RSS
JD Vance’s Foreign Policy Is a Glass Half-Full
Former President Donald Trump has selected Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his vice-presidential running mate for the 2024 election. Much has been written about Senator Vance’s foreign policy positions — the “good” and the “bad;” however, as Hamlet said, “there is no good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
To reduce the complexity inherent in foreign policy decisions to a binary choice between good or bad tends to be intellectually lazy and politically expedient. Further, it is almost always more reflective of the judge rather than the judged.
For instance, Senator Vance has been highly critical of US support for Ukraine’s war against Russia. In fact, he said, “I don’t care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.” Whether that was said with shock value in mind, or he really doesn’t care that Ukraine could fall to Putin is up for debate. But, are we to believe that such a statement accurately or fairly encapsulates what he thinks about Ukraine’s war with Russia?
Rhetoric aside, his foreign policy positions are likely to propel expanding Israel-Europe relations in a steeper direction.
Vance is a notably proud supporter of Israel, and his public statements about Israel are the antithesis of those he makes about Ukraine. He called Israel, “one of the most dynamic and technologically advanced countries in the world” and “[t]he idea that there is ever going to be an American foreign policy that doesn’t care a lot about that slice of the world is preposterous because of who Americans are.” Vance is also on record fully supporting Israel’s prosecution of the war in Gaza until Hamas is dismantled and no longer presents a military threat.
So, what are we to make of Vance? He does not seem to fit squarely in the isolationist camp. His positions have been informed by his military experience fighting in Iraq, and he understands foreign policy to the extent that he lived the consequences of previous US foreign policy decisions. Even on Ukraine, he’s not completely isolationist.
Vance falls in an ascending category of foreign policy thinkers, called conservative realists, a term coined by Elbridge Colby, himself a highly regarded “conservative realist.” In fact, conservative realism helps explain the essential nature of the developing triad between Israel, Europe, and the US, and Vance articulates this quite well.
At the February Munich Conference, Vance said, “[w]e need Europe to play a bigger share of the security role, and that’s not because we don’t care about Europe … it’s because we have to recognize that we live in a world of scarcity,” insinuating that Europe can no longer hold onto “the idea of the American superpower that can do everything all at once.”
In other words, his position on Ukraine could be a function of his belief that Europe must take more responsibility for protecting itself from external threats, because the United States no longer possesses the financial, military, operational, or political resources to allocate towards Europe’s security.
On the other hand, Vance views Israel differently than Ukraine, and considers the US-Israel alliance as the model for a US-Europe alliance. He sums it up by saying, “[w]e have to sort of ask ourselves, what do we want out of our Israeli allies? And more importantly, what do we want out of all of our allies writ large? Do we want clients who depend on us, who can’t do anything without us? Or do we want real allies who can actually advance their interests on their own with America playing a leadership role?”
According to Vance, Israel is relatively self-sufficient, unlike present Europe, where most countries have failed to meet their obligatory 2% of GDP threshold for defense spending. While Europe, writ large, is barely spending enough on its defensive capabilities, Israel is advancing new technologies like the Iron Beam, a laser defensive system that, according to Vance, is “a very important national security objective, and of the United States of America.”
He hasn’t commented on whether he believes that Israel should keep receiving the same level of funding it does from the United States, or if he believes Israel should spend more of its own money on its defenses. However, past may be prologue: Vance criticized the Biden administration for withholding precision munitions to Israel, and Israel already spends more than 7% of GDP on defense spending.
Moreover, the annual $3.8B in military funding the US provides Israel is a pittance compared to the $175B in funding provided to Ukraine in just two years (although this aid includes more than military aid). Additionally, the US did approve another $8.7 billion to Israel from a supplemental act in April 2024.
If we are to read between the lines, Vance considers the Return on Investment from Israel to be significantly more than from Ukraine and would seem inclined to support continued aid to Israel.
Vance is a glass half-full. In other words, while there are aspects of conservative realism that may be concerning, those concerns must be weighed against the potential benefits. Long-term, the benefits to Europe and Israel are likely to be significant.
Europe will be forced to pursue opportunities to enhance their defense, security, and technological capabilities if these countries hope to withstand threats coming from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea — the “Quartet of Death,” as the British refer to them. This pivot clearly augurs for increased Israel-Europe alignment.
In fact, 21 European countries have joined the European Sky Shield Initiative, a coalition to create a pan European air defense system, all of which is dependent on the inclusion of Israeli technology. Germany has the Arrow 3. Finland acquired David’s Sling, and the Baltic States want to acquire Iron Dome, and these steps are in addition to the robust defense cooperation, intelligence sharing, and other forms of technological advancements taking place between Israel and Europe.
What’s more, as a proponent of the Abraham Accords, Vance’s promotion of them would strengthen the relationships between Europe and Abraham Accords’ countries, thereby offering Europe potential friend-shoring advantages it presently does not possess.
There are still almost four months to go before the US presidential elections, so how this plays out no one knows. However, current trends indicate we will likely see European leaders maneuvering their countries into positions that benefit Israel and the Israel-Europe relationship sooner than later.
David F. Siegel is the President of ELNET-US. With offices across Europe and Israel, ELNET has emerged as the most influential and impactful pro-Israel advocacy organization in Europe.
The post JD Vance’s Foreign Policy Is a Glass Half-Full first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Media Twisted Israeli Retaliatory Strike on Houthi Targets, Calling It an ‘Attack’
There is a problem with how Israel’s retaliation for the Houthi drone attack on Tel Aviv is being covered. In fact, it’s eerily similar to how reports on Gaza are covered — by legitimizing a terror group and leaving out important context.
Some publications, like the unashamed UPI, chose to headline their Sunday article by describing Israel’s retaliatory strike on a Houthi military target in the city of Hodeidah (which is used to smuggle Iranian weapons) as an “attack.”
This wasn’t a random attack, obviously, but a response to terrorism directed at Israel.
The deliberate short-term memory of @upi ignores: the Houthis attacked Tel Aviv, killing an Israeli civilian & wounding several others. Israel’s response on a Yemeni port — where Houthis receive & store weapons from Iran — was exactly that, A RESPONSE. pic.twitter.com/sDBqgUsY7L
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 22, 2024
UPI reporter Adam Schrader’s article covers a plethora of Houthi responses and propaganda such as this:
Yemen’s official Ministry of Public Health and Population condemned Israeli aggression against Yemen that targeted civilian facilities in Hodeidah.
Why did he fail to include information on more than 220 missiles and drones that the Houthis have attempted to blast Israel’s way over the last nine months? Or what about the blocking and pirating of cargo ships in the peninsula? How about the UK and US strikes on the Houthis over the last several months?
Or what about the latest and most obvious piece of information to include: that the Houthis struck a civilian apartment building in central Tel Aviv, killed one person and injured 10 others? And that’s not to mention, giving context and clarity on Israel’s response, not random attack, on the Yemeni port infrastructure where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu revealed that Houthis receive and store weapons from Iran.
No. None of that. Just the stroking of Houthi and Hamas ego.
Others, like the Associated Press, did lazy man-on-the-street reporting in Sanaa, Yemen, by interviewing only one person about their reaction to Israel’s strike on the Houthi-controlled port target, and then claiming Sanaa residents as a whole denounce the strike on the rebel group, which has brought the entire country anguish for years:
Note to AP: If you want a headline about “Sanaa residents” denouncing Israel, you have to find more than just this one guy: https://t.co/GizyABg5up
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 22, 2024
There was also ABC News’ choice of wording on a live broadcast on Sunday, where the anchor referred to the location of the strike as the general Arabian Peninsula.
This is potentially inflammatory terminology — saying Israel “targeted several Houthi targets in the Arabian peninsula,” rather than specifying the strike was on the port of Yemen.
While Yemen’s port is off the peninsula, this is an extremely vague term that can be interpreted by viewers as Israel striking anywhere and indiscriminately.
As the media continue to cover this new development between Israel and the Houthis in Yemen, they should keep the facts intact and not twist the story into a biased — and unfortunately — familiar narrative that Israel is a wild aggressor.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Media Twisted Israeli Retaliatory Strike on Houthi Targets, Calling It an ‘Attack’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard University Grants Degrees to Pro-Hamas Protesters, Says Students ‘Restored to Good Standing’
Graduating students rise in support of 13 students not able to graduate because of their participation in anti-Israel protests during the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Harvard University has awarded most of the degrees it withheld from pro-Hamas protesters as punishment for their participating in an unlawful demonstration at Harvard Yard, further feeding an impression that its tough talk about discipline and restoring order was contrived to temper negative publicity prompted by its alleged refusal to address antisemitism on the campus.
According to The Washington Free Beacon, which first reported the story, Harvard conferred degrees to 11 of the 13 protesters whose behavior during the final weeks of the semester prompted several warnings from the university.
Responding to the university’s amnestying him and other protesters, one graduate reviled Harvard on social media anyway, denouncing the institution as cynical and rapacious.
“What does it mean to be conferred a degree from a university that holds millions of investments in illegal occupation, bankrolls the annihilation of Palestinians, and mistreats its students for a political agenda,” Asmer Asrar Safi said in comments quoted by the Free Beacon. “While we know our fellow organizers … will continue to mobilize, please remember that every student, faculty, and staff member at the university has a responsibility to challenge the status quo.”
Harvard later said in statements to the Free Beacon and The Harvard Crimson, the school’s official campus newspaper, that nothing about its decision is amiss.
“Consistent with its May 22 statement, the Harvard Corporation has voted to confer degrees to 11 eligible candidates who have been restored to good standing following the completion of Faculty of Arts and Sciences processes,” a university spokesman said. “The university continues to work to strengthen and improve disciplinary processes, such as the recently announced procedures to enable the work of the University Committee on Rights and Responsibilities to enhance the consistency of investigation and factfinding [sic] processes in cases involving more than one school.”
This latest news follows earlier reporting that Harvard “downgraded” disciplinary sanctions it levied against several pro-Hamas demonstrators who participated in occupying Harvard Yard.
The shocking development likely erased the good will Harvard regained by appearing to embrace an approach to discipline that would deter future unruly behavior as well as the anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hate incidents the protesters perpetrated throughout the school year, which damaged the reputation of the institution and prompted a slew of lawsuits and federal investigations.
For a time the university was stern in discussing its intention to dismantle a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” — a collection of tents in which demonstrators lived and from which they refused to leave unless Harvard agreed to boycott and divest from Israel — protesters had set up on campus, creating an impression that no one would go unpunished.
In a public statement, interim president Alan Garber denounced their actions for forcing the rescheduling of exams and disrupting the academics of students who continued doing their homework and studying for final exams, responsibilities the protesters seemingly abdicated during the demonstrations.
Harvard then began suspending the protesters following their rejection of a deal to leave the encampment, according to The Harvard Crimson. Before then, Garber vowed that any student who continued to occupy the section of campus would be placed on “involuntary leave,” a measure that would have effectively disenrolled the students from school and barred them from campus until a decision to allow them back was rendered.
However, Harvard, as well as the organization responsible for the encampment, Harvard out of Occupied Palestine (HOOP), always maintained that some protesters would be allowed to appeal their punishments, per an agreement — alluded to in its newest statement about the conferring of degrees that were withheld — the two parties reached, but it was not clear that the end result would amount to a victory for the protesters.
HOOP went on to celebrate the revocation of the suspensions on social media and, in addition to suggesting that its members will disrupt the campus again, described themselves as waging an “intifada,” an apparent reference to two prolonged periods of Palestinian terrorism during which hundreds of Israeli Jews were murdered.
“Harvard walks back on probations and reverses suspensions of pro-Palestine students after massive pressure,” the group said. “After sustained student and faculty organizing, Harvard has caved in, showing that the student intifada will always prevail … This reversal is a bare minimum. We call on our community to demand no less than Palestinian liberation from the river to the sea. Grounded in the rights of return and resistance. We will not rest until divestment from the Israeli regime is met.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard University Grants Degrees to Pro-Hamas Protesters, Says Students ‘Restored to Good Standing’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israeli Forces Retrieve Bodies of Five Hostages From Gaza, Military Says
Israelis and hostage families watch a screening of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he addresses Congress on a visit to the US, amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, at the so-called “Hostages Square,” in Tel Aviv, Israel, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ricardo Moraes
Israeli forces recovered on Wednesday the bodies of five hostages killed in Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack on southern Israel and held in Gaza since then, the Israeli military said.
Maya Goren, a 56-year-old kindergarten teacher, was killed during the attack on her kibbutz, Nir Oz, according to Israeli Army Radio, one of the communities worst hit in the deadly attack in southern Israel that triggered the ongoing war in Hamas-ruled Gaza.
The other four hostages were two reserve soldiers and two conscript soldiers killed in combat during the Oct. 7 massacre, the military said. There names were Sergeant Kiril Brodski, 19; Staff Sergeant Tomer Ahimas, 20; Oren Goldin, 33; and Ravid Katz, 51.
“The rescue of the bodies of the late Maya, Kiril, Tomer, Oren, and Ravid is an important and decisive military move that allows their families an important closing of the circle, and eternal rest for the murdered,” the Hostages and Missing Family Forum said in a statement.
Their bodies were retrieved from the area of Khan Younis in southern Gaza, where Israeli forces launched new raids this week.
The five had been listed among 120 hostages still in Gaza, about a third of whom Israel has declared dead in absentia, based on forensic findings, intelligence, interrogations of captured militants, videos, and testimony of released hostages.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Shin Bet security agency said they would “continue to work for the return of the abductees and their return home.”
In a speech to the US Congress on Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government was actively engaged in intensive efforts to release the remaining hostages which he was confident would succeed.
An Israeli delegation would participate in talks to secure a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release — mediated by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar – next week, an Israeli official said on Wednesday.
Hamas wants a ceasefire agreement to end the war in Gaza, but Netanyahu says the war cannot end before Hamas’ military and governing capabilities are dismantled.
The post Israeli Forces Retrieve Bodies of Five Hostages From Gaza, Military Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.