Author: hamilton1788

For years–decades, even–Bibi has promoted a policy of passive-aggression relative to the Palestinians. Its elements consisted of the following:

1. Refuse to engage in meaningful negotiations on the basis that no decent Palestinian partner existed;
2. Create facts on the ground, but slowly enough to avoid irrevocable conflicts with Israel’s friends and patrons;
3. Use right-wing contacts in America to prevent Democratic governments from siding with Israel’s adversaries, and, if possible, drag America into war with Iran; and
4. Engage in limited military actions whenever the Palestinian militants get out of control. This part of the policy was known as “cutting the grass.”

This approach seemed to work and had the additional benefit of making Bibi the indispensable man–the only one who could keep all of the balls in the air at once. Well, where is that now? Did Bibi, in the end, keep Israel safe?

Obviously not. If you don’t take some risks for peace, you get war.

Let’s assume that the Israelis exterminate the leadership and the military capabilities of Hamas in the upcoming campaign. Northern Gaza, at the very least, will probably look like Grozny after Putin was finished with it. What will the Israelis do after that?

They have two choices: simply walk away and say that reconstruction is someone else’s problem; or offer hope to the remaining Palestinians in the form of lots of aid, meaningful political concessions, and a promise never to do it again. If they pick Option #1, they will be back doing the same thing before you know it. Only Option #2 provides any reason for optimism for the future.

One hopes that Biden is discussing this issue with the Israeli government as well as the more immediately pressing matters I identified in my last post.

The trip means that Biden is clearly associating himself with whatever the Israelis do next. The political advantages–both internationally and domestically–of that will only outweigh the disadvantages if Biden already has a clear agreement with the Israelis on freeing hostages, providing lots of humanitarian aid, and getting Americans and other foreign nationals out of Gaza.

If the Israelis, as they often do, ignore our advice and bounce the rubble, this is going to be a terrible mistake.

Jake Sullivan has come to the White House to talk about the Middle East.

B: Well, so much for my plan to disengage with the Middle East and focus on China.

S: You’re not the first, Mr. President.

B: Is there anything we could have done to prevent the attack? Why wasn’t our intel better?

S: We don’t have enough resources to monitor everything, everywhere. Hamas is not really our problem. We leave them to the Israelis.

B: How could the Israelis have screwed it up so badly?

S: The obvious answers are overconfidence and plenty of constitutional and political distractions. A level of incompetence with the new government also comes into play.

B: Is Iran directly involved? If not, do you expect them to get more involved?

S: History provides plenty of examples of satellites acting independently of their patrons. Israel does that to us all of the time. North Korea does it to China. So, it isn’t surprising that the evidence we have indicates Hamas did this on their own. As to the second question, why would the Iranians put their very existence at risk when their proxies are doing the dirty work for them? I don’t see them attacking Israel on their own. Just in case, we’ve warned them, though.

B: What about Hezbollah? Could they try to invade while the Israelis are focusing on Gaza?

S: Hezbollah is a lot more professional and dangerous than Hamas, but they’re geared to fight defensively. They don’t have the resources to take and keep Israeli territory. You will probably see more missile strikes than usual, but not much more than that. Again, though, we’ve warned them, just in case.

B: If they did try to invade, would you recommend that we intervene?

S: Yes, but only if it appeared the Israelis couldn’t handle the matter on their own, which is unlikely.

B: Would the country support me if we did that?

S: Yes, and it might split the Republican Party, which would be a good thing. The bottom line, however, is we don’t need another war.

B: What can we do about the American hostages?

S: Unfortunately, not much. The hostage issue has taken a back seat to the killing and the humanitarian crisis at this point, but that might not last. If it doesn’t, you’re going to have some political problems. We will gather as much information as possible and assist the Israelis in efforts to free hostages if they ask for help. Otherwise, we’re at the mercy of events. We can’t control either party here.

B: Can we lean on the Egyptians to let our people out of Gaza?

S: We’re doing that now. As you would expect, Sisi wants things in return.

B: Do you think I should go to Israel?

S: Probably not, but you don’t have to make that decision today.

B: OK. Keep me informed. (Sullivan leaves)

Many Israeli commentators have called the October attack “Israel’s 9/11.” Is the analogy accurate?

It’s not perfect. Israel abuts Gaza, and has been effectively at war with Hamas for decades. It consequently had less justification for its poor preparation than the American government did during 9/11. In addition, hostages were taken by Hamas as bargaining chips; the passengers on the doomed planes during 9/11 were only incidental to the purposes of the terrorists. These are significant differences.

The similarities, however, are more compelling. In both cases, the terrorists successfully killed large numbers of unsuspecting civilians for the purpose of provoking an overreaction on the part of the victim state. In the case of 9/11, it worked, although not really to the ultimate advantage of the Islamic fundamentalists. Will it work in Gaza? The jury will be out for awhile.

The contest pitted two elderly party leaders against each other, probably for the last time. One of them was a cosmopolitan liberal, whose support came largely from the urban areas of the country; the other was a right-wing populist famous for repeating conspiracy theories and bashing foreigners and LGBTQ people. Consistent with his reactionary beliefs, the latter supported increasing the size of the welfare state for conservatives and rural residents, and did his best to turn a vibrant liberal democracy into an illiberal state, largely by gaining complete control over the judicial system.

Is it Poland in 2023 or America in 2024? You decide.

Steve Scalise, as far as I can tell, used the McCarthy method of promising to be everything to everyone, and failed. Jim Jordan, on the other hand, has opted for the roll the moderates approach. He is demanding that the GOP House members from swing districts swallow their scruples and put their seats at risk in the name of party unity. There is plenty of reason to believe he will succeed, but that remains to be seen. We’ll know a lot more tomorrow.

A vote for Jordan and the collapse of the moderates means two things: a very long, suicidal government shutdown; and an end to aid for Ukraine. Effectively, a vote for Jordan isn’t just a vote for Trump and chaos; it is a vote for Putin.

Putin says the Israelis have no right to inflict casualties on civilians during their invasion. He has also analogized the Israeli blockade to the Nazi siege of Leningrad.

LOL. You have to wonder if he managed to keep a straight face while making these comments. Could you, if you had his record?

Having decided–not for the first time–to ignore my advice and eschew a ground attack on Gaza, the Israelis gave a 24 hour notice for the residents of the northern part of the area to evacuate. Does that make sense?

Yes. Hamas wants to fight a guerrilla war in the midst of civilians in the urbanized areas of Gaza. The time-honored technique of dealing with guerrilla tactics is to separate the combatants from the civilians. This is Israel’s way of doing that; it will assume that everyone who stays is a fighter, and act accordingly.

The decision to invade means Israel is prioritizing physical control of Gaza over the minimization of casualties and the safety of the hostages, who are probably going to die in the assault. The Israelis have a moral obligation to permit humanitarian aid for the people who have evacuated, since they are clearly identifying themselves as non-combatants. They also need to give the evacuation a reasonable time to occur. Thus far, neither has happened.

It appears that Hamas is about to get what it wanted–a ground invasion of Gaza. It will result in the loss of multiple thousands of lives, and even more misery. The point of the attack was to generate images of forlorn Palestinians in order to provoke the anger of Arab leaders, most prominently MBS and King Salman.

Did the Palestinians who are about to suffer as a result of this plan buy into it? Were they even consulted? Did they all decide that martyrdom was the way to go?

Of course not. Using your own people as props is despicable.

Yesterday, I spent some of my day reading the transcript of a discussion between Masha Gessen, a trans person, and Lydia Polgreen, a black lesbian. Both are well=known reporters. It was an eyeful, to say the least.

Based in part on that transcript, and in part on my own analysis, I have come to the conclusion that there are three positions on gender fluidity, as follows:

1. CONSERVATIVE/CONTAGION: This position is based on three powerful sources of authority: scripture; historical practices; and natural law. It holds that gender fluidity is not just wrong, but evil, and an attack on society as a whole. Individuals holding this view consequently believe it is totally appropriate for the state to legislate against it, and even against talking about it.

The basis for the current round of right-wing statutes is “contagion.” You will observe fairly quickly that this concept sounds a lot like heresy in the Middle Ages. If you hold these beliefs, you have nothing to offer LGBTQ people except contempt and pain. The bottom line is that LGBTQ people, even if they exhibit all of the characteristics of gender fluidity, have to take one for the team to make America godly again. If they are driven to suicide by the lack of treatment and support, oh well.

2. LIBERTARIAN/COMPASSION: The middle group agrees with a lot of what the first group has to say, but sees no reason for the state to intervene to solve a largely non-existent problem. After all, trans people represent a tiny percentage of the population, and some of them are clearly hurting; why not permit them to get the treatment they need? Trans people don’t damage my ability to live my life as I see fit, so why should I stop them from transitioning? However, if you can prove that society is actually being harmed by trans people in some objective way, I’m open to regulation on those points.

3. TRANS MILITANTS: This group thinks gender fluidity is completely natural, that it is society (not biology) that made binary gender normal, and that transitioning is a joyful experience that should be encouraged, not discouraged; it’s just another form of the pursuit of happiness. Unlike the second group, this group does not simply tolerate transitioning as an unfortunate necessity for a handful of disturbed people; it embraces it as a social good. Anyone who believes otherwise is just a bigot, and should be shamed on social media. This means the militant group is constantly at war with the second group.

The bottom line here is that the third group makes up a microscopic percentage of America, and cannot survive politically without the assistance of the middle group, which is much larger. If they don’t want to be driven back into the closet by the conservatives, they need to cool their jets for the foreseeable future.

You have probably seen film–either documentary or fiction–of prison takeovers by the inmates. That, on a grand scale, is what is happening in Gaza. The warden and the guards have been taken hostage, but the authorities are in control of the outside of the prison.

Israel’s objectives at this point are as follows, in no particular order:

1. Regime change in Gaza;
2. The safe return of the hostages;
3. Minimize casualties; and
4. Avoid the fallout from massive numbers of civilian deaths in Gaza.

The current aerial campaign, by itself, only accomplishes #3. A land invasion only accomplishes #1. Is there a better alternative?

Yes–do what the authorities do in the prison films. The Israelis, with some help from the Egyptians, have the ability to strictly enforce the new blockade of Gaza. When conditions there get desperate enough, the population will take care of the situation.

To engage in an act of mass terrorism by indiscriminating killing hundreds of helpless Israeli civilians at close range is appalling enough. But to unapologetically kill scores of people of other nationalities in the same manner takes it to another moral plane. And holding foreigners as hostages takes the cake. That is likely to become the main story as the drama unfolds. Gaza is now effectively a crime scene, not an outdoor prison.

Will King Salman and MBS be impressed by this act of unrefined brutality by an ideological group that they already despised? Don’t bet on it. It’s going to take a whole lot of scenes showing dead Palestinian civilians to make them turn away from their negotiations with the Israelis.

The election of the new Speaker really revolves more around styles of governance than personalities, given the current composition of the House. The choices are as follows:

1. MCCARTHY, PART DEUX: Provide lots of meaningless raw meat to the right, make innumerable promises to both sides that you know you can’t keep, and ultimately rely on the Democrats to keep the government running. You don’t actually have to be McCarthy to use these tactics. It works for awhile, until everyone figures it out.
2. A GENUINE BIPARTISAN MODERATE COALITION: Moderates of both parties combine to pick a fairly rational Republican.
3. THE MODERATES SURRENDER: One of the two current candidates ultimately persuades the moderates that they have an overriding obligation to serve as lobby fodder for the far right, even if it means putting their seats at risk, in order to preserve party unity and stick it to the left.

The least likely alternative, alas, is #2. The most likely choice is #1.

The Republican Party wants power, but has no interest in governing; it is the Permanent Opposition Party, not the Grand Old Party. It has no ideas, only prejudices. It exists purely to stop the left. Why did this happen?

Because the one policy it has–tax cuts for wealthy businessmen–is unpopular and hasn’t worked in decades. As a result, its only function is to provide a mouthpiece for angry and resentful white Christians. That’s it.