The red lines are imaginary


Prior to the election, I think we were all aware that Joe Biden was an ineffectual waffler on Middle East issues. He would wag his finger and then do nothing but wobble along the status quo line. I had this wishful hope that Harris was just going along out of loyalty to her president — unfortunately, we’ll never find out if she would have changed the country’s course if she’d gotten out from under Joe’s feeble thumb. All we can know for sure was that Biden stood by doing nothing while children were murdered in Palestine.

Now ProPublica lists all the cowardice behind the Biden administration’s Israel policy. He kept saying one thing, and doing nothing.

Biden’s warnings over the past year have also been explicit. Last spring, the president vowed to stop supplying offensive bombs to Israel if it launched a major invasion into the southern city of Rafah. He also told Netanyahu the U.S. was going to rethink support for the war unless he took new steps to protect civilians and aid workers after the IDF blew up a World Central Kitchen caravan. And Blinken signaled that he would blacklist a notorious IDF unit for the death of a Palestinian-American in the West Bank if the soldiers involved were not brought to justice.

Time and again, Israel crossed the Biden administration’s red lines without changing course in a meaningful way, according to interviews with government officials and outside experts. Each time, the U.S. yielded and continued to send Israel’s military deadly weapons of war, approving more than $17.9 billion in military assistance since late 2023, by some estimates. The State Department recently told Congress about another $8 billion proposed deal to sell Israel munitions and artillery shells.

“It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the red lines have all just been a smokescreen,” said Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard Kennedy School and a preeminent authority on U.S. policy in the region. “The Biden administration decided to be all in and merely pretended that it was trying to do something about it.”

“Don’t you dare bomb that Palestinian town!” Israel, without hesitation, bombs the town. “Oh, OK, here’s a billion dollars worth of bombs to replenish your supply.” Over and over again. The article talks a lot about all these “red lines” the US was drawing in the conflict, and how US credibility was constantly diminished because Israel didn’t care and knew they’d get all the money they wanted, no matter how far over the line they crossed.

The article doesn’t end on an optimistic note.

On Nov. 14, more than a year after the war started, Human Rights Watch released a report and said that Israel’s forced displacement of Palestinians is widespread, systematic and intentional. It accused the Israelis of a crime against humanity, writing, “Israel’s actions appear to also meet the definition of ethnic cleansing.” (A former Israeli defense minister has also made that allegation.)

During a news briefing later that day, reporters pressed a State Department spokesperson, Vedant Patel, on the report’s findings.

Patel said the U.S. government disagrees and has not seen evidence of forced displacement in Gaza.

“That,” he said, “certainly would be a red line.”

Who in the world cares what red line the US draws anymore?

Biden was a weak president, but don’t expect Trump will be any better. He’s going to bluster and lie louder is all.

Comments

  1. raven says

    Patel said the U.S. government disagrees and has not seen evidence of forced displacement in Gaza.

    Actually more or less all of the Gaza population has been displaced multiple times as Israel systematically destroys everything standing.

    Displaced Gazans Brace for Another Harsh Winter

    The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com › World › Middle East

    Oct 24, 2024 — After a year of war, at least one million people are facing months in the cold. Some said tents, blankets and warm clothes now qualified as luxuries.

    Around a million people, half the population, is spending the winter in tent camps.

    That is such an obvious lie, Mr. Patel shouldn’t have even bothered.

  2. leovigild says

    I think this assessment is a bit one-sided. Biden’s policy with respect to Israel has been worthy of condemnation, but he did end US support for the genocide in Yemen, something previous Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, did not have the courage to do. He also ended the US occupation of Afghanistan, and took a lot of heat for it (it arguably sunk his presidency).

    If future Presidents took the criticism of Biden from both left and right to heart, they would likely conclude that he was too timid and that they ought to be more aggressive, more militaristic, and more willing to deploy US troops overseas.

  3. numerobis says

    leovigild: two things. First, it’s focused on Israel. Anything good that Biden did in any other field doesn’t affect what happened in Israel.

    Second, in what reality are you thinking the war in Yemen is over? The US launched a major air strike on North Yemen just last week, and under Biden’s watch the war has expanded to now blocking most shipping through the Red Sea.

    The one success in the middle east that happened under Biden is the overthrow of Assad, which he seems mostly to have allowed to happen rather than proactively doing anything.

  4. lasius says

    At least you can talk about hypothetical red lines regarding Israel in US politics. In Germany that would be an instant declaration of antisemitism and political suicide. Anything but “unconditional support” would be “unthinkable”.

  5. says

    The ceasefire is imaginary. How do you get ceasefire when you give the side committing genocide several billion dollars in munitions to allow it to continue whenever it feels like it? In fact Netanyahu has already broken the ceasefire. The agreement included the release of Palestinian prisoners. He has already refused to do this, falsely claiming that the are all members of Hamas.

  6. numerobis says

    You’d think Germany would be a bit more attuned to avoiding abetting a genocide, but no, that’s not the lesson they learned.

  7. says

    None of this will ever change until we drop religion in its entirety. Once we realize that the “end times” prophecy in the bible is bullshit, then we’ll stop supporting Israel.

  8. John Watts says

    The ultimate goal of Israel is the annexation of the West Bank and the relocation of the Gaza Arabs to neighboring Arab nations. But, saying this out loud is anathema to much of the world. Trump has chosen Mike Huckabee to be ambassador to Israel. He’s an End Timer who opposes a two-state solution. So, whatever faults you may find with Biden’s approach, things will be much worse for the Palestinians under the Trump administration.

  9. Akira MacKenzie says

    And if Biden had sided with the people in Gaza the Dems would have been branded “antisemites” and lost a huge chunk of the American Jewish vote along with white middle America who tend to associate the term “Palestinian” with “terrorist.”

    Harris probably would have lost by a larger margin than she did by ignoring the issue.

  10. KG says

    Once we realize that the “end times” prophecy in the bible is bullshit, then we’ll stop supporting Israel. – Autobot Silverwynde@7

    No: these “end time” prophecies are only one reason why the USA and other western states support Zionism, and only important in the USA itself – because only there do Christian “end times” numpties have any influence on policy. Israel is an extremely useful strategic ally in a crucial region for the USA and to a lesser extent for its allies; guilt over the Holocaust is a major reason for Germany’s uncritical support for Israel; many diaspora Jews do their best to influence policy in their own countries in favour of Israel (most notably AIPAC in the USA but also e.g. Labour Friends of Israel in the UK); antisemitism was historically an important reason for non-Jews to support Zionism (the hope being that Jews would emigrate to a Jewish “homeland” – this was for example a motivation for Arthur Balfour of the eponymous declaration), and probably still has some significance.

  11. numerobis says

    whatever faults you may find with Biden’s approach, things will be much worse for the Palestinians under the Trump administration.

    Under Biden, Palestinians were suffering genocide. How is it going to get worse? If it’s happening either way, is speeding it up actually worse?

  12. numerobis says

    Akira MacKenzie: does the Jewish vote go for Democrats? I had the impression that Biden had already lost them with merely talking about red lines — the mere suggestion that maybe genocide was bad was already labeled antisemitic.

  13. Akira MacKenzie says

    @ 10

    Two other reasons:

    1) Israel is a trade partner. There is no way we are going to screw up that revenue stream.
    2) The Israeli’s are “white” enough to serve as our Imperialist proxy state in a decidedly non-white region.

  14. Dennis K says

    I mean, I guess this is all historically interesting, for as long as non-revisionist history exists. As has been made clear, all our humanist foot-stomping will change nothing.

  15. says

    PZ wrote: Who in the world cares what red line the US draws anymore?
    I reply: I agree. We live in a world of red lines that have been ignored. We find the world is at the bottom of a cesspool. (and that’s being optimistic)

    Let me restate, there are the two inscriptions that no one in power seems to care about:
      Quality of Character Matters
    and
      Trust and Respect must be earned

    To prevent whining, I won’t restate the obvious trajectory of our country.

  16. says

    One more thought and I’ll stop commenting for the day and get back to work.
    As a pacific (peaceful – except where violent words are necessary) organization, we see, and are sickened by, all the needless slaughter all around us (Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, etc.). Human character and human society are disgustingly murderous. Of course, that’s been touted as god’s will and perfectly acceptable for humans to emulate by the obscene work of fantasy: the bible.

  17. anat says

    garydargan @5: Netanyahu couldn’t have broken the cease fire, as it was only supposed to go into effect on the 19th. What he is doing is attempting to delay its going into effect, while trying to keep his coalition intact.

  18. voidseraph says

    numerobis: “does the Jewish vote go for Democrats?”
    It does. To a huge degree. In 2024, Harris go about 80% of the vote. Which is much lower than usual. (“lowest proportion in 24 years” !) https://www.timesofisrael.com/79-of-us-jews-voted-for-harris-according-to-largest-preliminary-exit-poll/

    About this cease fire, though. Trump is a literal, transparent traitor, who thinks of all brown people as genetically inferior to himself.
    But it looks like this ceasefire might hold. And if it does, then it looks like Trump played a role and deserves some credit (there are clearly larger political developments that are relevant, but he put pressure, to hear the Wall Street Journal tell it… the news section of the WSJ, not their brain rot opinion side.) I’m loathe to defend Trump. But, he has done a couple of good things in his earlier term, among a deluge of disasters, of course. And despite all of his evil actions, is there really a bigger issue than the holocaust in Gaza? What do I say to waffling muslims who despise Trump but believe that he ended the war in Gaza, while the dems did (nearly) nothing of significance?

  19. says

    Not to defend Biden, but for the record I think it’s important to note how ridiculously subservient all US presidents have been to Israeli interests. I’m not happy with lip service and fake red lines, but if people are looking for hope that this might change, it’s worth remembering that lip service is itself a change from what we had with every other president.

    Obviously Trump will revert back to previous unthinking support for any policy, good or bad, enacted by Israel. But future Democratic presidents might be willing to argue with Israel in public, which would be good. Someday in a year I feel I cannot predict, they might even be willing to exert US influence in favour of peace and justice in the lands of Israel and Palestine, though I won’t hold my breath.

  20. says

    He also ended the US occupation of Afghanistan, and took a lot of heat for it (it arguably sunk his presidency).

    No, what “sunk his presidency” was his spineless refusal to talk publicly about it, thereby allowing Trump to dominate the public discourse with whatever lies or bullshit he felt like spewing each day, every day. In politics it doesn’t really matter how good or sensible your actions are, if you let your enemies lie about them, without dispute, 24/7.

    Israel is an extremely useful strategic ally in a crucial region for the USA and to a lesser extent for its allies…

    “Useful” how, exactly? What have they done for us? More to the point, what benefit do we get from Israel that even begins to offset all the harm done by our support of Israel against all the other states in that region?

    Harris probably would have lost by a larger margin than she did by ignoring the issue.

    I really don’t agree. First, US popular support for Israel is nowhere near what it once was, even among Jews, and their disproportional and genocidal actions in Gaza — before Hamas’s attack as well as after — put a sizeable dent in that support. Harris could very easily have made a coherent critique of Beginyahu and the Likudniks as being extremely bad for Israeli Jews as well as for Palestinians.

    And second, her refusal to address that issue, even in the face of widespread public opposition to Israel’s latest actions, showed something Democrats have long been known and vilified for: LACK OF LEADERSHIP. It doesn’t matter at all how right or wise you are, if you’ve quite explicitly shown you’re not going to take any sort of stand or rally anyone to put up any sort of fight. The con-artist who pretends to be a tough leader will always defeat the wise and honest person who refuses to match the con-artist’s pretense with the real thing.

  21. says

    The Israelis themselves say that the reason they negotiated a ceasefire is that Trump has said he will not keep funding them, in keeping with the whole right-wing “foreign aide is what causes the deficit” thing.

    In other words: exactly as I (and others) have been saying, Biden’s policy actively prevented an end to the genocide. Within a week of Trump cutting off the spigot — or even just saying we is going to cut it off — they approved a deal.

    Furthermore, there have been multiple people who have resigned from the Biden administration who have said Biden was actively sabotaging ceasefire deals, starting all the way back in November 2023. When you consider that Ronald Reagan himself refused to let Begin carry out this kind of attack, it shows just how irredeemably far to the right Biden — and, by extension, the Democratic Party — has become.

    All of you who keep making excuses for that piece of excrement in a suit which passes under the name of Joe Biden, you are bordering on being as evil as he is. There is literally no punishment in the world which is vicious enough to give Biden what he deserves for what he has done. I get it — you have cognitive dissonance, you don’t want to think of yourselves as monsters who assisted in an act of unbelievable evil. Time to stop pretending and wake up, so you don’t do this again, as you undoubtedly will otherwise.

  22. John Morales says

    The Vicar, this schtick of making claims but never ever ever providing actual citations is getting rather old.

    The Israelis themselves say that the reason they negotiated a ceasefire is that Trump has said he will not keep funding them, in keeping with the whole right-wing “foreign aide is what causes the deficit” thing.

    Yeah? Go on, try to sustain that claim. Cite “The Israelis themselves”.

    (bah!)

  23. John Morales says

    All of you who keep making excuses for that piece of excrement in a suit which passes under the name of Joe Biden

    That is nobody ever on this blog.

    Same thing, bullshit claim, never ever any actual evidence.

    (bah!)

  24. John Morales says

    Like, if I say “a chancre is better than a cancer”, that is not fucking making excuses for chancre.

    (bah!)

  25. says

    It’s interesting that no one seems to discuss the idea that continued support for Israel is a hold over from the Cold War. Not all Arab states became Soviet clients, but Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Syria all did. So the conflict increasingly became a subset of the rivalry between the Western bloc and the Soviet bloc, and that became locked into much Western thinking even after the Cold War ended. It didn’t help that non-Israelis were frequently the target of terrorist attacks by Arab terrorist groups and their allies like the Japanese Red Army in the 1970s and ’80s, backed by Soviet funds and assistance. So for much of the Cold War there was little mainstream Western sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

    US military support for Israel only took off under the Kennedy administration, and economic aid had also been relatively limited. Truman and Eisenhower had actually prevented US military sales to Israel, and France had been Israel’s primary arms supplier. Kennedy ended that and allowed the first major sale of military equipment, Hawk surface to air missiles, the argument being these were defensive weapons. But under Johnson even such a fig leaf ended, and the US began to supply Israel modern weapons including tanks and combat aircraft. Economic aid greatly increased as well.

    Raging Bee@22 the obvious answer to what the US gets out of Israel is military sales, although with the growth of the Israeli arms industry that is somewhat less than the past. Military manufacturers get to advertise their equipment as tested in combat. Israel has also acted as a proxy at times when US domestic politics prevented support of certain actions. Specifically in the ’70s and ’80s Israel provided military assistance to places the US had trouble directly supporting, including Taiwan, Guatemala, and South Africa.

  26. KG says

    Israel is an extremely useful strategic ally in a crucial region for the USA and to a lesser extent for its allies… – Me@10

    “Useful” how, exactly? What have they done for us? More to the point, what benefit do we get from Israel that even begins to offset all the harm done by our support of Israel against all the other states in that region? – Raging Bee@22

    The USA’s active enemies in the region in the last decade have been Iran, Syria, and the non-state movements aligned with Iran (Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, some Iraqi militias). Israel has struck at all these, and undoubtedly weakened the Assad regime before its recent overthrow. As for the other states in the region, the USA’s alliance with Israel has not prevented any of them having friendly relations with the USA.

    The Israelis themselves say that the reason they negotiated a ceasefire is that Trump has said he will not keep funding them, in keeping with the whole right-wing “foreign aide is what causes the deficit” thing. – The Vicar@23

    I can’t find any Israelis saying that. Come on, give us a source, or admit that you can’t (failure toi give a source will of course be an implicit admission of that). There is absoutely no guarantee that the ceasefire will lead to an actual end to the war – “phase 1” does not even touch the issue of who will run Gaza. My guess is that Trump wants a “deal” to boast about at his inauguration, Netanyahu wants to give him something, and Hamas wants a pause to regroup. Much of the “funding” Israel gets from the USA comes back to American arms manufacturers, and Israel then does a lot of testing of new American weapons systems.

Leave a Reply