I am less persuaded. The demand is for US to stop supporting the ongoing bombing of innocents. Is 30,000 dead and 70,000 wounded and untold many being starved as a matter of policy not enough? The cease fire call is the demand that this slaughter stop *and not resume again.* and that seems like a fine demand. So first stop all support of the slaughter. Second get aid in asap. This means move IDF out of the way as it is stopping all relief efforts. Third, it means the Palestinians, not Biden nor democrats, get to choose who represents them moving forward. If they choose Hamas, so be it. This is what an immediate cease fire means. And those against this, people like Biden, are comfortable supporting Palestinian genocide. So yes, an immediate cease fire now.
No. Bernie Sanders early on called for the end of the bombing and he was attacked relentlessly for not calling specifically for a cease fire.
As to who the Palestinians choose, the first step is actually having elections (which haven't happened for two decades), which Biden has supported. But getting to elections requires interim administration of Gaza and the choice is Israel, Hamas or the Palestinian Authority - and Biden is on the right side in saying the PA is preferable to both Israel and Hamas in that role.
Nope Bernie was attacked for not calling for a *permanent* end to hostilities. He worried that a ceasefire would disadvantage Israel. As deaths of women and children were already in the 10s of thousands that was the point! He knew this and demurred, thereby siding with those perpetrating the slaughter. He then more recently called for stopping arms shipments to Israel. He was widely supported by the “left” on this. Biden did not support this, to his everlasting shame. Did you? Just curious.
As for first steps; the very first is a complete end to the slaughter Israel is perpetrating. Then food, medicine, shelter etc. Then politics. Choosing who to lead the Palestinian side is for them to decide. UN can manage elections. UN, indeed UNWRA can manage humanitarian assistance. Neither the US nor Israel nor the PA can be trusted to hold legitimate elections. Kast time they supervised these and the wrong people won (hamas) they undermined the election. So let them decide for themselves. But frat stop the genocide! And this means an immediate permanent cease fire and Israeli withdrawal so that humanitarian efforts can begin. No cease fire means more slaughter. I am surprised you dont see this.
Well, our contrasting views have been made clear and continuing this is not worth the effort. Let me add that to me your position seems like special pleading to get lefties to bury their revulsion with Biden long enough to vote for him in November. I doubt many will.
You propose a worthy long term goal, imo, all the while minimizing that tens of thousands of people are being industrially destroyed and starved as we write. In fact, yours is a sophisticated version of Biden’s current strategy whose net effect is to further Israel’s goal of ethnically cleansing first Gaza and then the west bank. Clever. Raise the red flag to oppose the red flag as they used to say!
There is a world consensus for an immediate cease fire to stop the carnage. Only the US and its subordinates oppose this. It is immediately practicable as all that needs doing is for the US to join the world consensus and tell Israel no more munitions for the slaughter, a policy that the US has implemented several times in the past. But in place of such a realizable short term policy that would save lives immediately and set the stage for both sufficient humanitarian assistance AND a longer term political goal which will be hard, very hard, to realize, you substitute the policy of dissolving Israel and creating a one state utopia. And you propose this as a serious effort in contrast to purported non serious calls for an immediate cease fire. Only a very bright person could reason as such. And one with an ulterior motive. Sorry, but this wont convince lefties, or anyone else, to put aside their disgust with Biden’s policies. Plus it will make it much harder to take your views seriously in the future. I leave you with the last word. This is it for me.
There is no global consensus for Hamas to be given back operational control of Gaza. That's plain untrue. There is a consensus to stop the fighting, which at the moment means leaving Israeli troops in control of Gaza since only military action by Hamas could dislodge them and any permanent ceasefire would mean Hamas would be barred from militarily trying to get rid of Israeli troops. So the left actually opposes a ceasefire by any traditional definition of the term.
But as you say, we are probably at the end of the exchange.
And note, I've said I think the goal of a two-state solution is a fine alternative to pursue; I just don't think it's a likely stable solution.
Biden is doing nothing like this. He is supporting Israel’s policy of mass killing. Ok, lets now discuss your points.
Calling for a cease fire is a FIRST STEP to stop the massacre (genocide). To STOP it, rather than just delay it, the cease fire must be permanent. The SECOND STEP is to implement the ICJ rulings. These include getting food, shelter, medicine etc into Gaza. Right now Israel is blocking this, as you no doubt know. The policy is to starve the population, most limely to get them to leave Gaza and go to Egypt (which is currently being bought off by the IMF to play along. So step 2 is get aid in in bulk to end the famine, sickness, and medical emergency. To do-this REQUIRES Israel leaving Gaza for it is the source of the blockage. They are stopping aid from entering. And killing people who come to get it. They must leave. So that is step 2, Israel removes itself. Step 3 hets the UN and UNWRA back in to Gaza to administer the aid. The UN should also be charged with managing elections in Gaza and the West Bank. Whoever wins, wins. I would prefer if Barghouti were released and allowed to run. He is the obvious leader now, even Hamas defers to him. At any rate, this election would be supervised by UN, not US not Israel, not PA.
Now you say congress would not support this. Maybe you are right. I have no idea. The rest of the world, however, would be happy to support this. Moreover, anything less than this is, ahem, BS. Biden has no interest in promoting anything like a decent outcome. You are delusional if you believe otherwise. At call for a cease fire involves what i outlined and is not subject to the arguments against it you have outlined. Is it politically possible inside US? I doubt it. Why? Because US INCLUDING BIDEN AND THE BULK OF THE DEMOCRATS are all in for genocide. They dont like the PR but are happy with the policy. Biden BS is just delivered to try and get lefties to forget about his policies in November. It is not serious. Will it work? I doubt it.
Actually, the next step is for Israel to cease to exist and we hold elections encompassing the whole of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza to elect a government representing all the people in that region. The UN should oversee those elections.
I fully support the above paragraph as the ideal outcome - and it is no more likely to happen than your scenario. Israel doesn't actually need US money or even weapons to survive- it has a GDP of half a trillion dollars and can buy all it needs on the wide open global weapons market.
If your view is that Biden is all in for genocide, despite multiple leaders in the rest of the middle east treating him as a good faith negotiator on behalf of a cease fire and moving torwards a two-state solution, then you are claiming more insight into his goals then all of those other actors in the region.
But the reality is that the UN and the ICJ have done nothing effective to stop Israel, but the rightwing in Israel has complained vociferously that Biden has intervened to limit their actions and restrict their ability to ethnically cleanse Gaza. So given that other Middle East actors seem to trust Biden and the Israeli rightwing hates him, I will take that as the best indicator of his actual intentions and actions behind the scenes.
But a ceasefire leaves Israel's troops controlling Gaza and doesn't necessarily include ANY elections whatsoever. What you are talking about is not a ceasefire but Israel surrendering, which is not on the table or the meaning of a ceasefire. Which was my point on this article.
If the left wants to demand a path for Hamas to retake political control of Gaza, that is not an unreasonable demand theoretically - but means collapse of all political support for their position among US voters and in Congress. Which then means the Palestinians end up with nothing.
In practice, Biden is moving US policy towards help for the Palestinians in ways that if he actually adopted the position of the ANSWER left woud lead to Congress passing veto-proof legislation that would put the Palestinians in worse position. The $10 billion in proposed humanitarian aid for Gaza would no doubt be immediately cut from the foregin policy bill being debated if there is any chance Hamas would receive it.
Harsh but thoughtful analysis. I’m mainly persuaded.
Talking truth to power is sometimes easier, sometimes harder. I wouldn’t want to claim that the left generally does this well no matter the context — leftists have their sacred cows too around which they gladly accept rhetorical deception and self-deception.
That aside, there is no equivalency between right and left here. The left obviously does a much better, though incomplete, job of speaking truth to power.
No equivalency meant- but the point is that the right doesn't need to be truthful. They have the money to flood the zone with lies and dominate the economic sphere.
Which makes the left not sacrificing its most critical tool all the more important.
I am less persuaded. The demand is for US to stop supporting the ongoing bombing of innocents. Is 30,000 dead and 70,000 wounded and untold many being starved as a matter of policy not enough? The cease fire call is the demand that this slaughter stop *and not resume again.* and that seems like a fine demand. So first stop all support of the slaughter. Second get aid in asap. This means move IDF out of the way as it is stopping all relief efforts. Third, it means the Palestinians, not Biden nor democrats, get to choose who represents them moving forward. If they choose Hamas, so be it. This is what an immediate cease fire means. And those against this, people like Biden, are comfortable supporting Palestinian genocide. So yes, an immediate cease fire now.
No. Bernie Sanders early on called for the end of the bombing and he was attacked relentlessly for not calling specifically for a cease fire.
As to who the Palestinians choose, the first step is actually having elections (which haven't happened for two decades), which Biden has supported. But getting to elections requires interim administration of Gaza and the choice is Israel, Hamas or the Palestinian Authority - and Biden is on the right side in saying the PA is preferable to both Israel and Hamas in that role.
Nope Bernie was attacked for not calling for a *permanent* end to hostilities. He worried that a ceasefire would disadvantage Israel. As deaths of women and children were already in the 10s of thousands that was the point! He knew this and demurred, thereby siding with those perpetrating the slaughter. He then more recently called for stopping arms shipments to Israel. He was widely supported by the “left” on this. Biden did not support this, to his everlasting shame. Did you? Just curious.
As for first steps; the very first is a complete end to the slaughter Israel is perpetrating. Then food, medicine, shelter etc. Then politics. Choosing who to lead the Palestinian side is for them to decide. UN can manage elections. UN, indeed UNWRA can manage humanitarian assistance. Neither the US nor Israel nor the PA can be trusted to hold legitimate elections. Kast time they supervised these and the wrong people won (hamas) they undermined the election. So let them decide for themselves. But frat stop the genocide! And this means an immediate permanent cease fire and Israeli withdrawal so that humanitarian efforts can begin. No cease fire means more slaughter. I am surprised you dont see this.
Well, our contrasting views have been made clear and continuing this is not worth the effort. Let me add that to me your position seems like special pleading to get lefties to bury their revulsion with Biden long enough to vote for him in November. I doubt many will.
You propose a worthy long term goal, imo, all the while minimizing that tens of thousands of people are being industrially destroyed and starved as we write. In fact, yours is a sophisticated version of Biden’s current strategy whose net effect is to further Israel’s goal of ethnically cleansing first Gaza and then the west bank. Clever. Raise the red flag to oppose the red flag as they used to say!
There is a world consensus for an immediate cease fire to stop the carnage. Only the US and its subordinates oppose this. It is immediately practicable as all that needs doing is for the US to join the world consensus and tell Israel no more munitions for the slaughter, a policy that the US has implemented several times in the past. But in place of such a realizable short term policy that would save lives immediately and set the stage for both sufficient humanitarian assistance AND a longer term political goal which will be hard, very hard, to realize, you substitute the policy of dissolving Israel and creating a one state utopia. And you propose this as a serious effort in contrast to purported non serious calls for an immediate cease fire. Only a very bright person could reason as such. And one with an ulterior motive. Sorry, but this wont convince lefties, or anyone else, to put aside their disgust with Biden’s policies. Plus it will make it much harder to take your views seriously in the future. I leave you with the last word. This is it for me.
There is no global consensus for Hamas to be given back operational control of Gaza. That's plain untrue. There is a consensus to stop the fighting, which at the moment means leaving Israeli troops in control of Gaza since only military action by Hamas could dislodge them and any permanent ceasefire would mean Hamas would be barred from militarily trying to get rid of Israeli troops. So the left actually opposes a ceasefire by any traditional definition of the term.
But as you say, we are probably at the end of the exchange.
And note, I've said I think the goal of a two-state solution is a fine alternative to pursue; I just don't think it's a likely stable solution.
Biden is doing nothing like this. He is supporting Israel’s policy of mass killing. Ok, lets now discuss your points.
Calling for a cease fire is a FIRST STEP to stop the massacre (genocide). To STOP it, rather than just delay it, the cease fire must be permanent. The SECOND STEP is to implement the ICJ rulings. These include getting food, shelter, medicine etc into Gaza. Right now Israel is blocking this, as you no doubt know. The policy is to starve the population, most limely to get them to leave Gaza and go to Egypt (which is currently being bought off by the IMF to play along. So step 2 is get aid in in bulk to end the famine, sickness, and medical emergency. To do-this REQUIRES Israel leaving Gaza for it is the source of the blockage. They are stopping aid from entering. And killing people who come to get it. They must leave. So that is step 2, Israel removes itself. Step 3 hets the UN and UNWRA back in to Gaza to administer the aid. The UN should also be charged with managing elections in Gaza and the West Bank. Whoever wins, wins. I would prefer if Barghouti were released and allowed to run. He is the obvious leader now, even Hamas defers to him. At any rate, this election would be supervised by UN, not US not Israel, not PA.
Now you say congress would not support this. Maybe you are right. I have no idea. The rest of the world, however, would be happy to support this. Moreover, anything less than this is, ahem, BS. Biden has no interest in promoting anything like a decent outcome. You are delusional if you believe otherwise. At call for a cease fire involves what i outlined and is not subject to the arguments against it you have outlined. Is it politically possible inside US? I doubt it. Why? Because US INCLUDING BIDEN AND THE BULK OF THE DEMOCRATS are all in for genocide. They dont like the PR but are happy with the policy. Biden BS is just delivered to try and get lefties to forget about his policies in November. It is not serious. Will it work? I doubt it.
Actually, the next step is for Israel to cease to exist and we hold elections encompassing the whole of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza to elect a government representing all the people in that region. The UN should oversee those elections.
I fully support the above paragraph as the ideal outcome - and it is no more likely to happen than your scenario. Israel doesn't actually need US money or even weapons to survive- it has a GDP of half a trillion dollars and can buy all it needs on the wide open global weapons market.
If your view is that Biden is all in for genocide, despite multiple leaders in the rest of the middle east treating him as a good faith negotiator on behalf of a cease fire and moving torwards a two-state solution, then you are claiming more insight into his goals then all of those other actors in the region.
But the reality is that the UN and the ICJ have done nothing effective to stop Israel, but the rightwing in Israel has complained vociferously that Biden has intervened to limit their actions and restrict their ability to ethnically cleanse Gaza. So given that other Middle East actors seem to trust Biden and the Israeli rightwing hates him, I will take that as the best indicator of his actual intentions and actions behind the scenes.
But a ceasefire leaves Israel's troops controlling Gaza and doesn't necessarily include ANY elections whatsoever. What you are talking about is not a ceasefire but Israel surrendering, which is not on the table or the meaning of a ceasefire. Which was my point on this article.
If the left wants to demand a path for Hamas to retake political control of Gaza, that is not an unreasonable demand theoretically - but means collapse of all political support for their position among US voters and in Congress. Which then means the Palestinians end up with nothing.
In practice, Biden is moving US policy towards help for the Palestinians in ways that if he actually adopted the position of the ANSWER left woud lead to Congress passing veto-proof legislation that would put the Palestinians in worse position. The $10 billion in proposed humanitarian aid for Gaza would no doubt be immediately cut from the foregin policy bill being debated if there is any chance Hamas would receive it.
Harsh but thoughtful analysis. I’m mainly persuaded.
Talking truth to power is sometimes easier, sometimes harder. I wouldn’t want to claim that the left generally does this well no matter the context — leftists have their sacred cows too around which they gladly accept rhetorical deception and self-deception.
That aside, there is no equivalency between right and left here. The left obviously does a much better, though incomplete, job of speaking truth to power.
No equivalency meant- but the point is that the right doesn't need to be truthful. They have the money to flood the zone with lies and dominate the economic sphere.
Which makes the left not sacrificing its most critical tool all the more important.