It appears that two things are true simultaneously: (1) enough food came into Gaza during the last ceasefire, plus food since then, to feed the entire Gaza population for a period that extends beyond the present; 1/
(2) there is a shortage of available food to the average Gazan such that market prices have soared and there was real risk of hunger and beyond. 2/
The reason Israeli officials didn't take the hunger issue seriously until a few days ago was because they were aware of (1) and assumed that it couldn't lead to (2).
So the obvious question is, "What happened to the excess food?"
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@dilanesper The secret to US support for Israel since 1967, save arguably during the two Trump administration's, is that it's based on an implicit bargain: (a) The US has Israel's back and in exchange (b) The US gets to restrain Israel when it thinks Israel is going "too far" militarily. 1/
@dilanesper In Gaza, the "too far" mostly involved humanitarian concerns. Originally, the "too far" was "provoking the Soviets to intervene" or "creating too much instability in neighboring countries." US policy-makers realized after 1967 that you can't have a nuclear-armed regional 2/
@dilanesper superpower feeling like its existence is threatened, or at least it's very undesirable. Yes, there are other political reasons for US support for Israel, and there are also those who believe that Israel would magically cave if the US stopped its support. 3/
Below, I link to a bizarre study from Brandeis University that purports to show that faculty are much more moderate than we might think. It shows nothing of the kind. 1/
As a preliminary manner, it's important to note that this study includes any faculty who teach undergraduates, including STEM. So it's not limited to the Humanities and social sciences. 2/
The authors report that "less than half of faculty supported returning all land seized through colonization to indigenous peoples." They see that as a sign of moderation. 3/
21 years ago, Omer Bartov writing in the New Republic recognized Hamas as successor to the Nazis in its genocidal antisemitism. 1/
He also recognized that when you are dealing with murderous fanatics, you must kill them before they kill you. 2/
That same year, writing in the Washington Post, he argued that because German society was dedicated to Nazi goals, Germany had to be destroyed before it could be rebuilt. 3/
When the US faced an intractable enemy that refused to unconditionally surrender after it had been militarily defeated, we bombed Tokyo, leaving over 100K dead and over 1 million homeless. When that didn't work, we nuked two cities.
I am at best ambivalent about these actions, 1/
I don't feel a permanent moral stain as an American because of them. It's extremely difficult to figure out how to defeat fanatics that don't care about the well-being of their civilians.
Israel faces the same problem, though it hasn't been as inflexible in the US. Israel has not 2/
demanded unconditional surrender, but has been willing to release some convicted terrorists and give Hamas combatants safe passage to a third country. Hamas refuses to surrender, though it's utterly defeated militarily. 3/
I'm embarrassed for all the Jews who were kvelling when Sanders was competing for the Democratic nomination. As a practical matter, he's about as Jewish as a blueberry bagel with ham and swiss.
(the bagel is also of Jewish origin, but at some point it's essentially an unintentional mockery of actual Jewish stuff.)
@RonKampeas, iirc you were one of those kvelling, and trying to persuade your readers that Bernie really had a Jewish neshama. After all, he was *friends* with a *rabbi.*
For my money, Liberman was right all along and Israel should have paid the diplomatic price of deposing Hamas long before 2023. But people who were strongly against that, now say that Bibi was at full for "supporting" Hamas by trying to reach a modus vivendi with it /1
by limiting Israel to tit-for-tat retaliation and allowing Qatari money to come in for allegedly humanitarian purposes. Ok, the money thing is a clear error in retrospect, though Israel was of course under extreme thematic pressure for humanitarian conditions in Gaza. BUT: 2/
Here's my question and then sincerely asking it. if you weren't in favor of an invasion of Gaza before October 2023, and you weren't in favor of a true blockade that would have tried to starve Gazans into Hamas submission, what would you have done about Hamas? 3/