Thing is, Biden _already_ lost the far-Left and the Arab vote. These people were already pissed at him for not being Bernie or for being too (socially) liberal. They definitely can't go back now that he supposedly allowed a 'genocide'. 'You killed X thousand people and now we'll forgive you' doesn't work emotionally, and it's even in their political interest to not forgive him and try to show their power. So the only thing his current policy can do is lose the hawkish and pro-Israeli vote.
His actual interest is in pushing Israel to end this sooner, and since a ceasefire won't happen, it would have to be violently. There'll be low grade violence always, but it will go away from the headlines.
The last paragraph really hits the nail on the head. I've been screaming it from the rooftops: the political problem for Biden isn't just antiwar discontent, but also that the war's continued salience *hurts him with hawks*.
Biden won't get any credit for enabling the war, and a large part of the pro-Israel right will be convinced that the Democrat is tying Israel's hands no matter what he actually does. And a lot of low-information voters, without forming a strong opinion on Israel and Palestine either way, just believe that the violent chaos they see on TV represents the President's weakness.
All of these dynamics get a lot worse if there are more American casualties from the regional spillover. Biden can either retaliate in a measured way, which earns him no credit with either hawks or doves and increases the general feeling of presidential fecklessness, or he can escalate, which still won't earn him credit with hawks but only deepen the problem.
You talk like Oslo was a bad deal for Palestinians but it resulted in Palestinian control of Gaza, the Pal population in the West Bank, wide-spread recognition of their cause. Settlement territorial growth, in numbers and size, hasn't been large since Oslo in my understanding, though number of people has grown, same way Arab population between river and sea has grown. And it's not like Pals have held up their end of the bargain in completely policing terrorism.
But most fundamentally, is there anything to indicate that Pals were indeed willing to end conflict during Oslo period? Indeed there's always been Israeli skepticism, and it's grown since Oslo failure, which you note. But suggesting Pal resistance to two states and ending the conflict is completely a result of settlements is wildly inaccurate.
- The Israeli settler population quadrupled after Oslo, which is not just the result of natural growth. And so has Israeli rule over the West Bank become further entrenched, not just in terms of territorial coverage (which did happen) but also in terms of checkpoints and other controls over Palestinian daily life.
- The fact of the Oslo Accords themselves showed a willingness to end the conflict. The Palestine Liberation Organization recognized Israel without any Israeli recognition of Palestine, and large majorities on both sides polled in favor of a two-state solution. Of course you can point to any number of failures on either side to uphold the deal, but there was a deal, which is more than you can say now.
* The increased security control by Israel was in response to the failure of giving more security control to Arafat's PA, which resulted in the 2nd Intifada, with around 700 Israeli civilians killed in terrorist attacks, mostly within 1948 Israel. The increased Israeli security control crushed the 2nd Intifada, ending the terrorism against Israelis and also reducing casualties on the Palestinian side because that particular conflict ended. Unfortunately there's still little evidence of a Palestinian entity that can and would prevent terrorism or war against Israelis, and therefore the need for continued security control by Israel.
* As far as I can tell, no new legal settlements have been established since Oslo. Indeed there have been perhaps 100 illegal (under Israeli law) outposts that have been established and not dismantled, but I'm highly confident that these are not large in population. To the best I can tell, the vast majority of population growth is in the settlements close to the Green Line and in Jerusalem, and not in the far flung settlements. The settlements close to the Green Line pose little obstacle to the two state solution. I agree Jerusalem and the far-flung ones surrounded by Arab population centers are more complicated, but given continued Palestinian refusal to negotiate, to prepare its population for peace, or to totally stamp out terror, it's not clear why Israel should unilaterally make concessions on settlements, especially when unilateral territorial withdrawal in Lebanon and Gaza has not brought peace.
* It's actually not clear that Oslo showed a willingness to end the conflict. Political leaders on the Palestinian side often say that the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank can be a springboard to achieve the ultimate goal of destroying Israel and establishing a single Palestinian state. In addition, there's little evidence that the Palestinians were or are genuinely ready to concede their definition of "Right of Return", that is moving millions of Palestinians into Israel with the intention of ending Israel's Jewish character, in what would obviously be an extremely bloody ethnic war. These may seem like fanciful desires that Palestinians have little ability to enact, but if you accept that these are the long term goals of the main Palestinian political actors, as they often say openly and honestly, their actions become more understandable.
It does not seem to be in US strict national self-interest to unconditionally aid the Israel Army conduct a genocide. There are 10m israelis and there is a 2bn people muslim community.
Of course, support against US is not limited to these 2bn people only, and while the west is being divided about whether the genocide is justified, most of the rest is not.
The speed at which the "unconditional support" was given by Biden and never taken away shows that his heuristics is to listen to the arms lobby in matters of foreign policy.
I don’t really care what is best for any particular American politician. I think the best solution would be for Israel to put down the forces rising up against it with whatever force is necessary.
I live in San Diego. If Tijuana did to us what those in Palestine did to Israel (reclaiming what is rightfully Mexican), then I assure you we would eliminate all future threats in the region, up to the point of making TJ a lifeless desert.
The problem in Israel is that they are not forceful enough. I am sure they have their reasons for this, and I understand why American politicians don’t want to see Israel do what is really necessary. So it will drag on…
What does 9/11 have to do with my argument? My argument is if forces in TJ sent a constant barrage of never ending missiles and undertook skirmishes which killed and raped our women and children and then celebrated it, then we would need to respond.
If this was our situation, we would escalate our retaliation up to the point of eliminating the threat. Nobody would start at Dresden level annihilation. But we would continue to escalate until peace was achieved.
I thought this is what Israel has been trying to do in the last 50 years. Or do you claim that Israel has not been trying to eliminate the threat to itself until now?
The "50 years" is evidence that they have not been assertive enough. It is unacceptable to initiate violence, and if another state or stateless individuals do initiate such violence, then retaliation should be overwhelming enough to eliminate further transgressions.
So it was just their love of Palestinians which prevented them from implementing the "final solution"? If not which of the constraints that prevented them from being "assertive enough" changed today so that now they can be "assertive enough"? These maximalist dreams what resulted with all world wars, national catastrophes, human misery at the end. Like Hitler's dream of conquering Europe, Napoleon's dream of defeating Russia, France's dream of making Algeria metropolitan French, Soviet dream of imposing a communist government in Afghanistan, US dream of defeating communists in Vietnam, Neocon's dream of national building in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. Even Nazis could only kill around half of the Jews they intended to kill initially. One Hitler's favorite line was blaming socialists for not being assertive enough during WWI. He was assertive and we know what happened. There is always two sides to stories. Believing that you can do anything and everything and other side can do nothing is a delusion. There are always constraints to what you can do even you are a super power and Israel is not a super power in itself. There are 7 million jews surrounded by 500 million hostile nations in its immediate vicinity. If it looses support of Western world and breaks the peace it created with larger neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan it cannot live in peace even if it has nuclear weapons. And you cannot do these by ethnically cleansing millions of people in 2024. We all watch what is happening there in real time and the videos will be in TikTok and YouTube years from now. Israel have been loosing support among younger Americans already and it will loose more support by ethnic cleansing or even genocide.
Also your Mexico analogy is completely wrong because Hamas or Gaza is not external to Israel. Israel controls all borders or Gaza and occupies West Bank. These regions are part of Greater Israel. They are like native American reservations. And Hamas is not a state, it is a terrorist organization, which was supported by Israel to destroy legitimacy of an independent Palestinian state.
In short if Israel had a way to solve this problem, it would have solved it long ago. Only solution is to find a peaceful coexistence with Palestinians not because it is the right thing to do but because it is the only thing which can ensure security of 7 million Jews in Israel in the long term. Israel can choose to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, this would increase tensions in the region, Iran would end up building nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would follow it, maybe others like Egypt a little later. It would switch from a nation ethnically cleansed from Europe to a nation ethnically cleaned another nation and loose sympathy and empathy of the Western population. And end up living next to 500 million hostile and nuclear countries in the near future. If this is your vision of secure Israel go ahead and support ethnic cleansing of Palestinians but don't protest when things do not turn out the way you expected.
Thanks for sharing, even though you straw man every point I make. It might be more productive if you actually engage what I said rather than absurd exaggerations. What suggestion do you recommend Israel do with millions of people who have sworn to eradicate them?
OK but the cycle of violence and reprisal has been going on for a century now, how is repeating the same thing ad infinitum supposed to give a different result this time?
Exactly, and it will continue until one side ends the cycle. The cycle is continuing because one side is too weak to win, and the other side is too reluctant to use overwhelming force as needed to shut the situation down.
I am offering no advice to either side. I am just stating how I see these types of dilemmas play out. If they respond tit for tat ad infinitum then it never ends. In my example above on San Diego's border, the appropriate response to continued attacks is escalating retaliatory force until the weaker side either realizes its folly, or it is gone. The choice is Tijuana's.
By this, do you mean genocide? As in, systematically killing every man, woman, and child on the other side? Because every violent measure short of that has been tried already
Dresden wasn’t genocide. It was overwhelming force. Shoot until the other side stops shooting. The choice to stop shooting first is theirs, and the ramifications of failing to stop are theirs as well. We can call it mass suicide if you want.
Obviously I am presenting a completely different view than most at this site endorse. Take it as you will. My position, which lots of rational people share (that apparently aren’t represented on this site) is that acts of aggression can and should be responded to with whatever force is necessary to stop the aggression (not more than enough, just enough).
No “rational” person who knows anything about the conflict considers there to be a singular “aggressor.” One might consider it remarkably aggressive to set up a nation state in an already inhabited land and then demand its inhabitants kneel and kiss the ring.
And the reason Israel hasn’t completely wiped out the Palestinians is not because they’re “reluctant” to do so but because they can’t. They are surrounded on all sides by 400 million people who already don’t like them.
I don’t believe there is a singular aggressor. My example with Mexico still stands. I live in once disputed lands, in fact my back window looks out at the area of the last (and only) battle from taking all of California from Mexico (The Battle of San Pasqual). This is clearly land taken from Mexico, which was land clearly taken from the Kumeyaay Indians. Not sure who they got it from.
The point is that we have not spent the past 175 years debating right and wrong and taking half measures that end up promoting a cycle of violence. I am sure Israel has their reasons for not being more assertive. Perhaps it was the best alternative. I suspect it just draws out the cycle.
Was the US right in taking California from Mexico? Not by current standards. Was Mexico right in taking it from the Kumeyaay? Not by today’s standards. We’re the Kumeyaay right in taking it from whomever? Again, probably not. Was it right the international order set up a new state in the Holy Land? We can debate this, but it seems much more justifiable than the prior examples.
You make a good point that 400 million people are affronted by the existence of this new state. I would suggest that the Palestinian question acts as kindling in the region.
Dresden was a crime, there was no military justification, just slaughter of civilians.
And Israel's operation in Gaza has already surpassed the Dresden death toll, killing overwhelmingly women and children who bore no responsibility for Hamas's crimes. All this with no concrete plan or strategy for actually destroying Hamas (whose growth Netanyahu and co deliberately encouraged for years, by the way).
What I believe, is that when one is a victim of aggression, one should take measures to stop the agressor. Not massacre defenseless innocents who happen to be nearby.
We won the war against aggressors. Germany fully surrendered and now we have had over 75 years of peace and prosperity. Success!
If the Germans, let’s say, had hid their factories in hospitals, then that would be on them. That is the war crime. Israel has no obligation to pussy-foot against these terrorists, and is drawing out the misery by doing so.
This is what I would expect (no, demand) my leaders to do.
"This model of foreign policy decision-making is flawed because, among other things, domestic political considerations often interfere." Up to this point you make an interesting case. But there is one obvious lead you do not pursue, the elephant in the room, so to speak. This is the economic interests of the military industrial complex. What happens to your story if you factor these in?
Thing is, Biden _already_ lost the far-Left and the Arab vote. These people were already pissed at him for not being Bernie or for being too (socially) liberal. They definitely can't go back now that he supposedly allowed a 'genocide'. 'You killed X thousand people and now we'll forgive you' doesn't work emotionally, and it's even in their political interest to not forgive him and try to show their power. So the only thing his current policy can do is lose the hawkish and pro-Israeli vote.
His actual interest is in pushing Israel to end this sooner, and since a ceasefire won't happen, it would have to be violently. There'll be low grade violence always, but it will go away from the headlines.
The last paragraph really hits the nail on the head. I've been screaming it from the rooftops: the political problem for Biden isn't just antiwar discontent, but also that the war's continued salience *hurts him with hawks*.
Biden won't get any credit for enabling the war, and a large part of the pro-Israel right will be convinced that the Democrat is tying Israel's hands no matter what he actually does. And a lot of low-information voters, without forming a strong opinion on Israel and Palestine either way, just believe that the violent chaos they see on TV represents the President's weakness.
All of these dynamics get a lot worse if there are more American casualties from the regional spillover. Biden can either retaliate in a measured way, which earns him no credit with either hawks or doves and increases the general feeling of presidential fecklessness, or he can escalate, which still won't earn him credit with hawks but only deepen the problem.
You talk like Oslo was a bad deal for Palestinians but it resulted in Palestinian control of Gaza, the Pal population in the West Bank, wide-spread recognition of their cause. Settlement territorial growth, in numbers and size, hasn't been large since Oslo in my understanding, though number of people has grown, same way Arab population between river and sea has grown. And it's not like Pals have held up their end of the bargain in completely policing terrorism.
But most fundamentally, is there anything to indicate that Pals were indeed willing to end conflict during Oslo period? Indeed there's always been Israeli skepticism, and it's grown since Oslo failure, which you note. But suggesting Pal resistance to two states and ending the conflict is completely a result of settlements is wildly inaccurate.
Two points:
- The Israeli settler population quadrupled after Oslo, which is not just the result of natural growth. And so has Israeli rule over the West Bank become further entrenched, not just in terms of territorial coverage (which did happen) but also in terms of checkpoints and other controls over Palestinian daily life.
- The fact of the Oslo Accords themselves showed a willingness to end the conflict. The Palestine Liberation Organization recognized Israel without any Israeli recognition of Palestine, and large majorities on both sides polled in favor of a two-state solution. Of course you can point to any number of failures on either side to uphold the deal, but there was a deal, which is more than you can say now.
* The increased security control by Israel was in response to the failure of giving more security control to Arafat's PA, which resulted in the 2nd Intifada, with around 700 Israeli civilians killed in terrorist attacks, mostly within 1948 Israel. The increased Israeli security control crushed the 2nd Intifada, ending the terrorism against Israelis and also reducing casualties on the Palestinian side because that particular conflict ended. Unfortunately there's still little evidence of a Palestinian entity that can and would prevent terrorism or war against Israelis, and therefore the need for continued security control by Israel.
* As far as I can tell, no new legal settlements have been established since Oslo. Indeed there have been perhaps 100 illegal (under Israeli law) outposts that have been established and not dismantled, but I'm highly confident that these are not large in population. To the best I can tell, the vast majority of population growth is in the settlements close to the Green Line and in Jerusalem, and not in the far flung settlements. The settlements close to the Green Line pose little obstacle to the two state solution. I agree Jerusalem and the far-flung ones surrounded by Arab population centers are more complicated, but given continued Palestinian refusal to negotiate, to prepare its population for peace, or to totally stamp out terror, it's not clear why Israel should unilaterally make concessions on settlements, especially when unilateral territorial withdrawal in Lebanon and Gaza has not brought peace.
* It's actually not clear that Oslo showed a willingness to end the conflict. Political leaders on the Palestinian side often say that the establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank can be a springboard to achieve the ultimate goal of destroying Israel and establishing a single Palestinian state. In addition, there's little evidence that the Palestinians were or are genuinely ready to concede their definition of "Right of Return", that is moving millions of Palestinians into Israel with the intention of ending Israel's Jewish character, in what would obviously be an extremely bloody ethnic war. These may seem like fanciful desires that Palestinians have little ability to enact, but if you accept that these are the long term goals of the main Palestinian political actors, as they often say openly and honestly, their actions become more understandable.
It does not seem to be in US strict national self-interest to unconditionally aid the Israel Army conduct a genocide. There are 10m israelis and there is a 2bn people muslim community.
Of course, support against US is not limited to these 2bn people only, and while the west is being divided about whether the genocide is justified, most of the rest is not.
The speed at which the "unconditional support" was given by Biden and never taken away shows that his heuristics is to listen to the arms lobby in matters of foreign policy.
I don’t really care what is best for any particular American politician. I think the best solution would be for Israel to put down the forces rising up against it with whatever force is necessary.
I live in San Diego. If Tijuana did to us what those in Palestine did to Israel (reclaiming what is rightfully Mexican), then I assure you we would eliminate all future threats in the region, up to the point of making TJ a lifeless desert.
The problem in Israel is that they are not forceful enough. I am sure they have their reasons for this, and I understand why American politicians don’t want to see Israel do what is really necessary. So it will drag on…
How many people died in 9/11? Is Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia a lifeless desert? These are your pipe dreams.
What does 9/11 have to do with my argument? My argument is if forces in TJ sent a constant barrage of never ending missiles and undertook skirmishes which killed and raped our women and children and then celebrated it, then we would need to respond.
If this was our situation, we would escalate our retaliation up to the point of eliminating the threat. Nobody would start at Dresden level annihilation. But we would continue to escalate until peace was achieved.
I thought this is what Israel has been trying to do in the last 50 years. Or do you claim that Israel has not been trying to eliminate the threat to itself until now?
The "50 years" is evidence that they have not been assertive enough. It is unacceptable to initiate violence, and if another state or stateless individuals do initiate such violence, then retaliation should be overwhelming enough to eliminate further transgressions.
So it was just their love of Palestinians which prevented them from implementing the "final solution"? If not which of the constraints that prevented them from being "assertive enough" changed today so that now they can be "assertive enough"? These maximalist dreams what resulted with all world wars, national catastrophes, human misery at the end. Like Hitler's dream of conquering Europe, Napoleon's dream of defeating Russia, France's dream of making Algeria metropolitan French, Soviet dream of imposing a communist government in Afghanistan, US dream of defeating communists in Vietnam, Neocon's dream of national building in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. Even Nazis could only kill around half of the Jews they intended to kill initially. One Hitler's favorite line was blaming socialists for not being assertive enough during WWI. He was assertive and we know what happened. There is always two sides to stories. Believing that you can do anything and everything and other side can do nothing is a delusion. There are always constraints to what you can do even you are a super power and Israel is not a super power in itself. There are 7 million jews surrounded by 500 million hostile nations in its immediate vicinity. If it looses support of Western world and breaks the peace it created with larger neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan it cannot live in peace even if it has nuclear weapons. And you cannot do these by ethnically cleansing millions of people in 2024. We all watch what is happening there in real time and the videos will be in TikTok and YouTube years from now. Israel have been loosing support among younger Americans already and it will loose more support by ethnic cleansing or even genocide.
Also your Mexico analogy is completely wrong because Hamas or Gaza is not external to Israel. Israel controls all borders or Gaza and occupies West Bank. These regions are part of Greater Israel. They are like native American reservations. And Hamas is not a state, it is a terrorist organization, which was supported by Israel to destroy legitimacy of an independent Palestinian state.
In short if Israel had a way to solve this problem, it would have solved it long ago. Only solution is to find a peaceful coexistence with Palestinians not because it is the right thing to do but because it is the only thing which can ensure security of 7 million Jews in Israel in the long term. Israel can choose to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, this would increase tensions in the region, Iran would end up building nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would follow it, maybe others like Egypt a little later. It would switch from a nation ethnically cleansed from Europe to a nation ethnically cleaned another nation and loose sympathy and empathy of the Western population. And end up living next to 500 million hostile and nuclear countries in the near future. If this is your vision of secure Israel go ahead and support ethnic cleansing of Palestinians but don't protest when things do not turn out the way you expected.
Thanks for sharing, even though you straw man every point I make. It might be more productive if you actually engage what I said rather than absurd exaggerations. What suggestion do you recommend Israel do with millions of people who have sworn to eradicate them?
OK but the cycle of violence and reprisal has been going on for a century now, how is repeating the same thing ad infinitum supposed to give a different result this time?
Exactly, and it will continue until one side ends the cycle. The cycle is continuing because one side is too weak to win, and the other side is too reluctant to use overwhelming force as needed to shut the situation down.
I am offering no advice to either side. I am just stating how I see these types of dilemmas play out. If they respond tit for tat ad infinitum then it never ends. In my example above on San Diego's border, the appropriate response to continued attacks is escalating retaliatory force until the weaker side either realizes its folly, or it is gone. The choice is Tijuana's.
> overwhelming force
By this, do you mean genocide? As in, systematically killing every man, woman, and child on the other side? Because every violent measure short of that has been tried already
Dresden wasn’t genocide. It was overwhelming force. Shoot until the other side stops shooting. The choice to stop shooting first is theirs, and the ramifications of failing to stop are theirs as well. We can call it mass suicide if you want.
Obviously I am presenting a completely different view than most at this site endorse. Take it as you will. My position, which lots of rational people share (that apparently aren’t represented on this site) is that acts of aggression can and should be responded to with whatever force is necessary to stop the aggression (not more than enough, just enough).
What do you disagree with?
No “rational” person who knows anything about the conflict considers there to be a singular “aggressor.” One might consider it remarkably aggressive to set up a nation state in an already inhabited land and then demand its inhabitants kneel and kiss the ring.
And the reason Israel hasn’t completely wiped out the Palestinians is not because they’re “reluctant” to do so but because they can’t. They are surrounded on all sides by 400 million people who already don’t like them.
I don’t believe there is a singular aggressor. My example with Mexico still stands. I live in once disputed lands, in fact my back window looks out at the area of the last (and only) battle from taking all of California from Mexico (The Battle of San Pasqual). This is clearly land taken from Mexico, which was land clearly taken from the Kumeyaay Indians. Not sure who they got it from.
The point is that we have not spent the past 175 years debating right and wrong and taking half measures that end up promoting a cycle of violence. I am sure Israel has their reasons for not being more assertive. Perhaps it was the best alternative. I suspect it just draws out the cycle.
Was the US right in taking California from Mexico? Not by current standards. Was Mexico right in taking it from the Kumeyaay? Not by today’s standards. We’re the Kumeyaay right in taking it from whomever? Again, probably not. Was it right the international order set up a new state in the Holy Land? We can debate this, but it seems much more justifiable than the prior examples.
You make a good point that 400 million people are affronted by the existence of this new state. I would suggest that the Palestinian question acts as kindling in the region.
Dresden was a crime, there was no military justification, just slaughter of civilians.
And Israel's operation in Gaza has already surpassed the Dresden death toll, killing overwhelmingly women and children who bore no responsibility for Hamas's crimes. All this with no concrete plan or strategy for actually destroying Hamas (whose growth Netanyahu and co deliberately encouraged for years, by the way).
What I believe, is that when one is a victim of aggression, one should take measures to stop the agressor. Not massacre defenseless innocents who happen to be nearby.
We won the war against aggressors. Germany fully surrendered and now we have had over 75 years of peace and prosperity. Success!
If the Germans, let’s say, had hid their factories in hospitals, then that would be on them. That is the war crime. Israel has no obligation to pussy-foot against these terrorists, and is drawing out the misery by doing so.
This is what I would expect (no, demand) my leaders to do.
"This model of foreign policy decision-making is flawed because, among other things, domestic political considerations often interfere." Up to this point you make an interesting case. But there is one obvious lead you do not pursue, the elephant in the room, so to speak. This is the economic interests of the military industrial complex. What happens to your story if you factor these in?
I think that’s a valid point but how much of a financial interest in this war does our defense sector really have?
I was hoping that Philippe Lemoine would investigate and tell us ...