Let’s be clear, though: judicial review has no enforcement. Compliance is voluntarily, and it can’t undo assassinations and coups.

And impeachment functionally doesn’t exist. It’s been demonstrated that senators will not impeach a president of their party, regardless of whether they agree with the charges.

This is a good question.

My analysis:

First and foremost: It is not a demand that Israel accept a ceasefire, it is a demand that Hamas accept the terms of a ceasefire. Sometimes this is a very subtle difference, but one the key elements of a ceasefire negotiation is that each side is trying to continue fighting while making their adversary look like the aggressor. So far, it looks like Biden has moved slightly, but he still is not applying pressure on Netanyahu to end the war.

Second: Continuing on that last point, there is no leverage. Biden has persistently chosen not to do anything that would actually apply pressure. He has deferred to Netanyahu’s judgement and supported him while gradually shifting in tone, but it’s become 1000% clear that Netanyahu will stop when he is forced to, and not a moment sooner.

Third: The focus is constantly on micromanaging the situation. Debating how many civilians can get killed, what fraction of the homes can be demolished, how much territory Israel can appropriate in Gaza. None of this actually addresses the foundational issues: one side is imposing apartheid with genocidal intent on a neighbor that is largely powerless, and the other side’s only real avenue for expressing itself is through terrorism. Which is bad for both sides. If these realities persist, then the cycle that has governed nearly three generations is allowed to continue. There must be a breaking point in that cycle, and referring back to point 2: it’s going to have to be imposed on the leadership in Israel. They WILL NOT accept it willingly.

In summary, this is a very welcome change in narrative for Biden, but we are far past the point of fiddling with narratives. We need policy action, and it’s incredible that he’s still dug in like this after another state department official just resigned because she said that she was being pressured to be an accomplice in breaking US law against knowingly aiding war crimes.

That sounds like a good start.

I don’t think Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben-Gvir will like that, because they really hate it when the UN tries to do UN stuff at them, but that sounds like a very appropriate request.

It’s going to be awkward to listen to John Kirby explain into a microphone why having peacekeepers from the unarmed peace force standing in the vicinity of a lot of women and children in the area that Biden has insisted the IDF not kill everyone is helping Hamas.

For those looking to better understand the biases of any given media outlet, yhis is a good place to drop a recommendation for Citations Needed podcast with Adam Johnson and Nima Shiraz.

It’s a great media analysis and criticism show. Who watches the watchers? These fuckin guys!

This article is pretty good, because it’s not subtle about the context: Ben-Gvir is a convicted terrorist who has made his desire to exterminate Palestinians totally clear his whole life. And he went from too radical to serve mandatory military service to in charge of the national police and jails.

He is an exemplar of the worst humanity has to offer.

Wow, for some reason, the bot really struggled to summarize this article. That reads like nonsense.

To give some personal context, Summer Lee represents Pittsburgh, where I grew up. I was watching this race somewhat closely, and was in town visiting family last week. I saw a lot of yard signs for Lee’s opponent, and many signs for Lee as well, though not as many as her rival’s in my parents’ heavily Jewish, upper middle class neighborhood.

As Ryan Grim writes, this is a big victory not just because Summer belongs in congress: her victory is a sign that the current approach to removing progressive critics of the war in Gaza from congress was dealt a serious blow in this race. Attempts to present her as out of touch or radical failed terribly. We should expect even more vicious attacks on representatives like Cori Bush, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that a major shift in power has begun. Strategies for silencing critics of the Israeli system of apartheid that were incredibly potent just two years ago are already looking far less effective when countered by organized progressive candidates.

Just read my comment again. I think there’s an important point that more people need to internalize.

People joke about how Trump constantly declares himself a lover of “law and order”, but is a flagrant criminal, for instance. But he’s not just being randomly hypocritical: his definition of “law and order” is different from ours. We think of law as immutable rules that apply to all. He thinks of it as state power wielded by those who deserve it. Laws applied against him aren’t laws, and extrajudicial violence by his supporters is. Same with order. It’s not quiet, peace, or calm. It’s a privileged group who the law protects but does not bind and a tier of others who the law binds but does not protect.

Greene isn’t lying, she’s speaking loud and clear in another language, and we need to learn to translate it and listen to what she and the whole Christian Nationalist movement are increasingly saying out loud.

I mean, good for him, but I think it’s pretty clear that she’s not opposed to fascism.

When people like Greene decry Nazis, they mean something different than we do. We mean “Nazis”: violent white supremacist nationalists.

She just means “nazis”: our ultimate national enemy. And her audience understands her perfectly well.

She could be like, ‘We must protect our home-grown historical demographics by any means necessary, and seek out a final solution to do so, or the nazis will make Christians servants by replacing us with inferior people trafficed across the border.’ And her constituents would say, ‘Obviously! Yes, we must.’

This whole thread is spitting facts

I think that’s a bit naive.

The constitution is advice. It’s only as powerful as its interpretation and enforcement, and the Supreme Court has shown themselves wildly comfortable writing new flagrantly unconstitutional loopholes when it suits them.

This is wild.

Now I want to see him reject AIPAC money. That’d be an absolute bombshell move.

They’re probably not giving him anything after this, but calling them out would be a a huge blow to their massive influence campaign in the party.

They’re the largest donor to Democratic super pacs ( this was a claim they made a few weeks ago, I can’t confirm it).

The podcast Know your enemy has a great episode on this topic with Heilbrunn that just came out.

I think this is taking us way off topic, but I’ll answer.

First, I think you’re making a key logical misstep. This isn’t actually relevant, but it’s bugging me:

If antisemitism existed prior to Israel, than Israel cannot be responsible for its invention. Logically sound.

If antisemitism existed prior to Israel, than Israel cannot be responsible for its rise. Logically unsound.

This is separate from the fact that I don’t actually think Israeli policy fosters antisemitism. My working theory is that most antisemitism exists for other awful reasons, but is held at bay by the high cultural standing of Jews, the strength of our social ties to allies, and the protections afforded to us by democratic, multi ethnic societies. Israel’s actions damage all three, which erode the foundations of our defenses.

Second: The story of Esther; The story of Hanukkah; the destruction of the first temple; the destruction of the second temple. And on and on and on.

Like… I’m sorry but what? Did you think we were just having a good time for thousands of years and then people started persecuting Jews in the common era? That makes no sense dude. What does your Sedar look like?

Can you just summarize?

If you think someone is making light of a serious situation and you want people to know that, I think you should say it in words. Speaking for myself, I’m not making light of anything, and that characterization seemed respectful. I’m not sure what part you read as glib or jokey, and your response when asked to clarify seems needlessly cryptic.

Thank you for sharing those links. I’m already all up in that, but I hope others will join their mailing lists and participate in their actions.

The reason it exists is it is fed by a stream (deep-rooted cultural antisemitist sentiment as a cultural practice that uses desire to scapegoat, etc).

Wait, what part of this seems flippant? That seems to me like a succinct and accurate characterization of the enduring presence of antisemitism since antiquity. I don’t see anything dismissive about this.

If the present rise in antisemitism is rooted in Israeli governmental policy, then before there was an Israeli government, by that logic there should be no cause for antisemitism.

I’m not sure if I should take these seriously. I don’t think observing that Israeli policy has implications for how people view and behave towards Jews suggests that antisemitism was created several years after the Holocaust happened.

Would the inverse be true? Does the existence of antisemitism in prechristian times suggest that the blood libel conspiracies couldn’t have any influence on antisemitism in medieval Europe?

I want to point out for context that in 2019, the American Jewish Electorate survey found that a quarter of American Jews considered Israel to be an apartheid state, and 22% of American Jews thought that the treatment of Palestinians constituted a genocide. That was where American Jews were half a decade ago.

That should have been a huge canary in the coal mine. When the survey results came out, the established Zionist institutions insisted it was some sort of error in the way the data was collected. What that was telling us is now clear: the Likud party’s leadership was able to maintain support among political leaders, but they’d already overdrawn our store of goodwill YEARS ago. Oct. 7 just brought this all back into the news, and now we’re dealing with a loss of reputation that had been building slowly for years.

That doesn’t account for the rise in antisemitism we’ve seen in the last four months, but I think it contributes heavily to the loss of allies who previously served as a crucial bulwark against antisemitism.

This is a very serious problem. However addressing it requires context that I don’t think the article provides.

First, this study was conducted by the Community Security Trust, and you can find the full report here. It’s worth reading.

Thankfully, if you check page 23 we can see that murder or extreme violence were at zero. Less fortunately, they count 266 assaults and 305 threats. The vast majority of incidents – over 4,000 – are speech.

The Haaretz takes great pains to insist that the rise in antisemitism occurred in the week after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack but before the Israeli counter attack. I think the case they make is very thin, since I suspect the window of time is too small for reliable statistics, and this kind of attribution is notoriously subjective. Regardless, it strikes me as an attempt to dispel the obvious fact that Israeli policy fuels antisemitism around the world. To pretend otherwise is absurd.

Overall, I find it enormously frustrating as a Jewish father that many of my Zionist friends appear unwilling to reconcile the fact that for better or worse, combating antisemitism cannot be pursued while simultaneously deligitimizing criticism of Israeli crimes against humanity as pure hate speech. Additionally, we cannot operate from a starting assumption in which we believe we’re entitled to and capable of achieving widespread public goodwill irrespective of the actions of Israeli leadership, the Israeli military, and western allies. That’s not something that is possible.

Is it fair that all Jews must bear this burden? As an anti-zionist Jew, I get to be the first to say, “No, it’s absolutely fucking not fair that I have to deal with this.” And I also get to be the first to say to Zionists, “If you think it’s unfair, that do something about it: stop conflating Zionism with Judaism and then complaining when gentiles get confused. Stand up against war crimes when they are perpetrated by people insisting that they speak on behalf of Jews.”

I have this issue with friends. Frankly, we shouldn’t need to be threatened to speak up against atrocities. But with our own safety jeopardized as well, what the hell reason is there for us to run defense for fascists like Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotrich? Let’s protect Muslims AND ourselves by making clear: they don’t speak for us.

Absent that, it’s hard to take concerns about antisemitism from people who won’t do that seriously. If you cared, you join me in trying to actually do the obvious first step to improve this terrible situations for world Jews.

I think your assessment is right on. It’s just that this all sounds like an obvious Ponzi scheme. If success is based on endless unsustainable spending and growth, eventually the bubble pops. Plan better.