Biden endorses a “pause.”

November 3, 2023

          Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that he would urge Israel to agree to humanitarian “pauses” in its war on Hamas. Blinken is heading to Israel to deliver that message personally. As he boarded a plane bound for Israel on Thursday, Blinken said,

We’ve seen in recent days Palestinian civilians continuing to bear the brunt of [the war]. And it’s important that the United States is committed to making sure everything possible is done to protect civilians.

          Blinken’s comments track with those of Biden, who said at a fundraiser on Wednesday in response to a peace activist who interrupted his remarks by calling for a ceasefire,

I think we need a pause. A pause means give time to get the prisoners out. . . . . I’m the guy that convinced Bibi to call for that cease-fire to let the prisoners out.

          Biden’s comments confirm the US strategy of publicly supporting Israel while applying private pressure. They also expose the fault line riving American politics and family relations. Biden used the terms “pause” and “ceasefire” in his response to the activist. While both involve the cessation of hostilities, the former is limited in scope, duration, and purpose, while the latter is frequently a formal agreement to end all hostilities as a prelude to a peace settlement See United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, Guidance on  Mediation of  Ceasefires.

          For many Israelis and American Jews, the calls for a ceasefire suggest that Israel does not have the right to defend itself against an ongoing terrorist threat.

The term “ceasefire” as used by the UN peacekeeping community (above) suggests that Israel must end its war against Hamas while the terrorist organization that brutalized more than a thousand Israeli civilians is still operational and capable of firing hundreds of rockets daily at civilian populations in Israel.

          And, of course, a ceasefire is a bilateral agreement that would require Hamas to pursue peace—a course explicitly rejected in its 1998 charter, which provides (in Article 13) the following:

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.

          Hamas adopted an updated charter in 2017 that omits the above language.

          To those seeking an immediate end to civilian casualties, the above arguments against a ceasefire seem unpersuasive, cynical, and dismissive of civilian casualties as an acceptable cost of war. See Dissent Magazine, The Case for a Ceasefire. (“The prevailing argument in Israel and most Western capitals is that Israel has a right to defend itself from external aggression. No one expected Israel not to respond, but at this point Israel has responded with destructive force.”) The authors of the article in Dissent also argue that calls for a ceasefire will strengthen President Biden’s hand “when the time comes to tell Netanyahu that the military operation must end.”

          Matthew Dus argues in The Guardian that “[a]n Israel-Hamas ceasefire is in everyone’s best interest, humanely and practically.”  But Dus counsels those seeking a ceasefire to welcome the incremental step of a “humanitarian pause” as follows:

A ceasefire, truce or “humanitarian pause” that begins as a temporary measure, but which could be extended, is vitally necessary to prevent further loss of civilian life on a mass scale.

Advocacy efforts should focus on members of Congress who have not yet called for a pause, rather than attacking members who have, even if not in the preferred language.

The war of words being waged to create a false binary between whether Israel should be taking any military action or not – with the dividing line being support for a so-named “ceasefire” – is harmful to protecting civilian lives.

          The political ground in Congress is beginning to shift in favor of a cessation of hostilities or change in strategy by Israel. Eighteen progressive members of the House introduced a resolution calling for a ceasefire and Senator Dick Durbin called for a ceasefire. And Senator Chris Murphy issued the following statement on Thursday:

It's time for Israel's friends to recognize that the current operational approach is causing an unacceptable level of civilian harm and does not appear likely to achieve the goal of permanently ending the threat from Hamas. As we have learned from America’s own counterterrorism campaigns, disproportionately large numbers of civilian casualties come with a moral cost, but also a strategic cost, as terrorist groups feed off of the grievances caused by civilian harm. [¶¶].

The current rate of civilian death inside Gaza is unacceptable and unsustainable. I urge Israel to immediately reconsider its approach and shift to a more deliberate and proportionate counterterrorism campaign, surgically targeting Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders and terrorist infrastructure while more highly prioritizing the safety of civilians in accordance with the law of armed conflict. This does not mean that Israel should stop fighting Hamas, but it must take concrete steps to end the current widespread harm to innocent people and children inside Gaza.

          Pressure from Israel’s allies seems to be moving President Biden and his national security advisors to apply more public pressure on Israel for a pause. As Biden is trying to curtail civilian casualties, congressional Republicans may be undermining the US’s influence by threatening Biden’s request for supplemental funding for Israel.

House Republicans pass Israel funding bill.

          Against that fluid backdrop, House Republicans passed a non-serious supplemental funding bill that ties support for Israel to a proportionate reduction in funding for the IRS. See Talking Points Memo, House Passes Dead-On-Arrival, Poison-Pilled Israel Aid Bill.

          Speaker Mike Johnson mocked a Congressional Budget Office report that said the $14 billion cut to the IRS budget (over ten years) would reduce revenue by $49 billion and increase the deficit by $24 billion.

          Mike Johnson pretended to be confused by the CBO’s math, saying

Only in Washington when you cut spending do they call it an increase in the deficit.

          Speaker Johnson’s limited understanding of math may be explained by the fact that his financial disclosures for the last seven years have failed to list a checking account. So, to put the CBO’s analysis in simple terms for Johnson, the IRS’s annual budget is $14 billion and it collects $4.9 trillion in revenue each year. If Republicans “cut spending” by eliminating the IRS’s entire annual budget, that “cut” would increase the deficit by $4.9 trillion. See how easy that is?

          But Speaker Johnson does not appear to be interested in facts—or truth. He just hired as his press spokesperson Raj Shah, who served as the Fox “brand protection” expert during the period that Fox News anchors were spreading falsehoods about alleged widespread fraud in the 2020 election. See The Daily Beast, Speaker Mike Johnson Hires Raj Shah, the Perfect Flack to Push More Election Lies.

          Emails show that Shah was internally questioning (or mocking) the positions taken by Fox anchors and guests while simultaneously defending and promoting those anchors. Shah was terminated by Fox in the aftermath of its $787 million defamation loss to Dominion Voting Systems.

          Hiring a press spokesperson who defended Fox against the Big Lie is an inauspicious start for a Speaker best known for taking the lead on a brief in the Supreme Court arguing to overturn the 2020 election.

Why the flare-up in Trump's civil trial matters.

          Trump's lawyers and Judge Engoron got into an argument during the trial on Thursday. The argument matters because it shows that Trump has hired lawyers who are unsuitable for defending him in the upcoming federal trial on election interference.

          During trial proceedings on Thursday, Trump's attorney, Christopher Kise objected to questioning of Eric Trump. After making his objection, Kise said snidely to Judge Engoron, “Maybe you should ask your law clerk first [before ruling on the objection].” See Business Insider, Angry NY Fraud-Trial Judge Accuses Trump Lawyer of Misogyny in Court.

          There was more back and forth, including an accusation by Judge Engoron that Kise’s comment was motivated by misogyny.

          No lawyer—or rather, no good lawyer—would ever attack a judge by suggesting that the judge is inappropriately relying on their law clerk. No good lawyer would ever attack a judge in open court by suggesting that the judge is not competent to preside over the proceedings.

          Before Kise began working for Trump, Kise had a decent reputation. He was a partner in a respected national law firm. He served as the Solicitor General of Florida. But his association with Trump has apparently caused him to adopt Trump's rude, abusive, offensive behavior.

          Kise’s disrespect to Judge Engoron may be what Kise thinks Trump wants (or needs), but it will not go well in federal court before Judge Chutkan. The misconduct of an attorney should not prejudice their client’s defense, but if Kise continues such behavior, it is difficult to see how he will not undermine Trump's already weak defense in the election interference case.

Nancy Pelosi takes on “No Labels.”

          “No Labels” is a stalking horse for Donald Trump. It seeks to run a hopeless third-party bid that will siphon votes from Joe Biden, forcing a “contingent election” in the House that will elect Donald Trump. No Labels is not a political party and, therefore, is not required by law to disclose donors—like all other political parties. But what little is known about its backers is that it is sponsored by Republican megadonors. See Mother Jones, No Labels Exposed: Here’s a List of Donors Funding Its Effort To Disrupt the 2024 Race.

          DO NOT FALL FOR the No Labels lies about wanting a “unity ticket.” It seeks to elect Donald Trump. Period. Full stop.

          Nancy Pelosi has recently come out against No Labels in a big way. See Politico, Pelosi launches an all-out attack against No Labels. Per Politico, Pelosi said,

No Labels is perilous to our democracy. I hesitate to [call them] “No Labels” because they do have labels. They’re called no taxes for the rich. No child tax credit for children. They’re called let’s undo the Affordable Care Act. When they jeopardize the reelection of Joe Biden as president of the United States, I can no longer remain silent.

Concluding Thoughts.

          After my plea for Democratic unity yesterday, a reader posted a quote from Rebecca Solnit that succinctly expresses how we should approach voting. Solnit wrote, “I think of voting as a chess move, not a Valentine.”

          Solnit’s point is that the act of voting should be a strategic choice, not a teenage crush. Do telegenic charisma and good looks matter in politics? Sadly, yes. But they are poor indicators of character, intelligence, and integrity. And it is unrealistic to expect that any candidate will be “perfect” on every issue that is important to us. “Single-issue” voting is responsible for the blight of extremism threatening our democracy.

          Joe Biden is not perfect. But he is good. We cannot let perfection be the enemy of the good.

          Voting is a chess move, not a Valentine.

          Talk to you tomorrow!