Israel – Hamas War

The war between Israel and Hamas rages on as it passes the six month mark. Starting with the horrific and brutal attack into Israel on 7 October 2023, it has been a ferocious conflict. Now is the time to assess the policies involved and to reevaluate what Israeli war aims may be.

In so doing, two underlying assertions are necessary. First, Israel had and continues to have, every right to defend itself and to respond to the terrible attack that killed over 1200 innocent Israelis in October in order to preclude future attacks. Second, criticism of Israel’s government or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies are not in themselves anti-Semitic, just as criticizing President Biden’s policies does not make anyone anti-American.

As the war continues with much of Gaza destroyed and approximately 1.7 million Palestinians displaced, no clear war aims have been articulated by Prime Minister Netanyahu. As announced to date, their goals are the destruction of Hamas, the infrastructure supporting their rule and terrorist activities, and the release of the hostages. These are not political solutions. Killing every member of Hamas is not possible. Indeed one could argue that current Israeli actions in Gaza are only ensuring another generation of pro-Hamas fighters, or at least anti-Israeli fighters. The only way to ensure that every member of Hamas is eliminated is to kill every male over the age of twelve.

Hamas war aims are simple and are the mirror image of Israel’s. Kill every Israeli and destroy the Israeli state. They have no means to achieve their war aims. Israel does.

Israeli Defense Force (IDF) spokesmen claim that they have “dismantled” twenty of the estimated twenty four Hamas battalions in Gaza. Assuming this is true, dismantled is not the same as eliminated. The command and control function of the organization is clearly degraded, if not destroyed, but guerrilla operations can continue indefinitely with groups of four or five fighters using hit and run tactics. From a fighting perspective, as I have explained in other, earlier posts, the loser decides when the war is over. If the enemy does not stop fighting, then the war continues, even if by conventional standards one side “won.” The IDF does not give detailed information on troop movements but has said that only two divisions of the IDF remain in Gaza, down from the original five that attacked into Gaza at the war’s start. All of the reserve units are said to have stood down and gone home — partly because those forces are no longer needed and partly because the economy of Israel was suffering with so many workers away from their jobs. A casual look at the situation in Gaza today indicates that the Israelis have won, but yet the war continues.

Indeed, Prime Minister Netanyahu plans on expanding the war by attacking Rafah, a city in the south of Gaza that is the primary location of the displaced Gazans from the north, especially from Gaza City, which will be discussed further below.

Although IDF troops on the ground are significantly fewer, air operations continue at a heavy rate. Bombs and drone strikes are a part of life in Gaza every day. Exact numbers of casualties are difficult to confirm as the IDF does not supply certified numbers of either their own or Palestinian losses and the Gaza Health Ministry — the source providing the number of Palestinian casualties — cannot be fully relied upon. That said, the international consensus is that over 32,000 Palestinians have died so far in the war with roughly 100,000 wounded, mostly civilians. There does not seem to be much consideration for collateral damage (civilians killed or wounded) in the indiscriminate bombing of areas such as Gaza City. The IDF is a modern, well-equipped, well-trained force. In the early stages of the war perhaps it was necessary to destroy civilian infrastructure to attack the Hamas infrastructure, especially Hamas tunnels that are said by the IDF to run for 350 to 450 miles under Gaza, using schools, mosques and other civilian structures as nodes. The current situation appears to preclude the need for mass bombings as a means to their ends and more pinpoint targeting could reduce the number of civilian casualties. So far, that does not seem to be happening, raising concerns in the U.S. and elsewhere that the Israelis are not just hunting down Hamas, but that they are punishing Palestinians in Gaza for “allowing” Hamas to carry out its terrorist attacks. Such indiscriminate attacks also calls into question the status of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Mass bombing puts the hostages in danger. One stated war aim is to recover all of the remaining 134 hostages (some of whom are known to already be dead), and yet only two have been rescued by the IDF. Three hostages escaped and tried to surrender to the IDF but were shot and killed while approaching IDF positions. (An additional 105 hostages were released in a prisoner exchange last November, four were unilaterally released by Hamas.) Are the hostages also collateral damage?

Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly stated that the IDF was preparing to attack Rafah, on the Egyptian border, to eliminate remaining Hamas forces. Rafah has 1.4 million Palestinians living there, many are refugees from the north living in dire circumstances in tents. The U.S. position is that Israel cannot attack Rafah without creating an even greater humanitarian crisis and any military operations must wait until a plan is put forward as to what to do about the people living there. Recently, Mr. Netanyahu agreed to send members of his government to Washington D.C. to explain the plan to the U.S. (That trip was canceled over a disagreement about U.S. votes in the U.N. Security Council calling for a cease fire, but it was just announced that now the trip is back on.) The seeming disregard for the plight of the Palestinians is the source of a growing rift between the U.S. and Israel and the cause for the growing number of protests around the U.S. in support of the Palestinians. (Unfortunately, there are protesters that are ignorant of the situation in the Middle East, its complications, and the fact that Hamas started the war. Sadly, there are also some folks that are just plain bigots.)

Israel has every right to root out Hamas to ensure the survival of Israel and to protect its citizens from further terrorist attacks. The issue is more a question of how it should be done. As a democracy concerned with human rights and as a full citizen of the international community, Israel must also consider the plight of the innocent children, women and men that are not members or supporters of Hamas but are suffering greatly from a lack of shelter, food, potable water and medicine. That should be part of their plan as well. To date, it is not, other than to allow some (too few) aid trucks into the Gaza strip as well as some air dropped supplies, also ineffective compared to what is required.

There is a growing rift between the Israeli and U.S. governments that I do not find surprising. Israel absolutely depends on U.S. political and military support. Much of their military equipment and ammunition comes from America. U.S. policy since President Truman is to support Israel and that policy of support has only grown stronger with time. That does not mean, contrary to some opinions, that Israel is a puppet or client state of the U.S. Our leaders do try to influence Israeli leaders but in the end, Israel is going to do whatever they want to do, whether or not it coincides with U.S. policy. Some of their decisions actually run counter to U.S. desires and can in certain circumstances actually hurt U.S. interests. Period. Blaming the Biden Administration or any other entity for what Israel is doing in Gaza and calling for them to stop it is not realistic. They are going to do whatever they want. As a result, some in government believe that we support Israel to a fault — arguing that support to Israel is critical, but not when it also undermines our own national interests.

Complicating the political elements of this crisis is that Prime Minister Netanyahu heads a far right government with members of his cabinet pushing for total Israeli control of Gaza and the West Bank — where even as the war in Gaza continues Israelis are settling in and pushing Palestinians out. Mr. Netanyahu will seemingly do anything to satisfy his far right coalition and thus remain in power. Prior to the outbreak of war, many Israelis were openly protesting his policies as being too extreme. His support throughout the population was rapidly eroding. Mr. Netanyahu also faces probable criminal indictments when he leaves office — an incentive to stay. Israelis will support him while the war continues, but it is widely expected that when elections are finally held, he will be voted out of office. If one were cynical, it could be that the war is good for Mr. Netanyahu’s personal fortunes.

So back to the original question. What are Israel’s war objectives? Put in other terms, what is the desired end state of the war? What does the solution look like?

The answer is nearly universal in the international community. The only way to reach a safe and secure status quo for both Palestine and Israel is a two state solution. A safe and secure Israeli state and a safe and secure Palestinian state encompassing Gaza and the West Bank. It will take years, billions of dollars and a lot of finesse to reach that point, but in the end, the U.S., Europe and much of the rest of the world see it as the only way to achieve a permanent. long term solution.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition right wing ultra-nationalist government roundly reject a two state solution.

On one level, it is understandable that Israelis would be skeptical that having a stable, sustainable, productive Palestinian neighbor would ever be achievable. Decades of experience tell them otherwise. On another level, those right wing ultra-nationalists in his government see Gaza and the West Bank as ripe for Israeli expansion and settlement. To them, the only way to secure the area is to occupy it themselves. While Mr. Netanyahu has not stated such an intent, he has indicated that Israeli forces will be in Gaza for some time to come. No other long term end state or political solution has come forward from his government. Israel may be in Gaza for years to come. The question is whether or not they put settlers there and turn it into a de facto Israeli satellite as they are doing in the West Bank. First, where do the Gazans go? Secondly, such a move would likely break U.S. and European unqualified support for Israel. Not abandonment, but it will cause a significant strain on our relationship and it will be irrevocably altered.

The Biden Administration in conjunction with our friends and allies has been working hard over these last months to resolve the long term tensions in the region. Many nations are willing to help to rebuild Gaza and to promote stability. Most importantly, there are increasing indications that Gulf Arab states along with Saudi Arabia are willing to step up to provide the money needed to rebuild and to support a new (as yet undefined) Palestinian government to replace the current Palestinian Authority that nominally holds power but has no practical way to govern. To get the Arab states actively involved in a peaceful solution will be a game changer.

Now is the time to lock it all in. A coalition of the willing can be put together to rebuild Gaza, provide security against a resurgent Hamas and provide increased security for all involved. It could be the dawn of a new age in the region. It could mean a new relationship between Israel and its neighbors. Israel could find itself allied with Saudi Arabia as a counter to block Iranian adventurism. There are lots of possibilities that would have been inconceivable in the recent past.

It will take years of patient negotiations and small, confidence building steps. It will take billions of dollars. It will not be easy as there are many bad actors that prefer the chaos and bitter conflict. None-the-less, it is in everyone’s best interest to try.


Dysfunction or Destruction (Continued)

Since the Republican majority in the House of Representatives took office last January, I have pondered in this space as to whether the new majority was totally dysfunctional or totally determined to destroy our country and our democracy. Without painting everyone in the Republican party with the same broad brush, it is increasingly apparent that while the House is dysfunctional under MAGA Republican leadership, it is also bent on destroying the institutions and norms our government established and refined over the last 235 years. Taking one seemingly singular policy — immigration — it is possible to see how the MAGA crowd combines multiple issues into one large untidy package and brings the wheels of government to a grinding halt.

I will explain further in the following paragraphs, but through a supposed concern over our southern border, the MAGA Republicans controlling the House of Representatives have impacted our relations with NATO and other friends and allies; disrupted desperately needed aid to Ukraine, Israel, Gaza, Taiwan and our own border; initiated impeachment proceedings against a cabinet official; threatened the ability of the Supreme Court to interpret our laws; created the conditions for a state to physically impede federal officials from following the law; and elevated an out of government civilian to become the controlling entity on national policy. The implications for our country are too deep and disturbing to be merely the result of incompetence or dysfunction, although that certainly exists. It can only be attributed to a deliberate attempt to destroy our institutions in order to bring an autocrat to power.

Last October President Joe Biden asked Congress for 105 billion dollars for aid to Ukraine ($61.4 billion), Israel ($14,3 billion), and the southern border ($14 billion) and smaller amounts for Taiwan and humanitarian assistance in the Middle East. Republicans in the House and Senate immediately voiced their concerns over the request and it went nowhere. By the end of the year, Republicans were tying the money to policy reforms impacting our southern border. The president agreed to negotiate changes and invited the leadership of both parties in Congress to the White House to get the process started before the end of the year. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (MAGA – LA) refused to participate in any solutions that did not meet all of the (mostly impractical) demands of his caucus. In the Senate, both parties, along with Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and key White House aids entered into intense negotiations. All parties involved agree that there is a crisis on the southern border and that significant steps must be taken to alleviate the situation. Compromises came from both sides, and although the final product is not yet public, many Republican Senators publicly applauded the deal, as did most Democrat Senators and the president. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham declared that it was the best immigration deal in decades. The legislation seems to be moving to a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks. Money for Israel — great! Money for Ukraine — great! More money to hire significantly more Customs Border Protection (CBP) agents, asylum judges, and facilities to house migrants on the southern border — great! Unicorns and rainbows and meaningful accomplishments! Except for one thing.

Speaker Johnson (also known as “MAGA Mike”) refuses to entertain any of it. Why? Because his boss, an out of office civilian pending criminal prosecution, told him to kill it. Trump has very few, if any, issues in his retribution campaign for the presidency. The only policy issue he touts to date is immigration. He deplores the current policies and claims that we have an “open border.” He uses dystopian rhetoric and xenophobia to paint the crisis on the border as an existential threat to our security and yet, no deal. He wants to run on the issue and cannot do so if it is resolved. He does not want to give a “win” to the Democrats (even though the Republicans publicly declare that they got almost everything they want) and so the country must endure another year of crisis until he is in office. A great patriot. 

Meanwhile, no money for Ukraine. No money for Israel. No money for additional resources on the border. The MAGA Republicans’ total support of Trump includes his desire to withhold money for Ukraine. The pro-Putin wing of the party would like to see Ukraine fail. This is not a domestic issue. By preventing the United States from fulfilling its commitments to NATO, Ukraine and our friends and other allies around the world, we are sending a very clear message to the world that no country should depend on the United States for anything. This plays perfectly into the hands of Putin, Xi, Kim and the mullahs in Iran. If the United States does not stand fully with Ukraine, it is a safe bet that Xi will not expect us to stay the course with Taiwan. We will be finished as a reliable partner and supporter of democracy. The lesson for the world is that democracy does not work. Too chaotic. Too unreliable. Too dysfunctional to accomplish anything meaningful. 

Meanwhile, at the same time that Secretary Majorkas is working with the Senate to find a solution to the border crisis, he is about to be impeached by the House. No “high crimes or misdemeanors,” just that they do not like the administration’s policies. Constitutional scholars of all stripes agree that there is no basis under the Constitution or the law for such an impeachment. Only one cabinet officer in our history has been impeached and that was nearly 150 years ago. (For those curious, it was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 for blatant corruption. Although a majority voted to convict him in the Senate, it did not reach the required two-thirds threshold. He had already resigned.) This is just another blatant political MAGA stunt taken at Trump’s direction in order to make his two impeachments look less terrible and to further hurt our country. The Secretary is likely to be acquitted in the Senate — if they even hold a trial which is not required – but if he is removed from office, the president will appoint another person to carry out the same policies. The entire thing is blatantly ridiculous and is underway only to appease one man.

As if this were not enough, the MAGA governor of Texas, Greg Abbott is defying a Supreme Court order concerning the placement of razor wire along the border that restricts and in some cases prevents the federal CBP from doing their job. Under the Constitution, the United States has jurisdiction over immigration and the borders, not Texas. The MAGA rhetoric surrounding the issue is reminiscent of that from southern states in the 1850s. ”States’ rights” is again the issue. Governor Abbot is using the Texas National Guard to “defend” the border and to prevent the federal agents from doing their jobs. Other MAGA governors are promising to send Guard units to Texas to help them defend their “sovereignty” and Governor Abbott’s claims that “the fight is not over” and that Texas has a right to “self defense.” By that he means that state laws and policies have priority over federal law, in direct conflict with the supremacy clause of the Constitution. Great MAGA minds such as Representative Thomas Massie (KY) promote over riding the Supreme Court decision by eliminating President Biden’s border funds. In other words, he advocates solving the border crisis by defunding the DHS. Brilliant! The next steps by the governor or the president are unclear as I write, but it could easily escalate into another self-generated crisis. What is clear is that MAGA politicians are willing to go against the Constitution in order to support Trump and his ambitions. A bad sign for our future.

Taken as a whole, the House of Representatives and certain state houses around the country see that their goal is to create chaos and disruption in order to bring down our established norms and institutions in the name of one man. There are multiple severe domestic and international threats to our national security as a result. Dysfunction may be MAGA’s middle name, but such a wide spread and concerted effort can only be explained when we realize that the real point is the destruction of our norms in order to elevate an autocrat to power. 


Assassinations Are Okay

It is easy to get caught up in all of the vile, dangerous and non-sensical pronouncements of Donald J. Trump (he recently said that Abraham Lincoln should have negotiated with the South and thereby prevented the Civil War — and if he had done so, “you probably wouldn’t even know who Abraham Lincoln was.”) The problem is that if we ignore it, or just laugh it away, we run the danger of normalizing his behavior. On the other hand, the more we talk about it, the more he does it. I am sick of the guy and wish we could focus on defining our nation’s course going forward, rather than dealing with him. Unfortunately, the reality is that he is here to stay, whether or not he gets a second term.

Sometimes, we really need to pay attention. One of those times occurred this week and it was not Trump speaking but rather his knowledgeable and experienced attorneys making what they felt was a reasoned and Constitutional argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A three judge panel is hearing Trump’s appeal of a lower court decision that he does not have total immunity from prosecution for any actions that he took as president. His lawyers claim that any president has total immunity as evidenced by over 200 years of our history where no president has ever been criminally tried for actions taken while president. Which is true. Mainly because no previous president committed crimes while in office. (The relevant exception is Richard M. Nixon. He accepted a pardon which is considered an admission of guilt.)

Without getting too far down into the inner workings of the law, especially since I am not an expert, my understanding is that Trump’s attorneys are arguing that under the Constitution, a president must be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate before he or she can be prosecuted for a crime. They base their argument on Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution which says:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

In other words, they argue, no conviction in the Senate, no prosecution for a crime. Which turns the established interpretation of the clause upside down and opens up a whole can of worms over hypothetical situations where the president can literally get away with murder. The Court of Appeals and Trump’s lawyers went there.

Judge Florence Y. Pan asked Trump’s lead attorney Mr. D. John Sauer if any president could be charged for ordering SEAL Team Six (the Navy’s elite special forces unit) to assassinate a political rival. The reply by Mr. Sauer was that a president could only be tried if the House impeached him and the Senate convicted him. Without those preconditions, there was no possibility under the Constitution to prosecute him. 

This was no wild claim made during a Trump rambling campaign speech in front of his adoring followers. This was the legal argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The hypotheticals cascade from there. The president could murder anyone and resign before being impeached. The president could murder a rival and then have his non-supporters in the Senate killed before he was convicted. The mind can run loose on any number of scenarios. Mr. Sauer argued that a president was immune from prosecution for all of that unless impeached and convicted in the Congress.

This is what we have reaped for putting Trump center stage.

I have no idea whether Trump or any other president would try to eliminate all political opposition through murder. What it does tell me is that should the court decide that a president is immune from prosecution for any actions while president, then Trump will use that finding to his full advantage. He will undertake all kinds of previously unimaginable activities as president if he thinks it will help him to get whatever he wants and he cannot be held accountable. 

To be clear, there are some complications to finding that a president can be prosecuted for any action taken while president. In Trump’s mind that means he can prosecute Presidents Obama and Biden should he so desire for any action of theirs that he decides was “criminal.” The Appeals Court (and likely the Supreme Court where the case could go next) will have to figure out a way to define or limit the parameters for prosecution. We must all remember as well that presidents do not prosecute people. The citizens of the United States prosecute people. Grand juries indict people. A jury of our peers hears cases involving the alleged crimes and must reach a unanimous guilty verdict. Laws must be followed. Yet, it is clear by Trump’s arguments that he thinks he is above the law and I, for one, have no doubt that should he get into the White House again, he will ignore any limits that may have constrained his predecessors.

When we worry that we spend too much time, energy and resources on thinking about Trump, remember that he thinks assassinations are okay.