US considering ‘military options’ against Russia in Syria – Pentagon

Washington and Moscow have argued over US drone flights in the country’s airspace

15 Jul, 2023 14:53

https://www.rt.com/news/579755-military-options-syria-russia/

The US is weighing a military response to Russia’s presence in the skies over Syria, a Pentagon official told the Associated Press on Friday. While the Syrian government wants the US to leave the country, Washington insists it will fly its drones with impunity.

The anonymous official refused to state what options were being considered, but claimed that the US intends to “address increasing Russian aggression in the skies over Syria,” the news agency paraphrased.

Earlier this month, US Air Forces Central commander Lt. Gen. Alex Grynkewich claimed that Russian fighter jets “harassed” American MQ-9 Reaper drones over Syria on three separate occasions in a week. The Russian Air Force was conducting joint exercises with its Syrian counterpart at the time, and Moscow accused the US of violating restricted airspace with the drone flights, a charge that the Pentagon denied.

Syrian President Bashar Assad invited the Russian military to assist his forces in the fight against Islamist militants in 2015. Russia has maintained a military presence in Syria ever since, as has the US, which launched its own bombing campaign against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) in 2014. The US also provided covert and overt support for dozens of militant groups opposing Assad’s government.

Assad has repeatedly called for American troops to leave Syria, but Washington refuses. Around 900 American troops are stationed in Syria at any one time, and the anonymous official told AP that the US will continue to fly sorties in the western part of the country.

According to the official, the “growing cooperation” between Russia, Syria, and Iran is aimed at driving the US out of Syria once and for all.

Regarding Iran, the US is sending F-16 fighter jets to the Persian Gulf this weekend to protect Western cargo ships from seizure by Iranian forces, the official said. Iran attempted to seize two oil tankers this month that it said were involved in fuel smuggling, but was prevented from taking one by the US Navy. One of the vessels was successfully seized and more than a million liters of smuggled fuel discovered on board, Iran’s Fars news agency reported.

Tehran and Damascus have repeatedly accused the US of shipping stolen Syrian oil via the Strait of Hormuz. According to the Syrian government, 80% of the country’s daily oil output is taken abroad by “US forces and their supported armed groups.”

America’s strategy for the NATO alliance is failing

Ukraine is depleting its war resources, and the West can’t replenish them fast enough to alter that trajectory anytime soon.

JULY 14, 2023

Written by
George Beebe

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/07/14/americas-strategy-for-the-nato-alliance-is-failing/

Amid all the talk at the NATO summit this week about alliance unity and support for Ukraine, a bigger issue was ignored: America’s strategy for the alliance is failing. 

Ukraine’s long-anticipated counteroffensive — its bid to compel the Kremlin’s capitulation by driving Russian forces from the Donbass and Crimea — is foundering in the face of Russia’s massive defensive fortifications, large numbers of replenished troops, and growing dominance of the skies near the war’s front lines. 

Ukraine is fast depleting its supplies of soldiers, artillery shells, and air defense missiles, and the West cannot train enough troops or manufacture enough weapons to change that bleak picture anytime soon. Nor can the United States continue to draw down its existing military stockpiles without compromising its ability to deal with a potential crisis with China. As a result, NATO’s strategy for ending the war, which is premised on the counteroffensive’s success, appears increasingly quixotic. 

America’s broader strategy in Europe is also failing. NATO’s original purpose was to prevent the rise of a European hegemon that could threaten America’s own security and economic prosperity. It aimed to reassure U.S. partners that Washington would neither abandon them in the face of Soviet aggression nor leave Germany free to rebuild an independent military and rekindle old aspirations to dominate the continent. In return for protection under America’s military umbrella, Western Europe was able to focus on economic growth that made it less and less susceptible to communist subversion, while buying time for the Soviet system to wither and rot. That old strategy was a resounding success. 

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, however, America’s foreign policy elites shifted their sights: rather than block the rise of a rival hegemon that might dominate Europe, the United States has maneuvered to become the continent’s supreme power, aiming to turn all Eastern Europe into an American protectorate. The twin expansion of NATO and the European Union has spread prosperity across the continent, but it has rendered Europe all but incapable of creating an autonomous military capability or pursuing a foreign policy independent of Washington, and it has left Russia outside Europe’s key institutions, increasingly incentivized to undermine rather than support them. 

This approach could succeed only if the Russians were to acquiesce. But every Kremlin leader since Gorbachev has rejected the notion of a NATO-centric Europe in which Moscow has little or no voice in key decisions affecting its security. Our chances of force-feeding it to Putin or any likely successor are diminishing by the day as Ukraine’s counteroffensive sputters. 

Meanwhile, Europe itself is increasingly divided over the premises of Washington’s strategy. German prosperity — the engine of Europe’s broader growth — has for years been based on low defense spending and access to cheap Russian energy that fueled its export-driven economy. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine effectively ended that access, increasing Germany’s dependence on expensive American energy. 

And to deal with the twin dangers posed by Russia and China, Washington is putting increasing pressure on Germany and other parts of “old Europe” both to step up their defense spending and restrict trade and investment in China. The slow pace of German arms deliveries to Ukraine and Chancellor Scholz’s high-profile trade visit to China last fall are signs that “spend more and earn less” is unlikely to be an attractive bargain for Berlin.

Meanwhile, many of the alliance’s newer members, led by Poland and the Baltic states, are putting pressure on the United States to back up security guarantees it has provided but never wanted to enforce. They see Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as both an imminent threat to their own security and an implicit test of Washington’s treaty commitment to come to their defense. They call for massive qualitative and quantitative increases in Western military aid to Ukraine, arguing that Russia is highly unlikely to risk a direct clash with NATO in response, even if its forces were facing defeat. 

And they insist on providing Ukraine with NATO membership as soon as possible, claiming that such a security commitment will preclude rather than provoke more Russian aggression. 

Washington has attempted to avoid the hard choices these conflicting pressures require. We have ruled out any compromises that might increase the chances of a negotiated peace with Russia, believing we can compel a Russian surrender in Ukraine on the cheap, without risking much deeper NATO involvement in the war and all the dangers that would attend it. We have insisted on greater European burden-sharing and reduced trade with Russia and China, yet still expect Europe to surrender its independence on key foreign policy issues. Washington’s large group of hawks has treated American security guarantees as a magic talisman that will prevent Russia or any other rival from challenging them, relieving the need for enforcement. 

A new American strategy is long overdue. Our immediate aim should be to thwart Russia’s ability to reconquer Ukraine, which is achievable without deeper NATO involvement in the war, rather than to drive Russian forces out of the Donbass and Crimea, which is not. 

We should couple this defensive support with a diplomatic offensive that incentivizes Moscow to end the fighting, not prolong it to block Ukraine’s reconstruction and preclude its membership in NATO. Rather than continue to expand NATO’s roster and take on new out-of-area missions, we should return NATO to its original defensive purpose, increase Europe’s role in arming and leading the alliance, and support greater European autonomy in the world, which would reduce the risks and burdens for America in dealing with Russia and China. 

We did not see such a shift at Vilnius. The abortive rebellion of the Wagner mercenary group last month has raised hopes in Washington that Russia might implode, lose the war in Ukraine, and enable the United States to avoid difficult trade-offs. But hope, as the saying goes, is not a strategy.

Campañas anticipadas, violencia e ingobernabilidad

Mario Patrón

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2023/07/13/opinion/018a1pol

Mientras México sigue atrapado en la espiral de una violencia cada vez más extendida, en las semanas recientes los titulares de los medios informativos han estado monopolizados por los movimientos de los aspirantes a la Presidencia, en el marco de una precampaña apresurada por el propio jefe del Ejecutivo, que ha venido a enrarecer la agenda pública dejando en la penumbra buena parte de los temas más urgentes del país que, como la violencia, evolucionan fuera del ojo público en una dinámica que amenaza con comprometer la estabilidad social y el propio proceso electoral que viviremos dentro de 11 meses.

Encuestas recientes, como la de El Financiero o la del Grupo de Economistas y Asociados (GEA), muestran la inseguridad y la violencia como el problema de mayor preocupación para los mexicanos con 43 y 55 por ciento de la población, respectivamente, que lo considera el mayor problema del país. El estudio del GEA reporta un incremento sostenido de la percepción sobre la violencia, pues en 2018 sólo 25 por ciento de la población consideraba a la referida problemática como la más preocupante. Dichas cifras son muestra de que, mientras los sexenios pasan y los gobiernos cambian, la violencia permanece en la percepción pública como un componente central del imaginario de ingobernabilidad e institucionalidad fallida del país.

Basta mirar, por ejemplo, lo sucedido en estos días en Chilpancingo, donde circuló un video de la alcaldesa sosteniendo una reunión con el líder de Los Ardillos; misma capital estatal donde el último fin de semana se registró una oleada de violencia contra los transportistas de la región, que motivó el lunes siguiente bloqueos y manifestaciones. Esta cadena de hechos ha puesto en evidencia una inquietante descomposición de las instituciones del estado, incapaces de mediar en los conflictos, carentes de credibilidad y, por decir lo menos, impotentes frente a la violencia.

Otro ejemplo preocupante: Michoacán, donde hace un par de semanas fue asesinado Hipólito Mora, uno de los fundadores de las autodefensas de dicha entidad, creadas como medida extrema ante la inoperancia de las instituciones encargadas de la seguridad, incluidas las castrenses, quien había denunciado con insistencia las amenazas que recibía. Apenas antier, en la denominada Tierra Caliente de Michoacán se registraron bloqueos carreteros, ataques y choques armados entre grupos criminales, situación que se ha convertido en cotidiana en numerosos municipios de esa zona, en la que el Estado no parece tener control.

Algo similar ocurre en Chiapas, cuyos niveles de violencia se han incrementado sostenidamente en los últimos años sin que haya merecido la atención no sólo de los medios informativos sino desde las propias instituciones del Estado, federales y estatales, que han preferido invisibilizar y maquillar la profunda dinámica de descomposición que ahí se ha desarrollado. Hoy Chiapas se encuentra en una crisis profunda de desplazamiento interno forzado, con comunidades enteras amenazadas por bandas que se disputan las plazas, vulnerando más a las comunidades campesinas e indígenas, incluyendo a las comunidades autónomas zapatistas, que siguen resistiendo los embates del paramilitarismo en México desde hace décadas.

No menos grave es lo que ocurre en Tijuana, donde la alcaldesa, Montserrat Caballero, debió mudar su domicilio nada menos que a la sede del 28 Batallón de Infantería, tras el ataque a uno de sus escoltas. O lo que ha ocurrido en Nayarit, donde fue asesinado el corresponsal de La Jornada Luis Martín Sánchez y fueron secuestrados otros dos periodistas, quienes por fortuna fueron localizados con vida.

Es cierto que Andrés Manuel López Obrador heredó en 2018 un país rebasado por la violencia, problema que con toda razón puso en un lugar prioritario de su agenda de gobierno. A poco más de un año de concluir, todo hace prever que heredará al siguiente sexenio un país en que la violencia no ha menguado, pero sí se ha profundizado una militarización de diversas esferas de la institucionalidad pública, mucho más allá de la seguridad, que le será muy difícil revertir a quien lo suceda. Los hechos recuperados en los anteriores párrafos son apenas un puñado de expresiones de una problemática estructural y generalizada que cada día no sólo confirman el fracaso de la estrategia de seguridad en la que se han empecinado los últimos tres gobiernos, sino que configuran escenarios de alto riesgo para la institucionalidad pública y el estado de derecho.

En los meses venideros la atención pública en el país estará cada vez más concentrada en el ya muy largo proceso electoral de 2024 en el marco del cual partidos y candidatos se disputarán el atributo central del carisma y arraigo entre el pueblo; mientras, el pueblo real seguirá a expensas de una creciente violencia que se despliega ante la patente incapacidad de las instituciones lideradas precisamente por los mismos partidos que se disputarán los cargos públicos en 2024. El contraste entre los tiempos, energías y recursos dedicados al proselitismo y la crudeza de la realidad no puede ser mayor.

Ante este panorama, de nuevo la clase política transfiere a la ciudadanía la carga de tener que exigir la debida y urgente atención de la crisis de violencia que padece el país; de obligar a los partidos y candidatos a asumir con seriedad sus responsabilidades de concebir nuevas estrategias de pacificación para México no sólo eficaces sino cuidadosas del estado democrático de derecho. Para ello es indispensable que se produzcan diálogos y deliberación que, por encima de la polarización política, abran márgenes para construir una agenda de pacificación, donde la sociedad civil y especialmente las víctimas de la violencia tengan un papel central en el diseño, fortalecimiento, vigilancia y evaluación de las políticas públicas en la materia.

Daniel DePetris: Bombing Mexico to stop drug cartels from supplying US with fentanyl is a terrible idea

By Daniel DePetris

Chicago Tribune

Jul 04, 2023 

The early stretch of the 2024 presidential campaign is underway — and with it a boatload of bad ideas and policy initiatives. One of the worst but increasingly popular proposals, uttered by several politicians aspiring for the highest office in the land, is to use the military to combat the drug cartels that have smuggled gargantuan amounts of fentanyl into the United States and turned swaths of neighboring Mexico into a war zone.

Former President Donald Trump, the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination, has vowed to unleash the full weight and power of the U.S. military to hit criminal organizations such as the Sinaloa and New Jalisco New Generation cartels hard. This would entail deploying U.S. military assets in full cooperation with the Mexican government to take out the infrastructure those cartels rely on to manufacture, transport and smuggle the drug across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Trump is apparently so serious about his hard-line approach that his advisers briefed him on possible military options, including airstrikes against cartel locations and the deployment of U.S. special operations forces — without the consent of the Mexican government if necessary. This wouldn’t be a new idea for Trump; according to his former defense secretary, Mark Esper, Trump mused about sending missiles into Mexico-based drug labs.

Trump isn’t the only one advocating for a hard-nosed approach to the problem. In the first policy blueprint of his campaign, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote that “if the Mexican Government doesn’t do something about stopping the precursor chemicals for drugs going through Mexican ports into cartel hands, we’ll send in the Coast Guard and the Navy.” U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, another presidential candidate, told supporters that he would “let the world’s greatest military fight these terrorists,” referring to the cartels, “because that’s exactly what they are.”

Even some lawmakers are getting into the action: U.S. Reps. Dan Crenshaw and Michael Waltz introduced legislation that would authorize the use of military force against nine Mexican drug organizations responsible for feeding the fentanyl crisis in America.

The only problem? The idea itself is so poorly thought out that it shouldn’t be considered as a legitimate option. There is no evidence that further militarizing an already overmilitarized war on drugs will give us different results.

First, we should be abundantly clear what we’re talking about here. Taking out fentanyl labs on Mexican territory is merely a short-term fix — and a poor one at that. Destroying the buildings, equipment and staff the cartels use could disrupt operations for a time, but the cartels would inevitably rebuild the labs somewhere else, recruit more cooks and pick up where they left off. This isn’t a simple assumption but rather an indisputable fact.

Indeed, it’s not like the U.S. hasn’t pursued a similar strategy before; in Afghanistan, the U.S. spent nearly $10 billion trying to eradicate the country’s poppy fields, often through airstrikes, in order to deprive the Taliban of a revenue source for their insurgency. The result, according to the U.S. special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, was dismal: “Our analysis reveals that no counternarcotics program led to lasting reductions in poppy cultivation or opium production.”

Second, U.S. military force is highly likely to create a bigger humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexico border — one that makes the current situation, in which tens of thousands of refugees from South and Central America are seeking to get into the country, look like a minor incident. Wars — and let there be no doubt that striking foreign soil is indeed an act of war — are often hardest on the civilian population. Livelihoods are lost, homes are demolished, society is disrupted and casualties are a given.

U.S. operations in Mexico wouldn’t be any different. The Mexican cartels would respond with retaliation of their own; people suspected of passing information to the U.S. are liable to be tortured or killed. This, in turn, would create even more mass displacement, something U.S. Customs and Border Protection doesn’t have the resources to handle.

Third, U.S. military action, whether it’s in the air or on the ground, targets only the supply side of the equation. The other half of the problem, demand for the drugs, will be left unaddressed. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that nearly 110,000 people died of drug overdoses last year in the U.S. Synthetic opioids, of which fentanyl is by the far most dangerous, contributed to about 68% of those deaths. The large customer base north of the border, combined with the cheap manufacturing costs and the huge profit margin, are all reasons for the established cartels and smaller criminal groups in Mexico to continue pushing pills into the U.S. At present, the monetary incentives are simply too large to ignore.

Finally, U.S. military action against the cartels will sever whatever cooperation the Mexican government provides to U.S. law enforcement and counternarcotics agents on the fentanyl issue. While it’s true that Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration hasn’t exactly been an ideal security partner for Washington — having shut down an elite Mexican counternarcotics unit last year, limiting information-sharing with the Drug Enforcement Administration and basking in delusions about Mexico not being a source of fentanyl — it’s also true that U.S.-Mexico relations would get a whole lot worse if U.S. bombs started dropping on Mexican soil. López Obrador is a highly nationalistic president who wouldn’t deal with a violation of Mexican sovereignty lightly. No Mexican president would.

Politicians talking tough on the trail is nothing new, and we’re bound to hear more of it. Let’s just hope common sense prevails over jingoism.

Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune.

Recycling Old Ideas Won’t Avoid Another Jenin

Western experts are putting forward failed policies rather than reckoning with the damage Israeli apartheid has caused.

By Zaha Hassan, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. , and Daniel Levy, the president of the U.S./Middle East Project and a former Israeli negotiator.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/07/israel-palestine-jenin-abbas-netanyahu-saudi-arabia-economic-peace/

JULY 7, 2023

Israel has apparently concluded its latest reinvasion of the Jenin refugee camp and the surrounding city in the occupied West Bank. Those watching the situation from the United States or elsewhere in the global north will have been told by policymakers and experts that these military operations are an unfortunate necessity to keep Palestinian violence in check and Israelis safe.

With a few confidence-building measures and economic initiatives offered to the Palestinian Authority (PA), some policymakers may still erroneously believe that the corner can be turned on violent escalations in the occupied territories and the course set for a return to peace-processing and a two-state outcome.

Strengthening PA capacity and thereby minimizing large-scale Israeli military interventions is the well-worn, go-to “solution” after events like those in Jenin. It sounds fair, reasonable, even pro-Palestinian to some. It just fails to address a key issue—namely that the PA is weak by design.

A truly Palestinian national authority that served the interests of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, however, would be mobilizing economic, societal, and defensive resilience in ways to effectively undermine and challenge Israel’s military and settler presence. It would be leading the resistance to Israel’s occupation and de facto annexation.

In contrast, what Israel wants, what the United States and others have been supporting financially, diplomatically, and militarily—and what bolstering the capacities of the PA means—is to have a more effective subcontractor to the Israeli occupation: a Palestinian authority that is willing to subdue its own people. Indeed, the way in which the Palestinian security services were conceived was to lock in a Bantustan-like Palestinian security appendage to the Israeli military, thus becoming part of the broader apartheid reality.

But the PA cannot both do Israel’s bidding and be a legitimate and credible representative and servant of its own people. It is an impossible square to be circled, as has been proved for the past two and a half decades, since the five-year tenure agreed for limited interim self-governance expired in 1999.

Successive Israeli governments have worked with Western allies to prevent the PA from collapsing precisely so that it could play this subcontractor role. And now, because the PA is still seen as holding some kernel (however hollowed out) of a proto-national body in the eyes of Israel’s ultranationalist right-wing coalition government, prolonging it may no longer be politically sustainable.

The fact that a PA with these characteristics and which aligns with Israel’s interests (and has the backing of much of the Israeli security establishment) is now deemed an enemy by many in Israel’s government speaks to the degree of hostility in Israeli political discourse to anything labeled Palestinian.

What happened in Jenin is more a story of continuity than it is one of change in the history of Israeli policies against Palestinians. The previous, supposedly more liberal government led by Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid, and Benny Gantz actually began this round of intensifying Israeli military incursions into Palestinian population centers, resuming extrajudicial killings and even launching an unprecedented assault on Palestinian civil society in which leading Palestinian human rights organizations and defenders were criminalized and designated “terrorists.”

Core policies—including illegal settlements, collective punishment, blockading Gaza, demographic engineering, and a system of separate and unequal treatment for Palestinians—are a feature of the Israeli regime, not a bug of the current coalition. Indeed, the leaders of all Zionist parties currently sitting on the Knesset opposition benches have come out in support of the Jenin attack.

In an environment so defined by hostility and the relentless narrowing of Palestinian political horizons, it is ludicrous to sign up to the mantra of economic peace.

Not all problems can be solved with money—development and economic assistance—whether from the United States or the Gulf states. Even setting aside whether huge investments will flow to Palestinians from the Gulf or elsewhere, it does not follow that disenfranchised Palestinians living under occupation, facing daily denial of fundamental freedoms and rights, can be subdued with an agenda exclusively focused on economic improvements.

That was the premise of the Trump administration’s approach, which crashed and burned.

It has been tried periodically for the last quarter century and often under more propitious circumstances than today. The jury is in. Economic peace is at best a pipe dream and at worst an intentional distraction from addressing an apartheid reality.

During the period of the PA premiership of Salam Fayyad, an unprecedented level of international donor funding went into Palestinian economic development and state-building. Fayyadism attempted to demonstrate that a more smooth-functioning, economically competent, and trustworthy Palestinian governing authority would prove Palestinian bona fides and unlock progress towards Israel’s withdrawal. It proved the opposite. Fayyadism ultimately made for a more cost-free and convenient Israeli occupation in which Israel could also focus on developing Palestinian natural resources in the West Bank for the benefit of Israelis.

Perhaps the giddiest hopes among those seeking microwavable solutions to Middle East peace center on expectations generated by the Abraham Accords normalization and the prospect of Saudi Arabia joining the party. As most will now agree, the Trump administration-sponsored Abraham Accords were categorically not designed with advancing Palestinian rights or peace in mind. What has happened, not coincidentally, is that Israel has concluded that its own impunity has reached new levels. And Israel has taken this lesson to heart.

There has been no benefit to the Palestinians, and while it would be an exaggeration to say the normalizing countries have buyer’s remorse, it is the case that a certain embarrassment prevails, as demonstrated by the fact that for months the Abraham Accords countries (plus Egypt) have been unable to meet at the ministerial level, in what is known as the Negev Forum.

It’s unclear that Saudi Arabia will exact a meaningful price for signing on. Even the most ardent advocates of a Saudi normalization-inspired on-ramp to peace progress are not suggesting that the condition be a withdrawal of Israel’s occupation, its settlers, or its military. Any such deal would, in other words, be squarely back in the zone of the kinds of economic inducements, tinkering with minor territorial designations, and recalibrating of the terms of occupation that have been tried and demonstrably led the world nowhere. Saudi leaders themselves would be well advised to steer clear of this house of cards.

One problem is that the foreign-policy community is hard-wired to look for quick-fix solutions. Honesty also demands that one acknowledge the tendency in Western circles to indulge Israel and to desperately reheat bad and failed ideas as a way of avoiding having to deal with the inconvenient truths of Israel’s commitment to its permanent regime of occupation, disenfranchisement, and denial of rights to Palestinians. Acknowledging this reality is not a recipe for hopelessness. It is not to say the world can do nothing. But accurately understanding reality allows policymakers to advance a course that can change that reality.

But it requires time and an open mind.

If one understands the reality as apartheid, then it allows Palestinians to reassess their strategic alliances and to set different terms for their relationships with the United States and the West, including how campaigns can be built to mobilize Western public support for a change in governmental policy. It’s worth recalling that Western governments and in particular the United States were latecomers to opposing South African apartheid.

This is not a story about moderates on both sides joining hands to defeat those bad apples who have inexplicably seized the levers of power. Unless and until the United States shifts the aperture and reframes the cognitive lens through which the relationship between Israelis and Palestinians is viewed, then it will have nothing to offer the parties. And guaranteeing that Israel faces no accountability, cost, or consequence for its actions only makes the West complicit in an appalling affront to human dignity.

It is on solid ground that in recent years the leading international human rights gatekeepers (Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) and the blue-chip Israeli human rights organizations (including B’Tselem and Yesh Din) have joined Palestinian human rights groups in designating Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as meeting the legal definition of the crime of apartheid.

While there is certainly a long-overdue need to rein in settler violence and provocations, which often operate under the protective watch of the Israel Defense Forces and are increasingly encouraged by government ministers, it is the structural violence of the military occupation and apartheid system that is the primary and proximate cause of Palestinian insecurity, repression, and despair. Apartheid regimes are by definition illegitimate, rendering them inherently violent.

Leading actors in Israel’s current government make no apologies for this apartheid arrangement; they have been transparent from the start. They wish to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from the occupied territories in a second “Nakba,” referring to Israel’s forced displacement of three-quarters of the Palestinian population from present-day Israel between 1947 and 1951. In that context, the attack on Jenin and the scenes of thousands of Palestinians fleeing the devastation and destruction of lives and livelihoods should have alarm bells ringing.

Though the Palestinian refugee camp in Jenin is often referred to by Israeli and U.S. officials as a hotbed of militancy, less discussed is why a refugee camp is there in the first place. Why are more than half of Palestinians refugees 75 years after Israel was established? Having been driven from their homes and prevented from returning as Israel unilaterally reengineered the proposed U.N. partition lines of 1947, Palestinians today take note as the Nakba in Israeli discourse transitions from being a history denied to a cautionary warning.

For its part, the PLO, the internationally recognized representative of the Palestinian people both inside and outside historic Palestine and Israel’s counterpart in the Oslo Accords, is also finally naming Israel’s regime over Palestinians as one of apartheid. Despite the weakness and co-optation of the PLO’s agent, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority, it will be increasingly difficult over time for the PA to continue cooperation with a regime that is thus defined by its principal.

While this particular attack on Jenin has concluded, what is becoming clear is that the windows of relative quiet between rounds of more intense Israeli military assault are becoming shorter. The logic of the Israeli regime appears to be one locked in its own spiraling cycle of accelerating displacement of Palestinians. That, in turn, will inevitably generate more intense Palestinian resistance from a new generation.

With no peace process to hide behind anymore, what is offered up as Western expertise and policy prescriptions is demonstrably unsustainable. It is a bluff ever more exposed in a global environment in which the West is out on a limb in claiming to champion the rule of law while multipolarity and a new form of nonalignment gain steam. In such a context, ending apartheid and building a just peace in Palestine-Israel is perhaps not such a fantastical notion after all.

Israel will need to be held accountable and sanctioned for its policies and illegal actions. The Palestinians should be supported in defending themselves against this illegal occupation. And the reframing in the current strategic environment must go beyond the Palestine-Israel question. The so-called Western-ordained rules-based order never delivered for the Palestinians. Its assumptions are now in a wider state of decomposition.

Zaha Hassan is a human rights lawyer and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Previously, she was the coordinator and senior legal advisor to the Palestinian negotiating team during Palestine’s bid for U.N. membership and was a member of the Palestinian delegation to Quartet-sponsored exploratory talks between 2011 and 2012.

Twitter: @zahahassan

Daniel Levy is President of the U.S./Middle East Project and served as an Israeli peace negotiator at the Oslo-B talks under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Taba negotiations under Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Morena y el narco

El país que se incendia tiene sin cuidado a López Obrador. Lo suyo es el insulto a quienes considera adversarios políticos.

https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/pablo-hiriart/2023/07/10/morena-y-el-narco/

Pablo Hiriart

julio 10, 2023

La relación de Morena con grupos criminales del país nos adentra en un proceso electoral enmarcado por la violencia y el desgobierno.

El Presidente tiene el poder, pero perdió el control.

Tiene el poder y eso le basta para meter a la cárcel a quien diga su dedito, menos a los grupos armados.

Jugó con fuego e incendió al país.

El ejemplo de abrazos con los cárteles se replicó en su partido, que cruzó la línea roja: estableció la relación de servicios mutuos con los más siniestros grupos criminales.

A López Obrador le tiene sin cuidado el charco de sangre y fuego que se expande en el país que gobierna.

Cientos de candidatos, precandidatos y autoridades de oposición fueron asesinados o secuestrados por las agrupaciones criminales en las elecciones intermedias. Otros optaron por bajarse la elección.

¿Dónde están las investigaciones?

¿Dónde están los expedientes de cada caso?

¿Qué pasó con el secuestro de opositores previo a la elección de gobernador en Sinaloa?

Su preocupación es Xóchitl. Y le angustia que se le acaba el tiempo sin haber consumado la destrucción de sus enemigos que, con nombres y apellidos, menciona casi a diario.

Las conferencias matutinas las dedica a los chismes. A la denigración de periodistas. A sembrar calumnias y a mentir.

Qué pena de Presidente.

Trae en la mira a Xóchitl Gálvez, precandidata de oposición: la caricaturizó como vendedora de tamales y se puso a remedar sus gritos: “Tamaleeees, a los riiiicos tamaaaales”.

No sólo ofende a la senadora hidalguense, sino a millones de mujeres que venden o han vendido tamales y gelatinas para vivir.

Está obsesionado con Xóchitl porque no ha podido con ella. A cada ofensa presidencial responde sin odio, con dignidad, y lo pone en la lona.

Al Presidente descontrolado, Xóchitl Gálvez le contesta sin enojo y lo baña en sopa de su propio chocolate:

Vender tamales “es una forma honesta de ganarse la vida y mucho mejor que dar atole con el dedo todas las mañanas”, le respondió. Al suelo López Obrador.

El país que se incendia tiene sin cuidado al Presidente. Lo suyo es el insulto a quienes considera adversarios políticos.

¡Ah!, pero al Chapo Guzmán le habla de usted.

Al ejido de la familia del capo del Cártel de Sinaloa fue un par de veces –y sin prensa– a comer tacos con los cercanos “del señor Guzmán”.

No es de extrañar que veamos las imágenes de la alcaldesa de Chilpancingo, capital de Guerrero, en un restaurante con líderes de un grupo criminal.

Se ve a los capos con pistolas llegar a la reunión en el restaurante La Cabañita y sentarse con la alcaldesa y su marido a conversar.

Luego de negarlo, ella admitió la reunión y dijo que no fue para pactar nada. (Los Ardillos le disputan el control de Chilpancingo al cártel de Los Tlacos).

Si no era para acordar nada, ¿entonces fue para socializar?

La respuesta a esa convivencia llegó la semana pasada.

Los Ardillos dejaron en Chilpancingo siete cuerpos humanos desmembrados con un mensaje para la alcaldesa: “Saludos Presidenta Norma Otilia, sigo esperando el segundo desayuno que me prometiste después de venirme a buscar”.

El fin de semana, más incendios, balazos y asesinatos en Chilpancingo y Acapulco. ¿Y la alcaldesa? De fiesta en el puerto.

Guerrero está en esas manos, que se han fortalecido con la llegada al gobierno de la hija de Félix Salgado Macedonio.

Lo mismo en Chiapas. Ahí el Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación secuestró, humilló y videograbó a una decena de empleados públicos para exigir que el gobierno aplique mano dura a funcionarios que trabajan para su rival, el Cártel de Sinaloa.

¿Algún detenido? Nada. Nadie.

Los hechos dan la razón a quienes sostienen que cárteles de narcos y otras agrupaciones criminales son el brazo armado de Morena.

El Presidente anda en la grilla de las precampañas y en las intrigas contra medios de comunicación y periodistas que le resultan desagradables.

¿Cuántos grupos criminales hay en Michoacán? Proliferan y matan sin que el gobierno federal tome el control, porque está rebasado.

El asesinato de Hipólito Mora fue con mil balazos. Todos sabían que lo iban a matar. ¿Qué hizo el Presidente? Una fiesta para celebrar cinco años de su triunfo electoral de 2018.

“Tendría que ser un día de luto y no de fiesta”, le dijo el obispo de Apatzingán, Ascencio García.

López Obrador le contestó con una de sus calumnias favoritas, que está al servicio de los poderosos, la oligarquía, etcétera.

Oí la entrevista que Joaquín López-Dóriga le hizo al obispo y su humildad, decencia y entereza fueron conmovedoras:

“Invito a mi Presidente que nos guste acompañar un tiempo… un mes con un servidor, que me acompañe, visible o invisiblemente, para que vea con quiénes convivo, a quiénes dedico mi tiempo”.

La manga ancha a las organizaciones criminales las empoderó. Si el gobierno quiere reaccionar no puede: su partido, Morena, está comprometido con ellas en amplias regiones del país.

En el noroeste del país hubo operación del narco en las elecciones intermedias. En Tamaulipas secuestraron y liberaron al secretario de Gobierno.

Coches bomba en Guanajuato y en Jalisco, como en Colombia de los años 80 y 90.

¿Qué podemos esperar, entonces, para los siguientes meses en la nación?

Más descontrol, más violencia. El Presidente está obsesionado con frenar a Xóchitl y destruir adversarios políticos antes de que termine su periodo y deba irse a la finca de Palenque.

LA OPOSICIÓN EN MÉXICO SE DEBATE ENTRE IR UNIDA O EN DOS FRENTES

Está por comenzar la próxima semana la recolección de 150 mil firmas por cada contendiente registrado en el Frente Amplio por México, con objeto de poder pasar a la siguiente fase del proceso de elección de quien será el abanderado (a) de la coalición PAN-PRI-PRD-organizaciones de la sociedad civil, para enfrentar a la coalición gobernante en las elecciones presidenciales del 2024.

Si bien serán alrededor de 13 o 15 los precandidatos registrados, la realidad es que la competencia se centrará entre la senadora por el PAN, Xóchitl Gálvez; el diputado federal del PAN, Santiago Creel; el hijo del expresidente Miguel de la Madrid, Enrique De la Madrid por el PRI; y la senadora por el PRI, Beatriz Paredes.

El impulso que organizaciones de la sociedad civil y diversos medios de comunicación y miembros de la “comentocracia” le han dado a Xóchitl Gálvez, se ha reflejado en una ventaja inicial sobre sus contendientes; y la preocupación inusual que el propio presidente López Obrador y una parte de los miembros de la intelectualidad orgánica de Morena han mostrado por la precandidatura de la senadora Gálvez (dado su origen humilde y su pertenencia al pueblo originario otomí del estado de Hidalgo), han acabado por posicionar a Gálvez como la rival a vencer en la contienda en el bando opositor; y como una respetable contendiente contra la favorita del lado oficialista, la ex jefa de gobierno de la Ciudad de México, Claudia Sheinbaum.

Pero ahora se ha iniciado un muy necesario debate en otro de los protagonistas de las elecciones del 2024, el partido Movimiento Ciudadano (MC), que en voz de su fundador y dirigente nacional Dante Delgado, ha manifestado reiteradamente que jamás se unirán al frente opositor, principalmente porque no quieren tener nada que ver con el PRI; y también por el papel de obstaculización que tanto el PRI como el PAN han jugado en contra del gobierno de Samuel García (de Movimiento Ciudadano) en Nuevo León.

Así también, el muy joven y miembro de una familia acomodada de ese estado, Samuel García, ha señalado que tanto PRI como el PAN representan la política “podrida” y vieja, por lo que no iría con ellos “ni a la esquina”.

En cambio el también gobernador por el Movimiento Ciudadano de Jalisco, Enrique Alfaro, ya señaló que él no buscará la candidatura presidencial de su partido, y por el contrario está dispuesto a explorar la posibilidad de hacer alianzas con PAN-PRI-PRD; y en el mismo sentido se ha pronunciado el senador por MC de Jalisco y cercano al gobernador Alfaro, Clemente Castañeda, quien busca ser el candidato de su partido a la gubernatura de ese estado en 2024.

Especialmente Castañeda manifestó que si la candidata del frente opositor es la senadora Gálvez, el Movimiento Ciudadano debía considerar la posibilidad de sumarse al mismo.

Vemos entonces que la oposición está en un momento de inflexión, ya que de lo que se decida al interior de Movimiento Ciudadano, que gobierna dos de las entidades más importantes política y económicamente del país, como Jalisco y Nuevo León puede depender que el Frente Amplio por México se convierta en un contendiente de mucho respeto ante la coalición gobernante de Morena-PT-PVEM; o en su defecto, si no hay acuerdo de ir con el frente opositor, abrir dos bandos, el del frente y el del Movimiento Ciudadano, lo que evidentemente debilitará la posibilidades de contender contra la coalición oficialista.

Sin candidato establecido aún por cada coalición, diversas encuestas dan una ventaja cómoda a Morena y sus aliados, sobre sus contrincantes[1]:

Morena 44.6% + PT 2.2% + PVEM 1.3% = 48.1%

PAN 21.9% + PRI 11.7% + PRD 2.1% = 35.7%

MC 6.3%

No Sabe 6.4%

Como vemos, en estos momentos, sin candidatos presidenciales aún, el Frente Amplio por México está 12.4% debajo de Morena y sus aliados; y aún sumando la preferencia de MC, quedaría 6.1% detrás del oficialismo.

Por ello, para la oposición, no sólo es imperativo ir unida a la elección del 2024, sino también con un candidato (a) de arrastre, que pueda ayudar a escalar la desventaja que en estos momentos tiene respecto a Morena y sus aliados.

Además de que se debe considerar que la de 2024 será una “elección de Estado”, dado que el presidente López Obrador pondrá a disposición de su partido y sus candidatos todos los recursos del gobierno federal, más los de 23 entidades federativas que gobiernan Morena y sus partidos satélites, por lo que tal desventaja no podrá ser superada por la oposición, si no va unida y con una candidata, en este caso al parecer la senadora Gálvez, con carisma y presencia, que pueda remontar la gran ventaja que tiene en estos momentos el bando oficialista.

Pero la ceguera de ciertos dirigentes y especialmente las venganzas personales y cuentas pendientes entre ellos, muy bien pueden acabar con dicha posibilidad, aún antes de que se pueda comenzar a visualizar en el futuro cercano.

---

[1] https://demoscopiadigital.com/eleccion-presidencial-mexico-2024/