolationist image that he’s a tough guy who can create peace because other countries are so scared of him.

Conditions in Syria since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government in December are not pretty from the US point of view. “Syrians of all political persuasions are wary of [the new ruling group] HTS’s origins – until 2016, it was affiliated with al-Qaeda and, before that, with ISIS. They see little of their country’s ethnic, religious and cultural mosaic reflected in the caretaker government.” (my emphasis) (8) The US has been allied with the autonomous region in northeast Syria known as Rojava, led by the at-least-democratic-leaning Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which is close to the Kurdish Democratic Union Party. NATO ally Türkiye is actively hostile to the SDF.

Notes:

(1) Gaza ceasefire could end Netanyahu - Daniel Levy interview. PoliticsJOE YouTube channel 01/16/2025. <https://youtu.be/e04oF6h8lNA?si=wcU1t_n5ltVrCkKX> (Accessed: 2024-18-01).

(2) Remarks by President Biden in Address to the Nation. US Embassy Germany 07/15/2024. <https://de.usembassy.gov/remarks-by-president-biden-in-address-to-the-nation/> (Accessed: 2024-18-01).

(3) Wintour, Patrick (2024): Jared Kushner says Gaza’s ‘waterfront property could be very valuable’. The Guardian 03/19/2024. <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/19/jared-kushner-gaza-waterfront-property-israel-negev> (Accessed: 2024-18-01).

(4) Ott, Haley (2025): Trump win fuels discussion of Israel annexing the West Bank. Here's what that means. CBS News 11/19/2024. <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-israel-annex-west-bank-after-trump-takes-office/> (Accessed: 2024-18-01).

(5) John Mearsheimer: Russia & Iran a NEW Nuclear Alliance. Daniel Davis/Deep Dive YouTube channel. <https://www.youtube.com/live/z7qEoNCZltY?si=2y3DSJc-HpPLPQqh> (Accessed: 2024-18-01).

(6) Secretary Antony J. Blinken: “Toward the Promise of a More Integrated Middle East” Speech. US Department of State 01/14/2025. <https://www.state.gov/office-of-the-spokesperson/releases/2025/01/secretary-antony-j-blinken-toward-the-promise-of-a-more-integrated-middle-east> (Accessed: 2024-18-01).

(7) Soldatlin, Vladimir & Osborn, Andrew (2025): Putin and Iran's president deepen defence ties with 20-year pact. Reuters 01/17/2025. <https://www.reuters.com/world/iranian-president-arrives-moscow-treaty-signing-with-putin-tass-says-2025-01-17/> (Accessed: 2024-18-01).

(8) Khalifa, Dareen & Bonsey, Noah (2025): Key Decisions Loom as Syria Enters a New Era International Crisis Group 01/14/2025 <https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/syria/key-decisions-loom-syria-enters-new-era> (Accessed: 2024-18-01).

See also: Hunt, Edward (2025): The United States Makes a Play for Rojava. Foreign Policy in Focus 01/16/2025. (Accessed: 2024-18-01). “For the past decade, the United States has partnered with the Syrian Kurds.”

Democrats after Biden

As more elaborate analyses of the Presidential election become available, it appears that Joe Biden’s Gaza policy was a big negative for Harris that dragged down Democratic voter participation. That doesn’t mean the issue was decisive in itself. But it does indicate it was important, as shown in the results of a poll by the IMEU [Institute for Middle East Understanding] Policy Project and YouGov. (1)

As Ryan Grim notes, “From 2020 to 2024, Democrats saw a staggering dropoff in support at the presidential level, with some 19 million people who voted for Joe Biden staying home (or not mailing in their ballots) in 2024.” (2) And he cautions, “Citing a top reason for not voting is far different than it being the only reason not to vote.”

He talks about it here: (3)



It’s broadly clear that the Democrats need a different approaching to defining their party’s branding, and doing so with substantive policy positions, not just as campaign marketing. One of the ironies of Biden’s Presidency is that he actually did move economic policies more toward a Keynesian approach to business cycles, industrial policy, unionization, and antitrust enforcement. But public perceptions of the economy were seemingly not closely connected to the actual macroeconomic situation, which by all conventional measures were very good by the standards of recent decades.

Adam Tooze reminds us that how economic condition affect voting behavior is not something that can be read off a table of macroeconomic statistics:

Economic sentiment is not an independent cause. If someone declares that worries about the cost of living swung them to vote for Trump in 2024, it would be naive to imagine that if Biden’s economic policy had delivered a marginally lower inflation rate that voter would have swapped back to the Biden camp.

In the United States today, political partisanship and worldview, individual socio-economic experience and macroeconomics are profoundly entangled. (4)

There has previously been a lot of analysis of how inflation expectations among Republicans were particularly high during the campaign compared to Democrats. But after Trump was elected, Republicans suddenly considered inflation to be much less of a problem.

... technocratic policy advocates, especially those in the Democratic camp, who discuss inflation expectations and unemployment-inflation trade offs as though they were non political variables to be optimized by policy maker and on that basis make highly conservative recommendations to the Democratic camp. In America today, government driven by fear of “de-anchoring” inflation expectations is government driven by fear of Republican and “independent” voters whose expectations are far more likely to de-anchor.

The Republican Party has established itself as the party of billionaires and people who see politics as a form of professional wrestling entertainment. The Democrats are stuck with being a messy combination of traditional liberal welfare-state and pro-union sentiments and commitment to civil rights, while trying as hard as they can to chase the flood on wealthy-donor campaign money magnified radically by the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision, and constantly tempted to muddle its image even more by pursuing “bipartisanship” that no actual voter cares about, including Kamala Harris campaigning just before the election with Liz Cheney, a rightwing Republicans that Republicans reject and Democrats see as a iconic figure of the Republican Party.

And as we see in the current transition, we see lots of Democrats in Congress trying to find ways to be “bipartisan” with the Trumpistas, while the leadership isn’t clearly defining opposition themes.

The Democrats have to improve their political focus and build up the state party infrastructures. They can’t just muddle along like its 1993.

Notes:

(1) New Poll Shows Gaza Was A Top Issue For Biden 2020 Voters Who Cast A Ballot For Someone Besides Harris. Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, Jan. 2025. <https://www.imeupolicyproject.org/postelection-polling> (Accessed: 2024-17-01).

(2) Grim, Ryan (2025): Kamala Harris Paid the Price for Not Breaking With Biden on Gaza, New Poll Shows. Drop Site 01/15/20125. <https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/kamala-harris-gaza-israel-biden-election-poll> (Accessed: 2024-17-01).

(3) STUN POLL: Gaza COST Kamala Election. Breaking Points YouTube channel 01/15/2025. Breaking Points YouTube channel 01/15/2025. <https://youtu.be/Cty1g5ItBVw?si=Y2ME3MNmW3rugsx1> (Accessed: 2024-17-01).

(4) Tooze, Adam (2025): Against overcorrection. Yellen's Treasury defends the legacy of Democratic fiscal policy. Chartbook 01/17/2025. <https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-346-against-overcorrection> (Accessed: 2024-17-01).

Gaza Ceasefire? Maybe. But the possibility for it falling through is high.

Daniel Levy appears on Democracy Now! with Jeremy Scahill and Muhammad Shehada to discuss the Gaza ceasefire that may or may not get signed between now and Trump’s Inauguration. (1)

Qasim Rashid also gives us a snapshot of the current moment in this maybe-ceasefire:

Yesterday [Wednesday], Israel and Hamas announced a ceasefire agreement that promised to end Israel’s 16 month siege on Gaza and secure the release of dozens of hostages. No sooner was this deal announced, but the Israeli military viciously bombed civilian tents and a residential building in central Gaza, one in which disabled children were seeking safety, killing at least 77 more Palestinians. Adding to the injustice, and as has happened so many times, the deal seems to already have unraveled as Israel has furthermore delayed a cabinet vote, accusing Hamas of creating a “last-minute crisis.” (2)

He also gives a background on previous negotiations and the pattern of Israeli sabotage of them that has so often pursued.

Hamas has affirmed its commitment to ceasefire, stating it had upheld all terms outlined by the mediators. Meanwhile, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu openly accused Hamas of thwarting the deal, he refuses to identify what Hamas allegedly did. This isn’t the first time Netanyahu has obstructed progress on a ceasefire or hostage deal. In fact, the receipts show this is part of a disturbing pattern, and it is a disgrace the Biden administration continues to fall for it while innocent people continue to suffer and die.

Chris Hedges also gives a recap of the previous diplomatic efforts repeatedly torpedoed by Israel. He takes a particularly jaded view of the current situation – not without reason:

Israel, going back decades, has played a duplicitous game. It signs a deal with the Palestinians that is to be implemented in phases. The first phase gives Israel what it wants — in this case the release of the Israeli hostages in Gaza — but Israel habitually fails to implement subsequent phases that would lead to a just and equitable peace. It eventually provokes the Palestinians with indiscriminate armed assaults to retaliate, defines a Palestinian response as a provocation and abrogates the ceasefire deal to reignite the slaughter.

If this latest three-phase ceasefire deal is ratified — and there is no certainty that it will be by Israel — it will, I expect, be little more than a presidential inauguration bombing pause. Israel has no intention of halting its merry-go-round of death.

The Israeli cabinet has delayed a vote on the ceasefire proposal while it continues to pound Gaza. At least 81 Palestinians have been killed in the last 24 hours. (3)

Peter Beinart late in November reviewed Trump’s Israel policy from his first term and looked at the group of hardline pro-Israel team he had already assembled, making this prediction for his second term:

In the weeks and months to come, it’s likely that Trump will criticize Israel’s leaders, or its wars in Gaza and Lebanon, and that the media—ever alert to stories that play against type—will warn that Netanyahu’s days of blank-check US support may be coming to an end. Don’t fall for it. For a Republican Party now defined by ethnonationalism, ardent support for Israel is as foundational as hostility to non-white immigration to the US. Trump may waiver in his support for Israel. But his presidency will not. [my emphasis]

Notes:

(1) Daniel Levy, Muhammad Shehada, Jeremy Scahill on Ceasefire Deal, Trump's Role & Palestine's Future. Democracy Now! YouTube channel 01/16/2025. <https://youtu.be/aULNgLFlEiE?si=L8DHaHUxpOawubqa> (Accessed: 2025-16-01).

(2) Rashid, Qasim (2025): "Ceasefire" Deal As Israel Keeps Bombing Gaza. Let’s Address This (Substack) 01/16/2025. <https://www.qasimrashid.com/p/ceasefire-deal-as-israel-keeps-bombing> (Accessed: 2025-16-01).

(3) The Ceasefire Charade. The Chris Hedges Report 01/16/2025. <https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-ceasefire-charade> (Accessed: 2025-16-01).

(4) Trump’s Israel Instincts Don’t Matter. Jewish Currents 11/26/2024. <https://jewishcurrents.org/trumps-israel-instincts-dont-matter> (Accessed: 2025-16-01).

Spinning the pending Gaza ceasefire agreement

Haaretz columnist Amos Harel appears to have good sources on at least what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants the public to hear about its thinking. Unfortunately, it’s often hard to tell whether Harel is reporting in a journalistically-critical manner or just boosting Netanyahu’s preferred message of the moment.

His latest analysis of the planned ceasefire seems to lean pretty heavily toward the latter approach. (1) In his telling, it was the tough-minded insistence of that shrewd and determined statesman Donald Trump that reluctantly pushed Netanyahu to agree to the deal – whose implementation according to Harel is to begin “most likely, early next week, i.e., after Trump is sworn in as President.

Harel writes, “His enormous pressure on both sides and on mediators Egypt and Qatar finally brought about the deal.”

As Esquire columnist Charlie Pierce sometimes likes to say, “Honky, please.”

Did they hire some scriptwriter from The Apprentice to come up with this spin? When did Donald Trump of the real world ever take enough time off from playing golf to pull such a feat? Harel’s column is basically a puff piece for Trump. In Harel’s spin:

The current positive result would not have been reached without the efforts of the defense establishment, the one responsible for the terrible failure that led to the massacre. And yet, negotiations would not have reached their final lap without Trump. Over the autumn, and increasingly so after his victory in the presidential election in November, he set his target: a full cease-fire and the gradual return of all the hostages.

For a long time, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not want this deal. His followers insist that his considerations were relevant. Controlling the so-called Philadelphi corridor on the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt was presented as an eternal security requirement for Israel. The rapidity with which Netanyahu retreated from this principle under pressure from Trump attests to the real weight of this argument.

A key claim to watch if this ceasefire is implemented: Netanyahu “also agreed to allow the entry of 600 trucks with humanitarian aid per day, 100 more than the daily average before the war.” The chance of that happening for more than a few days of photo-ops is somewhat lower than Trump announcing on Saturday that he will not agree to be sworn in as President because it would demean the office for a convicted felon to assume it.

The biggest “tell” that this is a total puff piece is this: “Trump … acts out of a tangled web of interests, focusing on positioning the U.S. within the rapidly changing global strategic picture, as well as looking after his personal status and prestige.”

In the real world, Trump is looking for any way to use his office to enrich himself. If real reporters get to interview Trump, they should ask him how he would assess “the rapidly changing global strategic picture.” If he responds to it all, it would be something like: “America First, China virus, tariffs, wokeness.”

Only in the next-to-last paragraph does Harel explains (somewhat obliquely) that there are countless ways that Netanyahu can and almost certainly will come up with excuses to resume the full-on genocidal war that supposedly will have a pause with this agreement to allow Trump to brag about how he brought Peace To The Middle East.

Harel’s final paragraph is another piece of boilerplate:

At the same time, the characteristics of the new arrangement will become clearer, including questions such as whether the Gaza Strip will be reconstructed, which countries will mobilize and finance this and whether there is a chance for an overall solution that includes an alternative government that removes the murderous terrorists of Hamas from ruling the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian independence? Two-state solution? A non-apartheid Israel including Palestinians? Not part of the program. A reminder: in 2024, the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) voted 98-6 to reject any kind of Palestinian state. It’s very officially not part of the program.

This resolution — passed 68-9 — altogether rejects the establishment of a Palestinian state, even as part of a negotiated settlement with Israel.

“The Knesset of Israel firmly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state west of Jordan. The establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel will pose an existential danger to the State of Israel and its citizens, perpetuate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and destabilize the region,” the resolution stated. (2)

Notes:

(1) Harel, Amos (2025): How Trump Scared Netanyahu Into Accepting a Cease-fire Deal With Hamas. Haaretz 01/16/2025. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-01-16/ty-article/.premium/how-trump-scared-netanyahu-into-accepting-a-cease-fire-deal-with-hamas/00000194-6bd9-d876-affe-7ffb0c1d0000?gift=9107a7d6ea114272bfcb9a2a897ee609> (Accessed: 2025-16-01).

(2) Magid, Jacob (2024): Knesset votes overwhelmingly against Palestinian statehood, days before PM’s US trip. The Times of Israel 07/18/2024. <https://www.timesofisrael.com/knesset-votes-overwhelmingly-against-palestinian-statehood-days-before-pms-us-trip/> (Accessed: 2025-16-01).

The Trump-Ukraine dilemma

George Beebe gives a high-level image of what a reasonable and constructive settlement of the current Russia-Ukraine would look like:

[A]n independent Ukraine securely embedded in the EU; a Europe better able to deter and counterbalance Russia with its own resources; and a Russia and China that are less united in their hostility toward Washington. That vision is well worth pursuing, even if the odds of failure are significant. (1)

The phrase “the devil is in the details” hardly begins to describe the complications below those broad goals. But that’s also what foreign policy strategy is about: having a large view of desired goals, and then pursuing the kind of maddening details and complicated negotiations and maneuvering and various forms of carrots-and-sticks offers and concessions that lead to a better strategic situation. Hopefully one that does not require war to achieve.

Beebe’s piece also follows the convention in these kinds of articles of proposing ideas to the current or incoming government as though the audience is professional and competent and serious about pursuing a responsible foreign policy. It seems almost like a farce to make such a pitch as though Trump were a competent actor with a real sense of broader public responsibility.

Deutsche Welle reports on peace deal prospects (2):



At the same time, pitching an argument to the Trump Administration which sounds like it’s based on those assumptions inevitably highlights how reckless and irresponsible an actor Trump and the Trumpistas are on the international scene.

Beebe’s recommendations are based on looking at the reality of the situation:

Put American Interests First. The Biden administration has, from the invasion’s start, insisted that it is up to Ukraine to decide if and when to seek an end to the war. It has offered tactical advice but deferred to Kyiv on setting strategy. This has proved to be a recipe for unending conflict that is devastating Ukraine and perversely incentivizing Kyiv to draw the United States more directly into the war. [my emphasis]

But, despite his signature MAGA slogan, Trump has no thought of putting “American interests first.” Trump puts his own personal interests first, last, and everywhere in between.

Broaden the Problem. Part of the reason that Biden has deferred to Kyiv was a widely shared belief in Washington that the war is a bilateral matter between Russia and Ukraine, and that the key to any peace settlement was to maximize Ukraine’s leverage on the battlefield. That assumption was fundamentally flawed. It failed to understand that Russia’s enormous numerical advantages in population and military production meant Ukraine’s military was bound to weaken over time in a war of attrition, even with robust Western support. And it failed to recognize that the United States has long been able to negotiate from a position of strength if it viewed the war through a wider lens. [my emphasis]

When people say that Trump has a “transactional” approach to foreign policy, they mainly mean that he sees international relations in terms of negotiating -Trump/Mafia style – with individual nations. Viewing the Russia-Ukraine War or any other foreign policy “through a wider lens” is something that Trump has give us very limited evidence that he is capable of doing.

He talks about NATO as if it’s a mob protection-racket run by the US. He has threatened military action against NATO ally Denmark in order to take Greenland from them. He has threatened Panama with military action if they do not surrender the Panamanian territory of the Panama Canal to the US. Panama is a US ally under the Rio Treaty (3) (officially the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance), probably another treaty that Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee to be Secretary of Defense, also knows nothing about. Trump probably also knows nothing about it and cares even less.

Play the China Card. Recognizing that the war has deepened Russia’s dependence on China, the Biden administration pressed the Chinese to arm-twist Putin into ending the invasion, dangling the prospect of new sanctions if Beijing refused. But Beijing’s ambivalence toward the war was never going to translate into picking sides, and Biden’s with-us-or-against-us approach missed an opportunity to explore the subtleties in China’s calls for settling the war.

Donald Trump is going to take a sophisticated balance-of-power, triangulating approach to US-China-Russia relations? My guess: (4)



To be fair, I’m confident that George Beebe doesn’t actually think so, either. But observing the style of offering serious advice to government officials is at least a kind of statement of optimism or hope.

I actually do hope that there is some kind of more-or-less functional agreement gets done on Ukraine that at least would minimize further military damage until a more pragmatic-minded President comes to the Oval Office. We’ll see if the incoming Trump Administration can achieve something like that, or at least is willing to get out of the way for someone else to structure the peace arrangement. But it’s hard to imagine Russia being willing to agree to such a settlement without the US signing on.

Notes:

(1) Trump may get Russia and Ukraine to the table. Then what? Responsible Statecraft 01/13/2025. <https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-ending-war-ukraine/> (Accessed: 2025-13-01).

(2) Could the Trump administration broker a Russia-Ukraine peace deal in 2025? DW News YouTube channel 01/03/2025. <https://youtu.be/i3xn7tFhnaM?si=Okk9JPvcEZQvIsHa> (Accessed: 2025-03-01).

(3) Lobo, Francisco (2025): The Rio Treaty’s Security Pact and Unintended Consequences of Threatening Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Just Security 01/08/2025. <https://www.justsecurity.org/106160/rio-treaty-trump-canada-greenland-panama/> (Accessed: 2025-13-01).

(4) Same Line Different Films - I Don't Think So. Larry Dors YouTube channel 05/29/2019. <https://youtu.be/X0f3efFUgDM?si=VOfD0aHJtLDXFvpG> (Accessed: 2025-13-01).

More on progressive online media

Kyle Kulinski on his Secular Talk channel features a recent report by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes on the scandal of the US support for Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza. (1)

This seems like a good opportunity to mention some additional worthwhile websites for news, analysis, and commentary that could be considered part of the left-alternative media. With the current turmoil in corporate media including the billionaire-controlled online sites that were not so long ago commonly called “social media,” even the terminology of which brands of media are which is likely to change over the next couple of years.

And critical reading is always necessary.

Here are ten more valuable “alternative” sources:

Thomas Zimmer: https://thomaszimmer.substack.com/p/the-modern-conservative-tradition">

Press Watch: Not a daily news site, but one that regularly publishes critical analysis of mainstream press coverage. https://presswatchers.org/

The Mark Thompson Show: https://www.youtube.com/@themarkthompsonshow

DC Report: Founded by David Cay Johnston, does good investigative journalism. Also appears often on the Mark Thompson Show. https://www.dcreport.org/

Democracy Now! Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! for many people is probably the image of an “NPR liberal,” a term usually applied to earnest but timid mainstream Democrats. But the reporting is generally solid. https://www.democracynow.org/ https://www.youtube.com/@DemocracyNow

DW News (Deutsche Welle English): Deutsche Welle is a German public broadcasting and news organization that provides a lot of English-language content. It’s kind of a German version of the BBC. https://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097 https://www.youtube.com/@dwnews

France 24 English: A French public news service similar to Deutsche Welle. https://www.france24.com/en/ https://www.youtube.com/@France24_en

Le Monde diplomatique:This French news service has a monthly English-language version, though much of it is behind subscription. The articles tend to be longer analytical pieces and are good sources for understanding major international news. https://mondediplo.com/

Juan Cole’s Informed Comment: Juan Cole is an academic expert on Shi’a Islam and has been writing regularly at his Informed Comment site about Middle East politics since the Iraq War. A recent article of his is a good example of how he parses the news in a very helpful way: “Trump: Turkey’s Erdogan staged “Hostile Takeover” of Syria using HTS Proxies, and is the ‘Victor’” 12/17/2024. <https://www.juancole.com/2024/12/turkeys-erdogan-takeover.html> in that piece, he tries to translate a set of garbled claims by Trump about the situation in Syria into intelligible English.

This is exactly the kind of patient parsing of Trump’s often scatterbrained statements that we need to get from qualified experts and reporters for the next four years.

TomDispatch: A long-running blog by Tom Englehardt that offers a variety of “restrainer” type analyses of US foreign policy from sources including Michael Klare, John Feffer, Karen Greenberg, William Hartung, and Alfred McCoy. Juan Cole is also a contributor. https://tomdispatch.com/archive/

Notes:

(1) ‘DISGRACEFUL!’: Fed Up MSNBC Host TURNS On Biden-The Kyle Kulinski Show. Secular Talk YouTube channel 01/13/2025. <https://youtu.be/25rA7nmeVA4?si=tXaGPRnOZVBl-ppk> (Accessed: 2025-13-01).

A Gaza cease-fire coming up?

Laura Rozen reports on the rumors and speculation on a possible cease-fire in the Gaza war/genocide:

President Biden, a week before he is due to hand over power, expressed optimism about prospects for at long last reaching a deal for the release of some of the 100 hostages held by Hamas in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons, and a phased ceasefire in Gaza. The basic structure of the three phase deal is one the administration has been pursuing for over eight months.

“On the war between Israel and Hamas, we are on the brink of a proposal that I laid out in detail months ago, finally coming to fruition,” Biden said in a valedictory foreign policy speech at the State Department today.

“We are pressing hard to close the deal we have structured that would free the hostages, halt the fighting, provide security to Israel, and allow us to significantly surge humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians, who have suffered terribly in this war that Hamas started,” Biden said. “They've been through hell. So many innocent people have been killed.

“The Palestinian people deserve peace, and the right to determine their own futures,” Biden said. “Israel deserves peace and real security. And the hostages and their families deserve to be reunited. And so we're working urgently to close this deal.”

“I have learned in many years of public service to never, never, never, ever give up,” Biden added. (1)

The BBC reports:

At this point, it’s likely any ceasefire during the next few days or immediately after Trump’s Inauguration will be mainly a stunt to make Benjamin Netanyahu’s preferred Presidential candidate Donald Trump look good.

In fact, at the moment, it looks suspiciously similar to Ronald Reagan’s Inauguration, when Iran released the hostages it had held since the previous year immediately after Reagan was sworn in as President. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Benjamin Netanyahu is planning the same sort of thing.

Because of that, it’s not entirely clear why Hamas would agree to such a ceasefire if it gave back all the hostages. (Under international law, they should give back all the hostages, but neither Hamas nor Israel actually care about international law.)

Because Israel will just make up some pretext or seize on some particular incident to claim they had to immediately resume whatever kinds of military actions they actually stop. But why would Israel even adhere for a few days to whatever they agreed to do in the ceasefire? Neither Biden in his last hours in office nor Trump as President will impose any meaningful restraints on Israel’s military action in the absence of political pressures from inside and (mostly) outside for a real change in policy.

Rozen presentas about the only kind of very cautious optimism that it seems we can take from the present moment, which is that Trump and Biden have cooperated “at least on the issue of a Middle East peace deal managed to set aside their differences for the sake of trying to free the hostages and end the awful bloodshed in Gaza.”

Haaretz columnist Alan Pinkas definitely seems to think Netanyahu was stalling the previous hostage negotiations in order to time a solution to coincide with Trump’s hoped-for Presidential Inauguration:

If the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – ratified on January 23, 1933 – had determined that presidential inaugurations would be on January 10 and not January 20, the five Israeli soldiers who were killed in Gaza on Monday likely would have been alive, their families not destroyed, a hostage deal might have already begun and scores of Gazan lives would have been spared.

It's that simple, that appalling, that tragic and that cruel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may whine all he likes about how U.S. President-elect Donald Trump made him do it. He is already selling the "I had no choice, we managed to postpone this for months" message to his ultranationalist, messianic, warmongering ruling coalition partners. But the truth is very clear: he has agreed to a deal he could and should have signed many months ago. But ailing hostages rotting in oxygen-deprived tunnels for 15 months and over 120 Israeli soldiers killed since he declined a previous deal are the least of his concerns. This is who and what he is. ...

The deal that may – and still may not – be agreed and signed on Tuesday or Wednesday was on the table last May, again in July and practically ever since. But Mr. Netanyahu, in the name of "an existential war" that will produce a "total victory," waited for the U.S. election and then for the presidential inauguration before agreeing to a deal. …

This is an extraordinarily tenuous agreement given what Hamas is and Netanyahu's track record. It would come as no surprise to anyone if he is telling his reluctant and sulking ministers, "Don't worry, the cease-fire won't hold." (3)

Notes:

(1) Rozen, Laura (2025): Biden says on ‘brink’ of hostage release/Gaza ceasefire deal. Diplomatic 01/13/2025. <https://diplomatic.substack.com/p/biden-says-on-brink-of-hostage-releasegaza> (Accessed: 2025-14-01).

(2) US says Israel and Hamas “on brink” of Gaza ceasefire deal. BBC News 01/14/2025. <https://youtu.be/-FT8a8p3z9U?si=u2cVGndYzXCcVdbd> (Accessed: 2025-14-01).

(3) Pinkas, Alon (2025): The Gaza Cease-fire and Hostage Deal Is the Same One From Eight Months Ago. Why Did Netanyahu Accept It Now? Haaretz 01/14/2025. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-01-14/ty-article/.premium/the-gaza-cease-fire-deal-hasnt-changed-in-eight-months-why-did-netanyahu-accept-it-now/00000194-649e-d2ad-a19d-76df0cf80000?gift=0e77daf7ec9e4beb87765d24c9c5d422> (Accessed: 2025-14-01).

Trumperialist bad “reality"-TV and the “Unitary Executive” Theory

One problem with having a President who is unfortunately a master media-manipulator when it comes to projected his desired messages is that even when his consciously making threats to function as some kind of distraction, or as entertainment for his cult followers, People still have to question whether he is actually serious. Because he’s about to again become the President of the country with by far the biggest military on earth.

Kyle Kulinski has a worthwhile early analysis of Trump’s clear threats of military action against Denmark and Panama, his threats of economic action and the explicit threat of military action against Canada for the purposes of annexing it, and the threats being floated by his team to start military strikes in Mexico with the cover excuse that Mexican drug cartels are terrorist organizations and therefore a legitimate target for conventional military strikes on Mexico. (1)

Numerous commentators stress that we have to keep a focus on what Trump’s actions as President are once he’s inaugurated. It’s going to be a constant balancing act for pro-democracy Americans to not focus on Trump’s provocative statements and let them become distractions, and also to recognize that the Trumpistas are coming back to the Presidency at the head of a party that is currently acting like an authoritarian cult.

Because Trump and his movement operate on Steve Bannon’s notorious media strategy of “flood the zone with s**t,” constantly trying to “trigger the libs” by making obnoxious or incendiary statements and threats. On the other hand, Trump and his transition team are clearly operating on the general guidance of the radical-right Agenda 2025 program issued by far-right operators last year.

Michael Waldman wrote about this program in July 2024:

Usually politicians pretend to read books they haven’t opened. Donald Trump made news last week when he claimed not to have read a book, one written by his friends and allies. The 887-page doorstopper is the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 book Trump claimed to “know nothing about Project 2025” and have “no idea who is behind it.”

Why that transparent fib? Perhaps Trump wanted some distance from Kevin Roberts, leader of the Heritage Foundation. “We are in the process of the second American revolution, which will remain bloodless,” Roberts declared, “if the left allows it to be.” Perhaps, too, Trump realized that if the public knew what was in the plan, it would send chills. …

Above all else, it espouses a maximalist version of the “unitary executive theory,” the notion that the president personally controls the executive branch and can act free from checks and balances. It’s a fancy version of what Trump told civics students in 2019: “I have an Article II [of the Constitution], where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” (2)

The Unitary Executive Theory is a career project of a former Congressman and former Vice President named Dick Cheney. There have been disputes over the limits of Presidential power since George Washington’s Presidency. And Dick Cheney certainly wasn’t the first person to elaborate some kind of theory for broader Presidential power.

Jeffrey Crouch and two co-authors describe this very expansive notion of Presidential power in The Unitary Executive Theory: A Danger to Constitutional Government (2021). (2) The disputes over Presidential power in recent decades was triggered by the many excesses of the national security state during the time of the Vietnam, including illegal acts of repression against domestic dissenters.

While Presidents Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter were willing to accept more formal restraints on Presidential power and Carter was particularly focused on fighting the reality and the perception of government corruption, The Republicans wanted to go in a different direction. As Crouch et.al. put it:

The laws temporarily bottled up the emerging trend toward increased independent presidential powers and vastly expanded authority for chief executives, but even they ultimately ended up as merely temporary dams before the rising tide of presidential power. The unitary executive theory emerged in this context. With the presidency secured, Reagan and his supporters could now effectively push back against Congress and what they saw as illegitimate interference with the president’s constitutional responsibilities and powers.

This pushback for greater Executive power – at least for Republican Presidents – involved several figures whose names are still fairly familiar: Edwin Meese, Steven Calabresi, Samuel Alito – the Supreme Court Justice who features sleazy billionaire Paul Singer as a sugardaddy (4) – Robert Bork, torture-program criminal John Yoo, Steven Calabresi, and Reagan solicitor general Charles Fried. As Rozell and Crouch explain, a very influential case for the Unitary Executive Theory – which would better be described as an Elected Autocrat theory of government – was made in the minority report to the Iran-Contra Congressional investigation. (5)

In 1987, then representative Cheney wrote most of the Iran-Contra Minority Report, although Republican representatives William Broomfield, Henry Hyde, Jim Courter, Bill McCollum, and Michael DeWine and Senators James McClure and Orrin Hatch also signed it. The report offers valuable insights into Cheney’s thoughts on presidential power. Moreover, it provides a glimpse at what would become some of the core arguments advanced not only by unitary executive advocates in the George W. Bush administration but also by Presidents Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump, who likewise believed they could unilaterally act outside the Constitution and laws.

Obama was particularly fond of using his “Unitary Executive “powers for drone warfare unauthorized by Congress nor justifiable in terms of international law. (6)

In fact, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann reported in 2011, while Obama was still in his first Presidential terms, he told his staff, “Turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” (7)

The degeneration of the US government’s commitment to the rule of law is primarily due to the authoritarianism that Republicans have adopted over the decades. But it has definitely been a bipartisan failure. But I assume that Obama could also brag on that topic, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.”

Maybe that what he was chuckling about during his cozy chat with incoming President Trump at Jimmy Carter’s funeral.

Notes:

(1) 'HE'S LOST IT!': Trump Threatens Panama & Greenland With WAR. Secular Talk YouTube channel 01/08/2025. <https://youtu.be/6E6nUPJbEeo?si=wcDzuYRPBh-Hxh8v> (Accessed: 2025-11-01).

(2) Waldman, Michael (2024): A Dangerous Vision for the Presidency. Brennan Center for Justice 07/10/2024. <https://www.brennancent governmer.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/dangerous-vision-presidency> (Accessed: 2025-11-01).

(3) Crouch, J. Rozell, M.J. & Sollenberger, M.A. (2021): The Unitary Executive Theory: A Danger to Constitutional Government (2021). Lawrence KS: University Press of Kansas.

(4) Elliott, Justin et al (2023): Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court. ProPublica 06/20/2023. <https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court> (Accessed: 2025-11-01).

(5) Minority Report of Members of House and Senate Select Committees on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition, November 18, 1987. National Security Archive. <https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/18221-national-security-archive-doc-05-minority-report> (Accessed: 2025-11-01).

(6) Murphy, Ian (2013): Obama Brags He's 'Really Good at Killing People'. Progressive Magazine 11/04/2024. <https://progressive.org/latest/obama-brags-really-good-killing-people/> (Accessed: 2025-11-01).

(7) Zenko, Micha (2017): Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data. Council on Foreign Relations 01/20/2017. <https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data> (Accessed: 2025-11-01).

(8) Obama, Trump share moment at Jimmy Carter’s funeral. FOX 32 Chicago 01/10/2025. <https://youtu.be/yKkdhp76Iyo?si=-pVhGXZH8P9AdyUI> (Accessed: 2025-11-01).

Los Angeles Fire Politics

Nora O'Donnell interviewed the LA fire chief in this CBS segment (1) that reminded me about how municipal budgeting works. "Extended interview: L.A. fire chief on how budget cuts limited fire response ‘to a certain factor’."

I once worked for the San Jose (CA) municipal budget office, quite a few years ago now. And it was a running joke that the police and fire departments every year would ask for huge increases in their budgets. And they would justify them by claiming they wouldn't be able to handle their basic duties if they didn't get the additions. Here it looks like the fire chief's budget rhetoric came back to bite her. Because here she's arguing that the Fire Department had done every necessary preparation for a situation like this.

And of course, every official is going to be looking to duck any blame for the disaster. And to give the press and the public alternative scapegoats.

The oligarchic press – “establishment press” doesn’t really do justice to the current news monopoly companies and their cohorts in the fossil fuel industry – will also look for scapegoats to avoid politicians talking about climate change. And the Trumpistas will blame the whole thing on the “Dem-u-crat Party.”

Sam Seder on today’s Majority Report made an important point that we’re very likely to find out that the above-ground power lines contributed significantly to the speed of the fires’ spread. Underground power cables are just plain better than the overground ones. They aren’t nearly as subject to damage in high winds. When you hear about forest fires in Northern California, they often turn out to have been started by overground power lines that blow down in high winds.

Extended interview: L.A. fire chief on how budget cuts limited fire response "to a certain factor". CBS News 01/09/2025. <https://www.cbsnews.com/video/l-a-fire-chief-on-whether-budget-cuts-impacted-the-fire-response/> (Accessible: 2025-09-01).

Trumperialism?

At one level this is just plain dumb. But dumb and reckless are what a plurality of American voters selected to be President for a second time. (1)

I’m sure the Proud Boys and the rest of the Trumpistas will continue to giggle over how their Mighty Hero Trump is “owning the libs” by saying crazy and irresponsible stuff.

But Trump is literally threatening – or, as Deutsche Welle report says, “has refused to rule out military force to gain control of the Panama Canal, and Greenland.” Trump is quoted in the report:

Well, we need Greenland for national security purposes.” I've been told that for a long time long before I even ran I mean people have been talking about it for a long time you have approximately 45,000 people there people really don't even know if Denmark has any legal right to it but if they do they should give it up because we need it for national security. That's for the Free World, I'm talking about protecting the Free World.

As the report also describes, Greenland is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. That means an ally in a mutual-defense treaty. Trump is clearly threatening to go to war against a NATO ally in order to force them to cede Greenland to the US. None of the MAGA zealots are likely to ask questions beyond that, they’re just enjoying the reality show.

In fact, France – currently the one nuclear power in the EU – and even Germany are at least in diplomatic rhetoric taking the threat seriously:

Germany and France have warned Donald Trump against any attempt to “move borders by force” after the incoming US president said he was prepared to use economic tariffs or military might to seize control of Danish-administered Greenland.

In a hastily called televised statement, Germany’s chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said Trump’s remarks had triggered “incomprehension” among European leaders. “The principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country – regardless of whether it is east of us or to the west – and every state must respect that, regardless of whether it is a small country or a very powerful state.”

Earlier, the French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said that Europe would stand up in defence of international law. “There is no question of the EU letting other nations in the world, whoever they may be, attack its sovereign borders.”

Barrot added on France Inter radio, that, while he did not believe the US “would invade” Greenland, “we have entered an era that is seeing the return of the law of the strongest”. (2)

The MAGA crowd will probably take this as another “freedom fries” moment. (3)

NATO countries are heavily dependent in the current treaty arrangements on US support for defense against any possible Russian aggression. NATO has a long history and there is lots than can be said about it good and bad. But that’s the current alliance system. And the incoming US President is threatening war against another of the NATO allies. He may just be throwing out rhetorical chum for the MAGA crowd to pleasure themselves with.

But this is a very practical signal to EU countries that they need to move to decouple their own defense as much as possible from the United States. That means, among other things, they should not commit military support for whatever military adventurism the US has in mind for Asia or the Near East.

Trump is not only threatening the nations of Denmark and Panama with hostile military action – Trump’s not-so-MAGA predecessor George H.W. Bush made a blatantly illegal regime-change invasion of Panama in 1989 with no more regard for the so-called “rules-based international order” than Trump shows – he’s threatening NATO ally Canada and the non-NATO nation of Mexico with invasion and even annexation.

Another important factor is that the European allies have militaries that are heavily integrated with the US military. It doesn’t prevent them from acting independently, as France has been doing in various countries of Africa with tacit US consent. But there is only a nominal common European military capacity, the European Defence Agency (EDA). (4)

If defense against a potentially aggressive Russia is a European priority, current NATO ally Britain could be a potential part of the European-centered mutual defense structure. But Britain has basically since the Suez crisis of 1956, Britain has been very consistent in not wanting to wind up on the opposite side of the US on any major foreign policy question. (The British government was critical at times of US policy in the Vietnam War, but they were not actively involved in the Vietnam War in the way they were in their joint action with France and Israel in invading Egypt during the Suez Crisis, where they were on the other side of the US position.)

The “restrainer”-oriented website Responsible Statecraft has an analysis by Joanna Rozpedowski that strikes me as a bit odd. (5) But basically, she’s giving a kind of best-case statement of how Trump’s threats against Denmark and Panama might be justified.

Not surprisingly, the EU Commission initially tried to publicly duck the issue.

Although the Commission confirmed that any military action against Greenland would activate the EU's mutual assistance clause in Article 42(7) of the Treaty, it refused to answer whether it assesses that there's a real risk of the U.S. invading Denmark's overseas territory, calling the case “very theoretical.” (6)

Yes, it’s not often mentioned, but the EU Treaty does have a mutual-defense clause. And, at least on its face, its more binding than the NATO Treaty.

Notes:

(1) Trump considering using military force to take Greenland. DW News YouTube channel 01/08/2025. <https://youtu.be/rJzmRldVUUc?si=GFhl_uYsjQpQlq0o> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(2) Wintour, Patrick et al (2025): Germany and France warn Trump against use of force over Greenland. The Guardian 01/08/2025. <https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/08/france-warns-trump-against-threatening-eu-sovereign-borders-greenland> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(3) Freedom fries. Wikipedia 10/13/2024. <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_fries&oldid=1250951159> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(4) European Defense Agency (EDA). European Union website n/d. <https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/search-all-eu-institutions-and-bodies/european-defence-agency-eda_en> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(5) Rozpedowski, Joanna (2025): 'America First' meets Greenland, Taiwan, and the Panama Canal. Responsible Statecraft 01/07/2025. <https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-greenland/> (Accessed: 2025-08-01).

(6) Körömi, Csongor (2025): EU dodges questions on Trump’s mooted invasion of Greenland. Politico EU 01/08/2025. <https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-dodges-questions-donald-trump-invasion-greenland-military/>

Short report on the ugly political situation in Austria

This is a good, ten-minute Deutsche Welle report inn English on the current political situation (crisis) in Austria.



It features a short but worthwhile interview with Austrian political scientist and independent political analyst Natascha Strobl.

As she says in the clip, “The strength of the far right is the weakness of all the other democratic parties.” And that’s true in varying degrees in various other countries, including the United States, as well.

Notes:

(1) What makes far-right parties so appealing to voters? DW News 01/05/2025. <https://youtu.be/l14O5Q4biB4?si=kCoIB6Q-mKOagU4Y> (Accessed: 2024-06-01).

Looking at the New Year for Syria

Richard Haass applies his impeccable credentials as a member of the US foreign policy establishment to several issues in the New Year. After cautiously expressing “some reason for optimism” for “potential ceasefires in both Ukraine and Gaza” and even “possibly a grand bargain with Iran.” (1)

It’s nice to see someone entering the New Year with an upbeat perspective!

But after the Happy New Year intro, he gets down to more specific analysis starting with Syria:

I want to start with Syria ... [A]s we often see in history, the victors tend to fall out once the glue provided by shared opposition to the former regime disappears. We are seeing some of this in Syria. There is a degree of score-settling, which to many in Syria I expect looks a lot like attacks on the Alawites, the ethnic minority to which the Assads belong. It is also hard not to worry that ISIS will exploit the situation for its own purposes. We are also seeing some foreign intervention. Israel seems to have settled into the south; it has no interest in seeing a unified Syria that can again constitute a threat. Turkey, I would wager, is preparing an assault on the Kurds even if in principle it wants Syria to calm down so millions of Syrian refugees in Turkey can return home. Turkish businessmen are also keen to help Syria rebuild. It will be interesting to see if the Turks hold off until after January 20 before going after the Kurds and, if they are so inclined, what sort of signal they receive from the Trump administration. [my emphasis]

Most Americans have presumably heard of the Kurds over the last several decades of the forever wars. From Iraq, or Syria, or Türkiye, or maybe Iran. The long conflict in Syria since 2011, also known as the Syrian Civil War, has probably appeared to most Americans as a murky mess, sometimes involving sarin gas chemical warfare. The Syrian Kurds established an autonomous government in northeastern Syria, formally called the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, also referred to as the Rojava region, which has a notable democratic orientation not common to other Syrian political factions so far. The Kurds have been US allies there so far. As a Council of Foreign Relations (which Haass headed for 20 years, 2003-2023) report explains:

Kurds have fought to consolidate a de facto autonomous territory in northern Syria, which has made them alternately friends and foes of Arab opposition groups. The Islamic State’s siege in 2014 of Kobani, a strategically located Kurdish town near the Turkish border, was a turning point. The defense of the town by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) highlighted the militant group’s effectiveness against the Islamic State. U.S. forces aided in ousting Islamic State fighters from Kobani and continued to provide arms and air support to the YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Over time, the YPG’s priority turned to consolidating autonomous Kurdish cantons in the country’s north, a region the Kurds refer to as Rojava (Western Kurdistan). YPG fighters, interested in protecting fellow Kurds, have been accused of ethnic cleansing in mixed Arab-Kurd areas. The YPG is tied to the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Ankara and Washington have designated a terrorist organization. In August 2016, Turkey deployed its military along the Syrian border to both roll back Islamic State forces and, in tandem with Syrian Arab and Turkmen fighters, block the Kurds from linking up their two cantons in a contiguous territory. The United States faced the dilemma of trying not to alienate either the YPG or Turkey, a NATO ally that was also a vital partner in the war against the Islamic State. But Washington eventually chose Ankara, agreeing in October 2019 [the first Trump Administration] to remove its troops in Syria near the Turkish border so that Turkey could launch a military offensive against the Kurds. [my emphasis] (2)

But the US hasn’t completely abandoned the Syrian Kurds, so far. And has also imposed restraints on Türkiye’s action against Rojava. Türkiye supported the Islamic insurgents (formerly affiliated to Al Qaida) which recently took power in Damascus. Yet as Haass notes in the quotation above, Türkiye could wind up going to war with the Rojavan Kurds. He seems to think that could begin any day now.

Israel’s goals in Syria are unclear. But so far the goal seems to be to leave Syria as a failed state.

The [Israeli] military operation’s scale and focus raise pressing questions about Israel’s intentions [in Syria] and its long-term impact on Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Analysts have drawn comparisons to the chaos seen in Iraq after the US-led invasion and Libya’s fragmented post-Gaddafi reality.

Israel’s occupation of additional Syrian territories near the Golan Heights compounds this uncertainty.

The Golan, a region of strategic and symbolic significance, was annexed by Israel in 1981, a move deemed illegal by the United Nations. Since Assad’s fall, Israel has extended its control, even seizing a UN-monitored buffer zone.

This occupation has sparked no condemnation from western nations, despite UN affirmations of Syrian sovereignty over the Golan Heights. (3)

And Juan Carlos Sanz notes that Turkey is serious about exercising major influence in Syria going forward:

In the culmination of its neo-Ottoman expansion strategy across part of its former empire, Turkey has quickly staked its claim in Syria. An unprecedented deployment of spies, diplomats, security agents, and bodyguards has been visible on the streets and in hotels of Damascus. Ankara has also sent 120 members of its Ministry of the Interior’s rescue teams to search for hidden underground cells in the notorious Saidnaya prison, a symbol of the atrocities committed by the Assad family during half a century of dictatorship. Dozens of Turkish reporters have closely followed these developments, with Turkish media deploying one of the largest international presences in the country, including television broadcasting teams stationed at key points in the Syrian capital.

Since becoming Turkey’s top political leader in 2002, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has had to wait for his gamble on the Syrian opposition and his stance against the Assad regime to pay off, emerging as a winner after more than 13 years of civil strife, destruction, and barbarism. Turkey has worked hard to reverse its course as sidelined power — a position the war had relegated it to. [my emphasis] (4)

Türkiye’s hopes for a more powerful Syria as a Turkish ally is likely to run up against Israel’s (presumed) aim of keeping Syria in “failed state” condition. But Türkiye’s ambition to crush the functioning of the Kurkish Autonomous Region in Rojava is also likely to cause complications with the US, as well. Of course, if the Trump 2 Administration actually does pull out of NATO, that will scramble relations with Türkiye along with all the other NATO allies.

Sanz also points to moves by Türkiye that could lead to some kind of peaceful accommodation with the Rojava Kurds. But it could also turn very ugly.

Deutsche Welle reported last week on Türkiye's’s aims in Syria: (5)

Notes:

(1) Haass, Richard (2025): Not Peanuts (January 3, 2025). Home and Away. <https://richardhaass.substack.com/p/not-peanuts-january-3-2025> (Accessed: 2025-03-01).

(2) CFR.org Editors (2024); Syria’s Civil War: The Descent Into Horror. Council on Foreign Relations 12/20/2024. <https://www.cfr.org/article/syrias-civil-war> (Accessed: 2025-03-01).

(3) Bakir, Ali (2024): Israel’s attacks on Syria threaten regional stability and will ultimately backfire. Middle East Eye 12/31/2024. <https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/syria-israel-attacks-threaten-regional-stability-backfire> (Accessed: 2025-03-01).

(4) Juan Carlos Sanz, Juan Carlos (2025): Turkey stakes its claim in Syria. El País 01/02/2025. <https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-01-02/turkey-stakes-its-claim-in-syria.html> (Accessed: 2025-03-01).

(5) What are Turkey's aims in Syria? DW News YouTube channel 12/27/2024. <https://youtu.be/1MChjr2O1n4?si=fx5jncua8nHVFNd-> (Accessed: 2025-03-01).

“Social Banditry”

Somehow, I don’t ever remember coming across the phrase “social banditry” before. But it gave me a way to post something about the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson but not split a lot of theoretical hairs about whether the fact that some people expressed some degree of understanding for the act is another sign of the impending Doom Of Civilization.

Romantic idolization of criminals as folk heroes is not new. For instance, it reminded me among other things of this song, a Woody Guthrie piece here sung by Rosanne Cash. (1)

If anyone wants to tell me that Rosanne Cash is celebrating murder and encouraging robbery and assassination, all I can say is: Bite me!

Yes, Charles Arthur “Pretty Boy” Floyd in real life was a robber and (maybe) a murderer and a mostly terrible human being. (2) But that’s not how folklore – and folk songs - work. Pretty Boy Floyd did destroy mortgage papers during bank robberies. Which in the Great Depression gained him some real sympathy.

Joshau Zeitz used the “social bandit” term in a Politico Magazine article:

In 1959 the Marxist scholar Eric Hobsbawm introduced the concept of “social banditry” into the historical and sociological lexicon. Social bandits were sometimes fictional, sometimes real figures who operated outside of the law and were widely revered for their efforts to mete out justice in an unjust world — like Robin Hood, the legendary English outlaw who lived in Sherwood Forest and, with his band of Merry Men, “stole from the rich and gave to the poor.”

Hobsbawm’s theory, which historians continue to debate, rested on a fairly specific Marxian analysis of power and economic relationships in agrarian societies, with bandits (or the idea of bandits) providing a form of resistance in the face of rampant inequality. But such characters transcended different geographies and times, ranging from the fictional Robin Hood in 14th century England, to brutally violent, real-life outlaws like Jesse James and Billy the Kid in the post-Civil War era United States, to Pancho Villa in early 20th century Mexico. [my emphasis] (3)

Pancho Villa, by the way, was an actual Mexican revolutionary. But not a choirboy, and not really the Thomas Jefferson type. (But Villa didn’t own slaves, either, so there’s that!)

Speaking of Marxists, John Reed – who was honored in the then-new USSR by burial inside the Kremlin walls after his death in 1920 – was heavily influenced in his understanding of revolution by covering Pancho Villa in Mexico. (4)

In Politico terms, using a Marxist’s explanation of a cultural phenomenon qualifies as pretty edgy. But, hey, when you’ve got a point, you’ve got a point:

Whether Rob Roy MacGregor, aka the Scottish Robin Hood, or Ned Kelly, a 19th century Australian outlaw, “the crucial fact about the bandit’s social situation is its ambiguity,” Hobsbawm wrote. “He is an outsider and a rebel, a poor man who refuses to accept the normal rules of poverty. … This draws him close to the poor: he is one of them. It sets him in opposition to the hierarchy of power, wealth and influence. He is not one of them.

… At the same time the bandit is inevitably drawn into the web of wealth and power. Because, unlike other peasants, he acquires wealth and exerts power. He is ‘one of us,’ who is constantly in the process of becoming associated with ‘them.’” (Of course, being “one of us” doesn’t mean the social bandit cannot come from wealth or privilege. As the Robin Hood lore evolved from its 14th century roots, the masked bandit became a former nobleman who turned traitor to his upbringing and cast his lot with the poor. It’s about affinity and identity, not background.) (Politico Magazine) [my emphasis]

Notes:

(1) Rosanne Cash - Woody Guthrie At 100! / "Pretty Boy Floyd". Rosanne Cash YouTube 02/10/2018. <https://youtu.be/KdlB4hdZ5mU?si=9UzxWVULH7Zq50qX> (Accessed: 2025-02-01).

(2) Editors (2024): Pretty Boy Floyd. Encyclopedia Britannica 12/13/2024. <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pretty-Boy-Floyd> (Accessed: 2025-02-01).

(3) Zeitz, Josua (2024): People Are Cheering on a Shooting. This Theory Could Explain Why. Politico Magazine 12/10/2024. <https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/10/united-healthcare-killer-reaction-theory-00193513> (Accessed: 2025-02-01).

(4) Day, Megan (2021): How the Mexican Revolution Made John Reed a Red. Jacobin 11/23/2021. <https://jacobin.com/2021/11/mexican-revolution-john-reed-journalism-pancho-villa> (Accessed: 2025-02-01).