Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
ANOTHER RESIGNATION PROTESTING BIDEN'S FOLLY
State Dept. expert on Israeli-Palestinian affairs resigns amid Gaza crisis
Andrew Miller, a senior diplomat, cited family obligations for his departure. He is said to have recognized early on the risks of Biden’s “bear hug” strategy.
By John Hudson
Updated June 21, 2024 at 12:29 p.m. EDT|Published June 21, 2024 at 11:08 a.m. EDT
President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken meet in Tel Aviv in October with victims’ relatives and others affected by the Hamas attacks on Israel that set off the wider Gaza war. (Evan Vucci/AP)
Listen
5 min
Share
Comment378
Add to your saved stories
Save
A senior State Department official and skeptic of the Biden administration’s “bear hug” approach to the government of Israel resigned this week in a setback for U.S. diplomats pushing for a sharper break with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition, said three people familiar with the matter.
Andrew Miller, the deputy assistant secretary for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, told colleagues Friday that he had decided to leave his job. He cited his family, saying he has seen them sparingly as the eight-month war in Gaza has become all-consuming. Miller told colleagues that if not for those responsibilities, he would have preferred to remain in his job and fight for what he believes, including in those areas where he disagreed with administration policy.
Miller’s resignation, which has not been previously reported, comes amid growing frustration inside and outside government over the war’s steep civilian death toll and concerns among some that influence over policy matters has been dominated by a narrow coterie of President Biden’s closest advisers. Miller is the most senior U.S. official to resign to date whose portfolio focuses on Israeli-Palestinian issues.
“His departure will be a loss for the administration in general and the State Department in particular,” said Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. “It’s a telling indicator of the general toll that the conflict has taken on those who have been working to deal with its security implications for the United States and its allies.”
People who know Miller describe him as a principled supporter of Palestinian rights and statehood, and a nuanced thinker about Middle East affairs. Before his job focusing on Israeli-Palestinian issues, he was a senior policy adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and during the Obama administration, he served as director for Egypt and Israel military issues on the White House National Security Council.
Those familiar with Miller’s decision to leave spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid about a personnel matter.
“Andrew brought deep experience and sharp perspective to the table every day,” said State Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “Everyone here is sorry to see him go, but we wish him well in his next endeavors.”
Andrew Miller served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Israeli-Palestinian affairs since December 2022. (U.S. Department of State)
Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert who has advised both Democratic and Republican administrations, called Andrew Miller a “smart” and “creative” diplomat but said it had become difficult for officials at the department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to influence policy.
“He was caught in a bureau of well-intentioned and capable Foreign Service officers who have had little or no impact on U.S. policy before and even after October 7,” said Aaron Miller, noting the date when Hamas militants led a cross-border attack into Israel that killed 1,200 people and took more than 240 hostages.
Matthew Miller, the State Department spokesman, rejected that characterization of the bureau, noting that Secretary of State Antony Blinken has brought its leader, Barbara Leaf, on all eight of his trips to the Middle East since Oct. 7 and has relied on her extensively as she carries messages from him and the president to leaders throughout the region.
Israel’s retaliatory military campaign has killed more than 37,000 Palestinians, according to local health authorities, and divided officials across the U.S. government about the appropriate response.
Israeli forces rescued four hostages over the weekend in an operation that also killed at least 270 Palestinians in Gaza. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is beginning a tour of the Middle East.
End of carousel
At the outset of the conflict, Biden provided his full backing to the Israelis, surging weapons into the conflict and providing diplomatic and political cover at international institutions — even as Israel employed indiscriminate bombing tactics and impeded access to humanitarian aid. Despite that support, Netanyahu has repeatedly ignored U.S. demands to take a more surgical approach in Gaza and refrain from exacerbating tensions with Palestinians, such as withholding their tax revenue and using incendiary rhetoric.
Though Gaza policy has been deeply divisive in the U.S. government, it has prompted only a handful of resignations at the State Department, Pentagon and other federal agencies. Officials in the department have recently been subjected to email campaigns encouraging protest resignations related to the conflict.
One U.S. official who knows Andrew Miller said he was “ahead of the curve from the beginning” in recognizing the risks of what has become known as the administration’s “bear hug” strategy, referring to Biden’s physical embrace of Netanyahu during a visit to Tel Aviv in the days after Hamas’s assault. Miller is said to have believed that the leverage the United States has over Israel as its biggest military, economic and political backer could have been used more effectively.
“He’s certainly on the more progressive side of administration officials when it comes to the region, including on Israel-Palestine, but he has also never been a ‘burn it all down and forgo pragmatism’ type,” said the official. “He has always advocated that the United States should support Palestinian rights and statehood, but his advocacy while in government has generally been quiet and measured.”
Andrew Miller’s departure surprised many inside the department, and several U.S. officials said he appealed to all sides of the contentious Israeli-Palestinian dispute. “During his time at the State Department, he was an unmatched supporter of Israel’s security and deeply attached to the fight against antisemitism,” said a senior State Department official who worked with him extensively over the years.
State Dept. expert on Israeli-Palestinian affairs resigns amid Gaza crisis
Andrew Miller, a senior diplomat, cited family obligations for his departure. He is said to have recognized early on the risks of Biden’s “bear hug” strategy.
By John Hudson
Updated June 21, 2024 at 12:29 p.m. EDT|Published June 21, 2024 at 11:08 a.m. EDT
President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken meet in Tel Aviv in October with victims’ relatives and others affected by the Hamas attacks on Israel that set off the wider Gaza war. (Evan Vucci/AP)
Listen
5 min
Share
Comment378
Add to your saved stories
Save
A senior State Department official and skeptic of the Biden administration’s “bear hug” approach to the government of Israel resigned this week in a setback for U.S. diplomats pushing for a sharper break with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition, said three people familiar with the matter.
Andrew Miller, the deputy assistant secretary for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, told colleagues Friday that he had decided to leave his job. He cited his family, saying he has seen them sparingly as the eight-month war in Gaza has become all-consuming. Miller told colleagues that if not for those responsibilities, he would have preferred to remain in his job and fight for what he believes, including in those areas where he disagreed with administration policy.
Miller’s resignation, which has not been previously reported, comes amid growing frustration inside and outside government over the war’s steep civilian death toll and concerns among some that influence over policy matters has been dominated by a narrow coterie of President Biden’s closest advisers. Miller is the most senior U.S. official to resign to date whose portfolio focuses on Israeli-Palestinian issues.
“His departure will be a loss for the administration in general and the State Department in particular,” said Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. “It’s a telling indicator of the general toll that the conflict has taken on those who have been working to deal with its security implications for the United States and its allies.”
People who know Miller describe him as a principled supporter of Palestinian rights and statehood, and a nuanced thinker about Middle East affairs. Before his job focusing on Israeli-Palestinian issues, he was a senior policy adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and during the Obama administration, he served as director for Egypt and Israel military issues on the White House National Security Council.
Those familiar with Miller’s decision to leave spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid about a personnel matter.
“Andrew brought deep experience and sharp perspective to the table every day,” said State Department spokesman Matthew Miller. “Everyone here is sorry to see him go, but we wish him well in his next endeavors.”
Andrew Miller served as deputy assistant secretary of state for Israeli-Palestinian affairs since December 2022. (U.S. Department of State)
Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert who has advised both Democratic and Republican administrations, called Andrew Miller a “smart” and “creative” diplomat but said it had become difficult for officials at the department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to influence policy.
“He was caught in a bureau of well-intentioned and capable Foreign Service officers who have had little or no impact on U.S. policy before and even after October 7,” said Aaron Miller, noting the date when Hamas militants led a cross-border attack into Israel that killed 1,200 people and took more than 240 hostages.
Matthew Miller, the State Department spokesman, rejected that characterization of the bureau, noting that Secretary of State Antony Blinken has brought its leader, Barbara Leaf, on all eight of his trips to the Middle East since Oct. 7 and has relied on her extensively as she carries messages from him and the president to leaders throughout the region.
Israel’s retaliatory military campaign has killed more than 37,000 Palestinians, according to local health authorities, and divided officials across the U.S. government about the appropriate response.
Israeli forces rescued four hostages over the weekend in an operation that also killed at least 270 Palestinians in Gaza. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is beginning a tour of the Middle East.
End of carousel
At the outset of the conflict, Biden provided his full backing to the Israelis, surging weapons into the conflict and providing diplomatic and political cover at international institutions — even as Israel employed indiscriminate bombing tactics and impeded access to humanitarian aid. Despite that support, Netanyahu has repeatedly ignored U.S. demands to take a more surgical approach in Gaza and refrain from exacerbating tensions with Palestinians, such as withholding their tax revenue and using incendiary rhetoric.
Though Gaza policy has been deeply divisive in the U.S. government, it has prompted only a handful of resignations at the State Department, Pentagon and other federal agencies. Officials in the department have recently been subjected to email campaigns encouraging protest resignations related to the conflict.
One U.S. official who knows Andrew Miller said he was “ahead of the curve from the beginning” in recognizing the risks of what has become known as the administration’s “bear hug” strategy, referring to Biden’s physical embrace of Netanyahu during a visit to Tel Aviv in the days after Hamas’s assault. Miller is said to have believed that the leverage the United States has over Israel as its biggest military, economic and political backer could have been used more effectively.
“He’s certainly on the more progressive side of administration officials when it comes to the region, including on Israel-Palestine, but he has also never been a ‘burn it all down and forgo pragmatism’ type,” said the official. “He has always advocated that the United States should support Palestinian rights and statehood, but his advocacy while in government has generally been quiet and measured.”
Andrew Miller’s departure surprised many inside the department, and several U.S. officials said he appealed to all sides of the contentious Israeli-Palestinian dispute. “During his time at the State Department, he was an unmatched supporter of Israel’s security and deeply attached to the fight against antisemitism,” said a senior State Department official who worked with him extensively over the years.
KEEPS GETTING TRAPPED IN HIS OWNW LIES
War on Gaza: Blinken is dragging the US ever deeper into Israel's quagmire
David Hearst
14 June 2024 09:59 BST | Last update: 1 week 8 hours ago
Hamas is willing to commit to the 'full and complete ceasefire' touted by Biden - but Washington continues to throw its full support behind an intransigent Tel Aviv
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaks to the media in Dubai, on 1 December, 2023 (Saul Loeb/AFP)
1.5kShares
It takes a lot to get the diplomats of the Middle East to agree on anything. The behaviour of one man over the last eight months of the war in Gaza has, however, forged a consensus rare among such a group: Antony Blinken cannot be trusted.
The US secretary of state’s powers of turning reality on its head have raised the eyebrows of even practised cynics. It is a complaint that resounds from Doha to Amman, Cairo, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
Blinken is currently engaged in what one of his predecessors, James Baker, called “dead cat diplomacy”. Baker’s pupil, Aaron David Miller, wrote on X (formerly Twitter): “The objective is not to reach a deal but to ensure if it fails, the dead cat is on other’s doorstep.”
The dead, or dying, cat of the moment is a ceasefire deal in Gaza that holds.
Indisputably, Hamas is closer to accepting this deal than Israel is. The evidence for this is mounting. Hamas signed a ceasefire deal presented by Egypt and Qatar, under the gaze of CIA Director Bill Burns, which would have ensured a permanent halt to the war.
When Israel and the US walked away from it, Hamas welcomed the principles declared in President Joe Biden’s speech, in which he urged Israel to accept a “full and complete ceasefire”. It had the same reaction to the US-sponsored UN resolution.
Those principles are clear: that a permanent ceasefire should exist after an initial exchange of hostages; that there should be a full withdrawal of Israeli troops; that the people of Gaza should be free to return to their homes; that there should be no change in the territory or demography of Gaza; and that its people should have full access to humanitarian aid, alongside reconstruction efforts.
Sticking point
Israel disagrees with each and every one of these principles. It has said consistently that no ceasefire should prevent the achievement of its war aims, which include the dismantlement of Hamas as a military power and as a government of Gaza. It continues to block aid through its land border crossings and has no intention of lifting the siege, especially after the war ends.
More critically, it has made no commitment to sticking to a ceasefire should negotiations between the first and second phases of the prisoner and hostage exchange fail.
This is the crux of the matter. There has been only one substantive issue preventing a ceasefire deal since the first exchange of prisoners and hostages last November.
Israel has yet to give any official response to either Biden’s speech or the UN resolution. Blinken is doing all the talking for it. How curious, then, that Blinken, on his latest Middle East tour, placed all the blame on Hamas for not yet accepting the deal.
The talks are stuck on Israel’s refusal to accept an upfront commitment to a permanent ceasefire. It is on Israel that Blinken should be applying all of Washington’s pressure.
And yet, Blinken declared: “Israel accepted the proposal as it was” - a comment that flies in the face of repeated public statements from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu casting doubt on the deal, in addition to recent remarks from National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi, who said it would take another seven months to destroy the military and governing capabilities of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
“Hamas could have answered with a single word - yes,” Blinken said, surpassing himself in a brazen attempt to turn the truth on its head.
Hamas has now given its formal response, and Middle East Eye has seen a copy of that reply.
There are changes to the document, which are not, as it claims, minor - although they are more compatible with what Biden and the UN resolution said, than the Israeli position is. Hamas has included the Philadelphi Corridor in the list of areas that Israeli forces should withdraw from in the first 42-day stage of the deal. It also insists that prisoners to be released by Israel are in accordance with Hamas’s list, which includes high-profile resistance leaders such as Marwan Barghouti.
Shielding Israel
The most substantial change is to the wording of paragraph 14, which deals crucially with the transition from stage one to stage two, and the key question of whether any party can withdraw unilaterally from this process and go back to war.
Paragraph 14 used to say that the temporary cessation of violence would continue into stage two “so long as the negotiations on the conditions for implementing stage 2 of this agreement are ongoing”, and that the guarantors of the deal would make “every effort to ensure that those indirect negotiations continue until both sides are able to reach agreement”.
The revised version from Hamas says the temporary ceasefire would continue “until a sustainable calm” is announced, by which is meant a full cessation of military activities on both sides, and that negotiations would continue until the two parties reach an agreement on an exchange of prisoners.
War on Gaza: Why Hamas cannot accept Israel's ceasefire proposal
Read More »
In addition, Hamas now demands that Israel lift its 17-year siege of Gaza and withdraw all its forces in the initial stage of the ceasefire deal.
These key changes address the meaning and substance of Biden’s speech and the UN resolution. But Israel will be implacably opposed to them, as they mean that once the first set of hostages and prisoners has been released, Israel will not be able to back out of a permanent ceasefire.
It does not take a genius to see that shielding an Israel that has no intention of abiding by Biden’s words, let alone the UN’s, is not doing anything to advance US goals.
These are clear: Biden’s overwhelming personal political interest as an ageing president, seeking re-election while not always being able to read his teleprompter, is to shut this war down as soon as possible. He has even more interest in doing so before it spreads, as it shows every sign of doing, to Lebanon and then the wider region.
Blinken is doing the opposite. He is letting Washington get dragged ever deeper, and with more direct military involvement, into a regional quagmire of Netanyahu’s creation.
Only one party benefits from a continuous war in Gaza and a new front opening up in Lebanon, and that is the Religious Zionist extreme right. Netanyahu cannot abandon that party. Benny Gantz’s defection from the war cabinet would be nothing politically next to Itamar Ben Gvir’s exit. The moment that happens, Netanyahu knows he has a challenger for the leadership of the ruling right-wing coalition.
That sinking feeling
Accordingly, Netanyahu has responded to every failed round of negotiations by going on the military offensive.
After his rejection of the ceasefire deal hammered out during the debacle in Cairo and Doha, and amid the increasing possibility of being served with an international arrest warrant for war crimes, his response was to launch the offensive on Rafah.
Here again, the Israeli national interest called for caution. He showed no hesitation in jettisoning the support of the Egyptian army, which if he thought about things strategically, as a real leader should, he would realise that Israel will need after this conflict is over.
Egypt’s generals could make life painful along Israel’s eminently porous 200-kilometre border with Sinai, by releasing the brakes they apply on the drug smugglers and warlords who roam the desert.
Palestinians flee with their belongings as smoke rises in the background, in the area of Tel al-Sultan in Rafah, Gaza, on 30 May 2024 (Eyad Baba/AFP)
Instead, Netanyahu has humiliated them - and adding insult to injury, deprived them of a personal source of hard currency by closing the Rafah border and occupying the Philadelphi corridor.
The unwritten understanding between them was that any such closure would be temporary. But Netanyahu has now broken that understanding too, leaving the generals with egg on their face. Not a wise thing to do, in this region.
Similarly, Netanyahu’s response to Biden’s speech was to launch a hostage rescue in Nuseirat camp, whose beneficial effects on domestic public opinion lasted all of 24 hours.
Wild jubilation at the release of four hostages - Israeli networks interrupted their recorded programmes on Shabbat to go live - gave way to sober reflection on the total cost of this operation.
It was not repeatable. It was not a replacement for negotiations. Israel lost a special forces police officer in the extraction, and if Hamas is to be believed, three other hostages as well.
State of chaos
But more puzzling still was the US claiming a decisive role in the hostage release. As the Palestinian death toll soared past 270, you might have expected National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan to distance himself from such a disaster. He did the opposite, taking credit for what he termed a “daring operation”.
The exact part that US intelligence or their hostage release team played in this operation is not known. Israeli helicopters were, however, captured on camera taking off and landing on the beach, a few metres from the pier the US Navy built to provide aid for Gaza.
Centcom, the US military command that oversees the Middle East, said that while Israel used an area south of the US-built pier as a landing zone, “the humanitarian pier facility, including its equipment, personnel, and assets were not used in the operation to rescue hostages”.
But a US defence official, speaking with Middle East Eye, said Israel’s use of the beach, with the pier a stone’s throw away, “implies we were part of it”.
Furthermore, the US would have been notified of Israel’s exfiltration plan via the beach because it maintains an air defence system at the pier.
US cooperation with a hostage release operation that killed more than 270 Palestinians, and possibly also a further group of hostages, puts US policy on hostage release in a state of total chaos.
Its policy goal is to persuade Israel of the obvious truth that the hostages themselves, and their families, scream often and loudly about: the only killer of hostages is Israel’s continuing bombardment.
US military involvement in such a murderous operation does the opposite. “Israel’s argument has always been that it doesn’t need a ceasefire to rescue hostages,” Frank Lowenstein, the former special envoy for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations in the Obama administration, told MEE. “The rescue operation is likely to deepen Israel’s resolve on that.”
US weakness
This is not in US interests. Netanyahu is perfectly logical in his conclusion that Biden is weak and getting weaker by the month.
He is fundamentally unable or unwilling to apply a brake to Israel’s offensive. He threatened very publicly to withhold heavy bombs for Netanyahu’s offensive on Rafah. Netanyahu went ahead with it anyway, and Biden backed down.
Channel 13 recently reported that “significant progress” had been reached towards “understandings” that would allow the suspended shipment to arrive in Israel in the near future: “Within the framework of the understandings being developed between Washington and Tel Aviv, Israel will be forced to make commitments to Washington that it will not attack with certain bombs that will be supplied by the Biden administration, in populated areas, including populated areas in Rafah.”
War on Gaza: The day the West defined ‘success’ as a massacre of 270 Palestinians
Read More »
So Israel can have the heavy bombs Biden promised to withhold, and continue with the operation in Rafah that Biden warned it not to proceed with.
At every stage in this eight-month war, US diplomacy has showed its weakness, and it bears a heavy responsibility for where this has now landed both Israel and US forces in the region.
As things stand, and with the active complicity of Blinken, the gap between Israel and Hamas will not be bridged, even though the truth is that that the gap between the US and Israel is much larger than that between the US or the UN and Hamas.
Both Hamas and the US, and the 13 other members of the UN Security Council that voted for the resolution, want an immediate and permanent ceasefire. Israel is in a minority of one in making sure that does not happen, knowing that neither Blinken nor Biden has the political capital left to stop it.
A new low
To carry on the war in Gaza is to ensure that the escalation of the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah will continue, with each side striking deeper into each other’s territory. The surest method of de-escalation on the northern border is to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
I cannot think of any other time during the 76 years of this bitter conflict, when an Israeli leadership has been so obdurate in pursuing war aims that are unachievable - and a US president so weak and powerless to stop it.
James Baker or George Shultz were giants of diplomacy and resolve compared with the likes of Blinken.
I previously thought that the combination of Netanyahu and former President Donald Trump had brought the situation to an all-time low. But I was proved wrong; worse was to come.
All the concessions Israel got during Trump’s presidency - the Golan Heights, the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the Abraham Accords - pale into insignificance compared with the backing Biden has given Israel to pursue and continue its war on Gaza with this savagery, and for this long.
It proved to be the combination of Netanyahu and a Democratic president that led this conflict to its most dangerous and murderous moment.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
All eyes should be on Al Jazeera for being founded, funded — and directed — by terrorists
Considering how much attention the American media get, it’s amazing that one piece of actual, unbelievable subversion keeps going on.
That is the Al Jazeera network — founded, funded and directed by the terrorist-supporting state of Qatar.
Last month, The Washington Post reported darkly that the Israeli government had shut down the Al Jazeera network’s operations in Israel because of its coverage from Gaza.
WaPo portrayed this as a “dark day” for press freedom.
In fact, there were a lot of good reasons for the Israelis to stop the network from operating inside Israel.
Just one being that a number of Al Jazeera journalists reporting on Israel’s war against terrorists in Gaza were — er — terrorists.
Take Muhammad Washah, whom Al Jazeera presented as a stellar part of the press corps merely reporting the truth.
Unfortunately for them, their man is also a senior commander in Hamas.
He used to be in Hamas’ anti-tank missile unit, but since 2022 he has been in charge of research and development for aerial weapons.
Known to you and me as “rockets.”
It’s quite something to pull off.
On the one hand, Washah can spend his days making rockets to fire at Israel.
But in the evenings he can report on the terrible destruction in Gaza caused by the “Zionist entity.”
As though it is inexplicable that the Israelis could have any reason to strike any targets in Gaza.
He might have kept getting away with it if IDF soldiers in Gaza had not managed to get a hold of his laptop.
Something that proved the Al Jazeera man’s true loyalties.
The same went for two Al Jazeera “journalists” killed in an airstrike in Rafah in January.
Hamza Wael Dahdouh was the son of Al Jazeera’s Gaza correspondent, Wael Al-Dahdouh.
And while the network complained about the Israelis hitting the vehicle they were in, what they did not mention was that the “journalists” were in a vehicle with a Hamas drone operator while it was targeting Israeli soldiers.
Oh, and young Wael was not just a “journalist,” but a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad who was “actively involved in attacks” against the Israelis.
Or take Al Jazeera “journalist” Ismail Abu Omar.
In February, his employers reported that their “correspondent” had been badly injured in Khan Yunis.
You might have thought this was a tragic case of a journalist — not for the first time — being caught up in a war.
But Al Jazeera went further.
The network claimed that their “correspondent” had been “deliberately targeted” and that this was a pattern with their journalists.
Al Jazeera claimed that this “intimidation” was being done in order to prevent journalists from reporting “the heinous crimes” of the Israelis.
What it did not note was that Ismail Abu Omar is not a “correspondent.”
Or at least he is not only that.
He is also the deputy commander of Hamas’ Eastern battalion in Khan Yunis.
Journo hostage-holder
On Oct. 7, this Al Jazeera employee went into Israel with the terrorists of Hamas and was filmed praising the massacres.
In one community (Nir Oz, which I reported from for The Post last November), Abu Omar could be seen screaming that “the friends [Hamas] have progressed. May Allah bless” and boasting that Palestinian children would “play with the heads” of the massacred Israeli civilians.
Yet still Al Jazeera has the ability to surprise you.
Earlier this month, in a daring operation, the Israeli army rescued four hostages from homes in Gaza where they were being held.
And one of those who was holding hostages in his home was one Abdallah Aljamal.
Abdallah spent his days writing articles about the humanitarian suffering inside Gaza.
It was the sort of thing that much of the world’s press simply picks up and runs with.
But all the time he was filing such articles, he was holding three Israelis in his home and torturing them.
And it turns out that he, too, had been a contributor to none other than Al Jazeera.
Although it takes a lot to shock me, even by Al Jazeera’s standards this is a new low.
On Monday this week I was debating in Toronto against another Al Jazeera contributor: Mehdi Hasan.
Hasan began his career working for Al Jazeera.
But a few years ago MSNBC gave him a show.
It had some of the lowest ratings even on MSNBC.
Which means that the only homes in which it was playing were ones where the people had left the television on by accident.
But after Oct. 7, even MSNBC had enough of him.
His views — which had always been extreme — became even more so.
Which may be one reason why he has now had to return to Al Jazeera.
Qatari apartheid
It was interesting sparring with him this week.
Because of course he tried to throw every possible accusation against the IDF.
And against me.
Eventually it got a bit much.
Here was someone who was working for the Qataris.
And Qatar is an actual apartheid state — a place where a few hundred thousand citizens are waited on by a slave class of foreign workers with zero human rights.
In its capital, Doha, live not only the heads of Al Jazeera but also their friends in Hamas.
Most of the terror group’s leaders who are not in Gaza live protected in the slave state of Qatar.
So when Mehdi complained about the war that has followed Hamas’ invasion of Israel, I pointed out that it would all be rather easier to take if one of his fellow Al Jazeera contributors hadn’t just been found with Israeli hostages in their home.
After all, if my colleagues kept being found with people in their basements, I reckon I’d keep my head down for a bit.
But no — that is Al Jazeera for you.
A “network” whose “journalists” seem never to be more than one step away from terror, but who seem to get no criticism for it.
As for The Washington Post, which lamented the Israeli government’s ban on Al Jazeera: Well, it seems that one reason it has been so anti-Israel in the past eight months is that its foreign desk alone includes six journalists who previously worked for Al Jazeera.
When people wonder how the media go awry, this is a textbook “how.”
https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/opini...ng-founded-funded-and-directed-by-terrorists/
Considering how much attention the American media get, it’s amazing that one piece of actual, unbelievable subversion keeps going on.
That is the Al Jazeera network — founded, funded and directed by the terrorist-supporting state of Qatar.
Last month, The Washington Post reported darkly that the Israeli government had shut down the Al Jazeera network’s operations in Israel because of its coverage from Gaza.
WaPo portrayed this as a “dark day” for press freedom.
In fact, there were a lot of good reasons for the Israelis to stop the network from operating inside Israel.
Just one being that a number of Al Jazeera journalists reporting on Israel’s war against terrorists in Gaza were — er — terrorists.
Take Muhammad Washah, whom Al Jazeera presented as a stellar part of the press corps merely reporting the truth.
Unfortunately for them, their man is also a senior commander in Hamas.
He used to be in Hamas’ anti-tank missile unit, but since 2022 he has been in charge of research and development for aerial weapons.
Known to you and me as “rockets.”
It’s quite something to pull off.
On the one hand, Washah can spend his days making rockets to fire at Israel.
But in the evenings he can report on the terrible destruction in Gaza caused by the “Zionist entity.”
As though it is inexplicable that the Israelis could have any reason to strike any targets in Gaza.
He might have kept getting away with it if IDF soldiers in Gaza had not managed to get a hold of his laptop.
Something that proved the Al Jazeera man’s true loyalties.
The same went for two Al Jazeera “journalists” killed in an airstrike in Rafah in January.
Hamza Wael Dahdouh was the son of Al Jazeera’s Gaza correspondent, Wael Al-Dahdouh.
And while the network complained about the Israelis hitting the vehicle they were in, what they did not mention was that the “journalists” were in a vehicle with a Hamas drone operator while it was targeting Israeli soldiers.
Oh, and young Wael was not just a “journalist,” but a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad who was “actively involved in attacks” against the Israelis.
Or take Al Jazeera “journalist” Ismail Abu Omar.
In February, his employers reported that their “correspondent” had been badly injured in Khan Yunis.
You might have thought this was a tragic case of a journalist — not for the first time — being caught up in a war.
But Al Jazeera went further.
The network claimed that their “correspondent” had been “deliberately targeted” and that this was a pattern with their journalists.
Al Jazeera claimed that this “intimidation” was being done in order to prevent journalists from reporting “the heinous crimes” of the Israelis.
What it did not note was that Ismail Abu Omar is not a “correspondent.”
Or at least he is not only that.
He is also the deputy commander of Hamas’ Eastern battalion in Khan Yunis.
Journo hostage-holder
On Oct. 7, this Al Jazeera employee went into Israel with the terrorists of Hamas and was filmed praising the massacres.
In one community (Nir Oz, which I reported from for The Post last November), Abu Omar could be seen screaming that “the friends [Hamas] have progressed. May Allah bless” and boasting that Palestinian children would “play with the heads” of the massacred Israeli civilians.
Yet still Al Jazeera has the ability to surprise you.
Earlier this month, in a daring operation, the Israeli army rescued four hostages from homes in Gaza where they were being held.
And one of those who was holding hostages in his home was one Abdallah Aljamal.
Abdallah spent his days writing articles about the humanitarian suffering inside Gaza.
It was the sort of thing that much of the world’s press simply picks up and runs with.
But all the time he was filing such articles, he was holding three Israelis in his home and torturing them.
And it turns out that he, too, had been a contributor to none other than Al Jazeera.
Although it takes a lot to shock me, even by Al Jazeera’s standards this is a new low.
On Monday this week I was debating in Toronto against another Al Jazeera contributor: Mehdi Hasan.
Hasan began his career working for Al Jazeera.
But a few years ago MSNBC gave him a show.
It had some of the lowest ratings even on MSNBC.
Which means that the only homes in which it was playing were ones where the people had left the television on by accident.
But after Oct. 7, even MSNBC had enough of him.
His views — which had always been extreme — became even more so.
Which may be one reason why he has now had to return to Al Jazeera.
Qatari apartheid
It was interesting sparring with him this week.
Because of course he tried to throw every possible accusation against the IDF.
And against me.
Eventually it got a bit much.
Here was someone who was working for the Qataris.
And Qatar is an actual apartheid state — a place where a few hundred thousand citizens are waited on by a slave class of foreign workers with zero human rights.
In its capital, Doha, live not only the heads of Al Jazeera but also their friends in Hamas.
Most of the terror group’s leaders who are not in Gaza live protected in the slave state of Qatar.
So when Mehdi complained about the war that has followed Hamas’ invasion of Israel, I pointed out that it would all be rather easier to take if one of his fellow Al Jazeera contributors hadn’t just been found with Israeli hostages in their home.
After all, if my colleagues kept being found with people in their basements, I reckon I’d keep my head down for a bit.
But no — that is Al Jazeera for you.
A “network” whose “journalists” seem never to be more than one step away from terror, but who seem to get no criticism for it.
As for The Washington Post, which lamented the Israeli government’s ban on Al Jazeera: Well, it seems that one reason it has been so anti-Israel in the past eight months is that its foreign desk alone includes six journalists who previously worked for Al Jazeera.
When people wonder how the media go awry, this is a textbook “how.”
https://nypost.com/2024/06/20/opini...ng-founded-funded-and-directed-by-terrorists/
So now even the media are terrorists to you?
What next, you gonna claim the UN are all terrorists?
That Amnesty, HRW and B'tselem are terrorists? Oh wait, you've done that already.
Reporting on genocide is now what you think is terrorism.
But you don't think dropping 2,000 lb bombs on residential homes is terrorism.
UN: Israel Flattened Civilian Housing Complexes with 2000-lb. Bombs in absence of Specific Military Target
Nor do you think intentionally starving 1 million children to near death is terrorism.
PATTERN OF LIES AND DECEIT
But you can bet they will jump up and applaud him in Congress even as he shafts Biden
JUNE 21, 2024Biden Team Ignores Israel’s History of Deceit and Deception
BY MELVIN GOODMAN
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Photograph Source: The White House – Public Domain
Israel’s history over the past 76 years is replete with examples of deceit. This was true from the start, when the Israelis denied their role in expelling hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes during Israel’s War of Independence. The Arab world refers to the expulsion as the “nakba” (the catastrophe), which is largely denied in Israel. The Israeli legacy of denying the “nakba” is no different from those who deny the Holocaust.
The mainstream media bends over backwards to defend Israel’s case, and over the years it has said very little about the history of Israel’s deceit and deception. As recently as last week, for example, the Washington Post carried a bizarre headline that read “Israel is on its honor to comply with U.S. intelligence limits.” The accompanying story was a significant one, detailing the importance of the U.S. intelligence provided to Israel to conduct the rescue of four Israeli hostages, an operation that took the lives of nearly three hundred Palestinians, mostly women and children. By any definition of the requirement for proportionality in wartime, this was indeed a war crime.
The Post article went on to cite National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, an apologist for Israel since the start of the war on October 7th, who explained that the United States has “provided an intense range of assets and capabilities and expertise to Israel,” and that the provision of intelligence is “not tied or conditioned on anything else. It is not limited. We are not holding anything back. We are providing every asset, every tool, every capability.” These remarks are dispositive of our complicity in Israel’s brutal and unconscionable assault against Palestinian civilians.
At the same time, U.S. officials disingenuously claim that Israeli is prohibited from using U.S. intelligence for targeting in Gaza in any military operations, including airstrikes.” They argue that there are “long-standing formal arrangements that are scrutinized by lawyers in the U.S. intelligence community, as well as directives from the White House following the October 7th attacks.” This is particularly disingenuous because of the long record of deceit and deception from both the U.S. intelligence community regarding U.S. wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the Israeli lies over the years regarding their wars in 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982. I’ve written extensively about U.S. and Israeli lies in my articles for CounterPunch and my various books and articles. And I will return to this deceit in future articles.
The idea that Israel is “on its honor” not to use U.S. intelligence for proscribed purposes, which is described by current U.S. intelligence officers, is laughable. The Israelis have regularly broken agreements with the United States regarding the use of certain weaponry as well as the supply of U.S. weapons technology to third countries. There is legislation on the books that requires the Director of National Intelligence to notify Congress if U.S. intelligence to any third country leads to civilian casualties, but this law is observed only in the breach. U.S. oversight regarding Israel is virtually nonexistent.
The Israeli pattern of deceit is particularly important because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently engaged in a new round of false accusations in order to embarrass the Biden administration and divide the American public on the Gaza war as well as the U.S. election. At least, the Biden administration has responded to Netanyahu’s outrageous charge by canceling an important meeting of the U.S.-Israeli Strategic Consultative Group regarding policy toward Iran in return for Netanyahu’s “stunt.”
Nevertheless, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan did not cancel or postpone his meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Tzachi Hanegbi, and the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, went overboard in stressing to Netanyahu there there haven’t been any delays in providing weaponry. Also, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who arrived in Israel early in the war and announced that “I’m come before you not only as the U.S. secretary of state, but as a Jew,” assured Netanyahu that U.S. weapons were “moving as it normally would move.” The only exception has been the hold on 2,000-pound bombs, which have killed thousands of women and children and should never have been provided to Israel in the first place.
These mixed signals over Netanyahu’s remarks were reminiscent of the so-called “red line” that Biden proclaimed to lighten an Israeli assault in Rafah, where more than a million refugees were threatened. Israeli Defense Forces stormed Rafah on May 6, and Biden threatened to withhold weapons on May 8. But there was no interruption of U.S. weapons deliveries, and the consequences in Rafah over the past six weeks have been devastating. The assault is still ongoing, but national security adviser Sullivan announced that the “red line” had not been broken.
The fact that the U.S. Congress is rolling out the red carpet for Netanyahu in July is particularly ludicrous in view of his history of manipulating American public and congressional opinion. Have we forgotten his address to the Congress in 2015, designed to embarrass the Obama administration and stop the completion of the Iran nuclear accord? On this occasion, the congressional invitation is shameful because Netanyahu is a war criminal whose policies are killing and starving innocent civilians.
Netanyahu has spoken privately about his ability to manipulate Democratic administrations because he has the power of the Jewish lobby behind him, and Democratic presidents are fearful of antagonizing the Jewish vote and Jewish fund raising on behalf of Democrats. He has insulted American presidents, vice presidents, and secretaries of state over the years, and has never missed an opportunity to demonstrate that he has the upper hand in negotiations with the United States. Netanyahu has always played hard ball with the United States. Now, it’s time for the United States to do the same.
Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His most recent books are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump” (Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the National Security State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.
That you can still say with a straight face "the two parties are the same" is kind of mind-boggling, even factoring in that is you.
A "no win" doesn't happen.
One of the people gets elected.
Staying home influences that - albeit indirectly - it increases the chances of the person you prefer not win winning.
(So does voting third party.)
Now, as you say, there are people who will go "look, I want to lie to myself about helping Trump win, but I want Biden to lose, so I will not vote or vote third party".
In the end, they are making a decision "It is more important that Biden lose/I don't mind Trump winning".
That is ABSOLUTELY THEIR RIGHT.
What I find interesting - and won't let them off the hook for - is how virulently they want to deny they are making the choice they are making.
I absolutely do.
Why do you think I'm so opposed to people doing silly things that won't accomplish that?
I want people to take effective action to change the system.
Not voting and voting third party are the opposite of that.
My characterization is accurate.
Even on this one issue, both parties aren't the same - obviously.
You may decide the difference isn't worth much, but they aren't the same.
And if you are a single issue voter - you are still saying " I don't mind Trump winning".
You are saying that none of those other issues matter - the parties are the same on this issue and so you don't care about any other consequences.
Again - the sheer effort people will go to trying to deny this very simple fact is astounding.
It is 100% within the rights of a voter to say "I DO NOT CARE about any other issue and therefore DO NOT CARE who wins because I see no difference between the parties on the issue I care about".
I think that's stupid and if someone truly does not care about any other issue at all, they are pretty broken when it comes to political understanding.
But they absolutely have the right to vote that way.
I just am not going to pretend that isn't what they are doing.
So neither of you are paying attention?
No worries about Trump's call for Israel to "Finish the job"?
The calls from Israel about how much Biden is hampering the war effort?
Trump's advisors calling for Palestinian expulsion from Gaza and full annexation of the West bank?
Trump's support and encouragement of war crimes as the best way to win? (Especially war crimes against Muslims.)
Or we can review some of Trump’s policy toward the Palestinians when in office.
- His government declared that it no longer considered the settlements to be illegal.
- Senior Trump administration officials questioned Palestinians’ ability to govern themselves.
- The Trump “peace plan” was negotiating only with Israel — the Palestinians were not included.
- He ended U.S. aid to Palestinians for things like hospitals, infrastructure and schools.
So yeah, the parties aren't the same, even here.
This is almost as dumb as people saying "The Democrats didn't do universal health care - there is no difference between the parties!".
No they aren't.
Or rather, they have to not understand the system they are voting in to believe that.
(Which, to be fair, is a problem. Lots of people are badly confused about this.)
So yes, they might be doing that in terms of "that is what they feel".
It just isn't actually what they are doing in terms of consequence.
But even using your logic, it is still them saying that either they have no preference between Biden and Trump on any issue or in any way - since those are the only two possible winners and refusing to pick one means you are refusing to distinguish - or that while they DO have a preference for one or the other on policy, it is more important that the one they would normally support lose.
Yes, I am, because that is the frame of the discussion.
Are there people who would prefer Trump in most ways, but because Trump is so pro-Israel they are not going to vote for him?
Maybe!
And they would also be acting stupidly from their point of view if they actually preferred Trump.
Remember, what is happening here is you are taking your vote away from the result you want.
So again, either you TRULY have no preference in any way between the two, or you do and are deluded about the effects of what you are doing with your vote.
Could there be a Trump supporter who is all in on Trump's policies but finds him too pro-Israel and so will vote third party?
Maybe!
But then they will also be doing exactly what I am saying, which is that they are ok contributing to Biden's victory. (Only more indirectly.)
So no difference. Because when you get past the lip service its the same. Israel will always get its military funding, no matter what.
Results matter. Stop gaslighting. The Democrats are lying.
This is the reason people won’t vote for Genocide Joe.
