Jew World Order

The headlines read various versions of “Biden supports a ceasefire!” Israeli bombs and missiles have killed 232 Palestinians, 65 of them children, and left more than 1,900 wounded and 75,000 homeless in Gaza.  Twelve have died in Israel.  Shouldn’t support for an immediate end to the slaughter be automatic?  What does it mean when the leader of the most powerful country in the world refuses, through days of death and devastation, to call for a ceasefire, and actually prevents the United Nations from doing so?  

In fact, U.S. opposition to UN efforts to call for a ceasefire when Israel wanted to continue bombing and airstrikes, is a familiar sight. Fourteen out of 15 members of the Council pleaded for a strong statement demanding an immediate cessation of the violence on all sides in Gaza and Israel. In a move consistent with the last half dozen or more U.S. presidents, Biden’s Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield prevented the UN body from acting. (And this was only to issue a Council statement –real action to pressure Israel for a ceasefire was never on the agenda.)

Secretary of State Antony Blinken had been very clear. Despite the escalating number of casualties, the global protests against the Israeli assault, the UN Secretary-General’s demand for an immediate ceasefire, the virtually unanimous international governmental calls for an end to the violence, the Biden administration still intended to let Israel decide when a ceasefire was convenient. “We are prepared to lend our support and good offices to the parties should they seek a cease-fire,” he said.  In fact Hamas had offered a ceasefire several days earlier, but Israel rejected it and made clear it intended significantly more attacks, more killings, more destruction, before even considering such a move. 

This time around, similar patterns are clear. While most of the world urged an immediate end to the fighting, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield wasn’t quite the only one cautioning against a ceasefire. By Monday morning, less than 24 hours after the killing of the latest 42 victims in 

Gaza, Israel’s spokesman Mark Regev told MSNBC Israel wanted a ceasefire but “not just yet,” and told the BBC that it was “too early” and that a ceasefire would be “premature.” 

Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) claimed surprise at the U.S. role at the UN. “I just can’t remember a shooting war where kids are being killed on both sides where the U.S. hasn’t aggressively pushed for a ceasefire.” Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East, said “I just think it’s a no-brainer for the United States to be pushing for a ceasefire.”  

They must have pretty short memories. Seems they’ve forgotten Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon, when then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice memorably said a ceasefire should be delayed until “the conditions are conducive.” The war raged for another month. In 2009 at the height of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead attack on Gaza, Israel rebuffed desperate calls for even a 48-hour temporary ceasefire, and following their lead, Washington again prevented action at the United Nations. (Days later Washington finally allowed the Council to pass a weak ceasefire call just moments before a scheduled emergency meeting of the General Assembly, where GA President Miguel d’Escoto was planning a much stronger intervention.)

Several U.S. administrations have shared the antipathy to immediate ceasefires, at least when Israel is the dominant military force and the vast majority of the casualties are Palestinians or Lebanese. The pattern of U.S. vetoes, threatened vetoes, and other pressure to prevent UN ceasefire calls remains in place.  What’s different this time is the political environment in which that pattern – and more importantly, the brutal war Israel is waging against the Palestinians – takes shape. Public and media discourse has shifted dramatically. It’s visible within the Democratic Party (especially young Democrats and those of color), from the African-American and Jewish communities to the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post and beyond. 

And Congress is finally starting to reflect that shift. Last week almost twenty House members joined a special session on the crisis, making powerful statements demanding U.S. pressure on Israel to stop the assault.   Twenty-nine senators signed a short clear statement calling for an immediate ceasefire. Their statement reflected Washington’s too often ignored leverage on Israel, starting with its $3.8 billion gift to the Israeli military every year. Sen. Murphy went on to say “If Israel doesn’t believe a ceasefire is in their interest, that doesn’t mean we have to accept that judgment. We have enormous persuasive power.” 

Biden’s own statement, made in a phone call to Benjamin Netanyahu, did still seem to “accept that judgment.”  He did not urge, let alone pressure the Israeli prime minister for a ceasefire. He simply “expressed his support for a ceasefire.”  As the New York Times put it, the statement “notably avoided a demand that the ceasefire be ‘immediate,’….He set no deadline and did not appear before cameras to make a public demand.”

It should surprise no one that Netanyahu’s response was that “the directive is to continue striking at the terrorist targets.”

Biden’s call came just as congressional and public outrage exploded following reports from the Washington Post that the Biden administration had approved Israel’s purchase of $735 million worth of precision-guided bombs.  And just as Gaza’s casualty level rose to 212 killed including 61 children.  

Members of Congress reacted with fury. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) tweeted,  “We cannot just condemn rockets fired by Hamas and ignore Israel’s state-sanctioned police violence against Palestinians — including unlawful evictions, violent attacks on protestors & the murder of Palestinian children. U.S. aid should not be funding this violence.”  Another Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee told the Post “Allowing this proposed sale of smart bombs to go through without putting pressure on Israel to agree to a cease-fire will only enable further carnage.”  

It is a measure of just how low the bar is on U.S. policy towards Israel and the Palestinians, that Biden’s cautious backing of a theoretical ceasefire is viewed as a step forward.  It’s way late, and it’s too little.  Stating support for a ceasefire whenever Israel might decide it has wreaked enough devastation to pull back, is a far cry from ordering the Israeli leader to sign an immediate ceasefire on pain of losing, just for instance, all access to U.S. weapons and military aid.  

That’s not going to happen immediately. But we know the discourse has changed – in the public, in the media, and now Congress has to respond to that as well.  It didn’t happen by itself.  The shift happened because movements for Palestinian rights, linked to broader movements across the United States and globally, have worked for decades to educate, mobilize and advocate, using boycotts and divestment campaigns, demanding Congress hold Israel accountable for how U.S. tax dollars are being used.  The shifts in Congress are showing the way now, and the administration is next up. The demand for an immediate ceasefire – now, not when Israel decides it has killed enough Palestinians – is only the beginning.

Source