A “shot across the bow.”
That’s how one US official, without apparent irony, described the Biden administration’s decision to “pause” some weapons shipments to Israel, including the transfer of 2,000-pound bombs.
The IDF’s use of the large ordnance in dense urban areas is a point of contention between the White House and the Netanyahu government.
If you’re unfamiliar with the backstory, suffice to say some observers were alarmed early on in the war at the Israeli military’s freewheeling deployment of what military experts generally describe as one of, and maybe the, most destructive non-nuclear munitions in Western armories.
In November, for example, a former Pentagon analyst told The New York Times that “you have to go back to Vietnam or the Second World War” to find a comparable instance of “so many large bombs” being dropped “in such a small area,” as the article put it.
A few weeks later, the Times cited an AI-assisted analysis of aerial imagery and bomb craters in alleging that Israel “routinely” dropped 2,000-pound bombs on southern Gaza, including in areas “where it ordered civilians to move for safety.”
Most US officials (and a lot of US lawmakers) are concerned about that, and specifically about the perception that America’s complicit in the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
If you chafe at the contention that Israel’s slaughtering civilians indiscriminately, I implore you: Don’t be a coward. If you believe the end justifies the means in Gaza — if your position is that dynamite fishing is necessary to secure the survival of the Jewish people — then just say that. Plenty of people have. What’s stopping you? You’re only fooling yourself by parroting the IDF’s talking points around the military’s ostensible efforts to minimize civilian casualties. It’s a slaughter. Debating whether “indiscriminate” is the best adjective is splitting hairs by now.
On Sunday, Axios reported that the US put a hold on a weapons shipment to Netanyahu for the first time since October 7, “rais[ing] serious concerns inside the Israeli government and sen[ding] officials scrambling to understand why the shipment was held.”
There was no mystery, of course. The shipment was held because the Biden administration’s trying to convey something to Netanyahu about the White House’s seriousness with regard to US reservations about the Rafah offensive. The White House confirmed as much two days later.
“Israel should not launch a major ground operation in Rafah, where more than a million people are sheltering with nowhere else to go,” an unnamed administration official told US media outlets mid-week, adding that Biden’s “especially focused on the end-use of 2,000-pound bombs.”
You gotta love (or hate) the euphemism and the implicit attempt to retroactively exonerate the Pentagon for the death toll in Gaza: “The end-use.” Of 2,000-pound bombs. I’m sure there are off-label use cases for giant bombs, but if somebody asks you to sell them a can opener, it’s very likely they’re trying to open a goddamn can.
If the argument is that the US didn’t know Israel planned to use the bombs so liberally in densely-populated urban areas, I’d note that Gaza’s the most densely-populated area on Earth. Virtually nowhere in Gaza can you “safely” use a 2,000-pound bomb, where “safely” means you can make a semi-plausible case after the fact that the strategic gains from any one strike outweighed the civilian body count.
According to reports, the delayed shipment included 1,800 of the contentious 2,000-pounders, which may or may not ever be delivered. “We have not made a final determination on how to proceed,” an official quoted by The Washington Post on Wednesday said.
Plainly, Biden’s using the weapons shipments as leverage to influence the IDF’s conduct in Rafah. During a recent visit to Israel, Antony Blinken reportedly warned Netanyahu that an expansive IDF operation in the city would prompt public opposition from the White House and “would negatively impact US-Israel relations,” according to Axios’s account of the meeting.
Some Republicans on the Hill were aghast at the decision to delay delivery of the large munitions. And I’m sure Netanyahu was aggrieved. But here’s the thing — actually two things. First, Israel has (more than) enough weapons and ordnance to carry out a full-fledged campaign in Rafah. By every unbiased account, the IDF doesn’t need those bombs. Second, in the event the IDF starts to run short of munitions it does need, then… well, make your own damn weapons! Or find somebody who’ll sell you some with no qualms.
The sense of entitlement’s astounding. And galling. The message to the US from the Netanyahu government is basically this: You’re going to sell us as many weapons as we want, and whatever kinds of weapons we want, whenever we want them, and if you put any strings on them whatsoever you’re complicit in an antisemitic, terrorist conspiracy to eradicate the Jewish people.
A few readers have emailed to inquire about my opinion on campus protests in the US. The truth is — and I’ll try to be generous — a majority of the young people protesting surely don’t understand what, exactly, it is they’re protesting. How could they? This is, almost without exception, the most complex geopolitical disputation on Earth.
The nuance and intractability of the conflict drove three generations of US diplomats to frustrated defeatism. The idea that the average college student (or even the “average” above-average college student, if you want to account for the Ivy League protests) possesses so much as a glancing familiarity with the history of the world’s most contentious religiopolitical dispute, is frankly laughable.
The campus protests are an excuse for i) excitable twenty- and early-thirtysomethings to participate in America’s second late-60s moment in four years, ii) politicians on both sides of the aisle to perpetuate the culture wars for their own political gain, and iii) actual antisemites to openly express their noxious “views.”
Even the protestors who do possess some vague understanding of the situation seem to harbor delusions about the extent to which the White House can effectuate on-the-ground change in Gaza. Yes, the Biden administration has a lot of leverage. And maybe Biden can influence the conduct of the Rafah operation at the margins, thereby saving a few thousand Gazan civilian lives. Not nothin’, as they say, but ultimately, Israelis have to make their own decisions. About how to defend themselves, about how they want to be viewed internationally in light of the steps they take in that regard and, more broadly, where to go from here. At the risk of hurting some feelings, I think younger Israeli Jews might want to take “where to go” literally.
The fact is (and now I’m going to hurt some feelings on the Arab side), Israel’s surrounded by fanatics and fanatical states. Jordan’s an exception, but generally speaking, there are lunatics everywhere. Shiite lunatics. Sunni lunatics. Lunatics in the Beirut. Lunatics in Tehran. Oil-rich lunatics in golden palaces in Riyadh. Gas-rich lunatics in gleaming skyscrapers in Doha. That region has the highest per capita rate of religious lunacy on the planet, and it’s not close. It will never — never — be safe there.
Maybe it’s true that the Jewish people “have no home” outside of Israel. If that’s true, it may make sense to take a maximally sympathetic view to the establishment of the Jewish state, where that means contending that with nowhere else for Jews to go, the project was an existential necessity despite the inherent moral contradiction: To save one people, it was necessary to jeopardize another.
But I don’t believe it’s accurate to assert that because the Jewish people don’t have a home outside of Israel, a Jewish person, or a Jewish family, doesn’t have one. I wonder often if some Israeli politicians (and older Israelis more generally) are so committed to the project that they indoctrinate (deliberately or otherwise) young Israelis to believe Jews aren’t welcome anywhere else in the world.
Some Israeli politicians and officials seem to propagandize the Holocaust for that purpose. They also appear, at times, to guilt-trip the populace by intimating that to leave Israel is to betray a sacred obligation — to immigrate is to deny the essential necessity of the Israeli state as the only true manifestation of a Jewish identity.
If any of that’s true, it’s tragic. There’s a fine line between encouraging people to participate in a righteous “project” and trapping people in a suicide cult. This particular project — wholly legitimate, wholly illegitimate or somewhere in-between — is a state-building exercise in a highly unstable, wildly violent region where people regularly kill one another in the name of holy books.
To the extent Israelis are ready and willing to die for that state-building exercise, that’s their choice. But it’s just that: A choice. And the government shouldn’t make it seem like an imperative to anyone who might (gasp!) think the preservation of their own life and the life of their family is more important than the preservation of the project.
Of course, if you’re Gazan you don’t a have a choice. You couldn’t leave if you wanted to. The only way you’re getting out of that God-forsaken holy land is by way of a 2,000-pound bomb.
Reasonably presented.
Thank you
The crusades will never end.
“God-forsaken holy land” indeed.
All religions are utter madness. They persist because the patriarchy needs them to stay in power. And because people are sheep.
Thanks for this great summary of the state of affairs in Israel, Gaza and the ME.
With regard to student protests, I happened to be in Madison last Friday. The student protestors were just sitting around, outside the 20-25 tents that were set up on the lawn across from the student union. They were very peaceful, had taped up a few signs and had written some notes in colored chalk on the sidewalk. They weren’t doing much; they did not block/accost anyone, nor were they upset when I crossed right through the area where they were hanging out. Most were just getting a suntan as it was a beautiful warm and sunny day.
Not a problem, at all.
1989 starts from such similiarly. Don’t underestimate how quickly fire can spread.
Appreciate the views and perspective shared.
Hopefully the protests catalyze, among younger generation, more serious inquiry into the actual history and state of affairs in the region.
I just hope the protesters are also cognizant of and rallying around additional issues such as 1) the health and survival of the planet, 2) women’s freedom and health issues / choices, 3) the immediate threat to democracy via authoritarianism in several countries, 4) (in the US) the corrupt, co-opted, and politically driven out of control Supreme (scare quotes) Court…
I still think it bears repeating that the vast majority of Palestinians support Hamas – https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/03/22/poll-hamas-remains-popular-among-palestinians/
Furthermore and even worse – “Another, but less surprising, result of the poll is that 80% of Palestinians reject both the “one-state” and “two-state” solutions, and instead demand all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea—in short, the entire State of Israel”.
2 states solution, however impossible, still has 30% of Israeli Jewish people support (and 80+% of Israeli Arabs).
It seems like a big difference and hard to “both sides”. Again, what would anyone else do, if they were Israel? While other people’s stupidity does not excuse your own, we know what the US did after the (I would argue) far less traumatic attack of 9/11… And I really doubt that 80% of Muslims (whatever ethnic or national subgroup you care to associate with AQ) would have been yearning for the destruction of America, even if they approved of 9/11.
NB: None of that obligate the US or anyone else to support Israel militarily. We can, maybe should, cancel all military aid (though US military aid tends to be direct support to US defense manufacturing, not aid in the traditional sense of the word).
But we should also recognise Israel is doing what anyone else would do, indeed, seems pretty damn restrained about it if total casualties are only 30K (a Hamas number we have no reasons to believe in the slightest but still a paltry 1.3% compared to the total 2.2M pop.of Gaza – we killed way more Germans or Japanese in WWII, percent wise)
And I think it “bears repeating,” just so other readers are aware, that your comment history on this subject betrays an overt, pro-Israel bias as it relates both to the conduct of the war and also as it relates to civilian casualties in Gaza.
Of course, everyone’s biased, but based solely on your public comments on this site, your bias can be fairly described as more pronounced than a majority of the readership. That’s an assessment I’m uniquely positioned to make as the guy who’s read every single comment ever posted on this site, including the ones which never see the public light of day (and yes, I gate comments).
Also, if someone took a big piece of your land from you, how much of it would you want back? All of it, or just some of it? If it’s the latter, let me know. I’ll be happy to come take a very large piece of your property then give you some of what I took back in a “compromise.” That’s an entirely acceptable outcome from my perspective. Let me know if it works for you.
I’m not saying I necessarily agree with Palestinian claims to the entirety of the territory, but I certainly understand why they’d make those claims. If you don’t, you’re either hopelessly biased (likely) or don’t have a solid grasp of the history of this conflict (also likely, but I don’t think that’s the real issue in your case).
That’s a fair characterisation of my present-day position, yes.
However, my position has evolved. I used, say, pre-2000/2005, to be pro-Palestinian. And a big reason for that was the fundamental injustice of 1948 where the European powers decided to (re)create Israel as apologies for the Holocaust. The dispossessed Arabs certainly got the short end of the stick there.
But Israel is now in existence for more than 75 years. It’s an internationally recognized country. At some point, reality on the ground matter.
It’s like saying Mexico would be justified in starting a war to recover Texas, California etc. I mean, if they could, I guess that’s all the justification they would really need (might, right etc.) but, really, would anyone else say “oh, well, fair enough”.
And if they were waging a brutal, guerrilla/terrorist campaign on the USA, would anyone think the USA not entitled to strike back with however much force is required to make them desist?
Furthermore, one thing that really sour me on the Palestinian cause is how they kept rejecting every compromises up to the 2000 Camp David summit. If you think no compromise makes sense since Israel did not exist before 1948, fair enough, though that’s kind of also implying you have to be comfortable with the eventual ethnic cleansing or genocide of Israeli Jews. But a further point of my changing sides, as it were, was how little Palestinian leaders cared about the well being of Palestinians. I can even get the rationale of “let’s have massive amount of our own civilian casualties to inflame the world” but it’s never going to be enough to get Israeli Jews to up sticks and move somewhere else. In the meanwhile, the EU, out of guilt for the way we fùçk over Palestinians donated several billions of Euros over the year. That money was either stolen by the leadership or repurposed to support their war effort against Israel while the Palestinians themselves got sweet fùçk all.
I don’t know. Those 2 facts, plus the horrors of Oct 7th plus the fact that 80% of Palestinians wanting Israel gone made me realise that the only way forward is for Israel to break the will and the hopes of the Palestinians to ever get back a single inch of land. Once they’ll have accepted that, once they’re defeated, maybe we can have peace.
After all, the Germans and the Japanese are now peaceful (a bit too much, if anything) and amongst the closest allies the US has…
“… the only way forward is for Israel to break the will and the hopes of the Palestinians to ever get back a single inch of land.”
At least you came out and said it.
And what is that “point” at which “reality on the ground” is all that matters? Is that just an ad hoc determination? Is there something special about 75 years? Or 150 years?
How about 3 years? Can we call it 3 years? That’s a long time, after all. It’s 20 in dog years! So, let’s call it 3 years. After 3 years, “reality on the ground” is what “matters.” That puts you folks in a pretty tough spot in 1943, doesn’t it?
(You’re welcome. I’m sure we’ll have to do it again at some point. We got you. Don’t worry.)
If the Germans had won WWII, I certainly would expect France to remain a subject nation after 1943. If Israel had been destroyed by the coalition of Arab states in 1948, we wouldn’t be arguing about Gaza in 2024. I may be dumb but what’s your point?
My point is that you’re arguing a kind of infinite regress. If you want to say nothing really belongs to anybody if they can’t hold onto it in the face of overwhelming force and a willingness on the part of the international community to recognize claims based on force and coercion, that’s “fine,” but just be willing to apply the same principle universally. It sounds like you are willing to apply it universally. Which is great for the purposes of staying consistent in internet debates like this one, which you’re pretty adept at, by the way. But what I’m saying is that as a citizen of a country which isn’t the US, China or Russia (i.e., as a citizen of a country that isn’t impregnable), just be apprised that at some point, you (or your descendants) may have to face up to what that principle of yours means in the event you’re overrun and nobody comes to save your ass: You’ll be Palestinians and based on your logic, you won’t have anything legitimate to complain about after a sufficiently long period of time has elapsed.
It’s not just college kids who seem confused or uninformed about the longer-term history and geopolitical waxings and wanings of the situation. You could add many US Senators and Representatives to that list, not to mention many talking heads on either side who traffic in simple “truths” and oversimplified “assessments,” and who either cling to or reject “both-sidesisms” depending how it suits their purposes.
But as a compulsively non-religious person who despises any religious influence in poltiics, thank you for calling out Israel’s sense of entitlement when it comes to supporting their causes. Because from this admittedly lightly-informed and totally-secular perspective, Israel seems like the objectively worst ally we have on this planet, and not just in recent months. And of course, Saudi Arabia occupies a longstanding wildcard playoff spot for that same title. This non-relgious taxpayer would like to be done with them both.
To be fair, now that the US is energy self sufficient, you really could/should.
I know I would… especially when China is on the horizon and will need to be either checked or defeated in the not so distant future.
It just occurred to me that perhaps the “God-forsaken “holy land” is not forsaken at all. Rather it is a giant puzzle placed in front of the people of the world, much as was the Gordian Knot in the ancient times. God just wants to know if we all can handle it. So far He’s probably very disappointed.