Primarily Uncommitted

It's a weird one in Michigan tonight. Here's some "just before numbers come in" thoughts. Note - a lot of this is random ass speculation and really is just me talking a lot because I have a lot of anxious energy around the starvation deaths that are about to swamp Gaza in the midst of the Rafah invasion. Maybe it's all nonsense - maybe it's just mindless chatter to keep my thoughts out of the dark space. Probably is - but it's my blog and quieting the voices in my head is why I do this.

Anywho - first off, the percentages are going to be meaningless. Biden is essentially an uncontested incumbent, so his turnout is going to be depressed. Why would primary voters bother when they know Joe has it in the bag? That said, primary voters are pretty committed voters, so a lot of them will turn out - it's just that whatever numbers Joe gets won't really be reflective of his support or of the enthusiasm of his supporters. The only thing the percentages are going to impact is the narrative in the next news cycle. 

The raw numbers will make a difference though. 2012 also had an uncontested incumbent, although one more popular than Joe is now. Obama pulled 170K in 2012 (and he won that general election) - so that's the danger level for Biden. If he doesn't break 170K, that's a red flag. Remember that the issue isn't just people pissed off enough that they want to register a protest vote of Uncommitted - in fact, these votes are less problematic as many of them will support Biden in the general. The issue is depressed enthusiasm and support - people who will stay home in November.

If Joe breaks half a million, that would be a good sign for him. Sure he got 840K in 2020 - but that was a semi-competitive contest.  It was a week after the Super Tuesday coalescing around Biden to stop Bernie - so Biden was the huge favourite by then, but had only been in that position for a week. It was certainly possible to believe that Sanders was still viable then. And while a split of 56% to 36% is a blowout, it's not the 90% you expect for uncontested incumbents. So the 2020 turnout was stronger than we would expect for this year.

Anything in between there - probably not meaningful. My expectation is that Biden breaks 500K and fairly easily. If he breaks a million that would be a crazy strong signal of support. At least IMO.

On the Uncommitted side - the base level for this vote is 20K. It was 20.8K in 2012 and 21.6K in 2016 and 19.1K in 2020. So the first 20K Uncommitted votes are just votes that would have been Uncommitted anyways. The rest are the protests votes - and while this is still not a competitive primary, people voting Uncommitted as a protest are engaged and will likely turnout as if it were a contested primary.

The ratio of general election votes to Democratic primary votes was just under 4:1 in 2016 and just over 4:1 in 2020. So 4:1 seems like a reasonable guess. That said - it's a wild ass guess.

Note that I'm not considering 2008 because that was a screwed up Democratic primary because Michigan wanted to jump the gun and got the New Hampshire treatment.

Anyways, Biden edged out Trump in Michigan's 2020 general by 155K votes. So we now have a shape of what would be bad news for Biden - although the biggest factor is what percentage of Uncommitteds will stay home in November versus how many will swallow their anti-genocide principles and vote for Genocide Joe.

If it's 75% of Uncommitteds who see Trump as being worse enough that they will vote for Biden, that balances out the 4:1 general:primary factor. This is my guess at it.

So the target for Uncommitted to mean anything is 155K plus the background 20K. If Uncommitted breaks around 175K votes, that's the (much larger error bars) level that's the red flag.

Summary - bad news for Biden is if he doesn't break 170K or Uncommitted does. Good news for Biden if he breaks half a million. Great news if he breaks a million. And yes, it is possible that Biden will get more than half a million and Uncommitted breaks 170K. That would be good news - it's would represent high turnout which implies high engagement on the Democratic side which is good.

On the minus side - it is the end of February. None of this means anything because holy shit can things go really bad in the next few months.

Will Trump be Worse on Gaza?

My gut reaction is the same as everybody else's. Of course Trump will be worse. "Will Trump be worse?" is a question that can always be answered with "Absolutely." He is just that bad.

But then I thought about it, and now I am not so sure. There's two items where Trump might actually be better than Biden - and one of them is Gaza. The other, shockingly, is the border. Everything else, no contest - Trump is worse and will be worse, without a doubt. Also, I'm not entirely convinced that Biden will be worse on those two issues - just that there's a pretty decent argument that it is possible. Whereas with Trump on every other issue, there is no argument. Trump is just so bad that he would be worse than anything Biden could manage. On climate change, the environment, energy, emergency preparedness, inequality, criminal justice, strength of democracies, corruption, trust in institutions, the performance of those institutions, social safety nets, health care, the opioid epidemic, housing, the economy, jobs, science, literally every other possible thing - Trump would be worse.

So, here are the arguments. On Gaza - the assholes who say that supporting Palestine and opposing Genocide Joe is just enabling MAGA, they also claim "but what can Biden do?" They say that you cannot blame Biden for the choices that Netanyahu makes. This of course is bullshit - Biden has a LOT of tools to impact Israeli policy. He could follow the law and cut Israel off from a resupply of bombs and artillery shells. He could refrain from vetoing Security Council resolutions. He could impose sanctions just like civilized countries do when rogue states engage in militaristic aggression. But relevant to the actual point, Biden does none of these things. And he positions himself as never even possibly considering any of them.

Instead, Biden unconditionally supports Israel. No red flags. Pretends that there is no evidence of war crimes even in the face of the thousands of videos of war crimes uploaded by IDF soldiers. You cannot support someone more than 100%. 100% is everything - it's the most extreme position. What can Trump possibly do to make this worse?

So it is as the assholes claim - Biden is not making Netanyahu commit genocide. Netanyahu is doing that of his own free will - and Biden is merely enabling it with no restrictions or limits. But in this case, Trump cannot make it worse. The horrors we're seeing in Gaza are not limited in any way by any action taken by the US president (because no US president is willing to prevent genocide from happening), therefore a much worse US president (and Trump would be a much worse president than Biden) will not make Gaza worse.

OTOH, a Republican president will allow a whole mass of people who oppose what's happening in Gaza to actually oppose it. There will be actual opposition instead of people biting their tongues because "omg what if Trump gets elected?!"

This is like the War on Terror. Bush started it, yes. But Obama did not rein it in. In some countries, the Drone War program was ten times more active under the Democratic president than under W. I mean, you would imagine that Afghanistan was safer when Obama was in charge as compared to "War Preznit Bush". You would be seriously mistaken. And maybe this is driven by how the US electorate responds to having each of the parties controlling the White House. A sort of "only Nixon could have gone to China" thing. IOW, only "anti-war" and "progressive" and "vaguely possibly Muslim-ish" (/s) presidents like Barack Obama could expand the global campaign to bomb Muslims into hating the West.

So Trump cannot make things worse (because Israel apparently can never be constrained). But he will galvanize opposition to genocide, so maybe this is a net plus for Palestine. Maybe not, this argument relies on a lot of hypotheticals - but I believe that the actual results from the War on Terror under each of Bush and Obama are at least somewhat relevant.

The other argument here is also that Trump is incompetent and a big boob. He'll be too distracted with petty revenge to make any actual policy. And an environment like that - ruled by grievances where everyone is fighting for the favour of the brain-worm addled baby - it's not conducive to actually getting any shit done. If the choice is between two pro-genocide presidents, I think I would prefer the less competent and more easily distracted one.

As for the border - this is another thing where Biden faces no real opposition because - omg, what if you're enabling Trump, who would be much worse. Only, this doesn't seem to be true either. And it is the Democrats themselves that are pitching this angle, about how Biden has made the border much more "secure" and the treatment of migrants much more harsh and unforgiving. Here's Steve Rattner making the case that Biden deported way more people than Trump did.

I think results matter. Data matters. And the Democrats themselves are saying that the data shows that they are much harsher on the border. And the data they cite sure seems relevant. So if Biden can be worse than Donald "not sending their best" Trump on immigration - then I think it is reasonable to believe that Biden may well be worse for Palestine than Trump.

Hind Rajab and her Family

It's impossible to post every time the IDF lies. They lie so much you would need a team of thousands of bloggers to catalogue it all. Just mendacious lying assholes. All. The. Time.

But the case of Hind Rajab deserves mention as she has caught the attention of the world. To be clear - there's harm in doing this as well. One of the reasons we are so taken with Hind's story is so that we can focus on this one little girl, instead of acknowledging that there are literally thousands of little girls who have been slaughtered by Israeli ordnance. It is not my intent to erase or ignore those many other deaths.

Sometimes one of these many incidents where the IDF murders children - it causes a backlash. In the ancient days of August 2022, this was most of the cases where multiple children were blown to smithereens. The IDF denied that they bombed these kids, but had to backtrack when presented with shrapnel bearing a serial number from their missile.

More recently, the IDF said that it was impossible for their airstrikes to have killed the three hostages that Hamas claimed were victims of IDF bombs. You see, the IDF wasn't actively striking the area - only, oops - yes, they were. They did in fact bomb the area the hostages were in.

It's reflex. They claim credit for all their kills, unless there's a backlash to those specific kills in which case they were nowhere near the area and it had to be a misfiring PIJ rocket.

Hind said she saw the tanks. Her sister said she saw the tanks. The IDF says "impossible, we were nowhere near there. It could not have been IDF tanks." Never mind that the damage done to the vehicle and to the ambulance crew were substantial - I guess the IDF is claiming that Hamas hit it with antitank rockets or something.

Unfortunately for the IDF, there's satellite imagery of the region. Here's a detailed AlJazeera investigation into it. Maybe this will all be forgotten - maybe the IDF will never have to admit that it was in fact their forces which slaughtered this young girl, her family, and the medics who tried to save her. It's possible that this just disappears down the memory hole.

But here's the sad part - it would not make any difference either way. If the IDF was forced to admit their guilt in this act, it changes nothing. They were eventually forced into admitting other blatant lies and still allowed to carry on in their murderous ways. They were forced to concede that they assassinated Shireen Abu Akleh, and yet if anything their approach to journalists in Gaza has only become more murderous.

And it brings us back to the start of it all. The IDF murdered Hind and her family and the medics that tried to save her. But one of the drivers of us caring about this one is so that we don't have to think about the thousands of other cases which are all basically the same. This is what the IDF does - they kill Palestinians. Innocent children, their families, adults, civilians - and also maybe some Hamas fighters too. It's just massive amounts of wholesale slaughter.

Slow News Day

Israel is supposed to submit their report to the ICJ today. It is supposed to explain how they are protecting Palestinians in Gaza and complying with the order to increase humanitarian aid. The back drop for this - the ICJ is also wrapping up hearings on how illegal the settlements and occupation is and the Palestinian Authority PM and government has just resigned. Meanwhile in the US, the New York Times is trying to figure out how to sweep the Anat Schwartz thing under the rug.

Also, Aaron Bushnell - the airman who lit himself on fire to protest the genocide - has died. I'm going to let his words close out this post.

Many of us like to ask ourselves, "What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?"

The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.

 

Evacuate! Evacuate! Evacuate!

 Someone’s going to do the cartoon with Bibi as Davros and the Israeli Dalek Forces screaming “Evacuate!” I can’t draw, so it won’t be me. 

There’s something like 1.2 million people in Rafah now. The thing people have been saying to this ludicrous notion of evacuating Rafah is that there is nowhere left to go. Because there is nowhere left to go. But here’s some other things to consider. 

Evacuating a million people is not easy. Like, crazy not easy. Hurricane Katrina resulted in a million people being evacuated - and that was a fiasco. Over a thousand people died. But - it could have been a lot worse. Heckuva job Broenie may have dropped the ball and W might have been too busy with birthday cakes to engage, but there was a response and people did mobilize to help. That’s not happening in Gaza. Also, evacuees had the ability to evacuate. Not only did they have places to go, but they also had fuel and vehicles to get there. Those things are also not true of Gaza. Also, the population of Rafah has been starved for an extended period. Disease and malnutrition are rampant. Civil order is mostly broken.  Civilian infrastructure has been bombed into uselessness. An evacuation of Rafah is going to make the government response to Katrina 

Here’s another mass evacuation that’s happened since Katrina - Fukushima Prefecture. Something like 200,000 people had to be evacuated. It took several days. 2,000 people died in the evacuation. Now the population of Fukushima is much older and thus less resilient to shocks like this. But the population of Gaza has had most of their resiliency already used up. A 1% death toll might actually be the type of thing we might expect from a forced evacuation of Rafah. That would be over ten thousand people. And again - this was somewhere with existing services and agencies and equipment and vehicles with fuel and food and clean water. Maybe that 1% rate is optimistic. 

So this idea that evacuating Rafah is going to protect civilians from mass casualty events in the ground invasion - well, the evacuation itself would be a massive mass casualty event. 

The New York Times Blogging is Not Good

So turns out that the Hamas rape story is more problematic even then we thought after learning details of the Gal Abdush case. That's the one where they identified the "woman in the black dress" and Israeli security forces said she was raped before she was murdered. And the New York Times mislead the family about what type of story they were writing (one focused on Hamas being rape monsters instead of memorializing victims) to get interviews. And then it turns out that it is incredibly unlikely that she was raped. In the words of the victim's sister:

At 6:51, Gal sent us a message on WhatsApp saying ‘we are at the border, and you can’t imagine sounds of explosions around us.’ At 7 o’clock, my brother-in-law called his brother and said they shot Gal and she’s dying. It doesn’t make any sense that in four minutes, they raped her, slaughtered her, and burned her?

Now to be clear - Hamas did brutally murder her. An innocent civilian. This is already a very serious crime that should be denounced - it is a clear act of terrorism and was one of many that were committed that day. But it sure looks like the IDF just made up some bullshit story to make it seem even worse and then the Times misled and took advantage of the victim's family in order to catapult that lie.

Anyways, how could this be more problematic? Well, some more information has come out about one of the authors of the piece. Turns out that Anat Schwartz's Twitter account had liked at least a couple of very problematic posts. One with language bad enough that it got included in South Africa's ICJ case accusing Israel of genocide and the other about propaganda strategies to get the West to fear Hamas. There may have been more, but her social media got locked down immediately and then scrubbed before being restored.

It's been repeated so many times - the Hamas rape machine, all of the rapes that Hamas perpetrated on October 7, those dirty Arabs are sexual predators who wallow in rape and violence. Based on stories like the ones Anat Schwartz fed into the discourse. And it is really starting to look like those stories are all bullshit. 

AFAICT, they still have not found any survivors who say they were a victim of rape. Now this isn't proof that it didn't happen. Supposedly, as per the hasbara, most of the victims were also murdered. And survivors quite reasonably have trouble reporting these horrific violations against them in less fraught circumstances - but to know that the accusation will be accompanied by a mountain of global scrutiny and coverage is probably also off-putting. In the case of rape and sexual violence, the adage that absence of evidence not being evidence of absence is especially true. BUT - when you factor in the incredibly bad faith bullshit being engaged in by Israel and outlets like the New York Times, well maybe some skepticism is warranted. Believe women - this holds. But maybe also don't automatically believe people using those women to justify genocide.

Let me note - I found the accusations against Hamas credible despite my automatic skepticism of anything the IDF says. The IDF lies. All the time. That skepticism is something the IDF has earned. They are more shameless about spreading propaganda than conservative politicians. BUT - I am deeply anti-war. War is hell. It is literally human beings doing their utmost to kill and destroy one another. It is bad and it has bad repercussions that spread everywhere and affect everything. So I am primed to believe accusations of misconduct against people engaged in war. In this particular case - even more so, as the Hamas fighters were also clearly engaged in terrorism - in the wholesale murder of defenseless civilians. So when you suggest that they are also rapists, my skepticism gets put on hold.

But now, it really does look like these accusations are just bullshit. Israeli propaganda or hasbara. It's lies. I should have understood this much earlier - the explanation that Hamas gave as to why it was untrue was solid. See, Hamas noted that their fighters are deeply religious fanatical zealots that were engaged in what they saw as a glorious struggle, likely a suicide mission where they would be martyred. And fundamental to that bizarre religious doctrine is the usual religious hang-ups about sex and how it is forbidden except for making babies. Of course, Hamas didn't phrase it like that - but that was the crux of their claim. And it fits in with what we have observed. And, to people outside of Hamas, it does not paint them in a good light. The excuse is basically - they didn't rape anyone because that would get in the way of their murdering of civilians.

Anyways, with Israel on the verge of invading Rafah, the Times is probably warming up another "Israel is so progressive - check out this group of brave Israeli women fighting in Gaza". There's even a perfect photo for it that was taken this past week.

They Cannot Remain Consistent Even During a Single Week

 I mean maybe I shouldn't pick on them because Blinken is factually correct on this:

“New settlements are counterproductive to reaching an enduring peace,” Blinken says during a news conference in Buenos Aires. 

“They’re also inconsistent with international law. Our administration maintains a firm opposition to settlement expansion. In our judgement this only weakens, it doesn’t strengthen, Israel’s security.”

Compared to their submission to the ICJ earlier this week:

"The court should not find that Israel is legally obligated to immediately and unconditionally withdraw from occupied territory," said Richard Visek, legal advisor at the US State Department. 

"Any movement towards Israel withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza requires consideration of Israel's very real security needs," he argued. 

"We were all reminded of those security needs on October 7," he said, referring to the Hamas attacks that sparked the current conflict.

I guess the number of Israeli settlements in the West Bank is in the Goldilocks Zone for maximum security. Any more - weakens Israeli security. Any reduction - weakens Israeli security.

Or maybe the US is full of shit and they are just making noises to not look like they are as contemptuous of international law as Israel is - but in fact are 100% cool with more settlements in the West Bank.

Not Blogging has not Improved the Blogging Situation

Well, trying to not talk about it has not had any effect than blogging about it constantly. Shit is all fucked up and - as I started noting incessantly way back in October - going to get worse.

There's no good news. The closest thing to good news is the ICJ is nearing the end of a week-long hearing on how illegal the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories is. Over 50 countries wanted to present and sll seemed to agree - even the US - that the occupation was illegal. The US however also believed that Israel is allowed to break the law and the ICJ has no jurisdiction, so we  have been clearly told what impact any ruling might have. Zero.

The IDF is going to invade Rafah. The last remaining city in the Gaza Strip, where a million displaced persons are sheltering in tents. You know that homeless encampment in the park that's bothering the fuck out of all the affluent downtown residents? Imagine that - but with a million people. Also, none of them have had regular meals for months.

I had mentioned before that the thing which fucking pushed me over the edge on the disaster unfolding before our eyes was when Biden questioned the death toll by calling the "Hamas run" Gaza Ministry of Health not worthy of trust. The Gaza Ministry of Health is the doctors and nurses and other hospital workers who have been trying to save lives in the bombed out hospitals of Gaza. The ones who have stayed in facilities they know the murderous IDF is obsessed with out of loyalty to their communities and patients. Fucking godamned heroes and Biden isn't worthy of being shat on by them. That's the thing that aggravated me into obsession myself.

So it should not have come as a surprise that UNRWA was the next target. The relief workers trying to distribute humanitarian aid in the conditions that exist in Gaza right now. Also fucking goddamned heroes. Gaza is not merely a "war zone". It's all four horsemen of the apocalypse - War, Death, Famine, and Pestilence - just riding free. And it's UNRWA that's been trying to slow their progress through the population of Gaza. And Biden thinks they should just fucking disappear.  UNRWA funding is going to be exhausted in maybe a couple of weeks because Joe Biden is a genocidal monster. Maybe Joe doesn't want to commit genocide himself - but he cares so little about preventing it that he will do his utmost best to ensure that the genocide is not impeded and can move along at the fastest speed allowable.

On the topic of Genocide Joe - apparently, he won't mince words.

Many of the replies to him were about how he absolutely is mincing words - by only identifying one source of all that suffering.  "But HAAAMMMOOSSE!". And that's a good observation. "I won't mince words - bad shit is happening, but let's not think about who is doing it or what anyone can do to prevent it from getting worse - which it has been - for four and a half months."

BUT here's the thing that isn't being noticed.  This is the statement that Joe thinks is some brave and controversial position - something that's "not mincing words":

The overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not Hamas. And Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people.

That's the statement he thinks is so shocking and controversial that he needs to preface it with "I won't mince words." 

Fuck you Genocide Joe.  Just go fuck yourself.

Wild Speculation - the Stakes of Blogging Ceasefires

Remember the ICJ ruling? That was January 26. So, two weeks ago the world court said that Israel is plausibly accused of committing genocide. There were a number of provisional measures ordered - and it's plainly obvious that Israel has ignored them. And no one is surprised by this - that Israel would show zero respect for international law and legally binding rulings from the world court. But it is still a small minority of people who acknowledge that this is unsurprising because Israel is a rogue state. Because Israel IS a rogue state. 

Anyways, in the week that followed the ruling, Algeria indicated that they would bring a ceasefire motion to the Security Council. The US opposed this - as they apparently do whenever anybody calls for an end to the violence. Their excuse was that they believed a Security Council resolution for a ceasefire would interfere with the ongoing ceasefire negotiations. IOW, the current batch of negotiations around the Paris Framework are likely the reason the US wasn't forced into another immoral and gross veto at the Security Council. IOW, the stakes are pretty high here - the ceasefire negotiation is the only thing keeping the US from flipping off the International Court of Justice.

Which brings us to the change in tone from Biden. The "over the top" comment about Israel's military response. You know - the one that people are using to call Biden senile because he confused Egypt with Mexico*. What's the change? Hasn't Biden already noted before that Israel needs to do more to minimize civilian casualties? Here's the change - his answer does not invoke Israel's right to self-defense and does not reference October 7th at all. If it wasn't the guy supplying ammunition to the IDF, he would have been called an antisemite for this. He criticized Israel without condemning Hamas first! The change is that Biden acknowledged that the situation in Gaza is incredibly bad and indicated that this was due to Israel's "over-the-top" military campaign - and did so without excusing it by screaming "BUT HAAMMAAAS!!11!eleventy-one!" - and yes, I think this is a big deal.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic. Huffing on hopium and trying to grab any indication that policy might actually change. Biden does also say that he hopes the "pause" can be expanded and get Israel to change the way they fight the war - so he's still opposed to any type of ceasefire and wants more military action in Gaza. That's a HUGE fucking problem.

But it looks to me like he may also be concerned that this actually is genocide (because it actually is genocide) - and that evidence indicating such is going to be undeniable soon - especially if Israel moves on to Rafah as they are saying they will do.

*Biden does this all the time. He has ALWAYS done this sort of thing. Getting hung up on a brainfart from Joe "Gaffe Machine" Biden is a bit precious. That said - dude is ancient, so the possibility that he's got the brainworms is definitely non-zero. But Biden mixing up words or names? This is standard for Uncle Joe and has been for a long time.

The Children of Refugees

I have been seeing a new anti-UNRWA talking point. That the UNRWA is engaged in some huge conspiracy to perpetuate its collection of donor money - based on defining the children of refugees as refugees. The claim is that it is only the UNRWA that does this and no other refugees have children that inherit refugee status. 

Like I’ve said before, the genocide deniers seem to honestly believe that everyone they talk to is as stupid as they are. I mean, what the actual fuck? How does it work then? The children of non-UNRWA mandate refugees are what? Citizens of the world? Sovereign states on their own? No seriously - if a refugee in say, Kakuma Camp in Kenya has a baby - what happens to that baby? I mean if it doesn’t inherit refugee status - then it’s what? Magically disappeared into the ether?

Just so fucking stupid. The stupidest shit ever. Fucking dumb nonsense that doesn’t even begin to make sense at any point. 

The End of Blogging... is Unacceptable

The Paris Framework for a negotiated end to the War in Gaza was fundamentally broken - as I noted a few days ago. When the "negotiation" has one side starting from "you must be completely destroyed. Eradicated. This only ends when you no longer exist. This is non-negotiable" - well, I mean I think you can see how this might be problematic.

Since then, Hamas has responded. When I first heard about the Hamas response being "positive" - I was confused and thought that I had lost my mind. Thus far, Hamas is winning this war. Their prominence and influence, not only in Gaza but across the entire region - has massively increased. Their opponents - Israel and the US - increasingly marginalized on the world stage. Their ability to strike back at Israel? Some people have noted that fewer rockets have been launched than earlier in the war - so perhaps their rocket firing capabilities have been degraded. But these are almost entirely ineffectual in the first place - the Iron Dome actually works quite well - so there's hardly any change there. Where there has been a change is in Hamas' ability to fight IDF forces on the ground - and going by casualty numbers, this ability has only increased.

Well, details about that response are being covered now.  BBC has a good summary of what Hamas is demanding, quoted below:

A draft of the Hamas document seen by the Reuters news agency suggests:

• Phase one: A 45-day pause in fighting during which all Israeli women hostages, males under 19, the elderly and sick would be exchanged for Palestinian women and children held in Israeli jails. Israeli forces would withdraw from populated areas of Gaza, and the reconstruction of hospitals and refugee camps would begin
• Phase two: Remaining male Israeli hostages would be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners and Israeli forces leave Gaza completely
• Phase three: Both sides would exchange remains and bodies

The deal would also see deliveries of food and other aid to Gaza increase. By the end of the 135-day pause in fighting, Hamas says negotiations to end the war would have concluded.

The summary I saw from Al Jazeera included other details like restoring access to Al Aqsa mosque and free movement for Palestinians within Gaza. Also, they asked for something like a quarter million temporary shelters to be included in the humanitarian aid - which sounds like a lot, but is a much smaller number than the amount of homes that Israel has destroyed over these past four months.

Biden has said that Hamas' demands are "over the top". What is over the top here? What is the unreasonable demand that Hamas is making? Very clearly and obviously it is this - Hamas is not agreeing to accepting that Israel pursue them to complete destruction with military force regardless of collateral damage to Gazans. That is the single "over the top" item in the response. Netanyahu has called the Hamas response "delusional" - because it calls for Israel leaving Gaza without eradicating Hamas.

Herein lies the trap that the West has built around themselves. Hamas was relatively popular before October 7 despite being a violent terrorist organization that was credibly charged with having a deeply entrenched culture of corruption. But afterwards? 

Hamas is the only group to effectively strike back at Israel. To be clear - I condemn the attacks of October 7th. Hundreds of civilians were violently murdered and hundreds more were kidnapped. This is a mass atrocity and I do not pretend that it didn't happen or that there was justification for it. BUT - since October 7, Israel has shown itself to be worse. There is no objective measure where the attacks of October 7 are anywhere close to as bad as what Israel has inflicted upon Gaza since then. And if you are Palestinian or have empathy for Palestinians? Well Israel has conducted itself as the villain here. Not to say that Hamas are heroes - they are also villains - but they are the ones that are inheriting the good will for standing up to the monster.

Moreover - Israel's campaign of what the ICJ has said is plausibly called genocide - is ongoing. It is happening right now - at this very minute. And Hamas is actively fighting it on the streets and exacting a toll in killed and injured IDF soldiers. Of course Hamas is more popular now then it ever has been before. If you were in Gaza, how could you not see Israel as the enemy? And Hamas is the only force that is fighting them.

This is the first massive pile of shit that the US and Israel are going to have to eat. The insistence that there be "no Hamas in a post-war Gaza" is unbelievably naive. Do they honestly think that there can be a post-war Gaza government that has any legitimacy if they exclude Hamas? It's farcical. Perhaps in the long term - after a Palestinian state is recognized and that state has been free from the need for a resistance (against outside interference) movement for some time - maybe then it is possible, but in the near term? This is delusional.

And it's not like we're opposed to having terrorists controlling governments. The obvious example is the US being forced to hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban, but there are many others. I think the most relevant example is that Ben-Gvir, the current Israeli Minister of National Security, literally has been convicted of supporting terrorism and incitement of racism.

Also too - "first massive pile of shit" implies that there will be more. And there will. BDS as a movement was picking up steam before all of this broke out. Does anyone think BDS has been weakened by this at all? Or the Israeli project in the West Bank? Will this continue the way it has been going? The US presence in the Middle East, with their various military bases all across the region - this is looking less and less welcome to the host nations.

The ICJ case is going to continue - and South Africa has announced that they will be taking the US among other western nations to court over complicity in genocide. And the facts of the case look really strong for South Africa's case. How is this going to turn out - and what will it mean for Israel's culture of unaccountable impunity?

That said - the folks running this show are very powerful and have no shame and will pursue their objectives with no thought given to morality or basic human rights other than for PR purposes. They will refuse the massive piles of shit they have to eat with all their might, and they have a lot of might. So we'll see how this shakes out as we go forward.

Is It Genocide Yet?

Residents of the Gaza Strip will be evacuated from Rafah before initiating military operations there

How is this supposed to work? They’ve already evacuated the entire population of Gaza into Rafah. They were forced out of Gaza City into Central Gaza. Then from Central Gaza to Khan Younis. Now they are being pushed from Khan Younis to Rafah. And the plan is u to o further evacuate them out of Rafah?  Where to? They cannot go any further south without leaving Gaza. And Israel sure as fuck won’t let large numbers of people out of Gaza because some of those people are Hamas. Nevermind the fact that this forcible displacement out of Gaza is a war crime that even the US has declared unacceptable. So what is supposed to happen here?  

The Kids These Days Blogging Their Ticks and Tocks

Back on December 12, Ha'aretz published a story accusing the IDF of running a snuff channel called "72 Virgins - Uncensored" on Telegram. They of course denied it at the time. Yesterday they had a different story. Turns out, yes - the IDF was indeed running a snuff channel. but it was "unauthorized" - just some rogue senior officers in the "Influencing Unit" of the IDF Operations Directorate. Anyways, Israel has said that they have dealt with the matter. Apparently someone is going to be asked to retire! What more consequences can there be than that?

For clarity - that channel is now defunct and I have never seen the videos on it. I call it a "snuff channel" based on the reporting of the shit that was posted. You can look it up yourself if you want to check but I'm not going into any more depth about what was on there.

EDIT: I've reconsidered this point. The labour people have put in to investigating and documenting this behaviour should not be ignored. And while I did cite Ha'aretz earlier and they should be recognized for highlighting these things as a newspaper in Israel, there are others it is also important to recognize. In particular, there's one Twitter account that I think is very important - so here is their thread on this channel from Dec. 12. /EDIT

Some points I'd like to make. Firstly - the IDF lies. They do. All the time. These claims that they weren't involved, followed by a reversal later - this is just incredibly common. The one that gets cited a lot is the assassination of Shireen Abu Akleh, where IDF denials of any involvement were supplemented by a faked video. The IDF is just a fountain of propaganda and disinformation - and they are absolutely 100% shameless about it. When they toured the BBC through Al Shifa Hospital - you know, the Hamas Pentagon where they found a box of dates - the one "go bag" hidden behind an MRI machine (yes, that should have been enough to confirm that this was pure bullshit) had it's contents changed from an earlier video. When confronted with this, the IDF admitted to putting more stuff in there. The evidence they were citing to justify attacking a hospital - they just casually admitted to tampering with and expected no one to care.

Secondly - Israel's military operations including psych warfare aimed at their own citizens - has no restrictions. The IDF was running a snuff channel but the matter has been "dealt with" - by having one guy maybe retire early. Maybe - the reports I've read are just that someone is expected to retire. Or with Abu Akleh? Israel admitted that they likely killed her. There were no consequences - not even a reprimand. Even when it is the one crime that Israel itself sees as so vile that it warrants genocide - the crime of killing Israeli civilians - there are no consequences if the accused is with the IDF. The countless Israeli victims of IDF hellfire missiles on October 7 - killed by the IDF? Well apparently, it would be immoral to even look into it. The guys that shot the escaped hostages? No punishment. One of the reasons why IDF soldiers keep posting TikToks of their war crimes is because they are encouraged to do so and there is zero penalty for it.

Relatedly - Israel claimed at the ICJ hearing that the proper place to look at any possible misconduct by IDF soldiers is in their robust and independent judicial system. It is a testament to the professionalism of South Africa's legal team that this claim was not met with outright laughter.

Thirdly - that IDF channel wasn't the biggest one. Nor the worst. IDF soldiers post snuff videos - it's just a thing they do (but don't you dare call it genocide). And are continuing to do. And yet - there is no reporting on it. I opened this post noting that the IDF was accused of running a snuff channel - and then had to reverse their denial. There are snuff videos coming out of Gaza.

I remember when Abu Ghraib made the news. It really made the news. Soldiers filming themselves doing war crimes was newsworthy. This apparently is no longer true.

When is a Ceasefire not a Ceasefire

Which would be more troubling about the fucking useless sociopathic monsters running the show - that they are stupid or that they are evil?

Apparently there’s been negotiations on a new round of hostage releases and prisoner exchange. Currently the sticking point is that Hamas wants a full ceasefire and an end to hostilities. Israel is only willing to accept a 35 day long break in their active genocide campaign. 

The true brilliant brain genius that is Jake Sullivan has said that the ball is now in Hamas’ court - basically pretending like there’s a real ceasefire deal but it is being stymied by Hamas. This is bullshit. To be clear - Hamas is a terrorist organization. They are terrible. But this story that is being crafted? Just pure fucking nonsense. 

The real sticking point is that Israel and the US will not agree to a ceasefire because this would be a failure for them. From almost two decades before October 7, the stated goal is to eradicate Hamas. They need to be completely destroyed. The US is on record as saying that there can be no Hamas in post-wat Gaza. And really, Hamas is a terrorist organization - so of course this is the official position. 

And yet. Evil enough that they must be eradicated no matter the cost in civilian lives (even genocide is on the table) - but not evil enough that you can negotiate with them. It’s like they are trying to find more outlandish ways to tell us they think we’re morons that will believe anything. 

Furthermore - what kind of stupid fucking “bargaining” position is this? “Look, we can give you some pause in the bombing - but the total eradication of your group is non-negotiable for us. Is there some consolation prize we can offer instead?

Really? Hamas isn’t biting on such a wonderfully generous deal? /eyeroll

Just the stupidest fucking morons that ever ate paste are these assholes. Just so fucking stupid. 

Never Again Will I Read Jesse Singal

 Jesse Singal has asked a really stupid question.

Can someone explain the connection to me? What does being a unionized auto worker have to do with Israel-Palestine?

A lot of great answers about how the labour movement has always cared about social justice and the well being of people other than just their members. BUT this is buying in to his game. It's buying into his framing - that only people who are directly affected could possibly have feelings about Gaza.

Fuck. That. Noise.

It's genocide. Everybody is justified in opposing genocide. That's not negotiable. That's international law. That's just a basic fucking part of being human.

Never Again. This doesn't mean "never again will we allow people to try to eradicate Jews" it means "never again will we allow people to eradicate another people". The Genocide Convention is about preventing genocide - it's so powerful because whenever there is a risk of genocide happening, all signatories have a positive obligation to prevent it. Even if it is happening to people other than Jews. Even if it is being perpetrated by Jews. The rule is No Genocide. And everybody is supposed to enforce that rule.

Here's the answer for Jesse. Here is the explanation he is looking for:

Jesse Singal, you are a stupid piece of shit. Just because you are incapable of granting basic fucking human dignity to those you don't like - that doesn't mean those hateful views are relevant outside your odious shrivelled little world. Hope that helps!

Groundhog Day

 Israel must do more to minimize civilian casualties.

Update on the UNRWA Rwelve

Sometimes typos can be traditions too. IOW, it's intentional and not because I'm posting before I've had a covfefe.

Anywho, this is about how the US, Canada, and a bunch of other countries who filed condemnations of Myanmar during the Gambia's genocide case against them at the ICJ decided to respond to the ICJ provisional measures order by cutting off funding to UNRWA. IOW, by fully participating in the genocide.

Anyways, the move was because the IDF had "evidence" that 12 UNRWA employees were part of the Hamas attack on October 7. Evidence they got from "questioning" people they have had in custody since October 7. Here's the update. It's now four, and maybe two more. Allegedly.

A reminder - most of the defunding countries have acknowledged that the UNRWA has been doing an amazing job, that it has saved countless lives, and that with famine and disease so widespread it is needed more than ever. Also, they have noted that it is impossible to replace them - that no one else could distribute humanitarian at the scale UNRWA manages. But if the IDF says they should be defunded, well that's what a Western democracy just has to do.

Another reminder - the ICJ decision cited the convention (and South Africa's written submission) in one of the orders. Israel is supposed to prevent many things including the following:

deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Cutting off aid to the group while they are in famine and ravaged by disease? When they have no access to food or water? In fact - the ICJ ruling specifically addresses this component:

The State of Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip; 

At this point - the countries cutting off funding might have crossed the line. The line separating complicity from active participation.