A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
|
|
Imagine Trump in Charge During the Hamas-Israel War |
By David Corn October 24, 2023 |
Smoke rises following an Israeli airstrike in the Gaza Strip on October 18, 2023. Francisco Seco/AP |
|
|
A war can always be worse. Imagine if Donald Trump were president right now.
There’s been criticism of President Joe Biden from progressives and lefty Democrats that he has not pushed Israel to implement a ceasefire or pause. Biden has bear-hugged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (and thrown $14 billion in security assistance at him), while the Israeli military has flattened Gaza and sparked a humanitarian crisis for 2 million Palestinian civilians, in response to Hamas’ horrific attack on Israeli civilians. In the last issue, I noted—not as an excuse for Biden but as an explanation—that he is clearly taking this stance to steer Netanyahu away from widening the war and causing an even greater conflagration.
There was evidence of this with recent reporting that Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and other US officials have been privately urging Israeli officials not to strike at Hezbollah, the powerful, Iranian-backed militia in southern Lebanon that has been lobbing rockets at Israel. Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defense minister, has been pushing for Israel to use the Hamas assault as an opportunity to launch a massive and preemptive attack on Hezbollah and open up a two-front war. This is reminiscent of what Paul Wolfowitz, then the undersecretary of defense in the Bush-Cheney administration, tried to pull off in the days right after 9/11—even before the invasion of Afghanistan. He and other neocons encouraged President George W. Bush to initiate a war on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The American public was enraged by the terrorist attack, and Wolfowitz saw this moment as a chance to proceed with a military action that he and his comrades had long advocated. Bush said no initially, determined to focus on Afghanistan. But it wasn’t too long before he came around and mounted a disinformation campaign to persuade the American public that Saddam was tied to 9/11 and possessed weapons of mass destruction and, thus, posed an existential threat to the United States. The result: a disastrous war that yielded thousands of dead American soldiers, 200,000 dead Iraqi civilians, and instability in the region.
Something similar is underway within the Israeli government. You can easily see how Gallant and other hawks would sell this: The Hamas raid shows how vulnerable Israel is; we must strike at any enemies who could repeat what these terrorists did. Biden and other US officials, without leaning too hard on the Israelis (though they should do so and use the US aid to Israeli as leverage), have been striving to head off this drive to a larger war that could turn into a regional conflict. If Israel were to attack Hezbollah, Iran could directly enter the fray and that could place pressure on the Biden administration to join in some way. Biden and his aides have been gently reminding their Israeli counterparts that it was calamitous for the United States to rush to war in Iraq, while querying them on what would be the long-term aims and exit strategy for such a move.
As the neocons did here following 9/11, Israeli hawks are publicly beating the drums for a bigger war. Nir Barkat, the minister of economy and industry, warned that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, the Netanyahu government will not be satisfied with the “elimination” of Hezbollah, and the ayatollahs of Iran will be “wiped off the face of the Earth.” As I write this, Netanyahu has not yet signaled his support for an expansion of the war, though Israeli military commanders have come up with a plan to use an Israeli invasion of Gaza as a cover to initiate a full-scale war against Hezbollah.
I’ve heard scuttlebutt in Washington, DC, national security circles that some US officials have heard from Israelis that an all-out war in Gaza could last 10 years. It’s hard to see how Israel could contend with such a catastrophe on its border. What would happen to the 2.2 million Palestinians in that scenario? No doubt, such a conflict would inflame and further destabilize the entire region.
So back to Trump. If Trump inhabited the White House now, I doubt he would be engaged in a vigorous diplomatic initiative to rein in Israel. Would he and his aides be deftly mounting a behind-the-scenes campaign to thwart Gallant and his allies seeking to exploit the moment for even more war? There’s no telling whether Biden will succeed in this mission. But the odds are certainly better with him at the helm than with Trump.
Trump’s approach to the Middle East, engineered by son-in-law Jared Kushner, was to improve relations between Israel and the governments of several Arab states and reach normalization deals under pacts called the Abraham Accords. These agreements deliberately left the Palestinians out of the picture. Instead, they promoted business ties between Israel and these other nations. That was something Trump and Kushner could understand—and possibly profit from. Six months after leaving the White House, Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from the Saudis for his new private equity firm. Trump himself now has a major Saudi-brokered deal in Oman, in which his company is managing a Trump-branded resort that is selling villas to the superrich in Russia, Iran, and India.
Kushner and Trump largely downplayed and neglected a major source of instability and violence in the region: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. (I wrote more about this here.) It’s tough to envision the pair understanding this moment and not being rolled by Netanyahu and the hawks. Would they be pushing for humanitarian aid for Palestinians and publicly telling Netanyahu to respect the lives of Palestinian civilians, as Biden has done? Would their own business interests be on their minds? Would Trump be cheering on Netanyahu, chastising American Jews for not supporting him and Netanyahu, and exploiting the conflict for his own demagogic nativist agenda? On the campaign trail, he has recently proposed reinstating his travel ban on people from certain Muslim nations.
The footage and stories that continue to emerge about Hamas’ massacre of civilians and the Israeli counterstrikes that have killed thousands of Palestinians are horrible and tough to absorb. Biden is not pressing Israel to pause its attacks, which justifiably angers those outraged by the death and destruction visited on Gaza by the Israeli military (especially because the Israeli armed forces are fortified by $3.8 billion in annual military assistance from the United States). But he does seem to be endeavoring mightily to prevent a worse catastrophe. Who knows if these efforts will succeed? But would Trump even be trying? The world is fortunate that we cannot answer that question.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
War Makes Right-Wing Conspiracy Nuts Nuttier |
It should come as no surprise that war provides plenty of material for conspiracy theorists. There are still folks today pushing the notion that FDR allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and kill 2,403 Americans so he could enter World War II. It didn’t take long for conspiracy-mongers to exploit horrific fighting between Hamas and Israel. Charlie Kirk, Trump fanboy and head of Turning Point USA, promoted a conspiracy theory that we all knew was coming: Netanyahu or other Israelis permitted the Hamas assault to transpire or responded slowly on purpose. He remarked:
I’m not, I’m not willing to say, to go so far to say that Netanyahu knew or there was intelligence here, but I think some questions need to be asked. Was there a stand down order? Was there a stand down order? Six hours, I don’t believe it. Israel’s the size of New Jersey. When I took a helicopter ride from Jerusalem to the Gaza border, it’s 45 minutes, six hours, they’re live-streaming the killing of Jews. Did somebody in the government say stand down? That is a legitimate, non-conspiracy question.
It's not that legitimate. There is no evidence of any stand-down. Why would anyone in the Israeli military or government order security forces to do nothing while Hamas was massacring civilians? I’m pretty sure such orders would be disobeyed or revealed afterward. But it was inevitable that someone would concoct such a story. Remember Benghazi and the false allegation that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered a stand-down? Some people claimed that George W. Bush deliberately ignored warnings of the 9/11 attack so he would have a reason to launch a war in the Middle East. Putting aside the question of whether he would be so evil, would Bush have the guts to take such a risky action? He would know that if ever such a plot were disclosed, he would rank higher in villainy than Benedict Arnold.
Ben Domenech, a right-wing journalist, objected to Kirk’s innuendo and tweeted, “If Charlie Kirk remains the head of TPUSA, the right has an anti-Semite problem that will follow them into the coming elections.” But it wasn’t just Kirk. Other MAGA advocates promoted similar conspiracy theories. This includes Steve Bannon, the former Trump strategist, and Alex Jones, the prominent conspiracy grifter. Last week, I reported how they joined forces on Bannon’s podcast to suggest that China, Iran, and a global cabal of elitists orchestrated this new war to suck in the United States and weaken it. On his own show, Jones pushed the idea that Netanyahu allowed the attack to occur to distract from his ongoing corruption scandal. It was notable that Bannon, who founded the alt-right Breitbart News and who remains a MAGA leader close to Trump’s circle, has partnered up with Jones. (Bannon has even written a foreword for Jones’ new book in which he praises Jones.) Here’s more evidence of Bannon’s descent into the politics of sleaze and fear. Check out my article here.
|
A recent article from the New York Times landed with a bang in the world of media. The paper reported that the big social media platforms are de-emphasizing the dissemination and sharing of news on their sites. This has been happening for a while, especially with Facebook (as I noted a year ago). Now, the Times tells us, Google is joining the crowd, downplaying journalism in its algorithms and sending less traffic to news organizations. What’s this have to do with you? This means that you have to search harder for good journalism. You cannot rely on Twitter (or X), Instagram, Facebook, Threads, Google, or whatever to serve you important and compelling information and news articles in your assorted feeds. You will have to be more proactive to remain informed about what’s going on in this crazy world.
Which brings me to Our Land. All the thousands of subscribers to this newsletter have done that by signing up to receive Our Land. By subscribing, you took a step to directly receive what I hope you regard as valuable information—sent straight to your inbox. I thank you. Especially those who have subscribed to the premium version. When you do subscribe for a few bucks a month, you not only receive all the extra stuff—more content, such as Dumbass Comment of the Week, the interactive Mailbag, the Watch, Read, and Listen List with reviews of films, books, TV shows, and music, and MoxieCam™—you also get to participate in Our Land Zoom gatherings with your fellow readers. More important, you help keep this enterprise going for everyone. Without our premium subscribers, we would be kaput. So if you find this newsletter worthwhile—and you’re in a position to help—please do so. You can click here to join the premium gang. And if you don’t want to read the additional content, you don’t have to. I won’t mind.
|
An Our Land Zoom Get-Together |
Speaking of premium subscribers, a few months ago Our Land sponsored a Zoom get-together for such subscribers. We had a good time discussing the momentous events of the week and sharing reactions from our different perches across the nation. I had said we would hold another shindig in September, but it’s been a rather busy time, and October hasn’t been any slower. But let’s get a date on the calendar for the next one: November 9, 8 p.m. ET. That will be two days after critical elections in Virginia and Ohio. As noted above, these gatherings are limited to premium subscribers. On the morning of the event, they will get an email with a one-time Zoom link. But there’s plenty of time to heed my plea and sign up for the full newsletter to be eligible to attend. Hope to see many of you soon.
|
|
|
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) speaking at a press conference at the US Capitol on October 20, 2023. Michael Brochstein/AP |
I’m not sure that it matters now. But I have a story about Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who last week was rejected by House Republicans in their seemingly never-ending attempt to elect a speaker. He was tossed not because he has been credibly accused of ignoring sexual abuse when he was an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State University. Or because he was a co-conspirator in Donald Trump’s schemes to overturn the 2020 election. Or because has been a constant promoter of false and conspiratorial narratives meant to cover up or deflect from Trump’s assorted wrongdoing. He lost because he’s a jerk who’s not well-liked by his peers and because his supporters played dirty pool to place him in contention for the speakership.
My anecdote highlights Jordan’s standing as a flat-out liar who will deny reality for political gain. Flashback to the fall of 2019. Impeachment hearings in the Democratic-controlled House were investigating Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to concoct a phony investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden, who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination and would end up Trump’s rival in the 2020 election. The story line was clear: Trump had pressed Zelenskyy to implicate Biden in a scandal before he would hold a phone call or White House visit with Zelenskyy or release $400 million in approved military aid in Ukraine. Yet Trump and his lieutenants contended nothing improper had occurred—that there had been no quid pro quo.
Then came the bombshell testimony delivered by Gordon Sondland, a Republican hotelier who had earned himself a US ambassadorship by donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration committee. Appearing before the House Intelligence Committee, he made it clear that Trump had set up a pay-to-play-ish foreign policy operation. He testified that when he and other US officials encouraged Trump to work with Zelenskyy, Trump expressed contempt for Ukrainians and said, “Talk to Rudy.” When they spoke to Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer, Giuliani told them that before the Ukrainians could get that much-desired phone call and sit-down with Trump, Kyiv had to announce the opening of the anti-Biden investigation that Trump wanted.
“Was there a quid pro quo?” Sondland said before the committee. He answered his own question: “With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.” He added that the $400 million in security assistance funds Trump was withholding from Ukraine also became part of this deal.
His testimony was damning. Yet Republicans on the committee ignored Sondland’s affirmation of the quid pro quo and tried to deflect from this damaging testimony. Jordan, a member of the committee, for weeks had been shouting that there was “no linkage” between the military assistance and Trump’s demand for an investigation. After Sondland presented his account, Jordan insisted there had been no quid pro quo because the military assistance was eventually released and sent to Ukraine—without noting that this occurred only after Congress had begun investigating the quid pro quo.
I was in the committee room for this hearing. And at one point following Sondland’s testimony, during a break, Jordan, looking angry (as he always does), was striding by me. I tried to get in front of him to pose a question. He slowed. “Do you still think there was no quid pro quo?” I asked. Jordan placed his face inches from mine. There was fury in his eyes. He shot back: “No quid pro quo.” And he kept on walking.
It was evident that he knew there had been a quid pro quo, that he knew he had to say there was none, and that he knew that he was lying. He did not have to think twice about this. His mission was to mislead the public to protect Trump. I doubt that ruffled his conscience for even a nanosecond. It’s good news such a combative fibber who schemed to subvert the US Constitution is not becoming speaker. It’s too bad it’s not for this reason. |
Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) outside the US Capitol on May 17, 2023. J. Scott Applewhite/AP |
Proven liar and indicted accused fraudster George Santos, the Republican congressman from New York, recently gave a series of on-the-record interviews to New York Times reporter Grace Ashford, who broke the story last year of his many fabrications. He had vowed never to speak to her but then relented. In their conversations, he repeatedly claimed many of the news stories on him have been misreported by scurrilous journalists. He denied much of the wrongdoing he has been charged with by federal prosecutors. He claimed that all the alleged crimes associated with his campaign finances were the fault of his former campaign treasurer Nancy Marks, who earlier this month pleaded guilty to conspiring with Santos to commit wire fraud and identity theft and to file false campaign finance reports.
In her account of her talks with Santos, Ashford allowed him to have his say. But on this point about Marks, she neglected to note his comments were ridiculous and baseless and undermined by various media reports, included the scoops published by my colleague Noah Lanard and me. We revealed that Santos’ two congressional campaigns (he lost in 2020 and won in 2022) reported big donations from people who didn’t exist, as well as contributions from Santos relatives who did not appear to have the means to make such contributions. In fact, we found one Santos relative who was recorded as giving $5,800 to Santos who told us he didn’t make that contribution. According to the feds, Santos and Marks reported phony contributions and a fake $500,000 loan from Santos to inflate their fundraising numbers so the campaign would qualify for assistance from a national Republican committee; prosecutors allege that Santos provided a list of names of people for Marks to list falsely as donors. The fact that the fake donors on the campaign filings that Marks oversaw are Santos' relatives seems a strong indication that he was in full cahoots with her in this scheme.
Santos told Ashford he has no intention of resigning from the House. Of course not. The federal indictment against him is strong. It’s a good bet that in the not-too-distant future, Santos will be moving from one federal institution to another. He may as well enjoy the time he has left as a free man who commands so much attention—and he seems to be doing that, especially in his cat-and-mouse chats with the Times.
|
Read Recent Issues of Our Land |
October 21, 2023: Biden and Netanyahu’s delicate dance; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ari Fleischer); the Mailbag: MoxieCam™; and more. October 18, 2023: No blank check for Bibi; the strange trip of Asteroid City; Devon Gilfillian gives us a closer with “Love You Anyway”; and more.
October 14, 2023: Jim Jordan’s threat to democracy; from George Santos scoop to indictment; the day the GOP died; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Nancy Mace); the Mailbag: MoxieCam™; and more. October 11, 2023: The Hamas-Israel war—what can be discussed?; The Bear makes you care; Native Americans at the National Gallery of Art; and more.
October 7, 2023: How our George Santos scoop ended up in the criminal case; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Elon Musk); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
October 4, 2023: How media framing aids Trump’s assault on democracy; why do GOP and Trump donors like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.?; am I a redbaiter?; Crooked chronicles an actual weaponization of the Justice Department; a classic Willie Nelson tune; and more.
September 30, 2023: Trump loses a battle in his long war on reality; GOP donors look to Gov. Glenn Youngkin; comedians make a serious gun-safety video; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Marjorie Taylor Greene); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
September 27, 2023: Donald Trump, stochastic terrorist; Joan Osborne’s regrets; Invasion’s slow pace; and more.
September 23, 2023: Joe Biden and Saudi Arabia: what the heck?; a killer attack ad for abortion rights; an apology for Chile; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Rep. Victoria Spartz); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
September 19, 2023: The threat of Cornel West; Nils Lofgren sings about truth; Gus Russo deconstructs the latest JFK assassination revelation (or is it?); and more. |
|
|
Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
|