Israel's starvation campaign against northern Gaza—intended to enforce its declaration that everyone leave—is continuing apace:
The amount of aid reaching Gaza has dropped to the lowest level since December, official Israeli figures show, despite the US having issued a 30-day ultimatum last month threatening sanctions if there was no increase in humanitarian supplies reaching the territory. The ultimatum was delivered on 13 October, so will expire on Tuesday or Wednesday.
What follows is just a fantasy. But in my fantasy world Joe Biden would give this speech about Gaza tonight:
The United States will always protect Israel. That promise is ironclad.
But enough, at long last, is enough. The war in Gaza ends now. I have ordered the USS Eisenhower strike group to take up station off the shore of Gaza. It will be joined by helicopter carriers, Seabee battalions, supply ships, and the Marine I Expeditionary Force.
Ike will enforce a no-fly zone over Gaza. Any aircraft, of any nationality, that violates it will be shot down. MEF I will land and take control of Gaza. Piers will be built, food and medicine will be delivered, and reconstruction will begin. Marines will treat any interference, from either Palestinians or Israelis, as hostile. All IDF forces will be ordered to evacuate. Reinforcements will be added as necessary.
We welcome assistance from UNRWA and private charities, as well as NATO allies if they choose to join us.
Earlier today I informed Prime Minister Netanyahu of our intentions. He knows precisely what to expect, and we will be in regular communication with Israeli leaders.
This will not be bloodless. Hamas fighters still remain in Gaza and they continue to hold Israeli hostages. We assume they won't accept a ceasefire and a release of their hostages. If that turns out to be their decision, they will regret it.
I can't predict how long we'll stay or what the final status of Gaza will be. It's not the time for that, and those negotiations will be carried out by my successor in any case. Right now it's just time for the fighting to cease and care for its victims to begin.
Even if I had a magic wand I probably wouldn't do this. Do I really want the US to be responsible for governing and rebuilding Gaza over the next decade? That hasn't worked out well for us recently. But I can still dream.
I think I found a teensy-weensy flaw in this plan:
"those negotiations will be carried out by my successor"
No they won't.
Five or 10 US troops will be killed by Hamas or allied terrorists.
President Drum will be forced to resign by his own party. Drum's successor will pull out and the resounding position of the American people (enforced on our government) will be to tell the Israelis "Kill them all. Let God sort them out."
The US will not participate significantly in future negotiations, if any (dead men do not negotiate so the Israelis may not negotiate with Hamas), and his party will be destroyed in the next US election.
I'm sure the Palestinians would think that one nations occupying force is being replaced by another. The only way this would work if it was the U.N. doing it. But that's not going to happen. The U.N. peace keepers have only been dispatched to countries not strong enough to resist it. Besides I doubt you'd get much support from it's members.
Standoff glide bombs, 2000lb precision guided, make a mockery of a no fly zone. Ours have a range of 72nm.
The AIM120D. AAM has a range of about 90nm
Haifa to Gaza is 94miles
72 nanometers is not a whole lot of range.
Boat people and airplane people know what a nm is.
The time, if Biden and Harris wanted to materially shift the US position on Gaza, has passed.
1. US public support for a large role, military and economic, in Gaza is low. Note, I have not seen polling but would be shocked if the aforementioned was popular in the US.
2. Trump would likely respond to your concept with a 'senile Joe' joke and move on. Trump would never support this plan. Thus, little lasting impact
I don't think the US military would have to be involved. Refusing to work with Netanyahu would likely lead to his political demise (he is not popular, not even now that they are in a war) and transfer to prison where he belongs. Combine that with refusing aid until policy recommendations are accepted and followed and withdrawal from "veto duty" in the Security Council and I don't think Israel could have resisted.
azumbrunn
1. from Kevin "Marines will treat any interference, from either Palestinians or Israelis, as hostile."
2. you write "withdrawal from "veto duty" in the Security Council. The security Council would have to move fast: very unlikely that Trump would support this new policy.
Apart from the lack of time I understand Kevin's feelings and share them. Biden should have refused to send any weapons unless the war was carried out by the law of war and the retrieval of hostages was prioritized. Netanyahu knows from long experience that US presidents lack the cojones to resist Israels demands or to put real pressure on Israel. The last President to do it was George Bush the elder if memory serves.
Every administration afterwards begged Israel to follow the rules, knowing full well that Israel had no intention to do so. It is pathetic. But don't blame it on Biden alone.
Decade?
"MEF I will land and take control of Gaza"
I'm sorry--why should Americans be bullet-sponges in what is essentially a civil war fought over a postage stamp-sized piece of land on the other side of the planet?
I don't know what the solution to all of this is (although I'd pitch my vote for the Israeli government formally acknowledging that the territories it occupies are part of "Israel" citizenship and voting rights being extended to all adults in the region), but I think that (a) it will take a lot of time and a lot of process, and (b) adding US Marines to the mix doesn't seem like it would help.
That's especially the case since the US theoretically has plenty of leverage with the parties involved that need not involve a single pair of US boots on the ground. The problem is that exercising that leverage is currently extremely unpopular with US voters, so US support remains something that assholes like Bibi can continue taking US support for granted.
“the US theoretically has plenty of leverage with the parties involved … The problem is that exercising that leverage is currently extremely unpopular with US
votersdonors to political parties and candidates.KenSchulz - I agree that US donors would not like Kevin's plan. However, I believe US voters would also hate this plan:
- US Marines, and soldiers, in harms way with likely losses of troops
- lots of US money to rebuild Gaza
- US as the world's policeman
We shouldn't pay to rebuild what Israel destroyed. Having said that we most likely will end up paying somehow. Whenever that eventually happens and whatever that actually consists of.
Oh, I agree about those items. I was referencing the possibility of the US putting pressure on Israel for any purpose whatever.
No, exercising that leverage is also extremely unpopular with US voters. There is zero evidence that the American public is not very supportive of Israel and its actions. I don't like that, but it is foolish to pretend that it's not true.
"The United States will always protect Israel. That promise is ironclad."
Ironically I think there will never be an incentive for peace between Israel and its neighbors until we finally stop saying that.
+1
Not if it included massive cuts to the aid we send. Basically, we're not going to fund your bullshit, but will assist you if invaded. Turn off the spigot they they use to punish those around them with their asymmetric actions.
It's high time that money was spent elsewhere.....like the population America owes the most to...Native Americans and not the Jewish State. Let Europe decide if they owe the Jewish State, since they were the source of most Jewish suffering.
It's not that easy to draw a line between ordinance used to defend Israel and ordinance used to attack Palestinians.
You want the US to take on Hamas for Israel? And you think the US can do that without violating international law? What have you been smoking, Kevin?
What international law would it violate? Hamas actually killed American citizens on October 7, and may still be holding some hostage, I’m not sure about that. That’s more than the Iraqis did before we invaded.
Hamas' strategy is always to provoke its enemies to attack civilians. Attacking civilians violates international law. I don't think the US could avoid the trap that Hamas has set so successfully for Israel.
We must engage in these fantasies, because the reality - that we will sit and watch a couple hundred thousand people die - is too depressing.
So it took about a year of regular-speed genocide for Kevin to notice the 70+ year slow-motion genocide for what it is?
Progress!
Democrats were placed in a no-win situation over Gaza, split between support for Israel and Palestinians, while Republicans, who never cared two shits about Palestinians, ended up in a no-lose situation. Thus, in part, the GOP ended up with full control of the federal government. Meanwhile, people who cared deeply about Palestinians and thought cutting their support for Democrats would show them Democrats how much them Democrats fucked up, now get to find out how irony works.
So I get the liberal fanfic about stopping Israel on a dime, now that such post-election action *seems* inconsequential to the future of the Democrats, but this is just delusional fantasy.
CSG Eisenhower has only been at port since July; you're asking them to turn around and redeploy, without taking into account training, advance notice to families, and refitting. Then, you're asking for rules of engagement to include shooting down Israeli jets. And all this for maybe 8 weeks before Trump rescinds that order and lets Israel do whatever the fuck Bibi wants?
If you're going to go down that crazy route, you're going to do so against the will of all the generals, so to speak, and against many in your own party. Dude, feel the temperature in the room; you want to turn the nation's heat up against your own fellow Democrats as a lame duck?
People have made their choices heard in the election and now they have to live with the consequences of their choices. It is *not* our duty to protect them from making stupid choices when we have zero leverage to do so. And the GOP will point to such action as clearly going against the will of the people, no matter how stupid the will of the people is.
What the fuck is this post, Kevin?
What would be the point?
On January 20th, Trump will just cancel everything suggested here to spite Biden and announce Israel can do whatever it wants in Gaza, Lebanon, and elsewhere.
It’s game over for the Gazans, and it’s game over for American democracy too.
I know you are mostly just venting here Kevin, but enforcing a no-fly zone? Are Would US aircraft actually shoot at Israeli aircraft? What if the Israelis shoot back; while the US Navy pilots are good, I suspect the Israeli air force is more than a match for a carrier's air wing...
But then, I suspect the Israelis would not oppose this because it is a complete win for them. US Marines are about the only non-Israeli force in the world that might be willing to actually keep Hamas from doing stuff like launching rockets at Israel. And you KNOW that it would only be a matter of time before Hamas and American troops would start shooting at each other (and we would need more than a MEF to enforce anything).
Perhaps there is some Israeli staffer who reads the blog and is at this very moment forwarding this idea to Netanyahu's office...
"Ike will enforce a no-fly zone over Gaza."
Much easier said than done. The electronic warfare systems of the IAF are every bit as capable as those of the USN. It would be not only a diplomatic disaster to enforce such a no-fly zone, it might be a military one as well.
I mean, this worked so well for Reagan in Beirut we should definitely try it again.
"I can't predict how long we'll stay"
I'd say it would be roughly until January 20th, 2025.