Tag Archives: Israel

Netanyahu.

Posted on by
Reply

            Benjamin Netanyahu was born with the State of Israel.  He was born in Tel Aviv in 1949, the son of the brilliant Revisionist Zionist fanatic Benzion Netanyahu.  He spent much of his youth in the United States,[1] then returned to Israel for military service.  No shirker he: Netanyahu spent five years in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), much of it in combat with the special forces.[2]  Then back to the United States to pursue a degree in Architecture at M.I.T.[3]  He eventually received the BA, plus an MA in Management.[4] 

            Netanyahu made a rapid ascent in politics.  One way and another, he had a lot of connections in Israel.  In 1984, those connections, brains, a familiarity with the United States, and a really good war record led to his appointment as Israel’s representative to the United Nations.  Back in the US, he gave good interview to television reporters.  In 1988 he entered parliament (the Knesset); in 1993 he won the leadership of the Likud party; in 1996 he became prime minister.  In 1999, voters gave Likud, and Netanyahu with it, the heave. 

            Since then, Netanyahu’s career has been linked to Gaza and the West Bank.  He got a cabinet position when Likud regained a majority, then, in 2005, resigned when Ariel Sharon ordered an end to the occupation of Gaza.  Hamas soon evicted the Palestinian Authority from Gaza, creating a radical anti-Israel and pro-Iran bastion on the border.  In 2009, as Israeli voters confronted these harsh new conditions, Netanyahu returned as Prime Minister.  Since then, he has campaigned for a regional alliance with Sunni Arab states to contain (at the least) Iran.  At the same time, however, he has had to juggle the rivalry between the Palestinian Authority (governing the West Bank) and Hamas.  In the case of Hamas, he has allowed Qatar to send millions of dollars in aid to Gaza.  He’s also had to bargain with the tiny, far-right parties who make his parliamentary majority possible.  This has forced (or allowed) him to permit expanding settlements in Arab territory on the West Bank.  He had a lot of irons in the fire. 

            Perhaps his skill at managing those irons made him complacent.  Iran had armed and advised clients all around Israel’s borders.  Hamas in Gaza, but also Hezbollah in Lebanon,[5] and the Assad regime in Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen.  In any event, on 7 October 2023 Hamas launched a devastating surprise attack that killed 1,200 Israelis and captured a couple hundred others before the Hamas troops scuttled back into Gaza.  There they hid among the Palestinian civilians in anticipation of an Israeli counter-attack.  They may also have expected Netanyahu to have been tossed out of power after this disaster.  They may have expected Hezbollah and even Iran to have joined in the war.  But Netanyahu refused to resign.   He was inventive, ruthless, and brave as a special forces soldier.  Now he’s that again.  He held onto power, while launching a “savage war of peace” against Hamas, then Hezbollah, and then Iran. 

            Now Gaza lies in ruins with scores of thousands dead.  The architect, the special forces soldier, and—for the moment—the dominant force in the Middle East. 

[1] He didn’t much like the American culture of the 1960s.  It was fun at the time, but he may have a point.  He doesn’t think much of recent American presidents.  Who would: three adolescents, a dotard, and a feral child. 

[2] So, no bone spurs, no asthma, no “politically viable,” no Air National Guard.  More like JFK and Bob Kerry. 

[3] Look at the realities, develop a vision, work to make it real. 

[4] His studies were interrupted by a return to the IDF during the 1973 war.  Must have been interesting sharing a dorm room with him.   

[5] To the point that the country might better be called Hezbollanon. 

Puzzled.

Posted on by
Reply

Are we doing too much to support our ally Israel? First, by launching and tenaciously continuing a war that Hamas cannot win, Hamas is at least as responsible as Israel for the massive death toll in Gaza. Still, have we erred by supplying Israel with so much ordnance? That’s without me knowing just how much ordnance we have supplied to Israel. Second, by attacking Iran’s key nuclear-weapons development facilities, we are entering a war whose long-term course is unknowable. (The same is true of any war, as Desmond Morton observed.) Israel is right to fear Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, given Iran’s professed desire to destroy Israel. Are we right to be concerned about the destruction of Israel to the point where we take military action?

Are we doing too little to support our friend, if not ally, Ukraine? Vladimir Putin has repeatedly professed his desire to destroy Ukraine as an independent state. So far, the United States and the Europeans have supplied a great deal of military hardware and training to support Ukraine’s self-defense effort, along with financial aid to keep the Ukrainian civil economy afloat. There is such a demographic imbalance between the opposing forces, that I wonder if armaments alone will enable Ukraine to survive. Should we be concerned about the destruction of Ukraine to the point where we take military action with our own forces?

Then there’s Taiwan.

What is the “right” amount of support to supply to an ally or friend at war? How do we tell what is the “right” level? Are Israel and Ukraine the same or are they apples and oranges?

Background to the Nuremberg Trials.

Posted on by
Reply

            Some soldiers (both commanders and their troops) have always behaved atrociously in war-time.  (Take a look at the Old Testament.)  Certain kinds of self-restraint in wartime grew up as a form of self-preservation.  You didn’t want to establish a policy of the victor slaughtering the vanquished if you might lose the next battle.  Still, there were always exceptions to such self-restraint.  People of different social groups within your own society or different races outside your society could not expect such treatment.  Neither European Americans nor Native Americans were much inclined to give the other side quarter. 

            This began to change during the 18th Century.  The Enlightenment established the idea of Humanitarian action.  Many Europeans and Americans turned against traditional practices like the use of torture as part of a judicial inquiry, human slavery, and the intolerance of religious difference.  Then the 19th Century witnessed a number of important reforms: compulsory, free public primary education, and the construction of sewer and clean drinking water systems to conquer diseases are two examples of these reforms.  The same effort to make human life better appeared in warfare.  The International Red Cross exemplified this trend. 

            The new mood led to international agreements (conventions) governing the conduct of war.  The First Geneva Convention (1864) defined the proper treatment of wounded and sick soldiers.  Forty thousand wounded soldiers had been left lying around the battlefield at Solferino.  The Hague Convention (1899) banned bombing from the air, the use of poison gas, and dum-dum bullets.  The Second Geneva Convention (1906) extended the First Geneva Convention to cover sailors in navies.  While the first two Geneva Conventions were generally observed by all countries that fought in the First World War, they often were violated in the Second World War and the Hague Convention has been widely ignored in greater or lesser degree. 

            The Allies were outraged by the behavior of the Central Powers during the First World War.  An effort was made to prosecute Ottoman leaders and commanders for the “crime against humanity” of the Armenian genocide.  This failed because of the obstruction of the Turks.  Also after the First World War, the British and the French tried to prosecute some German leaders for the way in which Germany had conducted war.  The Versailles Peace Treaty required Germany to turn over a number of military and civilian officials for trial by a military tribunal of the victor powers.  The Dutch refused to turn over the Kaiser (who had abdicated in November 1918) and the Germans refused to extradite the men demanded by the Allies.  Instead, a handful of lesser figures were tried at Leipzig in 1921, mostly on charges of mistreating prisoners.  The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) renounced “aggressive war as an instrument of national policy.”  This made war a “crime against peace.”  Germany signed.  The Third Geneva Convention (1929) set rules for the treatment of prisoners of war. 

            In January 1942 British, American, and Russian lawyers began writing a law that would allow the punishment of Germany’s leaders once Germany had been defeated.  At the Teheran Conference (November 1943), the irrepressible Joe Stalin suggested shooting 50,000-100,000 German officers and letting it go at that.  After the Moscow Conference (later in November 1943), the Allies announced that Germans who had committed atrocities would be sent to those countries where they had committed the crimes for trial, while the top leaders would be judged by the Allies.  Germany surrendered in May 1945.  In August 1945 the victors announced the terms of the trials.  In addition to all those to be tried for “war crimes” as then understood, the Nazi leaders would be tried for “crimes against humanity” (see: Armenian genocide) and “crimes against peace” (see: Kellogg-Briand Pact).  This set the stage for the Nuremberg Trials. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 15.

Posted on by
Reply

            The Agenda: Iran.[1] 

            The Iranian Revolution that overthrew the Shah (1979) spread chaos in the country.  Saddam Hussein, the dictator of neighboring Iraq, sought to exploit the situation by attacking Iran.  The subsequent war[2] (1980-1988) caused all sorts of troubles.  In its aftermath, during the 1990s, the Iranian Republic launched a program to develop nuclear weapons.  The program’s physical component—as opposed to intellectual and technological components–began with the construction of a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy-water plant at Arak. 

            In 2002, Iranian dissidents obtained and published secret documents on the nuclear program for all the world to see.  In 2003, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei published a “fatwa” banning the possession or use of nuclear weapons.  No one believed him.[3]  Eventually, in 2006, the United Nations plastered Iran with economic sanctions.  In 2015, the Obama administration, busy with other quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, led the negotiation of a deal with Iran.  Iran would limit uranium enrichment to 3.67 percent and send 97 percent of its already-enriched uranium to Russia for safe-keeping.[4]  The agreement would run for 15 years.  It hardly made it out the gate. 

            In 2018, President Donald Trump abandoned the agreement so far as the United States was concerned.  In Trump’s view, the agreement did nothing to address Iran’s non-nuclear aggressive behavior in the region.  Specifically, Iran was arming-up and coordinating allied forces in the region.[5]  Trump seems to have hoped that renewed economic sanctions would force the Iranian regime to cut a new and better deal.  To emphasize his point, in 2020 Trump ordered the killing of General Qassem Soleimani, a leading figure in the Revolutionary Guards. 

Next, in 2021, President Joe Biden[6] tried to revive the agreement, but the Iranians had moved on.  At about the same time that Biden entered the White House, Iran began enriching uranium to 20 percent, and then to 60 percent.  Enrichment to 90 percent creates “weapons grade material.”  All the while, economic sanctions and mismanagement have battered Iran’s domestic economy.[7]  

The last year or so has altered the situation.  First, Israel has inflicted immense damage on Iran’s clients through its wars in Gaza and Lebanon.  Turkey sponsored a rebel offensive in Syria that overthrew Iran’ ally Assad.  When Israel killed a Hamas leader in Tehran, Iran responded with a missile barrage; and, in October 2024; Israel answered with air strikes that wrecked key elements of Iran’s air defense system, among other things.  This leaves Iran open to follow-on strikes against nuclear facilities (and the Iranian leadership cadres) if Tehran doesn’t change its tune. 

Second, Donald Trump’s return to the White House has seemed possible (if not certain) since the beginning of 2024.  Tehran has been intensifying its drive to enrich uranium to 60 percent.  That is, apparently, a hop, skip, and a jump from 90 percent or weapons-grade uranium.[8]  I don’t know how much time that hop, skip, and jump would take.  Expert opinion holds that a basic sort of bomb could be manufactured six months after a sufficient quantity of weapons-grade uranium has been accumulated.  Another year after that and they could have a warhead for a ballistic missile.  One that could easily hit Israel. 

NOTHING in the history of Israel’s military and national security policy suggests that Israel will let Iran get anywhere near that point.  They will not allow Iran to get even one nuclear weapon.  Never mind the ballistic missiles.  “Just put it on a freighter bound for Haifa.”  The time-line for preventive action by Israel (and/or the United States) is very short.  Maybe a year at the outside?  There will be heavy pressure on the prime minister of Israel[9] to act soon. 

The time-line for Iran to decide what course it will choose is very short.  Will the rulers of Iran try to rush ahead and break-out to possession of nuclear weapons?[10]  If they do achieve a nuclear weapon, will they feel compelled to “use it or lose it”?   

Or will the leaders of Iran repent their disdain for Biden’s offer to revive the 2015 agreement?  The country’s alliance network is in shambles and its own defense vulnerabilities have been exposed.  Russia could divert no forces from the Ukraine war to save Assad, so it isn’t likely to do much for Iran.  Would the Iranian leaders—belatedly—seek to engage with the United States?  If so, how stiff-necked would they be about concessions? 

The stakes are high.  In theory, Israel would need the assistance of the United States to attack the key Iranian facilities.  A prime target would be an enrichment facility near the city of Qom.  It is tunneled into a mountain.  So is another site near Isfahan.  The American “Massive Ordnance Penetrator,” dropped by a B-2 bomber would be the only conventional weapon that could destroy the targets.[11]  In reality, Israel has its own nuclear weapons that might do the job.  That’s an awful thing to ponder.[12] 

Finally, there is a loose alliance between Iran, Russia, and China.  How would the Russians and the Chinese respond to either an Israel-America joint attack on Iran or to an Israel-alone attack (albeit with American blessing)? 

Can of worms.  Or, as the French say, “a basket of crabs.” 

[1] “Briefing: A looming nuclear crisis,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 11. 

[2] See: Iran–Iraq War – Wikipedia  If you want to explore in depth, see: Williamson Murray and Kevin M. Woods The Iran–Iraq War. A Military and Strategic History (2014).  Murray is deeply knowledgeable and hard-headed.   

[3] Iran is predominantly Shi’ite Muslim.  As a long-persecuted minority within Islam, Shi’ite theologians determined that Shi’ites could dissemble about their real religious beliefs.  Over the centuries, other people have come to believe that Iranian culture has generalized this originally purely religious easement on veracity. 

[4] So, as part of their recent mutual sliming-up to each other, has Russia secretly returned the enriched uranium to Iran?  I haven’t noticed reporting on this question.  My bad.  What does Mossad say? 

[5] Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Assad regime in Syria. 

[6] More recent developments cause me to wonder if it wasn’t the policy of President-for-Foreign-Policy Antony Blinken.  Who would have been President-for-Domestic-Policy?  Can’t have been Janet Yellen.  We wouldn’t have had the inflation mess.  I understand that this is a nasty remark.  But see “Biden: How to hide a president’s decline” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 16.  Reports on a WSJ story on “how Biden’s aides and family hid his apparent cognitive decline from almost day one of his presidency.”  On which side of “day one” did the hiding begin? 

[7] Pakistan’s prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once said that “Even if we have to eat grass, we will make a nuclear bomb.”  You couldn’t force that in a democracy, but neither Pakistan nor Iran are real democracies. 

[8] Obviously, I haven’t tried it myself.  Nor would I try.  Don’t want to get hauled into a black Escalade while I’m walking my dog. 

[9] Probably Benjamin Netanyahu, but it doesn’t matter.  The leaders of the IDF and Mossad seem likely to be on the same page. 

[10] The ever-shrewd Eliot A. Cohen raised this possibility in the Atlantic in December 2024.  For a sample of Cohen’s Atlantic pieces, see: Eliot A. Cohen, The Atlantic 

[11] It has been reported that the Pentagon has briefed President Biden on plans for American attacks on Iranian nuclear resources.  “Briefing: A looming nuclear crisis,” The Week, 17 January 2025, p. 11. 

[12] Many people outside of Israel already are appalled by pictures from Gaza. 

Prologue to a Diary of the Second Addams Administration 12.

Posted on by
Reply

The Agenda: The Middle East. 

Syria’s fifty-year-long government-by-massacre suddenly collapsed under a surprise assault by Turkish-sponsored Arabs.[1]  Bashar al-Assad fled (with his millions) to Russia. 

The lead group among the victorious rebels, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), began establishing a government.  While people are more or less glad to be shed of Assad, HTS could be problematic.  On the one hand, the group is an off-shoot of al Qaeda; they’re Islamists; and they’ve be labeled as terrorists by Western governments.  On the other hand, HTS and the “Syrian National Army” are Turkish puppets.[2] 

Other countries began adapting to the new situation.  The Russians began cutting their losses by pulling out their men and material.  Israel has every reason to suspect Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, of harboring anti-Israel sentiments.  He may want to create an Islamist-governed “ally” on Israel’s door-step.  Of late, there has been much celebration of the whole series of blows dealt to Iran’s allies and proxies (Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria).  Erdogan won’t have missed the lesson.  He may use his proxies to exert pressure on Israel.  Israel exploited the opportunity by bombing Syrian bases and arms stockpiles to reduce the weaponry available to the HTS that had toppled Assad (just in case). 

Both Syria and the members of the European Union (EU) began nudging Syrian refugees to go home.  About 3 million Syrian refugees remain in Syria.  Erdogan would like them to go home.  About 1.5 million Syrians fled the civil war that began in 2011 for Europe.  Their arrival contributed greatly to an anti-foreign, anti-liberal reaction in many European countries.  European politics shifted right in an alarming fashion.  Many Europeans are saying “Go.” 

The United States and its European allies began talking to the people who are the de facto rulers of Syria.  They would like the rebels-turned-government to say the right things.  It’s a sticky situation.  It seemed brilliant to overthrow Libya’s Ghaddafi, but the follow-on effects—civil war, gangs, a migrant surge toward Europe—continues to trouble the region.  What if this turns out to be the same basic story? 

            Most immediately, there is the “problem” of the Kurds.  “Kurdistan” sprawls over Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.  The Kurds have been a dangerous thorn in the side of Turkey for decades.  They form the largest minority population within Turkey and they have long harbored nationalist ambitions.  The successive American wars against Iraq made that problem much worse by creating, then enlarging, a Kurdish proto-state in northern Iraq.  Moreover, the Kurds have been a loyal—and better yet, effective–ally of the United States in the fight against ISIS.  Indeed, the chief check on ISIS has been the Kurds.  In north-eastern Syria, Kurds braced for a likely attack from Turkey or its Syrian proxies.  If Turkey or its minions do attack the Kurds, that isn’t likely to be Turkey’s last move. 

President-elect Donald Trump has said “Syria is not America’s problem.”  He may mean it, more than did predecessors who hoped to “pivot to Asia.”  Is Israel also “not an American problem”?  What about Turkey, nominally a NATO member, but bound on its own course?  Whether he can sustain that resolve to disengage will be an early test. 

[1] “Turkey prepares attack on U.S. allies in Syria,” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 5. 

[2] “Syria: From Iranian client to Turkish puppet?” The Week, 27 December 2024-3 January 2025, p. 16. 

The Start of a New Chapter in Syria.

Posted on by
Reply

The awful Syrian Civil War (2011- ) appeared to have guttered out in a Russian-assisted victory for Assad Jr.[1]  Assad’s government held 70 percent of the country.  Kurds held territory in the Northeast where Syria abuts the Kurdish sections of Iraq…and Turkey.[2]  Opponents of the regime also remained in possession of a chunk of Northwestern Syria centered on Idlib.  The most formidable of these opponents were the Islamists of the group “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham,” at least nominally linked to al Qaeda.  There is also a Syrian opposition militia sponsored by Turkey.  Both groups receive support and direction from Turkey.[3] 

In early December 2024, they launched a sudden attack which soon stampeded the surprised Assad forces.  Soon, the insurgents took possession of Aleppo.  Surprised and panicked, Assad asked his Russian and Iranian allies for help.  Russian air forces stationed in Syria did some bombing.  Iran sent an estimated 300 troops from those already stationed in Iraq.  All this seems like small potatoes for a threatened ally.  However, Russia is bending all its strength to beat Ukraine.  For the past year Israel has been grinding away Iranian commanders and forces in Syria whenever it has a free minute from leveling Gaza and then beating up on Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Iran may prefer to keep its reach short in a country that borders Israel.  What with Israel’s touchy sensitivity about Iran.[4] 

            National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan remarked that “we don’t cry over the fact that the Assad government, backed by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, is facing certain kinds of pressure.”  “Certain kinds of pressure” my left foot!  By 8 December 2024 Assad was in Russia and Damascus had fallen to the rebels. 

            I didn’t see this coming.  But “I only know what I read in the papers,” as Will Rogers said.  Did anyone else see it coming?  These developments caught many journalists specializing in the Middle East flat-footed.  One asked “Will Assad survive”?  Another speculated that Turkey had sponsored the attack in the expectation that it would be possible to impose a peace deal on Assad that allowed the better than 4.5 million Syrian refugees in Turkey to go home, while also checking the power of Kurds in Syria.  Still another argued that “the Kremlin has too much at stake” to give up on Syria.  We’re way beyond that now. 

What about the C.I.A., Israel’s Mossad, Russia’s F.S.B., Iran’s intelligence service? 

Turkey’s intelligence service, the MIT, must have known, permitting or ordering the attack.  It was their clients who attacked.  Did they not share the information with the United States?  Probably not.  Both may belong to NATO, but Turkish and American interests have diverged in important areas over the last several decades.  The United States has cooperated with Iraqi and Syrian Kurds, while Turkey sees Kurdish nationalism as a grave danger.  The American overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003 created a Kurdish proto-state in northern Iraq.  American efforts to battle ISIS/ISIL have required close cooperation with Kurds.  Like Israel, Turkey has a foreign policy to advance its own interests. 

[1] “Islamist rebel attack reignites Syrian civil war,” The Week, 13 December 2024, p. 5.

[2] There are about 900 American Special Forces troops in the Northeast.  They work with the Kurdish forces, primarily against the remnants of ISIS. 

[3] See: National Intelligence Organization – Wikipedia 

[4] Wouldn’t want somebody in Jerusalem shouting “OK, that tears it!” 

American Public Opinion in October 2024.

Posted on by
Reply

            NBC/Telemundo polls[1] revealed a shift in the political preference among Latino voters. 

            In 2016, 69 percent of Latino voters supported Hillary Clinton; 19 percent favored Donald Trump. 

            In 2020, 63 percent of Latino voters chose Joe Biden; 27 percent voted for Donald Trump. 

            In 2024, just before the election, 54 percent of Latino voters favored Kamala Harris; 40 percent favored Donald Trump. 

            That is an almost 22 percent drop for the Democratic candidate in eight years, with 60 percent of it coming in the last four years.  Why the decline? 

When she ran—briefly—in the Democratic presidential primary in 2019, Harris favored decriminalizing illegal border crossings.[2]  Subsequently, under the Biden-Harris administration, President Biden ordered an end to President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy for those seeking asylum.  Illegal immigration tripled.  Then the failure of the Biden-Harris administration’s “Remain in Texas” policy brought home to many northern Democratic cities the realities of such huge, unregulated immigration.  Immigration control became a powerful Republican issue. 

That explains the careening U-turn taken by Kamala Harris.  She began walloping Trump for having squelched a bipartisan border bill for political reasons when Democrats had only adopted the policy recently for political reasons. 

It doesn’t automatically explain why the Latino vote shifted.  That shift may or may not be related to the immigration question.  There are 50.4 million Latinos in states on the border with Mexico.  They would have seen all the same things that drove many Anglos wild. 

Perhaps some are angry about inflation, which hits lower-income people harder than it does higher-income people.[3]  Perhaps some are running small businesses and perceive Democrats as anti-Business, and not merely anti-Big Business.  Perhaps some are socially conservative and are repelled by the Democrat embrace of non-binarity. 

Whatever the cause, it is an important chunk of the Democratic coalition to cast away. 

            In October 2024, an Economist/YouGov poll assessed the state of American opinion on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.[4] 

            Overall, 33 percent sympathized more with Israel, 19 percent more with the Palestinians, and 24 percent with both sides equally.  (Which totals 76 percent.  What about the other 24 percent?  “Don’t Know” or “A plague on both their houses”?)  Under that umbrella huddle different groups.  Only 14 percent of Democrats sympathize more with Israelis, while 33 percent sympathize more with the Palestinians.  (That’s 47 percent.  So the other 53 percent sympathize with both sides equally or Don’t Care?)  In contrast, 63 percent of Republicans express more sympathy for Israelis than for Palestinians, while a mere 5 percent sympathize more with Palestinians.  (Again, that’s 68 percent. Do the other 32 percent sympathize equally or just don’t care?)  On the issue of supplying military aid[5] to Israel, 38 percent say that it should be reduced; 18 percent support increasing it; and 25 percent say that it’s fine where it is.  (Again, the figures total 81 percent, so 19 percent probably fall into “Don’t Know.”)  Support for military assistance at or above the current level totals 43 percent, while support for cutting it is at 38 percent.  That’s close to a tipping point. 

            So, 63 percent of Republicans and 14 percent of Democrats sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians.  At the same time, support for maintaining military aid at the current level or for raising it totals only 43 percent.  That is a lot lower level than the totals for feeling sympathy for Israel.  Even among their most committed American supporters, the Israelis are encountering doubts about their wars in Gaza and Lebanon.  Probably these doubts are rooted less in the necessity of war than in the manner of its conduct. 

Do Israeli care any longer if they alienate the Americans?  I haven’t seen polling on that. 

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 17. 

[2] “Harris: A sharp turn on immigration,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 16. 

[3] Donald Trump is said to appeal to “low-information” voters.  The disparate impact of inflation among income groups could leave the better-educated and better-off Democrats as the “low information voters” when it comes to economic hardship.  To turn around Governor Tim Walz’s jab at the ever-obnoxious Elon Musk, “He’s a fat guy with a government job; what does he know about hardship?” 

[4] Poll Watch,” The Week, 18 October 2024

[5] You know, stuff that goes “BOOM!” and then buildings fall down. 

From the river to the sea, Zion will be free. Alas.

Posted on by
Reply

            The surprise attack of 7 October 2023 on Israel by Hamas continues to send out shock waves.  However, those psychological and social shock waves strike a restricted area of world opinion.  First and foremost, there is the quarrelling within Israel.  Roughly, one might divide opinion into the “rally ‘round the government” party and the “hunt for guilty men” party. 

For the “rally” group, the most important issue right now is the defeat of Israel’s enemies.  First, this means Hamas, then it means Hezbollah in Lebanon, and ultimately Iran.  In the eyes of this group, the multiple blows rained down on Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran restore faith in Israel’s ability to defend itself.  It seems not to matter how long this mission will take or what collateral damage it inflicts.  It is a war unlike any other. 

For the “guilty men” group, Israel’s resilience as a nation rests upon Israeli “faith in the decency of our society…and trust in the integrity of our leaders.”  These elements matter at least as much as does armed force.  How is that faith and trust possible when the current leaders bear the responsibility for the security failures that made the attacks possible and who are now escalating the war?  Moreover, they are alarmed by the duration and savagery of the war.  Israeli journalist Amir Tibon has written that, in the wake of the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas, he would have expected the government to produce a radically better situation in short order.[1]  This better situation would have involved a swift recovery of the 200-plus hostages seized by Hamas and the creation of a new government for Gaza comprised of moderate Palestinians.  Instead, the war grinds on in Gaza, it has begun to extend into Lebanon, and many of the hostages are still in the hands of Hamas—or dead.  Most of all, the government has no “clear strategic endgame.”[2] 

            Second, there is the quarrelling within the United States.[3]  Elite Young Boobs (EYBs) at some leading American universities immediately sided with Hamas and the Palestinians.[4]  In September 2024, an F.B.I. report on Hate Crimes declared that more than two-thirds of reported religion-based hate crimes were anti-Semitic and the total number of such incidents were greater than any previous level.  Universities that accommodated such actions suddenly found themselves assailed by alumni, donors, and politicians.  Still, “let kids be kids.”[5]  More importantly for American politics, the attack on Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) aroused Arab Americans against Israel and against the Biden Administration which has backed Israel’s war effort.  In 2016, Joe Biden won the “battleground” state of Michigan by 154,000 votes.  The state’s 200,000 Arab-American voters are believed to have voted overwhelmingly for the Democrat.  Now, many of them are threatening to vote against Kamala Harris.  Common sense will surely reassert itself.  Putting Donald Trump into the White House will not produce a more humanitarian Gaza policy.  Trump is an admirer of Israel’s prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu. 

            Lost in all these quarrels is any recognition that Hamas could have stopped Israel’s attack by surrendering, possibly even to the International Criminal Court.  Why blame only the Jews? 

[1] “Israel: A sense of security forever shattered,” The Week, 18 October 2024, p. 15. 

[2] Oh, but it does if you would but see it.  Force out the people of Gaza, then turn to the West Bank. 

[3] “Oct. 7: How Hamas’ massacre changed the world,” The Week, 18 October 2024. 

[4] Although those are not necessarily the same thing.  Probably they should read Thucydides. 

[5] The phrase turns up all the time on my “Nextdoor” feed after adults complain about acts of petty vandalism or harassment by minor or near-minors. 

At the Start of Something.

Posted on by
Reply

            Over the years, Iran has armed and helped organize “proxy” forces on the borders of Israel.  Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthies in Yemen all are clients of Iran.  The Iranian term for these groups is the “Axis of Resistance.”  They are sometimes described in the Western media as Iran’s forward line of defense against Israel.  In truth they are the “Axis of Aggression” and Iran’s forward line of attack against Israel. 

On 7 October 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel.[1]  Israel began a long, grinding conquest of Gaza.  Soon after Hamas launched its attack, Hezbollah (“Party of God”) in Lebanon (and eventually the Houthies in Yemen) began supporting Hamas by their own missile attacks on northern Israel and shipping in the Red Sea.  Sixty thousand people fled northern Israel in search of a place of greater safety.  Israel did little in response to these attacks as it concentrated its effort on Gaza. 

The Israeli are, apparently, masters of Sequence: first one thing, then the next thing.  Suddenly, Israeli pummeled Hezbollah.  (This may be a sign that the government regards matters as being well in hand in Gaza.)  First, pagers previously distributed by Hezbollah to many of its members exploded.  These had been chosen as a more secure communication device than cell phones, calls on which might easily be intercepted by Israel.  The next day, walkie-talkies distributed as a back-up system to the pagers exploded.  Israel’s intelligence service had compromised Hezbollah’s communications logistics. 

Then Israel began bombing in a precise (but bloody) fashion.  On the one hand, they hit many in the upper ranks of Hezbollah’s leadership.  Apparently, they knew how to locate them.  Among the dead were Hassan Nasrallah, the long-time leader of Hezbollah; Nabil Kaouk, a deputy of Nasrallah; and Ibrahim Akil, head of Hezbollah’s equivalent of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.  These all come on top of earlier assassinations.[2] 

On the other hand, Israeli jets pounded storage sites of Hezbollah’s missiles and rockets.  American and Israeli sources claim that perhaps half of Hezbollah’s huge stockpile has been destroyed.[3]  Then Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) invaded southern Lebanon.  The government of Israel claims that this is a “limited” operation meant to clear southern Lebanon of Hezbollah troops and weapons.  Only time will tell if this operation really is “limited” or if it portends something larger. 

In response to the battering of Hezbollah, it’s patron-state Iran launched a large strike of 181 missiles at targets in Israel.  Backed up by fire from U.S. Navy destroyers, Israel’s air defense system shot down most of the incoming missiles. 

            Is Hezbollah irreparably damaged or destroyed?  Much of the discussion seems to report a consensus view that Hezbollah SHOULD be destroyed or, at least, forced out of its powerful position in Lebanon’s politics.  It doesn’t really address the question of whether Hezbollah CAN be destroyed.  Certainly, the huge damage done to its upper leadership will weaken and disorganize Hezbollah for some time.  That weakness and disorganization will open more gaps for Israel to attack.  Furthermore, in light of the history of other revolutionary movements, there is likely to be a great “rat hunt” inside Hezbollah for the Israeli agent or agents.  In light of the history of other “rat hunts,” the person in charge of the hunt will almost certainly be an Israeli agent.[4]  In light of the history of other organizations, such hunts tend to wreak havoc with the organization engaged in the “rat hunt.”[5]  Deep distrust may lead to fragmentation, at least for a time. 

            However, Hezbollah is supposed to have around 100,000 fighting men that it can call up.  That is a substantial base from which to recruit a new leadership hierarchy.  Not to draw too close a parallel, but consider the American “War on Drugs.”  For half a century now, we’ve devoted great resources to battling the “drug cartels.”[6]  Huge loads of illegal drugs and the cash from their sale have been captured; many cartel members have been captured; many others have died in the fratricidal battles of the drug trade.  In 2022, the United States suffered 73,838 deaths attributed to fentanyl.[7]  People in the drug trade are like “dragon’s teeth.”  Is it the same for Hezbollah? 

[1] “Israel vows retaliation after Iranian attack,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 4. 

[2] For lists of Hezbollah leaders believed to have been killed as of 30 September 2024, see: The Hezbollah leaders killed by Israel – who they were and the key players that remain | CNN and List of Hezbollah’s high-ranking figures killed by Israel | Al Bawaba.  Among the others killed was Fateh al-Sharif, who led Hamas fighters in Lebanon and acted as co-ordinator of Hamas with Hezbollah.  When not busy with those activities he worked as a school principal for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and as head of the teachers’ union.  The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 9.  During the Second World War, the British and the Czechs assassinated Reinhard Heydrich, while the Americans ambushed the plane they knew to be carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who had planned the Pearl Harbor attack. 

[3] Either that’s a wild guess and they’re just blowing smoke or they’re right on the money because they knew the location and exact contents of the dumps.  Given the evidence from Israel’s other attacks, it seems that Hezbollah has been riddled by Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad.  See: The GWOT if Israel was in charge. | waroftheworldblog

[4] See: Peter Hart, The IRA and Its Enemies: Violence and Community in Cork, 1916-1923 (1988). 

[5] David Wise, Molehunt: The Secret Search for Traitors That Shattered the C.I.A. (1992). 

[6] Mark Bowden, Killing Pablo: The Hunt for the World’s Greatest Outlaw (2001). 

[7] See: Fentanyl overdose deaths U.S. 1999-2022 | Statista 

Remaking the Middle East 7 October 2024.

Posted on by
Reply

            It is a moment of great uncertainty in the Middle East.  Many people fear the expansion of Israel’s war with Hamas and Hezbollah into a larger war involving Iran and the United States, one which has no certain outcome.  For others, however, visions of sugar plums dance in their head.[1]  A Saudi Arabian journalist[2] wrote that Israel’s deadly attacks had done so much damage to Hezbollah that “even if the group were to live on, it would most likely be a caricature of its former self.”[3]  Lebanon may be able to free itself from the thirty-year death-grip of Hezbollah.  A British journalist judged that, in spite of the Biden administration dragging on Israel’s coat, “Israel is likely to see the current moment as too good an opportunity to miss.” 

Opportunity to do what?  One answer is to strike at the nuclear weapons program that threatens the survival of Israel.  Another answer is both more ambitious and ill-defined.  An American journalist reported that “Many in Israel see a ‘once-in-a-generation chance’ to remake the Middle East to Israel’s advantage.”  Naftali Bennett, a former Prime Minister of Israel, sees “the biggest opportunity in the past 50 years” to reshape the region.[4] 

Reshape how?  Destroy Hamas entirely?  Destroy Hezbollah entirely or, at least as a significant force in regional conflicts?  Gravely damage Iran’s nuclear program and force it to accept long-term international supervision?  Topple the Islamist regime in Iran entirely in hopes of something better emerging?  Forge an alliance with Saudi Arabia over the Iran conflict and relegate the Palestinian question to Israel alone?  Redraw the map of the Middle East to unite all Kurds not under Turkish rule into a sovereign state?  Redraw the map of the Middle East to assign the Sunni part of Iraq to Jordan?  “Transfer”[5] the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank to the Shi’ite portion of a partitioned Iraq?

            What does History tell us about once-in-a-generation opportunities? 

            In the early 19th Century, “Nationalism” meant that all people speaking the same language and sharing the same culture should live in a single independent country.  Germany were split into 30-plus states; Italy was split into half a dozen states; the Austrian Empire smooshed together people from many different latent-countries.  Many people saw Nationalism as the wave of the future.  Austria saw it as a death sentence.  One of these Believers was the French Emperor Napoleon III, the nephew of the great Napoleon I.  France should lead this remaking of the map of Europe. 

            Napoleon III started with Italy, concluding a secret deal with Count Camillo di Cavour, the prime minister of the Italian kingdom of Piedmont-Sardina.[6]  If Cavour would provide a war with Austria, Napoleon II would furnish the French army to win it.  Then, the Austrians would be expelled from Italy, and Italy would be “united” in a loose federation.  Piedmont would expand to dominate northern Italy; central Italy’s small states would join together under a ruler to be supplied by France; the backward southern Italian kingdom of the Two Sicilies would join the confederation; and the Pope’s lands would be much reduced, but the Pope would become head of this loose confederation. 

            Cavour did what he said that he would: he provoked Austria into declaring war.  Napoleon III did what he said that he would: his army thrashed the Austrians at Magenta and Solferino.  Then the wheels came off, badly and at high speed.  First, the French were appalled by the casualties suffered in battle and tried to crawfish on Piedmont by striking a deal with the Austrians.  Second, Italian popular nationalism surged up on the enthusiasm of victories won by others.  Popular revolts led to demands for the unification of all Italy north of the kingdom of Naples, regardless of promises made to Napoleon III.  Third, then the Italian nationalist and republican adventurer Giusseppe Garibaldi led a small expedition (with or without the knowledge of Cavour?) against the kingdom of the Two Sicilies.  The kingdom collapsed like a house of cards.  Garibaldi led his army north toward Rome.  Faced with the danger of a republican revolution overwhelming a monarchical revolution, the king of Piedmont met Garibaldi face to face.  The great man surrendered to the little king, at the price of southern Italy being included in the new nation. 

            France hadn’t wanted a united Italian peninsula unified under a centralized government.  The northern Italians hadn’t really wanted the inclusion of the backward Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in their new nation.  Garibaldi hadn’t wanted a monarchy, but a unified and centralized republic.  No one got exactly what they wanted. 

            Nor did they clearly foresee the long-term effects. The unification of Italy made the unification of Germany (against and without the Austrian empire) the next pressing question in European affairs.  Nationalist victories in central Europe then accelerated the spread of nationalism into the great multi-national empires of eastern Europe and the Middle East.  The Austrian, Russian, and Ottoman empires all succumbed during the First World War. 

            Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian statesman and leader of German unification, was a temperamentally conservative and cautious person.  He spent a lot of time thinking about all the possible scenarios, but he didn’t go looking for “once-in-a-generation” chances. 

            Of course, other people are more time-bound and fixated on one outcome as the only possible outcome.  That is, they feel a burning need to accomplish some great mission in their lifetime.  Both Lenin and Hitler were that way. 

[1] Marc Champion wrote in Bloomberg that the blows suffered by Iran offer a tempting chance for Israel to inflict serious harm on its avowed main enemy.  Champion acknowledged that an Israeli attack would force Iran to choose between humiliation for the regime and a war with a surprising adversary and the possibility of American involvement. 

[2] A place where speech is never free, but often inspired. 

[3] Faisal Abbas, quoted in “Lebanon: Can Hezbollah survive the death of its leader?” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 15. 

[4] All quoted in “Israel vows retaliation after Iranian attack,” The Week, 11 October 2024, p. 4. 

[5] At the end of and after the Second World War, many ethnic Germans fled the advancing Red Army or were driven out of places like Poland and the Czech Sudetenland.  These and other population movements were sometimes referred to as population “transfers.” 

[6] Derek Beales and Eugenio Biagini, The Risorgimento and the Unification of Italy (2003).  It’s an update of an earlier work.  But, if you have the time, there are a series of classic older books by Denis Mack Smith.