The Façade of Supporting Palestinians While Supporting Israel’s War Crimes

 By David Starr

 

For decades, Republicans and Democrats have lent their full support to Israel regardless of what has happened to the Palestinians. 

 

Actually, there were attempts at negotiations over the years between Israelis and Palestinians with the USA being a mediator. But in all that time, the USA didn’t play the role so well. It has given Israel about $3.8 billion in military aid every year while the Palestinians got no military aid. So, the negotiations were pretty much one-sided. Part of the negotiations involved the division of land between the two sides, but Palestinians rejected several potential agreements because of Israel having an advantage of gradually taking more Palestinian land. In recent times, there have been attempts at resolving the conflict, but Israel still has the advantage, with the USA backing it up.

 

The October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas in Southern Israel opened up the conflict further. But the roots of it go back about 70 years when fanatical Zionists established Israel by displacing about 750,000 Palestinians off the land. Previous to establishing Israel, Palestinians made up 90% of the population in what was called Palestine. 

 

While the USA has fully supported Israel after October 7, there is the downplaying or ignoring of Israel’s brutality in Gaza. As Israel commits what can be called the mass murder of Palestinians, the USA continues to provide Israel with arms. So, weapons made by the USA which are killing people in Gaza.

 

U.S. State Department spokesman Matthew Miller spoke with journalists on March 1 and got into a tense debate with one of them. Miller parroted the tired line that it’s all Hamas’s fault while ignoring Israel’s war crimes. The journalist, however, pointed out that this conflict has been going on about 70 years. Miller ignored that and, again, said it was all Hamas’s fault.

 

On February 29, food aid trucks went to Gaza City to distribute food to starving Palestinians. Of course, being hungry, people rushed to the trucks for food. From an article in the People’s World, C.J. Atkins writes that IDF soldiers began shooting, “killing more than 100 people, according to early reports. With the population of Gaza being literally starved to death–especially children of the territory–the people at the distribution point had no choice but to try again…” And, again, IDF soldiers fired on the crowd.

 

Atkins writes, “Israeli government officials are giving conflicting versions of what they claimed happen in Gaza City Thursday; the common element in their varying accounts is that the dead Palestinians are responsible for their own deaths.”

 

Among the versions: Drivers of the trucks ran over people because they were overwhelmed. There was shooting but the people were liable for their own deaths because they were searching for food. Gazans attacked the food trucks and approached the IDF and a tank, whereby soldiers shot in the air, but then shot at those who were approaching, causing a few casualties. According to what witnesses saw, these excuses were fabricated.

 

Israel denying food to the Palestinians, along with cutting off water, fuel and other supplies, is a war crime. And the Biden administration still wants to deal with Israeli officials?

 

While the weapons are still flowing, there has been lip service paid by the Biden administration to the plight of Palestinians. 

 

In a February 28 press briefing by the U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller answered questions about the conflict. Here are excerpts:

 

Question: I just want to ask a little bit about the settlements, Matt. Israeli Finance Minister Smotrich doubled down on those plans, and he said Israel will continue expanding the settlements in the occupied West Bank. [D]o you have a response to that most recent announcement?

 

Miller: So, my only response is that we are going to continue to be very direct with the Government of Israel, both privately and publicly, that we think their settlement program is both an obstacle to peace and inconsistent with international law.

 

Question: Right. This seems to be another topic between Israel and the U.S. that you guys are increasingly at odds. And diplomacy, whatever you are saying to your Israeli counterparts, does not seem to be working. You’re unable to convince them, and you’re pushing for a two-state solution. How are you going to reconcile the expansion of the settlements with the two-state solution that you’re pushing for?

 

Miller: I’d say the disagreements between the United States and Israel over settlements in the West Bank are something that date far back beyond the outset of this administration. These disagreements go back decades, in fact, over multiple administrations of both parties in the United States and multiple governments of Israel. So that’s not a thing that is new in terms of a disagreement between the United States and Israel.

 

Question: Wouldn’t you really like to be the administration who solved that?

 

Miller: Of course, and with respect to the broader question, we are going to continue to make clear to them that we think settlements are an obstacle to peace, inconsistent with international law. So, we talked a lot about the work that the Secretary [Blinken] has done with countries in the region who want to further integrate with Israel, want to provide security assurances to Israel, want to move past the disputes that have existed between Israel and those countries for decades, But they’re going to need Israel to make some hard choices. So, we’re going to do that work and have those conversations with Israel. But, ultimately it’s Israel that has to make those decisions and nobody else can do it for them – not the United States, not anybody.

 

While Miller says that the USA has been very direct with Israel regarding the settlements, it doesn’t seem to be working. Israel has disagreements and apparently doesn’t want to compromise. Miller assures reporters in the briefing that the differences will be overcome. But there’s no mention of Israel’s military disaster where Palestinians die and face starvation. Miller makes it sound like conversations with fascist Zionists will work. And yet, Israel continues with its aggression.

 

In another Press Briefing on February 27, there’s talk about a ceasefire to be worked out, as of this writing:

 

Question: The President’s comments talking about Sunday [March 3] as the goal for a ceasefire, what can you tell us about that? Is that a goal?

 

Miller: So, our goal is to achieve a deal to reach a humanitarian pause and the release of hostages as soon as possible. Certainly, we’d welcome getting one by this weekend. We are trying to push this deal over the finish line. But ultimately some of this comes down to Hamas and whether Hamas is willing to agree to a deal that would provide significant benefits to the Palestinian people that they claim to represent.

 

Question: Sure. I mean, you said it’s possible by the end of the weekend, and you mentioned U.S. diplomacy. Are there actual talks that are going on with the U.S. side?

 

Miller: So, I’m not going to negotiate in public, but there are talks that continue. We think we can reach a deal. But ultimately, we would need Hamas to say yes. We would need Hamas to agree to a deal that would allow for the release of the hostages, that would allow for a temporary ceasefire and allow increased humanitarian assistance to come in. 

 

Question: And could I just – just as a part of that, the President talked about a ceasefire, not necessarily a temporary ceasefire. But is what’s – is the goal for this weekend or the goal for as soon as possible an actual ceasefire, like a long-lasting ceasefire rather than a temporary?

 

Miller: So, again I’m not going negotiate in public, but we certainly are trying to reach a temporary ceasefire that would allow us to get the hostages out and would allow us to get humanitarian assistance in. [O]ur ultimate goal is to end this war as soon as possible  in a way that ensures Israel’s security and puts us on a path towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

 

Once again, Miller reassures those present that a deal will be reached, while Israel continues to bomb Gaza. Ideally, a deal should not be prioritized, but rather direct action against Israel: sanctions, with holding of military aid and a permanent ceasefire. Miller only mentions a humanitarian pause or a temporary ceasefire. While Miller says one of the goals is to get the hostages back, he doesn’t mention Palestinian political prisoners in Israel’s prisons. Miller also gives the impression that Hamas is the obstacle to a ceasefire. That excuse can only go so far. Israel has gone way beyond self-defense.

 

On February 27, an article written in Axios by Barak Ravid reveals that the USA wanted a written assurance from Israel that humanitarian aid would get into Gaza: 

 

“The assurances are now a requirement under a memorandum issued earlier [in February] by President Biden. While it doesn’t single out Israel, the new policy came after some Democratic senators expressed concern over the Israeli military campaign in Gaza. If the assurances aren’t provided by the deadline, U.S. weapon transfers to the country will be paused.”

 

Only paused? Again, half measures are to be used, just like with a humanitarian pause. And again, direct action is utterly necessary but ignored. 

 

“The national security memorandum, published on Feb. 8, states that prior to supplying U.S. weapons, a country must give the U.S. ‘credible and reliable written assurances’ that it will use any such weapons in accordance with international humanitarian law.”

 

The problem is, Israel has been violating international humanitarian law. And the USA is apparently prioritizing war over peace by highlighting the fact that weapons will be used in conflicts.

 

“The memorandum was issued by the White House after pressure from Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) and other senators.” Ravid writes that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was concerned that the “amendment would divide the Democratic caucus in the Senate.” Schumer asked for an executive action instead.

 

Ravid quotes Van Hollen: “Myself and the co-sponsors of the amendment made it clear to Majority Leader Schumer that we are determined to have a vote if we don’t succeed in implementing it through executive action.” Ravid adds that Van Hollen talked with “White House national security advisor Jake Sullivan and other White House officials to draft the new memorandum, which was kept secret until it was published earlier [in February].”

 

Ravid, again, quotes Van Hollen: “We did it to make sure we have an accountability structure and that U.S. security assistance aligns with both our values and our interests.”

 

This structure will probably not be that accountable, especially when talking about U.S. “values” and U.S. imperial “interests.”

 

On February 23 there was an on-the-record press gaggle by White House national Security Communications Advisor John Kirby. These are excerpts:

 

Question: Is the administration comfortable with the vision that Netanyahu has set out for post-war Gaza? And secondly, does the administration have any reaction to Israel’s plans to move forward with more than 3,000 settlement homes in the West Bank?

 

Kirby: On the first question about the post-conflict plan for Gaza, we’ve seen the reports. I’m going to defer to Israel to speak to the specificity of these plans. What I can speak to [is that] we’ve been clear on what our views are. We believe that the Palestinian people should have a voice and a vote in what that looks like, through a revitalized Palestinian Authority. We don’t believe and will continue to be very vocal about that fact that we don’t want to see any forcible displacement of Palestinians outside of Gaza. 

 

And, of course, we don’t want to see Gaza dominated or rolled or governed over by Hamas. 

 

Those are very consistent positions. And we’ve made that consistently clear with our Israeli counterparts.

 

Question: I want to follow up on the previous question, that the administration sees settlements as inconsistent with international law. 

 

The previous administration, and especially the previous Secretary of State [Mike] Pompeo, said that the U.S. position is that the settlements are not illegal, per se, and a shift at U.S. policy from 1978. Does your statement mean right now mean that the Biden administration has overturned this Pompeo doctrine and that it’s not valid and not U.S. policy anymore?

 

Kirby: Look, this isn’t about the previous administration. We are simply reaffirming the conclusion that these settlements are inconsistent with international law. If there’s an administration that is being inconsistent, it was the previous one.

 

There, again, we have reassurances but nothing about a permanent ceasefire. And Israel has continued its assault on Rafah, an enclave in the Gaza Strip. Admittedly, the position of the Biden administration is better, at least in words, than the Trump regime, saying the settlements are “inconsistent with international law.” But the criticism is mild. The settlements are illegal. 

 

In what is a discredited claim, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pushed the myth that the weapons the USA has sent to Israel have not been used to commit atrocities. Pelosi spoke at the annual Munich Security Conference. An article published in Mondoweiss by Michael Arria quotes a question from host Tim Sebastion and the answer from Pelosi: 

 

“If you don’t like what Israel is doing, and the president has made it clear that some of what Israel is doing he doesn’t like, and you go on supplying them with hardware to do these things you own this operation every bit as much as they do, don’t you?”

 

Pelosi responded: 

 

“No, we don’t. We don’t. We have always supported Israel as our national security friend largely because it was our interest to do so. We had shared values, [it’s] the only democracy in the region. The behavior of Netanyahu is inexcusable in terms of how it has affected the collateral damage of children and families, but nobody can take away the right of any country to defend itself that has been brutally attacked in that way.”

 

Pelosi continued, saying, “There’s nothing we have sent since Oct. 7 that has contributed to this brutality.”

 

Pelosi denying the obvious shows she has taken a total flight from reality. There’s no other reason to use the weapons Israel got from the USA except to kill and destroy. And the extent of Israel’s aggression bears this out. Like other neoliberals, Pelosi ignores the root causes of the conflict that go back about 70 years. And neocons, especially, ignore the roots of the conflict entirely.

 

A February 11 White House readout states that Biden spoke with Netanyahu. Biden “reaffirmed our shared goal to see Hamas defeated and to ensure the long-term security of Israel and its people. The President and the Prime Minister discussed ongoing efforts to secure the release of all remaining hostages held by Hamas. The President emphasized the need to capitalize on progress made in the negotiations to secure the release of all hostages as soon as possible.”

 

Demonizing Hamas can only go so far. Israel has to share more of the blame for this conflict, given that about 30,000 Palestinians have died as opposed to 1,200 Israelis. And while there’s a focus on the Israeli hostages, there’s no mention of Palestinians who are political prisoners in Israeli prisons. 

 

There was a call “for urgent and specific steps to increase the throughput and consistency of humanitarian assistance to innocent Palestinian civilians, and that a “military operation in Rafah should not proceed without a credible and executable plan for ensuring the safety of and support for the more than one million people sheltering there.”

 

Israel’s military operations have not prioritized the welfare of innocent civilians, so to continue with this rhetoric about the safety for them flies in the face of the amount of damage and lives lost as a result of Israel’s war crimes.

 

Hillary “The True Progressive” Clinton added to the USA’s rhetoric in an interview with MSNBC. Quoting in an article by Jacob Magid in The Times of Israel, Clinton agrees that “Netanyahu should go. He is not a trustworthy leader. It was on his watch that the [October 7] attack happened.” But Magid writes, “It was unclear whether Clinton believed Israel should permanently halt its military campaign under the present circumstances, having voiced strong support for its war effort in the past.”

 

Clinton implied Hamas was the cause of the conflict, saying, “We wish there was a ceasefire. If Hamas would agree to a ceasefire, there would be a ceasefire.”

 

Calling Hamas a terrorist organization, Clinton says, “It’s fair to say Hamas cares nothing about the civilians who are being murdered both by Hamas still in Gaza or through military operations by Israel. The Hamas leaders could not be clearer. Hamas is not doing anything to protect Palestinians.”

 

To reiterate, blaming Hamas can only go so far. Clinton, like other neoliberals, is ignoring the obvious. Hamas didn’t murder about 30,000 Palestinians, about half who are children. Israel is to blame for that. Thus, it can be said that Israel, especially the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), has practiced terrorism with its goal of attempted genocide.

 

While Democrats show a degree of concern, it amounts to a hollow gesture. If it really wanted, the Biden administration could have stopped Israel’s war crimes early on. But they, and the Republicans, have been hellbent on supporting Israel regardless of the consequences.