Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, April 29, 2024
January 6 and America’s Slippery Slope on Free Speech
January 6 and America’s Slippery Slope on Free Speech
Courts are forgetting that free speech protections cover words they don’t agree with
What to Do When You’re Canceled | City Journal
What to Do When You’re Canceled | City Journal
Ilya Shapiro
What to Do When You’re Canceled
A report from the front lines
/ From the Magazine / The Social Order, Politics and law
Spring 2024
/ Share
It can happen to anyone. A bad tweet, viral video, or something you say (or text, post, e-mail, or Slack) gets blown out of proportion. Then comes a public pile-on or an official investigation, followed by punishment or ostracism. Cancel culture—the mob-like desire to punish politically incorrect speech—has made modern life into a minefield.
Those who deny the existence of cancel culture argue that the term is a smoke screen to excuse bad behavior from people who don’t want to accept the consequences of their actions. But the mere articulation of an unpopular opinion or uncomfortable truth shouldn’t make it impossible for ordinary people to live their lives. As the writer Jonathan Rauch has observed, criticism, or “expressing an argument or opinion with the idea of rationally influencing public opinion through public persuasion,” can be distinguished from canceling, which is “organizing or manipulating a social environment or a media environment with a goal or predictable effect of isolating, deplatforming, or intimidating an ideological opponent.”
If you find yourself the target of a cancellation campaign, as I did two years ago (about which more anon), you’ll understand the difference. What follows is a guide for what to do if it happens to you.
Rafah Is Not Gaza's Stalingrad. It's Another Manipulation by Netanyahu - U.S. News - Haaretz.com Guest Post
Rafah Is Not Gaza's Stalingrad. It's Another Manipulation by Netanyahu - U.S. News - Haaretz.com
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-04-28/ty-article/.premium/rafah-is-not-gazas-stalingrad-its-another-manipulation-by-netanyahu/0000018f-2496-d0a5-abcf-37fe560b0000
Rafah Is Not Gaza's Stalingrad. It's Another Manipulation by Netanyahu
Alon PinkasApr 28, 2024
In the summer of 2023 – which since October 7 seems like political eons ago – there was endless chatter, speculation, wishful thinking, misinformation, disinformation and real exploration regarding a so-called tripartite U.S.-Saudi-Israeli deal.
The geopolitical logic was there, the ideas were there, the upside seemed like a no-brainer. The political feasibility was never there, however, and given the constitutional coup that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was instigating in Israel, it is doubtful U.S. President Joe Biden was ever convinced such a deal was possible.
There were two elements that generated skepticism: the U.S.-Saudi component that would have included a NATO-like defense pact and a civilian nuclear reactor; and a Palestinian component that the United States, for some obscure and inexplicable reason, thought Israel was ready to entertain.
Relitigating the concept's viability, pros and cons on the basis of pre-October 7terms is now futile. Yet the underlying geopolitical logic of October 6, essentially reconfiguring the Middle East, became more urgent, and arguably imperative, in the wake of the October 7 terror attack and ensuing war.
Chas Freeman via Salon
10:39 AM (6 minutes ago)
to salon
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2024-04-28/ty-article/.premium/rafah-is-not-gazas-stalingrad-its-another-manipulation-by-netanyahu/0000018f-2496-d0a5-abcf-37fe560b0000
Rafah Is Not Gaza's Stalingrad. It's Another Manipulation by Netanyahu
Alon PinkasApr 28, 2024
In the summer of 2023 – which since October 7 seems like political eons ago – there was endless chatter, speculation, wishful thinking, misinformation, disinformation and real exploration regarding a so-called tripartite U.S.-Saudi-Israeli deal.
The geopolitical logic was there, the ideas were there, the upside seemed like a no-brainer. The political feasibility was never there, however, and given the constitutional coup that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was instigating in Israel, it is doubtful U.S. President Joe Biden was ever convinced such a deal was possible.
There were two elements that generated skepticism: the U.S.-Saudi component that would have included a NATO-like defense pact and a civilian nuclear reactor; and a Palestinian component that the United States, for some obscure and inexplicable reason, thought Israel was ready to entertain.
Relitigating the concept's viability, pros and cons on the basis of pre-October 7terms is now futile. Yet the underlying geopolitical logic of October 6, essentially reconfiguring the Middle East, became more urgent, and arguably imperative, in the wake of the October 7 terror attack and ensuing war.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman speaking in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, last July, as Joe Biden listens in.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman speaking in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, last July, as Joe Biden listens in.Credit: Saudi Royal Court/Reuters
Israel is not paying attention, though, nor is it willing or politically equipped to make strategic decisions. It's all tactical. Israel is consumed by justifiable rage, frustration and an impasse on three fronts: in Gaza against Hamas; in Lebanon versus Hezbollah; and, in the outer circle, against Iran.
For weeks, Israel has been half-threatening to launch a massive operation in Rafah, on Gaza's southern border with Egypt. "There are four Hamas battalions there and destroying them is the key to eliminating Hamas" is the official line. The Hamas military wing's center of gravity is in the south, Israel Defense Forces generals explained to their U.S. counterparts in October and November, failing to provide an adequate reason as to why, in that case, Israel was planning an invasion of northern rather than southern Gaza.
Since the war descended into pointless, goalless attrition, Israel has been raising the Rafah invasion as some imaginary tipping point that would end the war decisively. Yet Rafah is not Stalingrad, nor is it the Battle of the Bulge – certainly not from a strategic point of view while Israel is contemplating an offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
But are these Israel's real choices? Is there a strategic road map that would conceivably be a game-changer? Yes. It's called the Biden Plan, and however imperfect or lacking details it may be, it is the only game in town unless Israel willingly wants to sink in the Gazan and Lebanese quagmires.
"This is one of the most fateful choices Israel has ever had to make. And what I find both disturbing and depressing is that there is no major Israeli leader today in the ruling coalition, the opposition or the military who is consistently helping Israelis understand that choice – a global pariah or a Middle East partner – or explaining why it should choose the second," wrote Thomas Friedman in The New York Times on Friday.
Friedman is a seasoned and astute observer of Israeli politics, society and national security. He knows the answer, and that is why "disturbing and depressing" is warranted.
Sunday, April 28, 2024
Saturday, April 27, 2024
Students Go After the Hypocrites, by Eric Margolis - The Unz Review- Guest Post
Students Go After the Hypocrites, by Eric Margolis - The Unz Review
Students may be poor and too emotional, but they are often filled with repulsions at the sight of mass killing, political brutality, and murderous hatred such as we see today in the prison camp of Gaza. They have yet to learn the sordid truth about how money can buy indulgences from killing civilians and other war crimes.
Just ask Joe Biden, and British PM Rishi Sunak. They are continuing to arm and finance Israel’s mass killing and starvation in Gaza for the sake of huge cash donations as elections loom, and the support of ardently pro-Israel voters who are marching to the drum of Israel’s far right-wing government. The US and British media have been whitewashing the genocide in Gaza and twisting their reporting to justify mass killing of civilians. The New York Times has earned opprobrium by ordering its staff to slant the news it misreports. This once great newspaper has ruined its reputation. It reminds of the great Mark Twain’s famous bon mot, ‘If you don’t read the news you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed.’
Let’s be frank. President Joe Biden, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and their pal Egypt’s despot Abdel el-Sisi are directly responsible for the deaths of 14,000 Palestinian children, almost 35,000 Palestinian civilians seriously wounded, some 2 million Palestinians now homeless, growing starvation and disease across Gaza used by Israel as a refuse dump for unwanted Arabs. The Biden administration is providing over $14.1 billion in arms to Israel, including the deadly 2,000lb bombs used to crush entire civilian apartment buildings and hospitals, plus tank shells fired at residential targets. All in clear violation of US arms export laws written by Congress.
Why is Biden the key player in such mass destruction? Why is his UN delegation vetoing resolutions to stop Israeli laying waste to Gaza? It’s election time coming up. And because the Democrats get the lion’s share of their finances from pro-Israel sources.
Big money talks. Human rights walk. The US Congress, a sorry collection of used car salesmen, has been bought and sold. What a disgrace for the USA. The oil Arabs could also have bought Congress but they were too busy squabbling with one another.
So, while the high and mighty averted their gaze to massacres and famine in Gaza, it was left up to students around the globe to raise their voice in anger over the crimes there. My alma mater, Georgetown Foreign Service, raised a chorus of protests. So too Columbia University and UCLA, Sciences Po in Paris, in fact just about everywhere except Germany, whose people are still paying Israel for World War II.
Big money donors, who made billions off our rigged financial system, are trying to silence protests over Israel’s wanton cruelty. Israelis are right to be furious over the killing of an estimated 1,139 Israeli civilians and soldiers. But killing tens of thousands of innocent Arabs was wildly out of proportion and clearly criminal.
America, Britain and Canada have disgraced themselves – all for the sake of money. The Gaza massacre has revealed the US to be a deeply corrupt society. University students at least helped save America’s honor. They are doing the right thing. Alas, they do not yet have a Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young band to turn their protests into electrifying music. Meanwhile, Palestinian children continue to starve or die of disease while Israel ruins its name and paid-for politicians spout lies.
Arnaud Bertrand on X: "People don't realize just how dangerous this rhetoric is. This is in effect the US demanding China become hostile to Russia by stopping to supply items that "power its industrial base"... meaning asking China to join the West in trying to weaken Russia as a country. As a…" / X
Arnaud Bertrand on X: "People don't realize just how dangerous this rhetoric is. This is in effect the US demanding China become hostile to Russia by stopping to supply items that "power its industrial base"... meaning asking China to join the West in trying to weaken Russia as a country. As a…" / X
https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1784098974477250629
Arnaud Bertrand
@RnaudBertrand
People don't realize just how dangerous this rhetoric is. This is in effect the US demanding China become hostile to Russia by stopping to supply items that "power its industrial base"... meaning asking China to join the West in trying to weaken Russia as a country. As a reminder this is exactly the reason why during WW2 Japan went to war with the US: the US at some point stopped supplying oil to Japan and this directly led to Pearl Harbor. Countries typically don't take it very constructively when you're trying to strangle them economically... The worst part is that the only rational they give China for doing this is 100% stick and 0% carrot: "if you don't do this we in turn will be even more aggressive towards you than we've been to date". With of course, in the back of China's mind the knowledge that the US's calculus is that they want to be done with Russia in order to fully concentrate on containing them. So they're presenting China with a completely lose-lose proposition: be hostile to your neighbor now so we can contain you faster down the line, or don't be hostile to your neighbor and we'll ramp up our containment now. How attractive is that? China will of course not start being hostile to Russia, in fact if anything this will convince them that the US is even more unhinged and unreasonable that they thought. It's very hard to predict what they'll do... An ideal scenario for China would be to secure peace in Ukraine on terms that are agreeable to all except the US, weakens the transatlantic alliance and unites Eurasia. By the way, objectively speaking this would also be the best scenario for Europe's interests because it stands to reason that a long-term Korea-style divide with Russia would be a complete disaster. President Xi is going to Europe shortly and I am ready to bet he'll argue for something along these lines. But the thing is that he'll be speaking to Europeans who, if anything, are even less reasonable than Americans so I don't think we can be very optimistic about that prospect... The more realistic scenario is that China does nothing and reacts to additional hostile measures against it in ways that weaken the US more than it weakens them. Some sort of Kung Fu move where you use your opponent's strength against them. For instance the US floated the idea of expelling Chinese banks from the global financial system: China, the biggest trading partner of almost all countries, can then say "from now on to trade with us, you need to use our system", which would be a big blow to the US dollar's status as the world's preeminent currency. All in all, we're well and truly in Cold War 2, which is pretty sad. Just like WW1 was really different from WW2, Cold War 2 is different from the first one: this time it's not an ideological competition between 2 blocs, but it is still a war in all respects except a direct military fight between the world's 2 largest great powers, which is what makes it a cold war. The key cause is because the US cannot bear to lose its global hegemony and wants to restore a unipolar order where they call the shots and try to transform the world in their own image... which is the very reason why it's a 100% certainty they won't succeed: to win a cold war you need to convince a significant share of the world that your cause is worthy and this is anything but. The whole world saw what happens when the US achieves unipolarity: insane hubris where they don't hesitate to destroy entire nations and kill millions in the process. No-one wants to get back to that, except maybe a few die-hard vassals in the West. China's cause on the other hand is a multipolar world order, an order where the US simply doesn't call the shots, something a good 80% of the world's countries can get behind. Furthermore China can point to 1,800 years out of the past 2,000 years when it was the world's preeminent power and never tried to submit the whole world: colonialism, transforming the world in their own image or being "the world's policeman" is just not in their DNA. So I think we can safely predict that this transition towards a multipolar world order is unavoidable, in fact we're probably already there. The question now is when will the US stop challenging this reality and start being a constructive actor in this new world as opposed to waging war and sowing conflict everywhere. And I'm afraid we can wait a long time for that... In fact it's already a de-facto characteristic of the new order: it's a multipolar world order with a revisionist power in its midst that wants to restore its former hegemonic imperial status.
Quote
Friday, April 26, 2024
The McCarthyist Attack on Gaza Protests Threatens Free Thought for All – ScheerPost
The McCarthyist Attack on Gaza Protests Threatens Free Thought for All – ScheerPost
Warren Coats writes:
"Earlier this week I posted each of the following paragraphs on Facebook.
If we are not free to express antisemitic (or any other hateful) views (whether about Palestinian semites or Jewish semites), we will have lost our cherished freedom of speech.
https://scheerpost.com/.../the-mccarthyist-attack-on.../ If we cannot present our antisemitic views civilly, we will have lost our ability to persuade anyone of our views. I am anti rudeness and pro open civil debate and anti stereotyping people into groups and pro treating each person individually.
****************.
I want Israel to be a safe and prosperous country. I want every country to be safe and prosperous. Sadly, Israel’s current war in Gaza is contributing to neither. Neither its stated objectives of eliminating Hamas or of removing (one way or the other) Palestinians from the River to the Sea (each objective publicly stated by one member of the Israeli government or another), will make Israel safe and/or prosperous. Israel’s brutal attacks in Gaza and increasingly in the West Bank are making it less safe and poorer. The inhumanity of its attacks has lost it support and sympathy around the world but it is also worsening its relations with the neighbors it needs to be at peace with, especially its Palestinian Semitic cousins. Until Israel treats its neighbors fairly and decently it will remain subject to their attacks"
What is the “Radical Prayer”? Don’t pray this prayer if you want to live according to the world’s expectations.
GF_042624_BB_Friday_April_26
Being a Christian is pretty radical.
“Wait, radical?” you might ask. “We’re called to be radical?
Well, yes! As Christians, we’re called to reject the things of this earth, which is quite radical in today’s world
But being this kind of radical is a challenging task. After all, the world is against us.
Thankfully, a spiritual giant—St. Ignatius of Loyola—left us with some guidance and a few powerful tools.
ignatius
One of these tools is the Suscipe Prayer, also known as the Radical Prayer:
Take, O Lord, and receive all my liberty, my memory, my understanding, and my entire will. Whatever I have or hold, You have given me; I restore it all to You and surrender it wholly to be governed by Your will. Give me only Your love and Your grace, and I am rich enough and ask for nothing more
This prayer is not just a petition but a total offering of oneself to the divine will, an unconditional surrender of ourselves, our powers, and our plans to God. It cultivates humility and detachment by acknowledging that all gifts come from God and are to be used according to His purpose. It’s a total surrender that, paradoxically, does not cause fear or worry—it actually brings a spirit of peace and contentment that stays strong regardless of external circumstances.
This “radical” offering is a cornerstone for those seeking a deeper relationship with God, because it fosters a profound union with Him and a deliberate spirit of cooperation with His will
Wow. That’s a pretty radical feat in our materialistic and self-centered culture!
Be the best kind of radical with the help of St. Ignatius. His methods of self-examination and meditative prayer have led countless souls down the path of radical holiness for centuries. The Spiritual Exercises is St. Ignatius’s most beloved work. It is a complete guide to his life-changing spiritual practices! Order your copy today from The Catholic Company!
Thursday, April 25, 2024
[Salon] Popular escalation in the Gaza war - ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Popular escalation in the Gaza war
Summary: despite the efforts by Arab regimes to suppress support for Palestine, the ongoing slaughter in Gaza and settler attacks in the West Bank have fired popular support across the Middle East and North Africa for the Palestinian cause.
We thank Tarek Megerisi for today’s newsletter. Tarek is a policy fellow with the North Africa and Middle East programme at the ECFR, the European Council on Foreign Relations. He is a political analyst and researcher who specialises in North African affairs and politics, governance and development in the Arab world and is a regular contributor to the AD podcast. You can find his latest podcast North Africa: “broken countries in a broken region” here.
Since October 8 last year, Western policymakers have been deeply concerned about the prospect of regional escalation, very particularly defined as Israel having to fight multiple Middle East state or non-state actors simultaneously. Much of the America’s Middle Eastern activity since then, from deploying multiple strike carrier groups to the Eastern Mediterranean to Secretary of State Blinken’s many regional tours and the massive overreaction to Huthi attacks on shipping lanes in the Red Sea have been about wielding a superpower’s deterrence to stop this scenario from unfolding. But there are different types of escalation, and different ways that Israel’s actions can provoke unrest and instability that not just the region but the world will suffer from.
In recent weeks this concern has focused around the potential of an Iran-Israel war after the bombing of an Iranian embassy compound in Damascus. But Iran’s retaliatory attack seemed more an act of geopolitical theatre than the opening salvo of a new war. If, that is, we consider escalation to be only about military confrontation.
After all, the already fragile MENA region has been rocked by various degrees of political-economic fallout since October last year. Higher import costs, and diminished trade have hit state coffers from Morocco to Yemen and heavily damaged the economies of regional lynchpins like Jordan and Egypt. Meanwhile, regional populations are increasingly agitated as Israel perpetrates shocking crimes from slaughter and starvation in Gaza to settler-launched pogroms in the West Bank and the targeted destruction of Lebanon’s farmland. All of this Israel has carried out with complete impunity. For a region that feels trapped under tyranny and condemned to poverty, the tragedy in Gaza is a harsh reminder that not only are Arab lives and humanity worthless to the wider world but also to their own leaders.
So as Israel’s cruelty continues towards an ever more terrible crescendo, humiliated Arabs braved severe risks over Ramadan to show their opposition once more.
Since Israel’s war on Gaza began, thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in neighbouring Jordan [photo credit: HRW]
In Egypt there were protests against Israel’s activities and the Egyptian government cronies profiteering off Gaza. The ever-anxious Sisi regime tried to cow protestors with threats, outlawed the protests and then on April 5 arrested key participants. It wasn’t the first time since October that the regime had cracked down on pro-Palestinian protestors but in one of the region’s most ruthlessly repressive states where every other form of resistance has been crushed the Palestine protests defiantly continue.
Similarly in Jordan, daily marches to the Israeli embassy steadily developed despite stiff opposition from security services as Jordanians called for an end to normalisation and cooperative projects with Israel. Then, on April 6, almost in sync with Egypt, the Jordanian establishment, initiated a broad arrest campaign, accusing the protests of being organised by Hamas (see our 11 April newsletter.)
Elsewhere, youthful disenfranchisement and dismay over Israel’s atrocities are increasingly reflected in disdain towards the state and its traditional vehicle of soft power, religion. In Morocco long-simmering discontent over normalisation with Israel expressed itself through people leaving Ramadan evening prayers in protest at imams no longer offering prayers for Palestinians. And in Saudi Arabia where all protest is banned and where religious leaders have also conspicuously avoided praying for Palestinians, the Imam of Medina’s grand mosque came under widespread social media attack when he instead prayed to protect Muslim countries from protest.
In light of this continued fracturing under the weight of Israeli atrocities and American pressure, Tehran’s heavily-signalled retaliation (see our 16 April newsletter) takes on different qualities, a ‘psyop’ to insulate and deflect criticism of the Iranian leadership while exacerbating dynamics which are causing the ground to break under Israel’s feet. American desperation to defend Israel from Iran and prevent further escalations has (at least temporarily) quashed Israeli aspirations for a regional war but at the cost of damning Gaza to further devastation. Meanwhile Iran’s dramatic retaliation, closely followed by the region’s social media and much played out on TV screens, has served to deepen a narrative flogged by Iran that contrasts Iranian resistance with Arab acquiescence. It is a narrative that Jordan is already suffering from after it was broadly cast as the bad guy for shooting down Iranian drones which violated its airspace.
As Netanyahu shifts his sights away from Tehran and back on Rafah, with the promise of a fresh hell for the millions of starved and traumatised Palestinians trapped there, all these dynamics will only get worse. Trade through the Red Sea will remain throttled, the lingering spectre of a broader war will deter investors and the unfettered slaughter to come will keep raising temperatures and stymy efforts at de-escalation.
Jordan may have been the first victim of Iran’s retaliation. But, as the prayers of Medina’s Imam showed, every regional leader fears that their enforced impotence towards Israel’s slaughter could spark their already volatile and disenfranchised populations into massive street protests of the sort unseen since 2011. What’s more, given the harsh economic climate exacerbated by Israel’s activities, many non-GCC Arab states may not even have the funds needed to continue buying the peace.
St. Mark | EWTN
St. Mark | EWTN
What is the significance of celebrating the liturgical feast of Saint Mark?
The Church celebrates the Feast Day of St. Mark, Apostle and Evangelist, on April 25.
He was one of the four writers of the Gospels, who provide us with a clear account of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. We know St. Mark, therefore, mostly through his authorship of the second Gospel––the Gospel according to St. Mark. From elsewhere in Scripture, he is also known to have accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their journeys. And from Tradition, he is known to have been the secretary of St. Peter and the founder of the Church in Alexandria, Egypt.
[Salon] China: We support Moscow in efforts to ensure national security - Guest Post
China: We support Moscow in efforts to ensure national security
External.com.tr
24.04.2024
Beijing and Moscow are expected to strengthen their communications in the field of intelligence and law enforcement while deepening their strategic ties.
Chen Wenqing, a senior security official head of the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Chinese Communist Party, told Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev at a meeting on Tuesday that Beijing supports Moscow in its efforts to ensure national security.
According to Russian news agency Tass, Chen said China condemned the attack on a concert hall near Moscow last month and “resolutely opposes all manifestations of terrorism.”
In the statement made by the Russian Security Council, it was stated that the two discussed the issue of "further strengthening the cooperation between the law enforcement and special services of the two countries".
“There were views on some issues on the international agenda. The parties confirmed that they are focused on increasing coordination in the international arena,” it said.
CCP Politburo member Chen began a nine-day visit to Russia on Saturday. Chinese Foreign Ministry Chen's 12th Foreign Ministry to make an official visit to the country and last from Tuesday to Thursday in St Petersburg. He announced that he was invited to attend the International Meeting of High Representatives for Security Issues.
Earlier this month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Beijing, where the senior diplomat met with Chinese President Xi Jinping. This visit is seen as part of Russian President Vladimir Putin's efforts to lay the groundwork for his visit to China, which is expected next month.
[Salon] Fast Facts | West Bank News: Israeli Raids & Anticipated U.S. Sanctions - Guest Post
Fast Facts
West Bank News: Israeli Raids & Anticipated U.S. Sanctions
Israeli Raid on Nour Shams Refugee Camp
On April 21, Palestinians across the West Bank went on a general strike in protest of the Israeli Defense Forces’ (IDF) raid on the Nour Shams refugee camp adjacent to the West Bank city of Tulkarem.
The 50-hour raid concluded on April 20 and was “likened by Palestinians to the intensity of Second Intifada attacks.”
Israeli troops killed 14 Palestinians, detained 15, and injured 11 more. Nine Israeli soldiers and one border patrol officer were also injured.
Israeli forces clashed with the Tulkarem Brigades, a local militant group. Israel says 10 militants were among the dead.
The clashes in Nour Shams were part of a wider surge in violence in the West Bank; for example, there were at least five active Israeli raids on April 21.
On April 20, a Palestinian ambulance driver was killed by Israeli gunfire outside Nablus.
On April 21, two Palestinians were killed during an Israeli raid in Hebron and another at a checkpoint in the northern West Bank.
On April 23, a Palestinian man was killed in an Israeli raid in Jericho.
Since the outbreak of the Gaza War, at least 482 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank by Israeli forces or settlers.
Israel has said its increased raids in the West Bank since October 7 aim to combat rising militant activity and prevent attacks.
Anticipated U.S. Sanctions against IDF Unit
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is expected to announce sanctions against the IDF’s "Netzah Yehuda" battalion for human rights violations in the West Bank.
These alleged violations occurred prior to October 7; however, this would ban the battalion and its members from receiving U.S. military assistance or training.
This would mark the first-ever U.S. sanctions on an Israeli military unit.
The anticipated sanctions would fall under the Leahy Law, which prohibits U.S. aid or training to be sent to foreign military units with credible accusations of human rights violations.
The U.S. began examining allegations against Netzah Yehuda in 2022, after its involvement in the death of 78-year-old Palestinian-American Omar Assad.
Months ago, a State Department panel recommended multiple Israeli military and police units in the West Bank be disqualified from receiving U.S. aid after reviewing allegations of human rights abuses.
Netzah Yehuda is one of the four battalions that comprises the Kfir infantry brigade.
It is an all-male unit consisting of roughly 1,000 troops.
It has been a destination for adherents of the Hilltop Youth settler movement, who are often turned away from other IDF units. The Hilltop Youth movement is historically known for establishing informal settlements in the West Bank without government approval with the goal of gaining complete Israeli control over the West Bank.
On April 21, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he would fight the anticipated sanctions “with all my strength.”
Israeli war cabinet minister Benny Gantz and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant asked Blinken to abandon the planned sanctions in separate talks on April 21.
On April 22, Blinken said there is no “double standard” for Israel regarding the sanctions.
Analysis from Middle East Policy
Middle East Policy has published a special issue on the Gaza war, featuring interviews with key players and contributions that explore the sparks fueling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Please direct all press and media inquiries to: media@mepc.org
Please direct all congressional inquiries to: SSchaefer@mepc.org
Our mission is to provide policymakers and the public with credible, comprehensive information and analysis on political, economic, and cultural issues pertaining to U.S.-Middle East relations. Our goal is to foster more effective policy solutions to current and future challenges. We accomplish this through three core programs: 1. our world-renowned, quarterly journal Middle East Policy (the #1 most cited publication on the region in the world); 2. our Policy Products and Programming Series designed for senior policymakers and their staffs, and 3. our acclaimed international educational outreach program, TeachMideast, designed for students, educators and other civic leaders.
Wednesday, April 24, 2024
[Salon] Fwd: Daniel Larison: "What the U.S. Stands For in Gaza." (4/24/24.) Guest Post
What the U.S. Stands For in Gaza
Daniel Larison
The president uses some absurd rhetoric about the new military aid bill:
Congress has passed my legislation to strengthen our national security and send a message to the world about the power of American leadership: we stand resolutely for democracy and freedom, and against tyranny and oppression [bold mine-DL].
This will come as news to the more than two million people in Gaza being deliberately starved by a U.S.-armed client. The U.S. has stood resolutely on the side of an occupier as it commits countless war crimes against the civilian population of a territory under its control. In Gaza, the U.S. has stood for man-made famine and the slaughter of the innocent. Voting more aid for this government is another endorsement of the atrocious campaign that has devastated Gaza over the last six months, and it signals to Netanyahu once again that the U.S. will do nothing to halt the war. Congress and the president are sending the world a message about American leadership, and the message is that the U.S. will aid and abet mass starvation and genocide instead of demanding that its client agree to a ceasefire.
Just this week, another Israeli airstrike in Rafah killed 17 children. According to Euro-Med Monitor, more than 15,000 children have been killed by Israeli forces in this war. Their latest count puts the death toll at more than 42,000. That doesn’t include the thousands estimated to be buried in the rubble of destroyed buildings. An assault on Rafah all but guarantees that the death toll will skyrocket as a result of indiscriminate attacks, worsening famine, and the spread of disease. If the U.S. does nothing to prevent the expected attack, our government will share significant responsibility for the ensuing nightmare and massive loss of life. The famine created by the Israeli government is already claiming more innocent lives, and unless there is an immediate, lasting ceasefire and a massive relief effort tens of thousands more will die preventable deaths from hunger and disease in the coming months.
The story that the president wants to tell is the predictable one favored by believers in America as the “indispensable nation,” but in the most important respects the story isn’t true. The U.S. routinely sides with many oppressive governments against their own people and it sometimes sides with occupiers against the people that they illegally rule over. The U.S. has often armed and propped up tyrants and despots because it was deemed expedient to do so, and the U.S. continues heavily arming tyrants and despots right now. As we speak, the administration is making a big push to bribe one of those despots to establish normal relations with the government that is occupying and destroying Gaza.
It isn’t surprising that Biden would want to gloss over all of this and engage in a lot of happy talk about democracy, but no one should fall for it. The war in Gaza exposes the rot at the heart of our foreign policy. It shows the world what the U.S. really stands for.
In This Dystopia, Opposing A Genocide Is Considered Worse Than Committing One – Caitlin Johnstone
In This Dystopia, Opposing A Genocide Is Considered Worse Than Committing One – Caitlin Johnstone
https://caitlinjohnstone.com.au/2024/04/25/in-this-dystopia-opposing-a-genocide-is-considered-worse-than-committing-one/
April 25, 2024
In This Dystopia, Opposing A Genocide Is Considered Worse Than Committing One
That’s how crazy they need us to be to keep us supporting a globe-spanning empire that literally cannot exist without nonstop violence and tyranny.
Fr. Bob's Reflection for Fourth Sunday in Easter -
We are all familiar with the 23rd Psalm. The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want. He leads me in green pastures.
Even if we know nothing about farming or sheep, we can find some comfort in that image. Shepherds lead sheep. In our Gospel, Jesus says, "I know mine and mine know Me." He knows us by name. There is a relationship.
In our ever-increasing electronic age, that is so significant. We are so numbered, so regimented. We have drivers licenses, checkbooks, social security numbers, credit card codes. We are locked into our smart phones and computers. In many ways, we are reduced to numbers.
There is an old Talmudic riddle that asks, "Why did the Tower of Babel crumble?" The answer is, because the leaders were more interested in the work than the workers. When a brick would fall to the earth and break, the owners would be upset. They would bewail the loss of the brick. But when a worker fell to their death, they ignored it and pressed someone else to do the task.
So God destroyed the tower. Not because they were trying to reach Heaven, but because they were more interested in bricks than the bricklayers.
We should ask ourselves: How do we treat people who are different from us? Different religions, backgrounds, races? How do we treat them at school or work? I heard it once said, "As hard as we try, there is some prejudice in all of us."
But the Jesus in our Gospel will have none of that. He knows His sheep and calls them by name. We matter to Him personally. In St. Luke's Gospel, we read the story of the lost sheep. And the Shepherd who leaves the 99 safe ones to find the lost one. Every common sense person knows how foolish that is. To leave 99 sheep open to danger to rescue just one does not make any sense.
But some would say Christianity makes no sense. We are told to forgive our enemies, love those who hate us. Jesus tells us to love one another as I have loved you.
How has he loved us? He has loved us to death. To crucifixion. He tells us to go the extra mile. If someone asks for your shirt, give them your coat. To follow Christ, the Good Shepherd, is not easy. But, most worthwhile things are difficult. That's God's way, not ours.
The Good Shepherd who calls us by name is a good figure to rally around, as we teach our children. Teach them not to be biased and prejudiced. The Good Shepherd is the one to turn to for our strength, to overcome our own prejudice. He lets it rain on the just and unjust; sends sunshine on the good and evil.
The Good Shepherd is the God of the Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles. The God of rejects, lepers and thieves. The God of you, me and them. The God who knows us by name.
He says, "I know mine and mine know me." The question is, do we?
Yours in Christ,
Fr. Robert Warren, S.A.
Spiritual Director
Tuesday, April 23, 2024
The US military is embedding its officers in corporate America | Responsible Statecraft
The US military is embedding its officers in corporate America | Responsible Statecraft
The Executive Fellows program at the Pentagon has placed more than 300 senior military officials in corporate America -- most of them defense companies, shocker -- as "fellows" to "glean insights" about business to bring back to the federal government. But really it's turned out that these embeds end up serving as free lobbying for War Inc. representing their programs, wish lists, contract desires, etc., to the highest levels of DoD decision making! As they say, what a racket.
Antony Blinken highlights China’s Uygurs as victims of ‘genocide’ at US human rights report launch | South China Morning Post
Antony Blinken highlights China’s Uygurs as victims of ‘genocide’ at US human rights report launch | South China Morning Post
FM: John Whitbeck
At a time when the United States is continuing to insist, ludicrously, that it has seen no evidence of any violation of international law during the course of Israel's genocide in Gaza, one would think that absolutely the last thing to which Secretary of State Antony Blinken would wish to draw anyone's attention is the U.S. government's prior claim that China's deradicalization/reeducation program in Xinjiang, which is not even alleged to have involved any intentional killing, constituted "genocide".
But no!
See the article transmitted above
[Salon] Withdrawal symptoms: the US and a pullout from Iraq and Syria ArabDigest.org Guest Post
Withdrawal symptoms: the US and a pullout from Iraq and Syria
Summary: despite growing escalatory tensions in the Middle East that are currently being fed by the Gaza war, serious consideration continues in Washington over pulling US troops out of Syria and Iraq.
Today’s newsletter is a transcript, edited for length and clarity, of our 17 April podcast with the New Lines Institute’s Caroline Rose. Caroline is the director of the Strategic Blindspots Portfolio at the Washington-based think tank where she leads on the intersection of defence, security, illicit trades and geopolitical landscapes from Europe to the Middle East and North Africa. Her portfolio includes research and analysis on post withdrawal security landscapes. You can find the podcast here.
President Donald Trump with US military personnel during an unannounced visit to Al Asad Air Base in Iraq on December 26, 2018
What do you think the likelihood of a US withdrawal from Iraq and Syria is given that we're in an election year?
I think it's a crucial time to be having discussions like these, especially in the wake of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan where we witnessed an evacuation rather than a full scale withdrawal strategy. Now is the time to have a frank and open discussion, and even a debate, about what a withdrawal from Iraq and Syria would look like, looking at the security realities, the operational environment and discussing the security implications that would be left in the wake of a partial or full scale withdrawal.
Now, when we look at the likelihood for withdrawal in Iraq and Syria under Operation Inherent Resolve, interestingly, there are right now discussions with higher military commissions between the United States and Iraq reviewing the mandate and the mission and really the purpose, as well as of course, the timeline of the coalition and its presence in Iraq. However I think that ultimately there's a higher likelihood of the United States departing from Syria than Iraq.
You mentioned that chaotic withdrawal in Afghanistan which has really blotted President Biden's copybook. How much has that damaged US credibility in the Middle East?
I think immensely. There was a reality that the United States was always going to disengage as it was seeking to bolster its great power competition capabilities. The United States is increasingly looking to focus on the Pacific and on countering China; also, of course, countering Russia as it wages its war in Ukraine. So there was always this assumed reality. But then once we saw the withdrawal from Afghanistan, I think it was a lesson that the United States could have contingency and evacuation plans but when it came down to it, there was really no plan for mitigating the fallout and the security implications of this new power vacuum. And I think now many are looking at the Middle East, looking at Syria and Iraq and the results are almost just as obvious. In Syria of course, we would have a convergence of powers, both external actors as well as key players, for example, the Syrian regime. You would also, of course, have Türkiye, Russia, Iran and Iran-aligned militias that would all seek to try to salvage and scramble and establish different areas of influence as well as counter the (predominately Kurdish) SDF which has been a key partner of the United States in northeast Syria.
In Iraq, there is a very similar dynamic in that Iran-aligned militias would deepen their foothold as well as their political influence. And you would have Türkiye doubling down on its existing air campaign against PKK insurgents in northern Iraq, particularly in the Qandil Mountains. You would also likely have other powers like Russia and China try and see where they could salvage and create an area of influence and try to fill the vacuum that the United States left behind. So it's very key to game out these post-withdrawal security dynamics especially as we're now approaching a dynamic in the Middle East where escalation is incredibly high. We haven't seen this level of escalation between Israel and Iran ever. And so because of this, one strike against a US installation or one error could cost the lives of American personnel. And with that, there would be immense political pressure that could induce a very speedy withdrawal or a withdrawal that the Department of Defense has not planned. And instead, it would look more like an evacuation rather than a phased, slow and incremental withdrawal process.
Afghanistan 2.0. A worrying prospect. But can you remind us of the actual numbers, the military commitment in Syria and Iraq of American boots on the ground. It isn't that big, is it?
No, it's a very small sliver of US forward posture. In Syria, we have 900 personnel stationed there. That doesn't include contractors, but that's extremely small. And then when we look to Iraq, it's 2500. Also not including contractors, but again very small. And even in 2020, the United States nearly halved its personnel count in Iraq. And then of course, after the Trump administration's temporary withdrawal and once they bolstered the United States presence there, we also saw the US forward posture in northeast Syria dwindle. So it's very small. It's also a cheap mission in the sense that the United States has a lot of joint installations. It's an advise and assist mission while, of course, they have to act in a defensive capacity when they're struck by Iran-aligned militias. US troops are primarily there to help partners on the ground conduct anti-ISIS raids and help build capacity amongst these partners across Syria and Iraq, and really because of this, it's a very small footprint and a cheap footprint.
ISIS. First of all in Syria, how do you assess their current strength? And again what are the implications if this small force of American soldiers pulls out? What does that do because ISIS is much stronger, perhaps, than a lot of people are aware.
When you look at reports that the Office of the Inspector General release every quarter to Congress essentially reporting on how our forces are doing, ISIS is a key component. And in these reports, it's very clear ISIS is by no means in the position that it was in the mid-2010s. However, we've seen a series of low level, less sophisticated but consistent attacks that have been made against civilians as well as US partners operating in the region. In northeast Syria there’s a very specific and great concern about potential jailbreaks from ISIS detention centres as well as widespread recruitment in camps like Al-Hawl because the facilities are not properly guarded. There's also a lot of distraction whenever there's a Turkish offensive in northeast Syria. This creates the perfect storm for an ISIS resurgence, especially regaining momentum throughout northeast Syria, recruiting en masse, trying to conduct jailbreaks and then more sophisticated attacks against both the SDF and US forces. As well there are attacks on communities and civilians in (ISIS) efforts to regain different swathes of territory. We've also seen in northeast Syria that ISIS has made particular gains in the Badiya, the Syrian desert. And there is a prevailing concern if they had that breakout moment - it's not there yet - that they would try to connect into Idlib province where they could coordinate with al Qaeda affiliated organisations operating in the northwest of Syria. Then, of course they would also try and make gains into Iraq as well where there are ISIS cells that are actively operating and conducting attacks.
Let’s look then at Iraq. It’s my sense that Baghdad would like to see the Americans leave in a phased withdrawal. So what's the situation with ISIS there?
I'll make two comments on that: with ISIS in Iraq, I think, it really depends on where we're operating. When you look at northern Iraq and when we're talking about the Kurdish security forces, they are reporting back more effective counter-ISIS missions, sometimes ISIS not making much progress at all. Whereas when it comes to parts of southern Iraq, or even along the Syrian-Iraqi border, that's where you have much more of a need for consistent counter-ISIS missions. And that is primarily with the ISF (Iraqi Security Forces) and the CTS (Iraqi Counterterrorism Services.) That being said when we talk about whether Iraq wants the United States to conduct a full withdrawal, I think it's important to remember that Prime Minister Sudani is in very much of a bind. He was elected with the help of a framework and a coalition that is primarily affiliated to and aligned with Iran. And because of that, Iran also has a major security influence through the Popular Mobilization Forces which have received an increased budget as well as the ability to recruit more members. They've also received a swathe of different (government) contracts which is very important for them to expand their footprint. Of course Sudani also enjoys the support of a number of other actors operating in this political space. But he knows that the pressure that has been mounted by the Iran-aligned actors is only going to increase unless he tries to induce a military withdrawal from the United States. That being said, Washington provides millions in security assistance as well as humanitarian assistance. They are a major influence in Iraq's security infrastructure as well as their governmental structure. And Sudani doesn't necessarily want to lose that. So if the United States were to conduct a withdrawal, he would have a much harder time, scrambling to gain political approval and backing from a number of different coalitions both within the Sunni community as well as the Kurdish community who are key to averting the political crises and paralysis within the Iraqi political landscape that we've seen in years past. And so Sudani is in a very difficult spot. He doesn't quite want the United States to leave but he does want to achieve some sort of quick political win that keeps key blocs at bay. And because of this, we might see a shift in the nature of the mission that might satisfy a number of these different political coalitions but that might also result in a partial withdrawal. But I don't necessarily see Iraq pushing for a full-scale quick withdrawal unless these Shia militias are able to wield even more influence.
And of course, if there was a withdrawal from either Syria, or Iraq, Tehran would declare that as a big win, as I suppose ISIS would too. So there's that at play. But let us assume that Biden does not pull US forces out before November. And let us also assume that he wins the election. Beyond backing Israel, do you see a coherent Middle East and North Africa strategy emerging? Because honestly, Caroline, I'm finding it hard to find one in his current term.
No, I don't think that the United States has a coherent Middle East strategy. I think that from the Trump administration onward, it's been put on autopilot in the sense that we scrambled together these normalisation deals, we were trying to diversify our relationships beyond the security sphere and ultimately work on disengaging from the region. And I think that the past year has been a very important reality check to the United States, as well as its partners looking to disengage. And it demonstrates that you really cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot wish to be an influential actor in the diplomatic space and convene a ceasefire deal while also constantly talking about how you wish to disengage from the region. The United States needs to stay engaged in the Middle East; it needs to remain a proactive and active actor in this space, regardless of how its security posture looks. I think that in the United States, we assumed that the Palestinian issue was something of the past and that regional solidarity with Palestinian communities was waning. I think the United States also discarded any sort of crisis happening between Israel and Palestinian actors, as well as (underestimating) regional support for Palestine. And I think that's why we've seen such a prolonged, really catastrophic offensive happen in Gaza. And of course, this resulting humanitarian disaster as well.
Let me put another assumption to you. Donald Trump wins. A quick pull out of US forces in Iraq and Syria, a veering towards a position of grand isolationism? What would a Trump administration mean for the Middle East and North Africa?
So a great question. And this is something I've been trying to grapple with. I think that there are actually two possibilities with the Trump administration. You could see full scale isolationism, which of course resulted in the strategies that we saw in Syria in 2018 and Iraq in 2020, that is really scaling down the United States forward posture. However we also would have an administration that - at least judging by the last Trump administration - is extremely aligned when it comes to Israel and I think we could potentially see the United States really commit itself with this Gaza offensive and double or even triple our arms sales to Israel. And additionally, you could also see a potential strategy that commits US troops and more personnel and not only in the Mediterranean and Red Seas, but potentially on the ground. This is especially, I think, also contingent on how many Iran hawks are positioned in a Trump administration. With the last Trump administration, we saw a lot of Iran hawks. And if that is the case, and if we do see continued Iran-Israeli escalation and shared strikes that could be a possibility worth exploring. So with a Trump administration, we need to consider that we could have two very opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to a policy in the Middle East.
In a recent BBC interview, John Bolton when he was asked the same question said, ‘I don't know. All I know is that whatever Trump does one day to the next is based on only one thing, which is what is best for Donald Trump. He doesn't have a foreign policy agenda, he doesn't have a foreign policy. In his mind, he doesn't think that way.’ For the Middle East and for the rest of us that is a scary scenario.
Yes it is. And it's worth remembering, too, that the Trump administration really engaged with Israel and, of course, ushered in the Abraham Accords. That's something that I think will be a centrepiece of his administration trying to commit itself and commit increased US support behind Israel. I think that is a no-brainer, no matter whether they would militarily disengage or decide to bulk up US personnel in the region.
And as you say, with the Abraham Accords, Trump did something that no other president had done. He moved the needle, he shifted things in a way that hadn't been shifted in decades. My goodness, we're living in interesting times, aren't we, Caroline?
Very much so and it's very sad too. I think that there was a lot of progress being made just under a year ago and now with this new reality, we're seeing unprecedented escalation. And at the end of the day, it's these communities on the ground that are suffering and experiencing the implications. So it's a very sad reality. And it's been a very sad year in the Middle East indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)