Like his recent piece in the Nation, Adam Johnson's article at The Column panders to those who cannot accept complexity as part of the Gaza crisis.
Seeking a "pause" in the fighting is not at all inconsistent with support for a lasting cease-fire. Humanitarian aid to rescue Gazans cannot reach them in sufficient quantity unless the fighting stops. A temporary ceasefire is often the prelude to a more permanent agreement. So a
"pause" makes sense morally and politically.
Johnson says Biden does not intend "to use the pause in fighting to achieve a longer-lasting peace. " His evidence? National Security Council spokesman John Kirby has not said this is Biden's goal. What Kirby said is: "We still don’t support a general ceasefire that would leave Hamas in charge. " After October 7, can you imagine seeking negotiations with Israel and opening with: "We must have a ceasefire, even if it means leaving Hamas in charge"? Unlike Johnson, apparently, the White House understands that would be a nonstarter.
Anthony Blinken has told Netanyahu "there is no military solution to Hamas". Yet Johnson insists "The administration is all in on Netenyahu’s campaign of ethnic cleansing..." This is confused and implausible. In a competent administration, a Secretary of State does not make such statements if they do not reflect the president's view. Biden & Blinken are not Trump and Rex Tillerson.
The question for Biden, then, is how to get Israel to accept a ceasefire short of exterminating every last Hamas fighter. His strategy seems plain enough: engage other countries in the region, threaten Netanyahu with an isolation that will hasten his ouster, and begin serious discussion of an alternative to Hamas as the governing authority in Gaza-- which means the prospect of a separate Palestinian state.
In his piece in the Nation, Johnson says Mehdi Hasan’s recent Guardian article shows "The president can end the conflict whenever he wants." Hasan describes how a phone call from Reagan in 1982 got Menachem Begin to halt Israel’s bombing of Beirut. He concludes that “Joe Biden, like Reagan before him, could end the current carnage with a single phone call to Benjamin Netanyahu”.
This is wishful thinking. Biden faces a different world today. First, Israel attacked Lebanon in 1982 and no one pretended otherwise. In 2023, by contrast, Hamas attacked Israel and some type of military response was inevitable.
Second, Menachem Begin was not desperate to stay in power in 1982; he led a political party much less reactionary than the Likud of today (Israel under Begin signed the controversial peace treaty with Egypt). By contrast, Netanyahu heads the most extreme right-wing government in Israel’s history, and he himself faces imminent political demise unless he can somehow reclaim status as the hero who “defeated Hamas once and for all.”
Finally, the Republican Party today is far more extremist than in 1982, and far more obsessed with denying political victories to any Democratic president.
Cutting off military aid to Israel requires Congressional approval. Short of that, no Democratic president today could end the carnage in Gaza “with a simple phone call.”
Like his recent piece in the Nation, Adam Johnson's article at The Column panders to those who cannot accept complexity as part of the Gaza crisis.
Seeking a "pause" in the fighting is not at all inconsistent with support for a lasting cease-fire. Humanitarian aid to rescue Gazans cannot reach them in sufficient quantity unless the fighting stops. A temporary ceasefire is often the prelude to a more permanent agreement. So a
"pause" makes sense morally and politically.
Johnson says Biden does not intend "to use the pause in fighting to achieve a longer-lasting peace. " His evidence? National Security Council spokesman John Kirby has not said this is Biden's goal. What Kirby said is: "We still don’t support a general ceasefire that would leave Hamas in charge. " After October 7, can you imagine seeking negotiations with Israel and opening with: "We must have a ceasefire, even if it means leaving Hamas in charge"? Unlike Johnson, apparently, the White House understands that would be a nonstarter.
Anthony Blinken has told Netanyahu "there is no military solution to Hamas". Yet Johnson insists "The administration is all in on Netenyahu’s campaign of ethnic cleansing..." This is confused and implausible. In a competent administration, a Secretary of State does not make such statements if they do not reflect the president's view. Biden & Blinken are not Trump and Rex Tillerson.
The question for Biden, then, is how to get Israel to accept a ceasefire short of exterminating every last Hamas fighter. His strategy seems plain enough: engage other countries in the region, threaten Netanyahu with an isolation that will hasten his ouster, and begin serious discussion of an alternative to Hamas as the governing authority in Gaza-- which means the prospect of a separate Palestinian state.
In his piece in the Nation, Johnson says Mehdi Hasan’s recent Guardian article shows "The president can end the conflict whenever he wants." Hasan describes how a phone call from Reagan in 1982 got Menachem Begin to halt Israel’s bombing of Beirut. He concludes that “Joe Biden, like Reagan before him, could end the current carnage with a single phone call to Benjamin Netanyahu”.
This is wishful thinking. Biden faces a different world today. First, Israel attacked Lebanon in 1982 and no one pretended otherwise. In 2023, by contrast, Hamas attacked Israel and some type of military response was inevitable.
Second, Menachem Begin was not desperate to stay in power in 1982; he led a political party much less reactionary than the Likud of today (Israel under Begin signed the controversial peace treaty with Egypt). By contrast, Netanyahu heads the most extreme right-wing government in Israel’s history, and he himself faces imminent political demise unless he can somehow reclaim status as the hero who “defeated Hamas once and for all.”
Finally, the Republican Party today is far more extremist than in 1982, and far more obsessed with denying political victories to any Democratic president.
Cutting off military aid to Israel requires Congressional approval. Short of that, no Democratic president today could end the carnage in Gaza “with a simple phone call.”
JM