Sunday School 2/11/24

I only did a little bit of learning on Sunday, most of it in the This Week classroom where Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked with Jon Karl. 

Before I get into the highlights, I wanted to share this six-week-old information from the Diakonia International Humanitarian Law Centre's website, 

As of 7 January 2024 (figures reported by the Gaza Ministry of Health), at least 22,835 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, around 70% of whom were women and children, while around 58,416 others have been injured. Thousands more are feared trapped underneath the rubble, and “entire families” have been wiped out – it is estimated that as of 5 January, 1,876 families have lost multiple family members.  

OK - now, the highlights. Netanyahu didn't know "exactly what" President Biden meant when he said the response to the October 7th Haas attack has been "over the top." In Netanyahu's opinion, after the "worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust," the Israeli response focuses on going after terrorists and minimizing harm to the civilians he says Hamas uses as human shields. And, he said, they give folks plenty of notice when major attacks are imminent.

We drop thousands of fliers. We phone Palestinians in their homes. We ask them to leave. We give them safe corridors and safe zones. So I think we're -- we're doing the right thing, and let me tell you one other thing. We're going to win this thing. Victory is within reach.

I wish Karl had asked about the people being killed or injured as they fled. He did mention over 28,000 people killed (a more current number than the one above), the "hundreds of thousands" forced from their homes, and the lack of basic necessities, and wondered if there wasn't a "moral obligation to do more... to stop what is seen as a catastrophe." 

Netanyahu said civilian losses are "a tragedy" of Hamas' making, and that Gazan Health Ministry statistics are unreliable. He also said, "according to these urban warfare experts and other commentators, we've brought down the civilian-to-terrorist casualties, the ratio, down below 1-1, which is considerably less than in any other theater of similar warfare."

Karl was incredulous, but Netanyahu said it was true.

... we've killed and wounded over 20,000 Hamas terrorists, out of that about 12,000 -- 12,000 fighters. And we're doing everything we can to minimize civilian casualties and continue to do so. 

Again, no follow-up questions: where did he get the 20,000/12,000 figures? What's the difference between a "Hamas terrorist" and a "fighter"? And what about the tens of thousands of wounded Gazans? It's unconscionable there was no challenge to Netanyahu's statement.

Karl turned to Rafah, Gaza's southernmost city, now home to about half the population. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is charged with drafting an evacuation plan along with an attack plan. Karl wondered where the 1.4 million refugees from other parts of Gaza are supposed to go. Netanyahu's response was, um, interesting, to say the least.

Well, Rafah is a -- is a very small percentage of Gaza, and I think it's about 10 percent, or 15 percent... the area north of Gaza, that has already been cleared...

Karl reiterated that there are around 1.4M people there, "and as the German foreign minister said... 'they can't just disappear'. Where are they supposed to go?" Netanyahu suggested there were "plenty of areas" north of Rafah, disregarding that almost everything to the north had been decimated since the war began.

... we're not cavalier about this. This is part of our war effort, to get civilians out of harm's way. It's part of Hamas's effort to keep them in harm's way... Those who say that under no circumstances should we enter Rafah are basically saying, 'lose the war. Keep Hamas there.' 

With many countries against the idea of a full-scale attack on Rafah, Karl asked whether that gave him "a second thought" about moving ahead. Netanyahu was firm: it doesn't. He said they've been taking care of the civilian population of Gaza, "along with the provision of the necessary humanitarian aid." That statement, too, seems to fly in the face of multiple reports, including some stating the IDF sometimes prevents the aid from being distributed. 

Karl wondered how they'd know when Hamas has been eliminated. Netanyahu said they've already taken out "18 of their 24 terrorist battalions," suggesting taking out the rest was key; so is freeing the hostages, and ensuring Gaza's no longer a threat.

You don't have to kill every last terrorist. You don't have to kill every last ISIS terrorist, but you make sure that ISIS was finished as a military force... Hamas is a military force that controls territory. We're well within reach, and we shouldn't stop.

And, "After you've eliminated the military threat, doesn't there need to be a Palestinian state?"  Netanyahu wonders what people mean by a two-state solution.

Should the Palestinians have an army? Should they have -- can they sign a military pact with Iran? Can they import rockets from North Korea and other deadly weapons? Should they continue to educate their children for terrorism and annihilation? Of course, I say, of course not.

He thinks there should be the power of self-government for the Palestinians, but "none of the power should threaten Israel." Israel has to maintain overriding security control over everything west of the Jordan River, including Gaza. Failing to do that will allow terrorism to return.

Karl wondered which was the higher priority, bringing the hostages home, or "totally eliminating Hamas?" Netanyahu said those are not mutually exclusive goals; they've gotten around half the hostages out by applying military pressure, and he suggested that's how they'll get the rest of them. 

...I think the families of the hostages are in a terrible bind. I mean, it's -- it’s just -- it tears your heart out to listen to them and to think about what their relatives are going through. I'm committed to getting them out. We'll make every effort. It requires pressure, and pressure has worked, and pressure will work again.

He thinks enough of the remaining 123 hostages are still alive to "warrant the kind of efforts that we're doing." The goal is to bring the living hostages home, and the remains of those who have died. He also said 

I'm not sure that anybody can put themselves in the position of the families, but neither can the families put themselves in the position of the decision-makers. These are two separate things. 

He's moved by them, but explained he's "also responsible for the safety and the security of the people of Israel," and it's his job to make sure nothing like this happens again.

Finally, Karl wondered about Netanyahu's "assessment" of Biden, in light of the special counsel's mental health evaluation of him. The two have had "more than a dozen" calls - "extended" calls, he said - and they also met in person.

... I found him very clear and very focused. We managed to agree on the war aims and many things. Sometimes we have disagreements, but they weren't borne of a lack of understanding on his part or on my part.

A note: on Monday, Israel rescued two more hostages; the 

complex rescue operation was conducted after receiving “highly sensitive and valuable intelligence.” It involved Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, police special forces and an IDF tank brigade... The duo were found on the second floor “in the hands of Hamas terrorists.” Hamas militants were also stationed in adjacent buildings, Hagari said.

The death toll (so far) may be as high as 133 people, with several dozen more injured.

See you around campus.

Sunday School 2/4/24: Extra Credit

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made at least four classroom appearances. I'm amazed at his ability to withstand the assault of a lot of repetitive - and often dumb - questions.

I tried to find at least one reasonable exchange from each classroom, starting with State of the Union where he spoke with Dana Bash. I also included a few ridiculous exchanges, like the first one below.

DB: You said it's just the beginning. And I just want to clarify, that means that there will be more strikes coming in the next few days?

JS: What it means is that we will take further action. I'm not going to, obviously, describe the character of that action because I don't want to telegraph our punches. But there will be further action.

DB: Inside Iran? Would you rule that out at this point?

JS: Look, sitting on a national TV program, I'm not going to rule in and rule out any activity anywhere. What I am going to say is that the president will do what he thinks needs to be done and again reinforce the point that he's going to defend our forces and also that he is not looking to get into a war.

A more reasonable exchange occurred regarding Sullivan's oft-repeated comments that we don't want this to become a regional conflict. Bash said there are "10 countries, at least, four major terrorist groups" involved, suggesting it was already that. Sullivan worked hard to explain that the different actions we're seeing, including the Israeli-Hamas war, "are distinct but related challenges."  As such, we'll continue working 

to deal with the challenge of escalation and continue to work to ensure we're responding forcefully, but at the same time staying out of the prospect of the United States getting pulled into a broad war in the Middle East of the kind that we have seen in the past.

Bash said that all of the conflicts lead "down one road, and that is the road to Iran."  He agreed, noting that he'd explained the Iranian connection many times before, including in this classroom and from the podium during briefings.

So, we make no bones about that. Iran has a significant and pernicious responsibility for much of the instability in the Middle East, and that has to be factored into how we approach everything that we're doing and how Israel has to approach everything it's doing.

In the Meet the Press classroom, several ridiculous exchanges were initiated by Kristen Welker. For example, she referenced GOP comments about the Biden administration waiting too long to respond, and how it "telegraphed to the world, including to Iran" our response. How would Sullivan respond to that, she asked. In a nutshell, we did what we said we'd do (retaliate if attacked) and added

...of course, there will always be armchair quarterbacks, but we are confident in the steps that we have taken so far. And we are confident in the course that we are on going forward.

As Dana Bash did, Welker tried to pin Sullivan down on our future responses - except she did it right after asking about the 'telegraphing' complaint.

KW: Have you ruled out strikes inside Iran?

JS Well, sitting here today on a national news program, I'm not going to get into what we've ruled in and ruled out from the point of view of military action. What I will say is that the president is determined to respond forcefully to attacks on our people. The president also is not looking for a wider war in the Middle East.

KW: But is it off the table? Are strikes inside Iran off the table?

JS: Again, Kristen, sitting here on television, it would not be wise for me to talk about what we're ruling in and ruling out.

KW: So, you're not ruling it out?

JS: I'll just say the same thing one more time, which is I'm not going to get into what's on the table and off the table when it comes to the American response.

Did Welker redeem herself after that embarrassing exchange? Well, not really. Moving to the Israel-Hamas war, she said there was a sticking point in the hostage negotiations about "whether this should be a six-week pause in fighting or a permanent ceasefire. What is the United States pushing for?"

JS: Well, what we're pushing for is an outcome in which every hostage gets home, in which Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza –

KW (interrupting): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire?

JS (trying to answer her first question): – and not threaten Israel in the way –

KW (interrupting, again): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire today?

JS: Well, Kristen, everybody wants to see an end to the war. Nobody's rooting for the war to continue... 

But wait - there's more! Here's how the interview closed.

KW: Okay. Let me ask you, finally, Jake: Our new NBC news poll, which we were just discussing, found only 29% approve of President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza. Sixty percent disapprove of his handling of foreign policy, overall. Should the President be factoring the public's disapproval into his foreign policy decisions?

Obviously, he said no, but part of me wanted him to say, "Why yes - yes he will!" just to see the look on her face. 

In the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos did better than his counterparts. For example, he asked what our initial strikes on the terror groups had achieved - which is different from 'Did we kill any bad guys?' Sullivan said, "...we believe they had good effect in reducing, degrading the capabilities of the militias and of the Houthis."

He also reiterated that this was just the start of our response, and said there'll be "more actions taken to respond to the death of the – the tragic death of the three brave U.S. service members."

In response to a question on whether we've thought about Iran making a direct response against us, Sullivan acknowledged that was a threat that we're prepared for, adding

And I would just say, from the perspective of Tehran, if they chose to respond directly to the United States, they would be met with a swift and forceful response from us.

He also said we've passed messages back and forth, but "in the last few days, the message that we have sent to Iran has been through our action, not through our words."

Last, we visited the Face the Nation classroom, with Margaret Brennan. Very early on, she asked whether Iran has "done anything to rein in the militias they fund and arm?" since our strikes. The question came barely two days after we launched them, so was it reasonable to think we'd have an assessment on that yet? I'd guess no, but maybe it's just me.

Her next question? 

There are reportedly civilian casualties in Iraq and in Syria as a result of these strikes. Does the U.S. assess that any of those hit in these strikes were actually Iranian Al Quds Force personnel? Or did the fact that this was so telegraphed in advance give those personnel time to go to ground?

Sullivan said he "didn't have anything to report...this morning" on who exactly was killed, but said assessments were continuing. And he refuted the "so telegraphed" comment, as he did in other classrooms. 

And when three service members were killed, of course Iran knew that the United States would respond. So the idea that somehow this was telegraphed, I think, is a bit more of a political talking point than – than a reality. 

She had no reaction to that, of course. And she, too, turned to the polls showing Americans aren't happy with Israel's military campaign - or with President Biden's handling of it. She wondered

At what point is this open-ended Israel conflict in Gaza not just a political problem, but a national security one for the United States to be so closely associated with the Netanyahu government's war, with the civilian casualties that we've seen to date, and the starvation of women and children in Gaza?

In part, he responded, 

...I'm glad you put the question in those terms, because we don't design our policy towards Israel or Gaza or the Middle East based on politics. We do it based on the national security interests of the United States.

We've been clear, he said, that we won't ignore "the immense and terrible suffering" of Palestinians. We'll continue to pressure Israel on that, and it'll be a "top priority" of Secretary of State Antony Blinken when he meets with the Israeli government.

Brennan referenced an interview with Israel's National Security Minister, who seemed to be on a different page than his boss. She asked, "Does Benjamin Netanyahu have control of his government?"  Sullivan rightly responded that it's not up to us to say. 

Look, I'm going to let the Israeli government and Israeli politicians speak for themselves. They certainly have no trouble doing so, as you just related. 

He also explained that a deal allowing for a "sustained pause" so assistance can reach the Palestinians who need it is in our national security interest, and is "a paramount priority for us."

The Israeli government can answer whether it's a paramount priority for them. And depending on that answer, they'll also have to answer to the Israeli people.

So, of course, she turned back to the guy who was "threatening politically the prime minister..." after Sullivan had just said the Israelis could speak for themselves. It was a zero-value question, but he was gracious and answered it anyway.

If you feel so inclined, drop your best shot and ask a dumb question multiple ways; I'll collect and publish any that come in.

See you around campus.

About the New US Embassy

Random thoughts on the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem:

The president's daughter and son-in-law officially represented the United States, with Jared Kushner giving a long speech (one that, like many delivered around this time of year, had at least three or four endings) and Ivanka Trump 'helping' Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin pull the tarp off the dedication plaque. Here's a photo, in case you hadn't seen one (from JTA).

Yonatan Sindel/Flash 90

Noteworthy in the picture? The size of Trump's hands name, equal in significance to the name of the country to whom the embassy belongs. Noteworthy in Kushner's speech? The fact that he either ad-libbed or the White House edited the press copy of the speech to leave out the part about Palestinian protesters being part of the problem. I lean more towards the WH editing it (more on that in another post).

The embassy that was dedicated yesterday is in part of the US Consulate General; a permanent site will be chosen and then the real embassy will be built, so while the US Ambassador will be there part time (the rest of his time at the old embassy in Tel Aviv) and a few dozen staffers will also be assigned there, it's not really going to be a typical US embassy.

While the dedication was going on, nearly 60 protesters were killed and over 1300 were injured in Gaza. Pictures of protesters burning tires and hurling rocks towards the Israeli border fence were contrasted with video of people being tear gassed, and shot, by the Israeli soldiers. I can literally only imagine the sentiments on both sides, but the disproportion in weaponry seemed clear in what I saw on television.  (Reports today are that pipe bombs were thrown towards the fence, and that some of those injured or killed were Hamas terrorists, not 'just' protesters).  But still...

In the aftermath of the dedication, and the protests, these headlines were reported, again in JTA:

• NY Governor Andrew Cuomo postpones solidarity trip to Israel
• Turkey expels Israeli ambassador over Gaza violence
• Palestinian protests as Gaza border delayed as funerals take place for at least 58 dead
• Reform leader 'alarmed, concerned and profoundly saddened' by Gaza deaths
• Turkey recalls ambassadors to US and Israel amid Gaza Violence 

Meanwhile, the US blamed Hamas for the violence and resulting injuries and deaths; the United Nations held a moment of silence, 

Ireland and Belgium summoned Israeli envoys, while Germany, while Germany joined those two countries in calling for an investigation; even China called for restraint.

And finally, back to who was representing the US - and us - at the ceremony, we have this:

A Dallas evangelical pastor who once said that Jewish people are going to hell and a mega church televangelist who claimed Hitler was part of God's plan to return Jews to Israel both played prominent roles on Monday in the opening ceremony of the new American Embassy in Jerusalem.

Robert Jeffress, who spoke at President Trump's private inaugural prayer service and is the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, delivered a prayer at the opening ceremony on Monday, while the Rev. John C. Hagee, a televangelist who founded Christians United for Israel and leads a San Antonio mega church, gave the closing benediction. 

Comically, the White House expressed a lack of knowledge of how Jeffress and Hagee were chosen. Here's an exchange between Principal Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah and an unidentified reporter:

Q: Thank you, Raj. I wanted to ask you about the embassy opening today. The person who delivered the invocation, Robert Jeffress, he's made some statements in the past that he believes Muslims are going to hell, Jews are going to hell, Hindus are going to hell. Do you think that, considering especially his remarks about Jews, that he's one of the right people to speak at the opening of our embassy in Israel? And can you give us a little more information on how that came to be?

A.  Well, I honestly don't know how that came to be. And I know that Pastor Jeffress has had a strong relationship with many people in the faith community, as well as folks in the administration, and Republicans on the Hill, and others, and I believe Democrats as well. So I think that he has a longstanding involvement with public officials. You know, beyond that, I don't really have a whole lot to add.

To make things worse, another reporter noted that Jared & Ivanka met with a controversial rabbi.

Q. Separate from that, on Sunday Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump met with Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, the Chief Sephardic rabbi in Israel. And he once compared black people to monkeys. So I'm wondering, in all three of these instances can you tell us anything about how these people were brought into the ceremonies? And do you think it's regrettable that people with these views were involved with the American government?

A.  I don't have any readout on how they became involved with these events. All I'll say is that those specific views that you outlined, if they're accurate reflections of what was said, wouldn't be embraced by this White House. Beyond that, I don't have anything else. 

Nor do I.