Archive for the ‘World Politics’ Category
24 July 2025 Leave a comment
21 July 2025 Leave a comment
Israel has launched a ground assault, including tanks, into the Gaza city of Deir al-Balah, the last remaining city in the Strip that has largely avoided devastation. The Associated Press puts the incursion in context:
“Tens of thousands of people have sought refuge in Deir al-Balah during repeated waves of mass displacement in Gaza.
“The U.N. humanitarian coordinator says 87.8% of Gaza is now under evacuation orders or inside Israeli military zones, “leaving 2.1 million civilians squeezed into a fragmented 12 per cent of the Strip, where essential services have collapsed.”
“Israel has taken over large areas of Gaza and split the territory with corridors stretching from the border to the sea as it seeks to pressure Hamas to release more hostages.”
The move comes after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Mossad Director, David Barnea, visited Washington for discussions with President Trump. According to Axios, the topic of discussion was the evacuation of the Palestinians in Gaza. The report indicated that the Netanyahu government was talking with Ethiopia, Indonesia and Libya as possible evacuation sites. According to Axios:
- Israel has been developing a plan for moving all two million residents of the enclave to a small “humanitarian zone” near the border with Egypt.
- That plan has sparked concerns in Egypt and many Western countries that Israel is preparing for the mass displacement of Palestinians out of Gaza, something Netanyahu’s ultranationalist coalition partners and many inside his own party have been pushing for years.
- A senior Israeli official claimed that, as part of the understandings with the three countries, the transfer of Palestinians would be “voluntary and not forced,” and that Israel would commit to allowing any Palestinian who leaves to return to Gaza at any time.
There is no question that the forced removal of civilians from the Gaze Strip is a war crime. But what is more unsettling is that the Netanyahu government either believes that the evacuation could be voluntary or that, after at least 59,000 people dying, that any person could believe that the Palestinians have many choices.
The other part of the Netanyahu strategy to encourage “voluntary” evacuation is to starve the Palestinians to death. Israel refuses to allow humanitarian groups to distribute any food, water, or fuel to the Palestinians. Instead, Israel relies upon a corrupt organization, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to distribute aid in places where the civilian population can be better controlled. There have been a substantial number of Palestinians killed at these distribution centers as Israeli troops have fired upon them because starving people started looting the supplies. I am not sure what the Netanyahu government considers appropriate behavior under the circumstances. Soumaya Ghannoushi describes the situation:
“Razan Abu Zaher died starving.
“She was four years old.
“She died on the floor of a collapsing hospital, her tiny ribs rising and falling like wings too fragile to lift. Her body had no fat left to burn. Her eyes had sunken. Her voice – once a whisper of laughter – had long since vanished.
“She did not die quickly. She died slowly.
“She died watched by her mother, who begged her to hold on. Watched by a doctor who had no more syringes, no more saline, no more words, and by a world that tuned in – then turned away.
“Her death was not a tragedy. It was a sentence, written not in haste, but in policy.
“Razan is not alone. She is one of thousands.
“Between March and June – well into the total blockade – the UN agency for Palestine refugees, UNRWA, screened over 74,000 children in Gaza. More than 5,500 were diagnosed with severe acute malnutrition. Over 800 were already critical.
“That was months after food was declared a threat. After flour became contraband and milk became memory, now children die in their parents’ arms.
This atrocity is not an accident nor is it merely a sad attribute of what often happens in war. Starvation is a deliberate policy to encourage “voluntary” emigration. Peter Beinart explains the policy well:
“Right. This freedom — phrase “freedom to choose” is so Orwellian. First of all, what kind of freedom is it when you have a territory where most of the buildings and the hospitals and the schools and the bakeries and the agriculture have all been destroyed, where you have more child amputees than any other place on Earth? And now you’re talking about people’s freedom to choose?
“The deeper irony is that Palestinians have actually been — in Gaza and beyond, have been asking for the freedom to choose, the real freedom to choose, since 1948, because the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza are not from Gaza. They were expelled from their homes in what’s now Israel. Many of them can see the lands from which they were — their families were expelled in 1948. So, they do want the freedom to choose. They want the freedom to return to the places from which their families were expelled.”
Israel could not be conducting this slaughter without the active support of the United States. Israelis and Americans both have the blood of innocents on their hands for allowing their governments to commit the slaughter. Netanyahu has consistently prevented the implementation of a ceasefire and the return of the hostages so that he can continue the process of ethnic cleansing. Once the hostages are released, the Israeli people will be able to turn their total attention to the atrocity being committed in the name of self-defense. This war stopped being a war of self defense many months ago. It is now another chapter in the brutal and sordid history of imperialism.
19 July 2025 Leave a comment
10 July 2025 Leave a comment
Israel has continued to bomb Gaza and to restrict the flow of vital supplies into the Strip even though there is little evidence to suggest that there is any organized threat to Israel after two years of incessant bombardment. The unwillingness to reach a ceasefire in the Gaza stems from the desire of the Netanyahu government to expel the Palestinian population from Gaza to annex the territory. Arwa Mahdawi, writing for The Guardian explains:
“Omer Bartov is an Israeli-American historian and one of the foremost scholars on genocide in the world. He has spent over 25 years teaching a class on the subject. He deals with atrocities for a living, analyzing some of the very worst things that human beings are capable of. And yet even Bartov has said he can’t bear looking at some of the excruciating images coming out of Gaza any more.
What’s happening, Bartov says, is unprecedented in the 21st century. ‘I don’t know of any comparable situation. Recent estimates show that about 70% of the structures in Gaza are either completely destroyed or severely damaged,’ Bartov says. ‘The argument that the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] is conducting a war in Gaza is simply cynical, there is no war in Gaza. What the IDF is doing in Gaza is demolishing it. Hundreds of buildings are being bulldozed every week. This is not a secret, but mainstream media coverage has been insufficient.'”
The Israeli decision to restrict basic necessities to the Palestinians is similar to the genocidal actions of Germany in South West Africa (now Namibia), the Serbs in Srebenica, the Turks against Armenians, and the Sudanese government against rebels. Denying civilians food, water, and medicine because they live in a combat zone is a serious violation of international humanitarian law. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists published an essay on the effects of such actions:
“The consequences of the conditions of life created by Israeli state organs in Gaza are so predictable they are almost banal, in Hanna Arendt’s sense of the term. Israel’s blockade restricts access to fuel required to pump and clean water, equipment to restore damaged systems, and even bottled water. Bombing water infrastructure contaminates drinking water with raw sewage. This causes diarrheal disease like dysentery, which leads to malnutrition and increased vulnerability to further illness. Forced crowding into displacement camps and the spread of antimicrobial resistance worsen the cycle. As a result, many Palestinians have resorted to drinking salty water, damaging their kidneys. This past week alone, over 10,000 new cases of acute watery diarrhea (more than half in children under 5) were added to nearly one million cases, along with 90 new cases of Acute Jaundice Syndrome.”
We have virtually no first-hand reports on conditions in the Gaza Strip. Israel does not allow journalists into the Gaza, notwithstanding its reputation as the only “democracy” in the Middle East. There is no reason to deny access to those who would report on the conditions facing the civilian population other than to limit criticism of Israeli policy. Israel claims that it is permitting supplies into Gaza through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), an institution created by Israel and the US (although the funding of the foundation is totally opaque). There are serious criticisms of the GHF, but the most important aspect of the foundation is that it is clearly structured in a way to concentrate the Gaza population in the southern part of the Strip. +972, a website devoted to providing information about Palestine, argues that the GHF is a step toward the ultimate expulsion of the Palestinians from Gaza:
“The location of the four centers is no less important. One is in the central part of the Strip along the Netzarim Corridor, and three in the south, west of Rafah. A quick look at the map is enough to understand: there is no connection between the locations of the “distribution centers” and the needs of the people.
“Instead, the goal is to promote “moving the population” southward, ideally into the “concentration zones.” Since this constitutes a crime against humanity, Israel employed concealment tactics: first expelling established aid groups that could provide aid efficiently, then outsourcing distribution to opaque entities like the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
“As early as May 11, Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly stated in a secret session of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that ‘receiving aid would be conditional on Gazans not returning to the places from which they came to the aid distribution sites.’ This policy’s underlying logic was confirmed by Dr. Tammy Caner, a lawyer and director of the Law and National Security Program at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a think tank with close ties with the Israeli military.”
I had a hard time accepting the possibility that Israelis would support the expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, but a poll conducted by the Israeli Newspaper, Ha’aretz, was shocking:
“An overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews support the transfer of Palestinians from Gaza, according to a poll by Pennsylvania State University.
“The survey, conducted in March and published by Haaretz newspaper on Thursday, found that 82 percent of Israeli Jews support the forced expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.
“Meanwhile, 47 percent of Israeli Jews answered yes to the question: ‘Do you support the claim that the [Israeli army] in conquering an enemy city, should act in a manner similar to the way the Israelites did when they conquered Jericho under the leadership of Joshua, ie to kill all its inhabitants?’ The reference is to the biblical account of the conquest of Jericho.”
If Israel does take over the Gaza, then I expect that it will then take further steps to expel Palestinians from the West Bank. Even if that does not happen, Israel will forever bear the shame of committing a crime against humanity. And it will not enhance its security in any meaningful way. The US should stop supporting Israel, militarily and financially. It should also take active steps to organize harsh sanctions against Israel.
22 June 2025 Leave a comment
This morning’s headline for the online version of the New York Times was “U.S. enters War Against Iran”. The headline is misleading. The more accurate headline would have been “US President Trump Declares War on Iran”. The actual headline ignores the fact that the US has been engaged in coercive diplomacy against Iran since 2018 when President Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which was considered by most analysts as an effective check on any nuclear ambitions that Iran might have held, although there was no evidence at the time (nor two days ago) that Iran had made a decision to build a nuclear weapon:
“More than three years of Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA from January 2016-May 2019 demonstrated its nonproliferation benefits. Taken together, the array of restrictions on uranium enrichment ensures that Iran’s capability to produce enough weapons-grade uranium sufficient for one warhead would be approximately 12 months for a decade or more. The JCPOA also effectively eliminated Iran’s ability to produce and separate plutonium for at least 15 years. Just as importantly, the JCPOA mandates unprecedented international monitoring and transparency measures that make it very likely that any possible future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly.”
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had held for a long time that Iran’s nuclear program represented an “existential threat” to Israel. Indeed, he warned about the Iranian nuclear program when he was just a member of the Knesset in 1992:
“Since 1992, when Netanyahu addressed Israel’s Knesset as an MP, he has consistently claimed that Tehran is only years away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. ‘Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb,’ he declared at the time. The prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism.
“The sense of imminent threat has repeatedly shaped Netanyahu’s engagement with United States officials. In 2002, he appeared before a US congressional committee, advocating for the invasion of Iraq and suggesting that both Iraq and Iran were racing to obtain nuclear weapons. The US-led invasion of Iraq followed soon after, but no weapons of mass destruction were found.”
Netanyahu has worried about Iran for 33 years and yet the Iranians never developed a nuclear bomb, even though it clearly had the expertise and means to do so. Instead, Iran adhered to its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and refused to take that path, despite being surrounded by nuclear powers: Russia to the north, China to the east, India and Pakistan to its southeast, Israel to its west, and US air and sea forces parked in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and in bases in Oman and Bahrain. Netanyahu went so far as to bring a visual aid to the UN General Assembly to communicate his fears about Iran.
We should be clear about what Netanyahu regards as an “existential threat”. Does Netanyahu actually believe that Iran would drop a nuclear bomb on Israel, killing millions of Palestinians in the process? One cannot dismiss the possibility that at some point there will be an Iranian regime that would commit such a heinous crime. But one would have to offer more evidence of Iranian indifference to human life to persuade me that such an outcome was likely. There are currently nine nuclear powers in the world and some of them engaged in reckless propaganda (“godless communists” and “capitalist running dogs” are two of my favorites) that is roughly comparable to Iranian propaganda (“America is Satan”). But none of these states, except for the US, has ever dropped a nuclear bomb
The existential threat that Netanyahu fears is the possibility of Israeli self-deterrence in the face of a nuclear Iran. Nuclear threats are taken seriously by civilian populations and are effective even when palpably implausible. The US threatened nuclear war against China in 1956 over two insigificant islands (Quemoy and Matsu) which were controlled by the Republic of China, now known as Taiwan. Similarly, the US refrained from arming Ukraine with advanced weaponry after Russian President Putin started referring to Russian nuclear capabilities. Israel currently has a free military hand in Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and it has used that advantage to its benefit after the attacks of 7 October. A nuclear-armed Iran, however, might restrain Israeli military power just by posing the possibility of a nuclear attack, forcing the Israeli people to ask the question “Is dropping more bombs on the Gaza Strip worth risking nuclear annihilation?” States are reluctant to gamble on their existence, even when the odds are in their favor. An Israeli government may not want to be constrained by an Israeli population afraid of a nuclear attack. And that fear is the real existential threat to Israel.
The last few weeks have been confusing. There were statements that the US wanted to restart the negotiations to revive the JCPOA, but refused to entertain the possibility that Iran would be allowed to enrich Uranium, a right guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the JCPOA. The precipitating event for the Israeli attack on Iran was the Iranian decision on 13 April to enrich its Uranium far beyond the traditional limit of 20% which is considered essential for civilian nuclear power purposes (Iran believes that it makes more money selling its petroleum rather than burning it for energy purposes). But the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute interpeted this decision quite differently than one designed to build a nuclear bomb:
‘On 13 April, Iran announced its intention to enrich uranium to 60 per cent U-235. This was characterized by Iran as a response to a sabotage of its vast underground enrichment cascades at Natanz two days before. The move comes against the backdrop of sensitive negotiations happening in Vienna aimed at rescuing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and bringing the United States back into compliance with the deal…
“Uranium enriched to 60 per cent cannot be used to make a useful nuclear explosive device, and Iran has no other realistic use for this material.
“Nevertheless, 60 per cent was not an arbitrary choice. Cascades of centrifuges are designed to enrich uranium in steps; Iran’s centrifuges are likely set up to enrich up to 20 per cent, from 20 to 60 per cent, and from 60 to 90 per cent. Assuming the 60 per cent-enriched uranium is stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas—and there would be no point in Iran converting it to any other chemical form—the enrichment step from 60 per cent-enriched to weapons-grade uranium is very short.
“This strongly suggests that Iran’s decision was intended to send a political message: ‘We have gone as far as we can go in response to provocations without producing weapons-grade uranium.’”
One needs to appreciate the position of Iran after Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA: it was placed under punishing sanctions which have severely damaged the Iranian economy and was not offered any way to remove those sanctions without giving up its right to enrich Uranium. The question we need to answer is whether the decision to enrich Uranium to 60% actually signaled an intent to build a nuclear bomb. Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was explicit on this question: “In March, Gabbard testified on Capitol Hill that the U.S. ‘continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.'” Trump insisted that Gabbard was wrong, but that is not the first time he has disagreed with his own intelligence services.
We should also think about Trump’s decision to declare war on Iran in the context of the US Constitution. Only Congress has the right to declare war: “Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 states that Congress has the power to declare war. Initially, the draft of the Constitution granted Congress the power to make war. There were suggestions to give this power solely to the President, solely to the Senate, or to both the President and the Senate. However, the Framers decided that involving both the President and Congress addressed their concerns. They didn’t want just one person to decide something so significant, nor did they trust a single branch alone.” The wisdom of the writers of the Constitution has been lost. Iran did not attack the US, so the US claim of self-defense is hollow. Nor does Iran have any ability to hit the US mainland with a nuclear bomb or any conventional bomb. Iran does pose a threat of terror attacks on US citizens, but such threats are better dealt with by local officials and not the US military.
Now the US and Iran are in a state of war. Iran does not need to declare war on the US for a state of war to exist–the US attack on Iranian territory constituted a state of war. For example, the US declared war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack, but Roosevelt wanted to focus on fighting Germany immediately (he didn’t have much choice since the US fleet was at the bottom of the Pacific and therefore didn’t have the ability to fight Japan immediately). Foolishly, Hitler declared war on the US first, relieving the US of the need to make a decision about declaring war against Germany. Now that the US has created a state of war, it is imperative to ask the question: What are the US war objectives?
The US is still committed to preventing the Iranians from developing a nuclear bomb. We have yet to see whether the US attack effectively destroyed Iranian capabilities. Trump declared that the facilities had been “completely and totally obliterated” but we have no way to confirm that assessment (it’s not clear on what evidence he based this assertion). More importantly, there is no way for the US to destroy the knowledge that Iran has about building a bomb. That knowledge will endure if the Iranians want it to endure. At best, the US and Israel have gained some time derailing Iran nuclear intentions, but to maintain that respite, Israel and the US will have to keep bombing Iran anytime there is a suspicion that Iran is engaged in nuclear-related activities.
Unless, of course, that the Israeli and US intention is to force regime change in Iran in order to prevent any government that would attempt to build a bomb. The US has often forced regime change (Iran 1953; Guatemala, 1954; the Dominican Republic in 1965; Grenada, 1983; Panama, 1989; and Iraq in 2003). One would be hard pressed to assert that these efforts genuinely served the US national interest. And it is more likely that the Iranian people will want a more aggressive regime given the humiliation inflicted on them by the Israeli and US attacks. They may welcome a new regime that is less stringent in terms of personal conduct. But given the obvious failures of the current regime to prevent the wholesale leakage of Iranian secrets, it is more likely that Iranians would support greater scrutiny (how else does one explain the precision Israeli attacks against specific military and scientific individuals in early June? Someone was telling the Israelis names, addresses, and times, and it is likely that the Iranians will direct most of their efforts to uproot those spies).
I suspect that the Iranians will do two things. First, they will announce their withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty which allows states to abrogate the treaty after 90 days of warning. Since Israel and the US did not believe that Iran was adhering to the treaty, the repercussions of such a move would be small diplomatically. There will, however, a great deal of negative press for the Iranians, but both the US and Israel have muzzled the press on this matter already. Leaving the NPT would end the pretense that a nuclear weapon is not necessary for national defense against nuclear powers. Iraq proved that nuclear weapons are the only way to prevent an invasion, and North Korea proved that breaking the NPT does not preclude engagement with nuclear powers. Furthermore, the Iranians do not have a choice unless they wish to submit to the dictates of Israel–their previous strategy of relying on proxies and air defenses was an abject failure. Israel has forced the Iranian hand on this matter.
Second, Iran will likely make noises about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel through which 40% of the world’s exported petroleum passes. Noises could go from verbal threats to actually blocking the channel with sunken vessels. The threats are probably sufficient to force insurance rates for oil-carrying cargo shops to skyrocket. That alone would focus the attention of India, Europe, and China on finding a better solution to this state of war. Moreover, it would force Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to gauge their interests less in alignment with the interests of the US. Finally, a spike in oil prices would doom Republican chances in the mid-term elections in 2026.
For me, the most unfortunate aspect of this remarkable event is that allowing this war to be declared unilaterally by the President has insulated US foreign policy from democratic processes. Foreign policy has almost always been determined by small groups of people (did you notice that as Trump delivered his speech at the White House announcing the bombing, he was flanked by Hegseth, Rubio, and Vance?), and moving foreign policy in the democratic process was an arduous and difficult process which began with the Vietnam War. That process was never completed and today it seems to be unattainable.
22 May 2025 1 comment
The Homeland Security Director, Kristi Noem, who could not define the right of Habeas Corpus nor where is enshrined as a right in the Constitution, today revoked the right of Harvard University to receive international students. In her message in X, in language reminiscent of the worst days of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Red Scare:
“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.
“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments….
“Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”
The full letter to Harvard can be read below:
The language in this letter is repulsive and represents an authoritarian impulse which negates the very basic premises of a democratic state. Its objectives are grandiose (“root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses”) and its tone is imperious (“you must provide all the information requested below in 72 hours“-delivered on a Friday evening).
I do not doubt that Harvard will fight this order in court and win. But the strategy of the Trump Administration is clear: to intimidate and silence any possible critics of its horrific and undemocratic policies. I hope that the courts penalize the Trump Administration in ways that assure the American people that democracy will be protected.
5 May 2025 1 comment
While the world is focused on the economic turmoil caused by President Trump’s abandonment of the free trade regime developed by the US and its allies in 1945, Israel has decided to take greater control of the Gaza Strip. First, is has imposed a total blockade of food, water, electricity, and medicine to the Strip, asserting that that blockade will remain in place until all the hostages held by Hamas are released. Second, it has seized direct control of significant parts of the Gaza. According to the BBC:
“The UN says 69% of the territory is now under active Israeli military evacuation orders, within a ‘no-go’ zone running along the borders with Israel and Egypt and the Wadi Gaza valley south of Gaza City, or both. Some 500,000 people have been newly displaced or uprooted once more, with no safe place to go, it estimates.
“The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has said it has killed ‘”‘hundreds of terrorists’ in strikes while troops have advanced into several areas in the north and the south. It has established a new corridor that cuts the southern city of Rafah off from neighbouring Khan Younis and has designated 30% of Gaza as an ‘operational security perimeter’.”
The Israeli military continues to bomb the Gaza, forcing families to move several times, despite the promise of a cease-fire which the Israelis no longer support. Mondoweiss reports:
Since the resumption of the Israeli assault on Gaza, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has said that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is now “the worst it has been” since the war began 18 months ago.
“Israel not only resumed airstrikes across the strip at the same rate as the days before the ceasefire entered into force, but has also sealed it off through a complete blockade of humanitarian aid, closing all crossing points into Gaza and provoking the return of famine conditions, a critical shortage of medicine, fuel, and skyrocketing prices.
“’It has now been a month and a half since any supplies were last allowed through the crossings into Gaza – by far the longest such halt to date,’ OCHA said”
The total blockade is flatly illegal under international humanitarian law since it makes no effort to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. The use of the word “blockade” is a misnomer and euphemism–it is more properly termed a siege. The Foreign Ministers of Germany, Great Britain, and France have issued the following statement:
“Palestinian civilians – including one million children – face an acute risk of starvation, epidemic disease and death. This must end. We urge Israel to immediately re-start a rapid and unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza in order to meet the needs of all civilians. During the last ceasefire, the UN and INGO system was able to deliver aid at scale. The Israeli decision to block aid from entering Gaza is intolerable. Minister Katz’s recent comments politicising humanitarian aid and Israeli plans to remain in Gaza after the war are unacceptable – they harm prospects for peace. Humanitarian aid must never be used as a political tool and Palestinian territory must not be reduced nor subjected to any demographic change. Israel is bound under international law to allow the unhindered passage of humanitarian aid.”
The toll on the civilian population in the Gaza is impossible to measure since no relief agencies or media outlets are allowed to report on conditions there. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has been banned by the Israeli government and it has been the primary source of aid to the Gaza Strip. Its most recent report on conditions is dire: the words used are “catastrophic” and “desperate”.
To make matters worse, the Netanyahu government has announced plans for a more intensive war effort, including the call-up of about 10,000 military reservists. Reuters reports:
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday an expanded offensive against Palestinian militant group Hamas would be “intensive” after his security cabinet approved plans that may include seizing the Gaza Strip and controlling aid….
“Israeli troops have already taken over an area amounting to around a third of Gaza, displacing the population and building watchtowers and surveillance posts on cleared ground the military has described as security zones, but the new plan would go further.
“One Israeli official said the newly approved offensive would seize the entire territory of the Gaza Strip, move its civilian population southward and keep humanitarian aid from falling into Hamas’ hands.”
The forced removal of Palestinians from northern Gaza, and perhaps the entire Gaza Strip eventually, is unquestionably a war crime. It is curious that Netanyahu has made this announcement now since US President Trump is visiting the Middle East next week. Trump has been pursuing the normalization of Saudi Arabian-Israeli ties, but I doubt that bin Salman will be willing to make any commitments because of the treatment of Palestinians. The timing also makes it obvious that Trump has approved the Israeli actions since it is doubtful that Netanyahu would jeopardize US aid by embarrassing Trump with a surprise.
It is long past time for the US to suspend all aid to Israel. The US has already compromised itself by its steadfast support for Israel despite obvious and continued war crimes. The continued refusal to support the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people will only perpetuate the violence and bring shame to those who refuse to condemn the Israeli war of conquest.
24 April 2025 1 comment
In what will surely be regarded as the ultimate in chutzpah in diplomatic history, President Trump argued today that Russia is making a concession to Ukraine by not taking it over completely. According to The Hill:
“President Trump said Thursday that Russia would be making a concession toward peace if it agrees not to take over Ukraine, as the U.S. president has struggled to negotiate even a limited ceasefire deal between Moscow and Kyiv.
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office during a meeting with Norway’s prime minister, Trump was asked what concessions Russia has ‘offered up thus far to get to the point where you’re closer to peace.’
“’Stopping the war, stopping from taking the whole country, pretty big concession,’ Trump responded.”
President Trump must surely be aware of the fact that Ukraine has been fighting desperately against the Russians in a war that most analysts (as well as Russian President Putin) thought would be over in three days. To add insult to injury, Trump also suggested that Ukraine should accept Russian control over Crimea. A Financial Times editorial assesses this gambit without mincing words:
“Donald Trump’s ultimatum to Kyiv to accept a peace deal that includes US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea makes a mockery of Washington’s supposed negotiation to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. Trump’s election campaign boast that he could strike a peace deal in 24 hours beggared belief. So has the incompetence and cynicism of his administration as it scrambles to land a settlement at any price.
“Now Trump and his officials are threatening to walk away from the talks unless Ukraine swallows terms written without it. Trump’s comment on Wednesday that he thought he had a deal with Vladimir Putin but now needed to get one with Volodymyr Zelenskyy was telling. This has never been a proper three-way negotiation.
“Trump says Zelenskyy has no cards to play. In fact, Trump has taken cards away from Ukraine and handed them to Russia. Through amateurism or naivety, US officials gave away important leverage before talks even began. They ruled out Ukraine’s membership of Nato or the prospect of regaining any occupied territory. Trump’s neophyte special envoy Steve Witkoff has been seduced by the Kremlin’s flattery and swallowed its talking points about the causes of the war.”
Moreover, Trump is flatly contradicting the position his administration took on the issue of Crimea in 2018. That policy was articulated by Secretary of State Pompeo and is known as the Crimea Declaration which Trump approved.
“Press Statement
Michael R. Pompeo
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
July 25, 2018
“Russia, through its 2014 invasion of Ukraine and its attempted annexation of Crimea, sought to undermine a bedrock international principle shared by democratic states: that no country can change the borders of another by force. The states of the world, including Russia, agreed to this principle in the United Nations Charter, pledging to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This fundamental principle — which was reaffirmed in the Helsinki Final Act — constitutes one of the foundations upon which our shared security and safety rests.
“As we did in the Welles Declaration in 1940, the United States reaffirms as policy its refusal to recognize the Kremlin’s claims of sovereignty over territory seized by force in contravention of international law. In concert with allies, partners, and the international community, the United States rejects Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and pledges to maintain this policy until Ukraine’s territorial integrity is restored.
“The United States calls on Russia to respect the principles to which it has long claimed to adhere and to end its occupation of Crimea. As democratic states seek to build a free, just, and prosperous world, we must uphold our commitment to the international principle of sovereign equality and respect the territorial integrity of other states. Through its actions, Russia has acted in a manner unworthy of a great nation and has chosen to isolate itself from the international community.”
It is impossible to imagine a more confused, inconsistent, and worthless foreign policy than Trump’s 2nd term Ukraine policy. A leader who cannot even remember what he has done in the past and who shamelessly depreciates the sacrifices by the Ukrainian people in the face of ruthless aggression is unworthy of the role. There are few historical events that even come close to this level of treachery.
13 April 2025 Leave a comment
The world is experiencing an unusual event: US Treasury bonds are declining in price while the stock market declines as well. This asymmetry is rare because when the US stock market declines, investors typically buy bonds as a safer haven for their money. a pattern that usually raises the price for Treasury bonds. But last week bond price declines were dramatic. Typically, changes in bond yields are measured in very small increments. But last week, the yields increased by almost 0.5 percent. The spike is dramatic, and the New York Times reports:
“The yield on the 30-year Treasury bond rose 0.44 percentage points this week, trading roughly flat on Friday. The movement signaled a sharp shift in demand for the long bond. The Federal Reserve fixes a few very short-dated interest rates that then ripple out across financial markets. But the further away from the Fed’s rates you go, the less impact the central bank has.
“Typically, the nearly $30 trillion Treasury market is too large to be significantly affected by shifts in buying appetites, analysts said, highlighting just how severe the current moves in the market have been.”
It is impossible to determine the cause of this decline in bond value since the bond market is opaque because it is conducted by bond traders who do not have to disclose their buyers and sellers. The explanation for the decline, however, is that some investors do not believe that US Treasury bonds are safe. The actual economic data for the US economy is robust: unemployment is low, and inflation has yet to reach concerning levels. So the feelings of fear are rooted in some expectation that the US economy will soon be significantly weaker in the future. Moreover, there seems to be a sense in the markets that decision-making in the Trump Administration is deeply flawed.
Tfear can also be measured in the value of the US dollar. Bond yields usually track well with the value of the dollar, but last week there was an extraordinary divergence as evidenced by the graph below:
I cannot with any assurance extrapolate the likely consequences of this new and troubling development. The Economist makes the following observation:
“If bond yields were rising because of stronger American economic growth, they would bring about a stronger greenback. That the dollar is falling instead suggests investors are worried about America’s economic stability. It is an ominous repeat of a pattern that struck in Britain after Liz Truss’s disastrous “mini-budget” in 2022, which promised unaffordable tax cuts. Although Mr Trump’s tariffs raise money for the government, such revenue could be dwarfed by the higher payouts required by rising bond yields.
“Moreover, America’s budget is already in an awful state. Global demand for the dollar and Treasuries has enabled America to run a more extravagant budget than that which sparked the crisis in Britain. This special status is known as “exorbitant privilege”. The federal government’s net debts are worth about 100% of GDP. In the past 12 months, America has disbursed 7% of GDP more than it borrowed, and spent more on interest payments than on national defence. Over the next year officials must roll over debt worth nearly $9trn (30% of GDP).
“Now that privilege is under threat. Mr Trump’s tariffs are likely to cause deeper economic harm in America than elsewhere. They also reveal American policymaking to be arbitrary and capricious. Who can predict where tariffs will be in a week’s time? The sense of unease goes beyond economics. Mr Trump’s willingness to defund universities that house his critics, to withdraw government business from law firms which work with his legal opponents and to deport migrants to a prison in El Salvador without a hearing appears to threaten the norms on which American society has been built.”
My own view is that Trump has no idea what he is doing. His decisions on tariffs have been inconsistent, driven by a naive and uninformed understanding of the marketplace, and tainted by the strong stench of corruption as Trump makes exceptions for certain favored companies and individuals. I have no idea if this movement in the bond markets will continue. But watch the value of the dollar, the value of gold, and the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond. Lurking behind all this movement is the fact that China currently holds $759 billion of US Treasury bonds. It is unlikely that China will sell all those holdings quickly (to do so would mean that the Chinese would lose an awful lot of money). But the Chinese holdings are roughly equivalent to a nuclear threat to the US economy if it decided that the pain of losing money was less than the benefit of ending dollar pre-eminence in the global economy.
6 April 2025 Leave a comment
World Politics News 