Neocon Iraq war architects want a redo in Gaza Post-conflict plan would put Western mercenaries and Israel military into the mix, with handpicked countries in charge of a governing âTrustâ
Several key architects of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq 21 years ago are presenting a plan for rebuilding and âde-radicalizingâ the surviving population of Gaza, while ensuring that Israel retains âfreedom of actionâ to continue operations against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
The plan, which was published as a report Thursday by the hard-line neo-conservative Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, or JINSA, and the Vandenberg Coalition, is calling for the creation of a private entity, the âInternational Trust for Gaza Relief and Reconstructionâ to be led by âa group of Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emiratesâ and âsupported by the United States and other nations.â
With regard to Palestinian participation, the report by the âGaza Futures Task Force,â envisages an advisory board âcomposed primarily of non-Hamas Gazans from Gaza, the West Bank, and diaspora.â In addition, the Palestinian Authority, which is based on the West Bank, âshould be consulted in, and publicly bless,â the creation of the Trust while itself undergoing a process of ârevamping.â
This is a familiar trope for you to trot out, but it seems absurdly contradictory on the face of it. Lawsâinternational or otherwiseâare rules.
Accuse the US of hypocrisy all you like but that doesn't invalidate the concept, because the alternative to a rules-based order is a power-based order. We see this writ large by the authoritarian despots you relentlessly cheerlead for: they do what they like to whom they please because they can, and we should just let them. Empowering those they do it to is warmongering because it prolongs their agony. They should just surrender and accept their fates.
Funny, attacking them in the first place isn't warmongering, it's totally legitimate. Because...history. Or something.
You'll respond to this (if you do at all) with a pithy one-liner or yet another cut&paste screed, but it would be interesting to know how you square these circles in your own head. Not some RT mouthpiece's head, not some convoluted digression flinging rhetorical dust in the air, just explain how you want nations to interact with each other.
Lazy8, I am trying to figure out the difference between your approach to public policy and that of a sack full of rank and file MAGA Republicans; I do not see it.
Anti-data, science and expertise. Prone to 'us versus them' stereotypes and arguments.
No fundamental respect for well-defined and secure economic property rights. Not much interest in this nebulous concept of the 'right to self-determination'.
The Biden administration is supersizing the defense industry to meet foreign arms obligations instead of making tradeoffs essential to any effective budget. Its new National Defense Industrial Strategy lays out a plan to âcatalyze generational changeâ of the defense industrial base and to âmeet the strategic momentâ â one rhetorically dominated by competition with China, but punctuated by U.S. support for Ukraineâs fight against Russia and Israelâs military campaign in Gaza.
Instead of reevaluating its maximalist national security strategy, the Biden administration is doubling down. It is proposing a generation of investment to expand an arms industry that, overall, fails to meet cost, schedule, and performance standards. And if its strategy is any indication, the administration has no vision for how to eventually reduce U.S. military industrial capacity.
The Biden administration is supersizing the defense industry to meet foreign arms obligations instead of making tradeoffs essential to any effective budget. Its new National Defense Industrial Strategy lays out a plan to âcatalyze generational changeâ of the defense industrial base and to âmeet the strategic momentâ â one rhetorically dominated by competition with China, but punctuated by U.S. support for Ukraineâs fight against Russia and Israelâs military campaign in Gaza.
Instead of reevaluating its maximalist national security strategy, the Biden administration is doubling down. It is proposing a generation of investment to expand an arms industry that, overall, fails to meet cost, schedule, and performance standards. And if its strategy is any indication, the administration has no vision for how to eventually reduce U.S. military industrial capacity.
Todayâs diplomatic complicity in the catastrophic human rights and humanitarian crisis in Gaza is the culmination of years of erosion of the international rule of law and global human rights system*. Such disintegration began in earnest after 9/11, when the United States embarked on its âwar on terror,â a campaign that normalized the idea that everything is permissible in the pursuit of âterrorists.â To prosecute its war in Gaza, Israel borrows ethos, strategy, and tactics from that framework, doing so with the support of the United States.
It is as if the grave moral lessons of the Holocaust, of World War II, have been all but forgotten, and with them, the very core of the decades-old âNever Againâ principle: its absolute universality, the notion that it protects us all or none of us. This disintegration, so apparent in the destruction of Gaza and the Westâs response to it, signals the end of the rules-based order and the start of a new era.
