Israel is preparing for a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip and it has encouraged the Palestinians in the north of the Gaza to move to the southern part of the territory so that civilians will not be subjected to what will likely be a very intense campaign.
It is difficult to move 1.1 million people in such a short period of time given that much of the Gazan infrastructure has been destroyed by bombing. Many people in Gaza have no place to go in the bleak southern part of the Strip and Egypt has not opened the Rafah crossing into Egyptian territory. I suspect that Egypt does not want to be responsible for such a huge influx of refugees. And many Palestinians do not want to leave their homes or familiar neighborhoods. Hamas has encouraged the people not to move to the south, which has been interpreted by some as an attempt to use the civilians as a shield from Israeli bombardment.
The more likely explanation for the number of Palestinians who chose not to evacuate is the fear that they could never return to their homes. While Israel has a "right of return" for any Jew who wishes to emigrate to Israel, it has not allowed the more than 750,000 Palestinians who left their homes in 1948 upon the creation of the state of Israel to return. Many Palestinians refer to that episode as the Nabka ("the Catastrophe"). That refusal is a violation of international law as described by the Institute for Middle East Understanding:
All refugees have a right to return to areas from which they have fled or were forced, to receive compensation for damages, and to either regain their properties or receive compensation and support for voluntary resettlement. This right derives from a number of legal sources, including customary international law, international humanitarian law governing rights of civilians during war, and human rights law. The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 13(2) that "[e]veryone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his own country." This is an individual right and cannot be unilaterally abrogated by third parties.
In December 1948, following Israel's establishment and the attendant displacement of approximately 750,000 Palestinians from areas that fell within its control, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 194, which states, "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."
The Palestinian right of return has been confirmed repeatedly by the UN General Assembly, including through Resolution 3236, which "Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."
There were Israeli settlers who lived in the Gaza Strip after the 1967 war but all 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip were unilaterally evacuated in 2005. I suspect that many Palestinians fear that depopulating the Gaza will offer an opportunity for Israel to assert renewed territorial control in the Gaza. I doubt that Israel is thinking about such a radical move and most Americans do not seem to be aware of that historical episode. But the Palestinian fear is not far-fetched to a people who suffered displacement. It remains unclear, however, what the Israeli plans for the Gaza are. Given the level of destruction that has already occurred in the Gaza, it is unlikely that anyone will be living comfortably there for an extraordinarily long time.
OCTOBER 14, 2023 - ISRAEL AND GAZA
VINNIE'S BLOG
"This constant lying is not aimed
at making the people believe a lie,
but at ensuring that no one believes
anything anymore.
A people that can no longer distinguish
between truth and lies cannot distinguish
between right and wrong.
And such a people, deprived of the power
to think and judge, is, without knowing
and willing it, completely subjected
to the rule of lies. With such a people,
you can do whatever you want."
Hannah Arendt
German hisgorian and philosopher
(1906 - 1975)
August 2024
January 27, 2025
President Trump recently suggested that the Gaza Strip should be "cleaned out". This strategy is hardly new, as detailed by The Guardian:
"The suggestion by the US president, Donald Trump, that Gaza’s Palestinian population could be “cleaned out” and moved to Egypt and Jordan is an idea that has long been circulated by the Israeli right.
"Over the decades since the Six Day war in 1967, when Israeli forces first captured the Gaza Strip, which had been under Egyptian military rule, Israeli officials and commentators have periodically pushed the notion that Palestinians in Gaza could be resettled in Egypt.
"Most recently that notion was floated in a leaked paper by Israel’s intelligence ministry – which prepares studies and policy papers rather than representing the intelligence agencies – a few weeks into the war in Gaza.
"That 'concept' paper recommended that Israel 'evacuate the civilian population to Sinai' then create 'a sterile zone of several kilometres … within Egypt' that would prevent return."
The idea is profoundly offensive and clearly violates the Geneva Convention prohibition against ethnic cleansing. It is also something that the Palesstinians would reject, even though mush of the Strip has been completely decimated. It is extraordinary to view the numbers of people who have taken advantage of the cease-fire to move back into northern Gaza--even though living there will be dangerous, difficult, and uncomfortable. The photograph of the Palestinians moving back is a powerful statement on the Palestinian determination to not repeat the tragedy of the nakba of 1948.
Both Egypt and Jordan have flatly refused to accept refugees from Gaza. Jordan already has several million Palestinian refugees and Egypt fears that its territory will be compromised by the refugees, who would likely continue to attempt moving back to Gaza. The Washington Post reports:
"Reaction from the Middle East was quick — and sharply negative. Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, said that Jordan’s opposition to displacement of Palestinians was 'firm and will not change.' The Egyptian Embassy on Sunday reposted a 2023 comment by its ambassador, Motaz Zahran, saying that 'Egypt cannot be part of any solution involving the transfer of Palestinians into Sinai.'”
The reaction from Germany was also emphatically opposed, despite Germany's historical relationship with the state of Israel.
"Germany on Monday rejected US President Donald Trump’s proposal to move Palestinians from Gaza to nearby countries – Egypt and Jordan.
"Speaking at a press briefing in Berlin, Foreign Ministry spokesman Christian Wagner said that Germany maintains its commitment to the international consensus regarding Gaza's status.
“'There is a common position shared by the EU, our Arab partners and the United Nations, which is very clear: The Palestinian population cannot be expelled from Gaza, and Gaza must not be permanently occupied or resettled by Israel,' he said.
"Wagner added that the G7 group of the world's leading economies, which includes the US, has so far consistently supported this position in multiple joint statements.
“'Expulsions from Gaza, and establishing new settlements here is not possible. This is also something that we made very clear during the G7 Foreign Ministers' Meeting in Tokyo in 2023. In this respect, I think our position is more than clear,' he said."
If Trump and Netanyahu succeed in "cleaning out" Gaza, the possibilities for a two-state solution are completely eliminated. John Lyons of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation makes that argument:
"One of Trump's first decisions was to lift sanctions on several of the most violent Jewish settlers in the West Bank. The Biden administration had placed such sanctions on several particularly violent Jewish settlers in the West Bank.
"Trump's move has been seen here in Israel as essentially saying that these and other armed and violent settlers can commit any atrocities against Palestinians with impunity and without interference from the US. Rarely are Jewish settlers brought to justice by Israel for acts of violence against Palestinians.
"Trump's early appointments are also a strong indication that a Palestinian state is very much an endangered species.
"He has chosen former Arkansas governor and Fox News host Mike Huckabee as new US Ambassador to Israel. According to The Times of Israel, Huckabee has said that Israel's claim to the West Bank is "stronger than American ties to Manhattan" and he even laid bricks in 2018 as ground was broken on a new housing complex in the settlement of Efrat.
"The website reported that Huckabee had said that "of course" annexation of the West Bank was a possibility during Trump's second term."
Israel is the only country today that occupies territory with such a large population. There is no justification for its war of conquest.
It was a discouraging week and I haven't had the will to make sense of it. But there are three issues that are of real concern.
First, there were no Republicans (as far as I could tell) who honored their oath to defend the Constitution. Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was cluttered with all sorts of questions: Has the US been invaded by a state? Were all those who were deported really members of a gang? And why do the Republicans simply say that Trump was elected to get rid of people despite the guarantees demanded by the Constitution? And did Trump really sign the proclamation? Or is he so senile that he cannot remember?
Second, the Netanyahu government is clearly conducting ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip. Why else would Israel continue aerial bombardments and deny the introduction of necessary food, water, and medicine? It has become clear that many Palestinians are refusing to leave the Strip despite the horrific conditions because they fear a second Nakba. So, Israel will simply continue to punish those who remain in hopes that Palestinian resolve can be crushed. Israel will claim that the surviving Palestinians in the Gaza are going to leave the Gaza "voluntarily". As I have stated before, this is a war of conquest, not a war of self-defense.
Third, Trump has extorted Columbia University to submit to intolerable conditions, including placing one of its Departments into receivership. It's not clear to me that the Columbia campus is a hotbed of antisemitism (Columbia continues to attract Jewish students who comprise 20% of the student body--the highest percentage in the Ivies) or that Trump understands what antisemitism is or that he even cares. The capitulation of the University to crime gang tactics is a horrible lesson for higher education in the US. And the effect on free speech is catastrophic. Roy Cohn is watching (from hell) his star pupil conduct a witch hunt of historic measure.
So, I retreat into music. I can think about these matters for a period of time, and then I simply have to turn it all off. I am more convinced than ever that Trump's term in office will not extend to 4 years (at some point the Republican Party will have to realize that it is digging its own grave). But waiting for the corrupt house of cards collapse is draining. The first three songs are done by Playing for Change. I played one of these songs in my lecture on globalization when I taught World Politics. I explained that globalization had all sorts of problems, but also some extraordinary opportunities. To choreograph these songs in a manner that compressed time and space was an important insight. Until the very recent past, such an enterprise was impossible. But Playing for Change was able to take simple songs and to unite people from all over the world to send the same message, even though the instruments and the language were all different. More importantly, Playing for Change was able to prove that there are brilliant artists who work the streets every day, and that the glitter and rouge of pop culture is nothing more than a very unfortunate distraction from the real meaning of music.
MARCH 22, 2025 - THREE ISSUES
World Politics News
22 June 2025
By vferraro1971 on June 22, 2025
This morning's headline for the online version of the New York Times was "U.S. enters War Against Iran". The headline is misleading. The more accurate headline would have been "US President Trump Declares War on Iran". The actual headline ignores the fact that the US has been engaged in coercive diplomacy against Iran since 2018 when President Trump withdrew the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which was considered by most analysts as an effective check on any nuclear ambitions that Iran might have held, although there was no evidence at the time (nor two days ago) that Iran had made a decision to build a nuclear weapon:
"More than three years of Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA from January 2016-May 2019 demonstrated its nonproliferation benefits. Taken together, the array of restrictions on uranium enrichment ensures that Iran’s capability to produce enough weapons-grade uranium sufficient for one warhead would be approximately 12 months for a decade or more. The JCPOA also effectively eliminated Iran’s ability to produce and separate plutonium for at least 15 years. Just as importantly, the JCPOA mandates unprecedented international monitoring and transparency measures that make it very likely that any possible future effort by Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, even a clandestine program, would be detected promptly."
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had held for a long time that Iran's nuclear program represented an "existential threat" to Israel. Indeed, he warned about the Iranian nuclear program when he was just a member of the Knesset in 1992:
"Since 1992, when Netanyahu addressed Israel’s Knesset as an MP, he has consistently claimed that Tehran is only years away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. 'Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb,' he declared at the time. The prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism.
"The sense of imminent threat has repeatedly shaped Netanyahu’s engagement with United States officials. In 2002, he appeared before a US congressional committee, advocating for the invasion of Iraq and suggesting that both Iraq and Iran were racing to obtain nuclear weapons. The US-led invasion of Iraq followed soon after, but no weapons of mass destruction were found."
Netanyahu has worried about Iran for 33 years and yet the Iranians never developed a nuclear bomb, even though it clearly had the expertise and means to do so. Instead, Iran adhered to its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and refused to take that path, despite being surrounded by nuclear powers: Russia to the north, China to the east, India and Pakistan to its southeast, Israel to its west, and US air and sea forces parked in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and in bases in Oman and Bahrain. Netanyahu went so far as to bring a visual aid to the UN General Assembly to communicate his fears about Iran.
We should be clear about what Netanyahu regards as an "existential threat". Does Netanyahu actually believe that Iran would drop a nuclear bomb on Israel, killing millions of Palestinians in the process? One cannot dismiss the possibility that at some point there will be an Iranian regime that would commit such a heinous crime. But one would have to offer more evidence of Iranian indifference to human life to persuade me that such an outcome was likely. There are currently nine nuclear powers in the world and some of them engaged in reckless propaganda ("godless communists" and "capitalist running dogs" are two of my favorites) that is roughly comparable to Iranian propaganda ("America is Satan"). But none of these states, except for the US, has ever dropped a nuclear bomb
The existential threat that Netanyahu fears is the possibility of Israeli self-deterrence in the face of a nuclear Iran. Nuclear threats are taken seriously by civilian populations and are effective even when palpably implausible. The US threatened nuclear war against China in 1956 over two insigificant islands (Quemoy and Matsu) which were controlled by the Republic of China, now known as Taiwan. Similarly, the US refrained from arming Ukraine with advanced weaponry after Russian President Putin started referring to Russian nuclear capabilities. Israel currently has a free military hand in Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and it has used that advantage to its benefit after the attacks of 7 October. A nuclear-armed Iran, however, might restrain Israeli military power just by posing the possibility of a nuclear attack, forcing the Israeli people to ask the question "Is dropping more bombs on the Gaza Strip worth risking nuclear annihilation?" States are reluctant to gamble on their existence, even when the odds are in their favor. An Israeli government may not want to be constrained by an Israeli population afraid of a nuclear attack. And that fear is the real existential threat to Israel.
The last few weeks have been confusing. There were statements that the US wanted to restart the negotiations to revive the JCPOA, but refused to entertain the possibility that Iran would be allowed to enrich Uranium, a right guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the JCPOA. The precipitating event for the Israeli attack on Iran was the Iranian decision on 13 April to enrich its Uranium far beyond the traditional limit of 20% which is considered essential for civilian nuclear power purposes (Iran believes that it makes more money selling its petroleum rather than burning it for energy purposes). But the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute interpeted this decision quite differently than one designed to build a nuclear bomb:
'On 13 April, Iran announced its intention to enrich uranium to 60 per cent U-235. This was characterized by Iran as a response to a sabotage of its vast underground enrichment cascades at Natanz two days before. The move comes against the backdrop of sensitive negotiations happening in Vienna aimed at rescuing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and bringing the United States back into compliance with the deal...
"Uranium enriched to 60 per cent cannot be used to make a useful nuclear explosive device, and Iran has no other realistic use for this material.
"Nevertheless, 60 per cent was not an arbitrary choice. Cascades of centrifuges are designed to enrich uranium in steps; Iran’s centrifuges are likely set up to enrich up to 20 per cent, from 20 to 60 per cent, and from 60 to 90 per cent. Assuming the 60 per cent-enriched uranium is stored in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas—and there would be no point in Iran converting it to any other chemical form—the enrichment step from 60 per cent-enriched to weapons-grade uranium is very short.
"This strongly suggests that Iran’s decision was intended to send a political message: ‘We have gone as far as we can go in response to provocations without producing weapons-grade uranium.’"
One needs to appreciate the position of Iran after Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA: it was placed under punishing sanctions which have severely damaged the Iranian economy and was not offered any way to remove those sanctions without giving up its right to enrich Uranium. The question we need to answer is whether the decision to enrich Uranium to 60% actually signaled an intent to build a nuclear bomb. Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was explicit on this question: "In March, Gabbard testified on Capitol Hill that the U.S. 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.'" Trump insisted that Gabbard was wrong, but that is not the first time he has disagreed with his own intelligence services.
We should also think about Trump's decision to declare war on Iran in the context of the US Constitution. Only Congress has the right to declare war: "Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 states that Congress has the power to declare war. Initially, the draft of the Constitution granted Congress the power to make war. There were suggestions to give this power solely to the President, solely to the Senate, or to both the President and the Senate. However, the Framers decided that involving both the President and Congress addressed their concerns. They didn’t want just one person to decide something so significant, nor did they trust a single branch alone." The wisdom of the writers of the Constitution has been lost. Iran did not attack the US, so the US claim of self-defense is hollow. Nor does Iran have any ability to hit the US mainland with a nuclear bomb or any conventional bomb. Iran does pose a threat of terror attacks on US citizens, but such threats are better dealt with by local officials and not the US military.
Now the US and Iran are in a state of war. Iran does not need to declare war on the US for a state of war to exist--the US attack on Iranian territory constituted a state of war. For example, the US declared war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack, but Roosevelt wanted to focus on fighting Germany immediately (he didn't have much choice since the US fleet was at the bottom of the Pacific and therefore didn't have the ability to fight Japan immediately). Foolishly, Hitler declared war on the US first, relieving the US of the need to make a decision about declaring war against Germany. Now that the US has created a state of war, it is imperative to ask the question: What are the US war objectives?
The US is still committed to preventing the Iranians from developing a nuclear bomb. We have yet to see whether the US attack effectively destroyed Iranian capabilities. Trump declared that the facilities had been "completely and totally obliterated" but we have no way to confirm that assessment (it's not clear on what evidence he based this assertion). More importantly, there is no way for the US to destroy the knowledge that Iran has about building a bomb. That knowledge will endure if the Iranians want it to endure. At best, the US and Israel have gained some time derailing Iran nuclear intentions, but to maintain that respite, Israel and the US will have to keep bombing Iran anytime there is a suspicion that Iran is engaged in nuclear-related activities.
Unless, of course, that the Israeli and US intention is to force regime change in Iran in order to prevent any government that would attempt to build a bomb. The US has often forced regime change (Iran 1953; Guatemala, 1954; the Dominican Republic in 1965; Grenada, 1983; Panama, 1989; and Iraq in 2003). One would be hard pressed to assert that these efforts genuinely served the US national interest. And it is more likely that the Iranian people will want a more aggressive regime given the humiliation inflicted on them by the Israeli and US attacks. They may welcome a new regime that is less stringent in terms of personal conduct. But given the obvious failures of the current regime to prevent the wholesale leakage of Iranian secrets, it is more likely that Iranians would support greater scrutiny (how else does one explain the precision Israeli attacks against specific military and scientific individuals in early June? Someone was telling the Israelis names, addresses, and times, and it is likely that the Iranians will direct most of their efforts to uproot those spies).
I suspect that the Iranians will do two things. First, they will announce their withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty which allows states to abrogate the treaty after 90 days of warning. Since Israel and the US did not believe that Iran was adhering to the treaty, the repercussions of such a move would be small diplomatically. There will, however, a great deal of negative press for the Iranians, but both the US and Israel have muzzled the press on this matter already. Leaving the NPT would end the pretense that a nuclear weapon is not necessary for national defense against nuclear powers. Iraq proved that nuclear weapons are the only way to prevent an invasion, and North Korea proved that breaking the NPT does not preclude engagement with nuclear powers. Furthermore, the Iranians do not have a choice unless they wish to submit to the dictates of Israel--their previous strategy of relying on proxies and air defenses was an abject failure. Israel has forced the Iranian hand on this matter.
Second, Iran will likely make noises about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel through which 40% of the world's exported petroleum passes. Noises could go from verbal threats to actually blocking the channel with sunken vessels. The threats are probably sufficient to force insurance rates for oil-carrying cargo shops to skyrocket. That alone would focus the attention of India, Europe, and China on finding a better solution to this state of war. Moreover, it would force Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States to gauge their interests less in alignment with the interests of the US. Finally, a spike in oil prices would doom Republican chances in the mid-term elections in 2026.
For me, the most unfortunate aspect of this remarkable event is that allowing this war to be declared unilaterally by the President has insulated US foreign policy from democratic processes. Foreign policy has almost always been determined by small groups of people (did you notice that as Trump delivered his speech at the White House announcing the bombing, he was flanked by Hegseth, Rubio, and Vance?), and moving foreign policy in the democratic process was an arduous and difficult process which began with the Vietnam War. That process was never completed and today it seems to be unattainable.
Comment
