A Rafah Explainer
The deal on the table for Israel is unsatisfying and would leave its security in doubt -- it's also the right move to make.
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.
If money is tight or you’re already up to eyeballs in subscriptions, here’s another idea — share this article. Email it to a friend (or even an enemy). Post it on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Text or email it to your wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, or even your creepy second cousin who lives in Herzliya. Word of mouth is often the best way to build support for a creative endeavor, so if everyone here sends it to just one person … it would be much appreciated!
It’s been a while since I’ve done a Zoom chat, so what the hell — let’s do one tomorrow at 12:30. See ya then! Here’s the link.
Also, for MSNBC, I wrote about why comparisons between the current college protests and those in 1968 are wildly off-base.
For all the coverage that campus protests are receiving, the reality is that we’re talking about a tiny number of students on a tiny number of elite university campuses and on an issue that the vast majority of young voters either don’t care about or don’t understand.
The Least Worst Option
Yesterday, President Biden said in an interview with CNN that if Israel sends troops into the Gaza city of Rafah, he will cut off arms supplies. This move represents a significant break with the Israeli government (though not necessarily unprecedented).
President Joe Biden said for the first time Wednesday he would halt some shipments of American weapons to Israel – which he acknowledged have been used to kill civilians in Gaza – if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu orders a major invasion of the city of Rafah.
“Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers,” Biden told CNN’s Erin Burnett in an exclusive interview on “Erin Burnett OutFront,” referring to 2,000-pound bombs that Biden paused shipments of last week.
“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden said.
I’m going to try today to unpack what all this means — from the perspective of the US, Israel, and Hamas — and why a deeply unsatisfying deal for Israel is probably the best outcome.
I don’t think there’s much ambiguity about Biden’s motivation in making his comments yesterday. He wants the war to end because the longer it goes on, the more it enflames his liberal base and creates political problems for him at home. An Israeli invasion of Rafah would lead to significant civilian casualties, which would lead to outrage among American liberals, which would put political pressure on Biden to stop it, which would be a distraction from his reelection campaign. Biden wants this political problem to go away — and an Israeli incursion into Rafah will ensure that it remains.
Now, supporters of Israel will argue that Biden is stopping Israel from destroying Hamas in Rafah — and they’re right. But that doesn’t mean Biden is wrong.
Biden’s number one consideration is US national security interests, and a close second is his own political interests (considering that if he loses the election in November, it will significantly harm US national security interests, one could argue that the two are inextricably linked). Biden is acting in the same manner as every US president — he is prizing US national security interests ahead of those of the country’s close allies. For Biden, winning reelection and preventing escalation, which could suck the US into a Middle East war, is of greater importance than Israel’s strategic goal of destroying Hamas — and he’s right to take that position. Ultimately, US interests must come first.
Israel’s supporters will also argue that by trying to stop Israel from going into Rafah, Biden is making a cease-fire deal less likely because the potential for a full-scale Israeli invasion will pressure Hamas to strike a cease-fire deal that will lead to the release of the hostages. This argument makes logical sense, but I’m not sure it’s true. If there is one constant from this war, it is that Hamas has no interest in a cease-fire deal that doesn’t lead to a permanent end to the war. The group’s leaders don’t care how many Palestinians die as a result of their obstinance. They are a bunch of nihilists who are happy to sacrifice tens of thousands of innocent lives to achieve their goals. They’re not going to compromise, and frankly, after the past seven months of war, I’m not sure why anyone should be surprised by this.
The Israelis seem to be operating from the viewpoint that if they attack Rafah, it will pressure Hamas to make a deal on Israel’s terms, but I suspect this is a fantasy. As one well-placed Israeli analyst said to me yesterday, “Rafah is not leverage over [Hamas leader Yayha Sinwar}. He will kill all the living hostages while we chase him tunnel to tunnel.”
That means the only way to end this war is for Israel to agree to a cease-fire deal that will lead to a hostage release and a permanent end to the war.
Let’s be clear: that would be difficult for Israel to swallow. Netanyahu doesn’t want this deal because the end of the war means the beginning of the reckoning over how October 7 happened in the first place. That’s a bad outcome for the Israeli Prime Minister, which could lead to his eventual political downfall.
But it would also be a tough pill for Israelis. A deal that does not include Hamas’s destruction raises the question: what did this seven-month war accomplish? An end to the war that leaves Hamas’s leaders alive and the group nominally in charge in Gaza would represent such an unsatisfying conclusion to the war that I believe it would create enormous upheaval in Israel.
As my friend Dahlia Schiendlin points out, a plurality of Israelis support a deal that includes a “complete end of the war.”
However, the significant plurality of Israelis that oppose it would create a major social and political problem in Israel. It would also mean that the war isn’t really over because there’s no reason to believe that Hamas won’t go back to plotting attacks. It doesn’t solve the issue of who runs Gaza. It’s a band-aid on a much bigger problem, and I imagine the recriminations inside of Israel would be severe.
There is also something deeply unjust about this outcome. Hamas will have savagely attacked Israel, taken hundreds of hostages, and somehow will come out of a bloody conflict that has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians (many of whom are Hamas fighters) relatively intact and capable of exercising influence in Gaza. Israel will have severely weakened Hamas and its fighting capabilities but can’t declare victory.
Putting aside Netanyahu’s selfish reasons for not wanting a deal, I think any Israeli leader would have a hard time agreeing to this outcome. It’s not a victory.
Having said all that, it’s clearly the best outcome. Hamas will not be pressured into making a deal if Israel invades Rafah. Palestinian civilians will needlessly suffer. The remaining hostages will likely die. Israel will become further isolated, particularly from its key ally, the United States.
And Israelis, who desperately need a return to normalcy and a long overdue political reckoning, will continue to experience the post-traumatic stress disorder that has defined the country for the past seven months.
I don’t like this outcome, but at this point, it’s the only reasonable way for this awful war to end. And, of course, even if Israel agrees to a permanent end to the war, it doesn’t mean that it can’t continue to target Hamas’s leaders. If Israel makes a deal that leads to a hostage release, I would give Sinwar a few months more to live.
The problem, however, is that achieving this deal requires an Israeli Prime Minister who is willing to take a political risk and has the courage to make an unsatisfying deal with Hamas. Unfortunately, the current leader of Israel is not that guy.
So my fear is that the war will continue; Israel will send troops into Rafah and will be unwilling to withdraw since it likely won’t pressure Hamas to strike a deal. If that happens, it will create enormous tensions with the United States, further isolate Israel diplomatically, and likely spark major demonstrations inside Israel (of course, worst of all, it will kill many innocent Palestinians). You’ll have a hard time convincing me that an unsatisfying deal leading to the war's end isn’t a better alternative.
It’s A Metaphor!
This election truly has everything.
What’s Going On
I feel sorry for satirists because, really, how do you top this?
Laurel Leff takes to task those 59 rape-denying journalism professors.
This is a fantastic letter from Jewish students at Columbia University explaining why the last few months on their campus have been so unsettling.
Donald Trump’s delay tactics are working: Part 1 and Part 2. It seems increasingly clear that Trump’s other three trials will not happen before the election. On a positive note, Trump’s New York City trial is not going well for him.
Musical Interlude
Happy 5/8/77 to all those who celebrate!
This is why I've been generally indifferent on the debate between whether Biden should, or should not, send war materiel to Netanyahu. I do not think our leverage over Bibi is as strong as the Left claims, and Biden can also be boxed in by Congress.
Glad to read some movement in your position on Israel/Palestine and impressed you quoted D. Scheindlin (whose mother is doing an amazing job as a commentator on CNN about the Trump trial). Good for you as her writing on the subject differs dramatically from yours. There is always hope though.
And the whole show for 5/8/77??? For that alone, you deserve the greatest of kudos!!!