Complicit in Genocide: Where Israel Gets Its Weapons From

BY RAMZY BAROUD

 MARCH 28, 2024
Facebook

TwitterRedditEmail

Over 9,000 Palestinian women have been killed since the start of the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip. Mothers have been the largest share of Israeli killings, at an average of 37 mothers per day since October 7.

The numbers above, from the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza and the Red Crescent Society respectively, only convey part of the suffering experienced by 2.3 million Palestinians in the Strip.

There is not a single section in Palestinian society that has not paid a heavy price for the war, although women and children are the ones who have suffered most, constituting over 70 percent of all victims of the ongoing Israeli genocide.

True, these women and their children are killed at the hands of Israeli soldiers, but they are murdered with US-western supplied weapons.

Now, however, we are told that the world is finally turning against Israel, and that the west’s nod of approval to Tel Aviv to carry on with its daily massacres may soon turn into a collective snub.

This claim was expressed best in the March 23 cover of the Economist magazine. It showed a tattered Israeli flag, attached to a stick, and planted in an arid, dusty land. It was accompanied by the headline “Israel Alone”.

The image, undoubtedly expressive, was meant to serve as a sign of the times. Its profundity becomes even more obvious if compared to another cover, from the same publication soon after the Israeli military conquered massive Arab territories in the war of June 1967. “They did it,” the headline, back then, read. In the background, an Israeli military tank was pictured, illustrating the west-funded Israeli triumph.

Between the two headlines much, in the world and in the Middle East, has changed. But to claim that Israel now stands alone is not entirely accurate, at least not yet.

Though many of Israel’s traditional allies in the west are openly disowning its behavior in Gaza, weapons from various western and non-western countries continue to flow, feeding the war machine as it, in turn, continues to harvest more Palestinian lives.

This compels the question: Does Israel truly stand alone when its airports and seaports are busier than ever receiving massive shipments of weapons coming from all directions? Not in the least.

Almost every time a western country announces that it has suspended arms exports to Israel, a news headline appears shortly afterwards, indicating the opposite. Indeed, this has happened repeatedly.

Last year, Rome had declared that it was blocking all arms sales to Israel, giving false hope that some western countries are finally experiencing some kind of moral awakening.

Alas, on March 14, Reuters quoted the Italian Defense Minister, Guido Crosetto as saying that shipments of weapons to Israel are continuing, based on the flimsy logic that previously signed deals would have to be ‘honored’.

Another country that is also ‘honoring’ its previous commitments is Canada, which announced on May 19, following a parliamentary motion that it had suspended arms exports.

The celebration among those advocating an end to the genocide in Gaza were just getting started when, a day later, Ottawa practically reversed the decision by announcing that it, too, will honor previous commitments.

This illustrates that some western countries, which continue to impart their unsolicited wisdom about human rights, women’s rights and democracy on the rest of the world, have no genuine respect for any of these values.

Canada and Italy are not the largest military supporters of Israel. The US and Germany are.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in the decade between 2013 and 2022, Israel has received 68 percent of its weapons from the US and 28 percent from Germany.

The Germans remain unperturbed, even though five percent of the total population of Gaza has been killed, wounded or are missing due to the Israeli war.

Yet, the American support for Israel is far greater, although the Biden Administration is still sending messages to its constituency – majority of whom want the war to stop – that the president is doing his best to pressure Israel to end the war.

Though only two approved military sales to Israel have been announced publicly since October 7, the two shipments represent only 2 percent from the total US arms sent to Israel.

The news was revealed by the Washington Post on March 6. It was published at a time when US media was reporting on a widening rift between US President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“That’s an extraordinary number of sales over the course of a pretty short amount of time,” a former senior Biden Administration official told the Post. Jeremy Konyndyk reached the obvious conclusion that the “Israeli campaign would not be sustainable without this level of U.S. support”.

For decades, the US military support to Israel has been the highest anywhere in the world. Starting 2016, this unconditional support exponentially increased during the Obama Administration to reach $3.8 billion per year.

Immediately after October 7, however, the weapons shipments to Israel reached unprecedented levels. They included a 2,000-pound bomb known as 5,000 MK-84 munitions. Israel has used this bomb to kill hundreds of innocent Palestinians.

Though Washington frequently alleges to be looking into Israel’s use of its weapons, it turned out, according to the Washington Post, that Biden knew too well that “Israel was regularly bombing buildings without solid intelligence that they were legitimate military targets”.

In some ways, Israel ‘stands alone’, but only because its behavior is rejected by most countries and peoples around the world. However, it is hardly alone when its war crimes are being executed with western support and arms.

For the Israeli genocide in Gaza to end, those who continue to sustain the ongoing bloodbath must also be held accountable.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

Is America a Rogue Superpower?

by Ted Snider Posted onMarch 28, 2024

“Unipolar” used to mean that the United States was, at least in theory, alone in leading the world. Now “unipolar” means that the United States is alone and isolated in opposition to the world.

In global affairs, a hegemon is a nation that leads because it has the consent of the other nations who believe in its goals and values. The United States has recently demonstrated, though, that it has given up any pretense of using its leadership to pursue the goals of the global community, and instead is openly using the global community to pursue its own goals.

In his new book, The Lost Peace, Richard Sakwa explains the distinction between the pursuit of hegemony and the pursuit of primacy. Primacy “entails predominance and the conscious attempt to thwart the ambition of others.” In its recent performance at the United Nations, the United States is performing, not out of hegemony as it usually described, but out of primacy.

As a hegemon, the U.S. wields the power to veto in the Security Council. But in the exercise of primacy, it has recently used that veto to supress the clearly expressed voice of the international community.

After repeated American vetoes of measures calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, in a desperate and seldom used move, on December 12, the General Assembly invoked Resolution 377A in an attempt to circumvent U.S. leadership. It was the response to what was perceived as America’s irresponsible use of its veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council.

It does not matter that the vote was on the war in Gaza, nor on whether you agree with the United States. What is significant is the assumption by Washington of the role of roadblock and not leader of the international will.

Article 377A first reminds the permanent members of the Security Council that they are obliged to “to seek unanimity and exercise restraint in the use of the veto” in pursuit of the maintenance of international peace and security. It then gives the General Assembly the right to make “appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures…to maintain or restore international peace and security” when the Security Council “because of a lack of unanimity… fails to exercise its primary responsibility.”

The world saw the United States, not as a hegemon leading the world in the pursuit of unanimity, but as failing “to exercise its primary responsibility” as a leader on the Security Council.

On March 25, the U.S. went one step further and took a step toward becoming a rogue state who has supplanted international law with its rules-based order. International law is grounded in the charter system and the United Nations and is universally applicable. The rules-based order is composed of unwritten laws whose source, consent, and legitimacy are unknown. To the global majority, those unwritten laws have the appearance of being invoked when they benefit the U.S. and its partners and not being invoked when they don’t.

On March 25, the Security Council passed a resolution demanding “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.” The resolution was able to pass because the U.S. stood aside and let the other fourteen Security Council members pass it by abstaining instead of vetoing.

But in her explanation of the American abstention after the resolution passed, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield “surprisingly” said that “we fully support some of the critical objectives in this nonbinding resolution.”

Her claim that the Security Council resolution was nonbinding was not an off script, impromptu comment. It is the strategy of a country that enforces, not international law, but the U.S. led rules-based order.

In a March 25 press briefing following the vote and Thomas-Greenfield’s claim, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby called the resolution “nonbinding” no less than four times. “Number one,” he said, “it’s a nonbinding resolution. So, there’s no impact at all on Israel and Israel’s ability to continue to go after Hamas.”

When asked by a reporter, “o

Is America a Rogue Superpower?

by Ted Snider Posted onMarch 28, 2024

“Unipolar” used to mean that the United States was, at least in theory, alone in leading the world. Now “unipolar” means that the United States is alone and isolated in opposition to the world.

In global affairs, a hegemon is a nation that leads because it has the consent of the other nations who believe in its goals and values. The United States has recently demonstrated, though, that it has given up any pretense of using its leadership to pursue the goals of the global community, and instead is openly using the global community to pursue its own goals.

In his new book, The Lost Peace, Richard Sakwa explains the distinction between the pursuit of hegemony and the pursuit of primacy. Primacy “entails predominance and the conscious attempt to thwart the ambition of others.” In its recent performance at the United Nations, the United States is performing, not out of hegemony as it usually described, but out of primacy.

As a hegemon, the U.S. wields the power to veto in the Security Council. But in the exercise of primacy, it has recently used that veto to supress the clearly expressed voice of the international community.

After repeated American vetoes of measures calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, in a desperate and seldom used move, on December 12, the General Assembly invoked Resolution 377A in an attempt to circumvent U.S. leadership. It was the response to what was perceived as America’s irresponsible use of its veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council.

It does not matter that the vote was on the war in Gaza, nor on whether you agree with the United States. What is significant is the assumption by Washington of the role of roadblock and not leader of the international will.

Article 377A first reminds the permanent members of the Security Council that they are obliged to “to seek unanimity and exercise restraint in the use of the veto” in pursuit of the maintenance of international peace and security. It then gives the General Assembly the right to make “appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures…to maintain or restore international peace and security” when the Security Council “because of a lack of unanimity… fails to exercise its primary responsibility.”

The world saw the United States, not as a hegemon leading the world in the pursuit of unanimity, but as failing “to exercise its primary responsibility” as a leader on the Security Council.

On March 25, the U.S. went one step further and took a step toward becoming a rogue state who has supplanted international law with its rules-based order. International law is grounded in the charter system and the United Nations and is universally applicable. The rules-based order is composed of unwritten laws whose source, consent, and legitimacy are unknown. To the global majority, those unwritten laws have the appearance of being invoked when they benefit the U.S. and its partners and not being invoked when they don’t.

On March 25, the Security Council passed a resolution demanding “an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting sustainable ceasefire.” The resolution was able to pass because the U.S. stood aside and let the other fourteen Security Council members pass it by abstaining instead of vetoing.

But in her explanation of the American abstention after the resolution passed, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield “surprisingly” said that “we fully support some of the critical objectives in this nonbinding resolution.”

Her claim that the Security Council resolution was nonbinding was not an off script, impromptu comment. It is the strategy of a country that enforces, not international law, but the U.S. led rules-based order.

In a March 25 press briefing following the vote and Thomas-Greenfield’s claim, White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby called the resolution “nonbinding” no less than four times. “Number one,” he said, “it’s a nonbinding resolution. So, there’s no impact at all on Israel and Israel’s ability to continue to go after Hamas.”

When asked by a reporter, “on the binding thing, is it binding, nonbinding?” Kirby answered, “It’s a nonbinding resolution.” When asked “a technical question” a second time to clarify if the resolution was nonbinding, Kirby again said, “My understanding is it’s a nonbinding resolation – resolution.”

At a State Department press briefing the same day, department spokesperson Matt Miller also called the resolution “nonbinding” three times.

All UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding and have the status of international law. That is why UN Secretary General António Guterres said, “This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable.” UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq explained that, “All the resolutions of the Security Council are international law. They are as binding as international laws.”

Others responded the same way to the U.S. claim. On behalf of the ten elected members of the Security Council who drafted the resolution, Pedro Comissario, Mozambique’s envoy to the United Nations, said, “All United Nations Security Council resolutions are binding and mandatory.” He then added, “It is the hope of the 10 that the resolution adopted today will be implemented in good faith by all parties.”

The United Kingdom also did “not share” the U.S. claim, prompting their envoy to the UN to say, “we expect all Council resolutions to be implemented. This one is not any different. The demands in the resolution are absolutely clear.” China, too, did not share the U.S. evaluation. “China’s U.N. Ambassador Zhang Jun said Security Council resolutions are binding.”

By judging Security Council resolutions to be nonbinding and denying their status as being as binding as international law, the United States has taken the next step from hegemony to primacy to a rogue state that has undermined the foundational role of the Security Council in the international order.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.n the binding thing, is it binding, nonbinding?” Kirby answered, “It’s a nonbinding resolution.” When asked “a technical question” a second time to clarify if the resolution was nonbinding, Kirby again said, “My understanding is it’s a nonbinding resolation – resolution.”

At a State Department press briefing the same day, department spokesperson Matt Miller also called the resolution “nonbinding” three times.

All UN Security Council resolutions are legally binding and have the status of international law. That is why UN Secretary General António Guterres said, “This resolution must be implemented. Failure would be unforgivable.” UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq explained that, “All the resolutions of the Security Council are international law. They are as binding as international laws.”

Others responded the same way to the U.S. claim. On behalf of the ten elected members of the Security Council who drafted the resolution, Pedro Comissario, Mozambique’s envoy to the United Nations, said, “All United Nations Security Council resolutions are binding and mandatory.” He then added, “It is the hope of the 10 that the resolution adopted today will be implemented in good faith by all parties.”

The United Kingdom also did “not share” the U.S. claim, prompting their envoy to the UN to say, “we expect all Council resolutions to be implemented. This one is not any different. The demands in the resolution are absolutely clear.” China, too, did not share the U.S. evaluation. “China’s U.N. Ambassador Zhang Jun said Security Council resolutions are binding.”

By judging Security Council resolutions to be nonbinding and denying their status as being as binding as international law, the United States has taken the next step from hegemony to primacy to a rogue state that has undermined the foundational role of the Security Council in the international order.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.

Gaza War Is Pushing Support for Israel to Historic Lows

by Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. Posted onMarch 28, 2024

On March 14, Sen. Charles Schumer, the majority leader in the U.S. Senate, gave a major speech on the Senate floor saying the Israeli government under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been “too willing to tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza, which is pushing support for Israel worldwide to historic lows.”

Schumer is the highest-ranking Jewish official in U.S. history. He added that “Israel cannot survive if it becomes a pariah,” clearly believing this war is doing just that.

He urged that Israel hold new elections now at a time when all the major polls show that this would lead to Netanyahu’s removal as prime minister.

In another speech given in the Senate on Nov. 29, Schumer gave a beautiful and emotional history about his family, his love for Israel, the scourge of antisemitism, and the relation of all that to Israel’s response to the horrible things Hamas did on Oct. 7.

Schumer was clearly defending Israel in both speeches, although some were shocked and upset by his limited criticism in the March 14 speech.

Clearly, almost all the Republicans in Congress, all of who I hope will be re-elected, are scared to death of money from the Israel Lobby being used against them. They are seemingly afraid to say the word “Israel” without first saying the words “our ally.”

However, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, longtime chief of staff to General and Secretary of State Colin Powell, said recently on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s podcast: “Israel is a significant strategic liability for the U.S.”

I have nothing against Israel. I have been there twice and have been treated very well both times, and had the privilege of meeting with Netanyahu, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and several other current and former Israeli leaders.

My hope for Israel and all countries is for peace and prosperity, but my first obligation is to my own country, and our one-sided attachment to Israel has made us enemies with, or at least created great resentment from, almost all the other countries in the Middle East.

Most people throughout the world have been sickened by the deaths of so many thousands of little children and are horrified by the photos of little children being starved to death during this war.

Sen. Schumer said in his pro-Israel Nov. 29th speech mentioned above that “this speech is not an attempt to label most criticism of Israel and the Israeli government as antisemitic. I (Schumer) don’t believe that criticism is.”

On March 18, Bloomberg News reported, “The possibility of famine looms over northern Gaza as half the population of the area already faces ‘crisis levels of food security or worse’ the United Nations warned.” The World Food Program said half the population “have completely exhausted their food supplies and coping capabilities and are struggling with catastrophic hunger.”

It is ridiculous to compare what Israel is doing to what the U.S. did in World War II. The U.S. was fighting against entire countries that had air forces, navies, huge weapons, and millions of soldiers. Hamas had none of these assets and only about 40,000 members when the war started.

The Palestinians had been living for many years in what has frequently been described as an “open air prison camp.” Israel has limited and controlled their food, water and medicine, and has almost completely restricted anything that could be turned into weapons.

I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people, about 95% of whom were not in Hamas, and I especially feel sorry for the little children who have been killed and who are being starved to death even now.

I have no sympathy for Hamas, and what they did on Oct. 7 was horrible. But this war is so lopsided, it is about like an NFL football team taking on a Peewee team.

Israel, with its great intelligence operation, could have gotten most Hamas members without killing so many innocent women and children. It has far exceeded what could be considered as a just war under today’s legal concepts.

George Washington, in his farewell address that is still read every year in the U.S. Senate, wrote: “The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.”

He added: “A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification.”

The U.S. has provided mega-billions in military and economic aid to Israel since 1948. During most of those years, and especially now, Israel has been and is in much better fiscal shape than the U.S.

There will never be peace in the Middle East unless and until the U.S. adopts a more even-handed neutral policy in that part of the world. Israel is by far the strongest nation there and the only nuclear power with an estimated 300 nuclear bombs.

We should treat Israel as a friendly nation but give it its independence. As John Quincy Adams said many years ago, the U.S. should not go “abroad in search of monsters to destroy” but be the “well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” He added that we should be “the champion and vindicator only of (our) own.”

John James Duncan Jr. is an American politician who served as the U.S. representative for Tennessee’s 2nd congressional district from 1988 to 2019. A lawyer, former judge, and former long serving member of the Army National Guard, he is a member of the Republican Party.

Reprinted with author’s permission from The Knoxville Focus.

Distinctions Without Difference: The Security Council on Gaza Passes

by Binoy Kampmark / March 27th, 2024

The UN Security Council presents one of the great contradictions of power in the international system. On the one hand vested with enormous latitude in order to preserve international peace and security, it remains checked, limited and, it can be argued, crippled by an all too regular use of the veto by members of the permanent five powers (US, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France).

When it comes to the bleeding and crushing of human life in Gaza by the Israeli Defence Forces (32,300 dead Palestinians and rising), resolutions demanding a cease fire of a conflict that began with the attack on Israeli soil by Hamas militants have tended to pass into voting oblivion.  The United States, Israel’s great power patron and defender, has been consistent in using its veto power to ensure it, exercising it on no less than three occasions since October 7.

On March 25, a change of heart was registered.  Washington, reputationally battered for its unconditional support for Israel, haughtily defied by its own ally in being reduced to airdrops of aid for the expiring residents of Gaza, and resoundingly ignored by the Netanyahu government in moderating the savagery of its operations in the strip, abstained.  In terms of resolution protocol, it meant that 14 out of 15 Council members favoured the vote.

Resolution 2728 calls for an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan “leading to a lasting sustainable” halt to hostilities, the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages”, “ensuring humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs” and “demands that the parties comply with their obligations under international law in relation to all persons they detain”.  The resolution further emphasises “the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip”.  All barriers regarding the provision of humanitarian assistance, in accordance with international humanitarian law” are also to be lifted.

The wording of the resolution has a degree of lexical ambiguity only tolerable to oily diplomats and paper mad bureaucrats.  Neither Hamas nor Israeli hostages are mentioned, ghosts unacknowledged at the chattering feast.  Does the latter, for instance, cover Palestinian prisoners?

The justification from the US delegation was uneven and skewed. The abstention, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken explained, “reaffirms the US position that a ceasefire of any duration come as part of an agreement to release hostages in Gaza.”  While some provisions of the text had caused disagreement in Washington, the sponsors of the resolution had made sufficient changes “consistent with our principled position that any ceasefire text must be paired with the release of the hostages.”

Mild mannered approval for this sloppy, weak position (the apologetics of abstentions are rarely principled, suggesting a lack of moral timbre) followed. Hadar Susskind, President and CEO of Americans for Peace Now, even praised the stance in Newsweek.  “By allowing the resolution to pass the US has staked out a position in favor of ending this horrible war, and in opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s prioritization of his political well-being over the current and future good of Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

For his part, Netanyahu cancelled a planned Washington visit of two of his ministers, Ron Dermer and Tzachi Hanegbi, to specifically discuss the impending attack on Rafah, though much of this is bound to be studiously ceremonial, given the language of inevitability associated with the planned operation.  Besides, neither are versed in anything related to military matters.  But just as one pays attention to a wealthy, doddering relative who keeps funding your bad habits in the hope that you might, one day, see sense, it pays to feign courtesy and interest from time to time to your benefactor.

As if to prove this point, John F. Kirby, spokesman for the National Security Council, reminded journalists that various other meetings would still be taking place between the US and Israel, notably those between President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, and with Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III.

In a gruff statement, the Israeli PM rebuked the abstention as “a retreat from the consistent American position since the beginning of the war”.  In taking that stance, Washington had given “Hamas hope that international pressure will enable them to achieve a cease-fire without freeing the hostages.”

Netanyahu’s approach to Hamas, Gaza and the Palestinians has become one with his obsession with political survival and rekindling the fires of the Israeli electorate.  As far back as December, a Likud official was already making the observation that the PM had adopted the posture of a vote getting electioneer even as the war was being prosecuted.  “Netanyahu is in full campaign mode.  While the external political threats are gradually increasing, Netanyahu knows that over time the attacks and the calls to remove him will also increase.  He has been acting first to win back his base.”

For the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, the resolution had to be implemented.  “Failure would be unforgivable.”  But failure to do so, certainly in the context of the planned assault on Rafah so solemnly denounced by the international community, is most likely.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

 

Genocide as a Strategy for Success

by Paul Larudee / March 27th, 2024

The future always surprises us to some degree. But we make plans, anyway, based on our projections, and we adjust them when our predictions are at least partially wrong, which they always are, because they make assumptions based upon things that we take for granted, such as our health and that meteors and tsunamis will not disrupt those plans. Bearing that in mind, I will make some predictions for the immediate future of Gaza and Israel, and their relationships with the rest of the world. I’m sorry if it is not a happy picture.

First, I predict with sadness and disgust that the remaining Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza will be killed or expelled, mostly the former, despite all our efforts. The main reason is that, Joe Biden, as recently described by Aaron David Miller (Washington Post, March 14, 2024), sees no compelling alternative for Israel that doesn’t include doing grievous harm to Palestinian civilians. Properly translated, this means the greatest genocide since WWII. If this is an accurate picture of the thinking of the Biden administration, there can be little doubt that the US will continue to supply Israel with the means to make the population of Gaza disappear. The option of denying those means to Israel is simply unthinkable to Joe and his government. It might mean giving up their comfortable and prestigious retirement, future presidential libraries and all.

Joe Biden is not Dwight D. Eisenhower, nor John Kennedy, nor even Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter. We no longer have a president with the guts or the acumen to defy anyone, least of all the Zionist Lobby, and we have no prospect of ever having such a person in the White House in the foreseeable future. Donald Trump? He needs the Israel Lobby even more than Biden, and if they weren’t comfortable with him, they would have sabotaged his candidacy a long time ago. Both of them have the same morals as Netanyahu. I rest my case.

A ceasefire? I cannot imagine it. The week-long November pause worked because neither side gave up too much strategically and both benefited politically. There is no similar bargain on the horizon. If Hamas gives up all its captives, it has nothing left to trade. That’s why the Hamas proposal is in three stages, with the final stage being an independent Palestinian state with the right to defend itself, and with multilateral guarantees for its security and independence.

That is, of course, totally unacceptable to Israel, and they said so. For them, the “occupied territories” are more accurately called “greater Israel”, which has not yet been sufficiently settled by Zionist Jews to justify extending the official borders to encompass it. Too many non-Jews. They will address that problem in its turn, but for now the priority is to empty Gaza. So much for the two-state solution, which Israel embraced as long as all they had to do was sit at a negotiations table, keep the deal just out of reach and blame the Palestinians for its failure. Now they’re having none of it.

When will Israel’s genocide end, and what will the result look like? First, the Palestinian population in Gaza will have fallen by at least 2 million – as close as possible to zero, the result of both murder and expulsion, as noted earlier. The orphaned children will be far fewer than the dead ones, but those who survive will be shipped to western countries for adoption, so that they will lose their names and their cultural heritage. But I’m sure they will have loving parents and become well-adjusted western citizens.

As for Israel, its world has been changing since October 7th. First, it is losing – and will continue to lose – its liberal population. It began years ago, but Israel’s population has declined by roughly 10 percent since October 7th, 2023, in parallel with the decline in the population of Gaza, but by choice instead of genocide. The fanatics with genocidal intentions are not the ones leaving, mostly the ones who are more in keeping with traditional Jewish values of being a light unto the nations – or at least not a source of darkness. The emigrants are mainly those who are giving up on the Zionist project. They are not the only ones. American and other western Jews are losing their appetite for the Zionist menu, which allows us to maintain our respect for integrity.

This, of course, means that Israel will be far more isolated than previously, both from the Jewish diaspora and from the non-Jewish communities that previously supported Israel. It’s amazing how a little thing like genocide can cause your friends to turn on you. I suspect that Israeli products, institutions, and culture will be shunned by much of the world. No more trips to Israel as prizes on television game shows.

I have no doubt that Gaza will be annexed to Israel, and I imagine that developers will create Zionist dream communities along the coast, on top of the graves and rubble of their victims. But there might be fewer new immigrants than they might have hoped for. Israel’s future, if it has one, will be as a violent fortress for Zionist exclusivism, supported by a slowly shrinking world Zionist network and their allies, using the resources of other countries in much the same way that Israel is using  the United States today, and enriching those individuals and interests that cooperate with them.

I leave it to you to decide if this sounds like a strategy for success.

Paul Larudee is a retired academic and current administrator of a nonprofit human rights and humanitarian aid organization. Read other articles by Paul.