Creator of Bracing Views. Contributor to TomDispatch, Truthout, HNN, Alternet, Huffington Post, Antiwar, and other sites. Retired AF lieutenant colonel and professor of history. Senior fellow, Eisenhower Media Network
Then why is bombing the option that’s always chosen?
There they go again. The geniuses inside the DC Beltway are bombing the Middle East again, specifically 85+ targets in Iraq and Syria allegedly supported by Iran. It’s funny: I don’t recall a Congressional declaration of war against Iraq and Syria (or Iran, for that matter), but who needs to be limited by the U.S. Constitution, am I right?
After the recent attack that killed three U.S. soldiers, I heard again that hackneyed expression from DC that “all options are on the table” in response. Amazing how the option that’s always picked by U.S. presidents is the military one. If it’s not “bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran,” as John McCain once jokingly sang, it’s bomb Iranian-backed units in Iraq and Syria, because that’s the best way toward greater stability and peace in the Middle East. Perfectly logical.
Yes, he died in 2018, but he’s America’s most likely presidential winner in 2024.
Speaking of John McCain, I like the joke that’s making the rounds that no matter who Americans vote for as president, they get John McCain, which is a shorthand way of saying that the National Security State is the unofficial fourth and most powerful branch of the U.S. government. Or, if you prefer, the MICIMATT, the military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-academe-think-tank complex.
Speaking of the media, you can always count on U.S. media talking heads issuing resounding hosannas to the highest whenever a U.S. president bombs a foreign country. Remember when reporters gushed that Donald Trump had finally become a real president in 2017 when he bombed Syria? Trump, who expressed his contempt for John McCain, finally became him—and earned the MICIMATT’s approval—when he started bombing and launching missiles to kill foreigners.
Finally, we often hear the expression from U.S. government-types that the only thing “they” understand is physical violence and war. It’s often far more accurate to say that the only thing “we” (the MICIMATT, that is) understand (and profit from) is physical violence and war.
For Democrats, it’s Trump; for Republicans, it’s immigrants; for Americans, it’s a wasteland
The 2024 presidential election: What a wasteland.
Democrats want to make the election about Donald Trump. And abortion access. Republicans want to make it about immigration. And Joe Biden’s fitness for office.
Please, for the love of Mike, make it stop.
The Bernie Sanders of 2016 is much missed. Sanders challenged war-hawk Hillary Clinton on issues that mattered to Americans. Issues like a $15 federal minimum wage. Affordable health care for all. Comprehensive student loan debt relief and more affordable college education. Policy proposals that actually helped working-class Americans. Those issues are now dead in 2024.
Foreign policy is especially bleak. The Biden administration is enabling genocide in Israel; most Republicans fully support this. Biden is planning a military strike of some sort against Iran; most Republicans are urging him to strike harder. The bipartisan consensus in DC is to rubber-stamp whatever Bibi Netanyahu wants, to give the Pentagon everything it wants, and to pursue more wars overseas. The only debate is over which foreign country is more dangerous to America. China? Russia? Iran? Maybe even North Korea? It doesn’t matter. The result is the same: more money for war, no money for peace.
I can’t recall an election season less connected to the concerns of middle- and working-class Americans. Democrats are fundraising by stressing fears about Trump and abortion access; Republicans are fundraising off fears of America being swamped by immigrants due to the Democrats’ “open border” policy.
Meanwhile, this is a sample of headlines from mainstream media coverage of the election, taken from NBC News this morning:
Where are the issues that matter to Americans? The “cash dash” is what matters to NBC, not issues like health care, wages, inflation, personal and national debt, the availability of affordable housing, mental health care, and so on.
Meanwhile, I can’t recall the last time I saw an article in the mainstream media that seriously argued for major reductions to Pentagon spending and concerted efforts in diplomacy instead of constant warmongering and weapons exports.
Trump-Biden is a wasteland. Don’t vote for the tools and fools. Find candidates who actually want to help America without killing massive numbers of foreigners overseas.
In 2002-03, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there was great optimism within the U.S. government that Baghdad was only the first stop on the worldwide victory tour of “the finest fighting force” in human history. The saying back then was: “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” Baghdad, of course, didn’t turn out quite as well as Bush/Cheney expected. The “real men” never did quite make it to Tehran.
With the deaths of three U.S. troops reported yesterday in Jordan near the Syrian border, those “real men” may start dreaming again of going to Tehran. The Biden administration has been quick to blame “radicals” backed by Iran for those deaths. Iran is also being blamed for its support of Houthis in their attacks on shipping as a protest against Israel’s ongoing war of annihilation against Gaza.
How long before the “real men” in Biden’s administration decide that strikes against Iran are justified as reprisals for U.S. troop casualties in Jordan? How long before wars in the Middle East escalate and perhaps spiral out of control?
Only the “real men” of Washington, I suppose, have the answers here. One of those self-styled “real men,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, had this to say via a manly tweet: “Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.” His “hard man” service in the U.S. Air Force was as a lawyer.
Lindsey Graham, on the right, decorated by Ukraine. He’s a “hard” hitter!
Update (1/29/24): It remains unclear (at least to me) whether the attack occurred in Jordan or Syria. Here’s an excerpt from Reuters:
Sunday’s attack on a remote outpost known as Tower 22 near Jordan’s northeastern border with Syria, the strikes had not killed U.S. troops nor wounded so many. That allowed Biden the political space to mete out U.S. retaliation, inflicting costs on Iran-backed forces without risking a direct war with Tehran.
Biden said the United States would respond, without giving any more details.
Republicans accused Biden of letting American forces become sitting ducks, waiting for the day when a drone or missile would evade base defenses. They say that day came on Sunday, when a single one-way attack drone struck near base barracks early in the morning.
In response, they say Biden must strike Iran.
“He left our troops as sitting ducks,” said Republican U.S. Senator Tom Cotton. “The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran’s terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East.”
The Republican who leads the U.S. military oversight committee in the House of Representatives, Representative Mike Rogers, also called for action against Tehran.
“It’s long past time for President Biden to finally hold the terrorist Iranian regime and their extremist proxies accountable for the attacks they’ve carried out,” Rogers said.
Former President Donald Trump, who hopes to face off against Biden in this year’s presidential election, portrayed the attack as a “consequence of Joe Biden’s weakness and surrender.”
Note the usual partisan criticism of whichever party is in power in Washington about its alleged “weakness” and “surrender” policies. Few in Congress question the need for U.S. troops operating in Syria in an apparently open-ended commitment.
The death of these troops should not be used as a cause for more war. If anything, they should lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from an area and country where they shouldn’t be based.
The Costs of Blanket Support of Israel and Ukraine
This morning, three headlines caught my eye from the various news sources I subscribe to. The first came from Reuters: “Israeli tanks batter hospital districts” in Gaza. Here’s the short synopsis from Reuters:
Israeli forces relentlessly bombarded areas around two hospitals in Gaza’s main southern city Khan Younis, pinning down large numbers of displaced people, residents said, in an offensive to take Hamas’ main stronghold in the enclave’s south. Follow the latest on the conflict.
The United Nations said that Israeli tanks struck a huge U.N. compound in Gazasheltering displaced Palestinians, causing “mass casualties.” Israel denied its forces were responsible and suggested Hamas may have launched the shelling. The attack prompted rare outright condemnation from the United States.
The second headline came from CNN and also focused on Gaza: “Red Cross warns of complete medical shutdown in Gaza.” Here’s a short synopsis of that story:
The Red Cross has warned that Gaza faces a complete medical shutdown unless immediate action is taken to safeguard essential services. “Every functioning hospital in the Gaza Strip is over-crowded and short on medical supplies, fuel, food and water,” said William Schomburg, the head of the Red Cross office in Gaza. This comes as Israeli forces have insisted that Hamas systematically operates in Gaza hospitals and adjacent areas, “using the residents as human shields.” Meanwhile, a United Nations building sheltering displaced Palestinians was hit by Israeli tank fire on Wednesday, killing at least 12 people and injuring 75 others. The White House said it is “gravely concerned” by the strike as Israel pushes forward with its military campaign.
It’s nice to know the U.S. government is “gravely concerned” even as it sends more tank shells to Israel so that the destruction of Gaza and its hospitals can continue apace.
The third headline came from journalist Aaron Maté and focuses on the almost forgotten war in Ukraine: “Biden’s $60 billion plan for Ukraine: prolong the war through 2024: As US weapons shipments to Ukraine dry up, Biden’s $60 billion request faces new hurdles in Washington.”
And then I saw this image on Twitter/X. Given the horrendous events in Gaza, this satirical image doesn’t seem that extreme to me:
Biden’s unequivocal support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza gives the lie to the concept of a “rules-based order” that America allegedly upholds and protects. As Biden expresses his “grave concern” about Israeli war crimes in Gaza, he keeps sending the weapons that make possible the very crimes he allegedly deplores. At the same time, his administration is opening a new front in this war with its deadly attacks on Yemen. Biden has said the bombing raids against Yemen aren’t stopping attacks on shipping even as he vows to continue them.
Meanwhile, Biden continues to fight for at least $60 billion for Ukraine in a stalemated war that’s killing untold thousands of Ukrainians and Russians. The aid that Biden wants to send this year won’t end that war; it won’t even give Ukraine a decisive edge. Most experts believe this aid will merely prolong the fighting, meaning more destruction and dead bodies on both sides.
The Biden administration’s embrace of genocide in Gaza and brutal indecisive war in Ukraine highlights the moral bankruptcy of its foreign policy. On the campaign trail, Biden is increasingly being confronted by protesters calling him out for his brutal and militaristic foreign policy. “Genocide Joe” is a nickname that stings because there’s truth in it.
When the main message of the Biden campaign is “Vote for Joe because Trump’s worse” and yet Joe’s latest nickname is linked to genocide, it doesn’t bode well for electoral victory in November.
Surprise! The results are in from New Hampshire and Donald Trump won a clear victory over Nikki Haley and Joe Biden won with write-in votes. Dean Phillips (Biden 2.0) was a distant second and Marianne Williamson a disappointing third. Interestingly, even though Phillips had a respectable showing, the Democratic chair in New Hampshire suggested he should drop out of the race to ensure a Biden/Harris victory in November. In short, there should be no alternative to Biden/Harris because that’s how democracy works best!
A “strong second” for “scrappy” Haley?
Nikki Haley, though losing in NH, did fairly well because a lot of independent and “undeclared” voters decided to cast their lot with her. Trump, exit polls show, held a commanding lead among self-identified Republican and conservative voters. Trump commands the base, the most strongly committed Republican voters, so it’s difficult to imagine a path for Haley to the nomination.
Trump versus Biden redux is looking very likely for 2024, a Caligula versus Nero scenario for the new Roman Empire. I get to cast my primary vote on Super Tuesday early in March, and the only thing I’m certain of is that I won’t be voting for Trump or Biden.
Never has it been so glaringly obvious that America needs an alternative to the duopoly and the “choices” it provides for POTUS.
America may be deeply in debt, but we the people of the United States are totally bankrupt politically.
Iowa and New Hampshire get sidelined in the cause of propping up Joe Biden
This past week’s Iowa Caucuses ended with a clear winner, Donald Trump, over the undynamic duo of Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis. Meanwhile, nothing happened on the Democratic side. The same is likely to be true next week, when New Hampshire goes to the polls. The DNC is refusing to recognize the NH primary; Joe Biden isn’t even on the ballot, though there is a campaign to write-in his name.
You’re not doing America (or “democracy”) favors by propping them up
The first primary that matters according to the DNC is South Carolina on 2/3, followed by Nevada on 2/6 and Michigan on 2/27. These states are supposedly more representative for the Democratic Party than Iowa and NH, meaning they are more racially and ethnically diverse, though to my mind any candidate running for president should be seeking to put his or her best foot forward in all fifty states. No matter. Apparently, the DNC believes this is the best way to shore up support for the Biden/Harris ticket.
Perhaps the DNC is right, but their plan has a serious drawback. If the DNC had kept the old schedule of Iowa and NH, and Biden had performed poorly in both states, it would have allowed the DNC more notice and time to pivot, or perhaps to craft a message more appealing to voters. Privileging states that are expected to support Biden, in contrast, may breed overconfidence that his support remains strong and his candidacy remains viable against the clear Republican frontrunner, Trump.
If you really want to defeat Trump in November, you need the most rigorous vetting process for the Biden/Harris ticket. Rigging the primaries for Biden by deleting Democratic rivals from the ballot, as the DNC has done in Florida, North Carolina, and elsewhere, while effectively throwing out results in Iowa and NH, may ensure both that Biden/Harris win renomination and lose the general election in November.
At which point the DNC will likely blame Jill Stein, RFK Jr., Susan Sarandon, Vladimir Putin, and white supremacists, instead of blaming themselves for putting forward a losing ticket.
Trump is not to be underestimated. The time to discover that Biden/Harris just don’t have it is now, not in October. If Trump is THE existential threat to democracy that the Democrats claim he is, why are the Democrats rigging the field to put forward what may prove to be a weak and losing ticket against him?
A friend of mine thinks Joe Biden has a strong chance of winning reelection in November. He thinks the economy will continue to get better and that Donald Trump may yet be convicted of, well, something. I am far more skeptical about Biden’s chances of victory this fall. Here’s what I wrote to him this morning:
You’re betting on an improving economy and the conviction of Trump as the catalysts for another Biden win. To me, economic growth is very uneven, with an “improving” economy measured mainly by the performance of Wall Street. Few benefits are trickling down to the working classes. Meanwhile, we don’t know if Trump will be convicted of anything; also, I don’t think a conviction that’s seen as politically motivated will hurt Trump. If anything, depending on the conviction and its seriousness, it could even help him.
The largest bloc of voters are those Americans who don’t vote. You have to give people a reason to get off their duffs and vote for you. For Obama, it was “hope” and “change” and idealism. Biden won in 2020 because of the pandemic and Trump’s incompetent leadership. In 2024, Biden is increasingly “Genocide Joe” for youth and progressives; he’s taking his own base for granted, thinking that people will opt for him over Trump because the latter is too divisive.
But what may happen is that Democrats and Independents just stay home, or vote third party, while Trump loyalists show up at the polls.
We can bookmark this conversation if you wish and come back to it this November. We are, after all, trying to predict the future. My guess is that Biden loses; you’re guessing he’s going to win. We’ll see.
I also believe that if Trump wins, the DNC will blame the voters rather than the weakness of the Biden/Harris ticket. I’m sure Putin will also be blamed, as will any 3rd-party candidates like Stein of RFK Jr. The DNC will then fundraise off of fear of Trump. No matter what, the DNC will win. What counts as a “loss” for the DNC is allowing a progressive to run.
It’s some “democracy” we live in when voters are shamed for voting for someone other than Joe Biden. (The Trumpers, of course, are universally dismissed as irredeemable deplorables.) So I know I will be shamed for not voting for Joe (or the Don) this November.
As Yoda the Jedi Master said: “Difficult to see. Always in motion the future.” I just don’t see a lot of enthusiasm for Biden. I see Biden as a figurehead of Neo-liberal economic policies at home and Neo-conservative war policies abroad. Otherwise known as Dickensian conditions for the working classes here and lots of bombs and artillery shells falling on “foreign” peoples of color.
Meanwhile, I doubt the DNC will allow Biden to appear in any presidential debates. Too risky. Biden will largely “campaign” by reading from teleprompters at carefully staged appearances.
The shadow of Trump looms again (photo from 2020)
Biden, to state the obvious, is not in his prime. If reelected, he’ll be 82 and will serve until he’s 86. Voters have legitimate concerns about his health and his endurance. Meanwhile, his vice president, Kamala Harris, isn’t popular and lends little credibility to the ticket. It doesn’t bode well.
I already had four years of Trump; they were more than enough for me. I’ve had three years of Biden and they’ve been more than enough. Yet the RNC and DNC want to offer me a Trump/Biden rematch, and I just can’t stomach it.
We can’t have a president that focuses on domestic concerns!
In my “daily briefing” from Reuters yesterday, an old canard popped up again:
As Donald Trump strengthens his lead in the race for the Republican nomination, some US allies are worried about an American turn toward isolationism, a shift that would reflect an electorate largely focused on domestic issues.
We can’t have a U.S. electorate focused on domestic issues! That would be “isolationism.” America must lead! Because Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Gaza, et al.
When Donald Trump was president, the U.S. military was involved in 40% of the world’s countries in its war on terror. Isolationist? (Smithsonian Magazine, 1/19)
These concerns about “isolationism” always amuse me. The U.S. has roughly 800 overseas bases and a military configured for global reach, global power, and full-spectrum dominance. What are the odds that the U.S. empire is going to abandon all this and turn to isolationism under the visionary and dynamic leadership of Donald J. Trump? It’s not like America became isolationist when Trump was president from 2017 to 2021.
The smartest thing the next U.S. president could do is to start dismantling this costly global empire while reinvesting in America. This is not “isolationism.” This is common sense. Yet “isolationism” is the scary word that’s tossed out there to prevent any downsizing of America’s imperial bootprint.
Speaking of empire and bootprints, William Hartung has an excellent article at TomDispatch on the bottomless pit that is Pentagon spending. As Hartung succinctly puts it in his subtitle: “Overspending on the Pentagon is Stealing Our Future.” You can see how the military-industrial-congressional complex strikes back at any talk of focusing on domestic concerns—America can’t come home and put its own house in order. That’s isolationist! That would “worry” our allies, who need us and our global military.
Maybe those allies, if they’re truly worried, could choose to spend more on their own militaries? Not that I’m worried that our allies genuinely fear a less interventionist America.
As I read and digested Hartung’s article, I had the following disconnected thoughts that I sent along to a friend.
It seems one of the few things Congress can agree on is funding the military, weaponry, bases, etc. They continue to feed a monster because they personally profit from it and/or are afraid to challenge it. Presidents as diverse as Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden refuse to challenge it as well.
The entire system is cowardly. What the British termed LMF: lack of moral fiber. Or what MLK Jr. diagnosed as a form of spiritual death.
The solution? Wish I knew. The awfulness of the Vietnam War spawned a strong and committed antiwar movement, but now America’s wars and profits have been outsourced to Ukraine, Israel, etc. The monster is flexible and adaptable. It is so intertwined with our society and culture today that to reform it meaningfully would require major invasive surgery that might just kill the patient, meaning America as we know it.
I urge you to read Hartung’s article and then ask yourself if America is in any danger of turning to isolationism under Biden or Trump or any other major candidate for the presidency in 2024. The idea is arrant nonsense.
MLK recognized the evils of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism
Martin Luther King, Jr., hero for peace.
It’s sad that the word “hero” is so often modified by or married to “war” in history. He’s a war hero, we say, without giving it too much thought. As if wars are somehow ennobling and sublime.
Waging peace is far more noble than waging war. MLK Jr. recognized this in his famous speech against the Vietnam War on April 4, 1967. Back in 2015, I posted this article on MLK and his warning that America was close to suffering a spiritual death in its constant warmongering. Today, we see America enabling genocide by Israel in Gaza with nary a complaint from those in power. Spiritual death, indeed.
*****
On April 4, 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. gave a powerful speech (“Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break Silence”) that condemned America’s war in Vietnam. Exactly one year later, he was assassinated in Memphis.
What follows are excerpts from MLK’s speech. I urge you to read it in its entirety, but I’d like to highlight this line:
A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
MLK called for a revolution of values in America. In his address, he noted that:
There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.
MLK didn’t just have a dream of racial equality. He had a dream for justice around the world, a dream of a world committed to peace, a world in which America would lead a reordering of values in the direction of universal brotherhood.
Both of MLK’s dreams remain elusive. Racial inequalities and biases remain, though America is better now than it was in the 1960s in regards to racial equity. And what of a commitment to peace? Sadly, America remains dedicated to war, spending nearly a trillion dollars yearly on defense, Homeland Security, nuclear weapons, and “overseas contingency operations,” i.e. wars.
America has failed to dream the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr., and we are the worse for it. (Bolded passages below are my emphasis.)
Excerpts from MLK’s Speech on Vietnam, April 4, 1967
At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called “enemy,” I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.
Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak of the — for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours…
If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war…
It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin…we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, “This is not just.” It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, “This is not just.” The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.
A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.
Perhaps it seemed in 1967, even to MLK Jr., with all his experience to the contrary, that America could lead the world in a revolution of values, a pursuit of peace. MLK’s dream of such a revolution is dead, drowned in the vast profits of the merchants of death.
Testimony before the International Court of Justice
Israeli military action is killing roughly 50 mothers a day in Gaza; 120 children a day; one journalist a day. Gaza is at the brink of mass famine. The Israeli strategy is clear: render Gaza uninhabitable. Force the Palestinians to flee. Create a desert and call it “peace.”
The following testimony before the International Court of Justice makes it abundantly clear that Israel is engaged in a campaign of incremental genocide, a genocide in slow motion, supported without equivocation by the United States. More than supported: U.S. weaponry facilitates the destruction of Gaza.
The destruction of Gaza, the mass murder of Palestinians, makes a mockery of the so-called rules-based order that the Biden administration allegedly upholds.