There's a point here, but probably not the one The Nation intends to make:
Denigrating the sea change in policy represented by the threat to withhold weapons shipments to Israel as “too little too late” runs the risk of undermining the great historical achievement of the anti-war and pro-Palestinian movement.https://t.co/T8HRwY4Aas
— The Nation (@thenation) May 13, 2024
Has the pro-Palestinian movement really won a great historical achievement? There's little evidence for that.
This kind of pronouncement hinges on the belief that most people have always been pro-Palestinian, and the recent protests have simply shaken them out of their stupor and succeeded in pressuring Joe Biden to do what he's always known was right.
But this bowls right past the obvious fact that Biden—like lots of people—have long been ardently pro-Israel and were appalled by the October 7 Hamas attacks. That's the attitude he thinks is right, and what changed it weren't a few messy protests on college campuses. That is, after all, pretty routine stuff.
What changed it were the grotesque actions of Israel itself. A campaign of indiscriminate bombing. The casual slaughter of thousands of civilians. Complete destruction of Gaza's buildings and infrastructure. The routine murder of journalists and aid workers. The forced starvation of Gaza's people. A plan to continue doing all this in Rafah with no apparent goal other than bloody revenge. And all of it without even a rhetorical pretense that Israel gives a shit about 21st century humanitarian concerns in the slightest way.
No one needs a bunch of protesters to draw their attention to any of this. It's all in broad daylight. Any decent person—and Joe Biden is a decent person—would be having second thoughts at the very least by this point. The reality of what Israel is doing changed both public opinion and Biden's mind. Protests likely had nothing to do with it.
If you are right the Democratic party is full of indecent people since a lot of them have not moved at all on the issue. More common are the people on the left who know they can't defend what Israel is doing, but they can change the subject to anti-Semitism or Iran or anything else that is happening in the world.
Note this is not the first time that Israel has behaved indecently. The world has tsked in the past, said ok enough of the killing of civilians and moved on. Maybe that would not have happened this time. But it is optimistic to take that for granted.
Note that when Israel bombed the consulate in Syria, the media turned to how awful Iran is for responding. And the Biden administration turned to how awful Iran is for responding. The protesters were pretty much the only ones keeping the story on how awful Israel's actions in Gaza were. Even now Biden's public pronouncements are still on how Israel is the victim here.
I get that you don't want the protests to matter. And it is always possible to dismiss the effects of the protests. But the history of protests being ahead of the curve, but dismissed as irrelevant is a long one.
So the protesters are right but they’re saying it wrong? Got it. Now I’ll get off your lawn.
Yeah, Kevin seems to be going hippy-puncher.
The fucking hippies are wrong. And even if they're right, they're still wrong, and here's 800 words explaining why they need to shut up. Again.
If this keeps up he'll be talking to Tom Friedman's cabbie by the end of the year.
Kevin's been like this for more than twenty years.
He didn't say they were wrong. Just that they weren't the reason for the policy change.
Except that ignores there really hasn't been a policy change. Remember, Biden hasn't said no weapons for Israel, contrary to the constant lies by the media. He's only said no offensive weapons if Israel goes overboard on the war crimes. Evin if they go overboard on the war crimes, there is still unlimited defensive weapons for Israel. And Biden has been from day 1 trying to prevent Israel from engaging in such self destructive behavior.
I'm not sure why you're so certain that the campus protests have had no effect on Biden. In a very close election, the youth vote will matter a lot, especially if they don't show up. And young people are far ahead of the general public in identifying Israel's abhorrent military policies.
Well, yeah man, sure. Kinda like the civil rights movement of the '60s. Eventually the decent white population would have been offended by Jim Crow and would have ended it on their own without the messiness of all those unruly protests. After all, it had only been a century after the end of slavery. Gotta give it time.
Sarcasm doesn't work when so many people sincerely believe what you believe are extremely exaggerated claims
Yes. Sadly, on the internet, any straight-faced satire, no matter how ridiculous or over the top, will inevitably be taken seriously.
“Well, yeah man, sure.“
It worked, that start ensured it. Don’t worry about the other commenters. They mean well, but you can’t worry about those that don’t get it. That predated the invention of the internet.
I wonder if Israel will stop at the incorporation of the West Bank and Gaza? I see incorporation as Israel's long term strategy. I wonder if, long term, Israel will be like the Christian Kingdoms of Palestine.
Let’s give the kids credit. Maybe they’ll shut up! I’m really looking forward to the masses fleeing Israel. Hezbullshit needs to pile on now. Then we get to see the great liberal democracy of Palestine inspire a new generation of peace loving people. ????
wingnuts love hippie punching, no mystery there
but not sure why centrists spend as much time criticizing a bunch of college kids living in tents as they do criticizing an american client state using US weapons to starve civilians
like the world is a better place if college kids just drink every night, happily shit on the defenseless, and punch 'R' on every ballot question
i also suspect bibi wants to drag this out as long as possible to help his republican buddies in november
That's about as certain as you can get in politics. Joe Biden was very slow on the uptake; I'm still not sure he gets this.
About the only sentence I can agree with in Kevin's post is "Joe Biden is a decent man". History is littered with the bodies of decent but ineffective men.
...paging jimmy carter...
I'm not even sure I agree with the decent part. But that depends on the defintion of decent, which Kevin never provides. In my opinion, a decent person would have taken much more forceful action and much sooner.
Ask Anita Hill.
Well thats what happens to people as they get older. Set in their ways, slow to change.
Secondary effect....he needs to drag it out so he won't be kicked out of office himself (and end up in court and possibly jail for previous alleged crimes)
"bibi wants to drag this out as long as possible to help his republican buddies"
You may be astonished to learn that some of the 8 billion people on this earth in the 194 countries that are not the US do not base their actions on how it might play in US politics.
No doubt that Bibi probably views the political situation in the US as a net positive for him, but I am pretty sure that he is "dragging this out" because he wants to kill Palestinians. Because of the war going on over there.
Exactly. Israel under Netanyahu has made itself hard to support. The IDF is complaining (off the record, but to journalists) that Hamas is reoccupying territory they were driven from earlier in the war at considerable cost. It's one thing to accept high civilians casualties to clear Hamas from an area because Hamas embeds itself among civilians--that's still highly debatable, but what Hamas did was so monstrous you can see the case even if you don't quite agree with it. But killing thousands of civilians only to let Hamas reoccupy the territory because the question of what to do with Gaza after the fighting is over is too politically fraught for your coalition of right wing nutjobs? Um, no. Not remotely acceptable. The thing is, what Netanyahu has been doing for years is incredibly damaging FOR ISRAEL, even if you disregard the fate of Palestinians entirely. Before 10/7, I'd reached the point of feeling that the U.S. probably needed to cut Israel loose. The sheer horror of Hamas's attack made the invasion of Gaza inevitable, but the way Netanyahu has conducted the war has squandered what goodwill Israel had in the wake of that massacre. What Netanyahu has done has been bad for Israel--but it's been good for Bibi. How could Israel keep electing this vile Israel-harming shit slick? Well, how could the U.S. be considering putting Trump back in the White House? It's obviously self-harming but somehow a lot of voters don't see it.
"because Hamas embeds itself among civilians" How can people be so stupid as to not realize that it is not conceivably possible for any body not to "incorporate itself among the civilians" when you have 4 million people concentrated in the area of a typical east coast american city of 1 million
My person they--like Israel--can make efforts to minimize how much that happens.
They--like Israel--have made no efforts to minimize how much that happens.
By the time set on October 7th, it was already clear that the Israelis didn't have any sort of strategy. Which isn't surprising, because they haven't had any sort of strategy since 1967.
"But killing thousands of civilians only to let Hamas reoccupy the territory because the question of what to do with Gaza after the fighting is over is too politically fraught for your coalition of right wing nutjobs?"
Sadly accurate.
It isn't just that Israel in its pain and rage has no plan, Netanyahu's coalition makes a plan impossible.
Netanyahu is to Israel as Trump is to the US. Since both need to win elections it is an object lesson in electorates choosing self-destruction.
"I can attest that most people find it easier to sacrifice the lives of their spouses, siblings, and children in a futile cause than to change how they feel and how they understand the world."
David Shulman writing on this same reality.
The will of the people has no influence on him!
Best argument I've heard yet against Joe Biden.
Your alternative?
Time for alternatives is past. Time for alternatives ended about 4 months ago. Biden and the Democratic Party in their *wisdom* didn't see the need for them.
We are now stuck with Biden.
Well Gavin Newsome is cutting a bunch of stuff like climate support to fill his budget deficit so good thing we didn't swap Biden out for him.
I guess the question is do alternatives matter if your working theory is that public sentiment does not matter at all.
Public support for Israel was very strong for a long time. Still is, though support for how Israel is fighting its war has dropped recently.
"Public sentiment" is more broad than you think.
So you think at present the “will of the people” is with the demonstrators? Do us a favor and call up TFG and his minions and let them know.
Israel / Palestine well and truly splits the Democratic coalition. That is the problem. Not an unwillingness to listen.
I'll repost this here:
Students are going to protest. In this case, most of the protest encampments popped up because police were used to clear out the early ones. In some ways, students were more into exercising their right to protest.
As for affecting outcomes, they may have helped push Biden into his current position, or at least give him some cover. Biden saw what happened when we went into Afghanistan and Iraq and was trying to stop Israel from making the same mistake. Basically, don't go in without a "day after" plan. He also saw the potential for blowback and the effective trap Hamas set for Israel.
How does one measure/demonstrate indiscriminate? I see outlets describing the distribution of those killed at being mostly (a bit more than half?) women and children. With something like half the population being under 18, and the gender split of the population being basically even that would make roughly three-quarters of the population women plus children.
And then we have the UN revising the distribution of those killed? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/05/13/un-cuts-estimates-women-children-deaths-gaza/73669560007/
It is hard to understand what is going on with those figures.
This page says:
34,735 Reported fatalities including
>9,500 women (source: GMO)
>14,500 children (source: GMO)
Whereas this page says:
34,844 Reported fatalities including
>10,006 men (40%)
>7797 children (32%)
>4959 women (20%)
>1924 elderly (8%)
Which adds up to 24,686 "identified as of 30 April" and not the ~35K number.
So, not knowing exactly what is going on, it is still 52% women and children, (60% women, children and elderly). I've always been hearing "more than half" women and children. This makes the lead sentence in the USA Today article that you cited problematic. ("The United Nations reduced estimates for the number of women and children killed during Israel's war in Gaza by nearly half")
Note that these figures do not include "more than 10,000 missing or under the rubble" (quote appears on both ochaopt.org pages)
I think some of the mishmash comes from numbers where identities have been found versus those who have not been identified. Morbid shades of differences in counting in early days of COVID.
We're (or at least I'm) still left with how one defines/demonstrates indiscriminate.
One way would be to compare the ratio of non-combatant to enemy casualties, to other recent examples; for instance urban warfare during the invasion of Iraq. However, the data on total violent deaths during the invasion and occupation, let alone disaggregated data, is extremely variable from analysis to analysis. The independent Iraq Body Count project calculated that coalition forces inflicted civilian deaths in a ratio of 1:2 to combatants.
Another comparison could be made of cases. The first Israeli strike on the Jabalia refugee camp caused 80 - 100 civilian deaths to kill one ‘high-ranking’ Hamas commander, or by other reports, a handful of Hamas fighters. By contrast, a U.S. drone strike killed Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as head of al-Qaeda, with no civilian casualties; apparently due to the use of the ‘flying Ginsu’ non-explosive missile. The target was standing on the balcony of a house; his family was inside and unscathed.
Gaza doesn't really compare well with other instances of urban fighting, ever. One major difference is that, when urban combat is going to begin soon, the civilian population abandons the city in large numbers. In Gaza, there's nowhere to flee to.
The other problem is that most of the examples of recent urban warfare involve someone like the Russians attacking Grozny, or the Syrian military attacking various cities in their civil war, or the ongoing war in Sudan. They uniformly involve a truly despicable regime doing the attacking. Establishing these conflicts as the baseline and then comparing the Israeli campaign in Gaza to them necessarily involves setting an extremely low bar.
For all of the very many problems I have with the Israeli government, and the very low esteem in which I hold the ethics of their policies towards the Palestinians, they aren't as bad as Putin's Russia, or Assad's Syria. And they shouldn't be allowed to skate by on the standard of "Not As Bad As Some of the Most Hideous Regimes in the World."
I compare it to the US in Falujah. Instead of leveling the entire city from the air we stuck with targeted airstrikes and put US troops in greater danger to try and minimize the loss of remaining civilians.
To date I have seen almost no evidence of Israel putting its troops at greater risk to keep Palestinians alive. And have seen plenty of evidence that their response to civilian casualities is "Oopsie. Well anyway...!"
That's how I measure it.
This piece examines, among other things, the disparity in the number of civilian casualties that the rules of engagement allowed for in Iraq/Afghanistan and in Gaza.
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
I confess that I had forgotten about Fallujah.
Yes! Infantry operations in urban areas, with reasonably restrictive rules of engagement risk more own-side casualties, but reduce risk to non-combatants. Israel chose much less discriminate tactics. One can argue that 'Israel had no choice but to respond', but it certainly had the choice of how to respond.
Over half women and children dead with the revised numbers is still disgusting and unacceptable, and that's not even considering most of the men also being non-combatants, as over 50% dead women and children who we will presume nearly all civilians would have been accompanied by some respective % of the dead men, who are also civilian "collateral damage" (a phrase which should never be spoken again by responsible leaders, they were "killed", whether intentionally or not definitely "recklessly" by any civilized standard.
At some point we have to stop running away from decency and civilized behavior in efforts to justify war atrocities, war is almost always a choice and not a license to be a psychopath, sure peace is harder but not an excuse to ignorantly and lazily choose war instead.
Everyone's a genius until their hubristic strategy/conspiracy falls apart, and then they claim the dogs and fog of war, the ultimate irresponsibility and these folks should be held accountable.
Given memyselfandi‘s mention of the population density in Gaza, which implies “collateral damage” would be a virtual certainty is it then safe to conclude you believe Israel should not have responded militarily?
I'll take a flyer on that.
1) Israel should not have responded militarily without a strategy for how to convert tactical success into anything of lasting value. They have no strategy. This is evident in the fact that they declared victory in northern Gaza back in December, but had to engage in another multiweek siege of Al Shifa hospital back in March, and are currently restarting operation in Jabalya.
The Israeli approach won't destroy Hamas, because it can't destroy Hamas. Conventional military operations by themselves never destroy a guerilla force. All successful counterinsurgencies combine the conventional military aspect with programs to turn the civilian population against the insurgency. Without that, Hamas, or something very like it, will always reconstitute in any area where the IDF has withdrawn. (And, no, a massive bombing campaign doesn't meaningfully turn a population against the insurgency. Strangely, human beings blame being bombed on the people doing the bombing, not their enemies.)
I'd be a lot more supportive of Israel's campaign if they had a plan for achieving actual victory, rather than endless rounds of whack-a-mole. But, instead, they are killing tens of thousands of people in order to accomplish exactly nothing. But this isn't a surprise, because they haven't had a strategy since 1967. (The Israeli far right does have a strategy: forcing the Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza. But the Israeli government either has no such strategy, or is smart enough not to say out loud that this is their strategy.)
2) Even if one accepts that Israel would respond militarily, they have done so immorally, and almost certainly illegally. Early in the war, the IDF set rules of engagement that allowed killing up to 20 civilians in order to kill a single, bottom level Hamas operative. (This number went up to 100 for a Hamas battalion commander, and 300 for a brigade commander.)They routinely used the operative's arrival at their own home as the trigger for launching an airstrike on the home (albeit often hours later; there are multiple instances of the operative having left their home before the hit). This also guaranteed that the operative's family was killed as well, and thus a high rate of civilian casualties.
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
As an aside, this is why the analysis by Abraham Wyner arguing that the casualty figures provided by the Ministry of Health are a statistical impossibility. He takes the total number of deaths, subtracts the number of Hamas fighters the IDF claims to have killed (itself a highly inflated number*) and the number of women and children claimed to have killed, and then argues that the remainder is an implausibly low count of adult males who are not Hamas operatives. He makes the single most common mistake in data analysis: assuming that all of the events in his data set are independent. He is correct that, if all of the deaths in Gaza were independent, then the result should closely match the demographics of Gaza.
But, these deaths are not independent events. The IDF targeting policies ensured that civilian deaths were more concentrated among women and children, and less among adult males who are not Hamas members, than the demographics would suggest.
* https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-31/ty-article-magazine/.premium/israel-created-kill-zones-in-gaza-anyone-who-crosses-into-them-is-shot/0000018e-946c-d4de-afee-f46da9ee0000
Biden's never been the greatest communicator, but I don't believe his largely token limitation on arms shipments is at odds with the totality of his public statements since October 7. I suspect it's more a case of him finally taking action in line with private warnings he's been giving to Netanyahu from the start.
It's been instructive to observe the hysterical over-reaction in parts of the right, with shrieks that Israel has been "betrayed" and ridiculous attempts to pretend Israel's position in Gaza is like that of the US in 1945. I'm tempted to say some of the worst offenders obviously have dual loyalties, but that would be an intolerable "anti-Semitic trope".
Do you likewise think that protesters hysterical shrieks of “genocide Joe” also “obviously have duel loyalties”?
Do you think there's no difference? Then you better say why, because and for the record, you disgusting little toad, it's been made very, very obvious that some commenters have, as the man sez, 'dual loyalties'. I say you're a disgusting little toad because you know that as well, just as you know that they're not being up front about that and why they're not being up front. You want to whitewash religious partisanship. FOAD.
People like you brought us the Japanese American internment during WW2. Own it.
So you're just here to provoke a response. FOAD, troll.
I wouldn’t even try to take your job. You’re so good at it. But I won’t respond to you any more,
These Israel/Palestine comment threads are the longest because people make ad hominem attacks which trigger an instinctual need to respond.
You never responded in the first place, tosser. Quite possibly because you're one of those 'dual loyalties' persons themselve. I will never understand why people set such a low bar for themselves by claiming to 'win' on the strength that they never answered a question, but hey, you do you.
"Duel loyalties"? No, I support the early 19th century criminalisation of duels.
Agree, and it's completely consistent with what he's been saying publicly too since at least October 18, when he got a ton of shit dumped on him for the second half of his statement in Tel Aviv https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/18/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-october-7th-terrorist-attacks-and-the-resilience-of-the-state-of-israel-and-its-people-tel-aviv-israel/
I think of this as being a lot like handling Afghanistan, when (the way I viewed it at the time) he'd finally had it with all the foot-dragging inside his administration and in the military, blew his stack, and told everybody forget it, that's it, it's over, we're out, right now. And if you can't accept that, good luck in your future endeavors and by the way I appreciate your efforts for my administration. He *is* said to have a pretty violent temper when he thinks he's been pushed too far.
He's also a political animal through and through so I think it's fatuous to say the demonstrations have had no effect. Any display of public opinion has to be taken account of. So also do things like the uncommitted vote in the MI primary, and other rumblings that reach him and/or his political people; it's their job after all.
But the biggest factor, I agree with Kevin here, is Netanyahu's personal rage-fest and its disastrous effects on Palestinians, Israelis, the country he purports to lead, and the region it's housed in. And from what little I've seen about the internal situation there and in the region, Biden has actually been remarkably patient and even-tempered to this point, even to a degree that's really hurting him politically here.
The best way out in the short run would be to somehow engineer a way, through our extensive contacts there, for someone who's actually thinking ahead to take the reins de facto. I hope he can pull that off, though it doesn't seem all that likely. Netanyahu seems completely intent on embedding himself and his country and Gaza and Palestinians and the whole region deeper and deeper into his personal Big Muddy.
Curmudgeon doubles down, more at 11
One of Kevin's best and most direct posts, even if I didn't agree (which I do). Human decency has to mean some level of decency or dignity, or it means nothing, and then you'll really see all hell break loose.
I find this comment section perpetually amusing. Kevin is very clearly a normie Liberal. But it seems most of the readers here, or at least the commenters, are considerably to his left and give him all sorts of shit for being exactly what he is.
Guys, why are you here?
Are you suggesting people who don't agree with everything Drum says shouldn't read him?
Sure sounds like *tango* is saying that. He evidently thinks that all political discourse should be done only in the echo-chamber of one's preference.
This is about par for *tango's* previous attempts at political discourse.
Wow, thanks, I did not know that about myself! Appreciate the enlightenment that you provide, @ Zaphod
No, I believe tango wants them to toe the line and stop making tango uncomfortable.
Not at all. But this blog is pretty much Kevin's analysis and opinion on things. If folks, as so many apparently do, find his opinions abhorrent, why do they keep coming back for more and posting some pretty hostile comments?
Tango. why are you upset about people who have opinions other than yours and Drums?
I seem to be to Kevin Drum’s left on a number of issues, but I read him for the charts, that is, the attempts he makes to find data bearing on current issues, and present it in visual form to give insights into those issues. One of my favorite quotations in KD’s header is W. Edwards Deming’s “Without data you’re just another person with an opinion”. KD is at his best when showing us the data, and a number of commenters here offer good critiques to those posts as well.
?? These comments hardly universally contradict KD (it isn't protesters so much as Israeli bad acts.)
To my eyes KD is moving left on Israel / Palestine, so are a lot of people.
The dream (A Jewish home at last, a refuge for the diaspora persecuted for centuries, amazing art, science, and liteature) is curdling into a nightmare, it will will not stop until Israel gives legal and human rights to all people under their control, and shows they value Paestinian lives.
BTW I am not arguing for a single state with equal rights for all, spare me demographic lectures. Israel can respect the Palestininas and honor their rights by negotiating a Palestinian state in good faith.
This is what I cannot get past. Israel is destroying itself, at the same time they have a way out.
I am sadly in agreement with this. Israel has been in the position for decades now to take their knee off of Palestine's neck and give up some land in exchange for peace. They do not wish to do it. Their goal is from the river to the sea.
I believe Biden is working to do what he believes will have the best outcome in Israel, and all the sturn and drang from the right, left, and wherever isn't affecting his actions.
He's not playing with lives for votes or the polls. He's trying to get the best outcome possible with the hand he's been dealt.
Amen.
I believe Biden is working to do what he believes will have the best outcome in service of world order, which is saying the same thing except describing his behavior in general.
Decent people, people who act based on the assumption it's a good idea to be skeptically openminded, recognize that Biden is a decent person.
Indecent people, people who act based on the assumption it's a good idea to be naively cynical, Citizen Donald and his supporters for example, say, "People who disagree with me are wrong, and this conversation is over."
i don't mean to say protests weren't a factor either, they are having an impact, one that will resound as we get further down the road. The protesters just rejected the inhumane behavior first, and chose to protest that directly, to their credit.
We already know that the usual MSM suspects were trying to sweep Israel's usual bad behaviour under the rug. Unfortunately for them, widespread student protests are clickbait that kinda sorta forced the issue. Want to make Israel's atrocities a non-happening? Fine, you're free to not report them. But then you can't cover the catnip that is student protests. Nobody in the flabby organ that is our MSM wanted to make that bargain because FOMO and that's why the kids mattered.
Good take.
"Any decent person—and Joe Biden is a decent person—would be having second thoughts at the very least by this point. "
Adorable Drum thinks this is true with all the abundant evidence to the contrary in the US right now
"Don't compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the alternative." - President Biden.
If you are not explicitly supporting Decent Biden, then you are implicitly supporting Indecent Donald who thinks every other human being, including Adorable SeanT, is an opportunity to be exploited, or a threat to be neutralized, and otherwise utterly irrelevant.
Kevin: when it’s hard to differentiate your beliefs from that of Fox News, you’re on the wrong track. Please rethink your antipathy towards the protesters. Your obsession with proving them somehow “wrong” isn’t a good look.
I get it that you disagree with Kevin but I really don’t see how you could read his second to last paragraph and compare him to Fox News. You must be watching a different version of it than the one I’ve seen.
"A plan to continue doing all this in Rafah with no apparent goal other than bloody revenge."
This, more than anything explains why the Administration has shifted its policy on the conflict. The IDF now has to go back into areas it thought it "pacified" to deal with Hamas fighters who simply infiltrate back to these location and start shooting again because Israel refuses to use its forces to police such areas. What the Administration wants is some idea from Israel what it intends to do once there's nothing left to bomb but rubble. Apparently, for right now, there is no plan. How do you leverage someone who acts so stupidly and carelessly on top of any atrocities it may or may not have committed in the course of an awful (which those things happen)? Well, how?
Aside from the problem that Israel would prefer not to garrison the parts of Gaza it has cleared, because occupations are messy and costly, they are also trying to game international law. Legally, they assume the responsibility for making sure that the civilian population is fed and sheltered. They are trying to avoid the legal definition of "occupy."
There are several parts to this definition, and all of them must be met for an occupation to exist. The first is that the invading force must have rendered it impossible for the previous government to effectively govern the area. (And it's important to note that "area" here can mean only a part of an invaded territory. How fine can this split be? That's unclear.) I don't think that anyone who isn't deliberately lying could argue that the Israelis haven't rendered Hamas incapable of effective government.
Another part is that the invader must have a physical presence in the territory. The laws don't say this explicitly, but that's how it's been held, though there has been a movement within the international law community to loosen this restriction, based specifically upon Israel continuing to exercise a lot of power within Gaza after 2005, despite having pulled its troops back to the borders and not having a physical presence within Gaza. I think this is largely an edge case, because Gaza is so geographically small that IDF forces on the border can easily project power into most of the territory. Edge cases make terrible law.
A third part of the definition of an occupation is that the invader must be capable itself of exercising effective control of the territory. This is the part that Israel has been trying to game. The laws, again, don't explicitly say whether or not the invader must actually be exercising effective control, or whether it's sufficient that it could exercise effective control if it desired. The case law leans pretty strongly in the latter direction, but there is one international court ruling that explicitly says otherwise.
What you are watching is Israel trying to make sure that it cannot be considered to be able to exercise effective control of those parts of Gaza that it has cleared. By withdrawing its troops from those areas, it can say, "Hey, we don't have any personnel there, so there is no way that we can exercise effective control. It's unclear at this point whether that gamesmanship will actually work, or just serve to piss off the panel of judges that will eventually rule on whether Israel is committing war crimes.
Thank you for this explication. This seems exactly like something the cynical, heartless Netanyahu would do.
This blog is certainly acquiring that old man yelling at the squirrels smell.
Yeesh.
No shit,
Maybe, but I always enjoy the discussions among the commentariat. When Mr Drum tosses out something outrageous like this and we all leap to rip him apart in our own opinionated ways, there is often a lot of good information shared.
A fair amount of mindless trolling, too, but that's the internets for ya.
It's not just Kevin complaining about the protesters. Look at the Nation article. It is also complaining that the protest movement is being done by not accepting victory.
That doesn't make Kevin's complaint correct, and I think he's undercrediting the pressure created by their chaos, but otoh the protesters just keep going to great lengths to discourage anyone from taking them seriously.
"otoh the protesters just keep going to great lengths to discourage anyone from taking them seriously.
Exactly. No one would begrudge them if they simply picketed, leafletted, buttonholed members of the Board of Trustees, all the acceptable ways to lobby for your cause. Criticism of Israel and criticism of the war is not anti-Semitic. Calling for a ceasefire, release of all hostages and political prisoners, who would be against that? But of course, they went well beyond any of these things to call for Israel's destruction and vandalize buildings and act in a manner that makes it impossible for any politician not only to take them seriously, but to isolate them like toxic waste.
Have never liked the concept of collective guilt. Some protestors have vandalized property, or threatened or harrassed non-protestors and counter-protestors, or instigated violence. Others have been peaceful and non-confrontational. Some counter-protestors have also transgressed; will there be Congressional hearings over that?
I have questions:
- How come not a single nation that is against Israel's actions in Gaza has volunteered to send their own military as UN peacekeepers to get between the two?
- Why do people assume that cutting off all weapons to Israel would stop the war? Is Iran cutting off weapons?
- Has a country ever capitulated just because they lost their main sponsor?
- Why are people hellbent on changing Biden's mind when it's the Israeli's opinion of Bibi and the nature of his prosecution of their war that needs to be changed?
- Are we a democracy if a minority has the power to dictate unilateral action in national priorities?
- How come not a single nation that is against Israel's actions in Gaza has volunteered to send their own military as UN peacekeepers to get between the two?
Because none of those countries are run by idiots. There is a very good reason why the UN changed its policies and will now only send peacekeepers when they are requested by both sides of a conflict. The situation that UNIFIL, in southern Lebanon, has faced for 45 years is a good example, and the case that caused the UN to change its policies.
- Why do people assume that cutting off all weapons to Israel would stop the war? Is Iran cutting off weapons?
People assume that Israel is a lot more dependent upon US arms than they actually are. Cutting them off would hurt. It would likely degrade their capabilities, not so much in Gaza, but on the border with Lebanon. If the Israeli government were smart, it would be walking very carefully right about now.
But have you watched . . . [waves hand in Itamar Ben-Gvir's direction].
Why are people hellbent on changing Biden's mind when it's the Israeli's opinion of Bibi and the nature of his prosecution of their war that needs to be changed?
Because we're Americans, not Israelis.
- Are we a democracy if a minority has the power to dictate unilateral action in national priorities?
You're asking this question now? Of course it's still a democracy. The rest of the nation always has the power to turf out whoever listened to the minority at the next election. This question could be asked about every policy over which a minority on one side cares much more deeply than the majority on the other.
I believe the UN protocol is also not to send peacekeepers into active conflicts, i.e. there must first be a cease-fire. They’re peacekeepers, there has to be peace to keep.
Rules are not frozen and nations with UN support can operate ad hoc. That's just a lame excuse -- oh, the rules prevent us from stopping a war.
Would it? If they have limited options, wouldn't they be tempted to go for the worst ones? Everyone seems to think this is a zero sum game.
You mean, if they weren't lead by Bibi or the far-right.
That's a non sequitur. We're not the ones doing stupid things. Like I said last October, this doesn't stop until the Israelis have decided they're done/satisfied.
No, it can't. This is a nuanced question I'm asking when I called out, "the power to dictate unilateral action". In the absence of compromise, we have an illiberal system that is authoritarian.
Rules are not frozen and nations with UN support can operate ad hoc. That's just a lame excuse -- oh, the rules prevent us from stopping a war.
The reason for the current rules is because UN forces proved incapable of stopping a war between two combatants that desire to keep slugging it out. The rules don't prevent anyone from stopping a war. They prevent UN peacekeepers being caught in the crossfire between active combatants.
Unless you think the UN is going to go in with sufficient firepower to make both sides stop fighting, your argument doesn't make any sense. And, by "sufficient firepower," I mean an air force advanced enough to dismantle that of the Israelis, and enough troops to garrison all of Israel and Palestine. That's what it would take.
In other words, you aren't asking, "How come not a single nation that is against Israel's actions in Gaza has volunteered to send their own military as UN peacekeepers to get between the two?" You're asking, "Why won't the US go in guns blazing?"
Would it? If they have limited options, wouldn't they be tempted to go for the worst ones? Everyone seems to think this is a zero sum game.
If the US stopped sending military aid, the Israelis would run out of 155mm ammunition pretty quickly, as they don't make it themselves. That wouldn't make a big difference in Gaza. It most certainly would on the Lebanon border.
The US also supplies a large percentage of the missiles used in the Iron Dome system. Left with only what they can manufacture on their own, they'd become a lot more vulnerable to rocket attack by Hezbollah.
The Israelis rely on the US for a lot of its precision munitions. Again, they've shown that they are perfectly willing to use dumb bombs in Gaza, but this would make it harder to respond to Hezbollah.
You mean, if they weren't lead by Bibi or the far-right.
The center right, which is the only plausible alternative to Likud and the far right in the next election, would probably be more careful, but they'd still be running the risk. The entire argument that Netanyahu and the far right are the problem, rather than a symptom of the problem, is misguided.
The Israeli electorate has elected Netanyahu's coalition six times. About 70% of Jewish Israelis don't think any humanitarian aid should be allowed to enter Gaza. Previous governments have done little to curb settler terrorism in the West Bank, though they are at least a lot more circumspect in their encouragement.
For the most part, the Israeli government engages in these policies because that's what the people voting for them want. People completely misinterpret Bibi's current unpopularity in Israel. It stems from personal corruption, a perception of gross incompetence, and policy issues that don't have anything to do directly with Palestinians. They strongly approve of being maximally harsh towards the Palestinians.
That's a non sequitur. We're not the ones doing stupid things. Like I said last October, this doesn't stop until the Israelis have decided they're done/satisfied.
If you can't understand why people protest their own government more readily than they do that of a foreign country, I can't help you.
No, it can't. This is a nuanced question I'm asking when I called out, "the power to dictate unilateral action". In the absence of compromise, we have an illiberal system that is authoritarian.
And that still doesn't make this any different than any other issue in which a minority on one side cares about it more than a majority on the other side. In a democracy, people vote. Single issue voters will always punch above their weight influencing policies, because those are the people who are guaranteed to vote for someone else if you cross them. That's not authoritarian. It's how democracy works.
That minority being AIPAC?
Are they in the minority? The majority opinion in America is driven by Evanelicals and they're on the path towards trying to force Revelations in full support of AIPAC.
Evangelicals aren't a majority either.
The US and Israel have a common problem with different roots. In the US, only two parties matter, and their strength is so similar that neither can afford to alienate any subgroup of their supporters. Israel has way too many parties, most with only a handful of seats in the Knesset, so coalitions can only be put together by giving in on each issue that any one of half a dozen factions prioritizes. So minority issue groups can exercise disproportionate influence in either country.
"How come not a single nation that is against Israel's actions in Gaza has volunteered to send their own military as UN peacekeepers to get between the two?"
Because Israel has on every occasion rejected the possibility of neutral parties policing the territories they occupy, and they would do so this time as well. The Palestinians have many times asked for UN peacekeepers -- like in Lebanon, Kosovo, Haiti -- but Israel has refused.
"Why do people assume that cutting off all weapons to Israel would stop the war? Is Iran cutting off weapons?"
Iran is barely supplying any weapons to Palestinians; you may recall that Israel controls all of the borders (or, Egypt on Israel's behalf, and answerable to America who provides them $2 billion in aid every year), and they hardly let weapons through. Hamas is a lightly armed militia.
"Why are people hellbent on changing Biden's mind when it's the Israeli's opinion of Bibi and the nature of his prosecution of their war that needs to be changed?"
Because Biden answers to humanitarian concerns and reason but Bibi -- and, to an extent that is growing every day -- and the rest of Israel are not.
"Why do people assume that cutting off all weapons to Israel would stop the war? Is Iran cutting off weapons?"
Do many people assume this? The big reason to cut off weapons is that Israel is operating outside the bounds of decency and we ought not be complicit.
Fewer weapons will help on the margins, and at least the weapons used aren't ours.
Jezus. Kevin sure has done a lot of bitching about the protesters lately. Sneer sneer sneer. Bitch bitch bitch.
Swing and a miss on this one.
For the record I don't believe Joe Biden is a decent man. According to the reporting he literally wept with the families of those our bombs had killed in the Whitehouse and then immediately continued to facilitate killing more. Foreign Policy necessity or not that is some sociopathic shit.
And Biden's record is one of engaging in the cold FP reality of putting US interests first. Its why he bent the knee to MBS, treats a mentally deficient shithead like Modi (who is killing Democracy and Christians in his country and now trying to export it!) so carefully and has always sought to keep Ukraine from losing to Russia, not defeat it.
And the US has suffered tremendous damage abroad thanks to Israel already. It wouldn't be much worse if Israel had rained more fire down there.
But Biden's number 1 priority has always been to beat Trump. And he can read the polls like anyone. Whether a lot or a little this stance has indeed cost him support. And it has gained him none because those enthusiastic about genociding some Arabs are voting Trump. Biden's own block runs the spectrum from opposed to "I don't like it but we have to."
In an election this close a little bit can mean the difference. And from uncomitted to the protests he has clearly reacted to keep the divisions manageable.
So yes the protests pushed him toward this. A bunch of things did. Take them away and this discussion is different.
The Torah counsels "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth". Benjamin YesAYahoo has blown past the Torah and is pushing thirty-five eyes and thirty-five teeth. The man is an apostate according to his own religion.
The clear-thinking, classical European Israelis who established Zionism as a solution to two millennia of persecution are a dwindling minority in Israel. It's now largely peopled by loudmouth ex-Russians and sorta, kinda Muslews from North Africa who like the draft exemption.
The Israel that Americans loved for its high-minded purpose and commitment to fair play is long gone, crushed by the jerk who murdered Rabin.
Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Optimism is a testable hypothesis. Are you on the side of working toward peace, or are you on the side of working to make peace impossible?
Please tell us, O Great Oz, how "peace" is to come about when two peoples are bound and determined to push each other off one piece of land?
How peace is not to come about: assume it won't and act based on that potentially erroneous, testable, but left untested assumption.
How peace is to come about: wake up!
all the comments about how the creation of the current country of Israel was not legal, and not a word about the partition that created India and Pakistan,and how large populations were forced to leave one area for another. Bothing about the creation of many of the current countries in Africa that ignored population groups. Israel exists, has the right to exist. Deal with it
We're picking our fights. Maybe next month we will take on the rest of the Ottoman Empire and / or the dismemberment of Africa, origin of the human species.
Whether Israel has some "right" to exist, that's another question. Does Wales have a "right to exist"? How about Taiwan?
If any country has a 'right to exist', Kurdistan certainly does. Oops.
I think Kevin is right here, at least if you take him literally: The protests themselves
did not change Biden's approach to the crisis nor change anybody's mind. In addition to the protests there were also pro-Israel, right wing counterprotests which would neutralize the message for less informed citizens (the vast majority)--apart from Kevin's arguments.
What they did help to achieve however was to keep the topic in the news. And those news, as Kevin notes, were such that they had an effect on public opinion as well as on the administration's policy.
You could say it was Netanyahu himself who changed Biden's mind: He is willing to have thousands slaughtered just in order to stay out of jail.
Netanyahu changed Biden's mind, agreed. But not because he was willing to have thousands slaughtered to stay out of jail, because that was so from day one. No, he was disobedient. Disregarding all the pretty pleases was one thing. Disregarding a firm public message was another. As Clinton said when he first met Bibi: "Who's the fucking superpower here?"
"This kind of pronouncement hinges on the belief that most people have always been pro-Palestinian, and the recent protests have simply shaken them out of their stupor and succeeded in pressuring Joe Biden to do what he's always known was right."
Huh? No it doesn't. It hinges on the belief that the protestors changed people's / Biden's minds, away from the historic support of Israel. That *would* be quite an achievement.