Speaking of * [0 - 9]Monday, March 18, 2024
Speaking of Which
Well, another week, with a few minor variations, but mostly the
same old stories:
Israel is continuing its genocidal war on Gaza, with well
over 30,000 direct kills, the destruction of most housing and
infrastructure, and the imposition of mass starvation. This war
is likely to escalate significantly next week, as Netanyahu has
vowed to invade Rafah, which has until now been a relatively safe
haven for over one million refugees from northern parts of the
Gaza strip. Israel is also orchestrating increased violence in
the occupied West Bank and along the Lebanon border, with risks
to draw the US into the conflict (as has already happened in the
Red Sea).
The United States remains supportive of and complicit in
Israeli genocide, although we're beginning to see signs that the
Biden administration is uncomfortable with such extremism. Public
opinion favor an immediate cease-fire, which Israel and its fan
club have been working frantically to dispel and deny.
Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine continues to be stalemated,
with increasingly desperate and dangerous drone attacks. Putin
is up for reelection this weekend, and is expected to win easily,
against token opposition that also supports Russia's war, so any
hopes for regime change there are very slim. On the other hand,
the war is becoming increasingly unpopular in the US, where thus
far Biden has been unable to pass his latest arms aid request. The
only way out of this destructive and debilitating war is to open
negotiations, where the obvious solution is some formalization of
the status quo, but thus far Biden and Zelensky have refused to
consider the need.
Biden's has secured the Democratic nomination for a second
term, but he remains deeply unpopular, due to gross Republican
slanders, his own peculiar personal weaknesses, and legitimate
worry over wars he has shown little concern and/or competency at
ending.
Meanwhile, Trump has secured the Republican nomination,
but is mostly distracted by the numerous civil and criminal cases
he has blundered into. He's lost two civil cases, bringing fines
of over $500 million, but he has thus far managed to postpone trial
in the four criminal cases, and he had several minor victories on
that front last week. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is remaking
itself in his image, defending crime and corruption, spreading
hate, and aspiring to dictatorship. (At some point, I should go
into more depth on how, while the Democrats remain pretty inept
at defending democracy, the Republicans have gone way out of their
way to impress on us what the destruction of democracy has in store
for us.)
Due to various factors I don't want to go into, I got a late
start on this, and lost essentially all of Saturday, so I expect
the final Sunday wrap-up to be even more haphazard than usual.
Sorry I didn't mention this earlier, but we were saddened to
hear of the recent death of
Jim Lynch. He was one of the Wichita area's most steadfast
peace supporters, and he will be missed.
Except, of course, that I didn't manage to wrap up on Sunday,
so this picks up an extra day -- not thoroughly researched, but
I am including some Monday pieces.
Initial count: 183 links, 9,145 words.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
[03-11]
Day 157: As Ramadan begins, Israel obstructs Palestinian entry to
al-Aqsa Mosque: "Israel is preparing itself and its prisons for
the arrest of thousands of Palestinians, Netanyahu says. Meanwhile,
Israel has already begun obstructing access to the Al-Aqsa mosque
in Jerusalem, attacking worshipers on the first night of Ramadan."
[03-12]
Day 158: Israel airstrikes continue to pummel Gaza during the holy
month of Ramadan: "Israeli forces bombed Gaza on the first day
of Ramadan, killing two fishermen. Israel's fortified highway has
reached the Mediterranean coast, effectively splitting Gaza in two.
Meanwhile, hundreds of settlers stormed the al-Aqsa Mosque compound."
[03-13]
Day 159: Netanyahu vows to invade Rafah: "Benjamin Netanyahu
says Israel "will finish the job in Rafah" despite growing international
concern over an invasion, including from the U.S. Meanwhile, Israeli
forces kill 5 Palestinians in the West Bank in the last 24 hours,
including 3 children."
[03-14]
Day 160: Israel kills 7 Palestinians waiting for aid, attacks UN
distribution center: "Israel's Knesset approved a $19.4 billion
budget increase to fund the ongoing Israeli genocide, while the Biden
administration has indicated that it will greenlight the targeting of
'high-value Hamas targets in and underneath Rafah.'"
[03-15]
Day 161: Hamas proposes new prisoner exchange deal, Netanyahu's office
calls it 'unrealistic': "Thousands of Palestinian worshippers have
been denied access to pray at al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem for Ramadan's
first Friday prayers, while Israeli forces have committed another
massacre against Palestinian aid-seekers in Gaza City."
[03-16]
Day 162: Israel kills 36 Palestinians in strike on Gaza home as
Netanyahu approves Rafah invasion: "An Israeli strike on a home
in Nuseirat refugee camp kills 36 people as massacres continue across
Gaza. Meanwhile, Israel approves plans for Rafah ground invasion
despite warnings it will be 'catastrophic' for over 1.4 million
Palestinians."
[03-17]
Day 163: Top EU official says Israel failed to prove its accusations
against UNRWA: "Netanyahu has vowed to invade Rafah despite the
international red line. Meanwhile, the U.S. has sanctioned two illegal
settler outposts in the West Bank for the first time."
[03-18]
Day 164: Israeli army storms al-Shifa again, aid reaches Jabalia for
first time in months: "Over a million people in Gaza face 'imminent'
famine as UNRWA aid trucks arrive in northern Gaza for the first time
in months. Meanwhile, the Israeli army's Chief of Staff says 'a long
way to go' until Israel's military objectives are achieved."
AlJazeera: [03-18]
Famine expected in Gaza between now and May: What to know? "A
UN-backed report says the entire Gaza population is experiencing
a food shortage as Israel is accused of provoking famine."
Ruwaida Kamal Amer/Ibtisam Mahdi: [03-14]
With no safety in Rafah, Palestinians are fleeing back to Gaza's
decimated center.
Hédi Attia: [03-11]
Gaza & the legacy of Netanyahu's 'war on terror': "What
happened on Oct. 7 represents the collapse of an erroneous doctrine
the Israeli leader has consistently promoted throughout his career."
One thing I clearly remember from watching TV on Sept. 11, 2001, as
the World Trade Center was burning and collapsing, was Netanyahu's
shit-eating grin as he was boasting about how good the attacks were
for Israel, because now Americans will finally know what terrorism
feels like. (Shimon Peres took the same line, perhaps a bit more
soberly, as did John Major, who pointed out that Britain has more
experience than anyone with "chickens coming home to roost" -- not
his words, but most famously from Malcolm X.) Most people reacted
to 9/11 and 10/7 with shock and horror. Netanyahu saw them as
confirmation of his life's work, and a signal to move on to his
Final Solution.
Samer Badawi: [03-16]
'Armchair humanitarianism': The problem with Gaza's maritime aid
corridor.
Simon Speakman Cordall/Veronica Pedrosa: [03-13]
Not just the UNRWA report; Countless accounts of Israeli torture in
Gaza.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [03-13]
Palestinians in Gaza face famine during Ramadan.
Shereen Hindawi-Wyatt: [03-14]
What Israeli soldiers' display of Palestinian women's lingerie reveals
about the Zionist psyche.
Najia Houssari: [03-16]
Israel accused of 'scorched earth' tactics in southern Lebanon.
David Kattenburg: [03-11]
UN expert: Israel is engineering famine in Gaza: Cites UN Special
Rapporteur Michael Fakhri, who says: "We've never seen a civilian
population made to go hungry so completely and so quickly." Also:
"It's not just denying humanitarian aid. It's not just shooting at
civilians trying to get humanitarian aid; It's not just bombarding
convoys of humanitarian trucks, even though those humanitarian trucks
are coordinating with them. They're destroying the food system." Chris
Gunness adds: "This is not a natural disaster. This is a political
choice which our governments are taking, and people of conscience all
around the world need to tell their governments, tell their elected
representatives, that they do not want to be complicit in genocide
and starvation."
Rami G Khouri: [03-18]
Watching the watchdogs: Piers, airdrops, and mediagenic spectacles
in Gaza.
Elisha Ben Kimon: [03-11]
IDF Gaza Division commander reprimanded for blowing up Gaza
university: Brigadier General Barak Hiram.
Middle East Monitor: [03-18]
Israeli settlers vandalise UNRWA's Jerusalem headquarters, threaten
staff.
Mahmoud Mushtaha: [03-16]
'We scream, starve, and die alone': Life in the ruins of Shuja'iya:
"Israel's month-long invasion of the Gaza City neighborhood left
behind a trail of devastation. Still under siege, its Palestinian
residents are risking death to get their hands on a bag of flour."
Adam Rasgon/Vivian Yee/Gaya Gupta/David Segal: [03-17]
'We're not a banana republic,' Netanyahu says, rejecting criticism
from US: Sounds like he's working on his post-political,
post-prison career, in stand-up.
Shira Rubin/Yasmeen Abutaleb: [03-14]
Israel faces crisis of its own making as chaos and hunger engulf
Gaza.
Ronen Tal: [03-17]
'Israeli settlers can now do whatever they please. They want to
drive off those who live there': "Eella Dunayevsky, an Israeli
activist in the West Bank for decades, has lost hope that the
conflict can be solved. Her new book details countless incidents
of harassment and violence in the South Hebron Hills."
David Zenlea: [03-09]
This Israeli minister wants a full-on religious war. His proposals
for Ramadan risked starting one. "Itamar Ben-Gvir has been
sidelined for now. But his fulminations still deserve our undivided
attention."
Israel vs. Biden: Israelis like to talk about the "multi-front
war" they're besieged with, but for all the talk of Iranian proxies, they
rarely point out that their main struggle since Oct. 7 has been with world
opinion, especially as it became obvious that they had both the intent
and means to commit genocide. For a long time, Biden and virtually the
entire American political establishment were completely subservient to
Israeli dictates, but that seems to be shifting slightly -- maybe those
taunts of "Genocide Joe" are registering? -- so much so that Israel can
add the US to its array of threats. Not a done deal, but increasingly
a subject of discussion.
Daniel Boguslaw:
FBI warns Gaza War will stoke domestic radicalization "for years to
come".
Connor Echols: [03-13]
Bombs, guns, treasure: What Israel wants, the US gives.
Liz Goodwin: [03-14]
Schumer calls for 'new election' in Israel in scathing speech on
Netanyahu: I'd be among the first to point out that's none of his
business, just as it's none of Netanyahu's business to weigh in on
American elections -- as he's done both personally and through donors
like the Abelsons and lobbying groups like AIPAC. On the other hand,
if Schumer wanted to cut off military aid and diplomatic support for
genocide, that would clearly be his right. More on Schumer:
Jonathan Chait: [03-16]
Why Chuck Schumer's Israel speech marks a turning point: "He
tried to escape the cycle of violence and hate between one-staters
of the left and right." That's a very peculiar turn of phrase --
one designed to depict "two-staters" as innocent peace-seekers who
have been pushed aside by extremists, each intent on dominating
the other. But the very idea of "two states" was a British colonial
construct, designed initially to divide-and-rule (as the British
did everywhere they gained power), and when they inevitably failed,
to foment civil wars in their wake. (Ireland and India/Pakistan are
the other prime examples, although there are many others.) The
"two-state solution" isn't some long deferred dream. It is the
generator and actual state of the conflict. Sure, it doesn't look
like the "two states" of American propaganda -- a fantasy Israelis
sometimes give lip-service to but more often subvert -- due to the
extreme asymmetry of power between the highly efficient and brutal
Israeli state and the emaciated chaos of Palestinian leadership
(to which the PA is mere window dressing, as was much earlier the
British-appointed "Mufti of Jerusalem"). The only left solution
is a state built on equal rights of all who live there.
Borders
may be abitrary, and one could designate one, two, or N states in
the region, with various ethnic mixes, but for the left, and for
peace and justice, each must offer equal rights to its inhabitants.
It is true that some on the left were willing to entertain the
two-state prospect, but that was only because we realized that
Israel is dead set against equal rights, and saw their security
requiring that most Palestinians be excluded. We expected that
a Palestinian majority, left to its own devices, would organize
a state of equal rights democratically. Meanwhile, an Israel more
secure in its Jewish majority might moderate, as indeed Israel
had done before the 1967 war, the revival of military rule, the
settler movement, the debasement and destruction of the Labor
Party, and the extreme right-wing drive of the Netanyahu regimes.
That the actually-existing Zionist state has become an embarrassment
to someone as devoted to Israel as Schumer may indeed be a turning
point. But heaping scorn on "left one-staters" while trying to revive
the "two-state solution," with its implied "separate but equal" air
on top of vast differences in power, is less a step forward than a
desperate attempt to salvage the past.
EJ Dionne Jr: [03-16]
Schumer said out loud what many of Israel's friends are thinking.
Murtaza Hussain:
Outrage at Chuck Schumer's speech: The pro-Israel right wants to
eat its cake too.
Fred Kaplan: [03-14]
Why Chuck Schumer's break with Netanyahu seems like a turning point
in the US relationship with Israel.
Halie Soifer: [03-15]
Schumer spoke for the majority of American Jews: "Only 31% of
American Jewish voters have a favorable view of the Israeli prime
minister."
Caitlin Johnstone: [03-15]
If Israel wants to be an 'independent nation,' let it be: "Israel
knows it's fully dependent on the US and cannot sustain its nonstop
violence without the backing of the US war machine."
Fred Kaplan: [03-15]
There's a cease-fire deal on the table. Hamas is the one rejecting
it. Israel doesn't need to negotiate
with Hamas for a cease-fire. They can do that by themselves. You say
that wouldn't get the hostages back? Someone else -- say whoever
wants to run food and supplies into Gaza? -- can deal with that.
The hostages are relatively useless just to swap for other hostages.
Their real value to Hamas is to the extent they inhibit Israel from
the final, absolute destruction of Gaza and everyone stuck there.
Admittedly, that hasn't worked out so well, but trading them for
time only helps if the international community uses that time to
get Israel to give up on their Final Solution. Meanwhile, what
Israel likes about negotiating with Hamas is they never have to
agree to anything, because the one thing Hamas wants is off the
table. And because Israel is very skilled at shifting blame to
Hamas. They even have Kaplan fooled. I mean, consider this:
Netanyahu has rejected these conditions as "delusional." On this
point, he is right. A complete withdrawal of troops and a committed
end to the war would leave Israel without the means to enforce the
release of hostages. It would also allow Hamas to rebuild its military
and resume attacking Israel, whether with rocket fire or another
attempted incursion.
But isn't the point of negotiation to get both sides to do what
they committed. Why does Israel need a residual force to "enforce
the release of hostages"? If Hamas failed to honor its side of the
deal, Israel could always attack again. Can't we admit that would
be a sufficiently credible Plan B? And how the hell is Hamas going
"to rebuild its military and resume attacking Israel"? They never
had a real military, and Gaza never had the resources and tech to
build serious arms, and what little they did have has been almost
completely demolished. I could see Hamas worrying that Israel could
use truce time to bulk up so they could hit Gaza even harder, but
the opposite isn't even projection; it's just plain ridiculous.
Joshua Keating: [03-14]
How Biden could dial up the pressure on Israel -- if he really wanted
to.
Mitchell Plitnick: [03-15]
It isn't Netanyahu who is acting against the will of his people, it's
Biden.
Richar Silverstein:
Adam Taylor/Shira Rubin: [03-14]
Biden administration imposes first sanctions on West Bank settler
outposts.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos:
Philip Weiss: [03-17]
Weekly Briefing: Now everyone hates Israel: "The unbelievable
onslaught on a captive people in Gaza has at last cracked the
conscience of the American Jewish community and sent American
Zionists into complete crisis." Picture of Schumer, followed by
Jonathan Glazer at the Oscars.
Israel vs. world opinion:
Feminist Solidarity Network for Palestine: [03-11]
Here's what Pramila Patten's UN report on Oct 7 sexual violence
actually said: "The UN report on sexual violence on October 7 has
found no evidence of systematic rape by Hamas or any other Palestinian
group, despite widespread media reporting to the contrary. But there
are deeper problems with the report's credibility."
Luke Goldstein: [03-14]
AIPAC talking points revealed: "Documents show that the powerful
lobby is spreading its influence on Capitol Hill by calling for
unconditional military aid to Israel and hyping up threats from
Iran."
David Hearst: [03-14]
All signs point to a strategic defeat for Israel.
Kathy Kelly: [03-15]
When starvation is a weapon, the harvest is shame.
Tariq Kenney-Shawa: [03-14]
Israel Partisans' use of disinformation.
Jonathan Ofir: [03-12]
Human rights groups sue Denmark for weapons export to Israel.
Roy Peled: [03-08]
Judith Butler is intentionally giving Hamas' terror legitimacy:
"In recent comments, the American Jewish gender theorist labeled the
Oct. 7 attack as 'armed resistance.'" This is where I entered a cluster
of related articles:
There's an element of talking past each other here, and especially
of assuming X implies Y when it quite possibly doesn't. "Armed
resistance" is not in inaccurate description of what Hamas is doing
in Gaza. Especially when they're firing back at invading IDF soldiers,
one could even say that they're engaged in "self defense" (to borrow
a term that Israelis claim as exclusively theirs). The left has some
history of celebrating "armed resistance," but that's mostly from
times and places where no better option presented itself. But the
struggle for equal rights (which is the very definition of what the
left is about) has a natural preference for democracy, nudged on by
occasional nonviolent civil resistance -- a realization that has
been encouraged by occasional success, but also by the insight that
some acts of violence are self-damaging and self-defeating.
Oct. 7 is certainly an example of this. I think it's safe to say
that most people who supported equal rights for Palestinians have
condemned the Oct. 7 attackers, most often as immoral but also as
bad political strategy. Why Hamas chose to launch that particular
attack can be explained in various ways -- and please don't jump to
the conclusion, which seems to be ordained in the Hasbara Handbook,
that explaining = justifying = supporting = celebrating. The most
likely is that Hamas felt that no other option was open, perhaps
by long observation of other Palestinians pleading and protesting
non-violently, only to find Israelis more recalcitrant than ever.
Or one might argue that Hamas aren't a left group at all, but like
the Zionists are dominating and reducing their enemies, and as such
are enamored with violence, like the right-wing fascists of yore.
Or you could imagine a conspiracy, where Hamas and Netanyahu have
some kind of bizarre symbiotic relationship, where each uses the
other as a wedge against their near enemies. (Even without an
actual conspiracy, that does describe much of the dynamic.)
Still, there is another way of looking at "armed resistance,"
which is that it is the inevitable result of armed occupation,
oppression, and repression -- something which Israel is uniquely
responsible for. And because it's inevitable, it doesn't matter
who is doing it, nor does it do any good to chastise them. The
only way to end resistance is to end the occupation that causes
it. So while we shouldn't celebrate armed resistance, we also
shouldn't flinch from recognizing it as such, because we have
to in order to clearly see the force it is resisting.
Andrew Perez/Nikki McCann Ramirez: [03-14]
Israel lobby pushes lie that people are not starving in Gaza.
Reuters: [03-17]
UE's Von Der Leyen says Gaza facing famine, ceasefire needed
rapidly.
America's increasingly desperate and pathetic empire:
Election notes:
Trump, and other Republicans:
Maggie Astor:
Aaron Blake:
Jamelle Bouie: [03-16]
Kellyanne Conway has some weak advice for her party.
Chris Cameron: [03-18]
Trump says Jews who support Democrats 'hate Israel' and 'their
religion'.
Zak Cheney-Rice: [03-09]
The normalization of Trump's alleged crimes: "His legal strategy
is both buying him time and erasing the accusations against him."
Noted last week, but worth noting again.
Chas Danner: [03-17]
Why did Trump warn of postelection 'bloodbath' if he loses?
Chauncey DeVega: [03-15]
Trump sneakers and the MAGA uniform: Merchandising fascism to the
mainstream. This led me to a couple more pieces worth mentioning
here:
Igor Derysh: [03-13]
Departure "blindsides" Boebert and GOP: Ken Buck (R-CO) already
decided not to run for reelection in 2024, which may be attributed
to not wanting to face primary flak after transgressing against
Trump and his cadres -- even though, until recently, Buck had been
firmly perched on the far-right wing of the party. But his decision
last week to resign his seat and force an interrim election shows
his pique with a more obvious target: Boebert, who facing an uphill
campaign in her own district, which she just barely won in 2022,
decided to switch to Buck's more heavily Republican district for
2024. Close reading suggests it's not quite a knockout blow, but
makes her campaign a good deal more awkward.
Tim Dickinson: [03-14]
Trump campaign ads are monetizing pro-Nazi content on Rumble.
Angelo Fichera: [03-16]
Examining Trump's alternate reality pitch: "The war in Ukraine.
Hamas's attack on Israel. Inflation. The former president has insisted
that none would have occurred if he had remained in office after
2020."
Jessica M Goldstein:
The right-wing war on abortion has nothing to do with babies:
"This is a battle over body autonomy." I can't imagine who thinks
that's a winning political slogan, or what the rationale is. Same
for "bans off our bodies," per the signs in the pic, although that
at least suggests that the war on abortion has something in common
with rape. The war -- and I think you have to grant that it's being
waged like one, with babies (both symbolically and literally) as
pawns and hostages, with callous indifference to casualties (or
sometimes giddy delight), and with a vast fog of propaganda -- is
really just an assault on freedom, and not just on women. Just look
at everything else the people waging this war are also working on.
Rebecca Gordon: [03-14]
Trump showed us who he is the first time around: "Trump 2.0 would
be even worse."
Ed Kilgore:
Eric Levitz: [03-12]
Trump just opened the door to Social Security cuts. Take him seriously.
Eric Lipton/Maggie Haberman/Jonathan Swan: [03-17]
Kushner deal in Serbia follows earlier interest by Trump.
Alexander Nazaryan: [03-14]
Trump's cabinet of horrors: "Team Trump is doing something this
time around that it didn't think to do in 2016: It's planning. And
wait until you see what those plans include." Author wrote a 2019 book
on Trump's first-term cabinet, The Best People: Trump's Cabinet
and the Siege on Washington, but looks like he figured he could
get an early jump on the sequel.
Toni Aguilar Rosenthal: [03-15]
Ken Paxton, America First Legal, and premonitions of Project 2025:
"Texas today is what America will look like if Trump wins. It's not
pretty."
Jim Rutenberg/Steven Lee Myers: [03-17]
How Trump's allies are winning the war over disinformation:
"Their claims of censorship have successfully stymied the effort
to filter election lies online."
Greg Sargent:
Matt Stieb: [03-18]
Trump says he can't find a $464 million bond. Now what?
"Trump's lawyers want some leniency from the appeals court as
Attorney General Letitia James gears up to possibly seize assets
as early as next week."
Lucian K Truscott IV: [03-12]
The pure emptiness of Katie Britt.
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Legal matters and other crimes:
Kim Bellware: [03-14]
Father of Oxford shooter found guilty of involuntary manslaughter:
James Crumbley, whose son killed four students with guns and ammo
provided by his parents. The mother, Jennifer Crumbley, was also
convicted of involuntary manslaughter in an earlier trial.
Ben Brasch: [03-14]
Police fatally shoot autistic 15-year-old who charged with garden tool,
video shows.
Margaret Carlson: [03-16]
Take a load off Fani: "A judge's ridiculous probe of Fulton County
Prosecutor Fani Willis ends with a split decision and another Trump
legal delay."
Ryan Cooper: [03-05]
The corrupt Supreme Court bails out Trump once more: Another
comment on the Colorado 14th Amendment case.
Elie Honig: [03-15]
The failure of DOJ's special counsel system. And he barely mentions
Kenneth Starr, who's still the obvious prime suspect.
Sarah Jones: [03-15]
The Christian right's imaginary nation: Filed here because it
starts with the lawsuit to ban mifepristone, but the topic is much
broader.
Ruth Marcus: [03-18]
Outlawing abortion is just the start for some conservative
judges.
Ian Millhiser:
Adam Rawnsley/Asawin Suebsaeng: [03-05]
The Supreme Court is tilting 2024 in Trump's favor, one decision at a
time.
Mark Joseph Stern:
Even the Supreme Court's conservatives are fed up with the garbage
coming out of the 5th circuit.
Matt Stieb: [03-14]
Not only will Bob Menendez refuse to quit, he might run as an
independent: Filed here because he's a criminal, and his claim
as a Democrat is long gone. But clearly he understand the graft
advantages of running for office, and he's no doubt studying Trump
on how to use a pending election to snag up the wheels of justice.
Climate and environment:
Rebecca Burns: [03-12]
Against the wind: "Climate science deniers, right-wing think tanks,
and fossil fuel shills are plotting to foil the renewable-energy
revolution."
Keren Landman: [03-13]
4 big questions about measles, answered.
Aaron Regunberg/David Arkush:
The case for prosecuting fossil fuel companies for homicide: "They
knew what would happen. They kept selling fossil fuels and misleading
the public anyway." The title overreaches, probably just to get your
attention, as I doubt anyone wants to blur the definition of homicide
that much. As a practical matter, the case against gun companies is
much more substantial, with many fewer mitigating factors, and look
how far that's gotten. But prosecuting them for something? There may
well be a case for that.
Brian Resnick: [03-13]
Are we breaking the Atlantic Ocean? "The climate change scenario
that could chill parts of the world, explained."
Dylan Scott: [03-14]
The tropical disease that's suddenly everywhere: Dengue fever.
Economic matters:
War in Ukraine, an election in Russia:
Connor Echols: [03-15]
Diplomacy Watch: The pope is (mostly) right about Ukraine: "It
does Kyiv no favors to pretend that this war is going well."
Medea Benjamin/Nicholas JS Davies: [03-13]
After Nuland, the chances for peace in Ukraine.
Giorgio Cafiero: [03-18]
If Kyiv fell, would Moldova have been next? I'd caution that "domino
theories" are usually false alarms, but the continued existence of a
separatist Transnistria, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia (formerly
parts of Georgia), as well as similar fragments of Yugoslavia, will
remain as potential trouble spots that can blow up into major wars --
like Donbas. I blame the US and Russia both for for failing to try
to find workable compromises, and maybe also less interested parties
(like Turkey and the EU) that risk being sucked into disasters.
Robyn Dixon: [03-14]
Why does Putin always win? What to know about Russia's pseudo
election.
Marc Martorell Junyent: [03-18]
A chat with the devil beats a lifetime in hell: "In a new book,
Pierre Hazan gives an insider's account of the importance of peace
talks." The book is:
Negotiating with the Devil: Inside the World of Armed Conflict
Mediation. The book deals with many examples beyond Ukraine.
Branko Marcetic: [03-15]
Does Putin want to end the war? We should test him: "Ukraine war
maximalists are portraying diplomacy as futile, pointing to a cherry
picked quote from a recent interview with the Russian president."
Ishaan Tharoor: [03-18]
Russia's farce election sums up a grim moment in global democracy.
Anton Troianovski/Nanna Heitmann: [03-17]
With new six-year term, Putin cements hold on Russian leadership.
Looks like he won, the term extending to 2030, with 87% of the
vote. "Western governments were quick to condemn the election as
undemocratic."
Around the world:
Boeing:
TikTok: A bill to force, under threat of being banned, the
Chinese owners of TikTok to sell the company has passed the House,
with substantial bipartisan support. Despite the many links here,
I have no personal interest in the issue, although I do worry about
gratuitous China-bashing, and I'm not a big fan of any social media
companies or their business models.
Jonathan Chait: [03-14]
Explain to me why China has to control TikTok: "If it's just a
great app, why can't somebody else run it?" Explain to me why China
can't? That they might tilt the scales on political discourse shouldn't
be a problem if political information is freely accessible elsewhere --
unless the point is specifically to suppress anything that might offer
a specifically Chinese perspective on the news? And it's not as if
companies owned by Americans, Brits, Israelis, or Rupert Murdoch don't
tilt their own platforms to further their own national or personal
interests. I'm not a fan of foreign capital coming to America and
buying up real estate and companies and so forth, but then I'm not
often a fan of the Americans who sell out their country, often to
take their profits to buy up someone else's, then lobby for foreign
policies that put the sanctity of their property ahead of peace and
cooperation. I also doubt this would be happening unless there are
financiers waiting in the wings to make a killing on the sale, as
well as the arms lobbyists, who jump on any opportunity to increase
tension with China, Russia, or anyone else who can be sold as some
kind of threat.
David French: [03-17]
What Trump's TikTok flip-flop tells America: "On yet another
confrontation between American national security and an authoritarian
foreign adversary, Biden sides with American interests and Trump
aligns with our foe." French somehow imagines that complaint, along
with his Reagan conservative cred, will get him invited to parties
in DC. But that Trump seems able to get away with such apostasy
testifies to how low the credibility of the Blob has sunk.
Minho Kim: [03-17]
Khanna explains opposition to TikTok bill while Senators signal
openness: Ro Khanna [D-CA] was one of 50 Democrats ("mostly
from the progressive wing") and 15 Republicans who voted against
the House bill.
Ken Klippenstein: [03-16]
TikTok threat is purely hypothetical, US intelligence admits.
Taylor Lorenz: [03-16]
The TikTok debate featured many disputed claims. Here are 7 of them.
Arwa Mahdawi: [03-16]
Are progressive politics the real reason why US lawmakers are spooked
by Tiktok? "Some users think the app has become a hub for
progressive activism."
Nicole Narea: [03-14]
TikTok could avoid a ban with a sale. Finding a buyer won't be easy.
"Former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin is among those lining up to
buy TikTok if Congress enacts a law that forces its Chinese owner to
sell."
AW Ohlheiser: [03-14]
Banning TikTok would be both ineffective and harmful.
Nathan J Robinson: [03-14]
The plan to ban TikTok is outright xenophobia.
Michael Tracey: [03-15]
The frenzy to ban TikTok is another National Security State scam.
Other stories:
Andrea Long Chu: [03-11]
Freedom of sex: The moral case for letting trans kids change their
bodies. I'm in no mood to wade into this issue, but note the
article, which makes an honest and serious point, and backs it up
with considerable evidence and thought. Also note the response:
Jonathan Chait: [03-16]
Freedom of sex: A liberal response. Oh great, another epithet:
TARL (trans-agnostic reactionary liberal), which Chait seizes on,
probably because he's the very model of a "reactionary liberal" --
a term he's encountered in many other contexts, and not undeservedly
(need we mention Iraq again?).
TJ Coles: [03-08]
The new atheism at 20: How an intellectual movement exploited
rationalism to promote war: The Sam Harris book, The End
of Faith, came out in 2004, soon to be grouped with Daniel
Dennett (Breaking the Spell), Richard Dawkins (The God
Delusion), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great).
While critical of all religions, they held a particular animus for
Islam, at a time when doing so was most useful for promoting the
American and Israeli wars on terror. Coles has a whole book on
them: The New Atheism Hoax: Exposing the Politics of Dawkins,
Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. Coles is a British psychologist
with a lot of recent books attacking media domination by special
interests; e.g.:
- President Trump, Inc.: How Big Business and Neoliberalism Empower Populism and the Far-Right (2017)
- Real Fake News: Techniques of Propaganda and Deception-Based Mind Control, From Ancient Babylon to Internet Algorithms (2018)
- Manufacturing Terrorism: When Governments Use Fear to Justify Foreign Wars and Control Society (2019)
- Privatized Planet: Free Trade as a Weapon Against Democracy, Healthcare and the Environment (2019)
- The War on You (2020)
- We'll Tell You What to Think: Wikipedia, Propaganda and the Making of Liberal Consensus (2021)
- Biofascism: The Tech-Pharma Complex and the End of Democracy (2022)
- Militarizing Cancel Culture: How Censorship and Deplatforming Became a Weapon of the US Empire (2023)
Matt Kennard: [03-16]
Last days of Julilan Assange in the United States: "The WikiLeaks
publisher may soon be on the way to the US to face trial for revealing
war crimes. What he would face there is terrifying beyond words."
Rick Perlstein: [03-13]
Social distortion: "On the fourth anniversary of the pandemic, a
look at how America pulled apart as the rest of the world pulled
together." Reviews Eric Klinenberg: 2020: One City, Seven People,
and the Year That Changed Everything.
Scott Remer: [03-15]
Pessimism of the intellect, pessimism of the will: Title is an
obvious play on Gramsci, who even facing death in prison preferred
"optimism of the will." But no mention of Gramsci here. The subject
is self-proclaimed progressivism, keyed to this quote from Robert
LaFollette: "the Progressive Movement is the only political medium
in our country today which can provide government in the interests
of all classes of the people. We are unalterably opposed to any
class government, whether it be the existing dictatorship of the
plutocracy or the dictatorship of the proletariat." (Presumably
that was from 1924, when the Soviet Union was newly established.)
That leads to this:
All this should sound familiar. It describes bien-pensant
liberals of the Obama-Clinton-Biden persuasion to a tee: their
aestheticization of politics, their fetishization of
entrepreneurialism and expertise; their studied avoidance of
polarization, partisanship, and partiality; their distaste for class
conflict; their elevation of technocracy and science as beacons of
reason; their belief in the pretense that politics can be reduced to
interest-group bargaining and consensus seeking; their desire to keep
the labor movement at a distance; their continued fealty to American
exceptionalism even when looking to European models would be
exceptionally edifying; and their general attitude of deference
towards big business. Neoliberals' demography -- disproportionately
white, upper middle class, professional, and college-educated --
also parallels the original Progressives.
I like bien-pensant here, as it's open to translations
ranging from "right-thinking" to "lackadaisically blissful,"
each a facet of the general mental construct. The easiest way
to understand politics in America is to recognize that there
are two classes: donors and voters. Voters decide who wins,
but only after donors decide who can run -- which they can do
because it takes lots of money to run, and they're the ones
with that kind of money. Republicans have a big advantage in
this system: they offer businesses pretty much everything they
want, and ask little of them beyond acceding to their singular
fetishes (mostly guns and religion).
Democrats have a much tougher
problem: voters would flock to them because Republicans cause
them harm, but the only Democrats who can run are those backed
by donors, who severely limit what Democrats can do for their
voters. The Clinton-Obama types tried to square this circle by
appealing to more liberal-minded business segments, especially
high-growth sectors like tech, finance and entertainment. They
were fairly successful at raising money, and they won several
elections, but ultimately failed to make much headway with the
problems they campaigned on fixing.
At present, both parties have backed themselves into corners
where they are bound to fail. With ever-increasing inequality,
the donor class is ever more estranged from the voting public.
Normally, you would expect that when the pendulum swings too far
left or right, it would swing back toward the middle, but the
nature of capitalism is such that donors can never be satisfied,
so will always push for more and more. But the policies they
want only exacerbate the problems that most people feel, sooner
or later leading to disastrous breakdowns (for Republicans) or
severe dissolution (for Democrats, who while incapable of fixing
things are at least more adept at delaying and/or mitigating
their disasters).
Nathan J Robinson:
[03-12]
Overwhelmed by feelings of complicity and paralysis: "In a world
filled with horrors, where our actions feel useless, it can be hard
to muster the energy to press on." This paragraph hit close to home:
As Americans see tens of thousands of Palestinians die, we know that
our own government is responsible, through providing the weapons and
blocking UN action to stop the war. But how can we actually affect
government policy? Later this year, there will be an election, but
the choices in that election will be between the intolerable status
quo (Joe Biden) and a likely even more rabidly pro-Israel
president (Donald Trump). I don't know how it felt to oppose the
Vietnam war in 1967-68, but I suspect it must have felt similarly
frustrating, with the Democratic incumbent responsible for the war
and any Republican likely to escalate it further.
I do remember 1967-68, which spans the period from when my next
door neighbor came home from Vietnam in a box to the government's
first efforts to send me to the same fate. I knew people who went
quite literally crazy back then. (Fortunately, I was already crazy
then, and the Army decided they'd be better off without me.) So
one thing I learned was to be fairly tolerant of people I don't
agree with. Nearly everything is out of our control, so the only
real task most of us face is just coping with it.
Also the section on critiquing political books ("I have never
felt more ineffectual than at this moment"). Here's a bit:
Today, our public discourse seems to have gone off the rails entirely,
and this sometimes makes me question what my approach should be as a
political writer. Look, for example, though the
top-selling political commentary books. No.1 at the moment is a
book by Abigail Shrier, whose terrible polemic about trans kids I
reviewed a while back. This one is about how we're ruining children
by coddling them and is a broadside against mainstream psychology.
I suspect its claims are just as dubious as those in the last book.
Should I bother to go through and refute them? Will anybody care if
I do?
What else do we have in the political commentary section? More
stuff about how the left is crazy, from Jesse Watters, Christopher
Rufo, Douglas Murray, Coleman Hughes, Alex Jones, Candace Owens,
Ted Cruz, etc. Books about how there's a war on Christian America,
a war on the West, and a battle to "cancel" the American mind. Most
of the bestsellers are right-wing, and the ones that are liberal
are mostly just attacks on Trump.
That list is generated by sales, so it's likely changed a bit
since Robinson linked to it. One new add is Alan Dershowitz: War
Against the Jews: How to End Hamas Barbarism. Aside from Jonathan
Karl's Tired of Winning, the top-rated Trump book is also by
Dershowitz, but defending him. The only remotely liberal (never mind
left) book is Heather Cox Richardson's Democracy Awakening,
where she is astonishingly naïve and blasé about the real effects
of Biden's foreign policy.
[03-08]
Why we need "degrowth": Interview with Kohei Saito, author of
Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto.
[03-01]
Why factory farming is a moral atrocity: Interview with Lewis
Bollard, of Open Philanthrophy's farm animal program.
[02-26]
It's time to break up with capitalism: Interview with Malaika
Jabali, author of
It's Not You,
It's Capitalism: Why It's Time to Break Up and How to Move On,
"reviewed
here by Matt McManus."
[02-02]
Astra Taylor on what 'security' really means: I'm pretty sure
I've linked to this before, but I've nearly finished reading the
book -- which, not for the first time, is very good, especially
the section on education and curiosity -- so could use a review.
Aja Romano:
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, March 10, 2024
Speaking of Which
Once again, started early in the week, spent most of my time here,
didn't get to everything I usually cover. Late Sunday night, figured
I should go ahead and kick this out. Monday updates possible.
Indeed, I wasted most of Monday adding things, some of which,
contrary to my usual update discipline, only appeared on Monday.
The most interesting I'll go ahead and mention here:
Alexander Ward/Jonathan Lemire: [03-11]
If Israel invades Rafah, Biden will consider conditioning military
aid to Israel. There are several articles below suggesting that
the Biden administration is starting to show some discomfort with
its Israeli masters. I've generally made light of such signals, as
they've never threatened consequences or even been unambiguously
uttered in public. I've seen several more suggesting that the long
promised invasion of Rafah -- the last corner of Gaza where some
two million people have been driven into -- could cross some kind
of "red line."
I am willing to believe that "Genocide Joe" is a
bit unfair: that while he's not willing to stand up to Netanyahu,
he's not really comfortable with the unbounded slaughter and mass
destruction Israel is inflicting. I characterize his pier project
below as "passive-aggressive." I think he's somehow trying (but
way too subtly) to make Israel's leaders realize that their dream
of killing and/or expelling everyone from Gaza isn't going to be
allowed, so at some point they're going to have to relent, and
come up with some way of living with the survivors.
I don't recall where, but I think I've seen some constructive
reaction from Biden to the "uncommitted" campaign that took 13%
of Michigan and 18% of Minnesota votes. So it's possible that the
message is getting through even if the raw numbers are still far
short of overwhelming. The Israel Lobby has so warped political
space in Washington that few politicians can as much as imagine
how out of touch and tone-deaf they've become on this issue.
Still, Biden has a lot of fence-mending to do.
I'll try not to add more, but next week will surely come around,
bringing more with it.
Initial count: 181 links, 7,582 words.
Updated count [03-11]: 207 links, 9,444 words.
Top story threads:
Not sure where to put this, so how about here?
Jacob Bogage: [03-08]
Government shutdown averted as Senate passes $459 billion funding
bill: In other words, Republicans once again waited until the
last possible moment, then decided not to pull the trigger in their
Russian roulette game over the budget. It seems be an unwritten
rule that in electing Mike Johnson as Speaker, the extreme-right
gets support for everything except shutting down the government.
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
[03-04]
Day 150: Israel is 'engineering famine' in Gaza. "Amnesty
International says Israel is 'engineering famine' in Gaza. Organization
head Agnes Callamard adds, 'all states that cut UNRWA funding, sold
weapons and supported Israel bear responsibility too.'"
[03-05]
Day 151: Israel 'campaigns' to end UNRWA in Gaza Strip: "UNRWA's
chief says dismantling the agency is 'short-sighted' and will 'sow
the seeds of hatred, resentment, and future conflict.' Israeli forces
fire at Palestinians seeking aid and food in Gaza City and detain
others in southern Gaza."
[03-06]
Day 152: Prospect of breakthrough in ceasefire talks remains thin:
"Canada will resume funding to UNRWA and pay a pledge of $25m due in
April. In Gaza, another Palestinian child dies of thirst and hunger
in the north, bringing the number of children to die from malnutrition
to 18."
[03-07]
Day 153: Over 2 dozen Palestinian captives have 'died' in Israeli
detention camps: "At least 20 Palestinians have died as a result
of malnutrition and dehydration in Gaza, health officials say.
Meanwhile, new reports from Israeli media say 27 Palestinian
captives who were being held in Israeli 'makeshift cages' have
died."
[03-08]
Day 154: Biden's maritime aid corridor to Gaza slammed as
'unrealistic': "Human rights experts say the Biden administration's
proposed maritime corridor is a much less effective solution to
addressing the dire needs of Gaza's besieged and starving population
than a ceasefire and pressuring Israel to open land crossings."
[03-09]
Day 155: Deadly aid drop and obstacles to a maritime corridor expose
farcical humanitarian response to Gaza famine: "At least eighteen
children have died in Gaza from malnutrition, while deaths by starvation
have risen to 23. Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced that Biden's proposed
floating pier would take two months and 1000 US troops to build.
[03-10]
Day 156: Israel deploys 15,000 troops in West Bank as Ramadan starts:
"Ceasefire talks falter as Izz El-Din Al-Qassam Brigades spokesperson
says Israel is using 'deception and evasion.' Israel deploys thousands
of troops in the West Bank and Jerusalem ahead of plans to restrict
access to Al-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan."
Shane Bauer: [02-26]
The Israeli settlers attacking their Palestinian neighbors: "With
the world's focus on Gaza, settlers have used wartime chaos as cover
for violence and dispossession."
Giorgio Cafiero: [03-05]
Why Egypt can't and won't open the floodgates from Gaza.
Emma Farge: [03-07]
Israel destroying Gaza's food system in 'starvation' tactic.
Noa Galili: [03-10]
Strangled by Israel for decades, Gaza's future must begin with free
movement.
Imad Abu Hawash:
A new surge of settler outposts is terrorizing Palestinians off
their land.
Ibrahim Husseini: [03-08]
Palestinians expect Israeli crackdown on worship at al-Aqsa during
Ramadan.
Ellen Ioanes: [03-07]
What the UN report on October 7 sexual violence does -- and doesn't --
say.
Eyal Lurie-Pardes:
Journalism out, hasbara in: How Israeli news joined the Gaza war
effort.
Khalid Mohammed:
Desperate to escape Gaza carnage, Palestinians are forced to pay
exorbitant fees to enter Egypt.
Aseel Mousa: [03-08]
As Ramadan approaches, Rafah braces for an Israeli ground invasion.
Jonathan Ofir: [03-06]
'We are the masters of the house': Israeli channels air snuff videos
featuring systematic torture of Palestinians.
Yumna Patel: [03-05]
Palestinian PM's resignation nothing more than 'cosmetic shake up,'
analysts say.
Reuters: [03-09]
Israeli settlements expand by record amount, UN rights chief
says.
Jeffrey St Clair: [03-02]
Gaza Diary: Burning all illusions.
- Times of Israel: [03-08]
Five Palestinians killed in Gaza after aid airdrop malfunctions.
Nick Turse:
Who could have predicted the US war in Somalia would fail? The
Pentagon.
Israel vs. world opinion: Note that Biden's relief scheme
for Gaza, announced in his State of the Union address, has been moved
into its own sandbox, farther down, next to other Biden/SOTU pieces.
Kyle Anzalone: [03-07]
South Africa urges ICJ for emergency order as famine looms over
Gaza.
James Bamford: [03-06]
Time is running out to stop the carnage in Gaza: "Given the toll
from bombing and starvation, Gaza will soon become the world's largest
unmarked grave." Actually, time ran out sometime in the first week
after Oct. 7, when most Americans -- even many on the left who had
become critical of Israeli apartheid -- were too busy competing in
their denunciations of Hamas to notice how the Netanyahu government
was clearly intent to commit genocide. At this point, the carnage
is undeniable -- perhaps the only question is when the majority of
the killing will shift (or has shifted) from arms to environmental
factors (including starvation), because the latter are relatively
hard to count (or are even more likely to be undercounted). Of
course, stopping the killing is urgent, no matter how many days
we fail.
Greer Fay Cashman: [03-07]
President Herzog faces calls for arrest on upcoming Netherlands
visit.
Jonathan Cook: [03-07]
How the 'fight against antisemitism' became a shield for Israel's
genocide.
Richard Falk: [02-25]
In Gaza, the west is enabling the most transparent genocide in human
history.
Noah Feldman: [03-05]
How Oct. 7 is forcing Jews to reckon with Israel. Excerpt from
his new book, To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and
the Jewish People.
Daniel Finn: [03-07]
Slaughter in Gaza has discredited Britain's political class.
Fred Kaplan: [03-06]
Four things that will have to happen for the Israel-Hamas war to
end: I have a lot of respect for Kaplan as an analyst of such
matters, but the minimal solution he's created is impossible. His
four things?
- The Hamas leadership has to surrender or go into exile. ("Qatar
will have to crack down on Hamas, or perhaps provide its military
leaders refuge in exchange for their departure from Gaza.")
- "Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Sunni powers in the region will
have to help rebuild Gaza and foster new, more moderate political
leaders."
- "Israel will at least have to say that it favors the
creation of a Palestinian state and to take at least a small
movement in that direction." Why anyone should believe Israel
in this isn't explained.
- "The United States will have to serve as some sort of guarantor
to all of this -- and not only for Israel."
In other words, every nation in the region has to bend to Israel's
stubborn insistence that they have to maintain control over every
inch of Gaza, even though they've made it clear they'd prefer for
everyone living there to depart or die. In any such scenario, it is
inevitable that resistance will resurface to again threaten Israel's
security, no matter how many layers of proxies are inserted, and no
matter how systematically Israel culls its "militants." Short of a
major sea change in Israeli opinion -- which is a prospect impossible
to take seriously, at least in the short term -- there is only one
real solution possible, which is for Israel to disown Gaza. Israel
can continue to maintain its borders, its Iron Walls and Iron Domes,
and can threaten massive retaliation if anyone on the Gaza side of
the border attacks them. (This can even include nuclear, if that's
the kind of people they are.) But Israel no longer gets any say in
how the people of Gaza live. From that point, Israel is out of the
picture, and Gaza has no reason to risk self-destruction by making
symbolic gestures.
That still leaves Gaza with a big problem -- just not an Israel
problem. That is because Israel has rendered Gaza uninhabitable, at
least for the two million people still stuck there. Those people
need massive aid, and even so many of them probably need to move
elsewhere, at least temporarily. Without Israel to fight, Hamas
instantly becomes useless. They will release their hostages, and
disband. Some may go into exile. The rest may join in rebuilding,
ultimately organized under a local democracy, which would have no
desire let alone capability to threaten Israel. This is actually
very simple, as long as outside powers don't try to corrupt the
process by recruiting local cronies (a big problem in the region,
with the US, its Sunni allies, Iran, its Shiite friends, Turkey,
and possibly others serial offenders).
Sure, this would leave Israel with a residual Palestinian problem
elsewhere: both with its second- and lesser-class citizens and wards,
and with its still numerous external refugees. But that problem has
not yet turned genocidal (although it's getting close, and is clearly
possible as long as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are part of Israel's ruling
coalition). But there is time to work on that, especially once Israel
is freed from the burden and horror of genocide in Gaza. There are
lots of ideas that could work as solutions, but they all ultimately
to accepting that everyone, regardless of where they live, should
enjoy equal rights and opportunities. That will be a tough pill for
many Israelis to swallow, but is the only one that will ultimately
free them from the internecine struggle Israelis and Palestinians
have been stuck with for most of a century. There's scant evidence
that most Israelis want that kind of security, so people elsewhere
will need to continue with BDS-like strategies of persuasion. But
failure to make progress will just expose Israelis to revolts like
they experienced on Oct. 7, and Palestinians to the immiseration
and gloom they've suffered so often over many decades decades.
Colbert I King: [03-08]
The United States cannot afford to be complicit in Gaza's tragedy:
True or not, isn't it a bit late to think of this?
Nicholas Kristof: [03-19]
'People are hoping that Israel nukes us so we get rid of this pain':
Texts with a Gazan acquaintance named Esa Alshannat, not Hamas, but
after Israeli soldiers left an area, found "dead, rotten and half eaten
by wild dogs." Kristof explains: "Roughly 1 percent of Gaza's people
today are Hamas fighters. To understand what the other 99 percent are
enduring, as the United States supplies weapons for this war and vetoes
cease-fire resolutions at the United Nations, think of Alshannat and
multiply him by two million."
Debbie Nathan:
Vivian Nereim: [03-10]
As Israel's ties to Arab countries fray, a stained lifeline remains:
The United Arab Emirates is still on speaking terms with Israel,
but doesn't have much to show for their solicitude.
Ilan Pappé: [02-01]
It is dark before the dawn, but Israeli settler colonialism is at
an end.
Mitchell Plitnick: [03-07]
Replacing Netanyahu with Gantz won't fix the problem.
Rebecca Lee Sanchez: [03-06]
Gaza's miracle of the manna: Aid and the American God complex.
Philip Weiss:
[03-07]
Zionism and Jewish identity: "American Zionists are not deluded
about Zionism. They know exactly what Israel is, and they are actively
supporting blatant supremacy, racism, and apartheid. But that is
changing, because Zionism is finally being challenged in the
left/liberal press."
[03-10]
Weekly Briefing: Israeli genocide is 'embarrassing' Biden, at
last.
Brett Wilkins: [03-06]
AIPAC's dark money arm unleashes $100 million: "Amid the
Netanyahu government's assault on Gaza and intensifying repression
in the West Bank, AIPAC is showing zero tolerance for even the
mildest criticism of Israel during the 2024 US elections."
America's increasingly desperate and pathetic empire:
I started this section to separate out stories on how the US was
expanding its operations in the Middle East, ostensibly to deter
regional adversaries from attacking Israel while Israel was busy
with its genocide in Gaza. At the time, it seemed like Israel was
actively trying to promote a broader war, partly to provide a
distraction from its own focus (much as WWII served to shield
the Holocaust), and partly to give the Americans something else
to focus on. Israel tried selling this as a
"seven-front
war" -- a line that Thomas Friedman
readily swallowed, quickly recovering from his initial shock at
Israel's overreaction in Gaza -- but with neither Iran nor the US
relishing what Israel imagined to be the main event, thus far only
the Houthis in Yemen took the bait (where US/UK reprisals aren't
much of a change from what the Saudis had been doing, with US help,
for years). So this section has gradually been taken over by more
general articles on America's imperial posture (with carve outs
for the still-raging wars in Israel/Gaza and Ukraine/Russia.
Ramzy Baroud:
[03-04]
To defend Israel's actions, the US is destroying the int'l legal
system it once constructed: I'm not sure that the US ever supported
any sort of international justice system. The post-WWII trials in Japan
and Germany were rigged to impose "victor's justice." The UN started
as a victors' club, with Germany and Japan excluded, and the Security
Council was designed so small states couldn't gang up on the powers.
And when Soviet vetoes precluded using the UN as a cold war tool, the
US invented various "coalitions of the willing" to rubber-stamp policy.
The US never recognized independent initiatives like the ICJ, although
the US supports using the ICJ where it's convenient, like against Russia
in Ukraine. The only "rules-based order" the US supports is its own,
and even there its blind support for Israel arbitrary and capricious --
subject to no rules at all, only the whims of Netanyahu.
[03-08]
On solidarity and Kushner's shame: How Gaza defeated US strategem,
again.
Mac William Bishop: [02-23]
American idiots kill the American century: "After decades of
foreign-policy bungling and strategic defeats, the US has never
seemed weaker -- and dictators around the world know it."
Christopher Caldwell: [03-09]
This prophetic academic now foresees the West's defeat: On
French historian/political essayist Emmanuel Todd, who claims to
have been the first to predict the demise of the Soviet Union (see
his The Final Fall: An Essay on the Decomposition of the Soviet
Sphere, from 1976), has a new book called La Défaite de
l'Occident.
Caldwell, who has a book called The Age of Entitlement,
seems to be an unconventional conservative, so even when he has
seeming insights it's hard to trust them. Even harder to get a
read on Todd. (The NYTimes' insistence on "Mr." at every turn has
never been more annoying.) But their skepticism of Biden et al.
on Ukraine/Russia is certainly warranted. By the way, here are
some old Caldwell pieces:
Brian Concannon: [03-08]
US should let Haiti reclaim its democracy.
Gregory Elich: [03-08]
How Madeleine Albright got the war the US wanted: NATO goes on
the warpath, initially in Yugoslavia, then . . . "the opportunity
to expand Western domination over other nations."
Tom Engelhardt: [03-05]
A big-time war on terror: Living on the wrong world: "A
planetary cease fire is desperately needed."
Connor Freeman: [03-07]
Biden's unpopular wars reap mass death and nuclear brinkmanship.
Marc Martorell Junyent: [03-07]
Tempest in a teapot: British illusions and American hegemony from
Iraq to Yemen. Review of Tom Stevenson's book,
Someone
Else's Empire: British Illusions and American Hegemony.
Joshua Keating: [03-09]
The Houthis have the world's attention -- and they won't give it up:
"What do Yemen's suddenly world-famous rebels really want, and what will
make them stop?" One lesson here is that deterrence only works if it
threatens a radical break from the status quo. The Saudis, with American
support, have been bombing the Houthis for more than a decade now,
causing great hardship for the Yemeni people, but hardly moving the
needle on Houthi political power. So how much worse would it get if
they picked a fight with Israel's proxy navy? Moreover, by standing
up to Israel and its unwitting allies, they gain street cred and a
claim to the moral high ground. For similar reasons, sanctions are
more likely to threaten nations that aren't used to them. Once you're
under sanctions, which with the US tends to be a life sentence, what
difference does a few more make? It's too late for mere threats to
change the behavior of Yemen, Iran, North Korea, and/or Russia --
though maybe not to affect powers whose misbehaviors have thus far
escaped American sanctions, like Israel and Saudi Arabia. But for
the rest, to effect change, you need to do something positive, to
give them some motivation and opportunity to change. In many cases,
that shouldn't even be hard. Just try to do the right thing. Respect
the independence of others. Look for mutual benefits, like in trade.
Help them help their own people. And stop defending genocide.
Nan Levinson: [03-07]
The enticements of war (and peace).
Blaise Malley: [03-06]
Opportunity calls as Cold War warriors exit the stage: "Will
Mitch McConnell's replacement represent the old or new guard in
his party's foreign policy?"
Paul R Pillar: [03-06]
Why Netanyahu is laughing all the way to the bank: "David Petraeus
said recently that US leverage on Israel to do the right thing in Gaza
is 'overestimated' -- that's just not true."
Robert Wright: [03-08]
The real problem with the Trump-Biden choice: This piece is
far-reaching enough I could have slotted it anywhere, but it has
the most bearing here: the problem is how much Trump and Biden
have in common, especially where it comes to foreign affairs:
"America First" may seem like a different approach from Biden's,
but the latter is just a slightly more generous and less intemperate
variation, as both start from the assumption that America is and must
be the leader, and everyone else needs to follow in line. Trump thinks
he can demand the other pay tribute; Biden possibly knows better,
but his pursuit of arms deals makes me wonder. Wright cites a piece
by Adam Tooze I can't afford or find, quoting it only up to the
all-important "but" after which the Trump-Biden gap narrows. While
I'm sure Tooze has interesting things to say, Wright's efforts to
steer foreign policy thinking away from the zero-sum confrontations
of the Metternich-to-Kissinger era are the points to consider.
Fareed Zakaria: [03-08]
Amid the horror in Gaza, it's easy to miss that the Middle East has
changed.
Election notes: Sixteen states and territories voted for
president on Super Tuesday, mostly confirming what we already knew.
Biden won everywhere (except American Samoa), even over "uncommitted"
(which mostly got a push from those most seriously upset over his
support for Israeli genocide). Trump won everywhere -- except in
Vermont, narrowly to Nikki Haley, who nonetheless shuttered her
campaign (but hasn't yet endorsed Trump). Dean Phillips dropped out
of the Democratic race after getting 8% in his home state of Minnesota
and 9% in Oklahoma. He endorsed Biden. I'm not very happy with any of
the news summaries I've seen, but here are a few to skim through:
538;
AP;
Ballotpedia;
CBS News;
CNBC;
CNN;
Guardian;
NBC News;
New York Times;
Politico;
USA Today;
Washington Post.
One quote I noticed (from CNN) was from a "reluctant Democrat" in
Arizona: "It's hard to vote for someone with multiple felony charges;
and it's also very hard to vote for someone that is pro-genocide."
Michael C Bender: [03-06]
How Trump's crushing primary triumph masked quiet weaknesses:
"Even though he easily defeated Nikki Haley, the primary results
suggested that he still has long-term problems with suburban voters,
moderates, and independents."
Aaron Blake: [03-08]
The Texas GOP purge and other below-the-radar Super Tuesday
nuggets.
Nate Cohn: [03-07]
Where Nikki Haley won and what it means: Inside the Beltway (61%),
Home base and Mountain West cities (57%), Vermont (56%), University
towns (56%), Resort towns (55%): In other words, the sorts of places
that would automatically disqualify one as a Real Republican.
Antonia Hitchens: [03-06]
Watching Super Tuesday returns at Mar-a-Lago.
Ro Khanna: [03-07]
The message from Michigan couldn't be more clear: Actually,
these figures (see Nichols below) are hardly enough for a bump in
the road to Biden's reelection -- unlike, say, Eugene McCarthy's
New Hampshire showing in 1968, where Lyndon Johnson got the message
clearly enough to give up his campaign. What they do show is that
the near-unanimity of Democratic politicians in support of Israel
is not shared by the rank and file.
Adam Nagourney/Shane Goldmacher: [03-09]
The Biden-Trump rerun: A nation craving change gets more of the same:
I bypassed this first time around, but maybe we should offer some kind
of reward for the week's most inane opinion piece. Wasn't Nagourney a
finalist in one of those hack journalists playoffs? (If memory serves --
why the hell can't I just google this? -- he finished runner-up to
Karen Tumulty.)
John Nichols: [03-05]
Gaza is on the ballot all over America: "Inspired by Michigan's
unexpectedly high 'uncommitted' vote, activists across the country
are now mounting campaigns to send Biden a pro-cease-fire message."
Uncommitted slate votes thus far (from NYTimes link, above):
Minnesota: 18.9%;
Michigan: 13.2%;
North Carolina: 12.7%;
Massachusetts: 9.4%;
Colorado: 8.1%;
Tennessee: 7.9%;
Alabama: 6.0%;
Iowa: 3.9%.
Alexander Sammon:
[03-09]
Katie Porter said her Senate primary was "rigged." Let's discuss!
"Her complaint was kind of MAGA-coded. But it wasn't entirely wrong."
Adam Schiff had a huge fundraising advantage over Porter, as Porter
did over the worthier still Barbara Lee. This is one of the few pieces
I've found that looks into where that money came from (AIPAC chipped
in $5 million; a crypto-backed PAC doubled that), and how it was used,
explained in more depth in the following:
[03-05]
Democrats have turned to odd, cynical tactics to beat one another in
California's Senate race. Schiff wound up spending a lot of money
not trying to win Democrats over from Porter and Lee -- something that
might require explaining why he supported the Iraq War (which itself
partly explains why he got all that AIPAC money) -- but instead spent
millions raising Republican Steve Garvey's profile. In the end, Schiff
was so successful he lost first place to Garvey (on one but not both
of the contests: one to finish Feinstein's term, one for the six year
term that follows), but at least he got past Porter and Lee, turning
the open primary into a traditional R-D contest (almost certainly D
in California).
Michael Scherer: [03-08]
Inside No Labels decision to plow ahead with choosing presidential
candidates: "The group announced on a call with supporters
Friday plans to announce a selection process for their third-party
presidential ticket on March 14 with a nomination by April."
More No Labels:
Li Zhou: [03-06]
Jason Palmer, the guy who beat Biden in American Samoa, briefly
explained.
Trump, and other Republicans:
David Atkins: [03-06]
The incompetent malfeasance of today's Republican party: "They're
mendacious buffoons, but their lack of political acumen makes them no
less dangerous than if they knew how to shoot straight." Laugh as you
may, but in much of the country, they're still kicking your ass.
Zack Beauchamp: [03-06]
The Republican primary was a joke. It tells us something deadly
serious. "Trump's inevitable romp to victory revealed how strong
his hold on the GOP is -- and how dangerous he remains to democracy."
Ryan Bort: [03-08]
Republicans tap election denier, Trump's daughter-in-law to run
RNC: "The MAGA takeover of the Republican National Committee
is complete, and the group appears poised to subsidize Trump's
legal fights." Michael Whatley and Lara Trump.
Zak Cheney-Rice: [03-09]
The normalization of Trump's alleged crimes: "His legal strategy
is both buying him time and erasing the accusations against him."
Juan Cole: [03-06]
Trump, Like Biden, supports Israeli Campaign against Gaza: "You've got
to finish the Problem": Odd turn of phrase, isn't it? (I usually
try to standardize case in headlines, but this one was so peculiar, I
left it alone.) Most people try to solve problems, but "finish" could
have two meanings, one suggesting that it isn't problem enough yet,
so needs to be made more complete; the other interpretation, which is
more like Trump, is that "Problem" means Palestinians, and "finish"
means annihilation (or more vividly, if you know the original German,
Vernichtung). I don't quite buy the argument that "Trump's position
on Gaza is not any different from that of Joe Biden." Biden may feel
powerless to object to Israel, but he's not unaware of the human cost.
Trump simply doesn't care. As long as the checks don't bounce, he's
good to go. More on Trump's Gaza "problem":
Dan Diamond/Alex Horton: [03-07]
Navy demoted Ronny Jackson after probe into White House behavior:
"Trump's former physician and GOP ally is now a retired captain, not
an admiral."
Jesse Drucker: [03-09]
How Trump's Justice Dept. derailed an investigation of a major
company: "The industrial giant Caterpillar hired William Barr
and other lawyers to defuse a federal criminal investigation of
alleged tax dodges."
Michael Gold: [03-10]
Trump vilifies migrants and mocks Biden's stutter in Georgia
speech.
Jessica M Goldstein:
The right-wing war on abortion has nothing to do with babies:
"Coverage of the recent controversy over IVF has made a perilous
omission: This is a battle over body autonomy." Related:
Alex Isenstadt: [03-11]
Ralph Reed's army plans $62 million spending spree backing Trump:
"Faith & amp; Freedom plans to spend big registering and turning out
evangelicals and handing out 30 million pieces of literature at
churches."
Josh Kovensky: [03-09]
Inside a secret society of prominent right-wing Christian men prepping
for a 'national divorce'.
Paul Krugman:
Eric Levitz:
[03-05]
Republicans' voter suppression obsession may end up helping . . .
Democrats? "The GOP convinced itself it could only win with a
smaller, whiter electorate. The polls show that's just not true."
[03-06]
Republicans just passed up the chance to win a historic landslide:
"If Republicans ever figure out how to nominate a normal human, Democrats
could be in trouble." You might think that, but Romney and McCain, who
were about as close as Republicans get to normal these days, lost to
Obama, and Bush didn't fare much better, leaving office with the lowest
approval rating at least since Nixon. Republican policies are moving
disasters, many so obviously defective even they don't dare campaign
on them. The only option, other than betraying their base(s), is to
deflect and dissemble, which they do mostly by generating rage. Even
that doesn't always work, but Trump was credibly crazy in 2016, and
pulled off a miracle, and when he did, he raised the stakes about
what winning meant. As long as he has a chance of winning -- and he
does have enough polls to keep that fantasy going -- he's the horse
the base wants to bet on, because he's the only one promising to
fulfill their fantasies. Until he loses as bad as Landon in 1936,
or at least Mondale in 1984, Republicans have little reason to
recalculate.
Daniel Lippman: [03-09]
Kellyanne Conway advocating for TikTok on Capitol Hill:
Trump failed to "drain the swamp," but his aides are learning to
earn there.
Alexandra Marquez: [03-10]
Lindsey Graham: Biden has 'screwed the world up every way you can':
I can't help but wonder how many people actually fall for this sort
of vague but indiscriminate line, which has become default for most
Republicans. Graham spouts more on foreign policy, where it's most
clear that he wants to "screw the world up" in ways even Biden hasn't
tried.
Stephanie Mencimer: [03-08]
Lara Trump is all about meritocracy: "That's why she got the
top job at the RNC."
Mary Jo Murphy: [03-07]
This book about Trump voters goes for the jugular: Another
review of Tom Schaller/Paul Waldman:
White
Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy. And another:
Nicole Narea: [03-06]
Mark Robinson, the North Carolina GOP nominee for governor, is off the
rails even by MAGA standards: "North Carolina has seen a politician
like Robinson before: Jesse Helms." More:
Anna North: [03-04]
Fetal personhood laws, explained: "The anti-abortion legal theory
that could jeopardize IVF around the country."
Charles P Pierce: Many recent
short posts, not all of which apply to this slot, but the first
couple do, and easier to keep them together, with more respect for
their author:
Greg Sargent:
Trump's angry rant about Biden's speech showcases MAGA's ugliest
scam.
Charles Sykes: [03-05]
Donald Trump, the luckiest politician who ever lived.
Ishaan Tharoor: [03-08]
Trump, Orban and the GOP's deep obsession with foreign demagogues:
This column includes an interview with Jacob Heilbrunn, author of
America Last:
The Right's Century-Long Romance with Foreign Dictators.
The century is just enough time to go back to Mussolini, lionized
as the guy who got the trains to run on time.
Liz Theoharis: [03-10]
The great unwinding: "The failing battle for health and healthcare
in these all too disunited states." Republicans are responsible for
this, and need to own it: "Since March 2023, 16 million Americans have
lost healthcare coverage, including four million children, as states
redefine eligibility for Medicaid for the first time in three years."
This is one of many areas where Democrats were able to expand the
safety net to ameliorate the horrors of the Covid-19 pandemic, but
as Republicans recovered from the panic, they've killed off these
much needed expansions as soon as possible.
Peter Wehner: [03-10]
If there's one thing Trump is right about, it's Republicans:
They'll follow him anywhere:
Mr. Trump is a human blowtorch, prepared to burn down democracy. So
is his party. When there's no bottom, there's no bottom.
The next 34 weeks are among the more consequential in the life of
this nation. Mr. Trump was a clear danger in 2016; he's much more of
a danger now. The former president is more vengeful, more bitter and
more unstable than he was, which is saying something. There would be
fewer guardrails and more true believers in a second Trump term. He's
already shown he'll overturn an election, support a violent insurrection
and even allow his vice president to be hanged. There's nothing he won't
do. It's up to the rest of us to keep him from doing it.
Biden's band-aid folly: Unveiled in Biden's State of the
Union address, q.v., but for this week, let's give it its own section:
Alex Horton: [03-08]
How the US military will use a floating pier to deliver Gaza aid:
"Construction will take up to two months and require 1,000 US troops
who will remain off shore, officials say. Once complete, it will
enable delivery of 2 million meals daily."
Jonathan Cook: [03-10]
Biden's pier-for-Gaza is hollow gesture.
Kareem Fahim/Hazem Balousha: [03-08]
Biden plan to build Gaza port, deliver aid by sea draws skepticism,
ridicule. Sounds like they had a contest to come up with the most
expensive, least efficient method possible to trickle life-sustaining
aid into Gaza, without in any way inhibiting Israel's systematic
slaughter.
Miriam Berger/Sufian Taha/Heidi Levine/Loveday Morris: [03-05]
The improbable US plan for a revitalized Palestinian security force:
Because the US did such a great job of training the Afghan security
force?
Noga Tarnopolsky: [03-09]
The Biden plan to ditch Netanyahu: "The 'come to Jesus moment' is
already here, according to Israeli and US sources." I don't give this
report much credit, but it stands to reason that eventually Biden will
tire of Netanyahu jerking him around just so he can further embarrass
both countries with what is both in intent and effect genocide. I do
see ways in which Biden's initial subservience is evolving into some
kind of passive-aggressive resistance. Rather than denounce Israel
for making reasonable aid possible, Biden has challenged Israel to
spell out what they would allow, and agreed even as these schemes are
patently ridiculous. It's only a matter of time until Israel starts
attacking American aid providers. For another piece:
Zack Beauchamp: [03-08]
Are Biden and the Democrats finally turning on Israel? "Biden's
new plan to build a pier on the Gaza coast seems to say yes. The
continued military aid to Israel says otherwise."
Biden's State of the Union speech: A section for everything
else related, including official and unofficial Republican responses:
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Perry Bacon Jr: [03-07]
Biden is failing at the most important task of his presidency.
Bacon's definition: "Biden has failed at the most important task
for a Democratic president in the 2020s: eliminating or at least
drastically reducing the chances of Trump or someone who shares
his radical beliefs being his successor." That may have been the
job, but it's really hard to see how he could have done it. When
I saw the headline, I filled in my own answer, which is that Biden
simply isn't a very good communicator. But Obama was, technically
at least, pretty much all you could hope for in a communicator,
and who listened to him? Bill Clinton was also pretty good. But
both were hobbled by a hostile media that relentlessly amplified
Republican countermessaging, and by the muddle created by their
own willingness to conform to conservative framing of issues --
is it any wonder that they were more successful at persuading
donors than voters? Franklin Roosevelt was the great communicator
among all presidents, but we no longer live in a world where
nominally Republican farmers (like, say, my grandfather) would
tune in to listen to him explain how banking worked, and believe
a word he said.
Jonathan Chait: [03-05]
Good riddance, Kyrsten Sinema, plutocratic shill: "She killed her
career by blocking bipartisan ideas that threatened the rich." The
Democrat-turned-independent from Arizona finally decided not to run
for a second term. Presumably she'll reap her rewards as a lobbyist,
not that she's likely to have much influence over anyone. More:
Timothy Noah:
The stealth budget cuts imperiling the Biden antitrust agenda.
Evan Osnos: [03-04]
Joe Biden's last campaign: A long New Yorker profile on
Biden, by just about the only writer who managed to get a biography
of Biden together before the 2020 election (and just barely).
Andrew Prokop: [03-08]
The media's coverage of Biden's age needs a rethink: "There's
been too much focus on trivialities."
John E Schwarz: [03-01]
Democratic presidents have better economic performances than Republican
ones: This has been true for so long you'd think everyone would be
acknowledging it.
Astra Taylor/Eleni Schirmer: [03-05]
The Biden administration has a chance to deliver student debt relief.
It must act.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells: [03-06]
Can Joe Biden fight from behind in a rematch against Donald Trump?
Legal matters and other crimes:
Elie Honig: [03-08]
Biden's looming nightmare pardons: Ever since this "former
federal and state prosecutor" started writing for Intelligencer,
his pieces have sounded like stealth briefs from the Trump legal
team, even if not things they would actually want to own. This
one at least assumes things not yet in evidence: that Trump is
actually tried and convicted and sentenced to jail time -- the
power may be to pardon, but all he's asking for is commutation
of prison time, not full pardons. As that's increasingly unlikely
before November, the assumption may also be that Biden wins then,
so has some breathing room before having to consider the issue,
which would leave plenty of time for this discussion, unlike now.
Josh Kovensky: [03-05]
Feds slap 12 new counts on Bob 'Gold Bars' Menendez: Senator
(D-NJ).
Ian Millhiser: [03-10]
Do Americans still have a right to privacy? "With courts coming
for abortion and IVF, it's hard not to wonder what the Supreme Court
will go after next."
Climate, environment, and energy:
Ukraine War:
Blaise Malley: [03-08]
Diplomacy Watch: Chinese diplomat shuttling to Russia, and Ukraine.
Turkey is also making efforts to mediate the conflict.
Francesca Ebel/Robyn Dixon: [02-29]
Putin threatens nuclear response to NATO troops if they go to
Ukraine.
Francesca Ebel/Serhiy Morgunov: [03-08]
Russia's opposition and Ukraine find it impossible to unite against
Putin.
Mark Episkopos: [03-08]
What will more aid to Ukraine accomplish? "There are limits to
what Kyiv can do, even with an indefinite flow of Western assistance."
Valerie Hopkins: [03-01]
Thousands turn out for Navalny's funeral in Moscow.
Daniel Larison: [03-05]
Victoria Nuland never shook the mantle of ideological meddler:
"Blurting out F-ck the EU' typified her blunt, interventionist style
throughout three presidential administrations."
Emily Rauhala: [03-07]
Sweden finally joins NATO in expansion spurred by Putin's Ukraine
war.
Lauren Wolfe: [01-16]
Putin's history lessons: Review of Yaroslav Trofimov:
Our
Enemies Will Vanish: The Russian Invasion and Ukraine's War of
Independence, which is somewhat tangential to the subhed
argument that Putin's rhetoric about the unity of Russia and Ukraine
has laid "the rhetorical groundwork for a forever war."
Amanda Yen: [03-11]
Hungary's Viktor Orban: Trump 'won't give a penny' to Ukraine if
elected. One of the stranger recent political dynamics is that
as Trump digs in more as the anti-war (and especially, anti-world-war)
candidate, Democrats are trying to rally support for Ukraine as
necessary to spite Trump here in America. Why they think that's
a winning strategy is beyond me. They could argue that unified
support for Ukraine would help them negotiate a better deal to
end the war, but first they need to be open to negotiating, which
so far doesn't seem to be the case. America has a bad history of
never negotiating reasonable exits from conflicts. Rather, in
Vietnam and Afghanistan, they negotiated deals where they just
slipped away, leaving their supposed allies to collapse, or in
Korea, where they signed a ceasefire but refused to call it an
end to the war. A reasonable deal with Russia is possible, and
it could lead to further reasonable deals in the future, in the
long run ending a conflict that the US has done as much or more
to fuel as Putin has. Trump may pull out, but he won't negotiate
a real deal, because he doesn't know how, and he doesn't care.
But even the bad deals I've mentioned were better for Americans
than the hopeless, pointless wars they escaped from. So even if
that's all Trump is promising, many people will see it as better
than Biden and the Democrats pouring endless resources into a
stalemate.
Around the world:
Other stories:
Michelle Alexander: [03-08]
Only revolutionary love can save us now: "Martin Luther King Jr's
1967 speech condemning the Vietnam War offers a powerful moral compass
as we face the challenges of our time."
Indivar Dutta-Gupta/Korian Warren: [03-04]
The war on poverty wasn't enough: "While Lyndon B Johnson's
effort made some lasting impacts, the United States still has some
of the highest rates of nonelderly poverty among wealthy nations."
As the article notes, Johnson's programs brought big improvements,
but the Vietnam War hurt him politically, and his successors lost
interest: e.g., Nixon's appointment of Donald Rumsfeld to run the
Office of Economic Opportunity. And while Republicans deserve much
of the blame, Democrats like Daniel Moynahan and Bill Clinton were
often as bad, sometimes worse.
Henry Farrell: [02-27]
Dr. Pangloss's Panopticon: A very thoughtful critique of Noah Smith's
"quite
negative review of a recent book by Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson,
Power and Progress: Our 1000-Year Struggle Over Technology &
Prosperity. There are complex issues at dispute here, many
much more interesting than those that dominate this (and all recent)
posts. Dr. Pangloss (from Voltaire) stands in for techno-optimism:
the idea that unfettered innovation, accelerated as it is through
modern venture capitalism, promises to deliver ever-improving worlds.
Panopticon (from Jeremy Bentham) is an early form of mass surveillance,
a capability that technology has done much to develop recently, with
AI promising a breakthrough to the bottleneck problem (the time and
people you need to surveil other people).
Luke Goldstein: [02-23]
Crunch time for government spying: "Congress has a few weeks left
until a key spying provision sunsets. Both reformers and intelligence
hawks are plotting their strategies."
Oshan Jarow: [03-08]
The world's mental health is in rough shape -- and not getting any
better: "Guess where the US ranks?"
Sarah Kaplan: [03-06]
Are we living in an 'Age of Humans'? Geologists say no.
A recent proposal for delineating a stratigraphic boundary for
the Anthropocene, based on "a plume of radioactive plutonium
that circled around the world" in 1952, was proposed recently
and, at least for now, voted down. More:
Alvaro Lopez: [03-08]
The making of Frantz Fanon: Review of Adam Shatz's new book,
The
Rebel's Clinic: The Revolutionary Lives of Frantz Fanon.
Also:
Rick Perlstein: [03-06]
The spectacle of policing: "'Swatting' innocent people is the latest
incarnation of the decades-long gestation of an infrastructure of
fear."
Dave Phillipps: [03-06]
Profound damage found in Maine gunman's brain, possibly from blasts:
"A laboratory found a pattern of cell damage that has been seen in
veterans exposed to weapons blasts, and said it probably played a
role in symptoms the gunman displayed before the shooting." Robert
Card was a grenade instructor in the Army Reserve for eight years.
He went on to shoot and kill 18 people and himself. Something not
yet factored into the "Costs of War" accounting. Another report:
Jeffrey St Clair: [03-08]
Roaming Charges: Too obvious to be real.
I ran across a link to this David Brooks [02-08]:
Trump came for their party but took over their souls. A normal
person would have little trouble writing a column under that headline.
Even Brooks hits some obvious points, like: "Democracy is for
suckers"; "Entertainment over governance"; and "Lying
is normal." But the one that really upsets Brooks is: "America
would be better off in a post-American world." The other maxim
that Brooks castigates Trump for is "Foreigners don't matter."
This leads to his rant against "isolationism," which inevitably
devolves into invoking the spectre of Neville Chamberlain.
Brooks celebrates the triumph of Eisenhower over Taft in 1952,
when "the GOP became an internationalist party and largely remained
that way for six decades" -- glorious years that spread capitalist
exploitation to the far corners of the globe, transforming colonies
into cronies ruled by debt penury, policed by "forever wars" and,
wherever the occasion arose, ruthless counterrevolutions and civil
wars.
Meanwhile, instead of enjoying the wealth this foreign policy
generated, America's middle class -- the solid burghers and union
workers who, as Harry Truman put it, "voted Democratic to live like
Republicans" -- got ground down into their own penury. The Cold
War was always as much about fighting democracy at home as it was
about denying socialism abroad, much as the "war on terror" was
mostly just an authoritarian tantrum directed against anyone who
failed to submit to America's globe-spanning military colossus.
Sure, it is an irony that blows Brooks' mind that it now seems
to be the Republicans -- the party that most celebrates rapacious
capitalism, is most devoutly committed to authoritarian rule, and
whose people are most callously indifferent to the cries of those
harmed by their greed -- should be the first give up on the game.
Of course, they weren't. The left, or "premature antifascists"
(as the OSS referred to us in the 1940s, before "communists and
fellow travelers" proved to be a more effective slur), knew this
all along, but that insight came from caring about what happens
to others, and solidarity in what we sensed was a common struggle.
It took Republicans much
longer to realize that globalized capitalism, under the aegis of
American military power, not only didn't work for them personally,
but that it directly led to jobs moving overseas, and all kinds
of foreigners flooding America. And since Republicans had put
so much propaganda effort into stoking racism and reaction, not
least by blaming Democrats (with their "open borders" and focus
on wars as "humanitarian") for loving foreigners more than their
own people.
I was pointed to Brooks' piece by a pair of
tweets: Simon Schama linked, adding: "Heartfelt obituary by
David Brooks for the expiring of last vestiges of the Republican
Party. No longer has supporters but 'an audience.' Lying normalised.
Total abandonment of internationalism." To which, Sam Hasselby added:
People have really memory-holed the whole Iraq catastrophe which
is in fact what normalized a new scale of lying and impunity in
American politics. It was also a lie which cost $7 trillion dollars,
killed one million innocent Iraqis, and displaced 37 million people.
Yet Iraq War boosters like Brooks still have major mainstream
media gigs, while Adam Schiff trounced Barbara Lee (the only member
of Congress to vote against the whole War on Terror) in a Democratic
primary, and Joe Biden became president -- finally giving up the
20-year disaster in Afghanistan, only to wholeheartedly embrace
new, but already even more disastrous, wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, March 3, 2024
Speaking of Which
I started this early, on Wednesday, maybe even Tuesday, as I
couldn't bring myself to work on anything else. There's a rhythm
here: I have twenty-some tabs open to my usual sources, and just
cycle through them, picking out stories, noting them, sometimes
adding a comment, some potentially long. By Friday night, I had
so much, I thought of posting early: leaving the date set for
Sunday, when I could do a bit of update.
I didn't get the early post done. Sunday, my wife invited some
friends over to watch a movie. I volunteered to make dinner, and
that (plus the movie) killed the rest of the day. Nothing fancy:
I keep all the fixings for pad thai on hand, so I can knock off
a pretty decent one-dish meal in little more than an hour. And I
had been thinking about making hot and sour soup since noticing
a long-neglected package of dried lily buds, so I made that too.
First actual cooking I had done in at least a month, so that felt
nice and productive.
This, of course, feels totally scattered. I'm unsure of the
groupings, and it's hard for me to keep track of the redundancies
and contradictions. And once again, I didn't manage to finish my
rounds. Perhaps I'll add a bit more after initially posting it
late Sunday night. But at the moment, I'm exhausted.
My wife mentioned an article to me that I should
have tracked down earlier, but can only mention here: Pankaj Mishra:
[03-07]
The Shoah after Gaza. Mishra grew up in a "family of upper-caste
Hindu nationalists in India," deeply sympathetic to Israel, so his
piece offers a slightly distant parallel to what many of us who
started sympathetic only to become dismayed and ultimately appalled
by what Israel has turned into. Beyond that, the piece is valuable
as a history of how the Nazi Judeocide -- to borrow Arno Mayer's
more plainly factual term in lieu of Holocaust or Shoah -- has been
forged into a cudgel for beating down anyone who so much as questions
let alone challenges the supremacy of Israeli power.
There is also a
YouTube video of Mishra's piece.
On Facebook, I ran across this quote attributed to Carolina
Landsmann in Haaretz:
We (Israelis) continue to approach the world from the position of
victim, ignoring the 30,000 dead in Gaza, including 12,000 children,
assuming that the world is still captive to its historic guilt toward
Israel without understanding that this is over. The era of the
Holocaust has ended. The Palestinians are now the wretched of the
earth.
It's impossible to go back to the pre-Oct 7 world. To the blame
economy between the Jews and the world, which gave the former moral
immunity. Enough; it's over. Every era draws to a close. The time has
come to grow up.
There was a time, and not that long ago, when I still thought
that the experience of victimhood would still temper the exercise
of Israeli power: sure, Israel was systematically oppressive, and
Israeli society was riddled with the ethnocentrism we Americans
understand as racism, but surely they still had enough of a grip
on their humanity to stop short of genocide. That's all changed
now, and it's coming as quite a shock -- no doubt to many Israelis
as they look at their neighbors, but even more so to Americans
(not just Jews but also many liberals who have long counted on
Jews as allies).
It's hard to know what to do these days, beyond the call for
an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, and the constant need
to remind anyone who's still echoing the Israeli hasbara that
it's genocide, and by not opposing it, they're complicit. It may
be unfair to go so far as to make placards about "Genocide Joe" --
he's just in thrall, having fully adapted to the peculiar gravity
of the Israel lobby when he arrived in Washington fifty years ago --
as there is still a difference (maybe not practical, but certainly
in spirit) between him and the people in Israel (and some Republicans
in Congress) who really are committed to genocide. But in times like
this, nice sentiments don't count for much.
Another important piece I noticed but skipped over on Sunday:
Aaron Gell: [03-03]
Has Zionism lost the argument? "American Jews' long-standing
consensus about Israel has fractured. There may be no going back."
There is a lot to unpack here. It's worth your time to read the
interview with Ruth Wisse, with her absolutist defense of Israel,
then the digression where the author considers the charge that Jews
who doubt Israel are becoming non-Jews, ending in a reference to
the Mishnah, specifically "by far the hardest to answer: If I
am only for myself, who am I? Many Zionists long justified
their project as providing a haven from anti-semitism, but their
exclusive focus on their own issues, turning into indifference
or worse towards everyone else, has finally turned Israel into
the world's leading generator of anti-semitism.
Wisse insists that "the creation of the state changes the entire
picture, because now to be anti-Zionist is a genocidal concept. If
you're an anti-Zionist, you're against the existence of Israel . . .
the realized homeland of nine million people." But later on, Gell
notes: "I've spoken to dozens of anti-Zionists over the past few
months, and not a single one thought Israel should cease to exist."
They have various ideas of how this could be done, in part because
they've seen it work here:
American Jews are justifiably proud to live in a successful multiethnic
democracy, imperfect though it is. As citizens of a nation in which Jews
are a distinct minority, we owe our well-being, our prosperity, and, yes,
perhaps our existence to the tolerance, openness, and egalitarianism
of our system of government and our neighbors. No wonder we shudder at
Israel's chauvinism, its exclusionary nationalism, its oppression. It's
all too obvious how we'd fare if the United States followed Israel's
lead in reserving power for an ethnic or religious majority. Seen in
this light, what's surprising isn't that some American Jews are
anti-Zionists; it's that many more aren't.
I've been reading Shlomo Avineri's 1981 book (paperback updated
with a new preface and epilogue 2017), The Making of Modern
Zionism: The Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State, which
offers a highly sympathetic survey of most of the reasons people
have come up with to justify and promote Zionism. I'm still in
the last profile chapter, on David Ben Gurion, before the initial
epilogue, "Zionism as a Permanent Revolution." Immediately previous
were chapters on Jabotinsky (who built a cult of power based on
fascist models and used it to flip the script on race, promoting
Jews as the superior one) and Rabbi Kook (who reformulated Zionism
as God's will).
Ben Gurion's major contribution was the doctrine of "Hebrew
labor," where Jews would fill all economic niches in the economy,
leaving native Palestinians excluded and powerless. This was a
significant change from the usual practice of settler colonialism,
which everywhere else depended on impoverished locals for labor.
Ben Gurion's union bound Jews into a coherent, self-contained,
mutual help society, including its own militia, well before it
was possible to call itself a state. But in doing so, he excluded
the Palestinians, and plotted their expulsion -- his endorsement
of the 1937 Peel Commission plan, his campaign for the UN partition
plan, and finally his "War of Independence," remembered by
Palestinians as the Nakba.
Ben Gurion was an enormously talented political figure, and his
establishment of Israel through the 1950 armistices, the citizenship
act, and the law of return, was a remarkable achievement against
very stiff odds. He might have gotten away with it, but he couldn't
leave well enough alone. He always wanted more, and he cultivated
that trait in his followers. And while he feared the 1967 war, his
followers launched it anyway, and in the end -- even as his fears
had proven well founded -- he delighted in it. Like Mao, he so loved
his revolution he kept revitalizing it, oblivious to the tragedy it
caused. I expect the book, with its "permanent revolution" epilogues,
will end on that note.
There is a lot of wishful thinking in the early parts of Avineri's
book -- most obviously, Herzl's fairy-tale liberalism, but also the
socialism of Syrkin and Borochov, which could have been developed
further in later years, but it's appropriate to end as it does, with
the real Israeli state. Great as he was, Ben Gurion made mistakes,
and in the end the most fateful was allowing Jabotinsky and Kook,
or more precisely their followers, into the inner sanctumm, from
which they eventually prevailed in shaping Israel into the genocidal
juggernaut it has become. The path from Jabotinsky to Netanyahu is
remarkably short, passing straight through the former's secretary,
the same as the latter's father. The other intermediaries were Ben
Gurion's rivals of 1948, Begin and Shamir, who became favored tools
in driving the Palestinians into exile, and future prime ministers.
Less obvious was Ben Gurion's decision to invite the Kookists
into government, but what politician doesn't want to be reassured
that God is on his side? Rabbi Kook was succeeded by his son, Zvi
Yehuda Kook, whose Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) was the
driving force behind the West Bank settlements, leading directly to
Smotrich and Ben Gvir. The first casualty in Ben Gurion's schemes
was the socialism that unified the Yishuv in the first place. That
was what gave Israel its foundational sense of justice, a reputation
that is now nothing but ruins.
Initial count: 174 links, 8,842 words.
Updated count [03-05]: 193 links, 10,883 words.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
[02-26]
Day 143: Gaza famine is 'man-made,' says UNRWA Chief: "UNRWA says
that the famine in northern Gaza can be avoided if more food convoys
are allowed in, but Israel continues to hold up over 2000 aid trucks.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu reaffirms plans to invade Rafah, where 1.5
million Gazans have sought shelter."
[02-27]
Day 144: Israel and Hamas contradict Biden claim that Gaza ceasefire
is close: "A proposed ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas is
reported to include a temporary 40-day truce, the release of 40 Israeli
captives in return for 400 Palestinian prisoners, and the entry of
humanitarian aid and mobile shelters into Gaza."
[02-28]
Day 145: Hamas warns Israel and US of 'political machinations' amid
ceasefire talks: "UN humanitarian officials say that thousands of
Palestinians in Gaza are 'just a step away from famine' by May. Russia
calls on UNSC members to refrain from endorsing Washington's resolution
on Gaza, denouncing it as 'a license to kill' for Israel."
[02-29]
Day 146: Israeli forces massacre civilians waiting for humanitarian
aid: "Israeli tanks and warplanes reportedly targeted civilians
waiting for aid, killing at least 77 and wounding hundreds. Meanwhile,
international aid groups say airdrops of aid are so "negligible" that
they "perpetuate the overall blockade strategy."
[03-01]
Day 147: No ceasefire in sight despite international condemnation
of Israel's 'flour massacre': "US blocks a UN Security Council
resolution condemning Israel for its massacre against Palestinians
attempting to receive humanitarian aid in Gaza, saying that the
incident "still needs to be investigated."
[03-02]
Day 148: UN reports at least 14 cases of Israel firing on Palestinians
waiting for aid in Gaza: "UN calls for an investigation following
Thursday's "flour massacre" where Israel killed at least 115 Palestinians
waiting for aid and injured more than 760. The need for aid is becoming
even more dire as starvation worsens in northern Gaza."
[03-03]
Day 149: Palestinian children die of malnutrition as Israel blocks
aid into Gaza: "US airdrops of food and aid in Gaza have been
described as "performative BS" that "fools no one." Meanwhile, Hamas's
delegation has arrived in Cairo for ceasefire talks as Ramadan is due
to start next Sunday."
James Bamford: [02-26]
Israel's far right finally gets the war it has always wanted:
"Billed as a response to the October 7 Hamas attack, the conflict in
Gaza has increasingly become a war to eliminate all Palestinians --
a longtime goal of Israel's homegrown fascists."
Mariam Barghouti: [02-27]
In Jenin, brazen Israeli raids fuel fiercer Palestinian resistance:
"Incessant Israeli incursions into Jenin refugee camp since October
7 have killed nearly 100 Palestinians, including many civilians. But
as repression surges, the children of the Second Intifada are taking
up arms." Which is, of course, a self-perpetuating process, where
Palestinians are torn between the urgent need to defend themselves
and their inability to muster the arms to do so. So the main effect
is, as Israeli leaders seem to wish, to intensify the Israeli drive
to genocide.
Nina Berman: [02-29]
Violating intimacies: "Israeli soldiers have photographed themselves
posing with the lingerie of Palestinian women they have displaced or
killed in Gaza. They join a long line of conquest images, from Abu
Ghraib images to the spectacles of Jim Crow-era lynchings." But we've
been seeing pictures like this, or more commonly just gratuitous
vandalism, for decades now -- from what used to be advertised as
"the most moral army in the world."
Sarah Dadouch: [02-29]
As besieged Gaza grows desperate, donors drop aid from the sky.
Elias Feroz: [02-26]
Thirty years after Baruch Goldstein's massacre, his followers are now
carrying out a genocide: "His legacy of bloodshed continues in
Gaza and the West Bank as his followers are now in power."
Shatha Hanaysha: [02-28]
Israeli forces kill 3 Palestinians, including Tubas Brigade leader in
northern West Bank.
Ellen Ioanes:
Gideon Levy: [03-03]
Gaza's night of death and hunger.
Niha Masih/Annabelle Timsit: [03-03]
US plans more airdrops into Gaza amid hope for Ramadan cease-fire:
This has got to be the least cost-effective means of delivering aid
humanly possible. That the US cannot trust Israel to safely deliver
aid via trucks speaks volumes about how little faith America has in
its so-called closest ally.
Chris Floyd tweeted (?): "OK, why don't you
set up a depot on the beach, supply it via the US Navy, and deliver
the aid throughout Gaza with military trucks under escort? That
would be pulling out all the stops. Otherwise, you're just putting
on a PR show with pitiful dribs and drabs." I don't take this as a
serious proposal. It's more of a thought experiment. If the US did
this, would Israel be deterred from attacking relief distribution?
And, to defend its deterrent threat, would US troops be allowed to
return Israeli fire?
The same question applies to airdrops, which thus far Israel has
not attempted to shoot down. But the airdrops are so inefficient
they'll do little to blunt Israel's starvation weapon. Ships and
trucks could make a real as well as a symbolic difference. Still,
if Biden had the guts to send the Navy in, why wouldn't he do the
right thing and start by insisting on an Israeli ceasefire? The
only way relief is going to work is if it won't be attacked by
Israel. Until the bombing stops, nothing good, or even decent,
can happen.
Mahmoud Mushtaha: [02-29]
These words are penned in hunger from northern Gaza. I have little
energy to go on: "From the daily indignity of searching for food
to the extreme dangers of doing journalistic work, life in this dark
corner of the earth has become impossible."
Marcy Newman: [03-02]
How Israeli universities are an arm of settler colonialism:
Review of Maya Wind: Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli
Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom.
Dean Obeidallah: [02-27]
"Nothing has compared to what we're seeing": Hala Gorani on the toll of
covering Gaza war: Interview with the NBC News journalist and author
of But You Don't Look Arab: And Other Tales of Unbelonging.
Yumna Patel: [02-27]
New reports confirm months of Israeli torture, abuse, and sexual violence
against Palestinian prisoners.
Jeremy Scahill/Ryan Grim/Daniel Boguslaw: [02-28]
"Between the hammer and the anvil": "The story behind the New
York Times October 7 exposé." This was the story by Anat Schwartz
that charged Hamas fighters with rape during their short-lived
jailbreak. This article was a big deal in the first week of the
war, when writers who meant well were so quick to condemn Hamas
when they should have been more alert to Israel's initial moves
toward genocide. (In particular, I remember a piece by Eric Levitz
finding the charges credible because "soldiers of all armies rape" --
an insight he didn't follow up on when Israel started sending their
soldiers into Gaza.) For another piece on this:
Ishaan Tharoor: [03-01]
Gaza's spiraling, unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe.
Philip Weiss:
Oren Ziv:
[02-26]
'People say I'm naive, antisemitic, a traitor': Israeli teen jailed
for draft refusal: "Conscientious objector Sofia Orr explains why
she never wavered in her decision despite the crackdown in Israel
against opponents of the war."
[03-01]
Israeli settlers cross into Gaza, build 'symbolic' outpost: "Dozens
of settlers and right-wing activists stormed Erez Crossing, building
two wooden structures while soldiers and police stood aside." This is
a very disturbing development, but follows Israel's now common police
practice of permitting and even encouraging encroachments and mob
violence against Palestinians. Still, one would expect that in a war
zone, the IDF would insist on imposing discipline on its own troops.
In 1948, Ben Gurion deemed this so important that he ordered the IDF
to turn on the previously independent right-wing EZL/LEHI militias,
forcing them to submit to state control. Netanyahu, on the other
hand, seems to see right-wing mobs as helping drive his relentless
drive to extremism, which is clearly the point here.
By the way:
Killing of aid seekers part of a 'decades-long pattern' of Israeli
violence: Per Human Rights Watch.
Israel vs. world (including American) opinion: This week we
lead off with a singular act of self-sacrifice, by an American, an
active duty serviceman, Aaron Bushnell, in front of the Israeli embassy
in Washington. I feel like I should add an opinion, but I don't really
have one. My inclination is to view him as just another casualty of
the more general madness, so not a hero or martyr or even a fool,
but I'm also not so callous as to look the other way -- especially
when so many people do have things to say.
Other stories:
Spencer Ackerman: [03-28]
The anti-Palestinian origins of the War on Terror: Interview
with Darryl Li, who wrote the report
Anti-Palestinian at the core: The origins and growing dangers of
US anti-terrorism law.
Ammiel Alcalay: [02-28]
War on Gaza: How the US is buying time for Israel's genocide:
"As the US ambassador to the UN recently made clear in a rare moment
of honesty, Washington is fully committed to facilitating Israel's
destruction of the Palestinians."
Kyle Anzalone: [03-01]
US vetoes UN resolution condemning Israel for flour massacre.
Muhannad Ayyash: [02-26]
Boycotting Israel could stop the genocide: At this point, this
is probably just wishful thinking: "the world must ensure Tel Aviv's
legal, economic and political isolation." The nice thing about BDS
was that it provided a forum for grass-roots organizing against the
apartheid regime in Israel: something that individuals could start
and grow, and eventually recruit more powerful organizations, while
ultimately appealing to the better consciences within Israel itself.
That it worked with South Africa was encouraging.
But it was always
going to be a much more difficult reach in Israel -- I could insert
a half-dozen reasons here -- and it never came close to gathering
the collective moral, let alone financial, force it had with South
Africa. Now, about all you can say for it is that it allowed people
of good will to express their disapproval without promoting even
more violence. I would even agree that it's still worth doing --
Israel deserves to be shamed and shunned for what it's doing, now
more than ever. And, as we witness what Israel is doing, many more
people, indeed whole nations, may join us.
But will boycotting stop
the genocide now? Maybe if the US and NATO banded together and put
some serious teeth in their threats, some Israelis might reconsider.
But sanctions usually just push countries deeper into corners, from
which they're more likely to strike back than to fold. I'm not about
to blame BDS for Israel's rampant right-wing -- their racism dates
back further than any outsider noticed -- but they would claim their
ascent as the way of fighting back against foreign moralizers. Even
if we could count on eventually forcing some kind of reconciliation,
the people in power in Israel right now are more likely to double
down on genocide. It's not like anyone in the Nazi hierarchy saw the
writing on the wall after Stalingrad and decided they should call
the Judeocide off, lest they eventually put on trial. They simply
sped up the extermination, figuring it would be their enduring
contribution to Aryan civilization.
Jo-Ann Mort: [02-28]
BDS is counter-productive. We need to crack down on Israeli settlements
instead: "A future peace depends on drawing a line between Israel
proper and the illegal settlements in Palestinian territory." This
article is so silly I only linked to it after the Ayyash piece above.
It does provide some explanation why BDS failed, but it doesn't come
close to offering an alternative. Israel has been continuously blurring
and outright erasing the Green Line ever since 1967. (It started with
he demolition of the neighborhood next to the Al-Aqsa Mosque's western
wall, just days after the 7-day war ended.) There is no way to force
Israel to do much of anything, but few things are harder to imagine
them acceding to is a return to what from 1950-67 were often decried
as "Auschwitz borders."
Phyllis Bennis:
Amena ElAshkar: [02-28]
Gaza ceasefire: Talk of an imminent deal is psychological warfare.
I haven't bothered linking to numerous articles about an imminent
ceasefire deal because, quite frankly, possible deals have never been
more than temporarily expedient propaganda, mostly meant to humor the
hostage relatives and the Americans. If Israel wanted peace, they could
ceasefire unilaterally, and having satisfied themselves that they had
inflicted sufficient damage to restore their Iron Wall deterrence,
leave the rubble to others to deal with. The hostages would cease to
be a bargaining chip, except inasmuch as not freeing them would keep
much needed international aid away. So why is Netanyahu negotiating
with Hamas? Mostly to squirrel the deal, while he continues implementing
his plan to totally depopulate/destroy Gaza.
Paul Elle: [02-26]
The Vatican and the war in Gaza: "A rhetorical dispute the Church
and the Israeli government shows the limits -- and the possibilities --
of the Pope's role in times of conflict." On the other hand, if you
look at the Pope's recent comments on "gender theory," you'll realize
that he has very little to offer humanity, and that a Church that
follows him could be very ominous. (For example, see [03-02]
Pope says gender theory is 'ugly ideology' that threatens humanity.)
Sometimes I'm tempted to take heart in that the Catholic Church is one
of the few extant organizations to predate, and therefore remain somewhat
free of, capitalism. But in it the spirit of Inquisition runs even
deeper.
Madeline Hall: [02-28]
Israeli genocide is a bad investment: For one thing, Norway has
divested its holdings of Israeli bonds.
James North:
Peter Oborne: [02-27]
These ruthless, bigoted Tories would have Enoch Powell smiling from
his grave: "The recent spate of vile anti-Muslim rhetoric from the
Tories shows they have decided that stoking hatred against minorities
is their only way to avoid electoral annihilation." Also in UK:
Charles P Pierce: [02-29]
The US has enabled Netanyahu long enough: "Two democracies,
hijacked for alibis."
Vijay Prashad: [02-14]
There is no place for the Palestinians of Gaza to go.
Barnett R Rubin: [03-02]
Redemption through genocide: "The ICJ ruled that Israel's Gaza
campaign poses a plausible and urgent threat of genocide. Future
historians of Jewish messianism may recount how in 2024 "redemption
through sin" became "redemption through genocide," with unconditional
US support."
Sarang Shidore/Dan M Ford: [02-29]
At the Hague, US more isolated than ever on Israel-Palestine.
Adam Taylor: [02-29]
Democrats grew more divided on Israeli-Palestinian conflict, poll
shows. Interesting that the Democratic split has always favored
"take neither side," from a peak of 82% down to 74% before Gaza blew
up -- the 12% drop since looks to be evenly split. Republicans, on
the other hand, never had any sympathy for Palestinians, and became
more pro-Israeli since (56% would "take Israel's side," vs. 19% for
Democrats).
Philip Weiss: [02-28]
PBS and NPR leave out key facts in their Israel stories: "Pundits
and reporters in the mainstream media have a double standard when it
comes to Israel and all but lie about apartheid, Jewish nationalism,
and the role of the Israel lobby."
America's empire of bases and proxy conflicts, increasingly
stressed by Israel's multifront war games:
Juan Cole: [03-03]
How Washington's anti-Iranian campaign failed, big time.
Dave DeCamp: [02-29]
US officials expect Israel to launch ground invasion of Lebanon:
"Administration officials tell CNN they expect a ground incursion
in late spring or early summer." The logic here is pretty ridiculous,
and if it's believed in Washington, you have to wonder about them,
too. Israel had a lot of fun bombing Lebanon in 2006, but their
ground incursion was a pure disaster. There's no possible upside
to trying it again. The argument that Netanyahu will, for political
expediency, enlarge the war in order to keep it going "after Gaza,"
overlooks their obvious desire to "finish the job" by doing the
same to Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank.
Sasha Filippova/Kristina Fried/Brian Concannon: [03-01]
From coup to chaos: 20 years after the US ousted Haiti's
president.
Jim Lobe: [03-01]
Neocon Iraq war architects want a redo in Gaza: "Post-conflict
plan would put Western mercenaries and Israel military into the
mix, with handpicked countries in charge of a governing 'Trust.'"
Pic is of Elliott Abrams, who was the one in charge of US Israel
policy under Bush, and who pushed Sharon's unilateral withdrawal
of settlements from Gaza, so that Gaza could be blockaded and
bombed more effectively. That directly led to Hamas seizing power
in Gaza, so one could argue that Abrams already had his "redo in
Gaza."
The Michigan primaries: Of minor interest to both party
frontrunners, so let's get them out of the way first. Trump won
the Republican primary with 68.1% of the votes, vs. 26.6% for
Nikki Haley, splitting the delegates 12-4 (39 more delegates will
be decided later). Biden won the Democratic primary with 81.1% of
the vote, vs. 13.2% for an uncommitted slate, which was promoted
by Arab-Americans and others as a protest vote against Biden's
support for Israel's genocide in Gaza. Marianne Williamson got 3%,
and Dean Phillips 2.7%. Everyone's trying to spin the results as
much as possible, but I doubt they mean much.
Next up is "Super Tuesday," so here's a bit of preview:
Trump, and other Republicans:
David Brooks: [02-29]
The GOP returns to its bad old self: He means the "America First"
party of the 1930s: nativist, isolationist, recoiling in dread of the
New Deal, and willing to suffer repeated defeats rather than offer
anything constructive. He contrasts that to the bullish, globalist
part of Eisenhower and Reagan (and the Bushes?), which Trump has
totally eclipsed, and is likely to remain in place even when Trump
is gone.
Russ Choma: [03-03]
A large percentage of Republican primary voters can't stomach
Trump. Nowhere near large enough to prevent him from running
away with the nomination, but the question is whether they are
numerous (and resolute) enough to sink him against Biden. "The
AP report did find, however, that just because those voters said
they didn't want to vote for Trump -- ever -- it didn't mean they
were Biden voters." Haley is not a tenable candidate because she
can't even crack a 50% approval rate within the Party.
Rachel M Cohen: [03-03]
The anti-abortion playbook for restricting birth control:
"Contraception, like IVF, poses problems for those claiming personhood
begins at conception." Filed under Republicans, because they own the
anti-abortion movement now, and are stuck with it.
Ryan Cooper: [02-29]
Mitch McConnell, Senate arsonist.
Thomas B Edsall: [[01-17]
The deification of Donald Trump poses some interesting questions:
First exhibit is a video titled "God Made Trump."
Susan B Glasser: [02-22]
The crazy collapse of the House GOP's impeachment case against Biden:
"'A Big Russian Intelligence Op' flops on Capitol Hill."
Karen Greenberg: [02-29]
Trump's justice: "Justice delayed is democracy denied." Four
sections on Trump, followed by one on Guantánamo.
Margaret Hartmann:
[02-29]
Old-man Trump yells at Biden over Melania Late Night joke.
[03-01]
Trump complains migrants use languages 'nobody speaks'.
[03-01]
Trump's most unhinged plans for his second term: Updated, a
neverending project. To recap: Give the president unchecked power
over federal agencies; Restore the president's authority to bypass
Congress; Appoint a special prosecutor to 'go after' Biden; Use
the Justice Department to get revenge on all of his enemies;
Expand presidential immunity; Purge the civil service; Install
thousands of loyalists throughout the federal government; Fill
his cabinet with people like Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon;
Round up, detain, and deport millions of undocumented immigrants;
Deploy US troops for 'war' on the southern border; End birthright
citizenship; Construct 'freedom cities'; Put flying cars in
Americans' driveways.
Alexander Hinton: [02-26]
I went to CPAC as an anthropologist to understand MAGA -- what I saw
was "shocking".
Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling:
Sarah Jones: [02-29]
Republicans can't be trusted to protect IVF.
Pema Levy: [03-01]
How Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" debacle previewed the abortion agenda
of today's GOP.
Chris Lewis: [02-29]
Ken Cuccinelli and the persuasive, pervasive politics of cruelty.
Jason Linkins:
A year of Republicans lying about abortion.
Sarah Longwell:
What 17 of Trump's 'best people' said about him: Quotes from his
cabinet members and other high officials in his administration.
Carlos Lozada: [02-29]
What I learned when I read 887 pages of plans for Trump's second
term. Lozada was last seen bragging about "reading books so you
don't have to," and he proves that in spades here. No doubt his
outline only scratches the surface, still I'm left wondering less
what they want to do than what kind of damaged psychology drives
one to imagine wanting to do such things.
Michael Podhorzer: [02-20]
It was never a civil war: "The threat posed by Trump and the MAGA
movement, like the Confederate States, is not 'conservative' or even
'extremist' but criminally anti-democratic."
Tom Schaller/Paul Waldman: [02-28]
How to end Republican exploitation of rural America: "The authors of
the upcoming book White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy
explain how rural voters can build a national political movement and
improve their local economies." Inadvertent humor here when the authors
explain that rural voters don't need to switch to Democrats so much as
they should find "better Republicans." By the way, this also just
appeared:
Paul Krugman: [02-26]
The mystery of white rural rage: Reviews the same book. I think a
big part of the problem is that Democrats simply don't try to organize
in impoverished rural areas, partly because they don't expect to win
in the short term, and largely because they'd rather put their efforts
toward upscale suburban districts. One reason is that readily organized
constituencies like unions are scarce in rural America. But well before
they consider organizing voters, they search for donors, and that's
where the suburbs seem like much riper targets. A good example of this
was in 2017, when Trump appointments opened up House districts in Kansas
and Georgia. Democrats puts tons of money into the latter (where they
lost), and virtually nothing into Kansas (where they also lost, but with
a terrific candidate managing to carry Wichita, but losing bad in the
adjacent rural areas). On some level, most Democrats actually understand
that they have much to offer impoverished rural areas, but they do so as
outsiders, more focused on their donors and their issues, and unwilling
to put the work in to building a representative local party.
- Nathan J Robinson: [03-04]
Are rural white people the problem?: Another review of the
Schaller-Waldman book.
Tatyana Tandanpolie: [02-28]
New book details how "incensed" Trump and Melania clashed in the
White House.
Katrina vanden Heuvel: [02-27]
If Trump wins, he'll be a vessel for the most regressive figures in US
politics.
Andra Watkins: [03-01]
Project 2025 is more than a playbook for Trumpism, it's the Christian
Nationalist manifesto: "The right intends to force every American
to live their definition of a good life through government edict."
Li Zhou: [02-29]
Trump's immigration policies are his old ones -- but worse: Some
section heads: Mass deportations; Raids; Detention camps; Suspending
refugee resettlement; Ending Temporary Protected Status programs;
Making seeking asylum harder; Ending DACA; Reviving family separation
hasn't been ruled out; Attacks on birthright citizenship.
Mitch McConnell, 82, announced he will step down as Republican
Leader in the Senate in November. This led to some, uh, appreciation?
Ryan Cooper: [02-29]
Mitch McConnell, Senate arsonist.
Jack Hunter: [02-29]
Sorry AP: Mitch McConnell is no Ronald Reagan: "The paper
deploys the usual neoconservative trope that their foreign policies
are the same. They are not." Still, I hate it when critics think
they're being so clever in claiming that old Republicans were so
sensible compared to the new ones. Reagan's "willingness to talk
to America's enemies" didn't extend much beyond Russia, and that
only after the door had been opened by Gorbachev. He left nothing
but disasters all over Latin America and the Middle East through
Iran and Afghanistan.
Ed Kilgore: [02-29]
Mitch McConnell's power trip finally comes to an end.
Ian Millhiser: [02-29]
How Mitch McConnell broke Congress.
John Nichols: [02-29]
Good riddance to Mitch McConnell, an enemy of democracy: Sorry to
have to break this to you, but he isn't going anywhere. He'll serve
out the rest of his six-year term. He's not giving up his leadership
post out of a sudden attack of conscience. He's doing it so some other
Republican can take over, and possibly do even worse things than he
would have done. By holding out until November, he's giving Trump the
prerogative of hand-picking his successor -- assuming Trump wins, of
course.
David A Graham:
Mitch McConnell surrenders to Trump: That's more like it, but at
least he's given himself some time. If Trump wins in November, there'll
be no fighting him. And if Trump loses, why should he want to be the
one stuck cleaning up the mess?
Andrew Prokop: [02-28]
How Mitch McConnell lost by winning.
Jane Mayer: [2020-04-12]
How Mitch McConnell became Trump's enabler-in-chief: Sometimes
an old piece is the best reminder. Had McConnell a bit more foresight
and backbone, he could have swung enough Republican votes to convict
Trump over Jan. 6, and followed that with a resolution declaring
Trump ineligible to run again, according to the 14th Amendment --
such a resolution was discussed at the time, and would undoubtedly
be upheld. Sure, it would have been unpopular among Republicans at
the time, but popular will has almost never entered into McConnell's
political calculus.
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Zack Beauchamp: [02-27]
Biden has been bad for Palestinians. Trump would be worse.
"On Israel, the two are not the same." Probably true, but this really
isn't much comfort. Biden is effectively an Israeli puppet, with no
independent will, or even willingness to caution Netanyahu in public,
and as such has had no effect on moderating Israel's vendetta -- and
may reasonably be charged with not just supporting but accelerating
it. For instance, Biden did not have to send aircraft carriers into
the region, threatening Iran and provoking Yemen and Lebanon. Nor did
he have to accelerate arms deliveries when a ceasefire was obviously
called for. As for Trump, sure, he doesn't even know the meaning of
"caution." He is largely responsible for Netanyahu believing that he
can get away with anything.
Dave DeCamp: [03-03]
Poll: Majority of Democrats want a presidential candidate who opposes
military aid to Israel: With Marianne Williamson unsuspending
her campaign, there actually is one, but will anyone find out?
Isaac Chotiner: [02-28]
Does the Biden administration want a long-lasting ceasefire in Gaza?
Interview with John Kirby, Biden's National Security Council spokesman,
explaining that Biden only wants whatever Netanyahu tells him to want.
It's like a form of hypnosis, where Hamas is the shiny object that so
captures America's gaze that it will support Israel doing anything to
it wants as long as it's saying it's meant to eliminate Hamas. Sure,
Biden understands that Palestinians are suffering, and he implores
Netanyahu to make them suffer less, but he can't question his orders.
The key to this is that he buys the line that Hamas is a cancer that
can be excised from the Palestinian body politic, allowing Israel to
regain its security. I hesitate to call that the Israeli line: sure,
they developed it with their targeted assassinations (they go back
at least as far as Abu Jihad in 1988), but Israelis never claimed
one strike would suffice -- they tended to use metaphors like "mowing
the grass"). It was only the Americans, with their romantic conceits
about their own goodness and the innate innocence of ignorant savages,
that turned this systematic slaughter into magical thinking. Israelis
don't think like that. They understand that Hamas (or some other form
of militant backlash) is the inevitable result of their harsh occupation.
And, their consciences hardened by constant struggle (including their
carefully cultivated memory of the Holocaust), they're willing to live
with that brutality.
If they can't distinguish Hamas from the mass of
people they've emerged from, they see no reason to discipline their
killing. They figure if they destroy enough, the problem will subside.
Even if it inevitably erupts again, that's later, and they'll remain
eternally vigilant. There are no solutions, because they don't want
to accept the only possible one, which is peaceful coexistence. But
silly Americans, they need to be told stories, and it's amazing what
they'll swallow.
Mitchell Plitnick: [03-01]
Biden memos show Palestine advocacy is working: "Two recent
presidential orders show the Biden administration is feeling the
heat from months of protests against his support for Israel's
genocide in Gaza."
Alexander Ward: [03-01]
'We look 100 percent weak': US airdrops in Gaza expose limit to Biden's
Israel policy.
Fareed Zakaria: [03-01]
Biden needs to tell Israel some difficult truths. Only he can do it.
Erica L Green: [03-03]
Kamala Harris calls for an 'immediate cease-fire' in Gaza:
Promising title, but fine print reveals it's only the "six-week
cease-fire proposal currently on the table," and that she's
calling on Hamas, not Israel, the ones who are actually doing
all of the firing, and who have already broken off talks on
that particular proposal. A cease fire, especially where the
war is so one-sided, doesn't need to be negotiated: just do it
(perhaps daring the other side to violate it, but the longer
it lasts, the better). Sure, prisoner exchanges have to be
negotiated, but not cease-fire, which is just common sense.
Frank Bruni: [03-03]
How Democrats can win anywhere and everywhere.
Michelle Goldberg: [03-01]
The Democrat showing Biden how it's done: Gretchen Whitmer,
governor of Michigan. This follows on recent columns by Goldberg:
Ezra Klein: [02-16]
Democrats have a better option than Biden: Starts by heaping
considerable praise on Biden and his accomplishments of the last
three-plus years, then lowers the boom and insists that he should
step aside, not so much because one reasonably doubts that he can
do the job for more years, but that he's no longer competent as a
candidate. (Never mind that Trump is far from competent, in any
sense of the term. He's a Republican, and one of our many double
standards, we don't expect competency from Republicans, or for
that matter caring, or even much coherence.) He goes into how
conventions work, and offers a bunch of plausible candidates.
It's a long and thorough piece, and makes the case as credibly
as I've seen (albeit much less critically of Biden than I might
do myself).
Klein's columns are styled as "The Ezra Klein Show," which are
usually just interviews, but this one is monologue, with multiple
references to other conversations. He's had a few other interviews
recently with political operatives, a couple adding to his insight
into Democratic prospects, plus a couple more I'll include here.
(Also see the pieces I listed under Ukraine.)
Paul Musgrave: [03-03]
An inside look at how Biden's team rebuilt foreign policy after
Trump: Review of Alexander Ward: The Internationalists: The
Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy After Trump.
Bill Scher: [02-29]
"Nightmare in America": How Biden's ad team should attack Trump:
"In 1984, Ronald Reagan's reelection campaign ran a series of ads
that evoked how different life felt in America compared to under
his opponent's administration four years prior. Today, Joe Biden
should do the same." Sure, there's something to be said here, if
you can figure out how to say it. But Trump's going to be pushing
the opposite spin, in many cases on the same set of facts, all the
while pointing out the extraordinary efforts his/your enemies took
to hobnob his administration and persecute him since he was pushed
out of office. He's just as likely to embrace the Left's notion of
him as their worst nightmare. Note that page includes a link to a
2020 article, which also cites Reagan: Nancy LeTourneau:
Are you better off than you were four years ago?
John E Schwarz: [03-01]
Democratic presidents have better economic performances than Republican
ones.
Legal matters and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Ukraine War:
Connor Echols: [03-01]
Diplomacy Watch: Russia could be invited to Ukraine-led peace talks.
I don't really buy that "Ukraine's shift is a sign of just how dire
the situation is becoming for its armed forces," but I do believe
that Russia can more/less hold its position indefinitely, that it can
continue to exact high (and eventually crippling) costs from Ukraine
indefinitely, and that it can survive the sanctions regime (which the
US is unlikely to loosen even in an armistice. All of this suggests
to me that Zelensky needs to approach some realistic terms for ending
the war, then sell them as hard to his "allies" as to Putin, and to
the rest of the world.
Anatol Lieven/George Beebe: [02-28]
Europeans' last ditch clutch at Ukrainian victory: "France's
Macron raised the idea of Western troops entering the fray, others
want to send longer range missiles."
Olena Melnyhk/Sera Koulabdara: [02-29]
Ukraine's vaunted 'bread basket' soil is now toxic: "Two years
of war has left roughly one-third of its territory polluted, with
dire potential consequences for the world's food supply."
Will Porter: [02-28]
Russia claims first Abrams tank kill in Ukraine.
Ted Snider: [03-01]
How the West provoked an unprovoked war in Ukraine. The ironies
in the title at least merit quotes around "unprovoked." The important
part of the story is the relatively underreported period from March,
2021 when Biden added $125 million of "defensive lethal weapons" on
top of $150 million previously allocated under Trump, up to the eve
of the March 2022 invasion, when "Putin called Ukraine 'a knife to
the throat of Russia' and worried that 'Ukraine will serve as an
advanced bridgehead' for a pre-emptive US strike against Russia."
It is unlikely the US would ever launch such a strike, but Ukraine
had by then given up on the Minsk accords and was preparing to take
back Donbas. Had they succeeded, Crimea would be next, and that
(plus excessive confidence in his own military) was enough for
Putin to launch his own pre-emptive attack.
Marcus Stanley: [02-28]
Biden officials want Russian frozen assets to fund Ukraine war:
"Not only will this prolong the conflict, but rock confidence in the
Western-led world economic system."
Ishaan Tharoor: [02-28]
Foreign troops in Ukraine? They're already there.
Ezra Klein:
[2022-03-01]
Can the West stop Russia by strangling its economy? Transcript
of an interview with Adam Tooze, doesn't really answer the title
question but does provide a pretty deep survey of Russia's economy
at the start of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. One minor note: I think
Tooze said "Kremlinologists" where you read "the criminologists of
the modern day have five, six, seven, eight different groups now
that they see operating around Putin."
PS: Unrelated to Russia, but for another Klein interview with Tooze,
see: [2022-10-07]
How the Fed is "shaking the entire system".
Around the world:
Other stories:
Lori Aratani: [03-01]
Boeing in talks to reacquire key 737 Max supplier Spirit AeroSystems:
Boeing spun the company off in 2005, including the Wichita factory my
father and brother worked at for decades.
Marina Bolotnikova/Kenny Torrella: [02-26]
9 charts that show US factory farming is even bigger than you
realize: "Factory farms are now so big that we need a new
word for them."
Related here:
Rosa Brooks: [02-20]
One hundred years of dictatorship worship: A review of a new book
by Jacob Heilbrunn: America Last: The Right's Century-Long Romance
With Foreign Dictators [note: cover has it "America First" in
large white type, then overprints "Last" in blockier red].
Daniel Denvir: [02-28]
The libertarians who dream of a world without democracy: Interview
with Quinn Slobodian, who wrote the 2018 book Globalists: The End
of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism, and most recently,
Crack-Up Capitalism: Market Radicals and the Dream of a World
Without Democracy.
Adam Gopnik: [02-19]
Did the year 2020 change us forever? "The COVID-19 pandemic
affected us in millions of ways. But it evades the meanings we
want it to bear." A review, which I haven't finished (and may
never) of the emerging, evolving literature on 2020.
Sean Illing: [03-03]
Are we in the middle of an extinction panic? "How doomsday
proclamations about AI echo existential anxieties of the past."
Interview with Tyler Austin Harper, who wrote about this in the
New York Times:
The 100-year extinction panic is back, right on schedule.
I could write a lot more on this, especially if I referred back
to the extinction controversies paleontologists have been debating
all along, but suffice it to say:
- Short of the Sun exploding, there is zero chance of humans
going extinct in the foreseeable future. People are too numerous,
widespread, and flexible for anything to get all of us. (Side
note: the effective altruist focus on preventing extinction
events is misguided.)
- Human population is, however, precariously balanced on a mix
of technological, economic, political, and cultural factors which
are increasingly fragile, and as such subject to sabotage and other
disruptions (not least because they are often poorly understood).
Any major breakdown could be catastrophic on a level that affects
millions (though probably not billions) of people.
- Catastrophes produce psychological shocks that can compound
the damage. By far the greatest risk here is war, not just for its
immediate destruction but because it makes recovery more difficult.
- People are not very good at evaluating these risks, erring often
both in exaggeration and denial.
The Times piece led to some others of interest here:
Chris Lehman: [03-01]
Border hysteria is a bipartisan delusion: "Yesterday, both President
Biden and Donald Trump visited Texas to promise harsher immigration
policies."
Andrea Mazzarino: [02-27]
War's cost is unfathomable. I mentioned this in an update
last week, but it's worth mentioning again. She starts by
referring to "The October 7th America has forgotten," which was
2001, when the US first bombed Afghanistan, following the Al-Qaeda
attacks of that September 11. In 2010, Mazzarino founded the
Cost of War Project, which, as economists are wont to do,
started adding up whatever they could of the quantifiable costs
of America's Global War on Terror and its spawn. Still, their
figures (at least
$8 trillion and counting, and with debt compounding) miss
much of the real human (and environmental) costs, especially
those that are primarily psychic.
For instance, would we have the gun problem that we have had
we not been continuously at war for over two decades? Would our
politics have turned so desperately war-like? Certainly, there
would have been much less pressure to immigrate, given that war
is the leading producer of refugees. Without constant jostling
for military leverage, might we not have made more progress in
dealing with problems like climate change? The list only grows
from there.
One constant theme of every
Speaking of Which is the need to put aside the pursuit of
power over and against others and find mutual grounds that will
allow us to work together cooperatively to deal with pressing
problems. There are lots of reasons why this is true, starting
with the basic fact that we could not exist in such numbers if
not for a level of technology that is complex beyond most of
our understandings and fragile, especially vulnerable to the
people who feel most unjustly treated. Our very lives depend
on experts who can be trusted, and their ability to work free
of sabotage. You can derive all the politics you need from
this insight.
Michelle Orange: [03-01]
How the Village Voice met its moment: A review of Tricia Romano's
The Freaks Came Out to Write, a new "oral history" (i.e.,
history presented in interview quotes). I rushed out and bought a
copy, and should probably write my own review, even if only because
she left me out. More:
Rick Perlstein: [02-28]
Kissinger revisited: "The former secretary of state is responsible
for virtually every American geopolitical disaster of the past
half-century."
Deanne Stillman: [02-21]
Mothers, sons, and guns: Author wrote a book about Lee Harvey Oswald
and his mother, recounted here, in light of high school shooter Ethan
Crumbley and his mother, Jennifer Crumbley, who was convicted for her
role leading up to the shootings.
David Zipper: [03-01]
Driving at ridiculous speeds should be physically impossible:
As someone who grew up with a great love of auto racing, I'd argue
that driving at ridiculous speeds has always been physically
impossible, even as limits have expanded with better technology.
Of course, "ridiculous" can mean many different things, but I'd
say that's a reason not to try to legislate it. I've long thought
that the 55 mph speed limit was the biggest political blunder the
Democrats made, at least in my lifetime. (Aside from Vietnam.)
Not only did it impose on personal freedom -- in a way that, say,
European levels of gasoline taxes wouldn't have done -- but it
induced some kind of brain rot in American auto engineering, from
which Detroit may never have recovered. (I can't really say. After
several bad experiences, I stopped buying their wares.)
Ironically, this political push for mandating "speed limiters"
(even more euphemistically, "Intelligent Speed Assistance") on new
cars is coming from tech businesses, who see surveillance of driving
as a growth area for revenue. This fits in with much broader plans
to increase surveillance -- mostly government, but it doesn't end
there -- over every aspect of our lives. Supposedly, this will save
lives, although the relationship between speeding and auto carnage
has never been straightforward, and much more plausible arguments
(e.g., on guns) go nowhere. My great fear here is that Democrats
will rally to this as a public health and safety measure, inviting
a backlash we can ill afford (as with the 55 mph speed limit, which
helped elect Reagan).
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, February 25, 2024
Speaking of Which
Once again, I failed to finish my rounds by end-of-Sunday, so
I'm posting what I have, with the expectation that I'll add more
on Monday (look for red right-border stripes). One thing I didn't
get to but seems likely to be worthwhile adding is
No More Mister Nice Blog. That's where I first ran into the
Katie Glueck article, and I see relevant posts on many of this
week's politics articles.
Charles P Pierce also has worthwhile takes on most of this.
This appeared after my cutoff, but is a good overview of
everything else that follows: Andrea Mazzarino: [02-27]
War's cost is unfathomable, where she starts by referring to
"The October 7th America has forgotten," which was 2001, when the
US first bombed Afghanistan, following the Al-Qaeda attacks of
that September 11. In 2010, Mazzarino founded the
Cost of War Project, which, as economists are wont to do,
started adding up whatever they could of the quantifiable costs
of America's Global War on Terror and its spawn. Still, their
figures (at least
$8 trillion and counting, and with debt compounding) miss
much of the real human (and environmental) costs, especially
those that are primarily psychic.
For instance, would we have the gun problem that we have had
we not been continuously at war for over two decades? Would our
politics have turned so desperately war-like? Certainly, there
would have been much less pressure to immigrate, given that war
is the leading producer of refugees. Without constant jostling
for military leverage, might we not have made more progress in
dealing with problems like climate change? The list only grows
from there.
One constant theme of every
Speaking of Which is the need to put aside the pursuit of
power over and against others and find mutual grounds that will
allow us to work together cooperatively to deal with pressing
problems. There are lots of reasons why this is true, starting
with the basic fact that we could not exist in such numbers if
not for a level of technology that is complex beyond most of
our understandings and fragile, especially vulnerable to the
people who feel most unjustly treated. Our very lives depend
on experts who can be trusted, and their ability to work free
of sabotage. You can derive all the politics you need from
this insight.
Initial count: 154 links, 7,499 words. Updated count: 178 links, 8,813 words.
Top story threads:
Israel: The genocide continues.
Reported casualty figures, as of 2/23, show 1,147 Israelis killed
on October 7, plus 576 Israelis killed since. Palestinian deaths --
certainly undercounted -- are 29,514 in Gaza + 380 elsewhere in Israel.
Since Oct. 7, Israelis are killing more than 51 Palestinians in Gaza
for every soldier lost. No breakdown between soldiers lost in invading
Gaza vs. elsewhere, but the latter numbers are probably very small.
The kill ratio increases to 65-to-1 using the 38,000 estimate "when
accounting for those presumed dead."
Mondoweiss:
Yuval Abraham: [02-23]
Settlers and army blocking West Bank roads to Palestinians:
"Makeshift barriers erected since October 7 have sealed off dozens
of Palestinian communities."
Samer Badawi: [02-19]
Laying the groundwork for Gaza's permanent exodus: "With Egypt
reportedly preparing for an influx of refugees and UNRWA on the
brink of collapse, Israel's second Nakba fantasies could soon
become reality."
Zack Beauchamp: [02-20]
How Israel's war went wrong: "The conflict in Gaza has become "an
era-defining catastrophe." It's increasingly clear what -- and who --
is to blame."
Josh Breiner/Bar Peleg: [02-22]
Israeli Nova partygoer was misidentified as Hamas terrorist on
October 7 and killed by Israeli forces. More examples like
this are likely to come out. When Israel reduced its Oct. 7 death
count from 1,400 to under 1,200, one wonders how much of that was
bad counting, and how much reclassifying?
Isaac Chotiner: [02-24]
"Trying to project the death toll from Israel's military campaign
over the next six months." On a
report from Johns Hopkins University Center for Humanitarian
Health and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
I suspect their "worst case scenario" isn't nearly as bad as it
could get. But even with a ceasefire today, they're projecting
over 15,000 "excess deaths" in the next six months.
Osama Gaweesh: [02-24]
Buffer zone in Sinai: Is Sisi preparing to displace the Palestinians?
Yousef Khelfa: [02-20]
My medical colleagues in Gaza are exhausted, and terrified of what is
to come: "When I left Gaza two weeks ago, my colleagues at the
European Hospital in Khan Younis were already overwhelmed. Now, they
are terrified Israel will invade the hospital and kill patients like
they did at nearby Nasser Hospital."
Ibtisam Mahdi: [02-17]
The obliteration of Gaza's multi-civilizational treasures:
"Israel's war has brought ruin to thousands of years of rich heritage
in Gaza, with Palestinian experts decrying the destruction as a cultural
genocide."
Nicole Narea: [02-23]
Netanyahu's postwar "plan" for Gaza is no plan at all: "Netanyahu's
plan is wildly disconnected from US priorities -- and reality."
Jonathan Ofir:
Oren Ziv: [02-20]
Rugs, cosmetics, motorbikes: Israeli soldiers loot Gaza homes en
masse: "Soldiers describe how stealing Palestinian property has
become totally routine in the Gaza war, with minimal pushback from
commanders."
Israel vs. world opinion:
Ben Armbruster: [02-22]
US intel has 'low confidence' in Israel's UNRWA claims.
Michael Arria: [02-22]
The Shift: US vetoes UN ceasefire resolution again: "Joe Biden
has stepped up public criticisms of Israel to save his faltering
electoral prospects in Michigan, but there remains an incredible
disconnect between these words and his administration's ongoing
support for Israel's genocidal attack on Gaza."
Moustafa Bayoumi: [02-17]
As Biden ignores death in Gaza, the 'Dark Brandon' meme is unfunny
and too real.
Miguel A Cruz-Díaz: [02-23]
On the shame of living through times of genocide. The article,
about "suicidal ideation," is not exactly what I imagined from the
title, but I'm not wired to take other people's tragedies personally.
(I was tempted to say "for empathy," but I can imagine even if I only
rarely feel.) But the title is evocative. I don't advise you feeling
shame for what other people -- and not just the perpetrators, but
also those making excuses, or just shrugging their shoulders -- are
doing, but they definitely should feel ashamed (and if not, should
learn).
Emily Davies/Peter Hermann/Dan Lamothe: [02-27]
Airman who set self on fire grew up on religious compound, had
anarchist past: Aaron Bushnell, whose protest echoed that of
Buddhist monk
Thich Quang Duc during the Vietnam War.
Yves Engler: [02-21]
The reasons for Canada's 'unwavering' support for Israel:
"Canada's remarkable fidelity to an apartheid state committing
genocide is driven by imperial geopolitics, settler solidarity,
Christian Zionism and the Israel lobby in Canada, and the
weaponization of antisemitism."
Richard Falk: [02-25]
In Gaza, the west is enabling the most transparent genocide in
human history.
Jonathan Freedland: [02-23]
Hamas and Netanyahu are a curse on their peoples. Yet amid the horror,
there is a sliver of hope: The "sliver" seems to be [02-23]
Gaza ceasefire talks underway in Paris, but this ignores the
core fact of this "war," which is that you don't need to negotiate
a ceasefire when only one side is shooting. Just do it. Israel can
even declare that if Palestinians do keep shooting rockets at Israel,
there will be reprisals (short in time, but severe). That would be
understandable. But negotiations just does something Israel claims
it doesn't want to do, which is to elevate Hamas as the representative
of the people of Gaza.
The headline suggests that both Netanyahu and
Hamas are unfortunate political choices, but Netanyahu was a choice,
at least of the limited electorate within Israel, and there's plenty
of reason to believe he's doing exactly what those who voted for him
want. Hamas was never elected, because Palestinians have never been
free to choose their own leaders. The West Bank is, well, complicated,
but Gaza should be simple: all Israel has to do is stop attacking and
step away. They've more than punished Hamas. They've destroyed most
of the region's infrastructure. For at least the next 20 years, the
only way people will be able to live in Gaza is through foreign aid,
which they will basically have to beg for. If Israel takes itself out
of the picture, and lets the UN organize a proper democratic government
there, Hamas will release the hostages, and quietly disappear. (Sure,
Hamas may still survive in the West Bank, and among exiles, but that
shouldn't be Gaza's fault. Hamas has no life except as resistance to
Israeli power.)
The idea that some people who got to power purely through the use
of terror -- and that's every bit as true of Netanyahu as of Hamas
(and only slightly less for the Saudis and Americans and other parties
invovled) -- can settle something in Paris that will bring peace to
Gaza is absurd. Freedland writes: "To grasp it, the Palestinians need
to be free of Hamas and Israelis free of Netanyahu." Swap those and
you start to enter the realm of the possible: Palestinians need to be
free of Netanyahu, which for Gaza at least is easy to do. And that
would also make Israelis free of Hamas (except, of course, in the
areas where they're still determined to rule rough over Palestinians,
because such rule always begets resistance -- if not by Hamas, then
by the next bunch that bands together to stand up for freedom and
against injustice).
Thomas L Friedman: [02-27]
Israel is losing its greatest asset: acceptance: This is one of
those "if even Thomas Friedman sees a problem . . ." pieces. Israelis
have a handicap here: they're so conditioned to expecting that the
whole world hates them, they can't imagine how much worse it can get,
or how that might impact them. They figure as long as the US stays
in line, no problem. And they figure the US is way too big to worry
about its own diminishing acceptance.
Mehdi Hasan: [02-21]
Biden can end the bombing of Gaza right now. Here's how.
Robert Inkalesh: [02-23]
Why the US must enage Hamas politically: I don't agree with this now,
but I do believe that I do believe that America's refusal to accept the
results of the 2006 Palestinian Authority elections -- I believe Israel,
which had always preferred Hamas to the secular-socialist PLO, was only
following the American lead -- was largely responsible for pushing Hamas
back into violent rebellion, including the desperate attacks of Oct. 7.
There is, of course, much room for debate as to how to apportion blame
for the continued repression and resistance. Israel's behavior is fully
consistent as a white settler colony overseeing a rigidly racist system
of control -- call it "Apartheid" if you like, but it differs in some
from the disgraced South African system, and often for the worse. It
reflects a demented and ultimately self-destructive worldview, but
they are pretty clear on what they're doing, and why. As for Americans,
they're much harder to explain. Having developed two (or maybe three)
such rigidly racist systems, then dismantled them without ever owning
up to their crimes, they're amazingly ingenious at lying to themselves
and others -- hypocrisy is much too superficial a word -- for the way
they so easily rationalize and romanticize Israeli brutality as high
moral dudgeon.
Jake Johnson: [02-22]
"I think we should kill 'em all," GOP Rep. Andy Ogles says of
Palestinians in Gaza. Makes him exhbit A (but not the only
one) in:
Robert Lipsyte: [02-22]
I'm heartbroken by the war in Israel.
Mitchell Plitnick: [02-23]
Biden won't let Israel's rejection of a Palestinian state interfere
with his delusions.
Philip Weiss: [02-21]
The context for October 7 is apartheid, not the Holocaust: "The
Israel lobby is attempting to indoctrinate Americans that the context
for the October 7 attack is the Holocaust. This is a misrepresentation.
The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust."
America's expansion of Israel's world war:
Spencer Ackerman:
Samar Al-Bulushi/Ahmed Ibrahim: [02-21]
US inks deal to build up to 5 bases in Somalia.
Giorgio Cafiero: [02-19]
Will Egypt suspend the Camp David Accords?
Dave DeCamp: [02-22]
$14 billion US aid package for Israel crafted to prepare for
'multi-front war,' not just Gaza.
Julia Gledhill: [02-23]
The new 'defense industrial strategy' is a boon for the arms makers,
not so much for regular Americans.
Eldar Mamedov: {02-23]
The EU's flagging credibility in the Middle East.
Ishaan Tharoor:
[02-21]
The world confronts Israel over its occupation of Palestinian
lands: "There is a growing global perception that Israel is at
odds with the international system and reliant on the United States
to shield it from further censure."
[02-23]
In Ukraine and Gaza, twilight for the 'rules-based order':
"Western leaders may see in Ukraine the defense of the 'rules-based
order' against Russian brutishness, but in the ongoing calamity in
Gaza, it's easy to also see its breakdown."
[02-27]
Netanyahu's 'day after' plan for Gaza is unviable: "Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled a blanket rejection of any
solutions that empower the Palestinians." Or to allow Palestinians
any measure of dignity anywhere near Israel's vaunted Iron Wall. No
one anywhere should credit Netanyahu as having any legitimacy to rule
over Palestinians. I don't see any way to force his government from
power, but he and it should be shamed and shunned with every option,
including ICJ charges and sanctions. Sure, other governments treat
their minorities with insufficient respect, but no other works so
relentlessly to destroy their livelihood, and often their lives.
Trump, and other Republicans: Well, South Carolina is done
and dusted -- see [02-24]
Trump defeats Haley in South Carolina primary, 60.1% to 39.2%
(at the point with 92% counted). Also, if you care,
How different groups voted in the South Carolina primary, according
to exit polls. Nothing terribly surprising there, except perhaps
that Trump had his best age split in 17-29 (66% vs. 63% for 65+).
[PS: The final delegate split was 47 Trump, 3 Haley.]
Liz Anderson: [02-13]
The crack-up of the Michigan GOP: "The trouble is, when the
working-class WCN [White Christian Nationalists] takes over a party,
their lack of and contempt for managerial skills, their conspiratorial
mindset, and their inability to assume personal responsibility for
their failures leads to organizational failure and financial crisis."
Also on the Michigan GOP:
Zack Beauchamp: [02-24]
The South Carolina primary is a joke. It tells us something deadly
serious: "Trump's seemingly inevitable romp to victory in Nikki
Haley's home state reveals how strong his hold on the GOP is -- and
how dangerous he remains to democracy."
Jackie Calmes: [01-22]
I watched a Trump rally so you don't have to. But you need to know
what he's saying.
Igor Derysh: [02-23]
Experts trash Trump's "insultingly stupid" filing asking Judge Cannon
to dismiss case: "Trump invoked presidential immunity and other
arguments that have already been rejected by other courts."
David Freedlander: [02-22]
The Swiftboater coming for Biden: "With co-pilot Susie Wiles,
Chris LaCivita has brought discipline to the Trump campaign. Is that
enough to win?"
Margaret Hartmann: [02-21]
Trump doubles down on making Navalny's death about him.
Christopher Hooks: [02-25]
The human toll of Greg Abbott's war at the border.
Ed Kilgore:
Charisma Madarang: [02-23]
Trump claims he's 'being indicted for the black population': "The
ex-president additionally said 'the Black people like me' because he
has been indicted four times." So, like, they can relate to a guy who
has spent $50 million on lawyers to stay out of jail (for months, maybe
even a year or two)?
Ben Protess/Jonah E Bromwich: [02-24]
Donald J Trump is racing against time to find a half-billion dollar
bond.
Jennifer Rubin:
[02-21]
Trump idolizes Putin, the man who killed Navalny and invaded Ukraine.
After being horrible for years, Rubin's conversion to anti-Republicanism
was more convincing than most, but she's lost her marbles here. Trump
doesn't idolize Putin. Trump only worships himself. Maybe he has a bit
of grudging admiration for Putin, as a guy who gets away with doing
things he can only dream of. Maybe he thinks Putin might be a fun guy
to pal around with, like Jeffrey Epstein, but if so he's almost dead
certain wrong. (Does Putin really strike you as the kind of guy who'd
enjoy Trump's company?) Trump throws these gestures out mostly just
to wind up the Russiagate libs, knowing they'll react hysterically,
and knowing that when they do, that'll just reinforce the sense of
his base that he's a straight shooter, one of the very few people in
national politics who's not under the spell of the warmongering Deep
State. Meanwhile, Rubin is only winding up her base, giving them
talking points that seem archly moral but are instantly recognized
by anyone not in the clique as hypocritical at best and quite likely
seriously dangerous.
[02-25]
Dim or disloyal? Republicans again ensnared in possible Russian plot.
And here she goes again, although here we should also note how easy it
is for Russian agents to play Republicans. After all, if you want to
swindle someone, the easiest possible mark is someone who's convinced
in his own con.
Praveena Somasundaram: [02-25]
Koch network ends financial support for Nikki Haley's presidential
bid: Regular people may get a chance to vote in America, but
only for candidates who have been vetted and backed by the very
rich. And when that backing falters, the candidates have little
choice but to withdraw (er, "suspend"). Having lost what appeared
to be her two best chances (Trump-averse New Hampshire and her
home state of South Carolina), and now the biggest source of her
funding, she has no chance of winning, and little of making much
of a showing. Sure, as long as she's nominally in the race she'll
continue to trounce Ron DeSantis (who still got 0.4% in South
Carolina), and she's still got the fawning PR coming from
Jim Geraghty and
Kathleen Parker.
Matt Stieb: [02-22]
Was the Biden Crime Family informant a Russian asset?
Kate Sullivan: [02-18]
Trump launches sneaker line a day after judge's order to pay nearly
$355 million.
Tatyana Tandanpolie: [02-23]
Bipartisan Wisconsin ethics commission refers Trump PAC for felony
prosecution over alleged scheme: "Officials find evidence Trump's
Save America committee skirted campaign finance laws to take down
disloyal GOPer."
CPAC: The erstwhile conservative (more like fascist)
organization held their annual conference last week, headlined
by Donald Trump, so we'll offer this as a Republicans overflow
section. Before we get serious, probably the best introduction
here is: [02-23]
Jimmy Kimmel on CPAC: 'A who's who of who won't accept the results
of the election'.
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Perry Bacon Jr: [02-26]
Criticizing a president is always okay -- even one running against
Trump: If you care about issues, you should say so, even when
it's politically inexpedient. Otherwise, you lose your credibility,
and any hope for eventual success. You reduce politics to a game,
signifying nothing. If that's your view of it, you may already be
a Republican -- although they've adopted some truly obnoxious issue
stands, they're really just saying whatever they think gives them
a slight advantage, because all they're really intererested in is
power: seizing it, keeping it, cashing in on it.
Aaron Boxerman/Jonathan Weisman: [02-24]
Biden caught in a political bind over Israel policy: "His steadfast
support of the Gaza war effort is angering young people and Arab Americans
in an election year. But any change risks alienating Jewish voters." Not
really: recent
polling has Jewish Americans favoring a ceasefire 50-34%. That's
not as high as support for a ceasefire from Americans in general,
but not enough to justify the NYT's antisemitic trope of painting
"the Jews" as responsible for Biden's colossal blunder.
Jackie Calmes: [02-14]
Biden's polls aren't great. How much is the media's fault?
Ben Davis: [02-21]
Biden visited East Palestine a year after Trump. This doesn't bode
well.
William Hartung: [01-31]
Tone deaf? Admin brags about 55% hike in foreign arms sales:
"Washington's sanitized view of unleashing $80.9 billion in weapons
on the world, especially now, is a bit curious."
Eric Levitz: [02-23]
Biden is weak -- and unstoppable: "It will be hard to convince
the president that he isn't the best of his party's bad options."
Norman Solomon: [02-25]
Joe Biden's moral collapse on Gaza could help Donald Trump win.
I'm not going to not vote for Biden in November even though I regard
him as not just naive and/or negligent but materially complicit in
the most crime against humanity in recent decades, but only because
I fully realize that Trump would even be worse (as, indeed, his four
years as president amply demonstrated). Still, by all means, tank
Biden's polls and trash his prospects, at least until he starts to
reverse course. And also note that lots of people are not fully
apprised of how awful Trump has been on Israel in particular and
on world war in general -- indeed, he is campaigning, Wilson-like,
on having "kept us out of war" and steering us away from the path
to "world war" that Biden is heading (even though, sure one might
even repeat Wilson-like, he's done more than anyone to pave that
path). If Biden fails to get his war under control, enough people
are likely to fall for Trump's line to tip the election. Also
linked to by Solomon:
Robert Wright: [02-23]
Biden's tough love deficit: Two years after Ukraine, and 20 weeks
after Gaza, turned into massive wars:
There are lots of differences between those two events and between
the wars they've brought, but there's one important commonality: how
President Biden has reacted. In both cases he has come to the aid of
a friend in need and done so in a way that wasn't ultimately good for
the friend. Biden is good at showing love and catastrophically bad at
showing tough love.
With both Ukraine and Israel, the US has massive leverage -- by
virtue of being a critical weapons supplier and also in other ways.
And in both cases Biden has refused to use the leverage to try to end
wars that are now, at best, pointless exercises in carnage creation.
I'll add that both of these wars were advertised long before they
broke out, coming out of long-standing conflicts, and only surprising
to the those in Washington who pretended that peace can be secured
simply by buying American arms and covering them with clichés about
deterrence and sanctions. Most of the fault belongs to presidents
before Biden: to Bush and Trump for indulging Israel's most right-wing
fantasies (and Obama for not resisting them, reinforcing the idea that
American reservations are not things Israelis need to take seriously);
to Obama's pivot toward a renascent Cold War (after Clinton and Bush
expanded NATO to Russia's doorstep); and to Trump for his half-assed
mishandling of Ukraine, Russia, China, and everything else. On the
other hand, every president inherits the mistakes of his predecessors.
Thanks to Trump, Biden wound up with more than usual, but it was his
job to fix them. In some cases he tried, and has even had some success.
In others, he failed, sometimes not even trying. But here, he's made
bad situations worse, and seems incapable of even understanding why.
Legal matters and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Eric Levitz: [02-21]
Why you probably shouldn't blow up a pipeline. Reaction to
Andreas Malm's book, How to Blow Up a Pipeline, and the
subsequent movie. My rejection of such notions is so deep-seated --
I'm still anti-Luddite, even after having developed some appreciation
for the intractable
problems they faced -- I've never had to wrestle with the
issues, nor do I expect that I ever will. But I won't be surprised
to see a rising tide of sabotage -- they've already coined the term
"ecoterrorism" for this eventuality -- as climate distress worsens,
especially if major powers are unwilling to reform and continue to
set the standard for dealing with problems through repression and
violence. [PS: Note, however, that in Kim Stanley Robinson, in his
novel, The Ministry for the Future, expects to see a lot of
"ecoterrorism," and sees it as promoting necessary changes.]
Economic matters:
Dean Baker: [02-21]
The sham "The economy is awful" story: Per Baker's
tweet: "Too bad they [New York Times] weren't allowed to run these
when Donald Trump was in the White House." Next in my Twitter queue
was
Kevin Erdmann: "It's really crazy how interest rate casual stories
get canonized without the slightest interest or curiosity in facts.
EVERY story about housing will stipulate that the Fed's rate hikes
slowed down sales." The chart shows that sales spiked after the worst
of the pandemic in 2020, while interest rates were still low, and
declined as interest rates increased, but since 2022 they're basically
back to pre-pandemic levels, albeit with higher interest rates.
Farrah Hassen: [02-23]
The rent's still too high! "A new Harvard study found that
half of U.S. renter households now spend more than 30
percent of their income on rent and utilities. And rent
increases continue to outpace their income gains. . . . Last
year, homelessness hit an all-time national high of 653,100
people."
Ukraine War:
Responsible Statecraft: [02-22]
The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers.
Kyle Anzalone: [02-22]
US officials see Ukraine as an active and bountiful military research
opportunity.
Medea Benjamin/Nicolas JS Davies: [02-25]
After two grueling years of bloodshed, it's time for peace in
Ukraine.
- Aaron Blake: [02-27]
Zelensky's increasingly blunt comments about Trump: This isn't
a good sign, but Trump has always wanted Zelensky to wade into the
American political fray -- on his side, of course, but it's not
like he can't play opposition just as well. Zelensky is careful to
portay his interests as America's own, but Trump is unflappable in
that regard.
Joe Buccino: [02-22]
Ukraine can no longer win. This piece appeared in the Wichita
Eagle right after the Doran piece, below. Added here after I wrote
the Doran comment, but let's list it first.
Peter Doran: [02-24]
Ukraine can win -- here's how: Author works for Center for European
Policy Analysis (CEPA), one of our leading war tanks, out here to buck
up the troops by, well, quoting Winston Churchill and Henry V. He's
wrong on many levels, starting with the notion that anyone can win at
war these days. Even when he has a point (that Russia's "manpower pool"
isn't inexhaustible) he misses it (that it's still much deeper than
Ukraine's). He points to the unpopularity of the war in Russia, the
suggestion being that Putin will buckle if the West only shows we're
firmly resolved to win, but hasn't Putin proven much more effective
at stifling dissent than the democratic West has? Aside from greater
resolve, he insists the keys to winning are faster deliveries of even
more sophisticated weapons systems, and even tighter sanctions. How
did the war planners miss that? He insists on "a clear and compelling
definition of victory in Ukraine that advances our national interests."
Note nothing here about the well-being of the Ukrainian people, who
bear the primary costs of continued war. His definition? "The
requirements of this victory include the Russian military ceasing to
kill Ukrainians, departing Ukrainian territory and not threatening
the existence of the country in the future." It should be obvious
by now that the only way to achieve any way of this is through a
negotiated settlement that leads not just to a ceasefire but to an
enduring stable relationship between Russia, Ukraine, and the West.
That may require lesser steps -- a ceasefire would be a good start --
but also means giving up impossible definitions of victory.
Steven Erlanger/David E Sanger: [02-24]
Hard lessons make for hard choices 2 years into the war in Ukraine:
"Western sanctions haven't worked. Weapons from allies are running low.
Pressure may build on Kyiv to seek a settlement, even from a weakened
position."
Ben Freeman: [02-22]
The Ukraine lobby two years into war.
Joshua Keating: [02-22]
Are Ukraine's defenses starting to crumble? "What Ukraine's biggest
setback in months tells us about the future of the war."
Serhiy Morgunov/David L Stern: [02-25]
Zelensky says 31,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed since invasion.
His first public disclosure since Dec. 2022 ("up to 13,000"). He's also
claiming 180,000 Russian troops have been killed. When the New York Times
reported this story
(31,000
Ukrainian soldiers killed in two years of war, Zelensky says,
they also noted that Zelensky's number "differs sharply from that
given by U.S. officials, who have said the number is closer to
70,000."
A
leaked Pentagon document had estimated deaths at 15,500-17,000
Ukrainian soldiers, and 35,000-42,500 Russian soldiers. That doesn't
count at least 10,000 Ukrainian civilians killed. For more figures,
some exaggerated, some minimized, see Wikipedia's
Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
Marc Santora: [02-24]
Ukraine's deepening fog of war: "Two years after Russia's full-scale
invasion, Ukrainian leaders are seeking a path forward in teh face of
ferocious assaults and daunting unknowns."
Paul Street: [02-22]
500,000 dead and maimed in Ukraine, enough already: It's been a
long time since I've seen any figures for war in Ukraine, so this
one caught me off guard.
Marc A Thiessen: [02-22]
If Republicans want to help Trump, they should pass Ukraine aid now.
I never cite him, mostly because he's pure evil (he got his start as
Cheney's torture apologist), but my local paper loves his columns, so
I run into him constantly, and occasionally read enough to reconfirm
my judgment. But this one is especially twisted, so I offer it as an
example of the mind games regular Republicans play to manipulate the
deranged Trumpian psyches -- in effect, to keep them reliably evil.
The pitch is that Republicans should keep the war going so Trump can
fulfill his "I'll have that done in 24 hours" campaign promise once
he's elected. Of course, if Trump does win, Thiessen will do his most
to sabotage any peace moves, but in the meantime the war goes on and
Biden gets the blame.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel/James Carden: [02-23]
10 years later: Maidan's missing history.
Walt Zlotow: [02-24]
First 2 years of US proxy war against Russia finds both US and Ukraine
in downward spiral.
Navalny/Assange:
The Observer: [02-17]
The Observer view on Alexei Navalny's murder: Putin must be shown he
can't kill with impunity: "Russia has been exposed as a rogue
state that is a menace to the rest of the world." Isn't the Guardian
supposed to be the flagship of Britain's left-leaning press? But I
cringe any time I see an "Observer view" editorial, perhaps because
so many of them are so full of spite yet so futile, combinations of
hypocrisy and bluster. After fulminating for twelve paragraphs, they
finally explode: "It's time to get real with Russia." So, like, no
more patty-cakes? Like 74 years of "cold war" that actually started
with US and UK troops fighting the revolution on Russian soil? That
went on to using Afghan proxies to snipe at Russians in the 1980s?
That after a brief respite when Yeltsin tried to adopt America's
prescription of "shock treatment" nearly self-destructed Russia?
That was followed by the relentless expansion of NATO combined with
economic warfare including crippling sanctions?
When they wail, "After
Navalny, it's time to drop any lingering illusion that Putin's Russia
is a normal country, that it may be reasoned with." If Russia is not
"a normal country," and I'll grant that it isn't, perhaps that's
because no one in the US/UK has tried to reason with it in dacades?
Navalny is part of the price of this hostile rivalry, and unless he
was some sort of spy, he wasn't even a price the US/UK paid. He was
just collateral damage, like thousands of Ukrainians and Russians
maimed and killed in Ukraine, the millions displaced, the many more
who are denied food and fuel due to sanctions, and the millions of
Russian subjects who are denied free political rights because they
are living under a state whose security is constantly being attacked
by the West.
Andrew Cockburn: [02-19]
Tears for Navalny. Assange? Not so much.
Ellen Ioanes: [02-20]
Where does the fight for a free Russia go now? "Yulia Navalnaya
picks up her husband's battle against Putin."
Fred Kaplan: [02-21]
Even if you hate Julian Assange, the US attempt to extradite him
should worry you.
Margaret Sullivan: [02-20]
The US justice department must drop spy charges against Julian
Assange: 'You don't have to like him or WikiLeaks to recognize
the damage these charges create."
Walt Zlotow: [02-22]
Julian Assange is Biden's Navalny.
Other stories:
Mac William Bishop: [02-23]
American idiots kill the American century: "After decades of
foreign-policy bungling and strategic defeats, the US has never
seemed weaker -- and dictators around the world know it." This is
a pretty seriously wrong-headed article, its appeal to the liberal
publisher based on the MAGA movement, prominent Republicans, Elon
Musk and Tucker Carlson for making America weak, the effect simply
to "advance Putin's agenda." The key to American influence around
he world was always based on nothing more than the perception that
we would treat the world fairly and generously -- unlike the old
colonial empires of Europe, or the new militarism of the Axis, or
the growing Soviet-aligned bloc. Sure, the US was never all that
innocent, nor all that charitable, but in the late 1940s seemed
to compare favorably to the others. The US squandered its moral
standing and good will pretty rapidly, and as the article notes,
is losing the last of it with Biden's wholehearted support for
Israeli genocide.
Nick Estes: [02-19]
America's origin story is a myth: Daniel Denvir interviews Estes,
author of Our History Is the Future: Standing Rock Versus the Dakota
Access Pipeline, and the Long Tradition of Indigenous Resistance.
David French: [02-25]
What is Christian nationalism exactly? NY Times
opinion columnist, self-described
Never-Trump Conservative, professes as evangelical Christian,
claiming the authority to explain his wayward brethren -- the flock
Chris Hedges wrote about in his 2007 book, American Fascists:
The Christian Right and the War on America -- or at least to
make fine distinctions between his kind and the others, who he's
more inclined to dub "Christian supremacists." That works almost
as well as Hedges' "Fascists" to identify the dictatorial and
vindictive powers they aspire to, without implicating Christians
who practice tolerance and charity, and allowing new nationalists
to express their love for American diversity (as opposed to the
old ones, wallowing in xenophobia and racism).
By the way, one term I haven't seen, but seems more to the point,
is Republican Christianists (or, I guess, Christianist Republicans):
those who enbrace the Republicans' cynical pursuit of coercive power
at all costs, while justifying their lust and avarice as a divine
mission. This piece led me to some older ones:
Katie Glueck: [02-19]
Anti-Trump burnout: The resistance says it's exhausted: "Bracing
for yet another election against Donald Trump, America's liberals
are feeling the fatigue. "We're kind of, like, crises-ed out," one
Democrat said." Well, if one Democrat said it, that's exactly
the sort of thing you can count on the New York Times to blow up
into a page one issue. Genocide in Palestine? Not so much. Reading
their own paper, they don't seem to understand that Trump is out of
power, and has been for 3.5 years now. Sure, he still talks a lot,
but that's all he is. Trying to shut him up, even if we wanted to,
not only isn't worth the effort, but would make things even worse.
For most of us, there's nothing much we can do except wait until
November, then vote against him.
Sarah Jones: [02-22]
The right to a private life is under attack: Starts with the
Alabama ruling on IVF (see Cohen, Millhiser, and others, above),
but of course the Trump-supporting Christian Nationalists want
much more than that: they want to run nearly every aspect of your
life:
Our private freedoms are linked to public notions of equal citizenship.
Conservatives attack the former in order to undermine the latter. It's
an unpopular strategy, but as the scholar Matthew Taylor told Politico,
"These folks aren't as interested in democracy or working through
democratic systems as in the old religious right because their theology
is one of Christian warfare." This is total war, and not just on women.
Anyone who fails to conform is at risk.
More, especially on the IVF backlash:
Taylor Lorenz: [02-24]
How Libs of TikTok became a powerful presence in Oklahoma schools:
"The owner [Chaya Raichik] of the far-right social media account, who
sits on a state advisory panel, has drawn attention since the death
of a nonbinary student near Tulsa." I could have filed this under
Republicans (above), as that's her mob, but didn't want to bury it
under the usual graft and bullshit. Related here:
Garrison Lovely: [01-22]
Can humanity survive AI? Long piece I haven't spent much time
with as yet, although the subhed "Capitalism makes it worse" is
certainly true. I don't know how good and/or bad AI will be, but
it's generating a lot more press than I can follow, including:
Kelly McClure: [02-23]
Ex-NRA chief funneled millions of dollars into his own pockets,
according to a NYC jury: "Wayne LaPierre and other NRA executives
were found liable for financial misconduct."
Anna North: [02-23]
Mascuzynity: How a nicotine pouch explains the new ethos of young
conservative men: "Stimulants, hustle culture, and bodybuilding
are shaping young men's drift to the right." Not obvious to me why
this has become "a gateway to right-wing politics." Unless, that is,
you're broadening the definition of right-wing from servants of
hierarchy/oligarchy to plain old, all-around assholes.
Rick Perlstein: [02-21]
The neglected history of the state of Israel: "The Revisionist
faction of Zionism that ended up triumphing adhered to literal fascist
doctrines and traditions." This is, of course, directly relevant to
what's happening in the Israel section above. The relationship is not
just temperamental and ideological: Netanyahu's father was Jabotinsky's
secretary and confidant.
Alissa Quart: [02-21]
US media is collapsing. Here's how to save it. She's director of
something called
Economic Hardship Reporting Project
Aja Romano: [02-18]
An attempt to reckon with True Detective: Night Country's bonkers
season finale: Noted in the breach, as a remarkably bad review
of a season and series where I'm hard pressed to find any points
to agree with, either in praise (mostly of seasons one and three,
where the flaws are most obvious) or in panning (seasons two and
four, where the messes swamp out the positives). But I will say
that the "bonkers season finale" was much more satisfying than any
I imagined to that point. I at least took the political point, which
is that the power of the rich, and the hopelessness of the people
they carelessly grind down and toss aside, are never as complete as
they imagine.
At the same time, I was also watching
A Murder at the End of the World, which was, if anything, even
messier (though just a close second for bone-chilling cold), and
again mostly acquitted itself with a politically-charged "bonkers
finale": the murders were orchestrated by AI, but the context was
corporate megalomania, as represented by a billionaire obsessed
with control and life-extension. Speaking of which:
Jeffrey St Clair: [02-23]
Roaming Charges: Somewhat immature: Title is Brig. Gen. Anthony
Mastalir, commander of U.S. Space Forces Indo-Pacific, describing
the "rules of engagement for orbital warfare," which is to say nobody
agrees on any rules, or even knows what they are or should be. But
who's that going to stop?
Ben Wray: [02-24]
It's time to dismantle the US sanctions-industrial complex: "The
US has built up an elaborate machinery for waging economic warfare on
its rivals with little or no public debate. This sanctions-industrial
complex is a disguised form of imperialism and a dangerous source of
global instability."
Li Zhou: [02-23]
America's first moon landing in 50 years, explained.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, February 18, 2024
Speaking of Which
Another week, dallying on work I should be doing, eventually finding
a diversion in the world's calamities, reported below.
Note, however, that I didn't manage to finish my
usual rounds by end-of-Sunday, so posted prematurely, and will
try to follow up on Monday, the new pieces flagged like this one.
Initial counts: 151 links, 7,009 words.
Updated: 171 links, 7,780 words.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
[02-12]
Day 129: Israel bombards Rafah, killing more than 60 in a night:
"67 Palestinians, including babies and children, were killed Sunday
night as Israel intensified bombing in Rafah, where over 1 million
Palestinians are sheltering, in preparation for a ground invasion
that experts warn would amount to genocide."
[02-13]
Day 130: U.S. Senate votes to send additional $14 billion to Israel
as catastrophic ground invasion of Rafah appears imminent: "As
Palestinians prepare for a catastrophic ground invasion of Rafah,
the U.S. Senate votes to send an additional $14 billion to Israel.
Amnesty International warns Palestinians in southern Gaza are "facing
the real and imminent risk of genocide."
[02-14]
Day 131: Israeli snipers force dozens to evacuate Nasser Hospital in
Khan Younis, Israel steps up bombing in Lebanon: "As ceasefire
negotiations enter their second day in Cairo, fighting around Nasser
Hospital in Khan Younis is intensifying -- with dozens of Palestinians
who have been sheltering inside forced to evacuate by Israeli sniper
attacks."
[02-15]
Day 132: Israel bombards Nasser hospital, reports of Egypt preparing
'buffer zone' ahead of Gaza expulsion: Israel bombarded Nasser
Medical Complex in Khan Younis, killing and injuring patients and
those sheltering inside. Egyptian human rights group reports
construction underway on detention zone ahead of a possible mass
expulsion from Gaza into Sinai.
[02-16]
Day 133: Israel cuts electricity to critical Nasser Hospital patients,
forces staff to evacuate: Medicins Sans Frontiers reports "an
unknown number of dead and wounded" following Israel's attack on
Nasser Hospital. UNRWA says 84% of Gaza health facilities have been
impacted by Israeli attacks, and 70% of civilian infrastructure has
been damaged.
[02-17]
Day 134: Biden claims to push for temporary ceasefire, as US authorizes
more weapons to Israel: "After several days of reported negotiations,
Hamas says it will not accept anything less than complete ceasefire,
blames Israel for stalling a ceasefire agreement."
[02-18]
Day 135: Israel's war on Gaza's hospitals continues: "Nasser
Hospital, the second-largest medical facility in the Gaza Strip,
was forced closed Sunday following an Israeli siege, storming,
and arrest of medical staff and patients. Meanwhile, Israel also
bombed Al-Amal Hospital in Khan Younis."
Kyle Anzalone: [02-16]
Israel Military says Hamas will not be defeated in Gaza offensive:
But it will continue, as long as possible, because Hamas is just
systematic of the real target, the Palestinian people. We refer to
what Israel is doing in Gaza as "genocide" because, well, that's
clearly the intent, but even the Nazis left a million or so Jews
alive, and several times more beyond their war zone. Palestinians
will also survive, and will remember, and struggle to return. No
doubt the Israelis fully understand that: Hamas is the Palestine
they most need, because it's the force that justifies perpetual
struggle, and that's what distinguishes and lifts Israelis above
diaspora Jews.
Avishay Artsy: [02-16]
The looming ground assault on the last "safe" zone in Gaza:
Never have scare quotes been more warranted.
Dave DeCamp: [02-15]
Egypt building walled camp in Sinai Desert to absorb Palestinian
refugees from Gaza: Cites report by:
Irfan Galaria: [02-16]
I'm an American doctor who went to Gaza. What I saw wasn't war -- it
was annihilation.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [02-13]
Rafah on the precipice: "Palestinians in Rafah are dreading
Israel's impending invasion, but there is nothing we can do to
ensure our safety. If the army surrounds us, we have nowhere left
to go. We will be forced to endure the fire and look death in the
face."
Shatha Hanaysha: [02-15]
From the cities to the countryside, armed resistance is spreading in
the West Bank: "Armed resistance in the West Bank had been
concentrated in larger cities, but since October 7 it is spreading.
'Resistance in Azzun used to be non-armed,' a resident of the small
town tells Mondoweiss. 'Then everything changed after October 7.'"
Ellen Ioanes/Nicole Narea: [02-15]
Hospitals are supposed to be safe. Not in Gaza. "Israel's raid on
Nasser Hospital in Khan Yuonis might break international humanitarian
law." Might?
Nicole Narea: [02-12]
Israel's dangerous escalation in Rafah, explained.
Jonathan Ofir: [02-15]
Former Mossad official: Children in Gaza over the age of 4 deserve
to be starved: Interview with Rami Igra.
Meron Rapoport: [02-13]
'Change in Israel will only happen when there are costs that force
our eyes open': "Oct. 7 has 'broken a contract' between the army
and gov't, but has yet to shake key parts of Israeli society into a
different paradigm, says scholar Yagil Levy."
Daisy Schofield: [02-11]
Israel has ramped up attacks on Jenin Camp in the West Bank.
Richard Silverstein:
Brett Wilkins: [02-14]
Israel jails Palestinian human rights lawyer Diala Ayesh without
charge: "How is this not hostage-taking?"
Israel vs. world opinion:
Spencer Ackerman: [02-14]
The children of Gaza were not killed for democracy: "Absolutely
nothing about Israel's U.S.-sponsored genocide has to do with democracy.
Biden needs to stop staining democracy with the blood of children."
AlJazeera: [02-18]
Brazil's Lula compares Israel's war on Gaza with the Holocaust.
Michael Aria: [02-15]
The Shift: AIPAC targets Bush and Bowman: "AIPAC is poised to
spend $100 million this election cycle, as they look to oust the
few House members who criticize Israeli policy."
Ramzy Baroud: [02-16]
The unrepentant West: Germany's Olaf Scholz and the right to commit
genocide in Gaza.
Dave DeCamp:
Eoghan Gilmartin: [02-16]
Why Spain opposed the West's punishment of UNRWA.
Marc Martorell Junyent: [02-18]
Munich dispatch: Gaza "wind blowing against the West": "EU foreign
policy chief Josep Borrell warns the world smells hypocrisy as Israel
readies death blow in Rafah." Well, it's much worse than hypocrisy,
but that tiny concern shows that the public relations disaster is
starting to sink in, even as far as the EU's top security mandarins.
David Kattenburg: [02-13]
Dutch court orders government to stop providing F-35 parts to
Israel.
Daniel Larison: [02-13]
Biden's calls for Israel to mind the laws appear feeble, and
ignored.
Shaul Magid: [02-14]
The forgotten history of American Jewish dissent against Zionism:
"In resurrecting stories of non- and anti-Zionist
critics, a new book shows American Jews how questioning Israel is
deeply rooted in their community." The book is Geoffrey Levin:
Our Palestine Question: Israel and American Jewish Dissent
1948-1978. Note: Magid's own book, The Necessity of Exile:
Essays From a Distance, is one of several reviewed here:
By the way, here's a quote from Magid's book:
But what if instead, we began to explore a new ideology of Jewish
self-determination? One that doesn't begin with the proprietary
narrative of Zionism? One that doesn't lay claim to the land of
the Jews at the exclusion of others? What if we separated the
Jewish homeland from the notion of a Jewish state (as Hannah Arendt
suggested in her essay "To Save the Jewish Homeland")? What if the
concept of shared sovereignty was not perceived as Jews giving away
"their" land to Palestinians, but as recognition of the equal
rights of Palestinians to the land -- that is, an acknowledgment
that the right of Palestinian self-determination is equal to the
right of Jewish self-determination, and that the proprietary nature
of the Zionist claim is abolished? What if we did away with the
"Arab Question" altogether since the very notion assumes Jewish
ownership and sovereignty, just as the "Jewish Question" once
implied Jews' second-class status in Europe because of their
resistance to assimilation?
Of course, this hypothetical was never seriously entertained by
the actual Zionists, who plotted to seize power from the outset --
Herzl's book, after all, was titled The Jewish State. Nor
were the Palestinians, at least as long as they held the majority,
inclined toward sharing. (Sure, there were dissenting voices, on
both sides, especially among communists, but they never had real
power.) Sharing power is something all sides can conceivably agree
to. Dominance, on the other hand, can only be seized, and with it
inevitably resisted. Israel remains unwilling to share anything,
only because they haven't been forced to realize that dominance
is unsustainable. After all, they've gotten away with it for 75
years since seizing power in 1948. They realize it takes harsh
measures, and that they risk turning themselves into international
pariahs, but they're getting away with it. Some of them may even
figure that when they are so shunned and shamed they're unable to
sustain their policies of apartheid and genocide, they'll still be
able to settle for equality -- a deal the overwhelming majority of
Palestinians were already hoping for decades ago. But for now, most
repeat the threat that, if given the opportunity, Palestinians would
do unto Israelis as Israelis have done unto them. Whether that line
is just propaganda or paranoia varies from person to person. But we
others should realize that denying Israel license to deny and destroy
Palestinian humanity, by taking the weapons of genocide away, will
do no serious harm to the Israeli people. All that would do is to
prod Israelis to negotiate a more equitable sharing of power, and
with it recognition of everyone's humanity. And if we fail to do so,
we will be cursing Israelis as well as Palestinians to an eternity
of dread and doom.
By the way, looking at Magid's book led me to another similar
but perhaps even more pointed book, by Daniel Boyarin:
The No-State Solution: A Jewish Manifesto. (Not many reviews,
but Jewish Currents published
Two paths for diasporism, and First Things (a right-wing
journal previously unknown to me) went with
Anti-Zionism goes woke.
Jeff Merkley/Dick Durbin/Elizabeth Warren/Chris Van
Hollen/Peter Welch: [02-16]
The US should immediately mobilize 'Operation Gaza Relief':
Five Senators, three of whom just voted to send Israel $14.1B more
ammo and to prohibit the US from giving any funds to UNRWA, the UN's
already-active relief and works agency. Supposedly a direct American
operation would be tolerated by Israel while continuing its systematic
destruction of Gaza. But most certainly it would become an instrument
of Israel's genocidal aims, making the US even more complicit. Until
there is a ceasefire, relief isn't even feasible. By the way, students
of Israeli history will recall that Israel twice agreed to ceasefires
during the 1948-50 war. The reason they did so was that they ran low
on ammo, and the ceasefire bought time to rearm. The only thing that
will cause Israel to slow down its assault is blocking its resupply
of arms and ammunition.
Ed Rampell: [02-11]
Israelism bucks blind faith in Israeli occupation, apartheid
and "the Jewish Disneyland": Reviews a documentary by Erin Axelrod
and Sam Eilertsen.
Mazin Qumsiyeh: [02-18]
Pathetic state of our world: Also includes many more links.
Paul Rogers: [02-13]
The US could stop the horror in Rafah today. Why won't it?
Hamza Ali Shah: [02-16]
Western governments share responsibility for Israel's crimes.
Ishaan Tharoor:
Daniel Warner: [02-16]
If a mother can be found complicit in her son's murders, shouldn't
states be held complicit in a "plausible" genocide?
Philip Weiss: [02-18]
Weekly Briefing: Why any decent person supports a ceasefire, but
not Biden: "Americans are overwhelmingly for ceasefire by 4 to 1,
and Democrats by more than 7 to 1. The reason Biden can't life a finger
in the face of genocide is that he is afraid of alienating the Israel
lobby as a force for his reelection. It's that simple."
America's expansion of Israel's world war:
Trump, and other Republicans:
Jamelle Bouie: [02-16]
Trump owns Dobbs and everything that comes with it. Bouie also,
recently, also wrote: [01-27]
Dobbs overturned much more than Roe v. Wade.
Josh Dawsey/Ashley Parker: [02-16]
Inside Trump's ouster of Ronna McDaniel as RNC chair.
Nia Prater: [02-16]
Trump banned from his company, fined $355 million for fraud:
"Plus nearly $100 million in interest." [PS: Some reports stick
with the base figure, while others add the interest in to get to
$454 million.] The ban is for three years.
Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were also fined, and banned for two
years each.
More on this:
Susan B Glasser: [02-15]
Trump's threat to NATO is the scariest kind of gaffe: It's real.
Not really. Trump neither understand what NATO was designed to do --
to divide Europe with the Russians, while occupying the West on the
cheap simply by controlling their armed forces (while allowing the
UK and France a bit of leeway to fight their colonies), or what it
ultimately became in the post-Soviet period: an arms cartel. Well,
he half-understands the latter part, which he sees as a protection
racket: pay up, or we'll toss you into a revived version of the
Hitler-Stalin Pact. But there's very little chance of him acting
on that. The Deep State, which he has no clue how to deny -- even
if he wanted to, which he probably doesn't -- wouldn't let him.
But the rhetoric plays well to the "America First" yahoos, because
it makes him look tough and superior, not dependent on the expensive
good will of pampered (and mostly useless) allies. Moreover, his
rhetoric makes the liberal Blob types squirm, and it's easy to
blame them for all the recent wars gone bust -- while exempting
the macho hotheads, like himself.
Melvin Goodman: [02-16]
Never forget who Donald Trump really is.
Ed Kilgore: [02-15]
What the polls say today: Does Haley still have a shot in South
Carolina? Nope. The poll average is 64% Trump, 31% Haley.
Nationwide, it's 74% Trump, 19% Haley.
Heather Digby Parton: [02-14]
Lara Trump's takeover of the RNC turns the GOP into a second Trump
Organization.
Andrew Prokop: [02-15]
Trump's big day in court: The Georgia and New York state cases
had hearings. Later on these cases:
Jake Tapper: [02-16]
'Yes Jared, we're still doing this': Tapper reacts to Kushner's
comments about Saudi crown prince: Video here. For more in print:
Michelle L Price: [02-14]
Jared Kushner, former Trump adviser, defends business dealings with
Saudi Arabia. The "business dealings" included accepting a $2B
investment into his hedge fund.
Li Zhou: [02-14]
Republicans' baseless Mayorkas impeachment sets a disturbing
precedent: "It weaponizes the practice in a new way."
More on this:
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Gabriel Debenedetti: [02-17]
Too old? Biden World thinks pundits just don't get Joe: "The
president's friends and aides play media critic amid a political
mess." They're probably right, but it's hard for outsiders to see,
because Biden has never been a very good communicator, and that's
never sunk in deep enough to save his latest gaffes from being
attributed to obvious age. David Ogilvy
advised: "develop your eccentricities while you are young. That
way, when you get old, people won't think you're going gaga." But if
they hadn't paid attention, that's what they'll think anyway, since
that's the easiest answer. But people who have paid attention often
come to a different appreciation of Biden. I was surprised when, as
Biden was just sewing up the 2020 nomination, to see the "Pod Save
America" guys appear on Colbert and profess not just support for
Biden -- as any practical Democrat would -- but love. I take that
to be the point of Franklin Foer's The Last Politician (on
my nightstand but still unread as, well, I'm pretty upset with him
since he sloppily endorsed Israeli genocide).
Elie Honig: [02-16]
The real Biden documents scandal (it's not the old-man stuff).
Paul Krugman: [02-13]
Why Biden should talk up economic success: I'm pretty skeptical
here. Two big problems: one is that people experience the economy
differently, so it's hard for most people to see how the big stats
affect them personally, and the latter requires more personalized
messaging; the other is that lots of people think the economy does
wonderfully on its own, and that politicians can only muck it up.
They're wrong, but telling people they're stupid or naive is a
rather tough sell. What Biden should be doing is talk about case
examples. He should identify problems, like high prices (drugs is
a good one; gasoline is less good, but still affects people), low
wages (minimums, unions, etc.), rent, debt, pollution, corruption,
fraud, etc. -- the list is practically endless -- and talk about
what he has done, and what he is still trying to do, to help with
these problems. And also point out what businesses, often through
corrupt Republicans, are doing to make these problems even worse.
Every one of these stories should have a point, which is that the
Democrats are trying hard but need more support to help Americans
help themselves, and to keep Republicans from hurting us further.
But just throwing a bunch of numbers up in the air doesn't make
that point, at least in ways most people can understand, even if
you're inclinled to believe Biden, which most people don't. And
isn't that the rub? There are lots of good stories to be told,
but Biden is such an inept communicator that he's never going to
convince people.
Miles Mogulescu: [02-10]
Biden's unqualified aid to Israel could hand Trump the presidency:
I think this is true, even though anyone who knows anything knows
that it was Trump who gave Israelis the idea that Washington would
blindly support any crazy thing right-wing Israelis could dream up,
and that was what increasingly pushed Hamas into the corner they
tried to break out of on Oct. 7. However, Biden didn't so much as
hint at any scruples over Israel, even after raging vengeance turned
into full genocide. At this point, the war in Ukraine is slightly
less of an embarrassment, but also shows the Biden administration's
inability to think their way out of war. As I said last week, if
Biden can't get his wars under control, he's toast.
John Nichols: [02-16]
Michigan just became the first state in 6 decades to scrap an infamous
anti-union law.
Ari Paul: [02-16]
The media is cheering Dems' rightward turn on immigration.
Christian Paz: [02-12]
Yes, Democrats, it's Biden or bust: "Even if voters or the
establishment wanted to, there really isn't a viable process to
replace Biden as the nominee." More "replacement theory":
Paul Rosenberg: This also led me to a couple
of older articles also on tactics.
Dylan Saba: [02-15]
Democrats are helping make the US border look more and more like
Gaza.
Robert J Shapiro: [02-12]
Based on incomes, Americans are a lot better off under Biden than
under Trump.
Norman Solomon: [02-16]
Dodging Biden's moral collapse is no way to defeat Trump.
Paul Starr: [02-15]
It's the working class, stupid: Review of John Judis/Ruy Teixeira:
Where Have All the Democrats Gone? The Story of the Party in the
Age of Extremes. I've been thinking about the same problem,
so picked up a copy of the book, but haven't rushed to get into it.
After all, these guys aren't exactly known as geniuses. Their 2002
book, The Emerging Democratic Majority, tried to flip Kevin
Phillips' 1969 book on how demographic trends favored Republicans,
and didn't fare so well -- it's easier to be optimistic than to be
self-critical. Starr lets them off easy, noting that he wrote a
similar essay five years earlier
(An
Emerging Democratic Majority), so it's nice to have that
reference.
Matt Stieb: [02-15]
Biden picks up key Putin endorsement: Eliciting suspicion by
Democrats that he's playing some kind of devious reverse psychology
game, although his explanation ("[Biden] is a more experienced,
predictable person") sounds eminently reasonable. Of course, it
would have been more sensible to just dodge the questions, maybe
even to admit that covert support for Trump in 2016 was a blunder.
In their rush to demonize him -- which Navalny's death once again
sends into overdrive -- people forget that he is the kind of guy,
secure in his own power, that one can do business with, at least
if you approach him with a measure of respect. Unfortunately,
that seems to be a lost art in Washington, supplanted by a cult
of power projection with no concern for doing right.
Legal matters and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Economic matters:
Ukraine War:
Blaise Malley: [02-16]
Diplomacy Watch: Putin's ceasefire suggestion turned down.
Zack Beauchamp: [02-13]
The moral and strategic case for arming Ukraine: "Congress should
have approved Ukraine aid yesterday." Deep down, I don't buy either
of these arguments. I'm not dead set against sending arms to Ukraine,
but the focus needs to be on negotiating a ceasefire and a peace that
fairly reflects the needs of the people impacted by the war. Longer
term, it needs to develop peaceful cooperation between Russia, Europe,
and the world, which involves, but is far from limited to, easing the
tensions caused by NATO enlargement. The last year has pretty clearly
shown that the military ambitions of both Russia and Ukraine will not
be met, making further fighting exceptionally pointless.
Connor Echols: [02-16]
New poll: Nearly 70% of Americans want talks to end war in
Ukraine.
Carlotta Gall/Marc Santora/Constant Méheut: [02-17]
Avdiivka, longtime stronghold for Ukraine, falls to Russians.
Keith Gessen: [02-15]
Can Ukraine still win? "As Congress continues to delay aid and
Volodymyr Zelensky replaces his top commander, military experts
debate the possible outcomes." But haven't both sides already lost
more than they could ever have hoped to gain?
Marc Martorell Junyent:
[02-16]
Dispatch from Munich: VP Harris warns against 'isolationism':
"The Biden administration is intent on impressing to the annual
security conference that it is the steward of 'international rules
and norms.'" The term "isolationism" was invented in the 1940s,
and applied retroactively to pretty much every American as far back
as George Washington who was reluctant to send American troops to
far away lands (as John Quincy Adams put it, "to find dragons to
slay"), as if the only alternative to military adventurism was
burying one's head in the sand. That's never been true, yet they
still keep trotting the cliché out, imagining they're making a
point.
[02-17]
Munich Dispatch: After Adiivka, Zelensky insists Russians are
losing: "Meanwhile, the German chancellor joins European heads
in promising more money to Ukraine and NATO."
Rand Paul: [02-15]
Seizing Russian assets: A feel good bill that will absolutely
boomerang: "A Senate measure under consideration would breed
contempt and prolong the war in Ukraine."
Olivia Rosane: [02-19]
With $280 billion in profits, oil giants are 'main winners of the
war in Ukraine'.
Valerie Hopkins/Andrew E Kramer: [02-16]
Aleksei Navalny, Russian opposition leader, dies in prison at 47.
I don't have any real opinions on Navalny, other than that his arrest
and death reflects badly on Russia's political and justice systems,
and therefore on their leader, Vladimir Putin. Like most people with
any degree of knowledge about Russia, I don't have much respect let
alone admiration for Putin. I could easily imagine that, if I were
Russian, I would support whatever opposition seems most promising
against Putin, and that may very well mean Navalny, but not being
Russian, I also realize that it's none of my business, and I take
a certain amount of alarm at how other Americans have come to fawn
over him. I don't think that any nation should interfere in the
internal political affairs of another, and I find it especially
troubling when Americans in official positions do so -- not least
because they tend to be repeat offenders, using America's eminence
as a platform for running the world.
On the other hand, I don't believe that nations should have the
right to torture their own people over political differences. There
should be an international treaty providing a "right to exile" as
an escape valve for individuals who can no longer live freely under
their own government. Whether Navalny would have taken advantage of
such a right isn't obvious: he did return to Russia after being
treated for poisoning in Germany, and he was arrested immediately
on return, so perhaps he expected to be martyred. That doesn't
excuse Russia. If anything, that the story had such a predictable
outcome furthers the indictment.
More on Navalny:
Speaking of prominent political prisoners, there's been
a flurry of articles recently on Julian Assange:
Around the world:
Other stories:
Keith Bradsher: [02-12]
How China built BYD, its Tesla killer.
Tim Fernholz: [02-15]
How the US is preparing to fight -- and win -- a war in space:
"Meet the startup trying to maintain American military dominance in
space." Author previously wrote Rocket Billionaires: Elon Musk,
Jeff Bezos, and the New Space Race (2018). Few ideas are more
misguided than the notion that anyone can militarily dominate space.
Chalmers Johnson illustrated that much 20 years ago by imagining
the result of some hostile actor launching "a dumptruck full of
gravel" into orbit: it would indiscriminately destroy everyone's
satellites, and everything dependent on them (including a big
chunk of our communications infrastructure, and such common uses
as GPS, as well as the ability to target missiles and drones).
Lydialyle Gibson: [02-12]
We have treatments for opioid addiction that work. So why is the
problem getting worse?
Umair Irfan: [02-14]
Carmakers pumped the brakes on hybrid cars too soon.
Ben Jacobs: [02-13]
The race to replace George Santos, explained: Written before
Tuesday's vote, which gave the seat to Democrat Tom Suozzi, who
was favored in polls by 3-4 points, and won by 8 (54-46).
Sarah Jones: [02-14]
The anti-feminist backlash at the heart of the election.
Eric Levitz: [02-18]
How NIMBYs are helping to turn the public against immigrants:
"(In this house, we believe that high rents fuel nativist backlashes."
Charisma Madarang: [02-13]
Jon Stewart skewers Biden and Trump in scathing 'Daily Show' return:
I watched the opening monologue segment, and must say I didn't laugh
once. It was about how much older Stewart is now than when he retired
from the show 20 years ago, which was when Biden was the same age
Stewart is now. And, yes, Trump's pretty old too. The most annoying
bit was when Stewart, repeatedly, referred to being president as "the
hardest job in the world." That it most certainly is not. As far as
I can tell, it looks like a pretty cushy job, with lots (probably
too many) people constantly at your beck and call, keeping track of
everything and everyone, and preparing for every eventuality. It may
be overscheduled, but Trump showed that doesn't have to be the case,
and Biden doesn't seem to spend a lot of time in public, either. It
may be dauntingly hard to fully comprehend, and the responsibility
that comes with the power may be overwhelming, but Trump, and for
that matter Biden, don't seem to be all that bothered. Maybe we
should have presidents who know and care more, but history doesn't
suggest that it makes much difference. Once they get their staffs
in place, the bus pretty much drives itself. (Or, in Trump's case,
wrecks itself, repeatedly.)
Later on, Stewart brought in his "team of reporters," tending
to all-decisive diners in Michigan -- the sort of comedians who
developed careers out of the old Daily Show, like Samantha
Bee and John Oliver -- and sure, they were pretty funny, albeit in
stereotypical ways (naïve/inept Democrats; vile/evil Republicans).
More on Jon Stewart:
Jeet Heer: [02-16]
Jon Stewart is not the enemy: "You don't defeat Trump by rejecting
comedy." I agree with the subhed, but I'm still waiting for the comedy.
For what it's worth, I think Messrs. Colbert, Myers, and Kimmel have
done great public service over the last eight years in reminding us
how vile, pompous, and utterly ridiculous Trump has always been, and
I thank their audiences for robustly cheering them on. (It's nice to
know you're not alone in thinking that.) Myers even does a pretty good
job of reminding us that all Republicans are basically interchangeable
with Trump, which is a message more people need to realize.
Ciara Moloney: [01-29]
What peace in Northern Ireland teaches us about 'endless' conflicts:
"If the international community can underwrite war, it can also underwrite
peace and justice." Nathan J Robinson linked to this in a
tweet, pace a quote from Isaac Herzog: "You cannot accept a peace
process with neighbors who engage in terrorism."
Kevin Munger: [02-16]
Nobody likes the present situation very much. Unclear where
this is going, but it's something to think about:
I think that the pace of technological change is intolerable,
that it denies humans the dignity of continuity, states the
competence to govern, and social scientists a society about
which to accumulate knowledge.
Dennis Overbye: [02-12]
The Doomsday clock keeps ticking: The threat of nuclear weapons
is real, but the metaphor is bullshit. The clock isn't ticking. It's
just a visual prop, meant to worry people, to convey a sense of panic,
but panic attenuates over time. So if 7 minutes haven't elapsed since
the clock was set 77 years ago, why should we worry now? We clearly
need a different system for risk assessment than the one behind the
doomsday clock. We also need some much better method for communicating
that risk, which is especially difficult, because there are actually
dozens of different risks that have to be represented, each with their
own distinct strategies for risk reduction. I'm not willing to enter
that rabbit hole here, other than to offer a very rough swag that the
odds of any kind of nuclear incident in the next 12 months are in the
1-2% range (which, by the way, I regard as alarmingly high, given the
stakes, but far from likely; my greatest uncertainty has to do with
Ukraine, where there are several serious possible scenarios, but the
avoidance of them in 2023 and the likelihood of continued stalemate
suggests they can continue to be avoided; by the way, I would count
Chernobyl as an above-threshold incident, as it caused more damage,
and more fallout, than a single isolated bomb; it should be understood
that there is a lot more danger in nuclear power than just the doomsday
scenario).
Jared Marcel Pollen: [02-14]
Why billionaires are obsessed with the apocalypse: Review of
Douglas Rushkoff's book,
Surival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires.
Aja Romano: [02-15]
Those evangelical Christian Super Bowl ads -- and the backlash to
them -- explained.
Also:
Brian Rosenwald: [02-14]
The key to understanding the modern GOP? Its hatred of taxes.
Review of Michael J Graetz: The Power to Destroy: How the Antitax
Movement Hijacked America. The reviewer, by the way, had his own
equally plausible idea, in his book:
Talk
Radio's America: How an Industry Took Over a Political Party That
Took Over the United States.
Becca Rothfeld: [02-15]
The Alternative is just the book economists should read --
and won't: "Journalist Nick Romeo lays out eight examples of
what we gain when we think about morality alongside money." The
book's subtitle: How to Build a Just Economy.
Matt Stieb: [02-13]
The millionaire LimeWire founder behind RFK Jr.: "Mark Gorton has
done his own research on JFK, LBJ, vaccines, and the 2024 election."
Li Zhou:
The New Yorker: [02-17]
Our favorite bookstores in New York City: From the days after
I turned 16, got a driver's license, and dropped out of high school,
up until perhaps as late as 2011 (i.e., when Borders show down),
I spent large parts of my life carousing around bookstores -- at
least two, often more like four times a week. (Since then, I mostly
just
do this.) I fell out
of the habit here in Wichita (which still has Watermark Books, and
a Barnes & Noble), but what really got me was find most of the
bookstores I regularly sought out when visiting New York City had
been turned into banks (Colisseum Books was especially saddening).
So I'm pleased to see this article, and also to note that the only
store listed I've actually been in was the Barnes & Noble. Not
that I'm actually likely to get back there any time soon -- most
of the people I knew there have departed, and I haven't traveled
since the pandemic hit -- but at least one can again entertain the
thought.
Also, some notes found on ex-Twitter (many forwarded by
@tillkan, so please do yourself
a favor and follow her; my comments in brackets):
John Cassidy:
When 2 headlines are worth 10,000 word[s].
[Image
of Wall Street Journal page. Headlines: "Biden Presses Netanyahu to
Accept Plan"; "U.S. Is Preparing to Send Bombs, Other Arms to Israel"]
Tony Karon:
Judge Biden by what he does, not by what he says. Israel can't sustain
its genocidal war without the US munitions Biden keeps sending, while
offering the equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" for the Palestinian
civilians they'll kill [link to:
US to send weapons to Israel amid invasion threat in Gaza's
Rafah]
Nathan J Robinson:
The worst serial killer in history killed nearly 200 children. A
true monster. Unfathomable evil.
So far Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu have killed over 10,000
children. Their evil reaches a whole other level of depravity.
[Commenters belittle the comparison by pointing to the usual list
of political monsters -- Hitler, Stalin, Mao -- without realizing
that they're only adding to the list (which should, by the way,
also include Churchill, Nixon, and GW Bush). Where Netanyahu ranks
on that list is open to debate, but that he is morally equivalent
isn't. As for Biden, he's certainly complicit, a facilitator, but
things he's directly responsible for are relatively minor even if
undeniably real (e.g., strikes against Yemen, Iraq, Syria; general
poisoning of relations with Iran and Russia). I'm less certain
that Stalin and Mao belong, at least the mass starvation their
policies caused: that result was probably not intended, although
both did little to correct their errors once they became obvious.
Churchill's relationship to starvation is more mixed: the Bengal
famine was mostly incompetence and lack of care, much like Stalin
and Mao, but his efforts to starve Germans were coldly considered
and rigorous.]
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, February 11, 2024
Speaking of Which
It's pretty exhausting trying to wrap this up on Sunday evening,
early enough so I can relax with a bit of TV, a few minutes on the
jigsaw puzzle, a few pages in my current book, and maybe a bit of
computer Mahjong before I run make to get a jump on Monday's Music
Week. After a night's sleep, chances are good that I'll think of
some introductory text, and stumble across a couple stories I
initially missed. If I do, I'll add them and mark them accordingly,
with that red right-margin border.
But if you want a pull quote right now, it's probably this:
But if Biden can't get his wars under control by October, I fear
he's toast -- and will be deserving of the loss, even if no one else
deserves to beat him. After all, the ball is in his court.
Initial counts: 145 links, 5,485 words.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
[02-05]
Day 122: Endless killings and despair in Gaza: "Biden urges Congress
to 'swiftly pass' a $118bn bipartisan deal that includes $14.1bn in
military aid to Israel after the ICJ ordered Israel to halt its ongoing
attacks on civilians in Gaza."
[02-06]
Day 123: New testimonies emerge of Israel torturing detained
Palestinians in Gaza: "Euro-Med publishes new testimonies of
Palestinian detainees subjected to dog attacks, forced nudity, and
sexual harassment in Israeli jails, as Israeli soldiers continue
posting images and videos of themselves committing atrocities in
Gaza."
[02-07]
Day 124: Hamas proposes 135-day truce to exchange captives and end
war: "Potential ceasefire deal still at discussion stage, as
U.S. President Joe Biden calls Hamas counter-proposal "a little
over the top." Israel continues to bomb Rafah and Khan Younis in
Gaza, as Israeli forces raid the West Bank, killing one teenager."
[02-08]
Day 125: Israel rejects ceasefire proposal, plans to expand ground
invasion into Rafah: "Israel rejected a Hamas proposal for a
ceasefire, which included the return of Israeli captives held in
Gaza, and is preparing instead to expand its ground invasion to
Rafah, where 1.9 million Palestinians are seeking refuge."
[02-09]
Day 126: U.S. claims it won't support 'unplanned' ground operation
in Rafah, Israel escalates attacks anyway: "Even Joe Biden admits
that Israel's conduct in Gaza is "over the top," while the Israeli
army has continued to intensify its attacks following Netanyahu's
rejection of Hamas's most recent ceasefire proposal."
[02-10]
Day 127: Growing international alarm over Israeli plans to invade
Rafah: "Israel has announced its intention to push ahead with
its plans to invade Rafah in the southernmost Gaza Strip, where
1.3 million Palestinians are sheltering. Rafah's mayor, Ahmed
al-Sufi, warns any military action there would result in a
'massacre.'"
[02-11]
Day 128: Israeli snipers kill Palestinians at Nasser Hospital; gear
up for Rafah invasion: "Hamas says an Israeli attack on Rafah
would end any exchange talks for captives. The siege of the Al-Amal
and Nasser hospitals in Khan Younis enters its third week, three
patients die due to Israel blocking oxygen tanks from entering."
Richard Hardigan: [02-10]
Polls show broad support in Israel for Gaza's destruction and
starvation: "Nearly 58 percent of respondents in one poll
said they think the IDF is using 'too little firepower' in Gaza."
Maryam Jamshidi: [02-05]
Biden executive order on West Bank violence more likely to be used
against Palestinians than Israeli settlers.
Tarif Khalidi/Mayssoun Sukarieh: [02-04]
Leader of the underground tells all: "Yahya al-Sinwar's autobiographical
quasi-novel Thorns and Carnations shows the Hamas leader has lived
a life focused on faith and an obsessive project to build an infrastructure
of resistance in Gaza."
Middle East Monitor: [02-11]
Israeli soldiers steal over $54m from Gaza bank.
Tamam Mohsen: [01-10]
The Gaza genocide is just an instrument in Israel's larger colonial
project.
Loveday Morris: [02-10]
Young Israelis block aid to Gaza while IDF soldiers stand and
watch.
John Mueller: [02-05]
After a spate of warnings, Israel went down the 9/11 path anyway:
"Overreaction has unleashed a fury that has sucked away sympathy and
likely spawned a new generation of terrorism."
Jeremy Scahill:
Israel's ruthless propaganda campaign to dehumanize Palestinians.
Richard Silverstein: [02-09]
Netanyahu: IDF to expel 1.5 million Gazans in Rafah: "Ground invasion
to start within two weeks." It's hard to imagine how this plan might work,
other than to knock down the walls separating Gaza from Egypt, making it
impossible for Egypt to control the border.
Ishaan Tharoor: [02-09]
Netanyahu's delusional, deadly quest for 'total victory'.
Eric Toler, et al: [02-06]
What Israeli soldiers' videos reveal: cheering destruction and mocking
Gazans: "The footage provides a rare and unsanctioned window into
the war."
Sharon Zhang: [02-09]
As Israel starves Gaza, 1 in 10 children under 5 are now acutely
malnourished.
Oren Ziv: [02-08]
Meet the settlers targeted by Biden's sanctions -- and their victims:
"Palestinians and Israelis who've experienced the settlers' attacks
first-hand see the move as a positive but wholly insufficient step
toward accountability."
Israel vs. world opinion:
Ben Armbruster: [02-08]
Media downplays lack of evidence in UNRWA employee scandal.
More on UNRWA:
Zubayr Alikhan: [02-08]
The unthinkability of slave revolt: "Those who say that Israel knew
about the plans for October 7 all along are repackaging an old colonial
trope which believes that the natives are too docile, too submissive,
too cowardly, and too inferior to revolt against their oppressors."
Donald Earl Collins: [02-11]
Western narcissism and support for genocidal Israel go hand in
hand.
Masha Gessen: [02-07]
The limits of accusing Israel of genocide: "Two recent court cases
failed to stop the mass violence in Gaza, but they gave center stage
to facts and historical interpretations that, in Western countries,
at least, are often relegated to the margins."
Omar Karmi: [02-01]
Gaza genocide turns into PR disaster for US.
Julianne McShane: [02-09]
At Hillary Clinton's panel on sexual violence, a clash over the war
in Gaza: Once again, she's stepping up to aid Israel's propaganda
machine in its genocide promotion.
Mitchell Plitnick: [02-09]
Dehumanization and misinformation in service of genocide: "The
dehumanization of Muslims and Arabs combined with outright misinformation
about October 7 is the engine powering the genocide in Gaza."
Alex Skopic/Nathan J Robinson: [02-07]
Islamophobia will poison this country: "The U.S. media is once again
presenting the vicious dehumanizing caricatures that make it easier to
oppress and wage war on people."
Philip Weiss:
[02-09]
CNN bias toward Israel starts at the top.
[02-11]
Weekly Briefing: Biden buckles (under the weight of 28,000 Palestinian
deaths): I've said all along that the genocide will stop only when
Israeli authorities develops a conscience, or at least a sense of shame.
No evidence of that in Israel, so we're looking at Biden, who thus far
has remained politically subservient, but his complicity in genocide
is taking a toll -- on his polls, if not necessarily on a conscience
that has exhibited much flexibility over fifty-some years. It's hard
to remember the last time any American president cajoled Israel into
doing something its leader didn't want -- maybe GWH Bush dragging
Shamir to the peace table at Madrid in 1991, only to endure endless
haggling over the shape of the table (but enough Israelis took note
of American displeasure to replace Shamir with Rabin, leading to the
Oslo breakthrough). It would take a much clearer break to make any
impression on Netanyahu or his voters, and Biden would need to grow
a backbone as well as a conscience (something Eisenhower showed when
he backed Ben Gurion out of Sinai in 1956-57 -- yeah, it took that
long, even through a presidential election). But "buckled" is a bit
optimistic here. But if Biden can't get his wars under control by
October, I fear he's toast -- and will be deserving of the loss,
even if no one else deserves to beat him. After all, the ball is
in his court.
PS: For an examples of Biden's "buckling," see:
Netanyahu's already assured him there's no problem, but plans will
go ahead. Something else he can buckle for.
William Youmans: [02-08]
The Sunday talk shows on Israel-Gaza: The blob still reigns:
"Unsurprisingly, numbers show how one-sided and detached America's
elite newsmakers really are."
America's expansion of Israel's world war:
Trump, and other Republicans:
Nicole Narea: [02-09]
Nevada's primary and caucuses didn't change the race. They did wreak
avoidable chaos. "Trump won, Haley lost, and Nevada botched its
key role in the GOP primary."
Isaac Arnsdorf: [02-09]
Trump, using false comparisons with Biden, demands dismissal of documents
charges.
Devlin Barrett/Perry Stein: [02-11]
The Trump trials: Double hearings Thursday, awaiting Supreme Court
action.
Jonathan Chait:
EJ Dionne Jr: [02-11]
Let's just say it: The Republican problem is metastasizing.
The long-time columnist is a little slow on the draw, as he
implicitly admits in citing a 2012 op-ed from Thomas E
Mann/Norman J Ornstein:
Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem.
Tom Engelhardt: [02-06]
A Trumpian Bacchanalia in 2024? The long-time editor wrote a
prescient book in 1995 called The End of Victory Culture: Cold
War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation, and went
on to found
TomDispatch and edit a long list of
books chronicling the political, economic, and moral decay of the
American empire. Now, he envisions a sequel:
And if Donald Trump were to be elected, we would also find ourselves
in an almost unimaginable version of -- yes! -- defeat culture (and
maybe that will have to be the title of the book I'll undoubtedly
never write after I turn 80 and am headed downhill myself).
But don't make me go on! Honestly, you know just as well as I do
that, if the man who only wants to "drill, drill, drill" ends up back
in the White House, you can more or less kiss this country (which
already happens to be the biggest oil producer and natural gas
exporter around) and possibly this planet goodbye. And if he doesn't . . .
well, you may have to kiss it goodbye anyway.
And that would be defeat culture, big time.
Garrett Epps: [02-05]
It's not just the border: The Trump-Abbott-Republican nullification
crisis is here.
Naomi Fry: [02-06]
Donald Trump's chaos, straight to your in-box: "Political fund-raising
e-mails are often touched by hysteria, but the former President's are
unique -- wildly remixing favorite phrases into a fevered Surrealist
cut-up."
Margaret Hartmann: [02-08]
Rudy Giuliani's most eye-popping claims from his bankruptcy hearing.
Ed Kilgore: [02-09]
Nikki Haley couldn't even win the Virgin Islands caucus: "Trump
won big and swept the four delegates at stake."
Noel King: [02-09]
What the business community thinks of a Trump economy reboot:
"The economy did well under Trump the first time around." Really?
"Here's why some CEOs are worried about the sequel." Interview
with Economist columnist Henry Tricks.
Paul Krugman: [02-08]
Can America survive a party of saboteurs? But Republicans aren't
just saboteurs. They're extortionists. A big part of their campaign
pitch is: elect us, or we'll make a stink and wreck government at
every opportunity. But electing them doesn't end the sabotage. It
merely shifts it into less public spheres, where they can ultimately
do more damage. They are effectively nihilists, believers in nothing
but their own infallible grasp of power. The only way to survive a
party like that is to starve it of power, including publicity.
Kelly McClure: [02-09]
Trump brags to NRA about lax gun control during his time in
office. Again, see Steve M.: [02-10]
Trump on guns: The ad writes itself.
Bill Scher: [02-08]
Fear of immigrants has broken the Republican Party: "The
Congressional Republican chaos over the border and how it's delaying,
if not sinking, aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan is more proof
that the GOP's nativist turn is not the surefire political winner
conservatives think it is." Another foolish defense of Washington
orthodoxy, if you ask me. The nativism may be unpopular among the
capitalists Republicans love to cater to, but it does energize
the Republican base, and the rich are hard-pressed to gain votes
for tax breaks and deregulation elsewhere, so they've developed
a cynical tolerance for right-wing bigotry. Given that Trump has
already rode the issue to the nomination, the "chaos" is nothing
more than a dispute over tactics. On the other hand, anyone who
thinks that support and encouragement for foreign wars is a
"surefire political winner," which seems to be Scher's point,
is a total fool. Republicans smell victory in November because
the Democrats are playing these two issues exactly wrong.
Margaret Sullivan: [01-25]
We must start urgently talking about the dangers of a second Trump
presidency.
Li Zhou:
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Michael Arria: [02-09]
The Shift: Biden and Michigan. The "swing state" is especially
crucial for Biden's reelection. Few broad-spectrum Democrats will
leave Biden for Trump no matter how much they oppose Biden's support
for Netanyuahu's genocide, but many Arab-Americans voted Republican
before Trump's racism drove them away, and they know all too well
how war against Muslims abroad comes home to harass them, so it's
not implausible they could tilt the election. Also:
Brakkton Booker: [02-06]
South Carolina Dems wanted to prove they should be first. The turnout
was underwhelming.
Ross Douthat: [02-10]
The question is not if Biden should step aside. It's how.
Good title, but I have so little respect for the messenger I
almost didn't bother. Sure, his notion that Biden should hold
back and throw the nomination open at the convention, without
endorsing anyone, has some merit. It would deny the rank and
file any real say, but would avoid bruising primaries, and
most importantly the scramble for donors that tends to be so
critical. The nominee might not be the best possible, but not
the worst, either. Still, it smacks of desperation, and few
insiders would be willing to give up easily. I don't see it
happening.
Jill Filipovic: [01-22]
Biden is whiffing it on the most important issue for Democrats:
"He needs to campaign a lot harder on abortion rights -- and how it's
inextricably tied to the threat Trump poses to democracy."
Jonathan Martin: [02-04]
Forget No Labels. Biden's third-party peril is on the Left.
Andrew Prokop: [02-08]
Biden and Trump are both old. Only one got a special counsel memory
test. The special prosecutor's report seems designed to fend off
Republican criticism for not indicting Biden by feeding them political
talking points.
Matt Stieb: [02-08]
Marianne Williamson ends campaign in the most Marianne Williamson
way possible.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells: [02-04]
Joe Biden's weird perception problem: "For the President and his
campaign staff, the problem is tactical. How can he pull this off?
There is no shortage of advice."
Lots of people have unsolicited advice for the Biden campaign,
which frankly seems to need one, but New Republic came up with a
bundle of them this week -- enough to break out from the news
items above, so let's collect them here.
Legal matters and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Delger Erdenesanaa: [02-08]
Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist, wins his defamation suit:
I still don't approve of defamation suits, but anything that knocks Mark
Steyn and National Review down a notch must be counted a win --
the other defendant, Rand Simberg, doesn't ring a bell, but Competitive
Enterprise Institute sounds awful fishy. I'm aware of, but haven't read,
Mann's books, most recently The New Climate War: The Fight to Take
Back Our Planet (2021).
Umair Irfan:
Sarah Kaplan: [02-09]
Why this is one of the planetary shifts scientists are most worried
about: Disruption of the complex AMOC (Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation) system, which circulates water in the
North Atlantic.
Economic matters:
Ukraine War:
Around the world:
Other stories:
Al Jazeera: [02-02]
Ex-CIA software engineer who leaked to WikiLeaks sentenced to 40
years: "Joshua Schulte had been found guilty of handing over
classified materials in so-called Vault 7 leak.
Nicholson Baker: [01-31]
No, aliens haven't visited the earth: "Why are so many smart people
insisting otherwise?"
Harry Brighouse: [02-05]
What's wrong with free public college? Some reasonable points,
but I'm not much bothered that a right to free higher education
would benefit the middle class more than poorer students. Lots of
worthwhile programs do the same, but we shouldn't, for example,
give up on airline safety just because the beneficiaries skew up.
Elizabeth Dwoskin: [02-10]
How a liberal billionaire became America's leading anti-DEI crusader:
Profile of Bill Ackman. Another rich guy with money to burn, but
how does having donated to Clinton and Obama make him any kind of
liberal?
Nicholas Fandos: [02-10]
What to know about the race to replace George Santos: "The
special House election in New York pits Mazi Pilip, a Republican
county legislator, against Tom Suozzi, a former Democratic
congressman." In other words, the Democrats nominated the most
anodyne white guy possible, while the Republicans calculated
that the best way to advance their racist, sexist, nativist
agenda was by nominating a black female Jewish immigrant from
Ethiopia.
Abdallah Fayyad/Nicole Narea/Andrew Prokop: [02-09]
7 questions about migration and the US-Mexico border, answered.
More border:
Rebecca Gordon: [02-11]
Banning what matters: "Public libraries under MAGA threat."
Joshua Keating: [02-06]
Welcome to the "neomedieval era": "Nations like the US have more
firepower than ever before -- but they also appear weaker than ever.
The upshot is a world that feels out of control."
Carlos Lozada: [02-16]
: I was expecting,
perhaps even hoping for, a Consumer Guide-style compendium of notes
on political books, but instead got an introductory essay adapted
from his forthcoming The Washington Book: How to Read Politics
and Politicians. Of course, unless you're a writer with a
specific assignment, it's very unlikely you'd actually have to
read any book written by (or for) a Washington politician, nor
would you do so voluntarily. But I find that such surveys, such
as I attempt in
my book roundups,
can be useful for sampling the state of public discourse. By the
way, I did finally pick up a copy of Lozada's What Were We
Thinking: A Brief Intellectual History of the Trump Era, but
I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Clare Malone: [02-10]
Is the media prepared for an extinction-level event? "Ads are
scarce, search and social traffic is dying, and readers are burned
out. The future will require fundamentally rethinking the press's
relationship to its audience."
AW Ohlheiser: [02-08]
What we've learned from 20 years of Facebook.
Nathan J Robinson:
Jeffrey St Clair: [02-09]
Roaming Charges: Comfortably dumb. Harsh on Biden. Quote:
Sen. Chris Murphy on the failed Border/Ukraine/Israel deal:
"They are a disaster right now. How can you trust any Republicans
right now? They told us what to do. We followed their instructions to
the letter. And then they pulled the rug out from under us in 24 hrs."
["They"? You got nothing but embarrassed.]
It's instructive that MAGA has threatened to "destroy" James
Lankford, the rightwing Senator from Oklahoma who wrote a border
closure bill that gave them 99% of what they wanted and Democrats are
lining up behind Biden for endorsing a bill that betrayed everything
he'd ever promised on immigration.
Bryan Walsh: [02-10]
Taylor Swift, the NFL, and two routes to cultural dominance:
My minor acknowledgment of the week's overweening culture story,
not that I have anything to say about it. Cultural dominance isn't
what it used to be LVIII years ago, when the Chiefs I remember
fondly -- Len Dawson, Otis Taylor, Ed Budde, E.J. Holub, Buck
Buchanan -- got butchered by the Green Bay Packers (IV was much
more satisfying), while the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan,
and James Brown were regularly outdoing themselves. These days,
even the largest stars seem much smaller than they did when I
was fifteen, because we now recognize that the world is so much
larger. I haven't watched football since the 1980s (or baseball
since the 1990s), and while I still listen to quite a bit of
popular music, I doubt that any new artist has occupied as much
as 1% of my time since 2000. I've listened to, and clearly like,
Taylor Swift, but I hardly recognize her song titles, and
certainly couldn't rank them (as
Rob Sheffield did, 243 of them). I suppose you could chalk that
up to age, but I'm feeling the least bit nostalgic. I reviewed more
than 1,600 records last year. In 1966, I doubt I heard more than 10 --
supplemented, of course, by KLEO and TV shows like Shindig!
and Hullabaloo,
but the universe I was conscious of extended to at most a couple
hundred artists. Back then, I thought I could master it all. Now
I know I never stood a chance.
I know I promised, but what the hell:
Li Zhou: [02-06]
The Grammys' Beyoncé snubs speak to a deeper problem: Beyoncé
was snubbed? "They're emblematic of how the awards have failed Black
artists." As someone who has never had any expectation of Grammy
ever doing anything right, I find the very notion that anyone could
be so certainly deserving of a win as to be snubbed baffling.
Sorry for doing this to you, but I'm going to quote a Donald Trump
tweet (quoted by
Matthew Yglesias, reposted by Dean Baker, my emphasis added):
2024 is our Final Battle. With you at my side, we will demolish the
Deep State, we will expel the warmongers from our government,
we will drive out the globalists, we will cast out the Communists,
Marxists, and Fascists, we will throw off the sick political class
that hates our Country, we will rout the Fake News Media, we will
Drain the Swamp, and we will liberate our country from these tyrants
and villains once and for all!
Yglesias responded: "This stuff is demented but it also serves
to deflect attention from the boring reality that what he's going
to do is cut rich people's taxes, raise prescription drug prices,
let companies dump more shit in the water, etc etc etc." There's
a lot of hyperbole in this pitch, but who can doubts that there
are warmongers in the cururent government, that they are pushing
us into more perilous foreign entanglements, and that Biden isn't
likely to restrain much less break from them. There's good reason
to doubt that Trump can fix this, but if he wants to campaign on
the promise, many people will find slim chance preferable to none.
Moreover, the rest of his pitch is coherent and forceful, and is
likely to resonate with the propaganda pitch much of the media --
and not just the shills at Fox -- have been pushing over the last
decade.
Countering that Trump won't really do this just feeds into the
paranoia over the Deep State -- which, to be sure, thwarted him in
2017, but this time he knows much better what he's up against.
Worse still is arguing that his actual government will be boring,
with a side of petty corruption, just shows you're not listening,
and also suggests that you don't much care what happens. If Trump
did nothing more than check off Yglesias's list, he'd still be a
disaster for most Americans. But at the very minimum, he's going
to do much more than that: he's going to talk, and he's going to
talk a lot, and he's going to bring more people into government
and media who are going to add ever more vicious details to the
mass of hate and pomposity he spews. And even though lots of us
are going to recoil in horror, we'll still have to stuggle to
survive being inundated by it all, all the while suffering the
glee of our tormenters.
Of course, the "Final Battle" and "once and for all" is as over
the top as the Book of Revelation he's taken to heart. But that it
can't happen won't make them any less determined, or dangerous, or
dreadful.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, February 4, 2024
Speaking of Which
No introduction for now. I really need to be working on other
things. This is driving me crazy. Right now, all I really want is
to move it out of the way.
Initial count: 141 links, 4726 words. Revised: 146 links, 5723
words.
After posting, I ran into a couple items that merit additional
comments, mostly because they exemplify the kind of shoddy thinking
that promotes war (or vice versa).
Harlan Ullman: [01-31]
We don't need a Tonkin Gulf Resolution for the Red Sea. Headline
is ok, but the hawks don't need one because Biden is escalating the
war on his own authority -- as presidents have tended to do ever since
the "blank check" war authorization Johnson secured in 1964. But nearly
everything else here is wrong-headed or at least seriously muddled. The
bit that got to me was "Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel, diabolically
designed to elicit an Israeli overreaction." He seems to be saying
that Israel had no agency in the matter. And now the Houthis, having
"plagiarized Hamas' Oct. 7 attack," have tricked the US into bombing
Yemen, risking escalation into a broader regional war -- for which,
no doubt about this, Ullman will find sinister designs in Tehran.
Of course, there is a perverse kernel of truth to this: Israel and
the U.S. are such dedicated believers in security through deterrence
that they feel obliged to meet any challenges with overwhelming force,
with scarcely a thought given to collateral victims, let alone to how
the resulting atrocities damage their credibility and their own psyches.
But given their massive investments in intelligence gathering, in war
gaming, and in propagandizing, it's hard to accept that their warmaking
is merely a conditioned reflex, something that a marginal ideologue
with a martyr complex could simply trigger. (As
Laura Tillem put it: "Bin Laden was a hypnotist who said look into
my eyes, you will now pour all your resources down the drain.")
Rather, they must somehow believe that terror suffices to suppress
the aspirations of the disempowered people who inconveniently occupy
parts of the world they feel entitled to rule. Still, they feel the
need to paint themselves as innocent victims -- a claim that is only
plausible in the wake of a sudden outburst, which is why Netanyahu on
10/7, like Bush on 9/11, seized the opportunity to take the offensive
and do horrible things long dreamed of but rarely disclosed.
By the way, Ullman lays claim to have been the guy who thought up
the "shock and awe" strategy that promised to instantly win the war
against Saddam Hussein. It didn't, perhaps because only the dead were
truly shocked and awed. The rest simply learned that they could survive,
and resolved to fight on. But imagine, instead, the kind of people who
got excited by the Powerpoint presentation. Those were the people, from
Bush to the Pentagon to their affiliated "think tanks," who, intent on
proving their own superiority, brought death and havoc to 20 countries
over 20 years. Most were genuinely envious of Israel, which they saw
as the one government truly free to impose its superior power on its
region and their unfortunate peoples. So now that Israel has finally
moved from systematic discrimination reinforced withsporadic terrorism
to actual genocide, they're giddy with excitement. Ullman advises them
to "act boldly to cripple Houthi and Islamic militant capabilities,"
but he's also advising a measure of stealth, unlike the "real men go
to Tehran" crowd.
The second piece I wanted to mention came from Democracy Today:
[02-05]
U.S. & Israel vs. Axis of Resistance: Biden Strikes New Targets
in Middle East as Gaza War Continues. The transcript includes an
interview with Narges Bajoghli, an "expert" who likes to throw about
the term "Axis of Resistance." Evidently, this is enough of a thing
that it has its own
Wikipedia page (as does
Iran-Israel proxy conflict, linked to under "Purposes for the Axis").
The term "Axis of Resistance" is internally incoherent and externally
malicious. "Axis" implies organization and coordination of a power bloc,
which hardly exists, and even where possible is informal. "Resistance"
is something that arises locally, wherever power is imposed. Palestinians
resist Israeli power, wherever it is felt, sometimes violently, mostly
non-violently, but in Israeli-controlled territories to little or no
effect. When Israel occupied Lebanon, resistance was generated there as
well, most significantly coalescing into Hezbollah. Resisters may come
to feel solidarity with others, and may even help each other out, but
resistance itself is a limiting function of power. "Axis of Resistance"
was nothing more than a rhetorical twist on Bush's "Axis of Evil."
What makes the term dangerous is that it's being used to organize a
coherent picture of an enemy that Israel can goad America into waging
war against. (Israelis have no wish to be the "real men" invading Iran,
but would be happy to cheer Americans on, especially as a hopeless war
there would deflect qualms about genocide.)
Bajoghli isn't as fully aligned with the hawks as Ullman is, but
inadvertently helps them by buying this significant propaganda line.
A realistic analysis would see that there are obvious opportunities
to breaking up this "axis": Iran wants to end its isolation, and be
able to trade with Europe and America (as, it was starting to do
before Trump broke the nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions); Assad
would do virtually anything except surrender power for stability;
Yemen and Lebanon have been wracked by civil wars for decades,
mostly because local power is fragmented while foreign powers
have been free to intervene. These and many other problems could
be solved diplomatically, but what has to happen first is to turn
the heat down, by demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and beyond, along
with discipline against the pogroms in the West Bank. Israel needs
to see that their dreams of a "final solution" to the Palestinians
are futile: there is no alternative to living together, in peace,
with some tangible sense of justice. Not everyone on every side is
going to like that, but a democracy of all should be able to come
to that conclusion.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
Shatha Abdulsamad: [01-30]
War on Gaza: Defunding UNRWA is a war against all Palestinians.
The speed with which the US and other nations acted to defund UNRWA
shows that they could have acted with similar resolve to withdraw
funding for Israel's genocidal war. That they haven't done so shows
that they hold separate and extremely unequal values on Israeli and
Palestinian lives. More on UNRWA:
Shane Harris/John Hudson/Karen DeYoung/Souad Mekhennet: [01-31]
Israeli intelligence prompted U.S. to quickly cut Gaza aid funding:
Israel claims to have identified 12 UNRWA employees in Gaza (out of
13,000) with ties to the Oct. 7 attack, which was enough to move the
US and other nations to act in a PR coup meant to counter the ICJ's
"plausible genocide" findings, something the US et al. have done
absolutely nothing to act on. Well, actually what they've done is
worse than inaction, as hobbling the UN's aid organization directly
adds to the genocidal effects of Israel's war. As Norman Finkelstein
has pointed out, all Israel has actually alleged is that some Hamas
militants also have day jobs. Still, makes me wonder how many UNRWA
employees are also working for Mossad or Shin Bet.
AlJazeera: [02-01]
What is UNRWA and why is it important for Palestinians?
Ellen Ioanes: [01-31]
The allegations against the UN's Palestinian refugee relief agency,
explained.
Hasan Basri Bulbul: [01-29]
Defunding UNRWA: With this act, western powers are likely complicit
in genocide.
Ryan Grim:
Republicans move to one-up Biden and permanently defund UNRWA.
David Hearst: [02-01]
Why is the West falling for Israel's play to destroy UNRWA?
Alex MacDonald: [01-29]
Israel, UNRWA and the West: A history of claims and cuts.
MME: [01-31]
Netanyahu says UNRWA mission 'must be terminated'.
Mitchell Plitnick: [02-03]
U.S. admits it hasn't verified Israel's UNRWA claims, media ignores
it.
Dylan Saba: [02-02]
A new phase for Gaza: The war on humanitarian aid: "Why the attack
on UNRWA looks a lot like collective punishment."
Alexei Sisulu Abrahams: [02-02]
How the news cycle misses the predominant violence in
Israel-Palestine.
Ruwaida Kamal Amer: [01-31]
'My children are crying from hunger. This is a war of starvation':
"With insufficient aid and skyrocketing prices across Gaza,
Palestinians in the overcrowded city of Rafah are struggling
to feed their families."
Tareq S Hajjaj:
Shatha Hanaysha: [01-30]
Executed in their sleep: How Israeli forces assassinated three
Palestinians in a raid on a West Bank hospital.
Ibrahim Husseini: [02-03]
Silwan faces escalating home demolitions in fight against messianic
settlers. Title seems confused, in that the state is doing the
demolitions, at the settlers' behest, so who's fighting them?
Samer Jaber: [01-28]
The Palestinian Authority's role has become to delegitimize Palestinian
resistance. Well, more than that: "It is now a direct collaborator
amid the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza."
Shola Lawai: [02-03]
How Israel's flooding of Gaza's tunnels will impact freshwater
supply.
Eitay Mack: [01-31]
How Israeli settler terrorism set the stage for genocide in Gaza.
Brad Pearce: [01-30]
Western media's blackout of Israel's "Hannibal Directive".
Shahd Safi: [01-29]
Egyptian officials are charging Palestinians a massive ransom to
escape the Gaza genocide.
Margherita Stancati/Anat Peled: [01-29]
Israel's far right plots a 'new Gaza' without Palestinians.
Oren Ziv: [01-30]
Turning Zeitoun into Shivat Zion: Israeli summit envisions Gaza
resettlement. Isaelis are holding something they call "Conference
for Israel's Victory," replete with maps of how they plan to divvy
up the spoils of a depopulated Gaza.
Israel vs. world opinion:
America's expansion of Israel's world war:
Dan Lamothe/Alex Horton/Missy Ryan: [02-03]
U.S., Britain launch new wave of military strikes in Yemen: "The
operation follows a large-scale attack on Iranian forces and their
affiliates in Iraq and Syria, retribution for the killing of three
U.S. soldiers in Jordan."
Marco Carnelos: [01-30]
War on Gaza: Why the US refuses to learn the lessons of history.
Andrew Cockburn: [01-30]
Admiral Fabuloso thumps his tub. The tub-thumping admiral is James
G Stavridis, outspoken but hardly alone among Washington's "bomb bomb
bomb bomb Iran" chorus.
Melvin Goodman: [02-02]
Why are our regional experts expecting more war in every corner?
Starts by quoting said experts on Korea, Taiwan, Russia/Ukraine, and
everywhere ("The world war potential is really, really significant" --
Michael Mullen, former joint chiefs chairman, who since retiring has
joined multiple corporate boards).
William Hartung: [01-31]
Tone deaf? Admin brags about 55% hike in foreign arms sales.
Joshua Keating: [01-29]
America no longer has a monopoly on deadly drones.
Ken Klippenstein: [2023-11-16]
Pentagon won't say where it's sending U.S. troops -- to avoid embarrassing
host nations: "Details about the rapid U.S. military buildup since
the start of Israel's war on Gaza are largely unknown to the public
and risk war with Iran, experts say." Some background, with Jordan the
first-mentioned example.
Helen Lackner: [02-03]
What Yemen's Houthis want.
Joshua Landis: [02-01]
US troops should have left Syria and Iraq long ago.
Daniel Larison: [02-02]
White House still denies Mideast turmoil linked to Gaza.
Oliver Milman: [02-03]
US House to vote next week on standalone $17.6bn bill for aid to
Israel: They should call it the Genocide Support Act.
Ben Quinn: [02-04]
Russia, China and Iran could target UK via Irish 'backdoor,' thinktank
warns: The paranoia lobby is hard at work in the UK, too, tapping
old fears to shore up ever more ominous defense spending.
Richard Rubenstein: [02-02]
The new bipolarity: Tom Friedman prophesies a new global conflict
and mostly gets it wrong. You may recall how strange it was
after Oct. 7 when the long-reigning world's worst pundit had a
brief moment of clarity, and advised that Israel might be better
off by not overreacting and plunging head-first into genocide --
as they in fact did. But within a month or so, his reprogramming
kicked in, bringing him back to "a titanic geopolitical struggle
between two opposing networks of nations and nonstate actors over
whose values and interests will dominate our post-Cold War world."
He dubs these networks the Includers (where Israel leads America,
and America drags along Ukraine, Taiwan, and their few allies) vs.
the Resisters (anyone who defies the dictates of the Includers).
Still, he seems to still be missing a module, as he still views
China and others who doubt the Includers' omniscience as merely
neutral.
Ishaan Tharoor:
[01-22]
What Netanyahu sees from the river to the sea.
[01-30]
The Middle East's arc of conflict is spiraling.
[01-31]
Behind Biden's Middle East crises is the long tail of Trump's
legacy: Trump, at Israel's behest, wrecked the nuclear arms
agreement with Iran, provoked further hostilities by imposing
new sanctions (which, conveniently enough, boosted the Saudi
and Russian oil cartel -- as did sanctions that took Venezuelan
oil off the world market) and escalating further by assassinating
IRGC commander Qasem Soleimani. Beyond that, Trump "also
encouraged
the acceleration of Israel's far-right drift." And his substitute
for the long-frustrated and half-hearted "peace process" was the
so-called Abraham Accords, where Arab states were offered arms and
business incentives for giving up their concerns for Palestinians,
and giving Israel a free hand to do with them what they will. What's
happened since October is almost purely the ultimate consequence of
Trump's policy shifts in the region. On the other hand, this hardly
excuses Biden, who hastily reversed Trump foreign policy elsewhere
(especially re Ukraine and NATO), but did virtually nothing to reset
or even review policy in the Middle East.
Nick Turse: [01-30]
Remote warfare and expendable people: "Forever War means never
having to say you're sorry."
Robert Wright: [02-02]
The Iran retaliation calculus: The real calculation is that Biden
and Netanyahu believe they have the power (and therefore the right) to
punish Iran for what basically boils down to reckless gun-running --
which the US and Israel also does, much more broadly than Iran does --
and that they have so much more power that Iran won't dare retaliate.
That's a very arrogant position to take, one that requires constant
punitive reinforcement, especially as it mostly works to harden
resistance.
Trump, and other Republicans:
Ankush Khardori: [02-01]
Inside Trump's costly outburst: 'Like an 8-year-old having a temper
tantrum': "Roberta Kaplan's strategy delivered E. Jean Carroll
$83 million from Donald Trump. Federal prosecutors may want to take
note."
Mattea Kramer/Sean Fogler: [02-01]
When in doubt, strip search and restrain the unwell: "'Helping'
people by shaming them -- and canceling their civil rights."
Paul Krugman: [01-29]
MAGA is based on fear, not grounded in reality. He inadvertently
reminds us that Nikki Haley is on the same page, when he quotes her
as saying, "we've got an economy in shambles and inflation that's out
of control." Krugman followed that column with what he intended as a
"reality-based" corrective: [02-01]
Our economy isn't 'Goldilocks.' It's better.
Chris Lehmann: [01-30]
GOP border theatrics have escalated threats of civil war.
Patricia Lopez: [02-03]
Some GOP governors would let kids go hungry to spite Biden.
Andrew Prokop: [02-01]
The chances that Trump will be a convicted felon by Election Day have
dropped: "It could still happen -- but the four prosecutions of
Trump have been beset by delays and challenges."
Nikki McCann Ramirez:
Andrew Rice: [01-30]
Trump's reckoning begins: "His major loss in the E. Jean Carroll
case is nothing compared to what could be coming."
Matt Stieb: [02-03]
Truth Social could still make Trump billions -- if he wins.
On the other hand:
Asawin Suebsaeng/Adam Rawnsley: [01-29]
Trump's secret plan to expand presidential immunity to 'King George'
levels.
Biden and/or the Democrats: I meant to note
this, but wasn't sure which piece to link to. But, for the record: [02-04]
Biden nets landslide victory in South Carolina Democratic primary,
over 95% of votes. That compares to about 55% in New Hampshire,
where his opponents actually campaigned, but he needed an unofficial
write-in campaign.
Legal matters and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Economic matters:
Ukraine War:
Blaise Malley: [02-01]
Diplomacy Watch: NATO membership still on the table? "Meanwhile,
EU approves $54 billion funding plan, with Senate possibly voting
next week."
Steven Erlanger/David E Sanger: [02-03]
Germany braces for decades of confrontation with Russia.
Masha Gessen: [01-29]
Ukraine's democracy in darkness: "With elections postponed and no
end to the war with Russia in sight, Volodymyr Zelensky and his political
allies are becoming like the officials they once promised to root out:
entrenched."
Jonathan Guyer: [02-02]
How war has transformed Ukraine, and Zelensky: Review of two
new books: Yaroslav Trofimov, Our Enemies Will Vanish: The
Russian Invasion and Ukraine's War of Independence (Penguin);
and Simon Shuster, The Showman: Inside the Invasion That Shook
the World and Made a Leader of Volodymyr Zelensky (William
Morrow). Both appear to be very solidly in Zelensky's camp, with
Trofimov faulting "America's cautiousness in getting Ukraine more
powerful weapons as a 'self-imposed taboo' that has prolonged the
war."
Andrew Higgins: [02-01]
For Orban, Ukraine is a pawn in a longer game: "His real aim is
to lead a populist and nativist rebellion against Europe's liberal
elite, though that campaign is showing signs of faltering."
Lara Jakes/Christina Anderson: [01-29]
For Europe and NATO, a Russian invasion is no longer unthinkable:
"Amid crumbling U.S. support for Ukraine and Donald Trump's rising
candidacy, European nations and NATO are making plans to take on
Russia by themselves."
Harrison Stetler: [02-03]
Two years into the Ukraine war, Europe has no strategy . . .
but they are coughing up €50 billion to keep it going.
Ishaan Tharoor: [01-29]
Ukraine's hopes for victory over Russia are slipping away.
Around the world:
Other stories:
Emily Bazelon: [02-01]
The road to 1948: A panel of six historians -- Nadim Bawaisa,
Leena Dallasheh, Abigail Jacobson, Derek Penslar, Itamar Rabinovitch,
and Salim Tamari -- offer insights into the 1920-48 period, when
Palestine was a League of Nations mandate trusted to Britain, which
had occupied it during WWI, displacing the Ottoman Empire. I'm most
familiar with this period from Tom Segev's One Palestine, Complete:
Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate (2001), although I've
read numerous other books on the period. There are things I'd quibble
with here, but it's generally useful information.
Jules Boykoff/Dave Zirin: [01-29]
Israel and Russia have no place in the 2024 Paris Olympics:
I'm tempted to say the US should have no place either, but I'm
not totally sure whether that should be due to US support for
genocide in Gaza, for US agitation for war elsewhere, and/or
simply for commercial crassness and nationalistic yahoo-ism.
But note that South Africa was banned from 1968 until the end
of the apartheid regime, and Israel has long crossed that line.
Mike Catalini: [01-31]
Man accused of beheading his father in suburban Philadelphia home
and posting gruesome video online: The father is Michael F.
Mohn, a civil servant working for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The son is Justin Mohn:
Mohn embraced violent anti-government rhetoric in writings he
published online going back several years. In August 2020, Mohn
published an online "pamphlet" in which he tried to make the case
that people born in or after 1991 -- his birth year -- should carry
out what he termed a "bloody revolution." He also complained at
length about a lawsuit that he lost and encouraged assassinations
of family members and public officials.
In the video posted after the killing, he described his father
as a 20-year federal employee. He also espoused a variety of
conspiracy theories and rants about the Biden administration,
immigration and the border, fiscal policy, urban crime and the
war in Ukraine.
Aside from the murder, sounds like a pretty solid Republican.
The lawsuit he lost, by the way:
In 2018, Mohn sued Progressive Insurance, alleging he was
discriminated against and later fired from a job at an agency
in Colorado Springs because he was a man who was intelligent,
overqualified and overeducated. A federal judge said Mohn provided
no evidence to indicate he was discriminated against because he
was a man -- in the length of his training or in being denied
promotions to jobs. Progressive said it fired him because he
kicked open a door. An appeals court upheld the finding that
Mohn did not suffer employment discrimination.
Maybe we should start a regular feature on right-wing crime,
and how Republicans have encouraged and/or rationalized it:
Fabiola Cineas: [02-01]
Conservatives have long been at war with colleges: "A brief
history of the right's long-running battle against higher education."
Interview with Lauren Lassabe Shepherd, author of Resistance From
the Right: Conservatives and the Campus Wars in Modern America.
David Dayen: [01-29]
America is not a democracy: "The movement to save democracy from
threats is too quick to overlook the problems that have been present
since the founding." On the other hand, focusing on structural faults
that were build into the Constitution directs attention to issues that
have no practicable solution, while ignoring what is by far the most
pervasive affront to democracy, which is the influence of money, how
the system caters to the rich while confusing issues for everyone else.
The simplest test of whether government is democratic is whether it is
reflective of and responsive to the needs of the vast majority of its
citizens. America's is not.
Rebecca Jennings: [02-01]
Everyone's a sellout now: "Everybody has to self-promote now.
Nobody wants to." One result: "You're getting worse at [your art],
but you're becoming a great marketer for a product which is less
and less good."
Whizy Kim: [01-31]
How Boeing put profits over planes: "The fall of Boeing has been
decades in the making."
Dylan Matthews: [02-01]
How Congress is planning to lift 400,000 kids out of poverty.
The House passed a bill 357-70 which revives the child tax credit,
which has the headline effect, but the bill also includes tax breaks
for businesses, which is what it took to become "bipartisan."
China Miéville: [01-31]
China Miéville on The Communist Manifesto's enduring
power. Interview with the author of A Spectre Haunting:
On the Communist Manifesto. I read the book recently, right
after Christopher Clark's massive Revolutionary Spring: Europe
Aflame and the Fight for a New World: 1848-1849. It didn't
add a lot of detail on the role of the proletariat in the 1848's
revolutionary struggles, but it did remind me of the synthesis
of clear thinking and human decency that informed the founding
of the socialist movement.
Kevin Munger: [01-29]
"The Algorithm" is the only critique of "The Algorithm" that "The
Algorithm" can produce: A bookmark link, as this seems possibly
interesting but requiring more attention than I can muster at the
moment. It ties to Kyle Chayka's book Filterworld: How Algorithms
Flattened Culture. Chayka has a previous book (2020), The
Longing for Less, where the subtitle has changed from Living
With Minimalism to What's Missing From Minimalism in
the recent paperback edition. Shorter is Munger's
"The Algorithm" does not exist.
Brian Murphy: [01-31]
Anthony Cordesman, security analyst who saw flaws in U.S. policy,
dies at 84: "Dr. Cordesman saw the seeds of defeat in Iraq and
Afghanistan planted by U.S. policymakers." Of course, I prefer
critics who were more prescient earlier, but insiders -- "he described
himself as a tepid supporter of the Iraq invasion" -- who are willing
to harbor doubts are better than those with no doubts at all.
Timothy Noah:
That judge is right. Elon Musk isn't worth what Tesla pays him.
For more (and the actual numbers are jaw-dropping) on this:
Christian Paz: [02-02]
What we're getting wrong about 2024's "moderate" voters: "The
voters who could decide 2024 are a complicated bunch." Paz tries
to salvage the term "moderate" by splitting the domain -- by which,
less prejudically, he means people with no fixed party affiliation --
into three groups: the "true moderates," the "disengaged," and the
"weird." The prejudice is that any time you say "moderate," you're
automatically contrasting against some hypothetical extreme that
you can thereby reject. But while the people who use the term --
almost never the "moderates" themselves, who prefer to think of
themselves as sober, sensible, respectful of all viewpoints, and
desiring pragmatic, mutually satisfactory compromises -- like to
think they complimenting the "moderates," they're implying that
they don't truly believe in what they profess (otherwise, why are
they so willing to compromise?).
Rick Perlstein: [01-31]
A hole in the culture: "Why is there so little art depicting the
moment we're in?"
Brian Resnick: [01-31]
The sun's poles are about to flip. It's awesome -- and slightly
terrifying.
Ingrid Robenys: A professor of political philosophy at
Utrecht University, has a new book: Limitarianism: The Case
Against Extreme Wealth, leading to:
Nathan J Robinson: Including interviews at Current Affairs:
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, January 28, 2024
Speaking of Which
Front page headline in Wichita Eagle today:
Domestic violence killings at all-time high in Wichita. Deeper
in the paper, see Dion Lefler: [01-27]
Guns are dangerous. The Kansas Legislature's even more so,
where he points out that since the KS legislature passed its
"constitutional carry" law in 2014, the number of Kansans who
have been killed by guns increased 53% (from 329 in 2014 to
503 in 2021).
I've been reading Christopher Clark's The Sleepwalkers:
How Europe Went to War, a painstaking examination of the
steps the major European powers took to kick off what they soon
called the Great War. It's a long book, and at page 500 the
shooting still hasn't started (but will soon, as mobilization
has begun). There are some striking similarities to the present:
notably the belief that affronts to power have to be answered
with violence (whence Austria-Hungary's compulsion to rush to
war against Serbia). Also the notion of land as a currency to
acknowledge power, which has arguably declined since the days
of Europe's imperial carve up of the world, but still persists,
especially in Israel's obsession with retaining the land of a
depopulated Gaza, and in Russia's grasp of southeastern Ukraine
from Luhansk to Crimea. France's eagerness to fight Germany in
1914 stemmed from losing Alsace-Lorraine in 1871.
On the other hand, what we thankfully lack today is the sort
of balanced alliances that allowed war to spread almost instantly
from Serbia to Flanders. Even though the US imagines it has enemies
all around -- and Israel is doing its best to provoke them -- the
conflicts are all marginal, mostly with opponents who have little
or no appetite for directly attacking the US. It is deeply disturbing
to see a nation with so much appetite for destruction floundering
about with so little sense of its own needs, and so little concern
over its trespasses.
Top story threads:
Israel: The genocidal war on Gaza continues, expanding on
all fronts.
The genocide charge vs. Israel
Seth Ackerman: [01-26]
Why Israel's war is genocide -- and why Biden is culpable.
Michael Arria:
Chip Gibbons: [01-26]
ICJ's genocide ruling is a rebuke to Israel and the US.
David Hearst: [01-26]
How the ICJ ruling could finally break Israel's siege of Gaza.
Ellen Ioanes: [01-26]
The ICJ orders in South Africa's genocide case against Israel,
explained.
David Kattenburg: [01-26]
ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza and punish
calls for incitement.
Jack Mirkinson: [01-26]
"This was a watershed moment": What the ICJ's Israel ruling really
means: Interview with Omar Shakir, the Israel and Palestine
director at Human Rights Watch.
Alba Nabulsi: [01-23]
ICJ case 'opens new era between the Global North and South,' says UN
expert: Special rapporteur Francesca Albanese.
Hope O'Dell:
Trita Parsi: [01-26]
ICJ lands stunning blow on Israel over Gaza genocide charge: "A
different Biden approach could have shaped war efforts and prevented
this from happening in the first place."
Mitchell Plitnick: [01-26]
Biden is following Netanyahu off a cliff.
Lydia Polgreen: [01-28]
If we want to live in a world with rules, they have to apply to
Israel, too.
Mazin Qumsiyeh: [01-28]
Genocide, sex extortion, and people movement. I've been receiving
Qumsiyeh's newsletter ever since he came to Wichita to speak
in 2004, after which I read his generous and humane book,
Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian
Struggle, but after a quick glimpse I usually just chuck them into
the bit bucket. Lately, however, he's been a useful source for links,
and a near-daily reminder of how outraged one should feel over what
Israel is doing, and not just in Gaza. Among his
many posts, a recent one that stands out is [01-25]
Reality and reflection.
Mohannad Sabry: [01-26]
After ICJ rule, will Egypt end its complicity with Israel starving
Gaza?
Jeremy Scahill:
ICJ ruling on Gaza genocide is a historic victory for the Palestinians
that Israel vows to defy.
Alice Speri:
In federal court, Palestinians accuse Biden of complicity in
genocide.
Beyond Israel, wounded, frustrated empires spread war, leading
only to more war, suffering, and disturbance:
Dave DeCamp: {01-28]
Three American troops killed in drone attack in Jordan: Wait,
the US has troops in Jordan? Iraq and Syria, we knew about. I guess
we shouldn't be surprised, given that the U.S. has 750 bases in 80
countries -- see Hope O'Dell: [2023-12-18]
The US is sending more troops to the Middle East. Where in the
world are US military deployed? More US troops abroad (especially
in the Middle East) mean more easily accessible targets for those who
see the US as responsible for atrocities and repression -- a view that
US support for Israel's genocide only adds to. That Americans view
their targeting as pretext for reprisals is, once again, the sheer
arrogance of power. Also:
John Feffer:
Maha Hilal: [01-25]
Israel, the United States, and the rhetoric of the war on terror:
"From September 11, 2001, to October 7, 2023 (and beyond)." Starts
by quoting Susan Sontag on the former date: "Let's by all means grieve
together. But let's not be stupid together."
Michael Horton: [01-24]
Houthis now drawing support from former enemies in Yemen.
Daniel McAdams: Executive director of the Ron Paul
Institute for Peace and Prosperity.
Trump, and other Republicans: Trump, as predicted, won the
New Hampshire primary, 54.3% to 43.2% over Nikki Haley, with lapsed
candidates Ron DeSantis (0.7%) and Chris Christie (0.5%) far behind.
Isaac Arnsdorf: [01-27]
Trump brags about efforts to stymie border talks: 'Please blame it
on me'.
Asli Aydintasbas: [01-28]
Trump can't be dictator on 'day one' -- or in a second term. Here's
why. Consider Erdogan in Turkey.
Zack Beauchamp: [01-21]
Ron DeSantis got the Republican Party wrong.
Chas Danner: [01-26]
Who is behind the fake Biden robocall in New Hampshire? Why
don't we just ban robocalls? Nobody wants to get them. They're
not free speech. They drive up the cost of political campaigns,
which is both a public burden and conducive of misinformation
and quite possibly fraud. It would eliminate at least one arena
where AI can (and, if permitted, no doubt will) be misused. It
wouldn't be hard to enforce laws against them, and doing so would
make us all happier (or at least less unhappy).
David Dayen: [01-26]
Party opposed to immigration changes opposes immigration changes:
Huh? "Trump, the leak factories explain, wants to run on a lawless
border in 2024, and has upended any hope of getting a border/Ukraine
swap." This news confirms Dayen's previous piece:
Republicans don't want to win an immigration policy fight. The GOP
is a political rage machine, so does everything they can to crank
up the rage level when Democrats can be blamed. While Republicans
aspire to govern, they only do so to spite Democrats, thus keeping
them from doing any public good (which divided government and/or
control of the courts also achieves). And, sure, they also crave
the spoils.
Tim Dickinson: [01-21]
The pointless cruelty of Ron DeSantis.
Chris Lehmann:
[01-25]
The new do-nothing Congress: "Representatives failed to make
progress on most matters of consequence for the past year, but
they sure had a lot to say." Both parties have their obstacles,
but the Republican House, held largely in thrall by the far-right
faction, has the stranglehold, and a philosophical preference for
inaction (at least when they can't make matters even worse).
[01-26]
Mitch McConnell caves in to Donald Trump yet again. This reminds
me of an item to add to the Greene list (below): McConnell had the
opportunity, and probably had the clout, to end Trump's political
career after Trump vacated the White House in 2021. Trump had been
impeached. Had McConnell lobbied a third of the Republicans to vote
to convict, then passed a resolution declaring Trump ineligible to
run under the 14th Amendment, Trump could not run again, and would
have had no reason for sticking to the "big lie" that has ultimately
rotted the Republican hive mind. Trump would probably have escaped
further indictments -- many people would figure he had been punished
already -- or could have pleaded them down to practically nothing,
and we wouldn't be facing the potential turmoil and "constitutional
crisis" we're currently facing. Republicans would probably have won
back Congress in 2022, and be enjoying an open and competitive 2024
primary now, with some candidates vying for Trump's support, but few
cowering in fear over his displeasure. But McConnell's always been a
greedy opportunist with no long-range vision, so he let impeachment
be turned into a petty partisan squabble, and counted what should
have been a robust defense of American democracy into a petty win.
Andrea Mazzarino: [01-21]
Trump 2.0: "Remaking (or is it breaking?) America in his image."
Kelly McClure: [01-26]
Verdict: Donald Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in
damages. More on the Carroll verdict:
Heather Digby Parton: [01-22]
Ron DeSantis ends the most humiliating presidential run in history
with one final disgrace: "And he took Florida down on his way
out." Sure, he was awful, and fully deserved the takedown, but not
really the hyperbole. He never was the frontrunner (unlike Jeb Bush
in 2016, or Rudy Giuliani in 2008). He never had Michael Bloomberg's
$1B in 2020. He outlasted all but two candidates this year (from,
it must be admitted, a pretty mangy field).
[PS: I wrote from memory this before linking to the Greene list
below. Only change I made was to increase Bloomberg's kitty from
$500B.]
Charles P Pierce:
Andrew Prokop: For some reason, he feels compelled to
be the last journalist alive to take Nikki Haley seriously.
Speaking of Haley:
Nikki McCann Ramirez: [01-25]
High-profile Republicans push Texas to defy Supreme Court border
ruling.
Adam Rawnsley/Asawin Suebsaeng: [01-24]
Trump: The political threats will stop . . . when you agree with my
lies: "Democrats are already facing a wave of violent threats."
Sophia Tesfaye: [01-25]
Judge sentences Trump adviser Peter Navarro to prison for defying
subpoena.
Joan Walsh: [01-27]
Another big win for E Jean Carroll. Another loss for Donald
Trump.
Paul Street: [01-26]
The Atlantic's special issue on "If Trump Wins": A radical critique:
An overview that picks some of the weak links apart. The full table
of contents and links to online articles are
here
(if you're a subscriber). I'm not, but probably should: they have
some serious, even talented, writers, but also some very mediocre
thinkers, especially on foreign policy, where they tend to be very
hawkish. (Current articles include: Anne Applebaum: "Is the US really
going to abandon Ukraine now?"; Graeme Wood: "Israel's bitter bind";
James Smith: "The genocide double standard"; "Were the Saudis right
about the Houthis after all?"; the issue on Trump attacks him for
being anti-NATO and for being soft on China.)
Still, there's little
here that isn't already well known, and both Street and the Atlantic
writers have similar limits: both overrate what Trump says he wants
to do, and ignore what he doesn't say, but is deeply embedded in the
agendas of the Republican nomenklatura he will inevitably install and
empower. Nor do they consider the very real and immense opportunity
costs that four more years of Republican misrule will entail. Nor do
they have a good sense of what politics can and cannot do, or about
forces driven from elsewhere they may at most ameliorate or worsen --
in Trump's case, almost always the latter.
David Freedlander: [01-22]
Is Trump really, truly going to be a dictator? "His intellectual
defenders make their case that the danger is overblown." This also
refers to the Atlantic issue, but then sought out several thinkers
who aren't rabid Trump fans but see little to get alarmed about:
Roger Kimball, Martin Gurri, Adam L Fuller, Matthew Schmitz, and
Matthew Continetti (the only name on this list I'd heard of). Half
way through, Freedlander noted: "In an effort to be reassured that
Trump was not a danger, I had been treated to a litany of
whataboutism, conspiracism, moral relativism, and historical
revisionism." The Matthews basically added that Trump's too old,
lazy, and jaded to be an effective dictator, and that the system,
even though parts aren't especially democratic, would be too hard
for him to change (e.g., as an 82-year-old running for a
constitutionally-prohibited third term).
Biden and/or the Democrats: The New Hampshire primary, denied
recognition by the DNC, was held on Tuesday, with Biden getting 63.9%
of the votes as a write-in, to 19.6% for Dean Phillips and 4.0% for
Marianne Williamson (who actually has much to
commend, especially on
peace,
especially compared to Biden's recent record).
David Firestone: [01-25]
Biden needs to lose it with Netanyahu: "His aides say he is
close to losing his patience, but that isn't enough. He needs to
actually lose it."
Kayla Guo: [01-28]
Pelosi wants FBI to investigate pro-Palestinian protesters:
"The former House speaker suggested without offering evidence that
some protesters calling for a cease-fire in Gaza had financial ties
to Russia and Vladimir V Putin." This story pretty neatly sums up
the mental and moral rot at the top of the Democratic Party.
Ed Kilgore: [01-28]
4 reasons Biden's 2024 odds may be better than you think:
I'll give you one: in November, folks on the fence are going to
have to decide whether not whether they're happy or not, but
whether they want change so desperately they'll risk electing
a maniacal moron who's vowed to upend everything, or stick with
the same boring status quo they've grown accustomed to. Vote
for Trump, and you're going to hear about him every day for the
next four years, framed by the seething hate he generates among
friend and foe alike. Vote for Biden and you'll hardly ever have
to hear about him. You don't have to like him, or understand him.
You don't have to pretend he's smart, or some kind of great leader.
All Democrats need to do is to pass him off as the generic Democrat
who, unlike the actual Biden, still wins every poll against Trump.
He actually fits that bill pretty well.
Paul Krugman: [01-25]
Bidencare is a really big deal. True that Biden has managed some
minor improvements over the health insurance reform popularly known
as Obamacare, but hard to see how it helps his political pitch. Most
of the value provided by the ACA was in arresting some horrifying
trends at the time -- like the spread of denials for pre-existing
conditions, which was fast making insurance unaffordable and/or
worthless -- and slowing down cost increases that were already the
worst in the world, but those are fears easily forgotten, leaving
little in the way of tangible benefits. Meanwhile, Democrats paid
a severe price politically for their troubles, while kicking real
reform much further down the road. It's interesting that Biden's
campaign seems to be embracing slurs like Bidenomics, but it's far
from certain that doing so will help. "Bidencare" just sounds like
not much to brag about.
Dean Baker: In honor of Bidenomics (and Bidencare),
we'll slot these pieces here, giving Biden the wee bit of credit
he deserves:
Eric Levitz: [01-25]
A booming economy might not save the Biden campaign.
PE Moskowitz: [01-18]
Marianne's people: "To her detractors, presidential candidate
Marianne Williamson is a political joke. But for her most fervent
supporters, it is, as one of them put it, 'Marianne or death.'"
That's dumb way of putting it, at least without naming the death
alternative as Joe Biden. Her fringe basis is largely based on her
pre-political career, which with all its holistic healing, "New
Age self-help speak," and A Return to Love vibes, suggests
warm heart but soft head. On the other hand, if you limit yourself
to what she says about politics, she actually comes off as pretty
sensible.
Legal matters and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Economic matters:
Ukraine War:
Connor Echols: [01-26]
Diplomacy Watch: Ukraine nears a breaking point: "The window for
peace talks is closing as Western support dries up." Most significant
point here:
Russia President Vladimir Putin "may be willing to consider dropping
an insistence on neutral status for Ukraine and even ultimately abandon
opposition to eventual NATO membership" in exchange for keeping the
Ukrainian territory Russia currently occupies, according to anonymous
people close to the Kremlin who spoke with Bloomberg. The report says
the proposal is part of Moscow's quiet signaling to Washington that it
is open to talks to end the war, though U.S. officials deny any
backchannel communications.
Details need to be worked out, but that sounds like a fairly decent
deal to me. It's not worth further war to try to regain the lands that
Russia has currently secured, especially as most ethnic Ukrainians have
departed, leaving mostly ethnic Russians who seem to support Putin. I
would like to see a deal which arranges for internationally supervised
referenda in 3-5 years to determine permanent boundaries. Assuming
Russia does a decent job of reconstruction, they should be able to
win those votes, and if they don't, they should at least recognize
they were given a fair chance. Future elections would incentivize good
behavior on both sides, especially in reconstruction. While I don't
see NATO membership as offering much to Ukraine, Russian submission
on the point would signal that they have no further territorial
ambitions in Ukraine, which should reduce the threat perception all
along the Russian front. Ideally, that could lead to more general
agreement on demilitarization.
Note that I haven't changed my mind that Russia was totally in the
wrong when they invaded in March 2022. But I've always insisted that
conflicts have to be brought swiftly to negotiated ends, and that the
only real way to do that is to try to do the best you can for everyone
involved. Consequently, the best possible solution has shifted over
time, as the underlying reality has shifted and hardened.
Fred Kaplan: [01-26]
The truth about Ukraine's decision to give up its nukes in the
'90s.
Constant Méheut/Thomas Gibbons-Neff: [01-28]
After two years of bloody fighting, Ukraine wrestles with conscription:
"A proposed bill on mobilization has become the focus of a debate as
more men dodge the draft and calls rise to demobilize exhausted
soldiers." One of the few lessons the US did learn in Vietnam was that
no army can fight modern war with conscripts.
Joe Gould/Connor O'Brien/Nahal Toosi: [01-26]
Lawmakers greenlight F-16s for Turkey after Erdogan approved Sweden's
NATO bid.
Around the world:
Other stories:
Freddy Brewster: [01-24]
Airlines filed 1,800 reports warning about Boeing's 747 Max:
"Since 2020."
Sasha Frere-Jones: [01-23]
The Blue Masc: "The brilliant discontents of Lou Reed." A review
of Will Hermes' book, Lou Reed: The King of New York.
Amitav Ghosh: [01-23]
The blue-blood families that made fortunes in the opium trade:
"Long before the Sacklers appeared on the scene, families like the
Astors, the Peabodys, and the Delanos cemented their upper-crust
status through the global trade in opium." Original title: "Merchants
of Addiction," which appeared as a Nation cover story. Covers
the historical literature, especially of the Opium War, which the
author knows well enough to have written a trilogy of novels on.
Andy Greene: [01-22]
The 50 worst decisions in the past 50 years of American politics:
"These are the historic blunders, scandals, machinations, and lies that
have defined our times." Silly article you can nitpick and re-sort and
add your favorites to. But what the hell, let's list them (and I'll
spare you the reverse order suspense, although you'll still be expecting
things that never materialize*):
- Richard Nixon maintains detailed recordings of his White House criminal conspiracies (1971-73)
- Obama roasts Trump at the White House correspondents dinner (2011)
- Mitch McConnell makes no effort to bar Trump from office after January 6 (2021)
- Swing-state liberals vote for Ralph Nader over Al Gore, inadvertently electing George W. Bush (2000)
- Hillary Clinton decides not to campaign in Wisconsin in 2016
- Mitt Romney unloads on 47% of the country: 'my job is not to worry about those people' (2012)
- Gary Hart dares reporters to look into his personal life (1987)
- Trump tells America to fight Covid-19 by drinking bleach (2020)
- Congressional Republicans overreach by impeaching Bill Clinton, boosting his popularity (1998)
- Bill Clinton declares "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" (1998)
- John McCain picks Sarah Palin as his running mate (2008)
- W. declares "mission accomplished" (2003)
- Dukakis poses in a tank (1988)
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg refuses to retire while Obama is president (2009-17)
- George W. Bush flies over Katrina, tells his FEMA director he's doing a "heckuva job" (2005)
- James Comey reopens the Hillary Clinton email investigation eleven days before the 2016 election
- Anthony Weiner reveals himself to be a monser by sexting with 15-year-old girl (2015
- Ronald Reagan says his "heart and best intentions" tell him Iran Contra didn't happen (1987)
- Michael Bloomberg burns a billion dollars on his 2020 primary run and only wins in American Samoa
- Trent Lott says America would be better off is segregationist Strom Thurmond won in 1948 (2002)
- Ford pardons Richard Nixon (1974)
- Trump refuses to lay off John McCain, costing him Obamacare repeal (2017)
- Elliot Spitzer brings a sex worker across state lines (2008)
- The butterfly ballot is created in Florida in 2000
- Donald Trump tells supporters not to vote by mail (2020)
- Rudy Giuliani shreds every remaining tiny bit of credibility he has by going all in on Trump (2021, or earlier?)
- Senator Bob Packwood keeps a diary logging sexual assaults, political bribes (1992)
- Jeb Bush thinks 2016 is his year to shine
- Rick Perry doesn't do his homework before a debate (2012)
- Biden totally mucks up the Anita Hill hearings (1988)
- Al Gore doesn't let Bill Clinton campaign for him (2000)
- Barack Obama says that Midwesterners "cling to guns or religion" (2008)
- George H.W. Bush pledges 'read my lips: no new taxes' (1988)
- Jimmy Carter follows up his infamous 'malaise' speech by inexplicably firing his cabinet (1979)
- Gerald Ford fails to brush up on basic geography before presidential debate (1976)
- Joe Biden launches 2008 presidential campaign by calling Barack Obama "clean" and "articulate"
- Chris Christie decides against running in 2012
- Todd Akin has some thoughts about "legitimate rape" (2012)
- Herschel Walker runs for the U.S. Senate (2022)
- Dan Quayle sets up Lloyd Bentsen for the mother of all zingers (1988)
- Ted Kennedy has no answer when asked why he's running for president in 1980
- Dr. Oz films a trip to the grocery store (2022)
- Clint Eastwood is given the stage at the 2012 RNC
- Mark Sanford "hikes the Appalachian Trail" (2009)
- Michael Dukakis calmly reacts to hypothetical question about his wife being raped (1988)
- John Edwards has an affair with a campaign staffer while his wife is dying of cancer (2008)
- The New York Republican Party makes no effort to vet George Santos before 2022 nomination
- Ted Cruz goes on vacation to Cancun during a state of emergency in Texas (2022)
- Rod Blagojevich can't keep his stupid mouth shut (2008)
- Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley rip each other apart but won't attack Trump in bizarre race for second in the 2024 GOP primary
*Top of my list here is Colin Powell's WMD speech at the UN
(2003), or a dozen other signal blunders leading up to the Iraq
war, ahead of the "mission accomplished" fiasco cited. Worse
still, at least in my mind, was Bush's 2001 bullhorn speech at
the World Trade Center, which kicked off the whole Global War
on Terrorism. [PS: See the Jonathan Schell quote at the bottom
of this post.]
Items 1-5 and 14 strike me as blown way out of proportion,
and mostly contingent on other events that were impossible to
predict at the time. Nixon's tapes only started to matter once
he had been exposed for lots of other things.
Had Ginsberg resigned in the last year
of Obama's presidency, McConnell wouldn't have allowed a vote
on a successor. Obama only had a Senate majority in his first
two years, and Ginsberg outlived them by ten. And had Hillary
Clinton won in 2016, as everyone expected, she (not Trump)
would have chosen Ginsberg's replacement.
Many of the others testify to the trivia so much of the
media prefers to dwell on. Still, I don't get picking on Obama's
"guns or religion" gaffe at 32 while ignoring Hillary Clinton's
"basket of deplorables."
Sarah Jones: [01-25]
When a rapist's logic is the law. I should have filed this
under Republicans, since they're the ones responsible for this
sort of thinking (or at least for it becoming ensconced in law),
but I felt this piece should stand out, rather than get buried
in the rest of their muck.
Joshua Keating: [01-25]
It's not your imagination. There has been more war lately.
"Why the 'long peace' may be ending." What "long peace"? Looks
like he's referring to arguments by Steven Pinker (The Better
Angels of Our Nature) and Joshua Goldstein (Winning the
War on War) that never had much empirical support, but --
and I'm generally sympathetic on this point -- reflect changing
attitudes towards war, at least in wealthier nations where the
potential costs are much greater than ever, and benefits are
pretty much inconceivable. It's hard to say why this widespread
public sentiment hasn't been reflected in policy. Partly it's
because War has been hiding as Defense ever since the Department
changed its name. Partly it's the corruption built up around the
arms industries and other geopolitical interests (oil is a big
one). Partly it has to do with the cult belief in power, despite
its repeated failures.
The chart here of "estimated fatalities in conflicts involving
at least one state military around the world" is farcical, as it
seems to exclude wars states fight against their own people, but
it also seems to be doing a lot of undercounting: how could you
count 2001-11 as the least deadly stretch of time since WWII when
the US was constantly fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well
as killing people with drones in another dozen countries?
Shawn McCreesh: [01-26]
The media apocalypse: "Condé Nast and other publishers stare
into the abyss." This looks to me like one of many areas where the
private sector can no longer be counted on to provide public goods.
When that happens, one needs to find other ways. Bailing them out --
hint: banks are another -- may suffice in the short term, but isn't
a real solution. Unfortunately, this area is one that's so poisoned
by partisanship that it's going to be especially hard to do anything
sensible.
Doug Muir:
[01-22]
The Kosovo War: 25 years later: An so to war: Fourth part of this
series, where "earlier installments can be
found here" (cited by me in previous posts). Also, note several
long comments by Muir. I suspect there is much more to be covered
here, especially as the conflict there seems to be recurring. I
didn't think much about Kosovo at the time, although I was struck
by the collateral damage (e.g., the bombing of the Chinese embassy
in Belgrade), and alarmed by the notion that the US could intervene
militarily at essentially no risk to American personnel. (The "no
fly zone" in Iraq operated on the same principle.) I did pick up
one or the other (or maybe both) of the following books, but never
read much in them:
- Noam Chomsky: A New Generation Draws the Line: Kosovo,
East Timor, and the "Responsibility to Protect" Today
(2011, Routledge)
- Alexander Cockburn/Jeffrey St Clair: Imperial Crusades:
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia (2004, Verso): for a
taste, see:
Kosovo: Where NATO bombing only made the killing worse.
[01-24]
Why you should watch American football: I haven't watched for
decades, and fast forward through the relevant virtual newspaper
pages (in their appalling plenitude), but followed it close enough
in my youth to recognize the points (also the counterpoints in the
comments), and still find it appealing on the rare moments I happen
to catch a play. One thing that really helped me was learning to
focus on the line play, something Alex Karras brought to the early
days of Monday Night Football.
Rick Perlstein: [01-24]
American Fascism: "Author and scholar John Ganz on how Europe's
interwar period informs the present." Ganz has a new book coming out
in June,
When
the Clock Broke: Con Men, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up
in the Early 1990s.
Kim Phillips-Fein: [01-24]
We have no princes: "Heather Cox Richardson and the battle over
American history." A review of her book, Democracy Awakening,
which is based on newsletter posts since 2019, contemporary politics
viewed by someone with extensive knowledge of history and a general
commitment to democratic principles. I've read enough of her work
to make me initially want to jump right onto this, like I did with
Jill Lepore's These Truths: A History of These United States --
at least until I found a post on Biden's foreign policy that was
insanely misconceived. Phillips-Fein, who's written several good
books about the rise of the new right, helps explain where and why
Richardson turns clueless.
Stephen Prager: [01-24]
Conservatives are finally admitting they hate MLK.
Nathan J Robinson:
[01-13]
How to spot red flags: Picture is of John Fetterman, who has of
late been a disappointment to left-leaning fans.
[01-23]
Can Trump be stopped? He was thinking of Lewis Mumford's Myth
of the Machine critique of "how society itself can become like a
giant machine, integrated with its technologies and directed from
above," and noticed:
The interesting typo is this: at one point in my edition, instead of
"megamachine," it happens to say "magamachine." Which strikes me as an
interesting description of the kind of giant, brainless, unstoppable
engine that Donald Trump is trying to build. He plans to fire all the
federal bureaucrats who disagree with him, to give himself complete
immunity from the laws and to put the whole state in his
service. Donald Trump likes having minions. He is building a giant
personality cult that defers to him absolutely, and is incapable of
self-criticism.
Robinson contrasts this with what he calls "the great exhaustion,"
combined with "Joe Biden's total incapacity to inspire anyone."
[01-25]
Would it be better if we all turned color-blind? Review of the
Coleman Hughes book, The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a
Colorblind America.
[01-26]
Why you should be a Luddite: Interview with Brian Merchant,
whose book on the early 19th-century movement is Blood in the
Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech.
Raja Shehadeh: [01-25]
In the midst of disaster: A review of "Isabella Hammad's novel
of art and exile in Palestine," Enter Ghost.
Jeffrey St Clair: [01-26]
Roaming Charges: The impotent empire.
The Nation did us a favor and linked to this old piece
by Jonathan Schell: {2011-09-19]
The New American Jujitsu. Consider this:
The United States, as if picking up Osama bin Laden's cue, keyed its
response to the apocalyptic symbolism, not the genuine but limited
reality of the threat from Al Qaeda. It accepted bin Laden's
brilliantly stage-managed inflation of his own importance. Soon, the
foreign policy as well as the domestic politics of the United States
were revolving like a pinwheel around Al Qaeda and the global threat
it allegedly posed. Al Qaeda was absurdly likened to the Soviet Union
in the cold war and Hitler in World War II, and treated
accordingly. "Threat inflation" has a long history in US policy, from
the "missile gap" of the 1950s to the Vietnam War, but never has it
been so extensively indulged.
Now real, immense forces were in play, for the power of the United
States was real and immense, and what it did was truly global in reach
and consequence. In his address to Congress nine days after the
attack, George W. Bush expanded the "war on terror" to states,
declaring, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor
or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a
hostile regime." The policy of "regime change" was born, and the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq were launched in its name. There was more. In
a speech a few months later, Bush announced, "America has, and intends
to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the
destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting
rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace." In other words, he
claimed nothing less than an American monopoly on the effective use of
force in the world. The famous White House policy paper of September
2002, the "National Security Strategy of the United States of
America," touted the American ideals of "freedom, democracy, and free
enterprise" as the "single sustainable model for national success."
Politicians and pundits explicitly embraced a global imperial vocation
for the United States.
This strategy, and the whole posture it represented, was
doomed from the start, for reasons elucidated in Schell's 2003
book: The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the
Will of the People. Yet the lessons remain unrecognized
and unlearned in Washington, in Tel Aviv, in Moscow, wherever
national leaders instinctively lash out at challenges to their
precious power.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, January 21, 2024
Speaking of Which
Lots of stuff below. No need for an introduction here.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Mondoweiss:
Ramzy Baroud: [01-19]
100 days of war and resistance: Legendary Palestinian resistance
will be Netanyahu's downfall: You do see what's happening here?
The more Israel attacks, the more valiant (and necessary) armed
resistance appears. And even if they do manage to scratch off their
list of Hamas bad guys, as long as Israel is the one beating Gaza
down, resistance will return.
Ronen Bergman/Patrick Kingsley: [01-20]
In strategic bind, Israel weighs freeing hostages against destroying
Hamas: "Some Israeli commanders said the government's two main
goals were mutually incompatible."
Jason Burke: [01-19]
'We cannot operate, we have no drugs': Gaza's indirect casualties
mount as health service decimated.
Nylah Burton: [01-20]
Palestine awakens the revolution: I wouldn't put much stock in
this "revolution," but the relentless slaughter and destruction is
stirring immense resentment, not just among its immediate victims
but others who see analogous powers (e.g., the US) as responsible
for their own maladies. Israel doesn't care, because they've resigned
themselves to perpetual war, but even they have little inkling of the
hatred they're stirring up.
Jason Ditz: [01-20]
Israel bombs Damascus residential building, kills four Iranian Guard
members.
Mel Frykberg: [01-17]
Netanyahu accused of risking WWIII to save his own skin.
Tareq S Hajjaj: [01-17]
The shocking inhumanity of Israel's crimes in Gaza.
Shatha Hanaysha/Yumna Patel: [01-18]
Drone strikes, mass arrests, and demolitions: Massive Israeli raid
kills at least 11 Palestinians in northern West Bank.
Amjad Iraqi: [01-17]
Israel's right to tyranny: "In justifying the violent unraveling
of Gaza as 'self-defense,' Western capitals have once again signed
off on Israelis' license to act like despots."
Gideon Levy: [01-17]
Israel wants a Palestinian Intifada in the West Bank.
Nancy Murray/Amahl Bishara: [01-16]
In Gaza, Israel has turned water into a weapon of mass destruction.
James North: [01-19]
Netanyahu just said Israel will permanently occupy the land 'from the
river to the sea.' The U.S. media is covering it up.
Jonathan Ofir: [01-19]
If you're surprised by Netanyahu's 'river to the sea' comment, you
haven't been paying attention: "Benjamin Netanyahu has never
made it a secret that he opposes the establishment of a Palestinian
state and insists on total Israeli control over 'the territory west
of the Jordan River.'"
Samah Sabawi: [01-21]
War on Gaza: 'There is nothing left. They destroyed everything.'
Asa Winstanley: [01-20]
Israeli HQ ordered troops to shoot Israeli captives on 7 October.
This is one of the few articles I've seen to provide details on
Israel's counteroffensive on October 7. This follows up on previous
reporting by the author:
Genocide watch, around the world: But mostly in
Washington.
Michael Arria: [01-18]
The Shift: IU cracks down on Palestine, Sanders Israel resolution
flops.
Phyllis Bennis: [01-18]
The US attacks on Yemen are a dangerous escalation.
DeNeen L Brown: [01-20]
Why Namibia invoked a century-old German genocide in international
court. The 1904-08 extermination of the Herero and Nama has come
to be viewed as the transition event between the casual starvation
and massacres characteristic of 19th century colonialism and the more
mechanized slaughter of the 20th century. My first encounter with
the story was in Thomas Pynchon's novel, V.
Shane Burley: [01-15]
Jewish activists mobilizing against war are finding a new
community.
David Dayen: [01-16]
Attempt to get Congress to do something on foreign policy fails.
Bernie Sanders offered a resolution to "require the State Department
to write a report detailing any human rights violations stemming from
the use of U.S. military equipment and funding in conjunction with
Israel's bombardment of Gaza since the October 7 attacks." Ben Cardin
(D-DE) denounced the resolution as "a gift to Hamas," and it was
tabled, 71-11.
Melvin Goodman: [01-19]
The dangerous myth of the "indispensable nation".
Zaha Hassan: [01-18]
Why the United States can't ignore the ICJ case against Israel.
Fred Kaplan:
[01-18]
The real reasons the Middle East is blowing up right now.
He doesn't say so plainly, probably because he wants to preserve
some sense of polarity between Israel and Iran, but I'll give you
two big reasons. One is that none of the many sides in the region
feel they can afford to back down and defuse a conflict, because
they don't trust the other side to reciprocate, and because they
fear that backing down will make them look weak, and that will
invite further aggression. That's an old saw, often illustrated
with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich, but it entered
the modern Middle East through Israel, which has always formulated
its demands in ways that allowed no compromise. (I can rattle off
ten clear examples here.) And because Israel is insatiable, its
enemies have learned not to appease it. And the US has basically
bought into Israel's line of thinking, partly because Americans
seem to be incapable of original thought on the subject, partly
because they're so conceited about their superpower status.
But that's just the tactical level. The deeper problem is that
Israel wants to see the whole Middle East blow up, because that
gives them cover to carry out their genocide in Gaza, as far as
they can extending it into the West Bank, and because it more war
will tie down the Americans, who'll wind up having to do most of
the fighting, and that will reinforce their subservience to Israel.
Israelis certainly understand that no matter how much Nazis hated
Jews, the only way they were able to kill so many was under the
fog and chaos and dehumanization of a much larger war.
[01-19]
America's terror designation for the Houthis only encourages them --
and Iran.
Mohammad Asif Khan/Aisha Siddiqui: [01-17]
Palestine solidarity protests face repression in Modi's India.
Stephanie Kirchgaessner: [01-18]
'Different rules': Special policies keep US supplying weapons to
Israel despite alleged abuses.
Daniel Levy: [01-17]
Team Biden needs a reset on Israel.
Nesrine Malik: [01-15]
It's not only Israel on trial. South Africa is testing the west's
claim to moral superiority.
Blaise Malley: [01-18]
Why is 'ceasefire' considered a dirty word?
Shaida Nabi: [01-18]
Safeguarding Zionist fragility on British campuses.
Matthew Petti: [01-16]
Congress forms caucus to aid Iranian ex-terror group. Isn't the
MeK still a terror group, even if they're now "one of ours"?
Stephen Prager: [01-17]
Israel has no defense: "After South Africa laid out a damning
case of genocidal intent against Israel in international court,
Israel responded by shrugging it off, hardly even mounting a
defense."
Norman Solomon: [01-19]
How the Gaza war can be big news and invisible at the same time.
Also published in Salon as
Why we're not seeing the real Gaza war in the media.
Robert Wright: [01-19]
How the US created the "Iran-backed Houthis". Also on this:
Trump, and other Republicans: Trump's sweep of the Iowa
caucuses was easily predicted, and seems definitive, but 52% of
practically nothing against practically nobody doesn't exactly
impress as rock solid -- the
glut of endorsements suggest that, at least among Republican
officeholders, Trump is more feared than loved. Trump looks good
to win
New Hampshire next week with a similar near-50% split, but
this time with DeSantis way behind a very second-place Haley
(Jan. 20 poll averages: Trump 48.9%, Haley 34.2%, DeSantis 5.2%).
Then comes
South Carolina, where the polling shows: Trump 60.9%, Haley
24.8%, DeSantis 8.9%. I expect Haley and DeSantis to hang in
through Super Tuesday -- DeSantis can expect to do about as well
in Florida as Haley in South Carolina, which is to say not much --
where the
current national polls should be indicative: Trump 66.2%,
Haley 12.3%, DeSantis 11.1%. After that it's all over, which should
leave Trump plenty of time for courtrooms.
PS: I wrote the above before this [01-21]
Ron DeSantis ends presidential campaign, endorses Trump. Given
that there are no significant policy differences between Republican
candidates, the standard reason for quitting is that your backers
pulled their money, which was clearly in the cards. Quitting now
and endorsing Trump avoids Tuesday's embarrassment, and gives him
a chance to claim a bit of Trump's margin (maybe even the whole
margin, if it's slim enough).
Dennis Aftergut/Laurence H Tribe: [01-16]
Judge Aileen Cannon is quietly sabotaging the Trump classified
documents case: The judge was a Trump appointee, with a fairly
long record of showing favor in this case.
Ryan Bort: [01-16]
Every awful thing Trump has promised to do in a second term:
A checklist, but complete? Also note that while he never came close
to fulfilling all the awful promises of his 2016 campaign, he (and/or
his minions) did a lot of really awful things they didn't advertise
in the campaign. Still, all the deliberate malevolence Republicans
aspire to probably pales next to their incompetence at dealing with
the crises their policies feed into. Also, the opportunity costs of
ignoring, misunderstanding, and/or mishandling real problems --
most obviously climate change, but the list is much longer.
Tim Dickinson: [01-17]
Christian nationalists team up on illicit push to get churches to
campaign for Trump: "Far-right 'apostle' Lance Wallnau and
Turning Point USA are partnering on a campaign to turn swing-state
churches into Trump turnout machines."
Lulu Garcia-Navarro:
Inside the Heritage Foundation's plans for 'institutionalizing
Trumpism': An interview with Kevin D Roberts, on how he plans
to use Donald Trump to finally destroy America.
Margaret Hartmann:
Sarah Jones: [01-17]
The class war on kids. E.g., in Mississippi: "Children are
casualties in a much older right-wing campaign to keep the poor
in their place."
Hannah Knowles/Meryl Kornfield: [01-21]
Loyalty, long lines, 'civil war' talk: A raging movement propels
Trump.
Sharon LaFraniere/Alexandra Berzon: [01-21]
How Nikki Haley's lean years led her into an ethical thicket:
"From her earliest days in South Carolina politics, Ms. Haley's
public service paid personal financial dividends." This is, of
course, minor league stuff compared to Trump graft, but still,
as they say, speaks to character.
Eric Levitz:
Matt Lewis: [01-20]
7 reasons Ron DeSantis' campaign was dead on arrival.
Nicole Narea: [01-17]
A calendar of Trump's upcoming court dates -- and how they could
overshadow the GOP primary.
Tori Otten:
Paul Gosar whines there aren't enough white people in the military.
Andrew Prokop:
Nathaniel Rakich: [09-11]
Ron DeSantis probably didn't turn Florida red: A bit late in
noticing this piece, but a useful statistical profile. The most
important chart is the one comparing partisan turnout over the
years. Democrats have done a really poor job of getting their
voters out, especially in 2022.
Andrew Rice: [01-18]
The one room Trump can't dominate: "This time there was no getting
away with attacking his rape accuser, E. Jean Carroll."
Aja Romano: [01-18]
If you want to understand modern politics, you have to understand
modern fandom.
Areeba Shah: [01-20]
MAGA fans cry "fraud" in Iowa -- despite Trump's huge win.
How can it not be suspicious is it that Trump lost one county
(of 99) by one vote to Haley?
Tatyana Tandanpolie: [01-21]
Scholars worry Haley and Ramaswamy's race-blindness helps GOP advance
"white supremacist worldview": "Republican denials of racism in
the US help feed 'fantasy of white victimhood,' professor says."
Scott Waldman: [01-16]
No more going wobbly in climate fight, Trump supporters vow.
Li Zhou: [01-18]
Congress averted a shutdown, but the funding fight isn't over.
James D Zirin: [01-13]
Trump the autocrat at the counsel table.
No More Mister Nice Blog: Steve M. has been one of
the sharpest observers of Republican politics all along, but he's
had an exceptional week:
Closing tweet by
Will Bunch:
It's so tempting to pile on the Ron DeSantis jokes but I keep thinking
about the Black voters he had arrested, the kids who had to leave New
College, the migrants he tricked onto that plane - all for the sake of
the worst campaign in American history. It's actually not that funny.
Biden and/or the Democrats: I haven't seen much comment on
this, but the Democrats' decision to cancel Iowa and New Hampshire
left the impression this week that only Republicans are running
for president in 2024. Biden would certainly have won landslides in
both states this time -- after losing both in 2020, only to have his
candidacy saved by South Carolina. I suspect that the reason they did
this was to deny any prospective challenger a forum to show us how
vulnerable Biden might be. As a tactic, I guess it worked -- it's
highly unlikely that Biden won't get enough write-in votes in New
Hampshire to clear Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson, and even
if he doesn't, it's not like he was actually running -- more a case
of New Hampshire just being spiteful jerks (which, as a long-time
Massachusetts resident, I can tell you isn't a tough sell). Still,
it feels like they're sheltering a lame horse, thereby wasting the
opportunity to see who really can run. So while a Trump-Biden rematch
looks inevitable, both candidates are in such precarious shape, with
such strong negatives, that it's hard to believe that both will still
be on the ballot in November. With no serious primaries, and leaders
ducking debates -- even Haley has got into the act, figuring DeSantis
isn't worthy of debate in New Hampshire, even though she's regularly
mopped the floor with him so far -- 2024 may turn out to be a vote
with no real campaigning. That may sound like a relief, but it's not
what you'd call healthy.
Legal matters and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Economic matters:
Ukraine War:
Blaise Malley: [01-19]
Diplomacy Watch: Zelensky's lonely calls for 10 point peace plan:
He's still making maximalist demands, including "withdrawal of Russian
troops from all Ukrainian territory and the prosecution of Russian
officials for war crimes."
David Rothkopf: [01-19]
The GOP is actively supporting Russia's Ukrainian genocide:
So, if this guy thinks Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine,
why isn't he up in arms against what Israel is doing in Gaza?
What Russia is doing is criminal and reprehensible on many levels,
but it's not genocide, by any stretch of the imagination. That
Russia "openly wishes for the end of the Ukrainian state" isn't
even true. They want regime change, to a regime that's friendly
to their interests, but if that counted, the US would be guilty
of genocide against at least thirty nations since WWII. As for
"kidnapped and indoctrinated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian
children," I don't know what you'd call that (let alone whether
it's true; it's possible they just moved some children out of
the war zone, for their safety), but it's not genocide. Putin
might even argue that intervention in Ukraine was necessary to
protect ethnic Russians from Ukrainian nationalists -- the term
he used was "Nazis," which wasn't quite right but is not totally
lacking in historical reference -- but while Ukraine may have
behaved prejudicially against ethnic Russians, that too had not
remotely risen to the level of genocide. To have any usefulness,
the term "genocide" has to denote something extraordinary -- as
is the case with Israel's demolition of Gaza.
He is, of course, right that Republicans don't care about
Ukrainians. They also don't care about Russians. They don't even
care about Americans, or for that matter even their own benighted
voters. They just want to win elections, so they can grab power
and dole out favors to their sponsors, while punishing their
enemies. But for some reason they all seem to love Israel. Maybe
because they've set such a role model for how to really smite
one's enemies?
Around the world:
- Ellen Ioanes: [01-14]
In Taiwan's high-stakes elections, China is the lower.
- Joshua Keating: [01-13]
Taiwan elects Lai Ching-te, denying China's hopes for reunification.
Paul Krugman: [01-18]
China's economy is in serious trouble. What's the evidence here?
That a 5.2% GDP growth may have been politically fudged? That Chinese
are investing 40% of GDP instead of spending it on consumer goods?
That they may have a real estate bubble? That the population decline
reminds him of Japan in the 1990s (which, he admits, wasn't as big a
disaster as predicted, but is Xi smart enough to manage it as well?).
Finally, he worries that, "scariest of all, will [Xi] try to distract
from domestic difficulties by engaging in military adventurism?"
China's actual record on that account isn't half as scary as Biden's,
whose "soft landing" on inflation owes no small amount to the primed
business of making rockets and bombs, and shipping LNG to supplant
Russian gas sales to Europe.
Other stories:
Chris Armstrong: [01-08]
What if there were far fewer people? I mention this mostly because
I had cited a NY Times piece by Dean Spears,
The world's population may peak in your lifetime, but searched in
vain for an adequate rejoinder. One could make more points, but this,
at least, is a start. It is well known that population growth alarms --
most famously those by Malthus and Ehrlich -- were easily exaggerated
into doomsday scenarios that have at least been dodged, even if their
logic has never really been refuted. By the way, the "cornucopian"
counter-theories have rarely if ever been tested, mostly because no
one takes them seriously. (For a recent discussion of Malthus, see
J Bradford DeLong's Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History
of the Twentieth Century.) Population growth is something we have
a lot of experience coping with, but make no mistake, it is a strain
that always requires compensatory changes.
As for population decline,
that's rarely occurred, and never been a serious problem. Certainly,
it's not one that Malthus could imagine, as he was perfectly aware of
the standard solution: have more children. Spears' conjecture -- that
population will peak in 2085 then decline ("perhaps precipitously")
thereafter, is far enough into the future as to be the last thing we
should bother with (aside from, you know, the Sun turning super-nova,
that is).
David Dayen: [01-18]
An unequal tax trade: "The business tax credits in the Wyden-Smith
deal are five times as generous as the Child Tax Credit expansion."
This on the "bipartisan" bill that seems to be finally working its
way through Congress. Also see:
Jackson Diiani: [01-21]
Is America like the Soviet Union in 1990? It sometimes feels that
way: "America's symptoms of decline are everywhere -- and history
tells us what happens if we don't change course." Sure, you can make
that case, and find plenty of pictures, like the abandoned diner used
here, to illustrate the case. Or you could take the opposite tack,
and while noting that there are things that need to be fixed up,
those improvements are easily within out means, given a little will
to do so.
This article starts with a question: "Who owns the parking meters
in Chicago?" The answer is: "Morgan Stanley and the city of Abu Dhabi."
A cash-strapped city tried to solve a small problem by turning to the
private sector, turning it into a bigger problem. Privatization was
the buzz word, sold on the promises of efficiency but expanding the
reach of predatory capitalism.
Kevin T Dugan: [01-19]
Greed killed Sports Illustrated. Greed kills everything.
Related here:
Ezra Klein: [01-21]
I am going to miss Pitchfork, but that's only half the problem:
I land on Pitchfork 3-5 times a week (on average, just a guess), but
rarely read anything there, and can't imagine missing it much. Of
the list below, Vox is the only one I would miss.
Sports Illustrated just laid off most of its staff. BuzzFeed News
is gone. HuffPost has shrunk. Jezebel was shut down (then partly
resurrected). Vice is on life support. Popular Science is done.
U.S. News & World Report shuttered its magazine and is basically
a college ranking service now. Old Gawker is gone and so too is New
Gawker. FiveThirtyEight sold to ABC News and then had its staff and
ambitions slashed. Grid News was bought out by The Messenger, which
is now reportedly "out of money." Fusion failed. Vox Media -- my
former home, where I co-founded Vox.com, and a place I love -- is
doing much better than most, but has seen huge layoffs over the past
few years.
News publications are failing too, and while some people are
making a good living writing on Substack (including his increasingly
vacuous co-founder Matthew Yglesias), most don't make any living
at all. As Klein puts it: "A small audience, well monetized, is a
perfectly good revenue stream." That's how these people -- at least
the more successful ones -- think, with the corollary being: and
if you don't cater to a rich-enough audience, you deserve to die.
If we cared about democracy, we'd do something to make sure we had
a reasonably well-informed and thoughtful citizenry. But "greed is
good" went from being a dirty desire to a shameless motto in the
Reagan 1980s, and has remained unquestioned even through Democratic
administrations (with their nouveaux riches presidents), leaving
the rest of us to live in greed's detritus.
Benjamin Mullin/Katie Robertson: [01-18]
Billionaires wanted to save the news industry. They're losing a
fortune. Save? More like "own," which is what they're doing.
And as they've lost money they made way too easily elsewhere,
like vulture capitalists in other industries, they've started
to hollow out these venerable brands, until they're just empty
shells, allowing nothing to grow in their place.
Elizabeth Dwoskin: [01-21]
Growing Oct. 7 'truther' groups say Hamas massacre was a false flag:
No use filing this under the Israel sections up top, as it's solely
meant to muddy the waters. There is no reason to doubt that militia
groups in Gaza, associated with but not identical to Hamas, planned
and executed the attack. Israel has a long history of "false flag"
operations, but this bears no resemblance to them. The precise scale
and effect of the attack are still not clear, but "unprecedented" is
a fair description, and the shock was deeply felt, although it quickly
gave way to cunning political maneuvers. Israeli leaders had always
responded to even the most trivial of attacks from Gaza with threats
of extreme punitive violence, so they immediately realized this as
an opportunity to implement genocide -- a consideration that had
been cultivated for over a century, but only seriously pursued under
the cover of the 1948 war (the Nakba remembered by Palestinians as
their Holocaust, but never quite recognized as such by the world).
The Israeli government quickly worked to mold world opinion -- at
least among critical allies like the US, UK, and Germany -- to go
along with Israel's destruction and depopulation of Gaza, which
meant elevating the by-then-defeated attack to mythic proportions.
Such disingenuity was bound to generate "conspiracy theories" like
these. For now, they can be dismissed as nonsense, and/or conflated
with other easily discredited theories (not least those belonging
to antisemitism). But what they do correctly intuit is that there
were deceitful political interests at work from the beginning,
leaving us with little reason to trust what we are told.
Richard J Evans: [01-17]
What is the history of fascism in the United States? Reviews
Bruce Kuklich's Fascism Comes to America: A Century of Obsession
in Politics and Culture, which starts in 1922 with fascination
and fear of Benito Mussolini and traces the use and abuse of the
word ever since, noting that "over the years, the concept gradually
lost its coherence."
Caroline Fredrickson: [01-19]
Elon Musk's war on the New Deal -- and democracy: "The South
African-born mogul is now trying to gut the 89-year-old National
Labor Relations Board."
William D Hartung: [01-16]
The military-industrial complex is the winner (not you):
"Overspending on the Pentagon is stealing our future." A
record-high $886 billion Defense appropriation bill, another
$100 billion-plus for aid to Ukraine and Israel, much more
buried in other departments. By the way, Hartung also has a
"Costs of War" paper:
Doug Henwood: These are a couple of older pieces I found
in "related" links. I don't especially agree with them, but they
cast doubts on theories and approaches that sound nice but haven't
been overwhelmingly successful.
Phillip Longman: [01-16]
How fighting monopoly can save journalism: "The collapse of
the news industry is not an inevitable consequence of technology
or market forces. It's the result of policy mistakes over the
past 40 years that the Biden administration is already taking
measures to fix." I'm pretty skeptical here. Whatever Biden is
doing on antitrust enforcement -- after decades of inaction, a
bit worse with Republican administrations but still pretty much
ineffective with Democrats in charge -- is going to take a long
time to be felt. And the argument that "advertising-supported
journalism might be the worst way to finance a free press except
for all the rest" is worse than defeatist, in that it doesn't
even allow the option of treating journalism as a public good,
as something we could deliberately cultivate -- instead of just
hoping it somehow pans out. The sorry state of journalism today
has less to do with constrained competition than with the carnage
due to relentless profit-seeking.
Louis Menand: [01-15]
Is A.I. the death of I.P.? Well, it should be, and take its own
I.P.-ness with it.
Doug Muir: [01-15]
The Kosovo War, 25 years later: Things fall apart: Part 3 of
a series, that started with [01-08]
The Kosovo War, 25 years later and [01-08]
The Serbian ascendancy.
Andrew O'Hehir: [01-21]
Never mind Hitler: "Late Fascism" is here, and it doesn't need Hugo
Boss uniforms: "Fascism has been lurking under the surface of
liberal democracy all along -- we just didn't want to see it." Draws
on Alberto Toscano's
book: Late Fascism: Race, Capitalism and the Politics of
Crisis. I'm struck here by the line about how fascism arises
"to save capitalism from itself." But it does so by misdirection,
never really facing up to the source of its disaffection, leading
to its own self-destruction. Such analysis is kids' stuff for
Marxists, who start with a fair understanding of the dynamics.
Yet it's lost on conventional liberals and conservatives, who
assume capitalism is just a force of nature, something they skip
over to focus on abstractions (democracy, freedom, etc.).
James North: [01-18]
What the media gets wrong about the so-called border crisis:
"The mainstream press's dark warnings about a flood of migrants
are underpinned by a staggering ignorance about where asylum-seekers
are coming from -- and why they're fleeing for their lives."
Rick Perlstein: [01-17]
Metaphors journalists live by (Part I): "One of the reasons
political journalism is so ill-equipped for this moment in America
is because of its stubborn adherence to outdated frames." Framed
by a discussion with Jeff Sharlet. Also [01-18]
Part II.
Jeffrey St Clair: [01-19]
Roaming Charges: It's in the bag. Starts by pointing out the
ridiculously low turnout at the Iowa caucuses, which among other
things resulted in this: "Amount GOP candidates spent per vote in
Iowa: Haley: $1,760; DeSantis: $1,497; Ramaswamy: $487; Trump:
$328." Of course, that undervalues the free media publicity given
to all, but especially to Trump. Roaming to other topics, here's:
+ According to Jeffrey Epstein's brother, Mark, Epstein "stopped
hanging out with Donald Trump when he realized Trump was a crook."
Liz Theoharis: [01-18]
Change is coming soon: "The powerful and visionary leadership
of young activists is crucial in these times."
Michael Tomasky:
The right-wing media takeover is destroying America: "The purchase
of The Baltimore Sun is further proof that conservative billionaires
understand the power of media control. Why don't their liberal counterparts
get it?"
Sandeep Vaheesan: [01-16]
Uber and the impoverished public expectations of the 2010s:
"A new book shows that Uber was a symbol of a neoliberal philosophy
that neglected public funding and regulation in favor of rule by
private corporations." The book is by Katie J Wells, Kafui Attoh
& Declan Cullen: Disrupting D.C.: The Rise of Uber and the
Fall of the City.
Jeff Wise: [01-13]
Who will rid us of this cursed plane?: Boeing's "troubled 737 Max,"
although that's just the most obvious of the problems with Boeing.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
Sunday, January 14, 2024
Speaking of Which
Quite a bit below. I figure this as a transitional week, mostly
cleaning up old stuff (like EOY lists), as I get ready to buckle
down and do some serious writing next week. So it helps to do a
quick refresher about what's happening these days.
Although pretty much everything you need to know about the wars
in Gaza and Ukraine is touched on below, you'll be hard pressed to
find much of this elsewhere. The lack of urgency is very hard to
square with reports of what's actually happening.
One thing I will note here is that I made a rare
tweet plugging someone else's article (Joshua Frank's "Making
Gaza Unlivable," my first link under "Israel" this week). I found
it very disappointing that a week later the total number of views
is a mere 91. (My followers currently number 627. The number of
views for my latest Music Week
tweet was only 142, which is less than half of what I used to
get 4-6 months ago, so one thing being measured here is how many
people no longer bother with X.)
Still, it is an important piece, making a point (one I tried
to make
last week, with fewer concrete details but more historical
context) that really must be understood.
Top story threads:
Israel:
Joshua Frank: [01-11]
Making Gaza unlivable: "Or how to create an unlivable hellscape
on one strip of land." Further evidence for the point I tried to make
last week: Israel's essential allies, the US and Egypt, might
never agree to the expulsion of two million Palestinians from Gaza,
but by rendering Gaza uninhabitable, they may have no alternative.
From its conception, Israel has always been a struggle to establish
"facts on the ground." And, indeed, Israel's "facts" have repeatedly
forced others to reluctantly cede ground. Frank provides more detail
here on how Israel is undermining Gaza: flooding tunnels with salt
water, leaking sewage, carpet bombing, destruction of housing and
infrastructure. Moreover, similar efforts have long been used in the
West Bank, where Israel's settlements are designed to monopolize
scarce water resources.
Mondoweiss:
Spencer Ackerman: [01-08]
Israel is not promising to "scale back" its war: "As the US
secretary of state shuttles to stop the war from expanding, the
Israeli defense minister vows "months" more war on Gaza and suggests
taking the fight to Iran."
Mohammed al-Hajjar: [01-14]
In Gaza, you don't only see death. You smell it. You breathe it.
The Cradle News Desk: [01-11]
Israeli army ordered mass Hannibal Directive on 7 October: "An
investigation from Israel's leading newspaper indicates Israel
deliberately killed many of its own civilians and soldiers during
Hamas' Operation Al-Aqsa Flood to prevent them from being taken
captive back to Gaza." Related to this:
Emma Graham-Harrison/Quique Kierszenbaum: [01-13]
'It is a time of witch hunts in Israel': teacher held in solitary
confinement for posting concern about Gaza deaths.
David Hearst: [01-12]
War on Gaza: 100 days on, a regional catastrophe looms.
Taher Labadi: [01-13]
How Israel dominates the Palestinian economy. Useful background
piece, going back to the founding of the Histadrut in 1920, with
its aim to exclude Jewish dependence on Palestinian labor.
Nina Lakhani:
Noah Lanard: [11-03]
The dangerous history behind Netanyahu's Amalek rhetoric: "His
recent biblical reference has long been used by the Israeli far right
to justify killing Palestinians." This piece is a couple months old,
but that's only served to further validate the point.
Mahmoud Mushtaha: [01-11]
'It's like living in a mortuary, waiting for someone to bury you':
"With Israel isolating the northern Strip, displaced Palestinians in
Gaza City are grappling with the immediate perils of starvation and
disease."
Mat Nashed/Simon Speakman Cordall: [01-14]
Israel's 100 days of relentless war on Gaza.
Peter Oborne/Angelo Calianno: [01-13]
With all eyes on Gaza, Israeli settlers are waging a second Nakba
in the West Bank.
Jonathan Ofir: [01-09]
Don't believe Haaretz and the NYT. Israeli society fully supports the
Gaza genocide. "Let's be clear: 83% of the Israeli population is
not an extremist fringe. The vast majority of Israelis support the
genocide -- they just call it other things, like self-defense. Did
we already forget Ben-Barak's party ally Meirav Ben-Ari's claim that
'the children of Gaza have brought this upon themselves' from mid-October?
Have we failed to notice that only 1.8% of Israeli Jews think that
Israel is using too much firepower in Gaza?"
Anat Plocker: [01-08]
How Israel's special antisemitism envoy is getting antisemitism totally
(and dangerously) wrong: "In equating criticism of Israel with
antisemitism, Noa Tishby relies on the same conspiratorial tropes
that fed Jew-hatred through the centuries."
Mushon Zer-Aviv: [01-11]
Israel commits suicide of biblical proportions, and America is there
to assist: "How can those claiming to 'stand with Israel' stand
by and even actively support Netanyahu's atrocious government?"
Some documents:
The genocide trial:
Elsewhere, the world reacts to the genocide, while the US,
UK, and Israel spread the war:
Danica Kirka/Fatima Hussein/Menelaos Hadjicostis: [01-13]
Global day of protests draws thousands to D.C., other cities in
pro-Palestinian marches.
Nadia B Ahmad: [01-11]
White House strategy to counter Islamophobia means nothing while
funding the slaughter of Muslims abroad.
Michael Arria: [01-11]
The Shift: ADL's new report on antisemitism can't be taken
seriously.
Dave DeCamp: [01-11]
Iran seizes tanker in retaliation for the US stealing its oil.
Mahmood Delkhasteh: [01-12]
How the mindset in Germany that led to the Holocaust now enables
Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Melvin Goodman: [01-12]
The United States and the Middle East: Hoist on its own petard.
Sara Haghdoosti: [01-14]
Forgetting the lessons of the war on terror in Gaza.
Marjorie Ingall: [01-09]
Want to understand American views on Israel? Take a look at this 1958
novel. "Leon Uris's bestselling epic Exodus -- and its hit
movie adaptation starring Paul Newman -- influenced generations of
Americans, from the suburbs to the State Department."
Ellen Ioanes:
Joshua Keating: [01-12]
How a Yemeni rebel group is creating chaos in the global economy.
Daniel Larison: [01-10]
How did Blinken avoid the 'atrocity famine' in Gaza? "After
his trip the Secretary of State said a lot about humanitarian
need, but nothing about Israel weaponizing food."
Branko Marcetic: [01-13]
US airstrikes in Yemen are risking regional war: I have to disagree
with the headline here: the airstrikes are regional war. The
risk is simply that it will spread and get even worse. The great fear
(or great hope, if you're Netanyahu), of course, is that the US will
directly attack Iran, but that is orders of magnitude beyond stupid.
To have a point, you'd have to have a plan for regime change in Iran,
which means you'd have to invade a nation of 89 million people, spread
out over 636,400 square miles (about 4 times the size of Iraq). Even
if the US could muster a sufficient invasion force, where would they
invade from? The only allies the US has in the region are across the
Persian Gulf, but they literally live in glass houses. Do they really
want to expose themselves to counterattack? Forgoing invasion, the US
could do some damage with long-range missiles, but unless you broke
out the nuclear arsenal, it wouldn't amount to much, and would invite
retaliation -- Iran has a lot of intermediate-range missiles that
could hit US and Israeli targets in the region. And while they don't
have nuclear bombs, they could lash a barrel of HE uranium to the
top of a missile and plop it into Tel Aviv (and for good measure,
Riyadh), which would produce a comparable panic.
Harold Meyerson: [01-09]
Bombed back into the stone age: "An American general's prescription
for how we should have fought in Vietnam has been realized in Israel's
war on Gaza."
Paul R Pillar: [01-12]
US strikes on Yemen won't solve anything
Jennifer Rubin: [01-14]
How Israel and the Palestinians go from war to peace: Sometimes,
despite low expectations, you're really taken aback at how ignorant
American pundits can be. "Make no mistake, however: Unless and until
Hamas is eliminated as a military force in Gaza, none of this is
possible. Rid Gaza of the cancer of a genocidal terrorist group
and maybe, just maybe, the two sides can begin traverse the ocean
of agony, pain and suffering that threatens to drown them both."
Admittedly, one small edit would make a world of difference: just
change "Hamas" to "Israel," and now you're really talking "genocidal
terrorist group," so you might even be able to get by with just one
"maybe." But eliminating Israel isn't really an option, now is it?
But if Israel simply withdrew, you wouldn't have to reconcile two
sides, and Palestinians wouldn't need (much less want) Hamas for
defense. War over, so recovery can begin. Gaza would still need
extraordinary recovery help, and part of the price of that could
be the voluntary disbandment of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and any other
militias in the territory. They'd just be a distraction, anyway.
But pundits like Rubin can't begin to imagine this, because they
can't allow themselves to recognize that Israel is the only force
here with both the means and the will -- that latter consolidated
and consecrated through 140 years of Zionist settlement -- to
commit genocide. The Palestinians' fault in all this is their
failure to figure out a way to blunt the savage force of their
colonizers: violence didn't work (unlike Algeria), nonviolence
didn't work (unlike South Africa), total surrender didn't work
(unlike in America), appeals to international law and conscience
didn't work, and the endless retreat/recycle only seems to have
made Israelis more insatiable, more aggressive, and even more
vindictive.
David E Sanger/Julian E Barnes/Vivian Yee/Alissa J
Rubin: [01-14]
U.S. and Iran battle through proxies, warily avoiding each other:
"Iran wants to flex its muscles without directly taking on the U.S.
or Israel, but that cautious strategy is subject to miscalculation
on all sides." Or maybe this whole view is a miscalculation of US
security elites, cynically stoked by Israelis who see that having
a common enemy helps keep the US in line? I think it's at least as
likely that Iran, having been shunned and isolated by America and
its allies ever since 1979, is so desperate for friends abroad
that they've wound up associating with this weird grab bag of
dissidents from the US-Israeli-Saudi triad, which they have
little-to-no control over. If the US actually had its own
independent foreign policy, free to pursue its own interests --
which really should just be peace, stability, and cooperation,
permitting sustainable economic growth for all -- the smart
move would be to split Iran off from its "proxies" by allowing
them to join in and share that growth.
Norman Solomon: [01-12]
With attack on Yemen, the U.S. is shameless: "We make the rules,
we break the rules".
Robert Wright: [01-12]
Biden takes the bait in Yemen.
Philip Weiss:
Trump, and other Republicans:
Victoria Bekiempis: [01-14]
Trump returns to court for new E Jean Carroll trial -- and it could
prove costly.
Ryan Cooper: [01-10]
Trump's lawyers invite Biden to assassinate him: "And it'll be
find, so long as Biden doesn't get impeached, they implied.
David Corn: [01-11]
Trump II: How bad it could be: "No need to speculate. Just listen
to what he's saying."
Margaret Hartmann:
[01-08]
8 awful things Trump said in Iowa, ranked: All this from quotes:
- He claimed magnets don't work underwater.
- He bragged about his ability to put on pants.
- He said the Civil War could have been "negotiated."
- He posted an ad that asserts "God made Trump."
- He mocked Biden's stutter.
- He mocked injuries McCain received as a P.O.W.
- He glorified January 6 insurrectionists.
- He said Iowans need to "get over" a fatal school
shooting.
[01-12]
Rand Paul dramatically endorses 'not Nikki Haley' for president:
As a peacenik, he's not as consistent or as reliable as you'd like --
or even as his father -- but he's done the least he could do in
calling out Haley as a flaming threat to world peace and our own
security (although in his
website, he still manages to
make it more about himself).
Brian Karem: [01-11]
The GOP sends in the cowards: "It will be a cold day in Iowa that
will test the courage of the American democracy and the cowardice of
its politicians." The Iowa caucuses (Republican, anyway) will be held
on Monday, and indeed it will be very cold.
Erin Keane: [01-14]
"Abbott's inhumanity has no limit": Dems blame Texas governor for
migrant children drowning deaths.
Kabir Khanna: [01-14]
Most Republicans agree with "poisoning the blood" language.
Ed Kilgore:
Paul Krugman:
[01-04]
Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and politically obtuse plutocrats.
[01-11]
Trump dreams of economic disaster. "Trump's evident panic over
recent good economic news deepens what is, for me, the biggest
conundrum of American politics: Why have so many people joined --
and stayed in -- a personality cult built around a man who poses an
existential threat to our nation's democracy and is also personally
a complete blowhard?" The best answer I can offer is that they know
better than to take anything Trump says at face value, but they love
the fact that Trump is free to say such things, and that it drives
the people Krugman used to make fun of as "serious people" to fits --
not least because they suspect those serious types to be up to no
good.
Michael Kruse: [01-12]
'This to him is the grand finale': Donald Trump's 50-year mission
to discredit the justice system: "The former president is in
unparalleled legal peril, but he has mastered the ability to grind
down the legal system to his advantage. It's already changing our
democracy." Long article, some of which desives from Jim Zirin's
book, Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500
Lawsuits. Trump's ability to flip the scales of justice, or
simply mock them, is not just a threat to democracy, but in many
ways is already his legacy, as millions of Americans have already
learned to see justice as a myth, when all that really matters is
power.
Trump and his allies say he is the victim of the weaponization of
the justice system, but the reality is exactly the opposite. For
literally more than 50 years, according to thousands of pages of
court records and hundreds of interviews with lawyers and legal
experts, people who have worked for Trump, against Trump or both,
and many of the myriad litigants who've been caught in the crossfire,
Trump has taught himself how to use and abuse the legal system for
his own advantage and aims. Many might view the legal system as a
place to try to avoid, or as perhaps a necessary evil, or maybe even
as a noble arbiter of equality and fairness. Not Trump. He spent most
of his adult life molding it into an arena in which he could stake
claims and hunt leverage. It has not been for him a place of last
resort so much as a place of constant quarrel. Conflict in courts is
not for him the cost of doing business -- it is how he does business.
Dan Mangan: [01-12]
Trump ordered to pay New York Times, three reporters nearly $400,000
in legal costs over dismissed lawsuit.
Branko Marcetic: [01-14]
The long, disastrous career of Nikki Haley. Mostly focuses on her
cozy relationship with corporate graft.
Calder McHugh: [12-19]
'Trump knows what he's doing': The creator of Godwin's law says the
Hitler comparison is apt.
Julianne McShane: [01-12]
Abbott: Texas would shoot migrants, but Biden "would charge us with
murder". Well, it would be murder. The DOJ shouldn't need any
political direction to prosecute that. If I'm not mistaken, the state
of Texas has laws against murder also, but prosecution down there
seems to be optional (or so Abbott believes).
Tori Otten:
Kansas legislators to Kansas voters: You spoke loud and clear, and
we don't care: "Kansas Republicans are bringing back their scheme
to overturn voters on abortion."
Heather Digby Parton: [01-12]
Johnson left blindsided by MAGA rebels: Or, "Marjorie Taylor Greene]
is leading a MAGA rebellion against Mike Johnson."
Andrew Prokop:
Andrew Rice: [01-12]
The fraud that made President Trump: "He and Letitia James agree,
in a way, the case against him can't be separated from politics."
Amy Davidson Sorkin: [01-10]
Trump's bizarre immunity claims should serve as a warning.
Emily Stewart: [01-11]
Trump says a lot of stuff about the economy. What would he actually
do?
Matt Stieb: [01-10]
Lauren Boebert didn't punch her ex-husband after all. Original
title was "Lauren Boebert allegedly punched her ex-husband in the
face." It's not often you can sympathize with Boebert, but this
immediately struck me as one time. He was subsequently arrested.
Zeynep Tufekci: [01-14]
A strongman president? These voters crave it. Link to this piece
teased: "Why some voters see Trump as really honest about the world."
Biden and/or the Democrats:
Legal matters and other crimes:
Climate and environment:
Economic matters:
Ukraine War:
Blaise Malley: [01-12]
Diplomacy Watch: Italy calls for diplomatic effort to end Ukraine
war.
George Beebe/Anatol Lieven: [01-11]
Russia's upper hand puts US-Ukraine at a crossroads.
Douglas Busvine: [01-11]
Russia finds way around sanctions on battlefield tech.
Dave DeCamp: [01-11]
Pentagon did not properly track over $1 billion in weapons shipped to
Ukraine.
Thomas Geoghegan: [01-09]
Why does Ukraine aid drive the Trump right nuts? "It's not just
because the 45th president has a crush on Putin and hates Zelensky."
It's because "the war it really wants to fight is at home -- on our
form of government itself." One of my favorite political thinkers,
but I don't buy this, on several levels. I didn't object to sending
arms to Ukraine to help fend off Russian invasion, although I never
bought the notion that either they or we were fighting Russia to
defend democracy. Russia and Ukraine were both corrupt oligarchies
with thin democratic veneer and diverging economic interests. It
was credible that the ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine reacted
to the 2014 elections by attempting to realign with Russia. The
crisis this caused should have been negotiated away, but festered
as a civil war for six years before Russia grew desperate enough
to invade. Putin deserves most of the blame for this, but Russia
had been pressured by NATO expansion, economic sanctions, and
sharply increased military support after Biden replaced Trump.
The result was a huge boost for the US arms industry -- not just
directly in supplies for Ukraine but in increased sales in other
NATO countries, Taiwan, and South Korea -- but at enormous costs
to the Ukrainian people. The Trumpists care hardly for any of
that (and, sure, democracy is one of many things they have no
concern for). They simply hate Biden. They associate him with
Ukraine, and more than anything else want to see him fail. Much
of this is stupid domestic politics -- the Ukraine-Biden axis
starts with Trump's scheme to implicate Hunter Biden, while the
Democrats' fixation on Trump-Putin starts with the 2016 election
interference. What neither side seems to understand is that war
only destroys and degenerates. Ukraine shows us that deterrence
is as likely to provoke war as to prevent one, and that sanctions
mostly just harden resistance.
Joshua Yaffa: [01-08]
What could tip the balance in the war in Ukraine? "In 2024, the
most decisive fight may also be the least visible: Russia and Ukraine
will spend the next twelve months in a race to reconstitute and resupply
their forces."
Around the world:
Other stories:
Zack Beauchamp: [01-10]
How a horny beer calendar sparked a conservative civil war:
"It's called 'Calendargate,' and it's raising the question of what --
and whom -- the right-wing war on 'wokeness" is really for."
Luke Goldstein: [01-09]
Boeing 737 MAX incident a by-product of its financial mindset:
"The door plug that ripped off an Alaska Airlines plane only exists
because of cost-cutting production techniques to facilitate cramming
more passengers into the cabin."
By the way, this is old (2011), but never more relevant:
Thomas Geoghegan:
Boeing's threat to American enterprise:
Here is yet another American firm seeking to ruin its reputation
for quality. Why? To save $14 an hour!. Seriously: Is that going
to help sell the Dreamliner? . . .
At this moment especially, deep in debt, we cannot afford to
let another company like Boeing self-destruct. Boeing is not a
product of the free market -- it's an extension of the U.S.
government. Over the years, our taxpayers have paid to create a
Boeing work force with exceptionally high skills. That work force
is not just an asset for Boeing -- it's an asset for the country.
Why should the country let Boeing take it apart? . . .
Most depressing of all, Boeing's move would send a market signal
to those considering a career in engineering or high-skilled
manufacturing. It is a message that corporate America has delivered
over and over: Don't go to engineering school, don't bother with
fancy apprenticeships, don't invest in skills. No rational person
wants to take on college or even community college debt to come out
and work on the Dreamliner -- which should be the country's finest
product -- for a miserable $14 an hour. If a single story in the
news can sum up the reasons for America's global decline, it's the
decision to build a Dreamliner that will gut the American dream.
Sarah Jones: [01-11]
Death panels for women: The abortion ban in Texas.
Related:
Dylan Matthews: [01-11]
Do we really live in an "age of inequality"?
Harold Meyerson: [01-08]
Why and where the working class turned right: "A new book documents
the lost (and pro-Democratic) world of Pennsylvania steelworkers and
how it became Republican." The book is Rust Belt Union Blues,
by Theda Skocpol and Lainey Newman.
Nicole Narea: [01-11]
How Iowa accidentally became the start of the presidential rat race:
"The history of the Iowa caucuses (and their downfall?), briefly
explained."
John Nichols: [12-12]
Local news has been destroyed. Here's how we can revive it.
Rick Perlstein: [01-10]
First they came for Harvard: "The right's long and all-too-unanswered
war on liberal institutions claims a big one."
Lily Sánchez: [01-14]
On MLK Day, always remember the radical King.
Michael Schaffer: [12-22]
Liberal elites are scared of their employees. Conservative elites are
scared of their audience. "It's hard to tell who's more screwed
by the new politics of fear."
Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins: [01-10]
Wendy Brown: A conversation on our "nihilistic" age: Interview
with the author of Nihilistic Times: Thinking With Max Weber.
Sample (and yes, this is about Trump):
All of these elements -- instrumentalized values, narcissism, a pure
will to power uninflected by purpose beyond the self, the irrelevance
of truth and facticity, quotidian lying and criminality -- are
expressions of nihilistic times. In this condition, values are still
hanging around -- they're still in the air, as it were -- but have
lost their depth, seriousness, and ability to guide action or create
a world in their image. They are reduced to instruments of power,
branding, reputation repair, narcissistic and other emotional
gratifications -- what we today call "virtue signaling."
This also raises another feature of nihilism, namely the refusal
to submit emotionality to reason and a more general condition of
disinhibition. . . . So once values become lightweight, as they do
in nihilistic times, so does conscience and its restricting force.
Conscience no longer inhibits action or speech -- anything goes.
Relatedly, hypocrisy is no longer a serious vice, even for public
figures.
Finally, nihilism generates boundary breakdowns and hyper-politicizes
everything. Today, churches, schools, and private lives are all
politicized. What you consume, what you eat, who you stream or follow,
how you dress -- all are politically inflected, but in silly rather
than substantive ways. "Cancel culture" -- again, on all sides of the
political spectrum -- is part of this, as an utterance, a purchase, an
appearance, becomes a political event and responding to it a political
act! This is politics individualized and trivialized.
Brown traces nihilism back to 19th century existentialists like
Nietzsche, which in turn leads her to focus on Weber. Despite an early
interest in existentialism, I've never really thought of this being
an "age of nihilism." But I have lately referred to Republicans as
nihilists. It's hard to discern any consistent core beliefs, but more
importantly they seem to have no concern for consequences of their
acts and preferred policies. As for nacissism, sure, there's Trump
(and a few more billionaires jump to mind). Whether this amounts to
"an age" depends on how widely people support (or at least condone)
such behavior. The 2024 elections will offer a referendum, and not
just on democracy.
Emily Withnall: [01-13]
For some young people, a college degree is not worth the debt.
I can relate, as someone who forfeited the chance for a degree for
economic considerations, but also with a sense of regret. "Economic
considerations" are the result of policy decisions, which ultimately
are bad both for the people impacted and for the country as a whole.
Li Zhou: [01-08]
The Epstein "list," explained.
Ask a question, or send a comment.
-- next
|