As we approach the one-year anniversary of the brutal Hamas attack on Israel, the conflict is also nearing a critical point in the escalation cycle. After the Iranian missile attack last Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that:
“This evening, Iran again attacked Israel with hundreds of missiles. This attack failed. It was thwarted thanks to Israel’s air defense array, which is the most advanced in the world. I commend the IDF for the impressive achievement. It was also thwarted thanks to your alertness and responsibility, citizens of Israel. I also thank the US for its support in our defensive effort.
“This evening, Iran made a big mistake – and it will pay for it. The regime in Tehran does not understand our determination to defend ourselves and to exact a price from our enemies…
“We will keep to the rule we have determined: Whoever attacks us – we attack them.
“This is true wherever we fight the axis of evil. It is true in Judea and Samaria. It is true in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria – and it is also true in Iran. We are fighting the axis of evil everywhere, including in southern Lebanon and Gaza, where our heroic soldiers are active.
“Today, more than ever, the forces of light in the world must unite and work together against the ayatollahs’ dark regime, which is the source of terror and evil in our region. They must stand alongside Israel. The choice has never been more clear, between tyranny and freedom, between the blessing and the curse.”
Both Israel and Iran face a very serious problem–their efforts to deter each other have failed. Iran thought that by arming Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel would not take actions to endanger their citizens. Further, Iran believed that its missile forces would deter Israeli action against Iran. Israel proved these assumptions to be incorrect. Israel believed that its anti-missile systems, buttressed by US forces in the region, would lead Iran to believe that a missile attack on Israel would fail. That assumption is less certain now than it was before 7 October.
Both Hamas and Israel miscalculated. Many observers, including me, were shocked by the intensity of the Israeli response to the 7 October atrocity. And many, including me, believe that the Israeli response in the Gaza (and now in Lebanon) to be wildly disproportionate. After the Iranian missile attack last April, which consisted of about 300 missiles most of which were intercepted by the Israeli and US forces, Israel determined that its civilian population was sufficiently protected to permit extensive Israeli military actions, including the missile attack on Tehran which killed the leader of Hamas, Haniyeh. But that assumption now looks to be problematic.
The Iranian missile attack last Tuesday consisted of 200 missiles, but about 20 of those missiles actually hit Israeli military bases., suggesting that the Israelil missile defense was not as robust as was assumed. The Israeli Defense Force first announced that the Iranian attack had been unsuccessful and that damage was minimal. But National Public Radio quotes Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey:
“Lewis notes that although over 30 missiles landed inside the base perimeter, the damage caused was still somewhat limited. That’s notable because Iran is believed to have used some of its most advanced Fattah missiles.
“‘Even these missiles, which look substantially more accurate, still struggled to do damage,’ he says.
“Still, he thinks the attack has shown that Iran can strike at targets well inside Israel. ‘They can definitely get missiles through,’ he says.”
If Iranian missiles can penetrate the Israeli missile defense system, then the Israeli civilian population is at risk. The missiles on Tuesday struck Israeli military bases. Iran clearly made a decision not to target civilian population centers. One such missile hitting a city like Tel Aviv or Haifa could be damaging (but not catastrophic), and would change the calculations of acceptable losses for Israel.
There are, however, questions to be raised before the expected Israeli counterattack. The Iranians launched 300 missiles last April, but only around 200 on Tuesday. That difference is significant. It could signal that Iran’s response to the assassination of Nasrallah was not so important and that the Iranians felt they could be restrained. Or it could be that Iran was trying to preserve as much of their missile force as possible for future asttacks. Or it could mean that Iran was only trying to get a better read on the effectiveness of Israeli missile defenses. I personally believe thats Iran’s decision to avoid population centers was a clear signal that Iran did not wish to provoke a major escalation, even though it was bound to retaliate for the assassination of Nasrallah.
Now Israel has to send some messages as well. Interestingly, US President Biden indicated to journalists that he did not think the Israelis should attack the nuclear facilities in Iran, nor should it attack the oil production centers in Iran. An attack on Iranian population centers would be roundly condemned by most in the world. So Israel has to think about what message it wishes to send to both Tehran and Washington.
There are other considerations as well. The Israeli missile defense system is mostly effective, but it is truly expensive. Offensive missiles are reltively cheap; defensive missiles require a great deal of infrastructure,, including extensive radar systems and very sophisticated targeting mechanisms. Offensive missiles can be used for a variety of targets. Defensive interceptor missiles have only one objective, but an objective that has to be perfectly targeted to be considered a “success”. The drain on the Israeli economy will be substantial and Israel’s economy is already suffering from the costs of the war. The Economist reports:
“Stronger economic growth would ease the pain. Although reservists have returned to work and consumption has returned to pre-war levels, Israel’s economy remains smaller than it was on the eve of war. Mr Smotrich has cushioned the least productive parts of society and starved industry of resources. The labour market remains ultra-tight, with the unemployment rate at just 2.7%. Firms are struggling to fill vacancies and Israel’s small high-tech companies are under strain. They are losing out on funding owing to the war, warns Startup Nation, a local think-tank.
“Some 80,000 Palestinian workers were denied permits after October 7th, and have never been replaced. As a consequence, the construction industry is 40% smaller than it was this time last year, greatly impeding housebuilding and repairs. For now, the biggest impact has been on inflation, which hit an annual rate of 3.6% in August, having accelerated over the summer. Should the scale of Hizbullah attacks increase, the lack of construction workers will become an even bigger problem….
“Then there is the nightmare scenario. Few investors are preparing for a war that would engulf all of Israel, including Jerusalem or Tel Aviv—even though Hizbullah may be capable of launching such an attack. In these circumstances economic growth would be hit hard, perhaps even harder than after October 7th. Army outgoings would soar. Fleeing investors would probably topple banks and send the shekel plummeting, forcing the Bank of Israel to intervene and spend its reserves.
“Whatever happens, Israeli economists are resigned to things getting worse. Even Mr Smotrich, generally a bullish type, now emits an air of exhaustion: ‘We are in the longest and most expensive war in Israel’s history.’ Previous conflicts have come at a heavy cost to Israel. Do not be surprised if this one does, too.”
Israel is also free to ignore President Biden’s caution, but the price of that tactic could be substantial. Prime Minister Netanyahu has already ignored several US proposals for a cease-fire, and the cumulative effect of indifference to US preferences could lead many in the US to consider Israel to be an unreliable ally–a problem that could get very difficult for Netanyahu if Kamala Harris wins the Presidential election. In many places in the world, Israel is already becoming a pariah nation.
Finally, a massive Israeli counterattack would send a clear message to Iran that its reliance on conventional weapons is dangerous. A unfortunate paradox of Israeli miltary prowess is that it may lead Iran to the decision that its only effective defense is to build a nuclear weapon–exactly the most troubling scenario nettling the Israeli defense establishment.
Deterrence has failed for both sides. Re-establishing deterrence is a very tricky business, fraught with the possibility of serious misreadings of intentions or inaccurate calculation of risks and costs. Israel’s response to Iran will determine the course of this wretched conflict.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has established Israel as a rogue state with no red lines. It has attacked the Gaza Strip, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran with few repercussions to its own security. And it has launched these attacks with no hints whatsoever as to what would be acceptable terms of peace. Consider: the Gaza Strip has been almost completely destroyed and its inhabitants do not know how the devastation might stop. The US and its allies have all stated that the only possible resolution to the conflict would be the implementation of a two-state solution. Netanyahu has explicitly rejected this approach, according to the New York Times:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel doubled down on his opposition to the creation of a Palestinian state this weekend, again rebuffing pressure from President Biden to agree to that path after the war in Gaza is over.
“My insistence is what has prevented — over the years — the establishment of a Palestinian state that would have constituted an existential danger to Israel,” Mr. Netanyahu said in a statement in Hebrew on Sunday. “As long as I am prime minister, I will continue to strongly insist on this.”
“The statement reiterated comments he made on social media the previous day, when he said in Hebrew that he “will not compromise on full Israeli security control of the entire area west of the Jordan River — and that is irreconcilable with a Palestinian state.”
Because it has offered no alternative, Israel only offers continued occupation, and it demands that the “elimination” of its enemies is the price that the Palestinian people have to pay for those terms if they want peace. And now the same terms are being offered to Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Moreover, there are apparently no limits on how Netanyahu defines “elimination”. The current war in Gaza was precipated by a heinous Hamas attack that killed 1,200 Israelis but the counterattack on the Gaza has killed almost 42,000 Palestinians, the majority of which are women and children. The disproportionate ratios are also reflected in the losses suffer by the Lebanese in the current escalation, as demonstrated graphically byBloomberg:
The one-sidedness of this conflict means many things, but the one point most relevant to any possible settlement is that the terms of a settlement acceptable to Israel is the complete and utter capitulation of the Palestinian people and that Israel is willing to kill as many people and to attack any state required to achieve that capitulation.
As I have argued before, Israel is only able to follow this strategy because the US continues to arm and financially support Israel with no conditions and that the US is willing to provide the necessary shield to prevent any Israeli civilian losses from attacks from any state in the region. The attack on the Hezbollah headquarters in Beirut was likely done by a 2,000 pound bomb supplied by the US, even though President Biden had earlier banned the export of such bombs to Israel because of their indiscriminate destruction. The Israeli air strike against Yemen yesterday was especially significant because it was a difficult mission that demonstrated the geographic reach of Israeli power as described by The Jerusalem Post:
“Until July, the IDF had outsourced responses to the Houthis to the US, which was fighting the group over various maritime aggression issues. However, after the Houthis killed a civilian in Tel Aviv, the Jewish state struck back directly for the first time.
“During Israel’s July counterstrike, it took two hours and 50 minutes for the IDF’s F-15s, F-35s, and other fighter jets, which carried out around 10 airstrikes against the Houthis, to reach their targets in the Hodeidah Port area. Those aircraft took off around 3 p.m. on July 20 and struck their targets around 6 p.m.
“Although the IDF kept classified the exact number of aircraft it used to refuel its fighter jets to make the 1,800-kilometer flight and return safely during that July attack, it provided a dramatic video showing some of the mid-air refueling in real-time.
“Sunday’s flights and refueling were equally complex, intended to completely destroy the Houthis’ capability (as opposed to a partial cut in July) to receive refined products, including weapons, from Iran.”
The significance of the attack was not in the destruction it caused in Yemen, but rather the message sent by Israel to Iran that it had the capability to attack Iran (also because the Saudis allowed Israel to use its airspace to make the flight). Reuters highlights Netanyahu’s objective:
“Israel warned Iran on Monday that nowhere in the Middle East was beyond its reach and hinted at a land invasion of Lebanon after assassinating the leader of the Tehran-backed Hezbollah group, one of its biggest adversaries, in a Beirut suburb last week.
“‘There is nowhere we will not go to protect our people and protect our country,’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a three-minute video clip in English that he addressed to the Iranian people.”
The Iranians have taken actions, such as hiding high-ranking officials, in anticipation of such an attack. I doubt, however, that the Iranians want such a war–the country is weak economically and suffering from drought, a weak economy, and questions about the legitimacy of the regime. More importantly, however, Iran does not have a viable military option. As long as the US is committed to the aerial defense of Israel, there is probably nothing that the Iranians could do do change Netanyahu’s determination to eliminate Israel’s enemies. This is particularly true given that Israel has demonstrated that its has pierced Iranian intelligence by its assassination of Ismail Haniyeh right in the heart of Tehran. Israel also compromised the communications network of Hezbollah by its bold tactic of planting explosives in the pagers and walkie-talkies of Hezbollah activists.
There is, however, one course of action open to the Iranians. It could take to heart the lesson of the fate of the “axis of evil” identified by US President George W. Bush after the 11 September attack on the US. The axis consisted of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. Iraq had no nuclear weapons and was invaded by the US in 2003 and its government was overthrown and the country occupied by the US for a number of years. North Korea, on the other hand, did have nuclear weapons and does not have to worry about an attack by the US or its allies. The lesson seems clear: if one is worried about an attack by a state that is militarily superior and has indicated that it has no constraints on the use of force, then possession of a nuclear weapon is the best defense.
I sincerely doubt that Iran wants a nuclear weapon. The late Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, called nuclear weapons inconsistent with Islam in 2010. But Iran exists in a dangerous neighborhood. Some of its closest neighbors–Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel–already have nuclear weapons and the US is constantly patrolling the Persian Gulf with ships that are nuclear-capable. Iran unquestionably has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon. but would have to develop a nuclear weapon secretly so that Israel would not launch a pre-emptive strike against its nuclear facilities. A nuclear test conducted by Iran would quickly raise the costs of any Israeli action against it. The outcome of a nuclear Iran is decidedly against Israel’s and the world’s interest. But territorial integrity and sovereignty are attributes without which a state cannot exist, and Israel is currently threatening both of those attributes.
The US must immediately announce that it is suspending all military and financial assistance to Israel until Israel puts forth a proposal for the two-state solution that effectively creates the opporunity for the Palestinians to exercise their inherent right of self-determination. That aspiration will never die no matter how many leaders in Hamas, Hezbollah, Yemen, and Iran that the Israelis succeed in assassinating. This has been the official position of the US ever since the war in 1967, and it is second only to the Cuban Embargo as a bootless policy–it is an objective that has been purely rhetorical and meaningless to the countless number of people who have died in the region. Fifty-seven years is a very long time for a power to remain impotent, and Netanyahu has apparently no compunction to disregard American counsel or interests.
The situation is reminiscent of the difficulties the US had in floating peace proposals during the Vietnam war. In 1972, the US had reached agreement with North Vietnam on a cease-fire, but South Vietnamese President Thieu rejected the proposal as a “surrender to the Communists”. Rather than using its formidable levers to change Thieu’s mind, the US instead chose to amplify its military commitment to South Vietnam and the war expanded and dragged on for two more years. President Nixon chose the military path because he did not wish the US to appear as a “pitiful, helpless giant”. The US became a hostage to its weaker ally and many died because of US inaction on the diplomatic front. In the immediate case, choosing a diplomatic path is the only effective course of action. The US must clearly tell Netanyahu that that path is the only one it will support even as it promises to defend Israel against any attack on its territory, but it will not support any further expansion of the war.
Like Thieu, Netanyahu can ignore the US, but the US needs to make clear to its ally that it means what it says. If Israel wants to continue the carnage, then the US should no longer be an accomplice to the war crimes being committed. Israel is a sovereign state and the US should not dictate to Israel what it should do. But Israel also should not tell the US that it has to support actions that do not serve US interests.
Israel dramatically escalated the conflict in the Middle East by bombing what it called the headquarters of Hezbollah in Beirut, killing the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, as well as Gen. Abbas Nilforushan, one of the prominent generals in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The timing of the attack was impeccable: the Israeli Knesset is in recess until 24 October and the US in nearing its Presidential election which make any dramatic change in US policy unlikely. The US was not forewarned about the attack and it came as Israel rebuffed US efforts to forge a temporary cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel.
Hezbollah has long been opposed to the state of Israel and there have been many clashes between the two entities which included Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982, an event that led to the formation of Hezbollah and an occupation that lasted 20 years. That occupation was a disaster for Israel–it was very costly in lives and expense–and it settled nothing: “In 1982, tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers were sent into Lebanon. About 650 Israeli soldiers were killed in the fighting and another 750 during the subsequent occupation. That makes it Israel’s third costliest war, after 1948 and 1973.” [that article was published in 2006 and does not include the expense of the current war].
There is little sympathy for Hezbollah in the world, but in 2018 Lebanese election, Hezbollah and its allies gained a majority in the Parliament (but lost the majority in the 2022 election). So we are not just talking about a terrorist organization but also a major political actor in Lebanon. The US and its European allies will not shed any tears about the killing of Nasrallah, but all Israeli allies are worried about what the next step in the conflict may be.
It seems likely that both Iran and Hezbollah will respond in force, but neither side has any good options given the Israeli defenses and the willingness of the US to provide additional air defense protection. THe failure of an earlier Iranian attack, in which it launched almost 300 missiles which were mostly intercepted, makes anything other than a massed missile attack likely to fail. Such an attack would likely require attacks against population centers which would outrage the world. But Iran and Hezbollah lack the ability to make effective attacks aginst specific military targets in Israel. Neither Iran and Hezbollah can afford to appear impotent if they wish to maintain their ability to organize opposition to Israel.
While there may not be an effective response to the Israeli attack, it is also not clear what Israel has gained through this attack. Both the US and Israel have a fixation on assassinating individuals in hopes of affecting the dynamics of the long-standing conflict. Israel has been remarkably successful in killing people it believed were involved in terrorist activities. Wikipedia has a list of those killed by Israeli forces and it is extensive (too long to reproduce here).
But killing individuals is not the same as addressing the root causes of the violence. Nasrallah is dead, but does anyone doubt that Hezbollah will find a new leader? Indeed, the ranks of Hezbollah have probably increased as a result of the Israeli attacks. And, if Israel invades Lebanon to ssecure its border, how long will the Israeli occupation last?
Israel has seemingly unlimited resources ot fight its wars and the US offers Israel almost airtight protection against counterattacks. Netanyahu obviously believes that more war is the right course of action for Israel. Perhaps Netanyahu should be reminded that there is a real possibility that its allies will withdraw their support unless Netanyahu begins to pursue policies that lead to peaceful resolution.
Israeli Prime Minister is clearly provoking Hezbollah into a broader regional war. Since the 7 October attacks by Hamas on Israel, there has been a persistent low-level conflict at the Israeli-Lebanese border. But the Israelis have escalated the conflict throught the introduction of the booby-trapped pagers and walkie-talkies and the direct aerial attack on Beirut. These actions comes on top of the Israeli attacks against Hezbollah and Hamas leaders in Syria and Iran. In short, Israel has already committed acts of war against three soveriegn states: Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.
These attacks have been quite successful in diminishing the command structure of both Hamas and Hezbollah. But the apparent Israeli assumption that by eradicating the leadership of these organizations, it is reducing the tactical threats of these organizations to Israeli security is profoundly mistaken. Unquestionably, these organizations have been set back and will need to establish new leadership and new communication strategies. But the attacks serve only to amplify the sense of grievance that underlies the conflict. In particular, Hezbollah will have to respond in some effective way or it runs the risk of becoming totally irrelevant. Writing for the Long War Journal, Joe Truzman outlines the dynamic:
“How and when will Hezbollah respond against Israel is the question on the minds of Israeli military leaders, analysts, and many people living in the region. Retaliation will surely come, but it won’t be a knee-jerk reaction. Hezbollah has demonstrated over the past 11 months that despite initiating a conflict with Israel under the guise of assisting Palestinian civilians in Gaza, it prefers to keep the fighting limited to southern Lebanon. However, after months of rocket fire against Israel and the resounding response by the IDF in the last days, the era of limited conflict may be reaching its conclusion in the days ahead.”
Hezbollah and Iran have been remarkably restrained thus far in their responses to the Israeli attacks, most likely because they have yet to figure out an effective response. The both know that the US and its allies in the region have the capability to shoot down many missiles before they hit their targets. The only possible way for Hezbollah and Iran to actually damage the Israeli homeland is through a massive attack that would deplete their arsenals and would only be effective against population centers in Israel. Such an attack, however, would clearly trigger off a massive response by Israel and the US. That outcome would be disastrous, but it might be a better outcome than humiliation and irrelevance.
The real question is why Israel is pushing its adversaries into such a catastrophic position. The question takes on special urgency since we have no idea what the Netanyahu government intends to do with the Gaza Strip. The war there is essentially over: Hamas is probably incapable of launching any attacks on the Israeli homeland any time soon: “As military operations continue in Gaza and the West Bank, the overall posture of the Israeli military appears to have shifted north. Israel has shifted its 98th Division, which contains the Commando and Paratroop Brigade, to the north. This is a key division that played a major role in Gaza fighting between November 2023 and July 2024. It is joining a number of IDF divisions already deployed there.”
But a larger war would take the eyes of the world off of Gaza and that objective may be the purpose of the escalation–to provide cover for the eventual takeover of the Gaza Strip by Israel. The Middle East Eye suggests that this objective is indeed real: “The threat of war, however, will have implications far beyond Lebanon, as it will turn the world’s attention away from Gaza and allow Israel to complete its mass killing and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.” NBC News reports:
“Warnings from the White House — and the United Nations’ top court — appear to have done little to stop some of Israel’s right-wing ministers from touting a vision that the country’s own prime minister has dismissed: rebuilding Israeli settlements in Gaza after the war.
“Several ministers within Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s right-wing government were among thousands of people who flocked to a conference in Jerusalem on Sunday night calling for Israelis’ ‘resettlement’ of Gaza, with far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich delivering keynote speeches.
“The conference, dubbed ‘Settlement Brings Security,’ was led in part by the right-wing Nachala organization, a group advocating for the expansion of Jewish settlements, which are considered illegal by international and humanitarian bodies. The event called for Israel to rebuild settlements in both Gaza and northern parts of the occupied West Bank.”
That objective seems fanciful, given the massive destruction in Gaza. But it is precisely because the Israelis have destroyed the infrastructure of the Gaza that resettlement becomes possible. No states, including Israeli allies, will contribute to the reconstruction of the Gaza as long as it remains under Israeli control And the Israelis will not contribute to the reconstruction of Gaza unless it is accompanied by resettlement. The end result is that the default option for the battered Gaza Strip is Israeli control.
The Israelis have decided to start a fire in order to put out another fire. They would be well-advised to read The Possessed by Dostoyevky. In that novel, a revolutionary group starts a fire in a town and the immediate response of the townspeople is to put out the fire. But as a governmental official watches those efforts, he reveals the underlying truth to resistance movements:
‘What is he doing there?’
‘He is putting out the fire, your Excellency.’
‘Not likely. The fire is in the minds of men and not on the roofs of houses.’
The chances of a wider regional war in the Middle East have increased over the last few days. Up until recently, the main military activity has been the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, while there have been sporadic military operations between the Israelis and Houthi and Hezbollah forces. Israel has escalated its attacks in Lebanon, attacking a site in Beirut to target a Hezbollah operative, and today it targeted a Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh , in Teheran, Iran. According to the Associated Press:
“Iranian U.N. Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani in a letter on Wednesday blamed both strikes on Israel. He and said they ‘suggest an intention to escalate conflict and expand the war through the entire region.’ He called on the international community for ‘decisive action to address these violations and hold the perpetrators accountable.’”
Israel has taken responsibility for the strike in Beirut, saying it killed a top Hezbollah commander. But Israel has been silent about the strike that killed Haniyeh, though it had vowed to kill him and other Hamas leaders over the group’s Oct. 7 attack that sparked the war in Gaza.
Israel has not claimed responsibility for the assassination of Haniyeh, but has in the case of senior Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukur in Lebanon. Israel, however, has a long list of targeted assassinations in the region. It is difficult to overstate the significance of the more recent assassinations. To be clear, bombing another country is always regarded as an act of war, and Israel has now bombed targets in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Israel believes that its actions are simply a logical extension of its war against Hamas, but that narrow perspective is not justified: no state can ignore the consequences of such attacks on its sovereignty.
The attacks confirm my suspicions that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to escalate the conflict. First, Haniyeh was killed while he was attending the inauguration of the new Iranian President, Masoud Pezeshkian. Pezeshkian is considered a moderate, breaking away from the hardline views of his two predecessors. But the attack will only strengthen the hands of the hardliners in Iran, particularly since the attack was an embarassment to the Iranian defense forces–the attack was done by a precision-guided missile against a target in the capital city of Tehran. Moreover, Haniyeh was a guest in Tehran and the protection of guests is a sacred obligation in Islam.
Second, Haniyeh was a principal negotiator in the current negotiations for a cease-fire in Gaza. There is probably no greater way to sabotage negotiations than to actually kill one of the interlocutors. Moreover, Israel has recently attached more preconditions to a ceasefire that was described by an Israeli official in these terms in an article in Axios: “Netanyahu wants a deal that is impossible to get. At the moment he isn’t willing to move and therefore we might be headed for a crisis in the negotiations rather than a deal”.
There is little question but that Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, will respond to the Israeli attacks. The last time Israel provoked Iran back in April by killing senior Hezbollah officials in Damascus, the Iranians chose a relatively calibrated response. According to The Economist:
“Iran has struck Israel directly once before: it launched more than 300 missiles and drones at Israel in April, retaliation for an Israeli strike that killed several high-ranking officers at Iran’s embassy compound in Damascus. Israel hit back with a pinpoint strike on an Iranian anti-aircraft radar, and the round was over.
“This time, Iran will have to decide whether it can risk a bigger conflagration. It is going through a sensitive political moment. Mr Haniyeh was killed hours after he attended the inauguration of Masoud Pezeshkian, the new Iranian president, who was elected after his predecessor was killed in a helicopter crash in May. This was probably not how he envisioned his first day on the job.”
The calibrated Iranian response was also blunted by a coalition of forces in the region to shoot down most of the missiles fired from Iran. The Center for Strategic and International Studies assessed the missile defense effort:
“This episode represents an outstanding success story for air and missile defense. Despite the over 300 ballistic missiles, drones, and cruise missiles launched, there appears to have been minimal damage to Israeli infrastructure and military assets, and the attack resulted in only one Israeli casualty.
It was also a joint effort. The coalition was led by the United States and featured the United Kingdom, France, and Jordan, in addition to Israel. Coordination took place at the Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which helped to prevent any friendly fire incidents. Although Saudi Arabia has denied direct involvement, the kingdom at least allowed U.S. aircraft stationed in the country to engage Iranian air threats. Israel’s Arab neighbors also may have contributed intelligence and sensor assets to detect and track Iranian air threats, although the extent of this cooperation remains unclear. U.S. policymakers have long advocated for an integrated missile defense in the region, and this joint operation helps illustrate why.”
The Iranian government thus has to decide what an “appropriate” response should be, but it needs to take into account the lessons of the earlier April attack and try to overwhelm the missile defense capabilities of Israel and the US-led coalition. I do not have the technical expertise to speculate on what that number of missiles might be, and I suspect that the US will try to shoot down as many of those missiles as it can which is also a number I do not know.
But there is a more important insight to gain from the April attack. The US and the coalition of allies offering missile defenses are providing a shield which insulates Israel from any real consequences to its actions. That course if action is unwise since it allows the Netanyahu government to take actions which have negatively affected the US, Israel, and the Palestinian people.
Yesterday, the Israeli Knesset declared that the creation of a Palestinian states would “pose an existential danger to the State of Israel.” The vote was 68 to 9 out of a possible 120 votes, and the fact that 43 members did not votes is intriguing, and perhaps, telling. The vote was held just as Prime Minister Netanyahu is scheduled to deliver an address to the US Congress next Wednesday, 24 July. Since US President Biden has repeatedly held that the creastion of a Palestinian state is necessary for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the vote was intended to undermine the US position. To further indicate the growing distance between the US and the Netanyahu government, the Israeli national security ministar, Itamar Ben-Gvir, prayed at the al-Aqsa mosque compound, stating that he had prayed for the Israeli government to not sign a cease-fire agreement over Gaza.
Today, however, the International COurt of Justice relieased its findings in a Advisory Position which was requested by the UN General Assembly in 2022. The decision, “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem“, forcefully reiterated previous legal findings that the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank, territories seized by Israel in the war of 1967, violated both the Geneva and Hague Conventions on occupied territories:
“Conclusion on Israel’s settlement policy
155. In light of the above, the Court reaffirms that the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the régime associated with them, have been established and are being maintained in violation of international law (see Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 184, para. 120).
“156. The Court notes with grave concern reports that Israel’s settlement policy has been expanding since the Court’s Wall Advisory Opinion. In particular, in December 2022 Israel’s parliament approved the establishment of an additional minister within the Ministry of Defence vested with governing powers in the West Bank, including land designations, planning and co-ordination of demolitions, which would expedite the approval process for new settlements. Also, the size of existing Israeli settlements expanded from 1 November 2022 to 31 October 2023 at a significant rate, with approximately 24,300 housing units within existing Israeli settlements in the West Bank being advanced or approved, including approximately 9,670 in East Jerusalem (“Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”, UN doc. A/HRC/55/72 (1 February 2024), paras. 7 and 10).” (p. 47)
“On July 19th the International Court of Justice (icj) rejected all of Israel’s legal claims in response to a request for a legal opinion by the United Nations General Assembly. In a series of coruscating majority rulings, it said that Israel’s prolonged presence can no longer be considered a temporary military occupation, but amounts to illegal annexation that undermines the rights of the Palestinians living there to self-determination. It said the occupation, ‘transfer by Israeli of settlers to the West Bank and Jerusalem’ and ‘forced displacement’ of Palestinians are clear breaches of international law. The bottom line, according to the judges, is that ‘Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is unlawful’ and that the Jewish state is ‘under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities’ and evacuate the settlers already there.
“’Successive Israeli governments have treated the settlements, as well as Israeli control over the area, as an immovable fact on the ground and not even made a pretence of negotiating with the Palestinians,’ says Eliav Lieblich, a professor of international law at Tel Aviv University. ‘This [ruling] was inevitable.’”
The decision is not enforceable. The International Court of Justice can only refer matters to the UN Security Council, and this is only an Advisory Decision. But there are members of the Security Council who would not be willing to even entertain an enforcement resolution. Nonetheless, the decision further isolates Israel and its allies from the vast majority of the states in the United Nations. Currently, 145 of the 193 member states in the UN recognize an independent Palestinian state.
What is most inrtiguing about the decision is that the preferred position of the US on the Israeli-Palestdinian question is that the only possible resolution lies in the creation of an independent Palestine. But the US insists that such an outcome needs to be negotiated and not imposed. The Israeli occupation has lasted for 57 years, and there have been numerous negotiations over those years which have had no discernable effect toward any effective resolution. There is no reason to believe that further negotiations will yield different outcomes. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu released this statement after the Court’s decision: “The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land, including in our eternal capital Jerusalem nor in Judea and Samaria, our historical homeland. No absurd opinion in The Hague can deny this historical truth or the legal right of Israelis to live in their own communities in our ancestral home.”
The time has long past for the US to indulge the fantasy of negotiations. The International Court of Justice has created an opportunity for the US to change its position.
The decision of the Supreme Court on the matter of Trump vs. United States today was a profound disappointment. It offered little on the critical question of whether Mr. Trump’s actions within the Justice Department were official or unofficial acts. Those actions involved replacing certain members of the Justice Department with a new Attorney General (Jeffrey Clark) who wanted to write a letter to various state legislatures suggesting that there were irregularities in the votes cast in the 2020 election which would justify the naming of alternate Electors. The Washington, DC Bar Association moved to disbar Mr. Clark because of these actions, noting that
“‘We must do what we can to ensure that this conduct is never repeated. The way to accomplish that goal is to remove from the profession lawyers who betrayed their constitutional obligations and their country. It is important that other lawyers who might be tempted to engage in similar misconduct be aware that doing so will cost them their privilege to practice law. It is also important for the courts and the legal profession to state clearly that the ends do not justify the means; that process matters; and that this is a society of laws, not men,’ wrote disciplinary counsel Hamilton Fox III. ‘Jeffrey Clark betrayed his oath to support the Constitution of the United States of America. He is not fit to be a member of the District of Columbia Bar.’”
Apparently, the US Supreme Court thinks that Mr. Clark’s behavior fell within the scope of Presidential authority. The majority decision held that
“The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial func- tions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”
Additionally, the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Smith, charged that Mr. Trump tried to improperly influence the actions of the Vice-President, Mr. Pence, to delay the certification of Electoral votes. The Supreme Court held that “The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.”
Critical to both of these findings is the curious statement by the Supreme Court that
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a ‘highly intrusive’ inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on ‘every allegation that an action was unlawful,’ depriving immunity of its intended effect.”
These presumptions are bullshit. Essentially the Court is holding that subverting a valid electoral outcome is not unconstitutional as long as the subversion is done by the President and anyone who serves under the authority of the Executive Branch. By refusing to examine the motivations for the action, the Court is saying that replacing the appointed Attorney General with someone who would subvert the Electoral College was normal activity within the Justice Department. No one questions whether the President had the authority to name a new Attorney General; the only relevant question is whether that action contitutes a crime against the Constitution.
On this question, the Court punts:
“On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.”
In this paragraph, the Court contradicts itself. Having said that an inquiry into the motives of the President are not permissable, the Court ends up holding that whether Mr. Trump was taking action to “ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election” is something that needs to be determined. The Court apparently believe that the motive of ensuring the integrity and proper administration of the federal election is both legitimate and appropriate.
Now the lower courts have to make such a determination. But is there any reason to think that the Supreme Court lacked the ability to make such a determination? Did this decision require more evidence as to whether Mr. Trump’s actions were motivated by his strong desire for a legitimate election outcome? The Court wanted to assure that future Presidents are not paralyzed by the fear of prosecution for official acts. But it now appears that the Court wants lower courts to make such decisions on a case-by-case basis. Future Presidents may not be “paralyzed” by threats to prosecute. However, they will undoubtedly be hamstrung by the Supreme Court’s invitation to anyone who differs on the meaning of an “official act” to sue in the lower courts. It has released the Kraken.
The US vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council which would have enabled the Palestinians to secure a seat in the United Nations. There were two abstentions (the UK and Switzerland) and all the other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution. At the daily Press Briefing at the State Department, Vedant Patel, the spokesperson at the State Department, explained the US decision in a Question and Answer exchange:
“MR PATEL: So Matt, since October 7th, we have been pretty clear that sustainable peace in the region can only be achieved through a two-state solution, with Israel’s security guaranteed. And it remains our view that the most expeditious path towards statehood for the Palestinian people is through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the support of the United States and other partners who share this goal. We believe this approach can tangibly advance Palestinian goals in a meaningful and enduring way.
We also have been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York, even with the best intentions, will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people. Additionally, as reflected in the report of the admission committee, there was not unanimity among the committee members as to whether the applicant met the criteria of membership set forth in Article 4 of the UN Charter. Specifically, there are unresolved questions as to whether the applicant can meet criteria to be considered as a state.
And Matt, as you also know, we’ve long called on the Palestinian Authority to undertake necessary reforms to establish the attributes of readiness for statehood and note that Hamas, which is – as you all know – a terrorist organization, is currently exerting power and influence in Gaza, which would be an integral part of the envisioned state in this resolution. And for that reason, the United States is voting no on this proposed Security Council resolution….
QUESTION: All right. And then you said the most – you believe, the U.S. believes that the most expeditious way to statehood is through direct negotiations. So just to make sure, I just kind of – I just googled “expeditious”: “Marked by or acting with prompt efficiency.” How many years has it been since Oslo?
MR PATEL: It’s been —
QUESTION: Isn’t the most expeditious way to Palestinian statehood to have a – have some kind of an announcement or a determination by the UN? Unless you’re not —
MR PATEL: We don’t think so.
QUESTION: Unless you don’t really mean expeditious, because expeditious means fast.
MR PATEL: We do mean expeditious, and we do not believe that the pathway through New York and the United Nations is the best path forward. And as I so noted, such action through the United Nations would statutorily require the United States to cease its funding to the UN. That’s certainly not something we’re interested in doing either.
I take your point on the number of years it has been Oslo, but this is something that we will continue to pursue, because we so firmly believe that it is in – not just in the interest of the Palestinian people, but it is a key tenet of establishing peace and security for the people of Israel as well.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR PATEL: Humeyra, go ahead.
QUESTION: Vedant, so what is the U.S. alternative and the expeditious path to two-state solution, then, if you guys have blocked this?
MR PATEL: You’ve heard us talk about this pretty clearly, Humeyra. We’re continuing to press for a ceasefire, one that is coupled with the release of hostages, one that is coupled with the influx of additional humanitarian aid, and one that we hope can create additional conditions for broader diplomatic conversations that we think can lead to greater peace and stability in the region. This is a process. I will note that “expeditious” does not mean easy, but it is a process, and we’re going to —
QUESTION: Yeah, but it does mean fast.
MR PATEL: But it is one that we’re going to continue to work at.
This tortured exchange reflects the reality that the US has no coherent plan for the fate of the Palestinian people. The US veto was ill-advised and short-sighted.. After asserting the two-state solution was the only possible solution to the conflict in the Gaza Strip, the US is now on record as opposing the move unless that outcome was determined by negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. But successful negotiations have been stalled for thirty years, due to the emergence of a settler movement which holds that all the lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 war belong to Israel and Israel alone. The US offered no substantive reason to believe that negotiations now will lead to a Palestinian state.
The Oslo Accords, signed by the Palestinians and Israel in 1994, called for the creation of a Palestinian State. That initative was derailed by the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November 1995 by ” Yigal Amir, an Israeli law student and ultranationalist who radically opposed Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin‘s peace initiative, particularly the signing of the Oslo Accords.” Since that time, Israel has exercised almost complete control over the lives of the people living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The settler movement has now placed about 700,00 Israelis in the West Bank (all the settlers were forcibly removed from the Gaza Strip by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005). And the current violence against Palestinians in the West Bank surpasses all previous levels.
The irony is that the state of Israel was created by a vote in the United Nations General Assembly in 1947. The vote was 33-13 in favor partitioning the British Mandate called Palestine into three zones: a Jewish zone, an Arab zone, and an internationalized city of Jerusalem (no state could claim sovereignty over the city). The six Arab states walked out of the vote in protest. The UN made the state of Israel possible; there is no reason why it could not create a Palestinian state. But that possibility cannot occur as long as those in Israel who believe that all the lands were reserved for Jews have such power in Israeli politics. And we wait for the US to take some effective action to foster the two-state solution.
There are many reports about the deaths of over 100 Palestinians who were killed during a delivery of humanitarian assistance to northern Gaza. The truck delivering the aid was besieged by hungry people and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) fired live ammunition to disperse the crowd. The IDF claims that most of the people killed were crushed by the fleeing stampede; the Palestinians claim that most were killed by Israeli bullets.
Since the Israeli assualt on Gaza, living conditions in Gaza have deteriorated precipitously. The Associated Press reports:
“Maurizio Martina, the Food and Agriculture Organization’s deputy director general, described the horrific state of farmland, greenhouses, bakeries and irrigation systems that are essential to produce, process and distribute food.
“Since Oct. 9 – two days after the Hamas attacks – ‘the government of Israel’s reinforced blockade has included stopping or restricting food, electricity and fuel supplies, as well as commercial goods,’ he said.
“This has affected the entire food supply chain in different ways, Martina said.
“As examples, he said, severe restrictions on fuel shipments are crippling water supplies and the functioning of desalination plants, with the water supply at only 7% of pre-October levels. Fuel shortages have also crippled the production and delivery of food and electricity, and seriously hampered the ability of bakeries to produce bread, he said.
“Martina said the collapse of agricultural production in the north is already happening and in the most likely scenario will be complete by May. And as of Feb. 15, over 46% of all crop land in Gaza was assessed to be damaged, he said.”
There are a variety of reasons why deliveries of aid have failed to address the shortages. First, many of the agencies which supply aid, such as the UN World Food Program, have stopped deliveries because it is impossible to provide security for the delivery workers. To get around this problem, many countries are now air-dropping aid into Gaza. Second, some Israelis are preventing the delivery of aid through the Kerem Shalom checkpoint in an attempt to decrease the food available to Gazans, a blockade that the Washington Post claims is supported by the IDF forces guarding the checkpoint. Finally, the main agency supporting the Palesdtinian people, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) which has been supporting the Palestinian people since 1948, has been charged by Israel that some of its employees participated in the 7 October massacre and has suffered a dramatic drop off in support. According to Care International:
“UNRWA staff have faced near impossible conditions for months: in addition to the 158 UNRWA staff killed during the ongoing hostilities, at least 404 people in UNRWA shelters have been killed during the hostilities; almost 1,400 have been injured; and 155 UNRWA installations have been damaged. UNRWA workers continue to serve their community amid this unprecedented violence. The funding suspension will have wider regional implications that need to be carefully considered. In addition to Gaza, UNRWA operates in 4 other locations (West Bank- including East Jerusalem, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan) where it delivers critical services such as education and healthcare.”
The situation in Gaza is catastrophic and the deaths of the Palestinians at the aid delivery site raises serious questions about whether any outside aid is possible under current conditions. There will unqeustionably be an investigation into what happened, but that investigation will be conducted by the IDF itself. Aside from Palestidnian journalists, there are no outside news agencies that have been allowed into Gaza. Haaretz makes the point: “Since the war began, Israel and Egypt have largely barred foreign reporters from entering Gaza. Of the handful of journalists who have been granted access to Gaza, almost all of them were ’embedded’ with the Israeli army, which brings with it a long list of restrictions.” Moreover, many Palestinian journalists have been killed in the conflict. Haaretz continues: “The most recent tally from the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists puts the number of journalists and media workers killed in the war at 99, according to their website. (This number includes two Israeli journalists, who were killed on October 7 during the Hamas attacks.)”.
Thus, we do not know what has actually happened in this war, aside from the fact that about 1200 Israelis were killed and approximately 200 hostages taken and over 30,000 Palestinians killed, the majority of which are women and children. Presumably, the Biden Administration has its own information sources, but the US response to the conflict is signiticantly at odds with the redponse of most other countries, including strong US allies. Fareed Zakaria assesses the US policy:
“The United States has repeatedly pressured Israel to make greater efforts to protect innocent civilians, but to little avail. Now it has been counseling against an invasion of Rafah, the city nestled close to Egypt where more than 1 million Palestinians have huddled together. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to invade Rafah, whether another hostage deal is made or not.
“The result is that American policy on the Gaza war now appears hapless, ineffective and immoral. The image of U.S. officials wringing their hands about civilian casualties while providing ever-more weapons is grotesque. The image of a president of the United States mumbling words such as ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘over the top‘ to describe Israel’s bombings suggests weakness and passivity.
“Part of the problem is that in trusting the Israeli government, Biden is trusting Netanyahu, an exceptionally clever politician who knows how to handle American presidents expertly and has done so for decades. This time, Bibi has outsmarted, outmaneuvered and outplayed Biden.”
We all need to be far better informed about what has happened in the Gaza Strip since last October. Without information that is independent of the warring parties, we are all allowing the tragedy to continue without respite for the innocents.
Once again, the US is facing a budget crisis as some hard-line Republican members of the House of Representatives are threatening to block any proposal that does not address the growing deficit in the Federal budget. The Washington Post details the size of the deficit:
“From August 2022 to this July, the federal government spent roughly $6.7 trillion while bringing in roughly $4.5 trillion. That represents a total increase in spending of 16 percent relative to last year and a 7 percent decrease in revenue, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.”
These Republicans identify spending as the problem, but it more likely that revenues are declining becuase of tax cuts over the last 25 years. The Center for American Progress gives the specifics on how tax revenues have declined, even as spending as remained somewhat flat:
“Tax cuts initially enacted during Republican trifectas in the past 25 years slashed taxes disproportionately for the wealthy and profitable corporations, severely reducing federal revenues. In fact, relative to earlier projections, spending is down, not up. But revenues are down significantly more. If not for the Bush tax cuts4 and their extensions5—as well as the Trump tax cuts6—revenues would be on track to keep pace with spending indefinitely, and the debt ratio (debt as a percentage of the economy) would be declining. Instead, these tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt since their enactment and are responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001, and more than 90 percent of the increase in the debt ratio if the one-time costs of bills responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession are excluded. Eventually, the tax cuts are projected to grow to more than 100 percent of the increase.”
This insight needs to be kept in mind as the debate in Congress mindlessly repeats the same insipid mantras about how the US is living beyond its means. There is a great deal of money that escapes the attention of the Internal Revenue Service. Common Dreams, a reliable lefty think-tank, gives a rough idea of how much revenue is being lost to the IRS:
“Citing ‘alarming’ data provided by the federal government about the prevalence of tax evasion among the richest Americans, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden on Thursday called on the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on ‘particularly brazen’ high-income tax cheats and noted that Democratic initiatives have already helped to begin addressing the problem.
“Writing to IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, the Oregon Democrat and chair of the Senate Finance Committee cited data provided by the agency regarding taxes filed from 2017-20.
“More than 1.4 million wealthy Americans have still not filed their taxes for those years, Wyden said, with the total amount owed to the federal government reaching ‘a whopping $65.7 billion’—almost enough to fund a universal childcare program for one year or a universal school lunch program for more than two years.
“Nearly 1,000 people who earn $1 million per year or more have yet to file their tax returns, but Wyden wrote that the ‘most alarming’ revelation in the data provided to his committee by the IRS ‘was the extraordinary amount of unpaid taxes owed by a small subset of ultra-wealthy non-filers,’ with the 2,000 highest-earning tax dodgers currently owing $923 million.”
Moreover, the rich pay a substantially lower percentage of their income in taxes than do the poor. The effect is quite noticable when one looks at state and local taxes in the US. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy did an analysis of how wide the discrepancy actually is:
As the budget debate nears the 11th hour we should be telling Congress to take effective action to make everyone in the US pay their fair share. But do not hold your breath–the Congress is intent on bringing back feudalism.
World Politics News 