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

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

The Peace President expressed his support for Israeli military escalation:

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

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

Canada’s CBC News reported: (2)

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

The Guardian reported early Tuesday morning:

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

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

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

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

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

As Emir Nader reports for BBC News:

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

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

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

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

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

Al Jazeera provided this early report: (7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bracing for new escalation by Israel against Gaza civilians

The dreary diplomatic show - around Bibi Netanyahu's all-too-real war against Gaza civilians - goes on, as Laura Rozen reports:

President Biden in a call today urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to send a senior interagency team to Washington in the coming days to discuss alternative ways to achieve their goals of defeating Hamas other than an Israeli ground invasion of the southern Gaza city of Rafah, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said.

“Today, President Biden asked the Prime Minister to send a senior interagency team… to Washington in the coming days to hear U.S. concerns about Israel's current Rafah planning and to lay out an alternative approach that would target key Hamas elements in Rafah and secure the Egypt/Gaza border without a major ground invasion,” Sullivan told journalists at the White House briefing today (March 18), following the first Biden/Netanyahu call in a month.

“The Prime Minister agreed that he would send a team,” Sullivan said. “Obviously, he has his own point of view on a Rafah operation, but he agreed that he would send a team to Washington to have this discussion and have this engagement. And we look forward to those discussions.” (1)

With every week that passes in this war now in its sixth month with no end in sight, it becomes harder to take statement like that from the White House as anything but public-relations fluff.

The recent incidents involving the Israeli army's 98th Division Commander, Brig. Gen. Dan Goldfuss, and 99th Division Commander, Brig. Gen. Barak Hiram, are but a symptom of the disintegration of the IDF's chain of command, which is far more severe than previously perceived.

Not even a faint reservation was heard from the IDF's general staff in November, when the commander of the army's 36th Armored Division, Brig. Gen. David Bar Kalifa, issued a handwritten battle directive to his troops, calling on them to take revenge on the Palestinians.

Is there any wonder that when Bar Kalifa was ordered to move his forces outside of Gaza, senior army officials suspected that their directives were intentionally disregarded? (2)

Diplomatic rhetoric is hard enough in general for the public to sort through. It’s especially hard right now to tell how much of the Biden Administration’s public signaling to Israel is seriously meant to restrain Israel from targeting and starving Palestinian civilians in Gaza, how much is political trial-balloon efforts, and how much is cynical cover for continuing to back Netanyahu’s war at this point.

But if the Biden Administration seriously intends to restrain Netanyahu’s government, it’s hard to see how it can be done without a cutoff of US arms supplies. Even the qualification that the US might cut off all but “defensive” weapons seems like a cynical dodge at the current moment.

This week’s report from the Washington Post doesn’t give us reason to have confidence in the integrity of Biden’s Israel policy and his public statements defending it:

On Oct. 27, three weeks into Israel’s punishing counterattack in Gaza, top Biden officials privately told a small group assembled at the White House what they would not say in public: Israel was regularly bombing buildings without solid intelligence that they were legitimate military targets.

The group - top foreign policy officials from the Biden administration and previous ones - also discussed the apparent lack of an Israeli plan for defeating Hamas despite repeated U.S. prodding, according to three people familiar with the meeting, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private exchange.

“We never had a clear sense that the Israelis had a definable and achievable military objective,” said one of those familiar with the meeting. “From the very beginning, there’s been a sense of us not knowing how the Israelis were going to do what they said they were going to do.”

Publicly, however, the Biden administration was providing Israel unfettered support in the wake of the Oct. 7 attacks, when Hamas militants murdered 1,200 people and took about 250 others hostage. On the same day as the private meeting, White House spokesman John Kirby told reporters that the U.S. was imposing no “red lines” on Israel’s military campaign. (3)

If you want to hear the broad issues over Israel-Palestine argued out at some length, here is a discussion that comes in just a couple of minutes of five hours. (4)



The four guys left-to-right in the YouTube image are podcaster Destiny, Benny Morris, Mouin Rabbani, and Norman Finkelstein. As the YouTube description notes, “Norman Finkelstein and Benny Morris are historians. Mouin Rabbani is a Middle East analyst. Steven Bonnell (aka Destiny) is a political livestreamer.”

Finkelstein is extremely well-informed on the relevant historical issues and has been very critical of Israel’s occupation policies, of the Zionist ideology, and of Israel’s instrumental use of Holocaust memory. Benny Morris is also a respected historian, whose work has been important in describing the extent to which the founding of Israel involved deliberate mass expulsion of Palestinians, even though he is takes a very hawkish position in the current situation. Mouin Rabbani is highly critical of the Netanyahu regime and its current policies; he writes regularly for Jadilliya. Bonnell is a rightwing podcaster who apparently specializes in being a fast-talking twit.

Krystal Ball focuses on Norm Finkelstein takedown of Bonnell in this report. (5) When someone is taking this approach of which many rightwingers of obviously fond of just talking over those differing with you to drown out what you’re saying, what Finkelstein does is probably the best you can do. Krystal describes Bonnell’s approach as a “combination of ignorance, willful blindness, and debate-bro tricks of the trade.”

Notes:

(1) Rozen, Laura (2024): Biden asks Israel PM to send team to discuss alternatives to Rafah invasion. Diplomatic 03/18/2024. (Accessed: 2024-19-03).

(2) Levy, Yahil (2024): The War in Gaza Exposes a Disintegrated Israeli Army. Haaretz 03/19/2024. <https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-03-19/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-war-in-gaza-exposes-a-disintegrated-israeli-army/0000018e-5309-d282-a19f-7fd999950000> (Accessed: 2024-19-03).

(3) Abutaleb, Yasmeen & Hudson, John (2024): How Biden became embroiled in a Gaza conflict with no end in sight. Washington Post 03/18/2024. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/18/biden-israel-gaza-rafah-palestinians/> (Accessed: 2024-20-03).

(4) Israel-Palestine Debate: Finkelstein, Destiny, M. Rabbani & Benny Morris. Lex Fridman YouTube channel 05/14/2024. (Accessed: 2024-14-05).

(5) Norm Finkelstein DOGWALKS Destiny In Israel Debate. Breaking Points YouTube channel 03/19/2024. (Accessed: 2024-14-05).

Checking in with Über-Realist John Mearsheimer for his (downbeat) views of the Russia-Ukraine and Gaza Wars

I haven't posted any downer interviews with Über-Realist John Mearsheimer lately. So here are a couple to catch up.

Here he is with his normal weekly interview with Judge Napolitano. (1) (I recommend ignoring the ad for buying "precious metals" at the start.)




For anyone who would seriously like to see a peaceful world, with nuclear stockpiles reduced at least to far below their current humanity-destroying-potential levels, and with international cooperation on managing a half-rational climate policy, the "realist" foreign-policy outlook is a frustratingly mixed phenomenon.

There are several schools of realist international-relations (IR) thinking like structural realism and neoclassical realism. Within the former, there are defensive-positionalist structural realists based on “balance of threat” theory (like Stephen Walt) and offensive Structural realism like Mearsheimer’s, the latter emphasizing the dynamic of the international system which produces expansionist tendencies, especially among great powers. (2)

But Mearsheimer has been closely following both Ukraine situation closely since at least 2014 and the US relationship with Israel for more than two decades. And his analyses have held up remarkably well. So this makes his takes on current foreign affairs consistently provocative but often frustratingly lacking in any promise of Happy Endings. I think this makes him a Hegelian, at least in the sense of Hegel’s famous quote: “history is not the soil in which happiness grows. The periods of happiness in it are the blank pages of history." (Lectures on the Philosophy of World History)

And if you find Mearsheimer be a bummer on the topic of the Russia-Ukraine War, you may want to consume something tranquilizing before watching this one emphasizing the current situation of the US and Israel (3):




One thing I found striking was the suggestion (starting just after 50:00 in the second video) that the Biden Administration is now so entangled in the conflicts in Ukraine and in-and-around Israel, the latter of which could easily become much worse, has led the Administration to give more of a priority to try to postpone escalation in confrontations with China. Mearsheimer has expressed his agreement with the US strategic priority adopted by the Obama Administration in 2011 to focus on China as its biggest strategic challenge.

For him, that shift means the US should be trying to improve rrelations with Russia to try to maake them a partner in balancing against China. That goal seems to be receding for the US at the moment.

[T]he fact is the United States remains deeply committed, profoundly committed, in the Middle East, profoundly committed in Ukraine and profoundly committed in East Asia, although East Asia is number three in terms of the attention the administration gives to those three issues.

Because it's so bogged down at the moment in the Middle East and in Ukraine. ...

[53:00:] Can I just make two quick points about China …? But, you know, there's a lot of talk that with Kurt Campbell in power [as Deputy US Secretary of State] now, we're going to get tough with the Chinese and the Chinese have good reason to worry.

I think you want to understand that if you're the United States at this point in time the last thing you want is trouble in East Asia, right? If anything you want to do everything you can to dampen the tensions in East Asia. Because you are up to your eyeballs and alligators in Ukraine, you were up to your eyeballs in alligators in the Middle East, and we have limited industrial capacity, right? So getting into a fight in the South China Sea or over Taiwan would be in my opinion catastrophic for the United States.

The second way to cut at this is just to talk about the industrial base. … The Russians and the Chinese both have impressive industrial bases and they have the ability to produce huge numbers of weapons the American industrial base shrunk during the unipolar moment [1989-2011] and we don't have the capability to produce lots of weapons.

Nevertheless there are huge demands on us from the Israelis, from the Ukrainians. And don't forget there's this whole Asian scenario. So if the United States were to get into any kind of protracted conflict with China in the South China Sea or over Taiwan today, it would probably run out of ammunition very quickly.

We have a huge problem here, right? So there are just real limits to how tough we're going to get with the Chinese, right? And, again, if anything, what we're going to try and do is keep keep things [in East Asia] at a much lower level tension. [my emphasis]

Notes:

(1) Prof. John J. Mearsheimer: Ukraine’s Dangerous Last Gasp. Judge Napolitano-Judging Freedom YouTube channel 03/14/2024. <https://www.youtube.com/live/IxoWXV0Uk8Q?si=O0_O2K_4D1NEFv3r> (Accessed: 2024-16-03).

(2) Wivel, Anders (2017): Realism in Foreign Policy Analysis. Oxford Research Encyclopedia 09/25/2017. <https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.475> (Accessed: 2024-16-03).

(3) The West in Decline - John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen. The Duran YouTube channel 05/16/2024. <https://youtu.be/UNoUHzd1LcM?si=K88aaA1EUpdfA03v> (Accessed: 2024-16-03).

Biden, the SOTU and Israel

Cenk Uygur praised Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech for delivering some strong points for his own side and against the Republicans.

But he also criticized him for touting issues like paid family leave and controlling drug prices on which he has done little or not even proposed to Congress some of the popular items he mentioned. (1)



The parts on Israel deserve particular attention:

The United States has been leading international efforts to get more humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

Tonight, I’m directing the U.S. military to lead an emergency mission to establish a temporary pier in the Mediterranean on the Gaza coast that can receive large ships carrying food, water, medicine and temporary shelters. No U.S. boots will be on the ground. This temporary pier would enable a massive increase in the amount of humanitarian assistance getting into Gaza every day.

But Israel must also do its part. Israel must allow more aid into Gaza and ensure that humanitarian workers aren’t caught in the cross fire. To the leadership of Israel I say this. Humanitarian assistance cannot be a secondary consideration or a bargaining chip.

Protecting and saving innocent lives has to be a priority.

As we look to the future, the only real solution is a two-state solution. I say this as a lifelong supporter of Israel and the only American president to visit Israel in wartime. There is no other path that guarantees Israel’s security and democracy.

There is no other path that guarantees Palestinians can live with peace and dignity. There is no other path that guarantees peace between Israel and all of its Arab neighbors, including Saudi Arabia.

Creating stability in the Middle East also means containing the threat posed by Iran. That’s why I built a coalition of more than a dozen countries to defend international shipping and freedom of navigation in the Red Sea. I’ve ordered strikes to degrade Houthi capabilities and defend U.S. Forces in the region.

As Commander in Chief, I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and military personnel. (2)

We’re creating a temporary pier in Gaza - but no “U.S. boots will be on the ground”? How is that supposed to work?

And what is Benjamin Netanyahu, the man who Biden has given the ability to torpedo Biden’s own re-election campaign, saying? (3)

This certainly sounds like Netanyahu wants to go back to making full-on war on the Palestinians his war has already driven into the Rafah area:

Israel will not give in to international pressure to stall an attack on the southern Gaza city of Rafah and will continue its bloody offensive against Hamas, said Benjamin Netanyahu.

“There is international pressure and it’s growing, but … we need to stand together against the attempts to stop the war,” the prime minister told a military graduation ceremony in southern Israel, saying that Israel’s forces would operate against Hamas all through the Gaza Strip “including Rafah, the last Hamas stronghold”.

He added: “Whoever tells us not to act in Rafah is telling us to lose the war and that will not happen.”

The uncompromising statement came just hours after news that Hamas had withdrawn its delegation from indirect ceasefire negotiations in Cairo, suggesting that the chances of even a short pause to the war in Gaza before the Islamic holy month of Ramadan are now very slim. (4)

This is a bizarre situation. Israel has created famine in Gaza by a deliberate blockage on vital food supplies. The US is providing open-ended military support for the war Netanyahu is waging in Gaza of which the food blockade is a part. Now the US coming in to provide supplies to some of those whose starvation the US is supporting and financing by their support of Israeli war crimes.

I’m happy if some people get more food this way. But it is also facilitating Israel’s starvation campaign and even giving them an alibi for not following the laws of war and for not living up to their international obligations to the territories they have been occupying for decades.

And what happens if Israel attacks American forces? (Maybe the question should be when and not if, given how Israel has been conducting itself.) What will the Biden Administration do if Israeli forces kill Americans who are part of the humanitarian mission in some way?

It’s worth remembering that in 1967, Israel did attack an American ship, the USS Liberty, “an attack that would leave 34 Americans dead and 171 wounded.” (5)

Benjamin Netanyahu, tremendously unpopular among Israeli voters, has maximum incentive to prolong the war to keep himself in office and out of jail on corruption charges for as long as possible. And from his point of view - and possibly from Hamas’ viewpoint as well (6) - it would be advantageous to spread a larger regional war and even involve the US in direct conflict with Iran.

Netanyahu would also prefer to see Donald Trump in office. So Biden will have to find a better way to manage the situation if he wants to avoid Nethanyahu torpedoing his popularity and chances for reelection in November.

Notes:

(1) Cenk PRAISES Biden's State of the Union Speech?! The Young Turks YouTube channel 03/08/2024. (Accessed: 2024-08-03).

(2) Remarks of President Joe Biden — State of the Union Address As Prepared for Delivery. ´White House.gov <https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/03/07/remarks-of-president-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address-as-prepared-for-delivery-2/> (Accessed: 2024-08-03). My paragraph breaks.

(3) Haaretz 03/07/2024. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-07/ty-article-live/idf-soldier-killed-13-wounded-in-gaza-fighting-hamas-says-talks-on-verge-of-collapse/0000018e-16ed-d792-a7be-3efd76930000> (Accessed: 2024-08-03).

(4) Burke, Jason (2024): Israel will resist pressure to halt Rafah attack, says Netanyahu. The Guardian 03/07/2024. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/07/israel-resist-pressure-halt-rafah-attack-netanyahu> (Accessed: 2024-08-03).

(5) Pensack, Mariam (2017): Fifty Years Later, NSA Keep Details of Israel's USS Liberty Attack Secret. The Intercept 06/06/2017. <https://theintercept.com/2017/06/06/fifty-years-later-nsa-keeps-details-of-israels-uss-liberty-attack-secret/> (Accessed: 2024-08-03).

(6) Rozen, Laura (2024): U.S. presses for Gaza truce amid reports talks deadlocked. Diplomatic 03/07/2024. (Accessed: 2024-08-03).

Kamala Harris gets a chance to perk up the Democratic base over Israel's war on the people of Gaza

Interesting public appearance by the suspected AI simulation of a bland corporate HR spokesperson better known as Vice President Kamala Harris:

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris bluntly called out Israel on Sunday for not doing enough to ease a "humanitarian catastrophe" in Gaza as the Biden administration faces increasing pressure to rein in its close ally while it wages war with Hamas militants.

Harris, speaking in front of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where state troopers beat U.S. civil rights marchers nearly six decades ago, called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and urged Hamas to accept a deal to release hostages in return for a 6-week cessation of hostilities. ...

"People in Gaza are starving. The conditions are inhumane and our common humanity compels us to act," Harris said at an event to commemorate the 59th anniversary of "Bloody Sunday" in Alabama. "The Israeli government must do more to significantly increase the flow of aid. No excuses," Harris said. (1) [my emphasis]

At least the White House did Harris the favor of letting her take a public position that the Democratic base voters actually support. She called explicitly for a ceasefire without licking an ice cream cone while she was doing it. (2)

On the substance of the issue, we are too far into the “talk is cheap” experience on Israel’s war on Gaza civilians - now in its fifth month with no end in sight - to be much encouraged by aspirational pronouncements.

“No excuses” is the right message for the US to send to Israel. But the only way the wretched government headed by Bibi Netanyahu is going to take it seriously is when the Biden Administration cuts off military aid to Israel until they cease their war crimes. The way things stand right now, Netanyahu doesn’t need excuses. Nothing he’s done so far has convinced the US to cut off military aid. And Netanyahu is obviously more than happy to cause political problems for Biden. Trump would be at least as deferential to Israeli policies as Biden. Plus, Netanyahu presumably assumes Trump would be willing to take bribes.

The same caution applies to other diplomatic moves in process, like the action that in diplomatic terms is considered cheeky of inviting Benny Gantz, a rival to Netanyahu and a member of his war cabinet, to meet with Kamala Harris in Washington. (Also a boost to her, it seems.)

Gantz's visit comes amid strained relations between Netanyahu and U.S. President Joe Biden and the hard line in Israel being led by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich with regard to Ramadan and increasing humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. ...

Israeli officials said that Gantz's meeting with Harris was expected to focus on the importance of reaching an agreement to free the hostages in exchange for a temporary cease-fire. Harris will stress that Israel has the right to defend itself from Hamas and will discuss post-war plans for rebuilding Gaza under the management of the Palestinian Authority.

Harris is also expected to raise the issue of the large number of Palestinian casualties since the outbreak of the war – which according to the Hamas-controlled health ministry in Gaza, has reached 30,000 – and the need to step up deliveries of humanitarian aid. "The vice president will express concern for the safety of the 1.5 million Palestinians in Rafah," said one official. (3) [my emphasis]

But it’s hard to see how we’ll get any meaningful change in Israel’s war policy unless the US cuts off military aid.

Michael Moore spoke to MSNBC about the “Uncommitted” protest vote in the Michigan primary, making the case that it was an effective way to signal Biden that he needs to listen to his own partisan voters and change his indefensible blanket support for Netanyahu’s war. (4)



He also gives a good description of how strategic voting works. The Majority Report’s Emma Vigeland referred to herself recently as a “harm-reduction” voter. I like that concept!

Notes:

(1) Mason, Jeff (2024): Kamala Harris calls out Israel over 'catastrophe' in Gaza. Reuters 03/04/2024. <https://www.reuters.com/world/us-vp-harris-urges-israeli-government-do-more-boost-aid-into-gaza-2024-03-03/> (Accessed: 2024-04-03).

(2) Ryan, Brad (2024): Joe Biden's awkward ice cream moment has only put the US president under more pressure. Australian Broadcasting Company 03/01/2024. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-01/biden-under-pressure-after-awkward-icecream-moment/103532822> (Accessed: 2024-04-03).

(3) Lis, Jonathan (2024): Israeli Source: 'Enraged' Netanyahu Trying to Undermine Gantz' U.S. Visit. Haaretz 05/04/2024. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-04/ty-article/.premium/israeli-source-enraged-netanyahu-trying-to-undermine-gantz-u-s-visit/0000018e-08a9-d822-a9ce-7dbfdcbb0000>  (Accessed: 2024-04-03).

(4) Filmmaker Michael Moore says Michigan's 'Uncommitted' campaign can save Biden from himself. MSNBC YouTube channel 03/03/2024. <https://youtu.be/qSb3srONXnI?si=DlldAbrMrhnDyGTf> (Accessed: 2024-04-03).

The spreading Middle East conflict and the dangers of great-power arrogance for the US

Toby Matthiesen provided a helpful survey earlier this month of the role Palestine plays in international Islamic politics. It also provides a useful reminder of how spectacularly misguided the Cheney-Bush Administration invasion of Iraq was.

As many have observed, these flash points show the growing reach of the so-called axis of resistance, the loose group of Iranian-backed militias that is attacking Israeli and U.S. interests across the Middle East. Less noted, however, has been the extent to which this broader conflict has blurred the sectarian divisions that have often shaped the region. After all, the vicious civil wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen have all had a Shiite-Sunni component; for years, Iran and Saudi Arabia have invoked sectarian loyalties in their long-running contest for regional dominance. Yet the war in Gaza has defied this tension: Palestinians are overwhelmingly Sunni Muslims, and Hamas emerged out of the Muslim Brotherhood, the most important Sunni Islamist movement, with roots in Egypt. How is it that Hamas has found some of its strongest allies in Shiite-led groups and regimes in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen? (1) [my emphasis]

As Shrub Bush’s Middle East adventures showed, bumbling arrogance is a risky way to make foreign policy. Mike Shuster reported in 2007:

U.S. policy is further complicated by the close relationship between the Bush administration and Israel, and lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Despite the pre-invasion claims of some in the Bush administration, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has proved of no benefit to that issue.

Says [Ray] Takeyh, "I think the dream that the newly elected Iraqi government was going to reconcile with Israel is another anticipation that has vanished."

The sectarian divide in the region only deepened when war broke out last summer between Israel and Hezbollah, the Shiite militia in Lebanon. The Bush administration's reluctance to negotiate a quick end to the fighting didn't help nor did comments made at the time by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante," Rice said two weeks into the war. "I think it would be a mistake. What we're seeing here is, in a sense, the birth pangs of a new Middle East. And whatever we do, we have to be certain we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one." (2) [my emphasis]

As Matthiesen observes, “even when sectarian tensions have flared elsewhere, the plight of the Palestinians has long provided a common rallying point across the Muslim world.“ And further: “for nearly a century, support for the Palestinians has been something on which Sunni and Shiite Muslims around the world have largely agreed.”

And the Biden Administration’s continuing support for Netanyahu’s current war, for all practical purposes seemingly unconditional support so far, is already pulling the US into a wider war. George W. Bush couldn’t tell the difference between Sunnis and Shia. Now, Joe Biden seems to be unable to tell the difference in Bibi Netanyahu between an important ally and a malicious, authoritarian loose cannon whose political goals are neither peaceful nor democratic.

As Matthiesen puts it:

Now, after nearly four months of catastrophic war, Israel’s assault on Gaza has awakened a pan-Islamic front encompassing Sunni Arab publics, who overwhelmingly oppose Arab normalization, and the militant Shiite groups that constitute the core of Iran’s resistance forces. For the United States and its partners, this development poses a strategic challenge that goes far beyond countering Iraqi militias and the Houthis with targeted strikes. By bringing together a long-divided region, the war in Gaza threatens to further undermine U.S. influence and, in the long run, could make numerous U.S. military missions untenable. This new unity also raises significant obstacles to any U.S.-led efforts to impose a top-down peace deal that excludes Palestinian Islamists. [my emphasis]

There is a lot of chatter these days about Biden’s cognitive competence or lack thereof. How anyone can imagine the Orange Clown he will be facing in the Presidential election is better than Biden in that regard is a mystery.

But Biden really does seem to be stuck in 1970s political assumptions when it comes to Israel, assuming that his best move politically will always be to back Israel’s government in any military conflict in which they engage, no matter how badly the Israeli government behaves.

And the bad ideas keep on coming from Netanyahu’s far-right government:

The head of the Israel Defense Forces Central Command signed an order on Tuesday that will allow an unauthorized outpost in the West Bank to become a large urban settlement. If the order is implemented, the Mitzpeh Yehuda outpost, near Ma'aleh Adumim, will become a city named Mishmar Yehuda.

The order follows a cabinet decision taken last year to authorize 10 West Bank outposts. It allocates 417 dunams (104 acres) of land the settlement, compared with the 50 dunams it now occupies, with a small number of structures and inhabitants. The Gush Etzion Regional Council's master plan shows the aim is to turn it into a city. (3)

These settlements, of course, are illegal under international law. And a prescription of continuing conflict and apartheid repression of Palestinians in what Netanyahu may or may not have called “from the river to the sea.” Or maybe it was “the entire territory west of the Jordan River,” which ends at the Mediterranean sea.(4)

Notes:

(1) Matthiesen, Toby (2024): How Gaza Reunited the Middle East. Foreign Affairs 02/09/2024. <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/middle-east/how-gaza-reunited-middle-east> (Accessed: 2024-29-02).

(2) Shuster, Mike (2007): Shia-Sunni Conflict Forces U.S. Shift in Iraq. NPR 02/16/2007. <https://www.npr.org/2007/02/16/7439998/shia-sunni-conflict-forces-u-s-shift-in-iraq>  (Accessed: 2024-29-02).

(3) Shezaf, Hagar (2024): Israeli Military Signs Order That Could Turn West Bank Outpost Into Major Urban Settlement. Haaretz 02/28/2024. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-21/ty-article/israel-based-news-outlet-incorrectly-translates-pms-words-leading-to-media-firestorm/0000018d-2bfa-daf5-a1bf-affa764b0000> (Accessed: 2024-29-02).

(4) Klee, Miles (2024): Netanyahu Says ‘From the River to the Sea,’ a Phrase Zionists Claim is Genocidal. Rolling Stone 01/18/2024. <https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/netanyahu-from-river-sea-israel-control-1234949408/>  (Accessed: 2024-29-02). The article includes an embed of this video clip, which provides the original Hebrew audio: Netanyahu: 'In the future, Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea.' Middle East Eye YouTube channel 01/18/2024.

   

Rachel Fink in Haaretz insists the translations should be, "the State of Israel must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River." But as a glance at the map will show, it's a distinction without a difference, though "from river to the sea" would be a more awkward phrase for Netanyahu's PR position that the latter version is genocidal and antisemitic. From the River to the Sea: Israel-based News Outlet Incorrectly Translates Netanyahu's Words, Leading to Media Firestorm 01/21/2024. <https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-01-21/ty-article/israel-based-news-outlet-incorrectly-translates-pms-words-leading-to-media-firestorm/0000018d-2bfa-daf5-a1bf-affa764b0000> (Accessed: 2024-29-02).

A Roundup: Navalny, Munich Security Conference, Israel-Gaza, Voting Rights, and "gendering" in Austria

Alexej Navalny is dead

Most of the world presumably believes he was killed on orders of Vladimir Putin. The evidence for it is circumstantial but for most people it's probably an open-and-shut assumption. "Navalny's fate is part of a long series of political murders. Anyone who messes with Vladimir Putin risks their life. This is the cruel message that the Kremlin wants to send, and it is paralyzing resistance in Russian society," writes Christian Ultsch. (1)

Vadim Nikitin writes about Navalny in The Nation:

Though they are separated by decades and railed against two very different regimes, [nuclear physicist and Soviet dissident Andrei] Sakharov and Navalny had much in common. Both possessed extraordinary charisma, courage, doggedness, and moral purpose. And despite being feted in the West in quasi-messianic terms, neither quite managed to articulate a coherent political program or reach a mass domestic audience outside the tight-knit circles of the Soviet intelligentsia or the urban middle classes, respectively.

In the end, Sakharov’s inspiring but vague vision of a democracy built on pluralism and human rights could not survive contact with the mobster capitalism of the 1990s. Navalny’s dream of a “beautiful Russia of the future” based on individual liberty and rule of law crumbled in the face of violent irredentism abroad and heightened repression at home.

From Washington to Moscow, Navalny’s death was immediately exploited by the usual suspects for their own ends. Russophobes like Anne Applebaum took the opportunity to blame both Russia’s leadership and its people, as well as taking a veiled swipe at Trump supporters: “Putin killed him—because of his political success, because of his ability to reach people with the truth, and because of his talent forbreaking through the fog of propaganda that now blinds his countrymen, and some of ours as well,” Applebaum wrote in The Atlantic.

Bill Browder, a former Kremlin cheerleader turned anti-Putin crusader, used the tragedy to boast about his own prescience: “Three years ago I said President Putin was carrying out a slow motion assassination of Russia’s leading dissident Alexei Navalny,” he wrote in the Daily Mail on February 16. “Today, my worst fears were realised.” (2) [my emphasis]

Fun fact about investment banker Bill Browder, one of the most high-profile Western critics of Putin’s government: he is the grandson of Earl Browder, who was General Secretary of the US Communist Party from 1930 to 1945. (3)

Annual Munich Security Conference (MSC)

News of Navalny's untimely passing came during the annual Munich Security Conference, to which Putin was not invited this year. This may not have been entirely coincidental.

Vice President Kamala Harris was there, delivering standard platitudes with her trademark brand of “I’m-from-the-corporate-personnel-department” charisma. (4) To be fair, her presentation style is more appealing than that of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. But it’s always recommended to have a cup of coffee, or two, before listening to a Harris presentation.




 “Harris seemed dedicated to keeping to the administration’s recent script, which is warning against heralding in a new era of ‘isolationism,’ reports Marc Martorell Junyent. (5)

Not everyone is suffering from the Israel-Gaza War

Netanyahu’s war on the Gaza Palestinians, which now features US military attacks on several different countries in support of Netanyahu’s war does have beneficiaries. Netanyahu himself can’t be prosecuted on pending corruption charges as long as he is Prime Minister. Oh, there’s also Israel’s military-industrial complex, which profits nicely along with the American one (6):




Republicans really, really don’t want Democratic constituencies to vote

We badly need an effective new Voting Rights Act in the US. Because the Republicans just aren’t on their own going to stop trying to suppress voting by groups they think may lean Democratic. And the equal right to vote is not something they want Americans to have:

The Brennan Center just published a report, intimidation of State and Local Officeholders: The Threat to Democracy. (7)

With an companion video (8):




Austria’s conservative Chancellor can’t get his head around this whole gender thing

Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer of the conservative/Christian Democratic Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) tries to appeal to the voters who don’t have their own lobbyists by promising things like: I’ll protect the Wiener Schnitzel! (This has something to do with the idea that environmentalists are all vegan hippies who want to ban meat, or something.) I’ll defend gasoline motors! (What, the Greens think that cars can run on batteries?!)

He’s also bothered by this whole newfangled thing of gender-inclusive language. By gum, if my great-great-grandpappy called it a “cell phone,” then that’s good enough for me! He wants to do away with “gendering,” by which he means gender-inclusive words. Although isn’t using non-inclusive words more “gendering”? (No, it’s not some quirk of the German word meanings; it sounds just as dumb in German.)

The Austrian news weekly Profil did a fact-check on Nehammer’s claim, “From a biological point of view, there are only two genders.”

Their conclusion? Sorry, Herr Chancellor: “From a biological point of view, there are more than two genders. Intersexuality is a reality, according to clear medical evidence. The statement of Nehammer’s is therefore false.” (9)

Notes:

(1) Ultsch, Christian (2024): Die Botschaft, die nach Nawalnys Tod weiterlebt. Die Presse am Sonntag 17.02.2024 (Accessed: 2024-20-02). My translation from German.

(2) Nikitin, Vadim (2024): Russian Opposition Leader Navalny Was Brave, Authentic, Funny, Larger Than Life. Will His Movement Survive Him? The Nation 02/20/2024. < https://www.thenation.com/article/world/russia-navalny-death-putin-liberalism/>> (Accessed: 2024-20-02).

(3) Earl Browder. Wikipedia 02/20/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).

(4) Kamala Harris Promotes U.S. Leadership In The World At Munich Security Conference. Forbes Breaking News YouTube channel 02/16/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).

(5) Junyent, Marc Martorell (2024): Dispatch from Munich: VP Harris warns against 'isolationism'. Responsible Statecraft 02/16/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).

6) How is Israel's arms industry profiting from the war on Gaza? The Stream. Al Jazeera YouTube channel 02/20/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).

(7) Ramachandran, Gowri, et. al. (2024): Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders: The Threat to Democracy (Accessed: 2024-20-02).

Introductory article: Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders 01/25/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).

(8) Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders: A Threat to Democracy. Brennan Center for Justice YouTube channel 01/30/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).

(9) Dzugan, Franziska (2024): Das Kanzler-Märchen von Mann und Frau. Profil 19.02.2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02). My translation from German.

Making excuses for Netanyahu's war

Striking statement from Edgar Morin, 102-year-old philosopher and veteran of the Second World War’s De Gaulle-led Resistance group Fighting French Forces (Forces Françaises Combattantes), on the war against civilians in Gaza currently being waged by Bibi Netanyahu’s government with the effectively unconditional backing of the Biden Administration (1):

The cynicism of the rhetoric from the defenders of Netanyahu’s war is both stunning and unsurprising. But the length of Israel’s current war compared to those of the last 20 years is working against them. Empty excuses and fatuous justifications for Israeli brutality and their contempt for the laws of war wear thin after a while. Especially with a war that includes such wider risks as this one does.

Claire Finkelstein of the University of Pennsylvania gives her version of some of the standard talking points in Haaretz, which runs a wide range of opinion pieces. In a two- or four-week war, such standard arguments can be persuasive to people who don’t follow the news from Israel-Palestine regularly. Or at least confusing enough to blunt criticism.

In an open-ended war now in its fifth month, with statements from Netanyahu indicating it is likely to go on for months more, the stock talking points tend to get stale.

Finkelstein begins with a few neutral-sounding paragraphs, including:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said an all-out operation in Rafah is essential to disable Hamas' remaining military capacity, yet he has also committed to ensuring safe humanitarian exit for civilians from the city prior to any such offensive. (2)

This is a bad joke. What Netanyahu is implementing is ethnic cleansing. Liquidating the ghetto (Gaza), as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich recently put it. (3)

She frames her justification of Netanyahu’s atrocities as a commentary on international law. But mainly she’s citing stale talking points repackaged for the column:

This is a moment, then, of hard moral and legal choices – a moment in which not only the military future of the war hangs in the balance, but in which the moral and legal character of Israel's choices and those of its allies stand in equipoise as well.

Yet she basically blows off any serious consideration of either morality in war or international law in her column.

She gives us a version of the endlessly repeated mantra: Israel has the right to defend itself.

This right of national self-defense is not really in dispute. I wouldn’t be surprised if some polemicists somewhere are saying, no, it doesn’t. But I don’t recall ever actually seeing a report of one. But self-defense does not justify anything and everything done nominally for “defense.” Yet her column attempts to do exactly that.

Hamas militants typically hide in the extensive network of underground tunnels constructed to ride out just such a conflict. The tunnels interpose a physical layer of human shielding between Hamas underground and Israeli jets overhead. [my emphasis]

If there are tunnels everywhere in Gaza, the Israeli government treats that as an excuse to bomb anything and kill anyone who might be above, near, or anywhere in the vicinity of these legendary tunnels. The tunnels themselves are real. But Israel’s claims about where the tunnels run and what was being done in them are far more dubious. (4)

Israeli propaganda claims that all Gaza civilians are being used as “human shields” because Hamas fighters are hiding somewhere in the Gaza Strip. So the deaths any civilians who are killed by the IDF in Gaza are also Hamas’ fault. Finkelstein expands the metaphor to underground by arguing that because the tunnels are allegedly everywhere, any civilians killed anywhere are any civilian facilities including hospitals and cemeteries and UN facilities, were also human shields and are legitimate targets for destruction. And the related death and destruction are also Hamas’ fault, of course.

Finkelstein offers a specious legal argument to suggest that international law only applies if The Enemy is scrupulously observing it. Which, of course, The Enemy never does.

This dilemma is not unknown to Hamas. Terrorists do not abide by IHL [international humanitarian law], but they are aware of its strictures when the other side feels bound by it.

And like other terrorists before them, Hamas knows that exploiting Israel's adherence to law is a valuable weapon in the ongoing conflict.

The legal argument is ridiculous. But it’s only nominally a legal argument. It’s really just a propaganda justification for illegal actions on Israel’s part.

When the self-defender is forced to pull back from a military offensive to avoid killing civilians, this is a win for their enemy, who makes progress towards its goals through manipulating its foes' adherence to law. [my emphasis]

In the present world, Israel’s partisans basically have to offer some kind of excuse for deliberately-committed atrocities. Just blaming the conduct on the Other Side may seem painfully obvious. But in this situation, they have to make some form of this argument, because the civilian casualties among Gazans are staggering. That certainly doesn’t mean everyone else has any obligation to take it seriously as anything but propaganda.

Her solution? For other countries to actively help Netanyahu’s government with its war crimes and ethnic cleansing:

Pressure must also be exerted on other nations, such as Qatar, who refuses to call out Hamas' indifference to its own population, despite its supposed concern for the lives of Palestinians, and against Egypt, who could easily help dissolve this Catch-22 by assisting with the evacuation of civilians though the Rafah Gate to give them safe harbor.

And Israel’s most important ally, the United States? From Politico (5):

Notes:

(1) Bertrand, Arnaud (2024): X [Twitter] 02/15/2024. (Accessed: 2024-15-02).

(2) Finkelstein, Claire (2024): Self-defense and Human Shields: How Should Israel Wage War in Gaza? Haaretz 02/14/2024. (Accessed: 2024-15-02).

(3) Karanth, Sanjan (2023): Senior Far-Right Israeli Official Admits Gaza Is A ‘Ghetto’ For Palestinians. Huffpost 12/31/2024. (Accessed: 2024-15-02)

(4) Diamond, Jeremy (2024): Israel claims a tunnel ran through this Gaza cemetery it destroyed. A visit to the site raised more questions than answers. CNN 01/29/2024. (Accessed: 2024-15-02).

(5) Ward, Alexander & Berg, Matt (2024): US won’t punish Israel for Rafah op that doesn’t protect civilians. Politico 02/13/2024. (Accessed: 2024-15-02).

Is Biden going to be willing to go "Dark Brandon" on Netanyahu?

"Famine is imminent" in Gaza, says Delaware Sen. Chris Van Hollen, calling it a "textbook war crime. And that makes those who orchestrate it war criminals." (See video at the end of this post.)

If you aren’t reading Laura Rozen’s reporting on the current Middle East situation, today would be a good day to start. Solid coverage of foreign affairs issues facing the US is always valuable. She reports on the latest Biden Administration claims of diplomatic pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s government to back off on the war:

President Biden in a call with the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Sunday stressed the need to “capitalize on progress” in recent negotiations for the release of the remaining over 100 hostages held by Hamas, in a seemingly broader White House effort to subtly push back on recent posturing by Netanyahu. …

A U.S. senior administration official, somewhat unusually, backgrounded some reporters on the call shortly after it occurred, in what also may be part of an unacknowledged White House effort to gently push back a bit on the Israeli Prime Minister’s office sometimes seeming to try to spin their communications to his political benefit at home. The U.S. administration official emphasized that getting the release of all the remaining hostages is President Biden and the White House’s top priority. Wholly unspoken was the sense perhaps that it is not always clear in practice that it is Netanyahu’s top priority.

“I’d say about two thirds of the call really focused on a hostage deal,” the senior administration official said. “This has been really a primary focus on the President’s over the last month.” (1)

Noura Erakat of Rutgers University stresses that action to restrain Netanyahu’s war on the people of Gaza is urgent, and until that happens, public warnings or leaked expressions of concern by American officials are just hot air. (2) (She puts it more professionally. But also more emphatically.)

Rozen’s report reminds us that the fog of war also produces foggy public diplomacy:

U.S. officials have suggested they do not believe that Israel intends to launch a major military operation on Rafah imminently, and that if one were to occur, it may be weeks away.

A European official, speaking not for attribution, suggested that the messages his government was getting from Israeli officials a few weeks ago suggested they were not planning to do a major military on Rafah.

It is not clear if western officials are suggesting that Israel’s plans have changed, or that the Israeli talk of a military operation on Rafah is meant to be a kind of psychological pressure on Hamas.

“I will say, we have heard form Israeli leaders and security officials that there’s a clear precondition for any [military operation] in Rafah that the population would have…to be moved safely…and again, how that’s done,…that is a huge question,” the U.S. official said. [my emphasis]

There are policy differences between the Biden Administration and the Netanyahu government. So it’s not surprising that the respective public narratives are confusing.

Alon Pinkas foresees a good possibility that Biden is getting ready to go into Dark Brandon mode on Netanyahu. He hasn't yet, so far as we can see publicly, even though Netanyahu treats Biden and the US with open contempt even as we supply their war on Gaza civilians with no significant restraints publicly visible so far.

Right now, Biden is fully aware that his Israel policy, however justified he feels it was, is causing him tangible political damage not just among Arab Americans in Michigan, but across a large segment of young 18- to 40-year-old voters appalled by the war. According to a recent poll, 50 percent of them believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. …

The New York Times reported Friday that "in a closed-door meeting with Arab American leaders in Michigan this week, one of President Biden's top foreign policy aides [Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer] acknowledged mistakes in the administration's response to the war in Gaza, saying he did not have 'any confidence' that Israel's government was willing to take 'meaningful steps' toward Palestinian statehood."...

This should not come as news to Biden. It seems that until now, his visceral, genuine love of Israel outweighed his visceral, genuine disdain for Netanyahu. But the prime minister's ungratefulness for Biden's robust support, his disregard for U.S. interests, and his intransigence to engage the United States in talks about postwar Gaza and regional restructuring, may have tipped the balance.

An angry Biden is a dangerous Biden, which is something Netanyahu should know. (3) [my emphasis]

The anger will only be meaningful when Biden cuts off military aid (or drastically reduces it). Otherwise, Netanyahu and his government will continue to treat him with open contempt. Netanyahu has strong reasons of his own for keeping the war going - i.e., staying in office and out of jail - and for getting the even more pliant Donald Trump back in the White House. And the longer US aid to Israel’s current war continues, the more it increases the chances that Trump will be back in charge.

Haaretz gives another example of the White House talking the talk - or at least making a show of doing so - without the only condition that appears to be meaningful to Netanyahu and his government: actually cutting military aid:

U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said on Monday that the United States "does not support any military campaign in Rafah" as long as Israel "can't properly account for about 1.1 million people who are there today."

Miller added that the Biden administration is looking forward to reviewing the details of the planned military operation with the Israeli counterparts. (4)

While Tony Blinken’s State Department was giving that additional blank-check commitment (“looking forward to reviewing the details”), the EU’s foreign affairs High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was at least being blunt about the only thing that would work with Netanyahu’s far-right government:

Earlier, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell called for the U.S. to rethink its military aid to Israel due to the high number of civilian casualties in the war in Gaza.

Borrell recalled that Biden said last week that Israel's response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack had been "over the top" and U.S. officials had repeatedly said that too many civilians were being killed in Gaza.

"Well, if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide fewer arms in order to prevent so many people being killed," Borrell told reporters after a meeting of EU development aid ministers in Brussels.

"If the international community believes that this is a slaughter, that too many people are being killed, maybe we have to think about the provision of arms," he added. (5) [my emphasis]

As public diplomatic statements go, that’s about as close as you are likely to hear a senior EU official publicly saying to a US President that the whole world can see that the Israeli Prime Minister is playing him for a fool. And the National Security Council flack John Kirby basically said, yes, play us for fools:

"We don't want to see any forced relocation of people outside Gaza," Kirby stressed. "Gaza is home to those folks, and they shouldn't be forced to leave if they don't want to leave. If there's going to be [a military] operation in or around Rafah, Israelis have an obligation to make sure they can provide for the safety of innocent Palestinians that are there."

Comments about how “Israelis have an obligation“ without backing it up with actual major cuts in US military aid are just a bad joke.

It’s also nice that Biden is saying, “The US is working on a hostage deal between Israel and Hamas which would bring an immediate and sustained period of calm to Gaza for at least six weeks [during] which we could take the time to build something more enduring.” (6)

But unless the US actually cuts the military aid to Israel, a six-week “period of calm” coupled with the release of all Israeli hostages will just be taken by Netanyahu’s government that the US will back a new ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza whenever they decide to do it.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said any Israeli ground offensive on Rafah would have “disastrous consequences,” and asserted that Israel aims to eventually force the Palestinians out of their land. Egypt has warned that any movement of Palestinians into Egypt would threaten the four-decade-old peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. (7)

Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen from Maryland calls out Netanyahu’s obvious contempt for the position of the US, its most important ally and weapons supplier (8):

"Famine is imminent" in Gaza, he says, also calling it a "textbook war crime. And that makes those who orchestrate it war criminals."

(This post is also available at: https://brucemillerca.substack.com/p/is-biden-going-to-be-willing-to-go)

(1) Rozen, Laura (2024): Biden urges Israel PM to “capitalize on progress” in hostage release talks, pushing back on Netanyahu posturing. Diplomatic 02/12/2024. <https://diplomatic.substack.com/p/biden-urges-israel-to-capitalize> (Accessed: 2024-12-02).

(2) Noura Erakat: Israel’s Looming Invasion of Rafah is the “Worst-Case Scenario”. Democracy Now! YouTube channel 02/12/2024. <https://youtu.be/G42gedKb-G4?si=RUnT_hwkcqB29Gcx> (Accessed: 2024-12-02).

(3) Pinkas, Alon (2024): Biden Had a Week to Forget, but There's Something Netanyahu Should Remember About Him. Haaretz 02/11/2024.  <https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-02-11/ty-article/.premium/biden-had-a-week-to-forget-but-theres-something-netanyahu-should-remember-about-him/0000018d-98f5-dc01-a9cf-9afd98ef0000> (Accessed: 2024-13-02).

(4) Samuels, Ben, et. al. (2024): U.S. Opposes Israeli Rafah Raid Without Plan for Displaced Gazans; EU Chief Diplomat Urges Aid Cut. Haaretz 02/11/2024. <https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-02-11/ty-article/.premium/biden-had-a-week-to-forget-but-theres-something-netanyahu-should-remember-about-him/0000018d-98f5-dc01-a9cf-9afd98ef0000> (Accessed: 13-02-2024).

(5) Lazaroff, Tovah (2024): Biden says US working on Gaza hostage deal that would lead to six-week period of calm. Jerusalem Post 02/12/2024. <https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-786617>  (Accessed: 13-02-2024).

(6) Jobbain, Najib et. al. (2024): Arab states warn Israel against launching invasion of Rafah. Christian Science Monitor 02/10/2024. <https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2024/0210/Arab-states-warn-Israel-against-launching-invasion-of-Rafah>(Accessed: 13-02-2024).

(7) Dem Senator Slams Netanyahu's Actions In Rafah: 'Thumbs His Nose At America's Legitimate Requests'. Forbes Breaking News YouTube channel 02/13/2024. <https://youtu.be/XYhYGgX16tw?si=gZu3D0DSaM2NxWQD> (Accessed: 13-02-2024).

Israel's Rafah offensive - backed by the Biden Administration

Israel’s intensification of its Gaza war in the Rafah area does not look good, unless you are someone like Bibi Netanyahu who obviously intends to keep the war - aka, killing lots of Palestinian civilians - going for as long as possible to protect himself from going to jail on corruption charges.

Most of the Gaza Strip residents, some 1.4 million people, are concentrated in Rafah. Tens of thousands are still fleeing into the city from Khan Yunis, where the fighting continues. The thought that Israel will invade Rafah and that fighting will take place between and near civilians terrifies the city's residents and the internally displaced persons. The terror they feel is augmented by the conclusion that nobody can prevent Israel from carrying out its intention – not even the ICJ ruling that orders Israel to take all measures to avoid acts of genocide.

Military correspondents in Israel report and assume that the army intends to order residents of Rafah to move to a safe area. Since the war started, the army has been waving around this evacuation order as evidence that it is acting in order to prevent any harm to "uninvolved civilians."

This safe zone, however, which was bombarded and still is bombarded by Israel, is gradually shrinking. The only safe zone that truly remains, and which the IDF is now designating for the masses of people in Rafah, is Al-Mawasi – a southern Gaza coastal area of approximately 16 square kilometers (about 6 square miles).

It's still unclear by what verbal measures the IDF and its legal experts intend to reconcile this squeezing of so many civilians with the orders given by the ICJ [Internet Court of Justice]. (1) [my emphasis]

The Netanyahu government shows little sign of taking seriously the warnings that the Biden Administration has supposedly been giving them since October to not kill so many civilians and not be so reckless about their contempt for the laws of war and humanitarian law. And why would they? The Biden Administration has been providing essentially unconditional support for Netanyahu’s government’s actions so far. Unless Biden is willing to actually cut off aid, or at least reduce it in a major way, Netanyahu has no need to worry about public scolding that is just empty PR.

It’s hard to imagine that Netanyahu takes threats like the following to be anything but empty talk. Or maybe a blatant green light for intensifying the war.

Sen. Bernie Sanders continues to call for a cutoff of funds to the Netanyahu government’s hideous war (3):




Notes:

(1) Hass, Amira (2024): If the Israeli Army Invades Rafah, What Will Be of More Than 1.5 Million Palestinians Who Take Shelter There? Haaretz 02/10/2024. (Accessed: 2024-10-02).

(2) Sarisohn. Hannah (2024): Biden gives Israel 45 days to submit report on international law violations or lose military aid. Times of Israel 02/09/2024. (Accessed: 2024-10-02).

(3) No More Money For Netanyahu. Senator Bernie Sanders YouTube channel 002/09/2024. (Accessed: 2024-10-02).

The Biden Administration has begun its promised escalation in the Middle East - in support of Israel's actions in Gaza

The expanded US war in the Middle East the Biden Administration announced this past week is now under way.

As Reuters reports:

The U.S. military launched airstrikes on Friday in Iraq and Syria against more than 85 targets linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) and the militias it backs, in retaliation for last weekend's attack in Jordan that killed three U.S. troops.

The strikes, which included the use of long-range B-1 bombers flown from the United States, were the first in a multi-tiered response by President Joe Biden's administration to the attack by Iran-backed militants, and more U.S. military operations were expected in the coming days.

While the strikes did not target sites inside Iran, they signaled a further escalation of conflict in the Middle East from Israel's nearly four-month-old war with Palestinian Hamas militants in Gaza.

The strikes hit targets including command and control centers, rockets, missiles and drone storage facilities, as well as logistics and munition supply chain facilities, the U.S. military said in a statement. (1)

The Administration's official position has been that the attacks on US forces in the Middle East since October 7 has nothing at all to do with Israel's war on Gaza civilians. We don't have to take militia groups' word for it. But as Daniel Larison points out:

The umbrella group in Iraq that claimed responsibility for the attack in Jordan, the Islamic Resistance of Iraq, explicitly stated that its attack was connected to the war in Gaza. The Houthi leadership has been emphatic that their attacks will continue for as long as the war does. The decision of other actors to jump on a cause’s bandwagon may be cynical or not, but there is no denying that they have jumped on the bandwagon.

Refusing to face the reality of the connections between these conflicts guarantees that the U.S. will pursue ineffective and counterproductive policies by ignoring that the key to defusing regional tensions is to bring the war in Gaza to an end as quickly as possible.

[NSC spokesman John] Kirby did not mention that militia attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria had ceased for several months prior to October 7 because of the understanding that the U.S. and Iran had reached in connection with the prisoner exchange deal. It was only after October 7 that those attacks resumed and then increased to record levels. Local militias have additional reasons of their own for targeting U.S. forces that predate the war, but there is no way to understand the intensity of the attacks in recent months or their cessation during the pause in fighting in Gaza last year without recognizing that they are linked to Israel’s war. [my emphasis] (2)

Gunar Olsen notes:

[T]he existence of domestic motivations for the Houthis does not preclude genuine solidarity with Palestinians. In this context, disconnecting Ansar Allah’s [a Houthi group’s] actions from Israel’s Gaza war only serves to undermine legitimate resistance to what the International Court of Justice has ruled could plausibly be a case of genocide. (3)

Where did the Ansar Allah group which spearheads the current “Houthi movement” come from?

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 deeply radicalized the Houthi movement, like it did many other Arabs. It was a pivotal moment. The Houthis adopted the slogan: “God is great, death to the U.S., death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam,” in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The group also officially called itself Ansar Allah, or supporters of God. It was a turning point largely unrecognized outside Yemen, another unanticipated consequence of George Bush’s Iraq adventures.

Hezbollah, the Shiite movement in Lebanon which successfully expelled the Israeli army from the country, became a role model and mentor for the Houthis. Although different kinds of Shiites, the two groups have a natural attraction. Hezbollah provided inspiration and expertise for the Houthis. Iran was a secondary source of support, especially since the Houthis and Iranians share a common enemy in Saudi Arabia.

After 2003, Saleh launched a series of military campaigns to destroy the Houthis. In 2004, Saleh’s forces killed Hussein al Houthi. The Yemeni army and air force was used to suppress the rebellion in the far north of Yemen, especially in Saada province. The Saudis joined with Saleh in these campaigns. The Houthis won against both Saleh and the Saudi army, besting them both again and again. (4) [my emphasis]

In other words, we have George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their neocon cronies to thank for this. Then the Obama-Biden Administration proceeded to fund the Saudis in a long, nasty war against the Houthis in Yemen, which the Saudis eventually gave up as hopeless.

The Iraq War is the gift that keeps on giving. Especially in the German sense of the word Gift, which means “poison.” (For war profiteers, it continues to be a gift in the English sense of the word.)

In an interview before the latest US escalation, John Mearsheimer gives his view of Israel’s situation in the current war, which despite the official State Department position is at the center of the current larger conflict (5):

Andrew Napolitano is a rightwing libertarian prick. But he also promotes a libertarian-isolationist foreign policy perspective that leans toward restraint when it comes to US military intervention, so he regularly interviews substantive, skeptical critics of establishment foreign policy like Mearsheimer.

Mearsheimer notes in the interview that the Biden Administration seems to “going to great lengths” to avoid direct attacks against Iran itself. It’s notable that Mearsheimer does not advocate some US expansion of the war against Iranian-related targets. In fact, but he also thinks that Biden “has to respond and he has to respond against targets that have some real relationship to Iran.”

This is what makes Mearsheimer consistently worth hearing and also consistently irritating. As an Über-Realist, he is unsentimental about high-sounding official justifications for war and is very aware that countries are led by human beings who can and do sometimes make bad decisions, even really bad ones. But he’s also not consistently antiwar in all situations. And it’s one of the chronically dubious aspects of the realist outlook that it also provides a continuing temptation to say, here’s what great powers are tempted to do, so they probably are going to do it. Which can always be spun as an apathetic, “well, whatcha gonna do?” position.

Mearsheimer correctly (as it turns out) suggests that Biden would attack Iran-related military targets in Iran and Syria, as well as Yemen (the Houthis). He also notes:

The belief here is that if we whack Iran or we whack Iranian assets or we go after the Houthis or we go after these Iranian supporters, militias, that the end result is that they will throw up their hands and quit and [thereby] we will deter them. The purpose of this military action is to produce deterrence in the region as to avoid escalation. My view is that you get exactly the opposite. This is why [Biden] doesn’t want to bomb Iran because he understands the Iranians will retaliate.

So any use of military force here is just likely to lead to further escalation.

I just want to say one thing about what’s going on here. If you listen to [Secretary of State Anthony] Blinkin and [to] Israel’s supporters in the United States speak, the argument they like to make is that Iran is he tap root of all the trouble in the Middle East. And [that] what Iran is doing here - you hear Blinkin say this - is Iran is taking advantage of a crisis to pursue its own narrow interests.

But that’s actually not what happening here. What happening here is the Houthis, the Iranian Hezbollah, and these Iranian-supported militias are all responding because of what’s happening in Gaza. You want to remember … before the war broke out on October 7th, [National Security Adviser] Jake Sullivan said the Middle East was a peaceful as we had seen it in a good number of years.

And then everything changed after October 7th. And you want to ask yourself the question, why did everything change? It wasn’t because the Iranians and Hezbollah all of a sudden decided to go on a rampage and take advantage of Israel and the United States. What changed was, a war broke out involving the Israelis and the Palestinians in Gaza. And that’s what’s driving this train.

So the tap root of the problem, despite what Israel and its supporters in the United States say, is not Iran. The tap root of the problem is Israel, and Israel’s failure to create a Palestinian state. [my emphasis]

The clip also includes an emphatic comment by Biden himself in 2007 - when Bush and Cheney were still running the show - that a President launching an attack on Iran without Congressional approval would be an impeachable offense:

The President has no Constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country with 70 million people [Iran] unless we’re attacked do unless there is proof that we about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that. But I would lead an effort to impeach him.

In light of current arguments around Biden slurring his words in 2024, it’s worth noting that back in this 2007 clip, he notably slurs the word “authority.” Well, actually, that passage just quoted is pretty garbled on the whole.

Mearsheimer has been around for a while. So he makes the observation that if Biden decides to attack Iran directly, he would argue that Iran itself had actually attacked the United States. He also notes that Israel argues that Iran is responsible for every attack to Hezbollah. And he gives the Wall Street Journal as a source where one can find that argument repeated again and again.

Notes:

(1) Ali, Idrees & Stewart, Phil (2024): US starts retaliatory strikes in Iraq and Syria against Iran-linked targets. Reuters 02/03/2024. <https://www.reuters.com/world/us-starts-retaliatory-strikes-iraq-syria-officials-2024-02-02/> (Accessed: 2024-03-02).

(2) Copp, Tara et. al. (20224): US Begins Wave Of Airstrikes in Iraq, Syria Retaliating For Fatal Drone Attack. AP/Huffpost 02/02/2024.<https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-begins-wave-of-airstrikes-in-iraq-syria-retaliating-for-fatal-drone-attack_n_65bd5dd1e4b05c8779f9341f> (Accessed: 2024-03-02).

(3) Olsem, Gunar (2024): You Can’t Bomb the Houthis Into Not Supporting Palestine. The New Republic 02/02/2024. <https://newrepublic.com/article/178415/houthi-yemen-palestinian-liberation-ceasefire> (Accessed: 2024-03-02).

(4) Riedel, Bruce (2017): Who are the Houthis, and why are we at war with them? Brookings Institute 12/18/2017 <https://www.brookings.edu/articles/who-are-the-houthis-and-why-are-we-at-war-with-them/> ((Accessed: 2024-03-02). (Accessed: 2024-03-02).

(5) Prof. John Mearsheimer: Can Israel Win in Gaza? Judge Napolitan-Judging Freedom You Tube channel 02/01/2024. <https://www.youtube.com/live/HFb8Av76Gug?si=im-1e63X4hNVGccu> (Accessed: 2024-03-02).