As usual, Ilan gets massive amounts of historical fact wrong while pushing for a repetition of the same things that have repeatedly failed.
For example, he says:
"I’m skeptical - even if the situation is not as bad as it was six weeks ago, does that mean that a population of 2.5 million people can live with no new supplies of food or medicine coming for weeks?"
That depends on how many weeks. But the answer is unequivocally yes. 10,000 trucks entered Gaza from January 19 to February 6 alone, an average of 555 a day, well over the requirements for Gazans per day. During the ceasefire overall, 600 entered per day. The supplies are enough for months.
Then he delves into history, making basic errors:
"Proponents of this policy have long argued and continue to argue that the U.S. didn’t provide humanitarian aid to Nazi Germany during World War II so why does Israel need to provide aid to civilians in Gaza that will be diverted by Hamas. First, it’s important to point out that Israel is not providing aid to Hamas. It allows aid provided by the United States and the international community to enter Gaza."
This is a distinction without a difference. Aid that enters Gaza is stolen by Hamas. This is on video. This is testified to by Gazans. This is not in dispute. And it's worth noting international law, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention Article 23, states that aid consignments are required unless "there are no serious reasons for fearing that the consignments may be diverted from their destination". We know it's happening. We know it's a huge issue. We know Hamas is hoarding aid. So why is it Israel's job to feed Hamas, or let others feed it? Imagine if the argument was that the world should have let the Nazi military be fed.
Ilan dodges this by arguing that things are different:
"Should we be discounting other societal and global norms that have been established since 1945, simply by saying “that’s how we did it then”? That would be deeply problematic to say the least."
The only problem with that is, it's attacking a straw man. This isn't about the norms of WWII. This is about common sense: it is not anyone's job, let alone Israel's, to feed Hamas.
Ilan, ultimately, wants to go back to a world that has already failed. He points to the campaign against ISIS, saying:
"In fact, in our most effective counterterrorism and counterinsurgency campaign in recent memory – the counter ISIS campaign – we did the exact opposite of withholding aid. We actually had an integrated strategy that first cleared ISIS from specific areas, and then followed it up with a surge in assistance and early recovery to help alternative governance take root. That would have made a lot more sense as part of a strategy than what Israel has done over the past 15 months."
This is, however, insanely ironic. First of all, ISIS did not have majority support among the populace. The problem is not Israel's strategy, it is that Palestinians support Hamas in a way Iraqis did not support ISIS.
Second of all, Ilan worked for the people trying to STOP Israel from clearing Hamas out. He is literally arguing, in this piece, AGAINST clearing out Hamas, arguing the war should not resume. So he has not taken his own lessons, has not internalized the differences between the campaigns, and ignores that this is what Israel DID, despite the administration he supported repeatedly trying to stop Israel from doing so.
Ilan ultimately represents a return to the failed policies that led to a stagnant situation that Hamas exploited to commit the massacres and rapes of 10/7. Enough. Ilan wants to get back to negotiating with the Nazis on the conditions of their survival and continuation. That is not going to work, and it is not going to fly. Enough is enough; there needs to be a reckoning and unconditional surrender, and a denazification program in place. That is the only way this cycle ends.
But there was a report that some of the liberal and moderate Israelis would ensure that Bibi would be kept in office by them, even if the far Right abandoned him for agreeing to phase two.
This should be made more explicit because it is essential to continue with phase 2. As for “getting rid” of Hamas, that is not the issue. Hamas already agreed not to be part of the government, and phase 3 could involve the supervised dismantling of the tunnels, so that there would be no way that they could be used to intimidate the transitional governance of Gaza.
I’m not aware of what the other para military factions say about that, but Hamas also said they would give up their weapons if a Palestinian state were established. They would probably insist on being integrated into a national police force, since only a demilitarized Palestinian state would be acceptable to Israel.
The announcement by the Kurdish group that they were going to dismantle their armed resistance is a positive step in the region and one which hopefully will be undertaken by the Palestinian groups as well, since there’s clearly no military solution to this conflict. The problem is we need to convince Israel that this is the case, and unfortunately convince our own government here in the United States.
https://open.substack.com/pub/treemason/p/israel-the-geopolitical-rick-james?r=2wv5d&utm_medium=ios
God is watching everything you are doing …..He will act.
As usual, Ilan gets massive amounts of historical fact wrong while pushing for a repetition of the same things that have repeatedly failed.
For example, he says:
"I’m skeptical - even if the situation is not as bad as it was six weeks ago, does that mean that a population of 2.5 million people can live with no new supplies of food or medicine coming for weeks?"
That depends on how many weeks. But the answer is unequivocally yes. 10,000 trucks entered Gaza from January 19 to February 6 alone, an average of 555 a day, well over the requirements for Gazans per day. During the ceasefire overall, 600 entered per day. The supplies are enough for months.
Then he delves into history, making basic errors:
"Proponents of this policy have long argued and continue to argue that the U.S. didn’t provide humanitarian aid to Nazi Germany during World War II so why does Israel need to provide aid to civilians in Gaza that will be diverted by Hamas. First, it’s important to point out that Israel is not providing aid to Hamas. It allows aid provided by the United States and the international community to enter Gaza."
This is a distinction without a difference. Aid that enters Gaza is stolen by Hamas. This is on video. This is testified to by Gazans. This is not in dispute. And it's worth noting international law, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention Article 23, states that aid consignments are required unless "there are no serious reasons for fearing that the consignments may be diverted from their destination". We know it's happening. We know it's a huge issue. We know Hamas is hoarding aid. So why is it Israel's job to feed Hamas, or let others feed it? Imagine if the argument was that the world should have let the Nazi military be fed.
Ilan dodges this by arguing that things are different:
"Should we be discounting other societal and global norms that have been established since 1945, simply by saying “that’s how we did it then”? That would be deeply problematic to say the least."
The only problem with that is, it's attacking a straw man. This isn't about the norms of WWII. This is about common sense: it is not anyone's job, let alone Israel's, to feed Hamas.
Ilan, ultimately, wants to go back to a world that has already failed. He points to the campaign against ISIS, saying:
"In fact, in our most effective counterterrorism and counterinsurgency campaign in recent memory – the counter ISIS campaign – we did the exact opposite of withholding aid. We actually had an integrated strategy that first cleared ISIS from specific areas, and then followed it up with a surge in assistance and early recovery to help alternative governance take root. That would have made a lot more sense as part of a strategy than what Israel has done over the past 15 months."
This is, however, insanely ironic. First of all, ISIS did not have majority support among the populace. The problem is not Israel's strategy, it is that Palestinians support Hamas in a way Iraqis did not support ISIS.
Second of all, Ilan worked for the people trying to STOP Israel from clearing Hamas out. He is literally arguing, in this piece, AGAINST clearing out Hamas, arguing the war should not resume. So he has not taken his own lessons, has not internalized the differences between the campaigns, and ignores that this is what Israel DID, despite the administration he supported repeatedly trying to stop Israel from doing so.
Ilan ultimately represents a return to the failed policies that led to a stagnant situation that Hamas exploited to commit the massacres and rapes of 10/7. Enough. Ilan wants to get back to negotiating with the Nazis on the conditions of their survival and continuation. That is not going to work, and it is not going to fly. Enough is enough; there needs to be a reckoning and unconditional surrender, and a denazification program in place. That is the only way this cycle ends.
Total Victory means a Final Solution, just as with Hitler….
But there was a report that some of the liberal and moderate Israelis would ensure that Bibi would be kept in office by them, even if the far Right abandoned him for agreeing to phase two.
This should be made more explicit because it is essential to continue with phase 2. As for “getting rid” of Hamas, that is not the issue. Hamas already agreed not to be part of the government, and phase 3 could involve the supervised dismantling of the tunnels, so that there would be no way that they could be used to intimidate the transitional governance of Gaza.
I’m not aware of what the other para military factions say about that, but Hamas also said they would give up their weapons if a Palestinian state were established. They would probably insist on being integrated into a national police force, since only a demilitarized Palestinian state would be acceptable to Israel.
The announcement by the Kurdish group that they were going to dismantle their armed resistance is a positive step in the region and one which hopefully will be undertaken by the Palestinian groups as well, since there’s clearly no military solution to this conflict. The problem is we need to convince Israel that this is the case, and unfortunately convince our own government here in the United States.
He’s now as bad as Putin. He only wants to keep the war going for his own benefit.
Who is Bibi?