zaterdag 30 november 2024

INTERVIEW: Israel could not take the losses

Scott Ritter: Israel JUST VIOLATED CEASEFIRE in Lebanon; Angry Over CELE...

Israel: Een Uiterst Ziek Land

Zelfs de meerderheid van de Joods-Israelische auteurs hebben tot nu toe niet beseft hoe pathologisch de Israelische samenleving is, en hoe onvermijdelijk de mentale stoornis is geweest. Dezelfde blindheid gold voor de meerderheid van de joden in de zogeheten diaspora. Pas op 29 augustus 2023, dus slechts negen dagen voordat de al driekwart eeuw door Israel geterroriseerde Palestijnse bevolking, eindelijk met  terreur Israel van repliek diende, waarschuwde de internationaal bekende Israelische schrijver David Grossman een in Nederlands vertaald commentaar, getiteld 'Mijn land is een ziek lichaam' gepubliceerd in het boekje 'De Prijs die We Betalen.' Die 'prijs' is het resultaat van de langdurige en meedogenloze onderdrukking van de Palestijnse bevolking. Daardoor  'ontglipt ons' Joden, 'nu gaandeweg de vrijheid van beweging en de harmonie van een gezond lichaam,' een vrijheid die de Palestijnen in Israel en zeker in de bezette en belegerde gebieden nooit hebben gekend. 'Alles wat voor het merendeel van de (Joodse. svh) burgers natuurlijk en vanzelfsprekend was -- vereenzelviging met de  staat, het bijna familiale gevoel erbij te horen -- verloopt nu schoorvoetend, bezaaid met twijfel en angst.' 

Kenmerkend is dat juist Grossman niet beseft dat die 'vereenzelviging met de  staat' en het 'bijna familiale' joodse tribalisme juist de voedingsbodem zijn geweest van het Joods Zionistische Fascisme, waarvan de hele wereldbevolking sinds 7 oktober 2023 getuige is. De  auteur beweert dat het 'proces van destabilisatie en desintegratie' pas recentelijk 'is ingezet,'met als gevolg 'een versplintering van het sociale contract en de uitholling van het leger en de economie.' Kennelijk heeft David Grossman in een heel ander universum geleefd dan zijn landgenoot professor  Yehoshua Harkabi die ik in 1990 interviewde over zijn boek Israël’s Fateful Decisions (1988).  Als voormalig hoofd van de Israëlische Militaire Inlichtingen Dienst, die van binnenuit wist door welke expansionistische ideologie zowel de linkse als rechtse zionisten -- vanaf het begin van de staat  -- werden gedreven, schreef de oud generaal: 

'Niet alleen heeft de politiek van een bepaalde groep leiders Israël een pijnlijke erfenis nagelaten, maar achter de fiasco’s waaraan ze zich schuldig hebben gemaakt, gaat een gevaarlijk en bedrieglijk wereldbeeld schuil… Internationale betrekkingen in de moderne betekenis berusten op de opvatting van gelijkwaardigheid tussen de verschillende politieke entiteiten. Deze opvatting van gelijkheid is het judaïsme vreemd. Het joodse denken verdeelt de wereld in tweeën: het Joodse volk versus de niet-Joden… Het zich bewust zijn van de valkuilen van etnocentrisch denken is belangrijk voor een volk als dat van de Joden, wier zelfbeeld maar al te snel hun visie op de betrekkingen tussen henzelf en de rest van de wereld vervormt… Geen enkele factor bedreigt Israëls toekomst zozeer als de overtuiging van het eigen gelijk… Naar mijn mening vormt de eigendunk een groter gevaar voor Israël dan het antisemitisme… Zelfkritiek is noodzakelijk om… de overtuiging van het eigen gelijk te neutraliseren, een overtuiging die voorkomt uit een fundamentele joodse houding,’

aldus Harkabi, die daarbij onder meer verwees naar het joods messianisme. Als hoogleraar geschiedenis en internationale betrekkingen aan de Hebreeuwse Universiteit in Jeruzalem en aan Princeton University in de Verenigde Staten, waarschuwde hij 36 jaar geleden in zijn boek dat:

‘de crisis waar de natie voor staat allesomvattend [zal] zijn. Het zal bitter zijn omdat velen zullen moeten toegeven dat zij in een fantasiewereld hebben geleefd.’ 

Inmiddels Het interview met professor Harkabi kunt u lezen in mijn boek De oneindige oorlog (2009). 36 jaar later blijkt hoe profetisch Harkabi's woorden waren.

Ik stop hier aangezien mijn betoog -- gebaseerd op interviews met prominente Joods-Israelische intellectuelen -- even lang als onthullend is. Volgende keer meer.









vrijdag 29 november 2024

Remember: Mizrahi Jews in Israel faced decades of injustice, and still vote extreme right

 

Mizrahi Jews in Israel faced decades of injustice, and still vote extreme right

The current political melee of extreme right versus very extreme right has taken an ethnic turn
MIri Regev
Miri Regev (L), a former Likud minister, has denounced the Ashkenazi "white DNA" dominance of her party leadership (Reuters)

Amidst the ongoing political chaos following the inauguration of the new Israeli government last month, not only has the Israeli Jewish opposition taken to the streets to protest proposed judicial reforms, but calls issued by high-ranking Israeli generals for civil disobedience have also become common. 

The current political melee is not restricted to what passes in Israel as a left-right division - or more accurately, a situation of extreme right versus very extreme right - but has also taken an ethnic turn. 

The opposition to the government was recently described by a Likud lawmaker as representing rich and privileged Ashkenazi Jews intent on continuing to subjugate Moroccan, if not all Mizrahi, Jews (and even Palestinian Druze).     

'I saw a lot of things glistening at the demonstration, and later I realised it was the Rolex watches worn by the protesters'

- David Amsalem, Likud MK

Born in Jerusalem to Moroccan Jewish parents, Likud Knesset member David (Dudi) Amsalem, did not mince words: “You’re a gang of thugs, inciting to rebellion.” 

Amsalem, whom Benjamin Netanyahu recently appointed as Israel’s junior minister at the justice ministry, added: “Former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said that he would give an order not to report for reserve service. And these are the people who are supposedly protecting us and working [for the country].

New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch

Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters

"Well, I have something to tell you. I also work, me, and another two and a half million people, we all work for the country, even though it's quite true that most of us work for you, cleaning your houses and gardens. I saw a lot of things glistening at the demonstration, and later I realised it was the Rolex watches worn by the protesters. Just go and see how many Mercedes they have."

Referring to Moroccan Jews, Amsalem concluded: "You're prepared to give us degrees and even cars, but not to allow us to rule. You never granted us that: not in the security forces, not in the judicial system, not in academia, not in culture, and certainly not in the Supreme Court and the state prosecution service. And in the Prisons Service, do you know who the wardens are? Moroccans and Druze." 

The opposition was not cowed by his remarks and accused him of hypocrisy, as he himself sported a Cartier watch and is highly paid (Amsalem retorted that the watch, which has sentimental value, was given to him by his brother before he passed away). 

'Oriental communities'

The ethnic division between Israeli Jews, especially between the European Ashkenazi Jews and the Asian and African Jews, most of whom hail from the Arab world, is as old as the Zionist project, although it did not become explosive until after the Jewish settler colony was founded in 1948. 

Israeli officials would especially denigrate Moroccan Jews, the poorest of what Israel called the "Oriental communities", who later became known as the "Mizrahim".

Why the right-wing Mizrahi vote is misunderstood in Israel
Read More »

Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, had the following to say: "Those [Jews] from Morocco had no education. Their customs are those of Arabs." He asserted that "The Moroccan Jew took a lot from the Moroccan Arabs. The culture of Morocco I would not like to have here." 

Ben Gurion concluded: "We do not want Israelis to become Arabs. We are in duty bound to fight against the spirit of the Levant, which corrupts individuals and societies, and preserve the authentic Jewish values as they crystallised in the [European] Diaspora." 

One of the crueller chapters of this period involved the kidnapping of hundreds of children of Yemeni Jews from the transit camps in Israel. Some of the children were given to childless Ashkenazi couples for adoption in and outside of Israel. Yemeni parents whose children were sick were taken from them to hospitals where the parents were prevented from going.

The parents were later told that their children had died. Twenty years later, in 1968, the Ministry of Defence sent military draft notices to the addresses of the parents of these children. 

An investigation was launched by the Knesset in March 1968, but no satisfactory answers were found. Yet, the affair was sophisticated enough to produce death certificates for some of the kidnapped children and to obstruct for decades all attempts by their parents to investigate the crime. In 1986, a massive rally was held by "The Public Committee for the Discovery of the Missing Yemeni Children".

Yemeni jews
Yemeni Jewish children are visited by Israeli nurses in a tent encampment in 1949 (Reuters)

Upon their arrival in Israel, the "Oriental" Jews were crammed in transit camps under poor conditions, while Ashkenazi immigrants were given the homes of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians. 

Demonstrations took place in the camps protesting discrimination, food shortages, and lack of medical care. The transit camps were erected next to Ashkenazi settlements and large cities to provide the latter with cheap labour. This was on the orders of the government, which, after the initial provision of meagre rations and social services, informed the camp residents that they needed to provide for themselves through work in the Ashkenazi settlements.  

They continue to benefit from the privilege of being Jewish, a privilege denied to the Palestinians, even as they face discrimination for being non-European

Due to high levels of unemployment, many Oriental Jews, regardless of their level of education or skills, had to take up menial unskilled jobs - the only ones on offer. 

Demonstrations took place throughout the country in 1949. In Ashkelon (formerly Majdal ‘Asqalan), thousands of Oriental Jews marched against discrimination. Similarly, 300 residents from Ramleh staged a "noisy" demonstration in Allenby Street demanding "bread and work" and tried to storm the old Knesset building until they were held back by police. 

Two weeks later, demonstrators stormed the Jewish Agency building in Haifa and went on a rampage inside the Department of Absorption. They demanded "work and housing" from the organisation, which was set up by the World Zionist Organisation in 1929 as its operational branch for the Jewish colonisation of Palestine.

This time the police only managed to overpower them by bringing in reinforcements. Some demonstrators were injured, and others were arrested. In July of the same year, demonstrators from Jaffa attacked the former parliament building in Tel Aviv

Asian and African Jews were settled in what Israel named "development towns" and in poor-quality agricultural cooperatives called "moshavim". Others lived in slums in the big cities of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa and Beersheba. It is in these urban slums that resistance to racism and economic deprivation would arise. 

Iraqi Jewish writer Gideon Giladi explains that the "only basic economic difference between the development towns and the slum areas is geographic. The development towns lie in the country and supply the Ashkenazi settlements with cheap labour whereas the slum areas form a belt around the large towns and supply Ashkenazi capital with cheap labour. They also provide servants for Ashkenazi women." 

Amsalem’s reference to Moroccans working for rich Ashkenazi families was not arbitrary; it is based on the details of this history. 

Mizrahi uprisings

The first Moroccan Jewish uprising in Israel took place in 1959 in the poor Wadi al-Salib neighbourhood of Haifa, whose Palestinian population had been replaced by Moroccan Jews. 

Poor Moroccan Jews were also in the forefront of the second and more momentous movement of the Israeli Black Panthers, which dominated the Israeli scene from 1970 to 1973. In May 1971, at one of their largest demonstrations, 260 Black Panthers supporters were arrested by the police who broke up the demonstration. 

Jewish ‘self-determination’ or Jewish supremacy?
Read More »

The chief of police at the time, Shlomo Hillel, of Iraqi origin, was labelled by the demonstrators "the black collaborator". More demonstrations followed in January and May 1972 in which more police clashes led to shootings. 

This led to the biggest mass protest vote in Israeli history on the part of a majority of Mizrahim who helped to bring a Likud-led coalition to power in 1977, ending, for the first time since Israel’s creation, the monopoly on political leadership held by the Labor Party. 

The irony then as now was that Likud, just like Labor, was (and remains) also Ashkenazi-led and dominated, but the difference was that it was not in power between 1948 and 1977 when the Oriental Jews were subjected to systematic discrimination. 

Confrontations with police continued in the 1980s, with a major demonstration following the fatal police shooting of Shimon Yehoshua, a Yemeni Jew, on 22 December 1982. 

The murder took place after the police arrived at Yehoshua’s house in Kfar Shalem in Tel Aviv, intent on destroying an extra room he had added to his house without a government licence. Yehoshua was shot while resisting police attempts at demolishing the room (a common Israeli practice against Palestinians, and in this case, a Mizrahi Jew, but not Ashkenazim).   

Wide demonstrations broke out a few days after the murder prompting the Knesset to delay Yehoshua’s burial until nightfall to prevent disturbances. Following the demolition of more than 100 buildings in Kfar Shalem in 1984 more bloody clashes occurred. 

Demonstrators set fire to a warehouse, blocked the main streets shouting "Ashke-Nazis" at the police, which, by then, was a common epithet used by Mizrahi protesters.

The matter of the kidnapped Yemeni children also continued to mobilise people against the racism of the Ashkenazi state. In 1994, a force of 800 police officers laid a five-week siege to the home of the Yemeni-born rabbi Uzi Meshulem and a few dozen of his Mizrahi followers in Yehud (near Petah Tikva) who were demanding information about the kidnapped children.

Remaining loyal

Despite ongoing discrimination, the majority of Mizrahi Jews have, of course, remained within the Zionist Israeli camp and, like their Ashkenazi compatriots, remain as colonisers of the land of the Palestinians. Amsalem himself is a settler in the West Bank colony of Ma’alei Adumim. 

They continue to benefit from the privilege of being Jewish, a privilege denied to the Palestinians, even as they face discrimination by the Ashkenazim for being non-European. Yet gaps in income, wealth, education and health between Ashkenazim and Mizrahim have only increased in recent decades.

Amsalem, a beneficiary of the mobilisation of Mizrahi votes for Likud since 1977, is certainly exploiting this history of discrimination to mobilise Mizrahi Jews to the cause of the Ashkenazi-led government in Israel. 

That his use of this history is a cynical move to drum up support for Israel’s extreme right-wing does not mitigate the fact that the discriminatory record he cites is one that continues to animate Mizrahi rage against ongoing Ashkenazi domination.  

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Joseph Massad is professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, New York. He is the author of many books and academic and journalistic articles. His books include Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan; Desiring Arabs; The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism and the Palestinians, and most recently Islam in Liberalism. His books and articles have been translated into a dozen languages.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-ashkenazi-mizrahi-divide-still-extreme-right 

Russia's Oreshnik Missile: It's Worse than You think for NATO w/ Patrick...

Stop de wapenleveringen van NAVO-landen aan het onwettige Zelensky-regime in Kiev

 

Heel graag deze petitie van de politieke emigranten en politieke gevangenen van Oekraine en de IUAFS, tegen de escalerende oorlogen door het westen,  ondertekenen en ook delen! Vergeet niet te bevestigen in de mail, mogelijk in de spam.


De "Unie van politieke emigranten en politieke gevangenen van Oekraïne" en de
"Internationale antifascistische solidariteit met Oekraïne "(IUAFS)
We doen een beroep op de stopzetting van de wapenleveringen van de Verenigde Staten, Frankrijk, Groot-Brittannië, Duitsland en andere NAVO-leden aan het onwettige Zelensky-regime in Kiev en stoppen met de eisen van raketaanvallen diep op het grondgebied van Rusland!
We eisen ook om de huidige aanvallen op Gaza, Libanon, Syrië en Iran te stoppen!
De wereld wordt momenteel geconfronteerd met de mogelijkheid van twee grote regionale Oorlogen: Een in Europa, tussen Rusland en Oekraïne, en andere tussen Israël en verschillende staten in het Midden-Oosten.
Deze oorlogen zijn het resultaat van jarenlange agressie en expansie door NAVO-leden en hun cliëntstaten.
De Franse en Britse regeringen en andere NAVO-leden in hun "vrije" media hebben de inwoners van hun landen niet geïnformeerd dat de "Storm Shadow" raketaanvallen vanaf het grondgebied van Oekraïne moeten worden geprogrammeerd door Franse en Britse militairen op de grond in Oekraïne, wat de facto de strijdkrachten van deze landen in een staat van oorlog met Rusland leidt.
Ook staan de Franse regering en andere NAVO-lidstaten toe en organiseren ze de steeds toenemende verzending van huurlingen uit Frankrijk, Polen, Latijns-Amerika en andere landen naar de gevechtszone van het Oekraïense conflict en organiseren ze terroristische activiteiten in Afrika, in de Sahel-regio. Groepen van deze huurlingen zijn al actief betrokken bij de escalatie van het conflict op het grondgebied van de Russische Federatie.
Ze hebben de mensen in Frankrijk en Groot-Brittannië niet verteld dat het enige dat deze landen weerhoudt van de waanzin van "alleen handelen" door raketaanvallen tegen Rusland te lanceren, is dat ze toestemming nodig hebben van de Verenigde Staten, die de satellietgegevens en software controleren die worden gebruikt door de Storm Shadow-en Scalp-raketten.
De meeste westerse regeringen (Frankrijk, het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de Verenigde Staten) weigerden (officieel) de genocide op burgers in Gaza te veroordelen en negeerden tien jaar lang bijna volledig de duizenden slachtoffers van bombardementen, hongersnood en ziekte in Jemen. We hebben geen open deuren en rode tapijten gezien voor Palestijnse of Jemenitische vluchtelingen!
Zowel het regime van Kiev als Israël genieten de steun van Frankrijk, het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de Verenigde Staten en bijna alle NAVO-leden die de vijanden van de autoriteiten van Kiev en Israël "terroristen" hebben genoemd.”
Nu verhullen ze de dood van duizenden burgers in Libanon en hebben ze de moord op leiders van de zogenaamde "as van het verzet" tot een succes verklaard in de strijd tegen "terrorisme".”
We doen een beroep op iedereen om samen met ons op te roepen tot een einde aan deze waanzin en het bereiken van een staakt-het-vuren en echte vredesakkoorden in Gaza, Jemen, Libanon, Oekraïne en Myanmar!
Wij eisen:
1. Om zich te verzetten tegen de oorlog in Europa en plannen om langeafstands hypersonische wapens zoals de Dark Eagle in Duitsland in te zetten tegen 2026, die doelen in het hart van Rusland kunnen bereiken. Dit zou kunnen leiden tot een mogelijke nucleaire oorlog tussen Rusland en de NAVO!
2. Beëindig onmiddellijk de oorlog die het hele Midden-Oosten zou kunnen overspoelen als gevolg van de meedogenloze agressie van Israël!
3. Stop met het sturen van huurlingen en NAVO-militairen uit Frankrijk en de EU naar de conflictgebieden!
4. Wij steunen de landen van de Sahel Alliantie, Mali, Burkina Faso en Niger, die onlangs het juk van de Franse neokoloniale Heerschappij hebben afgeworpen!
Wij roepen op tot onmiddellijke vredesonderhandelingen in alle conflictgebieden!



Biden’s 'Samson Option'

Biden’s 'Samson Option'

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with U.S. President Joe Biden in Kiev during a visit by the U.S. president, Feb. 20, 2023. (White House/Adam Schultz)

It has been clear since the terror attacks in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001 — the date I choose to mark a great turn in the global order — that America’s abdication of its postwar hegemony was to rank high among the 21st century’s defining events.

The questions from that day onward have been how the policy cliques in Washington would respond to such a change in America’s place in the community of nations and what they might do — how great the risks they would take — to avoid, or at least forestall, this world-historical shift.

How chaotically or otherwise, to put this question another way, would the arrival of a new, post–American world order prove?

We have just witnessed a week’s worth of shocking provocations as the U.S. and Britain escalate their proxy war against Russia under the pretense of defending Ukraine in a war that is already lost.

Washington and London — the latter with the former’s assent — have now authorized the grossly irresponsible regime in Kiev to fire American– and British-made missiles into Russian territory.

The Ukrainians wasted no time doing so. The Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) launched a volley of U.S.–made ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missiles at Russian targets last Tuesday. A day later the AFU fired a similar barrage of British-made Storm Shadow missiles into Russian territory.

The degree of planning and coordination behind these attacks seems to me self-evident. Nobody in Washington, London, or Kiev is commenting on the targets hit, but these, too, were without question chosen after careful consultation.

Moscow has responded just as it said it would weeks ago. It now considers itself at war with the Western powers and, last Thursday, attacked a Ukrainian target with a new-generation hypersonic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

The message could scarcely be clearer — providing, I must add, one is capable of reading it accurately.

So we now have answers to the above-noted questions.

It was never difficult to foresee that those planning and executing U.S. foreign policy, lacking all imagination and anything remotely resembling courage, would prove incapable of an orderly transition to a multipolar world order.

After the Sept. 11 events, a continued commitment to American primacy was ineluctably going to prove a commitment to one or another degree of disorder.

The Biden regime’s latest escalation of its proxy war in Ukraine indicates the limits of this commitment: There are none.

We are now on notice that the world — bitter to write this — is condemned to unceasing chaos and violence so long as the American imperium’s ideologues are capable of mounting a resistance against against the world as it struggles to be.

We know now the risks those devoted to prolonging the imperium’s final phase will take in defense of the no-longer-defensible: All risks are acceptable as they cling to power. They will risk another world war; they will risk nuclear annihilation.

We hear a lot these days about the Israeli doctrine known as the Samson Option, whereby the Israelis, if they thought themselves under an existential threat, would use their nuclear arsenal to bring the world down with them. Those freak-show terrorists running the Zionist state, you might say: Who or what could be more diabolic?

It is a reasonable question. But there is no longer any pretending as to the unique perversity of terrorist Israel and its Samson Option. America in its post–Sept. 11 phase — fearful, viewing itself as threatened by history itself — has just proved equally perverse, equally diabolic, equally given to contempt for the human cause.

There is a greater and lesser way to understand the U.S. decision to authorize the use of Western-supplied missiles against Russian targets. It is partly a matter of passing politics, this is to say, and partly a question of the dynamics of late-imperial ideology. Let us consider each.

It is certainly so, as Joe Lauria pointed out in Consortium News last week, that the immense recklessness of the U.S. decision to authorize the use of Western-supplied missiles against Russian targets reflects a failed president’s spiteful determination, on his way out of office, to undermine President-elect Trump’s announced intention to end the war in Ukraine.

I do not see how giving Kiev permission to use Western-made missiles (with Western military operating them) against Russia will do anything to alter Trump’s intentions. The only way such a gambit could work is by provoking Russia into a vastly expanded, vastly more dangerous war. This goes to my previously made point: No risk is too great if taking it will prolong the long U.S. assault on Russia in the name of American preeminence.

There is also Joe Biden’s pitiful desire to preserve his “legacy.” Biden was foolish beyond words when he settled on the subversion of the Russian Federation — is “subjugation” my word? — as the project that would engrave his name in the history books.

This is another lost war: Biden’s “legacy” lies in ruins even before he leaves one behind. The Man from Scranton will go down, as measured by the failures, dangers, and messes he leaves behind, as the worst-performing president in postwar American history.

We can fairly mark this down to Biden’s native ineptitude: Any careful review of his career reveals him to be — no apology for my word choice — very stupid. His declining mental state, which has received so much press in the months since he was forced to withdraw his bid for reelection, is a case of incapacity piled atop incompetence.

A little while back the Russians began referring to “the collective Biden” to take account of the reality that there is no way of knowing who makes the judgments and policy decisions commonly attributed to “the president,” or “Mr. Biden,” or “the White House.”

You might think it unbelievably irresponsible of the Democrats, and the whole of Capitol Hill along with them, to leave the United States without a capable president, but I propose a reconsideration:

While it is certainly irresponsible to leave the Oval Office vacant for many months, if not years, it is perfectly believable given the extent to which the Deep State (the national-security state if this makes you more comfortable) now runs U.S. policy — this not quite but nearly out in the open.

So far as one can make out, to dolly in on this point, Secretary of State Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, William Burns, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and a very few others form an inner circle that has been directing U.S. policy for much of Biden’s presidential term, either autonomously or by way of his nodding (literally) assent.

An outer circle, with input at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue but less operational authority, would include such figures as Samantha Power, who directs the Agency for International Development, Avril Haines, director of national intelligence, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

This is “the collective Biden” — so well coined, this phrase. Look at its members, and there are many more I have not named. These are the imperium’s praefecti, procurators and consuls. They have no interest in politics and want nothing to do with the citizenry. The empire is their ideology, and they are dedicated solely to extending its power.

And it is these more or less remote apparatchiks who form the collective Biden and who are yet more indifferent to the taking of unconscionable risks than the weak figure behind which they manage the empire’s affairs.

As many remarked after Russia began its intervention in Ukraine two years and nine months ago, Joe Biden started a war he cannot afford to lose. But Joe Biden will content himself with his Corvette and his sunglasses in a few weeks’ time.

The Deep State has a lot, lot more on the line at this point — not less, I would say, than the longevity of the American imperium. The people who form it are the true losers who cannot afford to lose.

It is impossible to know at this point what will come next now that the U.S., with Britain in tow, has authorized the long-range missile strikes.

We do not know, among much else, how the Deep State will field what efforts Trump may make to end the war. These people subverted his plans to improve relations with Moscow during his first term, we must remind ourselves.

But the extent of the desperation shared between the Deep State and Biden-the-outgoing-pol is very plain. The collective Biden reportedly did not inform the Pentagon before taking the missiles decision. It simultaneously announced plans to provide Kiev with anti-personnel land mines, the kind that blow combatants’ legs off and maim children who come upon them years or decades later.

This is not, to put the point mildly, the conduct of a policy clique confident it is in control of its destiny.

The Russian Response

Much has been made of the hypersonic missile, called the Oreshnik, the Russian military fired at a Ukrainian defense industry plant in the Ukrainian city of Dnepropetrovsk last Thursday — a day after Kiev fired its volley of British-made Storm Shadow missiles into Russia. Out came the shrieks in Western media that “Putin’s Russia” has again threatened to resort to a nuclear attack.

There is no question of the Oreshnik’s unusual, if not unprecedented power. It triggered explosions that lasted three hours, according to the first press reports. And it can indeed carry a nuclear warhead.

But I do not share the prevailing read of the Oreshnik’s first deployment — just as I have not shared any of the previous talk of Russia’s suppose threats to go nuclear. I would summarize the message the Kremlin may as well have scribbled in chalk on the Oreshnik’s fuselage as,

Let us remind you that we, on both sides, are nuclear powers. Let us introduce some sanity to the impasse to which you have brought us.

The televised speech President Vladimir Putin delivered last Thursday evening supports this interpretation. While there are likely to be more Oreshniks fired into Ukraine, the targets, like last Thursday’s, will be chosen for their military merit and Russia will continue to refrain from deploying any short– or medium-range missiles anywhere beyond Ukraine —depending, he said, on what the U.S. does next.

Per usual, the Russian leader has taken the long view — as we all should — and places Russia’s response to the crisis the U.S. and Britain just created in the historical context of the West’s long list of post–Cold War betrayals.

“It was not Russia but the United States that destroyed the system of international security,” Putin said, the latest of his many references to Washington’s withdrawal from various arms-control treaties since the Bush II administration.

Glenn Diesen, an editor at Russia in Global Affairs and among the wisest heads in matters such as these, published a piece last week in which he asserted that the West has “crossed the line between proxy war and direct war.” In it Diesen posed the question on everyone’s mind right now:

“How will Russia respond? There are several more steps on the escalation ladder before pushing the nuclear button. Russia can intensify strikes on Ukrainian political targets and infrastructure, introduce North Korean troops that were likely intended as a deterrent for a situation like this, strike NATO assets in the Black Sea and logistic centres in Poland or Romania, destroy satellites used for the attacks on Russia, or attack US/NATO military assets in other parts of the world under the guise of enabling other countries to defend themselves.”

I do not know the likelihood or otherwise of any of these projections. But it seems to me the collective Biden and the national-security apparatus behind it may have got the Kremlin in a Catch–22 of sorts.

So long as Russia exercises the restraint it now exhibits — let’s say so long as Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, remain the statesmen in the room — the U.S. and clients such as Britain are likely to press their campaign of provocations to the next step, and the step after that, and so on. This is the long road to America’s version of the Samson Option.

And if the only way to stop these provocations is to respond to them as the West intends — that is, to escalate into a state of risk no sane statesman would find acceptable — the Russian Federation could find itself in the very war it has resisted, over many years, entering upon. The short road to the Samson Option.

We can thank Joe Biden for leading the world to this perilous moment. But I don’t think Biden is diabolically intelligent enough to get this done on his own. And this is what ought to worry us most.

(Republished from Consortium News by permission of author or representative)

Hamas Did It