Low Controversy Blogging

I know that some of the things I've blogged might seem like some real "out there" positions, so I'm going to try to do some low controversy blogging. Just writing about things on which there is very little disagreement. I'll start with some things which I believe everyone agrees are true:

• The situation in Gaza is disastrous. It's horrifically bad. It needs to stop months ago.
• The amount of humanitarian aid getting into Gaza is and has been woefully inadequate for over half a year now. It is desperately needed, and ready to be delivered - but it is just not getting through in anywhere near sufficient quantities.
• Netanyahu is a fascist monster. And the people propping up his government are extremist right wing nutjobs. Arguably terrorists but certainly people who unquestionably want genocide in Gaza.
• At least some units in the IDF have done some super bad shit. They have behaved in completely unacceptable fashion and the IDF itself has done basically nothing to prevent or punish this unacceptable behaviour.

Is this not what the talking heads call "consensus reality"? That list is not a list of arguments - it is a list of observations. These statements are not controversial - they are just a description of the situation.

If that is the case, then what defense is there for people refusing to call for a Ceasefire Now? Is there any defense of stopping Israel from continuing to do what it is doing to Gaza? Because as far as I am aware, the entirety of the argument justifying Israel's actions is "BUT HAAAMMMAAAAASSSS!!!!"

Is that also a low controversy statement? That defenders of Israel's military campaign just simply do not engage with facts? That they do not contest the arguments for Ceasefire Now - they just discount them completely without considering them at all. And in that group I include the government of the USA. I am suggesting that the Biden Administration simply does not engage with the facts at all, and instead just dismisses them completely by saying "we've asked Israel to investigate itself".

Is that something we can all agree on? I'm not saying here that they are doing this out of malice or ill will, just that this is what they are doing. They see the facts on the ground - the situation as described - and they are actively impeding efforts to stop it from getting worse. They are in fact enabling it by continuing to supply the bombs and munitions being used against Gaza. 

Is that also a low controversy statement? Something we can all agree on?

On May 8th, Antony Blinken is due to present to Congress, his determinations on whether Israel is in violation of international humanitarian law. He is going to state whether or not continuing to arm Israel is consistent with US laws that prohibit military aid from going to units that have committed gross human rights violations. He is going to explain whether or not Israel is actively preventing humanitarian aid from reaching the people who it is intended for and who have a crisis level desperate need for it. This will happen with ICC warrants for Israeli leaders looming in the background or already issued - and with an IDF incursion into Rafah either about to happen or already underway.

Does anyone think Blinken's determinations are going to be low controversy?