No Accountability

Harvard University law professor Jay Michaelson writes

Democrats have a “genocide” problem. And they need to face it directly because..

the word “genocide” has become a litmus test for Democratic candidates, both in the 2026 election and looking ahead to 2028. It is now routine for candidates to be asked to raise their hand if they think Israel committed genocide.

No answer is without its costs. To answer “no” is a deal-breaker for progressives — “disqualifying,” in the words of online commentator Matt Bernstein. Yet to answer “yes” is disqualifying for many centrists. And to say “it’s complicated” — as potential presidential contender Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and congressional candidate Scott Wiener of California have tried recently — doesn’t please anybody.

One of the first rules of politics is to appear firm and decisive, preferably leading individuals on each of the two sides of an issue to believe. Thoughtful and nuanced doesn't cut it. Yet, asked whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute "genocide," Governor Beshear responded

That’s becoming one of those new litmus tests that we said we would never do as a party again. It’s trying to throw out a word and, “Are you going to raise your hand or are you not going to?” I understand that Israel was hit with a terrorist attack the likes of which it had never seen and it has been through a lot and that it deserves the right to defend itself and to eradicate that terrorist organization. I believe that it could have been done without a lot of the suffering, but I put a lot of that blame also on Donald Trump. If he’d said we are coming in and we are bringing food and aid and you are going to make sure that we’re safe, it wouldn't have happened.

Nonetheless, it has become a litmus test. And the beginning of the proper response is "No."  That need not be an endorsement of the Netanyahu government, but an acknowledgement that the Arab/Muslim nations of the Mideast have failed the Palestinians. Israeli critic and Palestinian supporter Anmol Kumar explained a year ago that the "roots" of the "abandonment" of the Palestinian cause 

trace back to the earliest days of the conflict. In 1948, when seven Arab states declared war against the nascent Israeli state, their decisive routing revealed not just military weakness but also the fundamental limitations of Arab state support for Palestine. The Nakba of 1948 shook the legitimacy of Arab regimes, creating a paradox where Arab states needed to appear supportive of the Palestinian cause while simultaneously fearing the consequences of genuine Palestinian empowerment.

The 1967 Six-Day War marked a crucial turning point, shattering any remaining illusions about Arab military solutions to the Palestinian question. The loss of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and Golan Heights wasn’t merely a territorial defeat; it represented the beginning of a profound shift in Arab state attitudes toward the Palestinian cause. The war effectively ended dreams of conquering Israel through conventional military means and forced Arab states to confront their limitations in supporting Palestinian aspirations.

The United States skillfully exploited this moment of Arab weakness. Post-1967, American policy focused on what a State Department research memorandum termed the “de-Arabisation” of the Arabs – essentially, making them accept Western rationality, which included acquiescence to Israel’s regional dominance. This policy proved remarkably successful, as one Arab state after another fell into line with Washington’s vision for the region.

Egypt’s 1978 Camp David Accords with Israel under President Anwar Sadat represented the first major crack in Arab solidarity with Palestine. By signing a separate peace treaty with Israel that abandoned Palestinians to their fate under Israeli control, Egypt set a precedent for other Arab states to prioritize their bilateral interests over Palestinian rights. The transformation of Egypt’s powerful military from a force meant to confront Israel into one primarily focused on suppressing domestic democratic aspirations symbolized this shift perfectly.

When interviewed in February of 2024 by Politico, Ryan Crocker, who spent nearly four decades as a diplomat representing USA interests in the Arab world, stated of successive American administrations "I don't think we really understood how deep the chasm was between Arab rhetoric supporting the PLO and the fear and lathing behind the mask."  He noted

The so-called Arab street [a term for public opinion in the Arab world] was behind the Palestinian cause, but it never really affected policy on part of any of the Arab governments. As you go around the region almost all [the Arab governments] were united on one point, which was that the Palestinians were a threat, a foreign population that should be weakened if not exterminated.

Kumar argues that support for "the Palestinian cause" among Arab states has suffered as they "have increasingly prioritized their relationship with the United States over regional solidarity" and obtained "military aid, diplomatic backing, and economic beneifts."   

That's one way to look at it. But the Muslim countries of the region never cared much for the Palestinians, and have become even hostile to them now as Israel's strength has become increasingly clear over the decades. That power has become evident as Israel militarily pummels Iran, inadvertently demonstrating that the nation could have committed genocide against Gazans had it chosen to do so.  The focus on charging "genocide" is intended to evoke a visceral, emotional response against Israel but in so doing, obscures the larger issue of Israeli policy in the region.

The loss of life in Gaza prior to the ceasefire which came about last year was extensive, but it would have been far broader and deeper had Israel intended to exterminate the populace.  That doesn't per se justify all of its actions there but at some point, a prominent Democrat should unequivocally inform the party's voters that not all badness is genocide.

               HAPPY EASTER                                                    HAPPY PASSOVER

Share |

Puny Secretary of State

Donald Trump is a brilliant man.

Though the President did not mention NATO in his televised address about Iran on Wednesday, April 1. Later that evening, The New York Times noted

Since his re-election, President Trump has threatened to leave the NATO alliance several times. On Wednesday, he did it again, frustrated that European nations had refused to join the so-far indecisive United States-Israeli war against Iran. 

(Mr. Trump added in the interview with The Telegraph of London that the the countries are "cowards" and the alliance a "paper tiger".)

And after his speech

On Thursday, speaking in Seoul, President Emmanuel Macron of France was explicit: Mr. Trump was undermining NATO with his repeated threats to pull out of it.

“If you create daily doubt about your commitment, you hollow it out,” he said.

This is where the fun comes in:

Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, reflecting Mr. Trump’s unhappiness with European allies, warned that relations with NATO would need to be re-examined after the war in Iran is resolved.

“Without the United States, there is no NATO,” Mr. Rubio said. “An alliance has to be mutually beneficial. It cannot be a one-way street. Let’s hope we can fix it.”

He added "I think there's no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded, we are going to have to reexamine that relationship. We're going to have to reexamine the value of NATO and that alliance for our country."

Now, that is interesting given that it was less than three years ago that Florida senator Rubio

cosponsored legislation impeding President Joe Biden from unilaterally ejecting America from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Senate Joint Resolution 37 would require the “advice and consent of the Senate or an Act of Congress to suspend, terminate, or withdraw the United States” from NATO.

Rubio exclaimed he is “proud to reintroduce this bipartisan bill with @timkaine to ensure that no US president can make the decision to leave NATO without Congressional approval.”

The resolution would freeze any funds needed to complete the president’s attempted estrangement from NATO and authorize the Congressional Legal Counsel to legally challenge the move.

The measure ultimately was included in the 2024 National Defense Reauthorization Act, enacted on December 2, 2023.

So Marco Rubio was in favor of NATO before he was against it. He stood firm for the alliance when it was unnecessry, back when the President of the United States of America himself was committed to upholding it. Now when his support is needed, he has turned away.

This is due to more than naked parisanship. When they were both presidential hopefuls, Donald Trump ridiculed Rubio because "I've never seen anybody sweat like that and you know a lot of these guys are serious sweaters."  He called him "Marco 'Amnesty' Rubio," a "lightweight" who is "just another all talk, no action politician." 

Trump called the Senator "Little Marco".  He still is Little Marco, a zero trying to be a one. Donald Trump had him pegged from day one as someone whose convictions will always give way to expedience, a classic lapdog.

   

Share |