The US has asserted that it will blockade all oil tankers from Venezuela on a sanction list. This action follows the seizure of the oil tanker Skipper that was carrying 2 million barrels of crude oil destined for Cuba. Generally speaking, a blockade is considered an act of war but the Trump Administration has not asked the Congress for a declaration of war, nor has it met the requirements of the War Powers Act. Nonetheless, Trump has deployed a massive military buildup off the coast of Venezuela acting on his asserted authority as Commander-in-Chief. The Washington Post listed all the military assets deployed as of today.
AC-130J Ghostrider
Heavily armed gunship
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Air Force (Special Ops Command)
AV-8B Harrier II
Fighter and attack aircraft
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
B-1B Lancer
Supersonic bomber
Air
U.S. Air Force
B-52 Stratofortress
Strategic bomber
Air
U.S. Air Force
EA-18G Growler
Electronic attack jet
Air
U.S. Navy
F-35 Lightning II
Supersonic fighter jet
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
MH-6 Little Bird
Light observation helicopter
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Army (160th SOAR)
MH-60M Black Hawk
Medium-lift military utility helicopter
Special Operations Forces
U.S. Army (160th SOAR)
MH-60T Jayhawk
Medium-range recovery helicopter
Air
U.S. Coast Guard
MQ-9 Reaper
Unmanned combat aerial vehicle (drone)
Air
U.S. Air Force
MV Ocean Trader
Floating special operations base
Special Operations Forces
Operated for U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
MV-22 Osprey
Transport and cargo aircraft
Air
U.S. Marine Corps
P-8 Poseidon
Maritime patrol aircraft
Air
U.S. Navy
Sikorsky UH-60L Black Hawk
Medium-lift military utility helicopter
Air
U.S. Army
USS Bainbridge
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Fort Lauderdale
Amphibious transport dock
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Gerald R. Ford
Aircraft carrier
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Gettysburg (CG-64)
Guided missile cruiser
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7)
Amphibious assault ship
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Jason Dunham
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Lake Erie
Guided missile cruiser
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Mahan
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS San Antonio
Amphibious transport dock
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Stockdale
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Thomas Hudner
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Wichita
Littoral combat ship
Naval
U.S. Navy
USS Winston S. Churchill
Guided missile destroyer
Naval
U.S. Navy
I doubt that the US is contemplating an invasion of Venezuela (but I also doubt that Trump has thought that far). His intention is to create economic chaos in Venezuela that will lead to the overthrow of President Maduro. This particular playbook was actually used by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now known as BP) in 1951 against Iran after Iran nationalized its holdings. The company effectively blockaded Iran from selling its oil to others by following oil tankers leaving Iran and using the courts to prevent the sale of what it called “stolen” oil. Eventually, the Iranian economy collapsed and with a shove from the US CIA led to the overthrow of the president of the country and leading to the rule of the Shah of Iran.
The Iranian example is instructive since the Iranian regime that toppled the Shah in 1979 led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the longstanding bitterness between Iran and the US today. The US has a poor track record of regime change. It did not work in Vietnam in 1963 when South Vietnamese President Diem was assassinated or when the US overthrew Iraqi President Hussein in 2003. Other examples include the overthrow of Guatemalan President in 1954 and the toppling President Allende of Chile in 1973. Regime change is a policy adopted by states that pay little attention to the long-term consequences of meddling in the internal affair of other states.
But there is another thread in the Venezuela situation that has not received sufficient attention. Venezuela has the largest oil deposits in the world although its oil is heavy with sulfur and thus requires significant refining in order to be useful. The main seller of Venezuelan oil in the US is a company called Citgo, and it has three refineries in the US. But the US took control of Citgo properties in 2018 using the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FISA). In December 2025 Citgo shares were sold to a US company called Amber Energy with a $5.9 billion bid.
What’s interesting about Amber Energy is that one of its primary backers is Elliott Investment Management, a hedge fund based in West Palm Beach, Florida and whose primary sponsor is Paul Singer. Singer is often termed a venture capitalist (some call him a “vulture” capitalist) and an example of his activities was in profiting from Argentina’s debt problem in the early 2000s:
“Perhaps the most infamous chapter of Singer’s career is his prolonged battle with the government of Argentina over defaulted sovereign bonds. In the early 2000s, Argentina experienced a financial crisis that led to the country defaulting on its debt. While many creditors agreed to restructure their bonds at a fraction of their original value, Elliott Management refused, demanding full repayment. What followed was a 15-year legal and financial battle that saw Singer’s firm seize Argentine naval vessels and block international payments. In 2016, the dispute culminated in a $2.4 billion payout to Elliott Management, a victory that underscored Singer’s tenacity and strategic prowess.”
Regime change might result in a US company controlling all of Venezuela’s oil (if Maduro does leave, his most likely successor would be María Corina Machado who would likely have Trump’s blessing, although her political power will be sorely tested if she does not protest the US actions). In short, a US company would have control over Venezuela’s massive reserves.
Trump’s actions against Venezuela are reprehensible and short-sighted. The long-term consequences of Trump’s “gunboat” diplomacy will weaken US credibility and prestige, all in the name of preserving the viability of fossil fuel hegemony in the US. It is a fool’s errand and completely out of touch with the world as it currently operates.
US President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu announced yesterday that they had agreed upon a plan to end the war in Gaza. The New York Times published the full text of the agreement:
Here is the full text of the proposal provided by the White House.
Gaza will be a de-radicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.
Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.
If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal.
Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned.
Once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after Oct. 7, 2023, including all women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans.
Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful coexistence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.
Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip. At a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the Jan. 19, 2025, agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads.
Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party. Opening the Rafah crossing in both directions will be subject to the same mechanism implemented under the Jan. 19, 2025, agreement.
Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza.
This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair.
This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.
A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East. Many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas have been crafted by well-meaning international groups, and will be considered to synthesize the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza.
A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.
No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.
Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors.
A guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people.
The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (I.S.F.) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The I.S.F. will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The I.S.F. will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces. It is critical to prevent munitions from entering Gaza and to facilitate the rapid and secure flow of goods to rebuild and revitalize Gaza. A de-confliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties.
Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the I.S.F. establishes control and stability, the Israel Defense Forces (I.D.F.) will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and time frames linked to demilitarization that will be agreed upon between the I.D.F., I.S.F., the guarantors, and the United States, with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. Practically, the I.D.F. will progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies to the ISF according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority until they are withdrawn completely from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.
In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the I.D.F. to the I.S.F.
An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful coexistence to try and change mind-sets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.
While Gaza redevelopment advances and when the P.A. reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.
The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous coexistence.
This proposal is not a peace proposal–it is a land development proposal. Note that Hamas (or any other agent representing the interests of the Palestinian people) participated in forging this proposal. It was conceived by Trump and Netanyahu and it reflects the narrow interests of both men. Creating a transitional government with considerable power before the Palestinians have any effective control:
“This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair.”
Note that the conposition of the “Board of Peace” that has oversight and supervises the transitional committee does has no reference to the Palestinians. And the appointment of Trump as the Chair of this Board of Peace is simply a way to insure that Trump’s vision of a “Middle East Riviera” will indeed serve to give control to Trump over what is built and for whom it is built. In addition, the proposal offers “preferred tariff and access rates” for those who invest in what the proposal calls “New Gaza”. This tactic was no doubt a ploy by Netanyahu to guarantee Trump’s personal support for the proposal by playing to Trump’s ego and self-interest. And I have serious doubts that most Americans would approve of Trump spending a good part of his time as President serving the interests of Israel. Fareed Zakaria explains:
“Netanyahu looked on in the White House on Tuesday as President Donald Trump delivered the most stunning US intervention in the long history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“The president repeatedly doubled down on his suggestion that nearly 2 million Palestinians should be relocated from battle-leveled Gaza to new homes elsewhere so that the US could send troops to the Strip, take ownership and build the ‘Riviera of the Middle East.’
“’You build really good quality housing, like a beautiful town, like some place where they can live and not die, because Gaza is a guarantee that they’re going to end up dying,’ Trump told reporters.
“In a few words, Trump conjured up a mind-boggling geopolitical transformation of the Middle East and a political lifeline for Netanyahu – showing why the prime minister, despite their past tensions, was rooting for his host’s return to power in the 2024 election.
“Netanyahu can now bill himself to right-wing factions in his coalition, which incessantly threaten his grip on power, as the unique and vital conduit to Trump. The American president’s views now parallel Israeli hardliners’ desire to see Palestinians ousted from part of what they view as the sacred land of Israel.”
No doubt Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his good friend Crown Prince Salman, will be able to secure the funds for a development project that will cater to the interests of people who wish to live in penthouses overlooking the Mediterranean. I doubt that they will be interested in building affordable housing for the 2 million Palestinians who once lived in the Gaza Strip.
The proposal does state that “Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza”, but Israel does not need to do either. The Council of Peace will decide where the hospitals, the schools, and the police forces are located. It will decide what dwellings are allowed and where they can be built. Moreover, we have seen this movie before. When the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993, both Israel and the Palestinians agreed: “It was anticipated that this arrangement would last for a five-year interim period during which a permanent agreement would be negotiated (beginning no later than May 1996). The assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by a right-wing settler scuttled that hope, but the Israelis broke their word, not the Palestinians.
Finally, there is no mention of the West Bank, which is also occupied territory, but is under siege by Israeli settlers. According to the United Nations:
“The report covers the period from 18 June to 19 September. During this time, Israeli authorities advanced or approved some 20,810 housing units in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
“On 2 July, 15 Israeli ministers and the speaker of the Knesset, or parliament, signed a petition calling for Israel to annex the occupied West Bank. Three weeks later, the Knesset adopted a non-binding motion calling for the ‘application of Israeli sovereignty’ across all settlements there.
“Demolitions and seizures of Palestinian-owned structures also increased while evictions continued.
“’Citing the lack of Israeli-issued building permits, which are almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain, Israeli authorities demolished, seized or forced people to demolish 455 structures‘, he said.
The Gaza proposal raises a genuine question: If the Gaza Strip is taken away from Israeli occupation and ultimately from Israeli sovereignty, will the West Bank be annexed to appease the settlers who believe that the two pieces of land are part of “Greater Israel”?
“Judaism defines the land as where Jewish religious law prevailed and excludes territory where it was not applied.[3] It holds that the area is a God-given inheritance of the Jewish people based on the Torah, particularly the books of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua and the later Prophets.[4] According to the Book of Genesis, the land was first promised by God to Abram’s descendants; the text is explicit that this is a covenant between God and Abram for his descendants.[5] Abram’s name was later changed to Abraham, with the promise refined to pass through his son Isaac and to the Israelites, descendants of Jacob, Abraham’s grandson.”
Is the plan to trade the West Bank for Gaza, if friends of Trump and Netanyahu control the Gaza?
Hamas will ignore the 72-hour time limit for releasing the hostages, thereby assuring that Netanyahu will be given the green light to “finish the job”? Trump’s position after the proposal was clearly one of take-it-or-leave-it, offering a threat if Hamas rejects the proposal:
“Trump gives Hamas ‘three or four days’ to respond to Gaza plan
“Donald Trump has said Hamas has ‘three or four days’ to respond to his Gaza plan or face the consequences.
“Speaking to reporters as he left the White House on Tuesday, Trump said Israeli and Arab leadershad accepted the proposal and “we’re just waiting for Hamas”.
“Hamas is either going to be doing it or not, and if it’s not, it’s going to be a very sad end.
“Asked if there was room for negotiations, Trump replied: ‘Not much.’”
Two prominent Israeli human rights organizations, B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, have made an explosive charge against the Israeli government, accusing it of committing genocide. Needless to say, the accusation affects the world profoundly given the historical experience of Jews. National Public Radio puts the charge in context:
“The rights groups, while prominent and respected internationally, are considered in Israel to be on the political fringe, and their views are not representative of the vast majority of Israelis. But having the allegation of genocide come from Israeli voices shatters a taboo in a society that has been reticent to criticize Israel’s conduct in Gaza.”
The Genocide Convention was adopted in 1948 after the horrors of the Holocaust became undeniable (there was considerable evidence of genocide during World War II, but these reports were not acted upon for a variety of reasons, including prejudice against Jews). Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as:
“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Physicians for Human Rights–Israel has issued a paper justifying its charge of genocide and it is thorough and comprehensive. Its conclusion is straightforward:
“Each day, dozens die of malnutrition. Ninety-two percent of infants aged six months to two years don’t get enough to eat. At least 85 children have already starved to death. Israel has displaced 9 in 10 Gazans, destroyed or damaged 92% of homes, and left over half a million children without schools or stability. It has wiped out essential health services – including dialysis, maternal care, cancer treatment, and diabetes management.
“This is not a temporary crisis. It is a strategy to eliminate the conditions needed for life. Even if Israel stops the offensive today, the destruction it has inflicted guarantees that preventable deaths – from starvation, infection, and chronic illness – will continue for years. This is not collateral damage. This is not a side effect of war. It is the systematic creation of unlivable conditions. It is the denial of survivability. It is a genocide.”
The charge of genocide is supported by several leading scholars. The Washington Post ran an article citing many of those scholars:
“The governments that have accused Israel at the International Court of Justice of carrying out genocide believe sufficient evidence exists to show that Israel intends to make Palestinian life impossible in Gaza. In this view, they are backed by an emerging number of genocide scholars. As early as December 2023, the institute on genocide prevention that bears Lemkin’s name put out a statement warning about “the clearly genocidal language being used at virtually all levels of Israeli society,” while also condemning Hamas’s actions on Oct. 7.
“Martin Shaw — the leading sociological expert on genocide and author of the 2007 book, “What Is Genocide?” — wrote last week that many Western leaders and journalists have been determined “to avoid, at all costs, the ‘G-word’ in evaluating Israel’s actions,” partially given the sensitivities around the word, but also because they accepted Israel’s argument of self-defense against Hamas and the insistence of Israeli officials that they were trying to alleviate civilian harm.”
The Netanyahu government strongly disagrees with the characterization of genocide, arguing that Israel had the right of self-defense after the vicious attack led by Hamas in October of 2023. No one contests that Israel did have the right of self-defense, but the continued battering of the Gaza Strip and the willful withholding of food, fuel, water, and medicine has gone far beyond acts of self-defense. The death toll of recovered bodies now numbers over 60,000 and there are undoubtedly many more bodies still buried underneath the rubble.
France has announced that it will recognize a Palestinian state in September, and the United Kingdom has threatened to recognize a Palestinian state if Israel does not agree to a cease-fire. Recognition is now being considered by several states. According to The Guardian:
“France and 14 other countries have co-signed a declaration that suggests a wave of future recognitions of an independent Palestinian state, including by Canada, New Zealand and Australia, could take place in the coming months.
“The New York Call, which was published by the French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, on Wednesday, said that signatories “have already recognised, have expressed or express the willingness or the positive consideration of our countries to recognise the State of Palestine”.
“The signatories include Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal and San Marino, each of which has not yet recognised an independent Palestinian state. They also include Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Slovenia and Spain, which have. Emmanuel Macron last week said that France would recognise Palestinian statehood in the near future.”
It is not clear what effect recognition will have since the Palestinians cannot claim to have control over a clearly defined territory nor does it have any of the normal powers over that territory to claim sovereignty. But the act will grant the Palestinians a more credible voice in international organizations such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.
The most important actor is the United States, without whose support the Netanyahu government would not be able to continue the slaughter. Despite some signs of movement from the Trump Administration in disagreeing with Netanyahu that mass starvation is occurring in the Gaza, it is extremely unlikely that the Trump Administration will withdraw its financial and diplomatic support for the genocide. But public opinion in the US is decidedly turning against unqualified support for Israel as indicated by the Gallup poll:
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:
“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.
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 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:
“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.
This morning’s headline for the online version of the New York Timeswas “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.
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.
It was a discouraging week and I haven’t had the will to make sense of it. But there are three issues that are of real concern.
First, there were no Republicans (as far as I could tell) who honored their oath to defend the Constitution. Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was cluttered with all sorts of questions: Has the US been invaded by a state? Were all those who were deported really members of a gang? And why do the Republicans simply say that Trump was elected to get rid of people despite the guarantees demanded by the Constitution? And did Trump really sign the proclamation? Or is he so senile that he cannot remember?
Second, the Netanyahu government is clearly conducting ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip. Why else would Israel continue aerial bombardments and deny the introduction of necessary food, water, and medicine? It has become clear that many Palestinians are refusing to leave the Strip despite the horrific conditions because they fear a second Nakba. So, Israel will simply continue to punish those who remain in hopes that Palestinian resolve can be crushed. Israel will claim that the surviving Palestinians in the Gaza are going to leave the Gaza “voluntarily”. As I have stated before, this is a war of conquest, not a war of self-defense.
Third, Trump has extorted Columbia University to submit to intolerable conditions, including placing one of its Departments into receivership. It’s not clear to me that the Columbia campus is a hotbed of antisemitism (Columbia continues to attract Jewish students who comprise 20% of the student body–the highest percentage in the Ivies) or that Trump understands what antisemitism is or that he even cares. The capitulation of the University to crime gang tactics is a horrible lesson for higher education in the US. And the effect on free speech is catastrophic. Roy Cohn is watching (from hell) his star pupil conduct a witch hunt of historic measure.
So, I retreat into music. I can think about these matters for a period of time, and then I simply have to turn it all off. I am more convinced than ever that Trump’s term in office will not extend to 4 years (at some point the Republican Party will have to realize that it is digging its own grave). But waiting for the corrupt house of cards collapse is draining. The first three songs are done by Playing for Change. I played one of these songs in my lecture on globalization when I taught World Politics. I explained that globalization had all sorts of problems, but also some extraordinary opportunities. To choreograph these songs in a manner that compressed time and space was an important insight. Until the very recent past, such an enterprise was impossible. But Playing for Change was able to take simple songs and to unite people from all over the world to send the same message, even though the instruments and the language were all different. More importantly, Playing for Change was able to prove that there are brilliant artists who work the streets every day, and that the glitter and rouge of pop culture is nothing more than a very unfortunate distraction from the real meaning of music.
The Trump Administration has begun a full-fledged assault on freedom of speech and has focused on colleges and universities and the issue of Palestinian rights. It has singled out Columbia University for its handling of pro-Palestinian protests. The protests were directed against Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip and the widespread deaths and destruction that were designed to “eliminate” Hamas for its actions on 7 October 2023. The scale of destruction undermines Israel’s claims of self-defense: while remnants of Hamas still exist, it is difficult to imagine that the organization poses any substantial risk to the Israeli state.
“Several agencies sent a joint letter demanding disciplinary changes and the right to monitor an academic department as a precondition to restoring $400 million in federal funding. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department is investigating Columbia not only for civil rights violations but also for ‘terrorism crimes.’
“Administration officials, including Trump, have been vague about what constitutes antisemitism. But the crackdown fulfills multiple campaign promises: a pledge to stand with American Jews, whom he heavily courted for their votes in November; a promise to combat ‘anti-American’ behavior on liberal campuses; and, perhaps his top policy priority, the deportation of noncitizens living in the United States illegally.
What is clear is that Trump is willing to use the full power of the federal government, including its purse strings, to dramatically change behavior — by both students and administrators — on college campuses. Trump applauded the detention of Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and called it ‘the first arrest of many to come.’”
The Trump Administration has not defined what it means by antisemitism. It refers to a hopelessly vague statement made by the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia. That definition reads:
“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Note that the working definition does not mention the state of Israel. It only refers to Jews. The relationship between Israel’s identity as a Jewish state and its obligations as a secular state in the international system is fraught with peril. Does supporting the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people attack or denigrate Judaism? For some in Israel, the expansion of Israeli borders to those roughly comparable to the covenant made by God to the Jewish people is such an offense. But secular international law does not recognize the Bible (or the Koran) as authoritative. Moreover some living in the contested regions trace their heritage to a period of time before Jews even arrived in the region. Indeed, the very name, “Jerusalem” means “City of Shalem” (a non-Jewish deity).
The current danger is that the Trump Administration conflates antisemitism with any attack on the state ot Israel. Some attacks on Israel are clearly antisemitic–calls for the elimination of the state of Israel are unquestionably antisemitic. But are calls for recognizing the right of self-determination for Palestinians necessarily antisemitic? My own opinion is that as long as those calls are restricted to areas not recognized by a majority of states in the system as part of Israel (the Gaza Strip, the West Back, and the Golan Heights), they do not represent an attack on the state of Israel. It is a fine, but defensible, distinction and one worth protecting.
But fine distinctions are often lost in protest movements–they are often a messy amalgam of people with very different agendas. In my own experience in protests against the Vietnam war, the movements were populated by some who genuinely thought that US policy was morally indefensible; some thought the war was impossible to win; some joined the protests because they supported North Vietnam; some supported North Vietnam because they were socialists or communists; and some joined the movement in search of rock and roll, sex, and drugs. The same is true of the protests against Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip.
We still do not know what Mahmoud Khalil did or said in the Columbia anti-Israel protests. He certainly was a central figure in the movement, but his proposed deportation by the Trump Administration was justified because he participated in “activities aligned to Hamas.” He was in the US legally as a student at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs (I have a degree from that school) and thus was protected by the US Constitution. At some point we deserve to hear more specific details about what Khalil’s “activities” were that were not protected by the First Amendment. I sincerely doubt, however, that Khalil will be found to have done nothing more than to forcefully advicate for the rights of the Palestinian people.
The decision to punish Khalil was accompanied by punishments against Columbia University for its failure to prevent antisemitic acts on campus. Those punishments are outlined in a letter to Columbia sent by the Trump Adminstration. That letter can be viewed below
The scale and scope of these punishments are extraordinary and represent a ruthless threat to all colleges and universities in the US. The arrogance of asking for all these changes to be detailed in 7 days is breathtaking. It represents a very direct intervention by the state into the curriculum of Columbia by putting various departments in “receivership”. Finally, by not carefully articulating the charges against Khalil, the Trump Administration has created a huge grey zone in which academics might fear to express their true thoughts for fear of jeopardizing their institution. These moves mimic the actions of the Nazi Government as described in an article in Nature:
“The problem originated in 1933, when the Nazi government issued a law that stripped those who had decided to leave Germany because of persecution not only of German citizenship but also of academic qualifications, mostly doctorates.
“Soon after, the law was extended to any German resident exhibiting ‘antisocial behaviour’ — a move targeted at Jewish, communist and dissident academics.
“Each university was ordered by the ministry of education to alter its rules to facilitate the derecognition of doctorates. Although the 31 universities then in Germany differed in the extent to which they applied the law, by 1945 an estimated 1,000 academics had lost their titles in this way.”
The problem originated in 1933, when the Nazi government issued a law that stripped those who had decided to leave Germany because of persecution not only of German citizenship but also of academic qualifications, mostly doctorates.
Soon after, the law was extended to any German resident exhibiting ‘antisocial behaviour’ — a move targeted at Jewish, communist and dissident academics.
What makes this position of the Trump Administration so galling is that it does not hold itself to the same standards. One of Trump’s key adivsors, Elon Musk, retweeted this post, which is unquestionably anitsemitic: “Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn’t murder millions of people. Their public sector workers did.” The Trump Administration should immediately cancel all of Musk’s contracts with the Federal Government if it does not want to contradict its own policies.
“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink” ― George Orwell, 1984
President Trump and his Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, both claimed that President Trump had “identified and stopped $50 million being sent to Gaza to buy condoms for Hamas”. I was struck by this curious claim since the US has not been sending money to Hamas and decided to explore whether the claim was true.
It turns out that the US had sent $102 million to the International Medical Corps which had received $68 million to set up two field hospitals in the Gaza Strip. When queried, the organization responded that “No US government funding was used to procure or distribute condoms”. The organization described its role in Gaza as follows:
“Since January 2024, the statement said, the organization “has provided healthcare to more than 383,000 civilians who had no other access to services or treatment, including performing about 11,000 surgeries, with one-third of those categorized as major or moderate procedures. We have assisted in the delivery of some 5,000 babies, about 20% of them via cesarean section. In addition, International Medical Corps has screened 111,000 people for malnutrition, treated 2,767 for acute malnutrition, distributed micronutrient supplements to 36,000 people, and more.” Needless to say, all such activities in Gaza will no longer be funded by the US.”
“As the Guardian reported on Tuesday, a comprehensive report issued in September by the US Agency for International Development (USAid), not a penny of the $60.8m in contraceptive and condom shipments funded by the US in the past year went to Gaza. In fact, the accounting shows, there were no condoms sent to any part of the Middle East, and just one small shipment, $45,680 in oral and injectable contraceptives, was sent to the region, all of it distributed to the government of Jordan.”
Subsequent posts on X indicated that the money was in fact sent to Gaza to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. But the Gaza referenced in that $83 million grant was not the Gaza Strip, but rather a province in Mozambique named Gaza which was developed by the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation. The province has a high incidence of AIDS, so it makes sense to send concoms there. There is also a town called Gaza in Iowa–perhaps they received the condoms (one should check out Gaza, Iowa on Google maps–it looks like a lonely place).
Trump and Leavitt told a falsehood. I spent two hours trying to track down whether the assertion was true and used the reports from others who did the same. It was wasted time because there are now millions of Americans who believe that the US sent $50 million of condoms to a terrorist organization. But it was not really wasted because I wrote this post and some Americans now know that Trump lied.
World Politics News 