Tag: Human Rights
Israel in Gaza: illegal, immoral, unwise
So many have written so much about Gaza that I’ve hesitated. What is there to say that adds value or insight? But the situation requires at least a brief remark.
Illegal
Israel is withholding humanitarian aid, attacking civilians, and rendering the entire Strip uninhabitable. These are war crimes. It is arguable that they amount to genocide, but that is a legal question. I’ll wait for the International Criminal Court to decide. Others have argued the case better than I can. In the meanwhile, it is clear Israel is violating well-established laws of war.
But, some will object, what about October 7? What about Hamas? The laws of war do not allow reciprocity for illegal acts. Hamas conducted its horrific attack in ways that unquestionably violated the respect due to civilians in wartime. The taking of hostages is also illegal. But none of that can justify wanton destruction and targeted killing of civilians.
Immoral
Treating strangers properly–welcoming them, providing for them, helping them–is a fundamental doctrine in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim morality. It doesn’t preclude defending yourself if attacked, but it does limit that defense to what is necessary. Israel has gone far beyond that limit. It is displacing the Gaza population, starving its children, and destroying any possibility of return to its homes.
Israel is doing everything possible not just to prevent a resurgence of Hamas but to make Gaza uninhabitable. Its current government wants the Palestinians to leave. Prime Minister Netanyahu even says this is to pursue President Trump’s vision of rebuilding it as a resort. Another Israeli minister says he wants another Nakba. That means repetition of the expulsion of Arabs during Isreal’s war for independence.
The Prime Minister’s motives in continuing the war on Gaza are particularly heinous. He is using wartime to avoid a political reckoning. He hopes battlefield success will erase his own responsibility for Israel’s failures to anticipate and defend against the Hamas attack.
Unwise
How will any of these excesses benefit Israel or Jews in general? If Palestinians leave Gaza, some will settle in Sinai, which already harbors Muslim extremists. Is the border of Israel with Sinai any better protected than the border of Gaza with Israel before October 7? Will increasing the Palestinian population in Egypt really help Israel? The Palestinians who left during the Nakba are still a problem for Israel, more than 75 years later. If there are Hamasees left in Gaza, will spreading them around the world reduce the threat to Israelis and Jews?
Trump’s Gaza-a-Lago proposition is particularly unwise. Let’s suppose it happens. Trump resorts are built up and down the Gaza coast, which is really beautiful. Yes, I’ve been there and seen it. How safe would the resort be from the Hamasees who have been spread around the world? For that matter, how safe would any Trump resort be?
What’s the alternative?
Jews and Palestinians have no alternative to sharing the Holy Land. Israelis have demonstrated that is possible within their internationally recognized borders. Palestinians there do not have the equal rights and privileges they are entitled to. But most days they share a society with the more privileged Jews and strive for equal treatment and conditions nonviolently. I am a Jew who supports that effort. I am not alone. My religion tells me that is what I should be doing. As does my understanding of what it means to be an American.
That is what is needed in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli effort to remove the Palestinians is delusional. They need equal rights, which in Gaza and the West Bank means a Palestinian state. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas says he wants one without a military. That state need not be anti-Israeli. But what Israel has done in Gaza is making two states living securely side-by-side much more difficult. Law, morality, and wisdom suggest that is a big mistake.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, September 15
– AEI’s Norm Ornstein suggests new rules to get around the Tuberville holds:
Two simple rule changes could break the impasse. First, by majority, the Senate could require an up-or-down floor vote on a confirmation within 30 days after the nominee has been reported out by the relevant committee. An alternative would be for the Senate to create by rule its own variation of the House’s discharge petition: If a majority of senators sign such a petition, it would force a floor vote under a privileged resolution.
– David Rothkopf praises SecState Blinken’s speech at SAIS.
– NYT says both Koreas are now involved in supplying Ukraine war.
– Yesterday the story was shifting aid from Egypt to Taiwan. Today, NYT notes US is still sending a lot to Egypt despite human rights complaints.
– WSJ says Chinese defense minister has been fired.
– CNN says China stopped spy balloon program.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, December 9
– Arizona Senator Sinema announced she is switching from Democrat to Independent. She says she won’t attend weekly caucus lunches but expects to keep her committee assignments. This sounds like the arrangement Bernie Sanders and Angus King have, which means there will still be a 51-49 vote for Democrats to organize the Senate.
– Punchbowl has best account of discussions over an omnibus appropriations instead of a year-long CR.
– Some in House GOP foresee multiple ballots for Speaker, first since 1923.
– WSJ says US plans new Magnitsky sanctions on Russia & China.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here, with occasional videos of my choice. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, April 14
The Pulitzer Prizes for 2021 will be announced May 9. Already I’m seeing excellent reporting that might win a year from now.
– WSJ today has two big stories — how NATO training has helped Ukraine and increased intelligence sharing with Ukraine.
– A Politico newsletter says Jake Sullivan has recruited a “nest of China hawks” at NSC.
– Wired tells how hackers have disclosed details about Russians.
– Tom Friedman has a good interview with John Arquilla.
– Russia’s Black Sea flagship has been damaged and evacuated.
– Politico reports complaints about yesterday’s Human Rights report.
– Marine Le Pen wants to reduce French role in NATO, questions aid to Ukraine.
– Russia warns against Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The angel sings, but the devils are in the details
President Biden today gave his first speech to the United Nations outlining his foreign policy priorities and approach more clearly than he has so far. He aimed to restore trust in American leadership, not only in the aftermath of the Trump Administration but also in the wake of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and controversy surrounding the deal to sell nuclear submarines to Australia that shocked and annoyed France.
The priorities were strikingly different from Trump’s:
- Ending the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Slowing climate change
- Encouraging respect for human rights
- Rebalancing geopolitcs
- A level playing field for trade
- Ensuring benefits, and limiting harm, from technology
- Countering terrorism
The first three items would not have appeared on any Trump Administration list. Numbers 4-7 would have, but with a distinctly America First (i.e. alone) spin.
Biden’s means are at least as different from Trump’s as his priorities. He favors diplomacy over war, multilateralism over unilateralism, and the power of America’s example at home over American intervention abroad.
In my book, this is all well and good, but then come the difficulties in applying these methods to actual issues. Encouraging booster shots to Americans is likely not the best way to end the COVID-19 epidemic, but exporting vaccines to poor countries exposes the Administration to criticism, so Biden is trying to split the difference by doing both. Slowing climate change is a grand idea, but can Biden get the legislation through Congress to meet his own goals for limits on American production of greenhouse gases. Encouraging respect for human rights is fine, but what do you do about Saudi Arabia, whose Crown Prince is thought culpable for the murder of a US-based journalist? Rebalancing geopolitics is fine, but what if selling nuclear submarines to Australia requires you to blind-side and offend your longest-standing ally?
And so on: a level playing field for trade is hard to achieve when a major competitor is using prison (or slave) labor to produce manufactured good. Responding to state-sponsored cyber attacks is proving a particularly difficult challenge. Facial-recognition technology, with all its defects, is spreading rapidly around the world even though it is prone to misidentification and other abuses. You may prefer a less military approach to counter-terrorism, but if there is a successful mass casualty attack in the US the military response will be dramatic. Never mind that 20 years of military responses have not been effective and have killed a lot of innocent non-combatants.
As for methods, there too there are problems. The State Department is a notoriously weak diplomatic instrument. Can it carry the weight of additional responsibilities? Diplomacy may be preferable to prevent Iran and North Korea from getting a nuclear weapons, but will Tehran agree? A two-state solution would be best, but how can we get there from here? Multilateralism is often preferable, but not always possible. One of my mentors used to quote President Carter (I think) saying multilaterally where we can, unilaterally when we must. But that judgment is not a simple one. America should be a shining “city on the hill,” as President Reagan hoped, but what then about the January 6 insurrection and the anti-voting legislation in more than two dozen states?
Biden’s angel sang well this morning at the UN. But the devils are in the details. It isn’t going to be easy to get those right in a divided country and a competitive, if not downright chaotic, global environment.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Stevenson’s army, August 5
– The administration announced a $750 million arms sale to Taiwan, its first.
– Reuters says a new arms transfer policy will be coming soon, with added human rights criteria.
– CRS has an updated report on the congressional process in arms sales.
– China may have converted ferries for amphibious operations.
– Politico explains how HAC Chair Delauro gets her bills approved. [This reinforces my point that appropriations and armed services are the rare committees that know how to pass controversial legislation.]
My SAIS colleague Charlie Stevenson distributes this almost daily news digest of foreign/defense/national security policy to “Stevenson’s army” via Googlegroups. I plan to republish here. To get Stevenson’s army by email, send a blank email (no subject or text in the body) to stevensons-army+subscribe@googlegroups.com. You’ll get an email confirming your join request. Click “Join This Group” and follow the instructions to join. Once you have joined, you can adjust your email delivery preferences (if you want every email or a digest of the emails).
RSS - Posts
