Selena Robinson Should Resign

Published at 13:04 on 5 February 2024

Update: She resigned, probably because she was told that she could either resign or be fired.

If she doesn’t resign, she should be fired.

Free speech is a thing, and as such she had the right to say what she did. If she had been a member of the US Republican Party, her words would have helped her reputation within her party. But she is not a member of a proto-fascist right-wing party. She is a member of a social-democratic government. Social democracy has generally been critical of imperialism.

As a minister in such a government, she had to watch her words, as should any minister in any government. If she didn’t like that, she shouldn’t have gone into politics.

Her apology said almost all of the right words. It’s just that two critically important words — “I resign” — are missing. If she was really as concerned about her previously unquestioned beliefs as she claims to be, she would want to step back from power for a while to reexamine those beliefs.

But she did not do so. As such, the so-called “apology” comes across as just that: the insincere words of someone desperately trying to cling to her position of political power.

It is a general principle of politics, going back to the time of Plato, that they who most desire power for power’s sake are those least worthy of holding it.

To reiterate: Selena Robinson should resign. If she doesn’t resign, she should be fired.

How Will the Court Rule?

Published at 16:54 on 1 February 2024

That is to say, how will the United States Supreme Court rule on whether or not the 14th Amendement bars Trump from running for president?

Anyone claiming that the Court’s conservatives “have to” rule against Trump because of the doctrine of originalism is a rank idiot who does not know even the most elementary basics about politics. Would it be hypocritical to suddenly forget about originalism the instant it becomes politically inconvenient? Of course it would! But so what?

To reiterate, anyone arguing that hypocrisy makes taking a position impossible is an idiot. Such an individual knows nothing about politics in general and right-wing politics in particular. If hypocrisy played no role in politics, politics would be so radically different as to be virtually incomprehensible.

The right-wing justices could rule in Trump’s favour with the greatest of ease, and without the slightest of hesitation, and the political right would loudly celebrate the ruling as a great blow for the cause of justice. Any attempts to point out the hypocrisy of it all would go exactly nowhere with the right. As Upton Sinclair once observed: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

The question is not whether they “have to” in the name of some imaginary principle against hypocrisy, but whether or not they will rule against Trump as a virtue of some other principle (which, given human nature, will most likely be one grounded in self-interest). And this is far more difficult to say.

On the one hand, ruling in Trump’s favour helps their political team win. And make no mistake: that would be the calculus behind the ruling. There would of course be a lot of verbiage about higher principles, but that would be a mere pretext cooked up to justify the desired action, nothing more.

If they do rule for Trump, a ruling based on the pretext of due process is most likely. That is, it will be argued that the 14th Amendment is co-equal with the 5th Amendment, and that as such the guarantees of due process in the latter still apply. Trump has not been found guilty of any seditious crimes, and therefore he will be ruled an eligible candidate.

On the other hand, Trump is acting more and more like an aspiring dictator, and dictators are never friendly to the idea of an independent judiciary. And here we have another team to consider: the judiciary in general. Government bureaucracies are many and varied, but they all have a common thread: they want to preserve themselves and their power. Those right-wing justices may be on the right, but they are also part of the judiciary branch, and want to see that branch continue to be powerful and relevant in national politics.

That this incentive exists, and could act to frustrate the evolution of tyranny, is no accident. From Federalist 51 (emphasis added):

It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

If the Court’s conservatives rule against Trump, this, not originalism, is likely to be the most powerful motivator. Oh, sure, originalism will dovetail nicely with such a ruling, and that will make the conservative justices ruling so pleased with it. I am sure they will wax eloquent about originalism in that ruling, and they will do this while remaining silent about sticking up for their own power. Professed motives should never be confused with actual ones.

So this, then, is the real question: how will the justices perceive the butter on their toast? If they perceive it to be buttered on the side of a second Trump presidency advancing their interests, they will rule for Trump. If they perceive the opposite, they will rule oppositely. And there is no easy way to say ahead of time which it will be.

Hague, Schmague

Published at 15:55 on 30 January 2024

The title of this post is what an Israeli cabinet minister said in response to news of the recent International Court of Justice genocide ruling.

And the minister is correct: If, as Israel is, one is the best friend of a superpower, the Court is fundamentally meaningless. It has no means of enforcing its decisions, and courts without power to enforce their rulings might as well not exist. International law is for lesser nations (i.e. non-superpowers and best friends of same). Anyone with any doubt of this should research The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America (1986).

The key problem is, most of the world doesn’t really give a shit about Palestine. Oh, favourable noises might get made on that issue from time to time, but when it comes to anyone with any sort of power making a significant effort to actualize anything, it almost never happens. And before you say “Houthis,” please watch this.

Basically, unless China and Russia decide their toast is buttered on the side of weighing in hard on the side of Palestine (and so far they have not), the Palestinians don’t really have much grounds for hope anytime soon. Nothing motivates like self-interest, and if China and/or Russia would decide to exploit this conflict to undermine US authority, the USA might be motivated (by the desire to not lose further prestige) to act in more humanitarian interests. But since the precondition for the latter is absent, it is unlikely to happen. So the near term is bleak.

In the longer term, the bloodshed in Gaza is likely to exacerbate and continue the long decline in the State of Israel’s reputation that began with its decision to colonize lands occupied in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War. Pair that with the growing trend towards right-wing authoritarianism in Israel, and you have a long-term vulnerability.

Those who care about Palestine would be wise to continue pushing on those vulnerabilities. Israel has done much to tarnish its own reputation, and that tarnish should be pointed out at every opportunity. The recent ICJ ruling, and Israel’s contemptuous dismissal of it, is part of that tarnish. That, and only that, is the significance of the ruling.

I was, for much of the 1990’s, involved in activism on the subject of East Timor, which was then considered to be the canonical lost cause. Indonesia, a US client state, had occupied the former Portuguese territory in flagrant violation of international law in 1975, and had waged a genocidal war in an attempt to subdue its population into accepting Indonesian rule. Attempts to resolve the issue went nowhere because Indonesia was a US client state. But, over time, the small group I was involved with managed to point out how tarnished Indonesia was as a result of its atrocities in East Timor, and Indonesia’s reputation began slipping in Congress.

Then the whole house of cards suddenly collapsed. Indonesia experienced a sudden economic crisis that revealed just how thoroughly corrupt the authoritarian government there was. Suharto, Indonesia’s dictator, went cap in hand to his superpower benefactor, but thanks to reputation damage, a prompt bailout was not forthcoming. The economic crisis then provoked widespread popular unrest that drove Suharto from power. The new government agreed to allow East Timor to become independent if it wanted, in return for much-needed economic aid.

The latter was only possible because of slow, patient, seemingly futile work for years prior. Reputation is just touchy-feely stuff that doesn’t much matter… until, suddenly, it does.

Is It Genocide?

Published at 13:17 on 29 January 2024

It has long been a protest chant that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Then the “genocide” rhetoric began leaking out of rallies in the streets. Early last month, Canadian MP Don Davies attracted a fair bit of attention when he tweeted:

You will note that I have posted that as a screen shot of a tweet, to which I have not linked. There is a reason for this.

Unfortunately for Davies, he really didn’t have much evidence to go on for those rather shocking assertions of his. He initially tried to pull a bait-and-switch by repeatedly posting excerpts from an (unreferenced) article talking about how “The [Israel Defence Force] Military Intelligence Directorate is using artificial intelligence and automated tools to ‘produce reliable targets quickly and accurately….'”

Sorry, no. So the Israeli military is selecting targets. Big surprise there. There is a war going on. In war, belligerents target each other, i.e. they select what to attack. The quotes merely support the claim that the IDF is engaged in target selection and that they are using artificial intelligence software in doing so. Nowhere are the criteria for target selection mentioned.

Jews were, of course, one of the main the victims of one of the worst (and certainly the most famous) genocides in history: the Holocaust unleashed by the Nazis. Part of the reason Zionism succeeded in its goal of creating a Jewish state was how this genocide showed the validity of the Zionist argument that Jews needed a state of their own to serve as a refuge during times of persecution. Plus, false allegations of Jewish atrocities against non-Jews served as pretexts for the Holocaust. As such, false claims of genocide really strike a nerve with many Jews.

Not surprisingly, Davies’ responses flew about as well as the original claim did. He then deleted the original tweet, and made a fresh tweet with claims better supported by available evidence.

As the most famous genocide in history, the Holocaust colours the popular conception of what a genocide is. As such, that conception goes something like: “collecting as many members of an ethnic group as you can in ghettos and concentration camps, and then systematically murdering them.” If this is the definition of genocide, then clearly Israel is not committing genocide. Yes, Israel is reducing Gaza to rubble. The Allies reduced Germany and Japan to rubble in World War II, yet the Allies are not generally considered to be guilty of genocide as a result.

But that is a mere popular conception and popular conceptions have no legal standing. That is important, as the accusations of genocide have now made their way into the International Court of Justice. There, the case depends on how “genocide” is defined under international law. The relevant document here is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, commonly referred to simply as the “genocide convention.” That document defines the term thusly (all emphasis added):

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It seems clear to me that what Israel is doing falls afoul of the first three clauses of the definition. Don’t blame me, I didn’t come up with the above definition. I am merely reporting its existence.

And this is why South Africa has been able to plausibly make its case in front of the ICJ.

Of course, what the Allies did to Japan and Germany would also easily qualify. And now we are back to popular conceptions again. Such conceptions may not have any legal standing, yet they still matter, as ultimately it will be public pressure that plays a key role in stopping the bloodshed currently going on in Gaza.

But then, we have this:

The New York-based CPJ said at least 68 journalists and other media workers had been killed in Gaza, Israel and southern Lebanon since the Hamas cross-border attack on 7 October and subsequent Israeli assault.

“More journalists have been killed in the first 10 weeks of the Israel-Gaza war than have ever been killed in a single country over an entire year,” it said.

“CPJ is particularly concerned about an apparent pattern of targeting of journalists and their families by the Israeli military. In at least one case, a journalist was killed while clearly wearing press insignia in a location where no fighting was taking place. In at least two other cases, journalists reported receiving threats from Israeli officials and Israel Defense Forces officers before their family members were killed.”

Note that the CPJ is a pretty middle of the road press freedom organization that doesn’t generally take much of a side (besides that of protecting journalists) in any cultural or ideological struggles. So if they are willing to go out and accuse Israel of something like that, they must believe it has actually happened. What Israel is accused of is certainly pretty war-crimey, but is it genocide? Probably not, but it is finally some support for part of what Davies was alleging in his now-deleted tweet.

In contrast, this sounds a whole lot closer to both popular and legalistic definitions of genocide:

Aid organizations say all of Gaza’s universities have been partially or completely destroyed by the Israeli offensive, including the Islamic, Open Arab, and Al-Azhar universities.

Most recently, the Israeli military carried out the demolition of Al Israa University in southern Gaza with explosives Jan. 17. It was videotaped by the Israel Defense Forces and distributed to Israeli media, prompting the Biden administration to ask Israel for clarification for the reasons for its destruction.

The IDF said in a press statement this week that it was investigating the approval process for the demolition.

Going after the cultural institutions of a people like this is, after all, something the Nazis did to their victims. They burned synagogues, torched Jewish libraries, and levelled Jewish cemeteries. In Poland (the Nazis were anti-Slavic as well), the Nazi occupiers deliberately targeted Polish culture, dissolving universities and prohibiting Poles, under penalty of death, from acquiring more than the most basic of educations.

So yes, there probably is genocide going on in Gaza, and South Africa’s case has merit.

How likely any International Court of Justice ruling is to actually change anything will be the subject of a future post.

Israel’s War Crimes

Published at 10:25 on 21 December 2023

The verdict is out (as much as there can be such a thing), and Israel almost certainly committed war crimes in its attacks on al-Shifa, which were not justified.

Yes, there was some evident Hamas tunnel infrastructure found on the hospital grounds, as I mentioned here about a month ago. However:

  • Contrary to Israeli and US claims, it was not located beneath any hospital buildings. The entry that was in a building, was in an outbuilding near the edge of the hospital grounds, which was not being directly used for medical purposes.
  • Contrary to Israeli and US claims, the infrastructure was of limited size, far less extensive than the sort of major command centre that was alleged to be there.
  • There is no evidence that the Hamas infrastructure was actively being used at the time.

The article referenced in the initial link here goes into the details.

Finally, this is precisely the sort of war crime one would expect Israel to commit, based on past behaviour patterns. Israel did not know for certain that the hospital was being misused for military purposes (if they actually had better evidence going in, we would now have abundant evidence of a major command centre beneath the hospital buildings). Rather, what happened is that Israel decided to take risks based on scanty evidence with the lives of a people that it has already decided are basically expendable. It is not deliberately intending to massacre civilians, but the end result tends to be substantially the same.

Comparing the war crimes of the two sides is a bit like comparing apples and oranges: they are fundamentally different, but both are still of the same general category.

A Revealing Story

Published at 23:28 on 16 December 2023

So, Israeli soldiers shot and killed three hostages who were trying to surrender, waving a white flag. It has now emerged that, moreover, the hostages were shirtless. In other words, clearly unarmed.

Shooting an unarmed group of people waving a white flag is, of course, a flagrant and blatant war crime.

It gets worse when one asks why they did it. The most logical explanation is that they didn’t realize they were shooting Israeli hostages. This is so obviously axiomatic that I feel a bit silly typing it.

So in other words, they did it because they thought they were shooting unarmed Palestinians.

Which, of course, begs the question of how many other war crimes are being committed. The number is likely to be significant.

At Last, Some Hamas Infrastructure

Published at 10:54 on 23 November 2023

I really can’t think of any other explanation for there being something like this underground.

Whether or not it qualifies as a command centre is a different matter, but again, it’s obviously there for military purposes. A civilian home would not be constructed so far underground (costly, no light, bad ventilation). A civilian bomb shelter for the hospital would be far larger.

Time’s Up; Attacks Were Unjustified

Published at 08:37 on 18 November 2023

No more evidence from al-Shifa Hospital has been presented. Domestic US media have now moved on to other subjects. Most tellingly, claims about hospital being misused for military purposes have now mysteriously vanished from the main IDF press release page about the war.

This is all precisely the behaviour one would expect when Israel is caught committing a war crime by attacking a hospital. As such, I feel safe concluding that this is what just happened.

What other war crimes are taking place? What other civilian targets are being attacked on false pretenses or inaccurate intelligence?

Update

Independent reporters have now visited a tunnel entrance near (not in) the hospital. It is actually a hospital complex of multiple buildings, and the shaft was found near its edge. Tunnels in and of themselves are not unusual in multi-building complexes; they are often constructed for purposes of running utilities between the various buildings. So the mere existence of such a thing proves nothing. The shaft was uncovered as part of other military operations, and the IDF is not allowing reporters to enter it, claiming concerns about booby traps (which, given the overall situation, is plausible).

In other words, what may eventually turn out to be preliminary evidence of hospital misuse has finally emerged, but as of now what is known is far from constituting such evidence.

Tick-Tock… Still No Evidence

Published at 12:25 on 17 November 2023

Sorry, a few random small arms don’t cut it. The reason is rather simple: it’s a hospital in a war zone. Of course there are going to be combat casualties coming there for medical treatment. Of course those casualties will sometimes have weapons on them. What is the hospital to do, put the weapons into a magical teleportation pod to get rid of them instantly? Here on Planet Reality, such weapons will end up getting stored at the hospital until someone comes to collect them.

So what has been shown so far is precisely what one would expect to find at a hospital in a war zone that is not being used illegally for military purposes. No, providing care to wounded combatants is not considered a military purpose. Sorry.

Perhaps most tellingly, the traditionally pro-Israel US media are acting pretty much as one would expect them to, assuming these attacks were unjustified: for the most part dropping the matter and hoping people will forget it.

Maybe I’m all wet and some truly damning evidence is on its way out right now. If so:

  • I will of course revise my beliefs in light of the new evidence.
  • The time window in which to produce sufficient and credible evidence is rapidly closing.

I mean, the place was supposed to have a whole command centre below it. Surely, something that large would be difficult to hide. It’s already straining credibility that it might have so far escaped detection. Another 24 hours and I don’t think there will be much reason for doubt at all: it was just a hospital, not a command centre.