Famine is looming in Gaza, the United Nations warns. The World Food Program estimates that 93 percent of the population faces crisis levels of hunger. Disease is spreading rapidly. The World Health Organization predicts that the death toll from sickness and starvation in coming months could eclipse the number of people killed in the war so far — more than 24,000, according to the latest count from the Gaza Health Ministry, with the majority women and children.
Aid agencies say the chief factors hampering the delivery of lifesaving assistance to Gazans fall almost entirely under Israel’s control — the Israeli inspection process for aid remains lengthy and inefficient; there aren’t enough trucks or fuel inside Gaza to distribute the aid; mechanisms to protect humanitarian workers are unreliable; and commercial goods have only just begun to trickle in.
At the risk of falling into the trap of thinking that America can do anything it wants, I can't help but wonder if we have to put up with this reprehensible conduct from Israel. What would happen if we helicoptered supplies out to the Bataan and thence to Gaza, Berlin airlift style? Or used aircraft to fly in supplies directly to one of Gaza's airstrips? Or, for that matter, broke the Israeli blockade and brought in aid via ship. Is Gaza Port big enough for that? In theory this is dangerous, but would Israel really do anything if we told them this was a humanitarian mission and we were coming in whether they liked it or not?
I'm obviously no military logistics boffin and this might be the dumbest idea ever, regardless of whether Joe Biden would be willing to do it. But is it dumb to even ask the question?
The accusations of genocide against Israel have mostly been ridiculous, but they won't be if we start digging mass graves in Gaza populated by victims of deliberate starvation and disease. This needs to stop.
That would be heroic.
The US military could make the situation better.
But it won't, because the State Department is run by people who don't fundamentally disagree with Netanyahu.
The US could in fact easily run the blockade and deliver supplies however that isn't going to happen as long as US foreign policy is driven by "Israel, may she always be right, but Israel right or wrong".
Go for it!
The political cost of defying Israel probably makes this a non-starter. If it happened there would be the additional problem of how to deliver the goods in a combat zone.
Presumably Israel would not want to kill Americans delivering aid. But it could be hard to avoid given their campaign.
"Presumably Israel would not want to kill Americans delivering aid"
Presumably Israel would not want to kill their own white-flag-waving hostages, but they did that, too.
So is your point that even if they would not want to kill Americans delivering aid, it could be hard to avoid given their campaign?
More that the Israeli military is very likely to kill all sorts of people that may or may not be targets, and so presuming that they wouldn't want to kill XYZ persons doesn't mean that they won't anyway.
The factual answer is Israel wouldn't be bothered 1 iota about killing americans who they thought were working against their interests. They're counting on Trump (US draftees who died fighting for the US were suckers) winning election as president.
Israel is in the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" phase of the campaign.
I don’t see Biden or the Democrats paying huge political costs if they would do this. Almost all of the big Jewish organizations in this country are allied with Israel and the Republican Party, as are the handful of billionaires who basically control those organizations. Most Democratic voters (including most Jewish Democrats) are appalled by what the Israelis are doing in both Gaza and the West Bank—indeed, Biden’s slipping support in the recent polls seems to be attributable to his unwavering support for Bibi. I would think that doing something like what Kevin is describing would be a. Et plus for Biden politically.
I do see a huge political cost is Americans are killed delivering aid though.
There would certainly be a loss of support for whichever belligerent killed them. At present I believe there is more sympathy for Palestinian civilians than ever before, and more questioning of Israel’s conduct than ever before. And more indifference to world opinion in the government of Israel than ever before. Many aid workers have already been killed by the IDF; would the IDF be any less indiscriminate if American troops were delivering assistance?
" loss of support for whichever belligerent killed them." 'Conservatives' would fully support Israel killing of americans in that situation, putting 100% of the blame on Biden.,
yup
"Most Democratic voters (including most Jewish Democrats) are appalled by what the Israelis are doing in both Gaza and the West Bank"
What are you basing this on? I have many Jewish friends, most of whom are democrats, they are all very vocal about supporting Israel in its war against Hamas.
Me, too.
There’s clearly been a considerable erosion of support for Israel among young American Jews. And the reaction to the nonjudgmental support of Israel by organizations such as the ADL is also considerable. Here’s an article about this from the Forward but there’s an almost endless supply of similar stories throughout the non-right wing media.
https://forward.com/opinion/394094/young-jews-are-actually-winning-the-generational-war-over-israel/
https://forward.com/opinion/394903/american-jews-dont-need-israel-to-be-jewish/
Well, my brother-in-law is Israeli, although he's lived in the US since he was 17. One of his brothers still lives there and served in the IDF. While he's obviously very supportive of Israel and the IDF -- he was there two weeks ago helping pick fruit since many farmers have been called up -- he isn't supportive of the conduct of the campaign in Gaza. And he reports that this has split the Israeli populace, with a lot of younger Israelis increasingly convinced that their government is addressing the right problem in the wrong way.
One can support Israel waging war on Hamas and also oppose the actual conduct of the war.
+1
"Presumably Israel would not want to kill Americans delivering aid"
Israel has attacked an American naval vessel and killed dozens of American sailors before: the USS Liberty in 1967.
Edit: Ah, I see that dilbert dogbert beat me to refering to the attack on the Liberty.
The population of Gaza is nearly 2 million. My guess is the Pentagon isn't set up to supply food to such a large number of people, even if Joe Biden were willing to defy his boss, Bibi Netanyahu, which he clearly isn't.
Similar to the population of Berlin during the blockade and airlift. Two-thirds of the weight flown in by the British and Americans was coal. Supplying Gaza, especially if ships could access the port, would be considerably easier.
Fair pont. I stand corrected on the first part. (Second part still stands, though: the notion that the US military is going to supply Gaza in defiance of the Netanyahu government is sheer fantasy).
The U.S. military will do what the president orders them to do, unless it's unconstitutional or obviously violates some law. Now, whether JOE BIDEN will openly defy Netanyahu and his administration is a different question.
Pretty sure the Israelis have made the port inoperable. In the Berlin airlift there were fully functional airports. Only vertical take off and landing aircraft, i.e helicopters and v22s, can access Gaza. And boats would be restricted to craft with less carrying capability than the air transports used in the berlin airlift.
Gaza has beaches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Frank_S._Besson-class_support_vessel
I don't think israel would do antyhing to stop us outside the realm of politics, but I'd be worried about attacks from hamas, iran or others and what happens if US military personell are killed delivering aid. to be effective it would be a pretty massive ongoing operation with plenty of opportunity for some bad actors intent on further destabilization in the region and in the US.
It strikes me as a sort of Somalia-like situation. Sure you can get in easily enough, but soon everyone with a different agenda is going to be aiming at you.
"I don't think israel would do antyhing to stop us outside the realm of politics" That's idiotic,. 100% guarantee of an active (think terrorist bombs) sabotoge program.
seems more idiotic to think anything is 100% guaranteed.
What "Gaza airstrips"? Israel won't permit Palestinians to have any kind of air capabilities. Also, Israel would shoot down any aircraft attempting a landing in Gaza, sink any ship approaching its coast, and block or if need be, shoot at, any approaching ground convoy.
They've attacked their sweet old "Uncle Sucker" before. The USS Liberty. Moreover, the United States was good with that.
Link to an interesting wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
They would not directly fire at most US air force transports, navy transports or a us run convoy. They would use subtler and more deniable approaches.
I saw a video which showed trucks arriving in Gaza with aid packages for the Palestinians. The aid packages were immediately confiscated at gunpoint by Hamas.
But did it actually happen?
And even if it did, what point do you think it makes - that aid shouldn't be sent? That would be ridiculous. Even if that were happening, the way to stop it is to send metaphorical firehoses of humanitarian aid.
Well, who provided the video? All the reports I have seen have spoken of Israel , not Hamas, "confiscating" aid. Also, of Israel's robust propaganda and fake video capabilities, which fall apart under scrutiny (which few in the western media care to do.)
It has long been documented that Hamas intercepts aid meant for Gazan civilians. Asserting as you seem to do that it's all just Israeli propaganda makes me suspect anything that you say.
Good point! One cannot be skeptical about anything without automatically being branded as untrustworthy! It's all black and white. Totally truthful or a complete liar.
Meanwhile, you haven't named your source.
Long been documented = Israel says so.
Oddly enough, a US government official had this to say about the issue:
A senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, told The Post: “The Israeli government has not brought to the attention of the U.S. government … any specific evidence of Hamas theft or diversion of assistance provided via the U.N. and its agencies. Full stop.”
+1
In other conflicts, aid agencies have not been shy about sounding an alarm if aid is diverted. Unless they say it’s happening, it’s likely not happening.
"What would happen...?"
I imagine there would be an "accidental" firing on the US ship/plane/helicopter, followed by IDF and Hamas both claiming the other group did it. The US really needs to just stay out of the Middle East, including telling Israel that they've gotten enough military stuff from us.
????????????????????????????????
"The accusations of genocide against Israel have mostly been ridiculous, but they won't be if we start digging mass graves in Gaza populated by victims of deliberate starvation and disease."
Ah yes. The old "it only counts as genocide if you actually succeed at killing millions of people - if you don't succeed, well then it's no big deal" argument. The fig leaf we don't let attempted murderers use in court, but somehow do let people who "only" want to get genocide-adjacent hide behind.
As I mentioned last time put his put in his mouth re: this topic, part of the moral responsibility is to PREVENT a genocice before it happens. Honestly, can you imagine Kevin blogging during WWII? "Hey, Germany's only killed 1% of the Jewish population. Nothing to see here, move along...".
90% of the Jewish population in Poland were killed. 3 million.
Lousy analogy.
90% of Jews in Poland weren't killed on day 1. That was over time. The same as in Gaza, There was a point in which a far, far smaller percentage of Polish Jews had been killed.
Again, Kevin doesn't seem that concerned that 1% of Gaza residents being killed so I'm assuming he would have had a siimlar position during WWII at the point when only 1% of Jews had been killed. But that, in my opinion, is the morally incorrect position to take because we should be worried about PREVENTING genocides. Maybe if more action had been taken BEFORE 90% of Polish Jews had been killed, that percentage would be lower.
Will all due respect, that's a preposterous response. The point of using a word like "genocide" is to describe a thing -- the targeting of a specific group with the intent of completely eradicating them. Hutus aimed at eradicating Tutsis in Rwanda. The Khmer Rough aimed at eradicating any Cambodian who wasn't fully Cambodian. The Nazis aimed at eradicating European Jewry. The Israelis aim is not to eradicate the Palestinians. Killing 5% of their population, or 4%, or 3%, or 2%, or even 1% (which is about where we are now) would be a horrible tragedy, but it wouldn't be a genocide.
The death toll in Gaza right now is about the same as the percentage of French _civilians_ killed by the Germans in WW2, and that wasn't a genocide. Words have meanings, and all you're doing is trivializing actual genocides in service of some cheap rhetorical trick.
+1
While I personally would prefer if it did, the legal definition of genocide simply is not the same as the generally understood term.
Even so there really are a lot of things one can do to destroy a people short of actually killing all/almost all of the individuals. Displacement, scattering the population, destruction of culture, destruction or occupation of homeland. I think most of those would fit a common understanding of genocide.
No, scattering of a population or dispersal (those are the same thing) would not be a genocide. Serbia's "ethnic cleansing" was an attempt at genocide. However, Serbia did lose something like ONE THIRD OF ITS POPULATION in World War I. That was an unspeakable tragedy, but it also was not a genocide.
For reference, here's the Oxford dictionary definition of genocide:
"The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group _with the aim of destroying that nation or group_." That's really not what's happening in Gaza. Use another word.
It would be better as a UN operation.
Israel can say no to the UN with very little political cost. They do it all the time.
But saying no the US is a bigger deal for them. Not that they can't or won't do it, but it costs them a lot more politically. That's why the US needs to do this.
Whether Biden can survive doing this in an election year is another question . . . .
Of course the US could do it. Biden could also stop the bombing and allow humanitarian aid in with a simple phone call to Netanyahu. Reagan stopped the carpet bombing of West Beirut that way. One phone call. In which you don't say "pretty please".
Also, anyone who says South Africa's application to the ICJ is "ridiculous" only proves that he hasn't read it.
Supposedly South Africa's application was far more detailed than these sort of applucations tend to be. But hey, Kevin's a blogger so we should just take him at his word that there's nothing to see here...
I read it the moment the ICJ put it on its website and, having worked for decades as an editor in international law (though not a lawyer myself), I thought it was excellent. The presentation too. Then I watched the Israeli response and it they only came with arguments that South Africa had pre-empted. One laugher was the contention that preliminary measures would leave Israel defenseless. As though its military capacity is insufficient to man a border. It was clearly for public opinion and not a serious attempt to win the case. Apparently Israel sees the ICJ as a political body and so, rather than bother with legal arguments, is pressuring (or getting Biden to do so) countries with judges on the panel. We'll see how that pans out.
I certainly think we could, and it would be tough for Israel to try to stop us. There would be probably pretty big risk of an American getting hurt as collateral damage, and that would create a diplomatic crisis. I don't think Israel is going to be willing to take the care to prevent this from happening, and I don't think the US is willing to risk dealing with the repercussions if something happens.
The other risk is that Hamas could target American soldiers, either for being in collusion with Israel or in an effort to make it look like it was the Israeli's shooting us. Things could devolve into chaos pretty fast.
I would still try. They have to get aid.
I had that thought also, but if Hamas started killing American military personnel - what do you think would happen next? It wouldn't be a good idea for Hamas to do that.
There would be calls for Operation Arc Light II…
I wouldn't think it was a good idea for Hamas to launch a widespread attack on Israeli civilians, but they obviously felt differently. I don't have a good handle on what their objectives or strategy is. But otherwise, I agree with you.
"The accusations of genocide against Israel have mostly been ridiculous, but they won't be if we start digging mass graves in Gaza populated by victims of deliberate starvation and disease."
This means that the accusations are NOT ridiculous.
Israel has shown a willingness to shoot up our boats and planes, so...
Not sure how that would work.
"I can't help but wonder if we have to put up with this reprehensible conduct from Israel."
Put up with it? We're financing it! And the first step to correct the situation is to just stop doing that.
+1
Kevin Drum is getting closer to seeing the situation as it really is. Not quite there yet.
????
Why have the accusations of genocide been “ridiculous” if you acknowledge they’re so close to it now (in your mind)? You obviously think Israel is standing at the edge of genocide if you think it’s time for Biden to make such a bold step. You may not think they have crossed the line yet, but it’s hardly ridiculous for others to think so.
If things are so bad in Gaza why is there not more international pressure on Hamas to surrender and release the remaining hostages they kidnapped? The war would end that day.
What pressure could they apply? Harsh language?
Strongly worded letter. And maybe cut off subsidizing them to the tune of billions a year, providing the latest military hardware to them, and protecting them diplomatically. Though like others here I might be a bit confused about who we have leverage over.
Something. Anything. I don’t know what would be truly effective but I haven’t seen the UN do anything to condemn Hamas or demand they surrender and release hostages. Instead they spend time charging Israel with genocide. Israel is the only country in the world that is reprimanded for defending itself in a war that it did not start.
Israel preventing Gazans from receiving food and medicine is not ‘defending itself’.
Exactly what sort of pressure are you imagining? The threat of a massive bombing campaign?
The war would end that day.
There is absolutely no evidence that Israel would end its blockade of Gaza, or its seizure of land in the West Bank. Those are acts of war, so your claim is dubious, at best.
Contrary to what others think, this is not an easy thing to do in a warzone let alone in a warzone where the domestic belligerents are opposed to America.
If the US did this, it would result in Hamas and other militia attacking US forces in the area.
Are you also suggesting that the US go into Afghanistan and deliver aid to the suffering Afghans?
Came here to say this. HAMAS would 100% attack that
Interesting that the two of you are so certain you know what Hamas would do in a situation that has never occurred. I’m sure the State Department could use your foresight …
Go Minderbinder and bomb shipments of US munitions deliveries to Israel to help the oppressed Palestinians.
This is not a logistical possibility. Lets run through Kevin's options:
What would happen if we helicoptered supplies out to the Bataan and thence to Gaza, Berlin airlift style?
Helicopters are the least efficient method of transportation ever invented, save the space shuttle. The idea of supplying 2 million people with them is ludicrous. Aside from which, cargo helicopters are very fragile beasts. Hamas could shoot them down pretty easily, if they wanted.
Or used aircraft to fly in supplies directly to one of Gaza's airstrips?
Gaza doesn't have any airstrips that can handle cargo planes. Israel bulldozed the runways of Gaza's airport into oblivion in 2002.
Or, for that matter, broke the Israeli blockade and brought in aid via ship. Is Gaza Port big enough for that?
No, Gaza doesn't have a port large enough for this. There have been plans to expand it, but, with the Israeli naval blockade, they have never moved forward. The bigger problem, though, is that a cargo port requires a lot of infrastructure, like cranes and docks and warehouses. Israeli bombing has destroyed what little was there.
Trucks through the crossing points is the only realistic way to supply Gaza. Unless the US has plans to invade either Egypt or Israel and seize one of them, we really can't unilaterally supply more than a miniscule fraction of what Gazans need to survive.
But you are describing the logistics of amphibious warfare, at which the US has more experience than any other nation — putting vehicles and supplies ashore where there is no infrastructure at all. I don’t think we would go into Gaza without assurances that we would not be attacked, but given that, we could move in quite substantial quantities.
When was the last time that the U.S. launched an amphibious invasion putting 2 million troops ashore?
The difference is, we wouldn’t be putting tanks, artillery and ammunition ashore in Gaza, leaving more logistic capacity for food and medication.
It's still a fantasy. The flotillas that made invasions during WWII no longer exist. The modern US navy is designed to make amphibious assaults of about 5,000 troops. Supply over the beaches is also a lot more inefficient than you imagine. The goal of any amphibious assault is to capture a full port as soon as possible. If they don't, the invasion will fail.
On the other hand, there are ships with capabilities well beyond anything floating in WWII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Frank_S._Besson-class_support_vessel
Israel stole the only port in Palestine in 1948. Look it up.
Israel has not allowed any shipping to Gaza in 20 years and does not allow any docks.
Why does this even have to be pointed out?
Why would they? Gaza is run by Hamas, whose stated intentions are to wipe out Israel and kill Jews.
Because they don't want to commit crimes against humanity? Because they want to do more than pretend that they aren't exercising sovereignty in Gaza?
If we wanted to stop the killing, we could stop giving the Israeli bombs. They ran out of their own long ago and are using the ones Biden is sending them.
"Or used aircraft to fly in supplies directly to one of Gaza's airstrips?" Kevin can't really be unaware that there are no air strips in Gaza. Israel destroyed them all decades ago.