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.
“Over the decades since the Six Day war in 1967, when Israeli forces first captured the Gaza Strip, which had been under Egyptian military rule, Israeli officials and commentators have periodically pushed the notion that Palestinians in Gaza could be resettled in Egypt.
“Most recently that notion was floated in a leaked paper by Israel’s intelligence ministry – which prepares studies and policy papers rather than representing the intelligence agencies – a few weeks into the war in Gaza.
“That ‘concept’ paper recommended that Israel ‘evacuate the civilian population to Sinai’ then create ‘a sterile zone of several kilometres … within Egypt’ that would prevent return.”
The idea is profoundly offensive and clearly violates the Geneva Convention prohibition against ethnic cleansing. It is also something that the Palesstinians would reject, even though mush of the Strip has been completely decimated. It is extraordinary to view the numbers of people who have taken advantage of the cease-fire to move back into northern Gaza–even though living there will be dangerous, difficult, and uncomfortable. The photograph of the Palestinians moving back is a powerful statement on the Palestinian determination to not repeat the tragedy of the nakbaof 1948.
Both Egypt and Jordan have flatly refused to accept refugees from Gaza. Jordan already has several million Palestinian refugees and Egypt fears that its territory will be compromised by the refugees, who would likely continue to attempt moving back to Gaza. The Washington Post reports:
“Reaction from the Middle East was quick — and sharply negative. Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, said that Jordan’s opposition to displacement of Palestinians was ‘firm and will not change.’ The Egyptian Embassy on Sunday reposted a 2023 comment by its ambassador, Motaz Zahran, saying that ‘Egypt cannot be part of any solution involving the transfer of Palestinians into Sinai.’”
“Germany on Monday rejected US President Donald Trump’s proposal to move Palestinians from Gaza to nearby countries – Egypt and Jordan.
“Speaking at a press briefing in Berlin, Foreign Ministry spokesman Christian Wagner said that Germany maintains its commitment to the international consensus regarding Gaza’s status.
“’There is a common position shared by the EU, our Arab partners and the United Nations, which is very clear: The Palestinian population cannot be expelled from Gaza, and Gaza must not be permanently occupied or resettled by Israel,’ he said.
“Wagner added that the G7 group of the world’s leading economies, which includes the US, has so far consistently supported this position in multiple joint statements.
“’Expulsions from Gaza, and establishing new settlements here is not possible. This is also something that we made very clear during the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Tokyo in 2023. In this respect, I think our position is more than clear,’ he said.”
If Trump and Netanyahu succeed in “cleaning out” Gaza, the possibilities for a two-state solution are completely eliminated. John Lyons of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation makes that argument:
“Trump’s move has been seen here in Israel as essentially saying that these and other armed and violent settlers can commit any atrocities against Palestinians with impunity and without interference from the US. Rarely are Jewish settlers brought to justice by Israel for acts of violence against Palestinians.
“Trump’s early appointments are also a strong indication that a Palestinian state is very much an endangered species.
“He has chosen former Arkansas governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee as new US Ambassador to Israel. According to The Times of Israel, Huckabee has said that Israel’s claim to the West Bank is “stronger than American ties to Manhattan” and he even laid bricks in 2018 as ground was broken on a new housing complex in the settlement of Efrat.
“The website reported that Huckabee had said that “of course” annexation of the West Bank was a possibility during Trump’s second term.”
Israel is the only country today that occupies territory with such a large population. There is no justification for its war of conquest.
Last June, the US house of Representatives banned the State Department from using death statistics published by the Gaza Ministry of Health. The amendment was supported by most Republicans and many Democrats but the Senate has yet to pass on the legislation. The rationale for the amendment was best expressed by David Adesnik, Senior Fellow and Director of Research at the conservative think-tank, Fund for Defense of Democracies: “It’s a complete abdication of responsibility for the Biden administration to say it trusts the Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers because the UN considers them trustworthy. We’ve seen that the UN puts blind faith in the ministry’s numbers even when they’re completely implausible. As a result of trusting numbers from a Hamas-controlled entity, the Biden administration has become more focused on the restraints it can put on Israeli forces than how it can help accelerate Hamas’s defeat.” Israel has also criticized the Ministry’s statistics. The Anti-Defamation League published this analysis of the Gaza Minitstry of Health:
“ADL calls on all news organizations to properly caveat data and information cited from the Gaza Health Ministry with clear mention that it is controlled by Hamas and that it has shared false and misleading information in the past. Journalists and news organizations must acknowledge when their sources may be unconfirmed or unreliable.”
It turns out that the Gaza Ministry of Health undercounted the casualties (it only counts bodies that are visible, and does not search through destroyed buildings to find bodies that are covered by rubble). The amendment to legislation was According to the Lancet, one of the world’s premier medical journals, the death toll in the war against Gaza has been significantly undercounted. The study was limited to the period 7 October 2023 to 30 June 2024 so it does not include any reported deaths since July. The Lancet study came to this conclusion: “We estimated 64 260 deaths…due to traumatic injury during the study period, suggesting the Palestinian MoH under-reported mortality by 41%.” The Gaza Ministry of Health currently tallies about 47,000 deaths. If the undercounting of 41% holds from the period of 1 July 2025-11 January 2025, then a straight extrapolation would suggest a death total of about 67,000.
The Lancet study only looked at deaths attributed to military action. The report states that “our findings underestimate the full impact of the military operation in Gaza, as they do not account for non-trauma-related deaths resulting from health service disruption, food insecurity, and inadequate water and sanitation.” It is extraordinarily difficult to make precise estimates of these deaths (called “indirect” deaths in the literature), but the Watson Institute at Brown University has done a solid study. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has also done a report on the long-term effects of such conditions in Gaza.
It is very clear that we lack knowledge of the actual conditions in the Gaza Strip. But we should be extremely wary of attempts to undermine the credibility of sources by parties which have a vested interest in particular conclusions. It appears as if the Gaza Ministry of Health was, and is, the most reliable source in this dispute.
The collapse of the Assad regime in Syria is rapidly changing the geopolitics of the Middle East. The Assad family had ruled in Syria for 50 years, but its collapse only took a few weeks. At this time, I would not hazard a guess about who will rule Syria in the future, or even whether Syria will remain a nation-state or devolve into mini-states ruled by different factions.
In reality, Syria fell apart 13 years ago as a popular movement known as the “Arab Spring” swept through many states in the Middle East in 2011. The Assad regime barely survived that movement and has been propped up by both Russia and Iran since that time. Russia, weakened by its war against Ukraine, and Iran, weakened by the Israeli attacks against its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, were unable to maintain that support as a rebel group in Syria, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, seized control of Damascus. But there are many groups within Syria, as described by the BBC:
“Among these groups – some now in Damascus – are rebel factions that once operated under the banner of the Free Syrian Army from southern towns and cities that had been dormant for years, but where the spark of rebellion had never entirely been sniffed out.
“Over to the east, Kurdish-led forces have benefited from the collapse of the Syrian army to take full control of the main city, Deir El-Zour. In the vast Syrian desert, remnants of the so-called Islamic State could also look to take advantage of the situation. And in the far north along the Turkish border, the Syrian National Army – backed by Ankara – could also prove to be a significant player in what happens next.”
In terms of the geopolitics of the region, the big losers are Russia and Iran. The big winners are Turkey and Israel. Turkish ambitions might be stymied by the strong Kurdish community in Syria. But the Israelis have taken advantage of the power vacuum in Syria by launching military assaults against virtually every Syrian military installation. Mondoweiss reports:
“Even as Bashar al-Assad was scrambling to get out of Syria, Israel was mobilizing its military to take advantage of the power vacuum that Assad’s ouster had created. After five decades of a low-level conflict between the two countries, Israel saw an opportunity to change the calculus, and it seized it.
“As of Wednesday, Israel had struck Syria nearly 500 times. Their goal with these attacks has been to essentially destroy Syria’s military capability, and they have already succeeded. Reports by Israeli media claim that well over 80% of Syria’s weaponry, ships, missiles, aircraft, and other military supplies have been damaged or destroyed.
“In essence, Israel has rendered Syria completely defenseless. “
Moreover, Israeli Defense Forces have seized territory in Syria which includes Mount Hermon, which offers Israel a critically important strategic location giving it the ability to monitor activities in Lebanon and Syria with great accuracy. The map of Israeli occupation is striking.
Israel has ordered the IDF to maintain its control of Mount Hermon throughout the winter and has suggested that its occupation is temporary. But, given its strategic significance, it is unlikely that Israel will return control of the mountain to Syria. Indeed, some in Israel have proposed that Israel should annex the terriroty, as reported by the Middle East Monitor:
“Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli yesterday called for Israel to occupy the summit of Mount Hermon in Syria.
“Chikli said: ‘The events in Syria are far from a cause for celebration. Although Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham and its leader, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, portray themselves as a new product, ultimately most of Syria is now under the control of affiliate organisations of Al-Qaeda.’
“’The good news is the growing strength of the Kurds and the expansion of their control in the northeast of the country,’ the Likud Party member said, noting that ‘Israel must operationally renew its control at Mount Hermon [in the occupied Golan Heights] and establish a new line of defence based on the ceasefire line of 1974 [with Syria].’
“Chikli’s statements come despite a call by the office Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, not to make statements about developments in Syria, while the Likud Party asked its members in the Knesset not to conduct interviews about Syria without the approval of Netanyahu’s office, according to reports by the Israeli public radio yesterday.”
Israel has now seized territory in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Syria. This is unquestionably a war of conquest.
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post about the Amnesty International report on genocide in the Gaza Strip, I call to your attention a website created by Israeli historian, Lee Mordechai, an associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It is entitled “Bearing Witness to the Israel-Gaza War.”
In his preface to the report, Mordechai says:
“The enormous amount of evidence I have seen, much of it referenced later in this document, has been enough for me to believe that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. I explain why I chose to use the term below. Israel’s campaign is ostensibly its reaction to the Hamas massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, in which war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed within the context of the longstanding conflict between Israelis and Palestinians that can be dated back to 1917 or 1948 (or other dates). In all cases, historical grievances and atrocities do not justify additional atrocities in the present. Therefore, I consider Israel’s response to Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 utterly disproportionate and criminal.”
Further in the Preface, Mordechai directly addresses the critical questions of intent:
“The evidence I have seen and discuss indicates that one of Israel’s very likely objectives is to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip, whether in part or in total, by removing as many Palestinians as feasibly possible. Key members in Israel’s government have made statements confirming this intent, and several of Israel’s government ministries have planned or worked to facilitate such an end, sometimes by persuading or pressuring other states. Israel has already cleared significant parts of the Gaza strip by demolition and bulldozing, also attempting to destroy the fabric of Palestinian society by deliberately targeting civilian institutions such as universities, libraries, archives, religious buildings, historical sites, farms, schools, cemeteries, museums and markets. So far more than 60% of the buildings in the Gaza Strip have been destroyed or damaged.”
He goes on:
“All the evidence I have seen indicates that Israel is systematically destroying Gaza to make it unlivable in the future. In the first week of fighting, Israel dropped 6,000 bombs on Gaza – over the annual total used by the US in Afghanistan.48 In the first three months of fighting Israel had destroyed over 10,000 buildings in the Strip – compared to some 4,700 buildings in Aleppo after three years of fighting. A coalition of aid groups stated in December that rebuilding the housing destroyed to that point will take 7 to 10 years if financing is available and will cost some $3.5 billion.49 According to a joint report by the World Bank and the UN, the cost of damage to physical structures alone was around $18.5 billion at the end of January (the cost during the 2014 Protective Edge was $1.4 billion).50 In mid May a UN official stated that rebuilding could cost around $50 billion over two decades.51 The amount of debris created by the destruction of residential areas (estimates ranged between 26 and 37 million tons in April) will take many years to remove.52 A top UN demining official claimed that simply clearing the debris could take as much as 14 years.53 An expert on the warfare-related destruction pointed out that the case of Gaza fits the term ‘domicide’, a massive violation of the right to housing and basic infrastructure in residential areas by making them inhabitable, which is itself a crime against humanity.48
“Israel is said to have dropped over 500 2,000-pound bombs within the densely populated urban area, despite the massive collateral damage these bombs cause (causing death or injury in a radius of up to 365 meters around the target). These bombs are four times heavier than the largest bombs the United States used when fighting ISIS in Mosul; the US dropped a single such 2,000-pound bomb throughout its fight with ISIS.54 After two months of fighting, Israel had already caused more destruction in Gaza than Syria in Aleppo (2012-2016), Russia in Mariupol in 2022, or (proportionally) the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II,55 as well as the fights against ISIS in Mosul (2016-7) and Raqqa (2017).56“
The report is meticulously documented and judicious in its language. It is definitely worth a careful read.
World Politics News 