#Diplomacy / Foreign Policy

[republicansaredomesticterrorists]

“President Joe Biden ticked through several things that he needed to see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu do immediately: open up the Erez crossing into northern Gaza and the port of Ashdod in southern Israel for humanitarian aid; significantly ramp up the supplies getting in through Kerem Shalom.

A person familiar with the Thursday call paraphrased Netanyahu as responding: “Joe, we’re gonna do it.”

But Biden wasn’t finished. The prime minister must announce the moves that evening, the president insisted.

By Thursday night, the Israeli security cabinet had approved those three measures to increase humanitarian aid entering the besieged enclave.”

[allthecanadianpolitics]

India has told Canada it must repatriate 41 of its 62 diplomats as diplomatic tensions between the two countries deepen, according to two international media reports.

The Financial Times and The Associated Press first reported the development Tuesday, citing officials familiar with the Indian demand. Global News has not yet verified the reports but has reached out to Global Affairs Canada.

Ties between New Delhi and Ottawa have soured since last month when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said there is “credible” evidence that agents of the Indian government may have played a role in the murder of a Canadian citizen in British Columbia this summer.

Full article

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[discoursets]

“Kasuri also gives us a rare insight into the minds of the Pakistan Army, the contribution of the Foreign Office and his warm but complex relationship with President Musharraf. Blending analysis with choice anecdote, Neither a Hawk nor a Dove gives us a comprehensive and revealing account of Pakistan’s politics and the political compulsions of those at the helm.” 🌱

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS

Petition Against Israel's Forced Displacement and Threats of Violence

13 so far! Help us get to 25 signers!

Dear President Biden and Members of Congress,

We, the undersigned, express our deep concern and condemnation of Israel's ongoing acts of forced displacement and threats of violence against those who seek to return home.

The forced displacement of individuals from their homes is a violation of fundamental human rights and international law. It leads to immense suffering, loss of livelihoods, and perpetuates cycles of poverty and instability.

Furthermore, the threats of violence against those who seek to return home are reprehensible and undermine the basic principles of safety and security for all individuals, regardless of their background or beliefs.

We call upon the international community to take immediate and decisive action to pressure Israel to cease these illegal and inhumane practices. We urge governments, international organizations, and civil society to:

1. Condemn Israel's actions in the strongest terms possible and demand an immediate halt to all forced displacement and threats of violence.

2. Provide support and assistance to those affected by forced displacement, including access to shelter, healthcare, and legal aid.

3. Ensure accountability for those responsible for perpetrating and enabling these violations of human rights and international law.

4. Work towards a just and lasting solution based on the principles of equality, justice, and respect for human rights.

We stand in solidarity with the victims of forced displacement and violence and call for justice and accountability for all those affected.

▶ Created on April 16 by Fatima

📱 Text SIGN PUIESK to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW FREEPALESTINE to 50409

Source

[mossadegh]

As soon as the Shah returned to Iran after the successful U.S.-backed coup, he summoned Amb. Loy Henderson, who was in on the plot, for a secret rendezvous at the palace. Henderson’s cabled report is the only known record of this historic conversation…

The Mossadegh Project

• U.S. State Department Documents on Iran | 1951-1980

[archduchessofnowhere]

While Goyon was thus embroiling French policy at Rome, a few miles to the south on the Tyrrhenian coast the Bourbon Francis II and his eighteen-year-old bride, Maria Sophia Amalia, were making their last stand at Gaeta. The imminence of the fall of still another royal throne to the Sardinian bandits, as the Empress [Eugénie] now regarded them, enraged her fully as much as the plight of the Pope. Their case was the more appealing because of the spirit and pluck of the young Queen. A Wittelsbach, younger sister of Elizabeth of Austria, she was, like the Austrian Empress, of exquisite loveliness. During the siege she would ride up to the batteries, indifferent to the shells falling about her, to encourage the gunners and to comfort the wounded. The thought of so much beauty in distress — for her conduct was well broadcast in the Legitimist press throughout Europe — had the power to exact sympathy from the most hardened anti-royalist. To the Empress it was emotional dynamite. Eugénie herself had been known to say that if France were in danger she would be the first to mount her horse and rally the troops. Maria Sophia’s heroism exactly suited Eugénie’s romantic conceptions of queenly conduct. As in the case of Louise of Parma, the Empress took the young Queen’s cause as her own and began begging the Emperor to send the French fleet to the aid of the besieged royal couple.

Napoleon himself as early as September 26, on his return from Algeria, had already conceived of the idea of sending a naval force to Gaeta as part of his formal, public opposition to the invasion of southern Italy. Perhaps he had in mind the reports of Legitimist agitation and believed the presence of his fleet would be a fitting gesture to placate clerical opinion. On October 13 the French government announced that Rear Admiral de Tinan would proceed to Gaeta to forestall a Sardinian attack by sea.

How much the Empress had to do with this decision is conjectural. Whatever the truth of the matter, the British and Italian diplomats attributed this “politique de sentiment” to her “inspiration” and blamed her for the creation of a maddening situation. The French fleet did not interfere with the siege operations on land but it did hold at bay the Sardinian fleet on the sea and made possible the revictualling of the beleaguered town. The move, inconsistent with the rest of French policy, seemingly irrational, was infuriating to Cavour.

Yet after all, even if the Empress had brought to pass this demonstration of sympathy for Francis and his wife, she had not accomplished much. Admiral Tinan was told that the policy of the French government had not changed. He was to station his fleet offshore only to assure the Bourbon King a dignified means of escape, and he should try to persuade him to capitulate. The outcome of the siege was never in doubt. As Gramont remarked, the French gesture had been rather like dangling a rope always out of reach in front of a drowning man.

(...) The winter saw a resumption of her futile efforts to save Francis II and the commencement of a long correspondence with Maria Sophia. The Queen initiated the exchange on January 4 in order to express her gratitude to the Empress for the “generous interest” that she had taken in her plight. “In the situation where I find myself there is nothing more consoling than the sympathy of friends as highly placed as you ; your approbation is the sweetest encouragement possible to strengthen the convictions of my heart,” wrote the wife of a Bourbon to the wife of a Bonaparte.

Despite the fact that on January 19 the Emperor suddenly withdrew his fleet and permitted Sardinian operations on both sea and land, the Empress resolved to reassure Maria Sophia of her unaltered good will. Her letter, apparently shown to many ladies in the court, made a sensation. The Sardinian charge d’affaires reported to Cavour that everyone was quoting one sentence in particular: “I like to proclaim it, Madam; you can be assured of all my admiration, of all my sympathy, and furthermore, you have right and justice on your side.”

Brave words, but they availed nothing. Within less than a month after the withdrawal of Tinan’s squadron came the capitulation. Francis and Maria Sophia escaped on a French ship kept in readiness for this purpose in Naples and fled to Rome and to the protection of the Pope. But for years the Empress clung tenaciously to the hope of a Bourbon restoration in Naples. In October, 1861, she told the papal nuncio: “... you can not doubt all the sympathy I felt for that great and noble misfortune. Well, I hope, I ardently desire that Her Majesty [Maria Sophia] will recover the crown of Naples.” In 1863 the resurrection of an independent Bourbon kingdom was to become an integral part of her master plan for French reorganization of the map of Europe, to be accomplished with the help of Austria.

Barker, Nancy Nichols (1967). Distaff diplomacy: the Empress Eugénie and the foreign policy of the Second Empire

[deadpresidents]

Tangentially presidential, but do you have recommendations for biographies of Clarence Thomas and/or Henry Kissinger?

I don't have any suggestions for books about Thomas, but I can recommend a bunch on Kissinger. I think it's especially important to read different books about Kissinger to get a more balanced viewpoint because many books about him tend to be slanted in one direction or the other -- more so than most historical figures, in my opinion. He just tends to inspire particularly strong opinions, so here are a few books on him that I've found interesting:

•The Inevitability of Tragedy: Henry Kissinger and His World (BOOK | KINDLE) by Barry Gewen •Kissinger (BOOK | KINDLE) by Walter Isaacson •Kissinger: 1923-1968: The Idealist (BOOK | KINDLE) by Niall Ferguson •Master of the Game: Henry Kissinger and the Art of Middle East Diplomacy (BOOK | KINDLE) by Martin Indyk •Kissinger's Shadow: The Long Reach of America's Most Controversial Statesman (BOOK | KINDLE) by Greg Grandin

There are also some really good dual biographies about Kissinger and Nixon and their foreign policy: •Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power (BOOK | KINDLE) by Robert Dallek •The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide (BOOK | KINDLE) by Gary J. Bass •The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House (BOOK | KINDLE) by Seymour M. Hersh •Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia by William Shawcross

And I want to also mention these two books, which are heavier reads but really important studies about the international impact of the Nixon/Kissinger foreign policy (and a helpful reminder about American complicity in the overthrow and death of democratically-elected Chilean President Salvador Allende) : •Nixon, Kissinger, and Allende: U.S. Involvement in the 1973 Coup in Chile (BOOK | KINDLE) by Lubna Z. Qureshi •Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah: The United States and Iran in the Cold War (BOOK | KINDLE) by Roham Alvandi

[dailybehbeh]

Behbeh

[theglobalobserver]

Unlocking the intricacies of India's foreign policy 🌍 Dive deep into my latest blog post to understand the diplomatic maneuvers shaping the nation's global stance. #india #ForeignPolicy #diplomacy

[eelhound]

"[Nathan J.] Robinson 

Something that makes the United States an incredibly dangerous actor is the lack of self awareness and to perceive ourselves as others see us: to see through the eyes of anyone on the receiving of our policy. It’s an arrogance that says that we would never act in a purely self-interested way because we’re America. There’s a fundamental assumption of idealism and goodness. I don’t think it’s widely realized that everyone in the world thinks they’re good, and you don’t know if you’re actually good and idealistic until you check how you look to other people. 

[Van] Jackson 

That’s totally true and this is a genuine source of danger, ironically. I used to believe all this stuff, too. I was a true believer in this kind of evangelical exceptionalism, the triumphalism of America as the 'shining city on a hill' in foreign policy, even though I could see that our domestic politics were a little messed up. And, in fact, for the foreign policy mandarins in DC, having external threats and being able to externalize America’s problems onto another is psychologically the salve and the psychic wage that prevents us from having to deal with our own problems.

And so, China is a godsend to the foreign policy establishment because it means that they don’t have to take a hard look at the American surveillance state, the de facto policing of Black communities, or the deep economic precarity of the majority of the population. They don’t have to face the threat of the far-right militias, or the way that politics is post-democratic in many senses, with the oligarchic political economy that we run — there’s no time for any of that. And also, there’s no time for the climate crisis either because we got to smite the big bad."

- Van Jackson being interviewed by Nathan J. Robinson, from "Why This Foreign Policy Expert Thinks Americans Dangerously Misunderstand China." Current Affairs, 16 May 2023.

[thelayinternationalist]

The LayInternationalist

First Edition

Vocabulary Word: Hegemon

A hegemon is a nation within a group of nations that is more powerful than all of the rest. What Thomas Hobbes described as a Leviathan in his book of the same name, modern international relations scholars call a hegemon. This nation cannot be compelled by other nations surrounding it and can do as it pleases. The United States is often suggested as an example of a global hegemon, though China’s rise to power may threaten this status.

Introduction to Realism

Realism is a school of thought in International Relations not uncommon in more cynical thinkers. Realism is ultimately the belief that laws and morals are ultimately unimportant and that the only true rules that govern the way that nations interact with each other are the power and might of individual nations.[1] Individuals who ascribe to this school of thought typically believe that their nation’s military must be the ultimate priority of the government, and are typically very distrustful of the intentions of other nations. Realism could arguably be called the oldest school of thought on international relations. Thucydides, an Athenian historian, presents an early example of its employment as early as the 5th century B.C.[2] Another historical example of realism is found in Machiavelli’s writings, as he does away with morality and argues that only power and capability are important in the relations between nations. Realism began to be formalized by Hobbes in his book “Leviathan” which describes humanity as existing in a “state of nature” or chaos, meaning that there is no perfect higher power that can enforce laws or rules. Because of this, according to Hobbes, the person with the most power can do as they please. An example of a well-known modern realist thinker is Hans Morgenthau.[3] Realism is often thought of as pessimistic and Machiavellian, leading actors to intense conclusions about their competitors, and not allowing any level of trust to exist between nations. This frequently leads students of realism to conflict or compulsion as a method of solving international problems. Power is the most important aspect of relationships, according to the school of realism.

Current Events

There is conflict in every direction that you look in the world right now. This section will try to give you a quick introduction to some of the major conflicts We will begin with Ukraine and Russia. Until 1991, Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. Since that separation, Ukraine has historically ridden a line between the East and the West but has in recent years been moving farther and farther towards democracy and the West. Many scholars suggest that this is what caused Russia to invade Ukraine, as they perceived Ukraine’s movement toward democracy as the encroachment of Western powers. This encroachment threatened their security, and Russia wanted to push back on the encroachment, not only harming the stability of a neighboring democracy but also signaling to other nearby states the consequences of drifting from Russia’s sphere of influence. This conflict has slowed to a near halt, with Ukraine regaining only a moderate amount of the land that Russia has taken. Further progress in the near future may stall as winter sets in, but the success of Ukraine’s continuing offensive depends deeply on continuing support from the West.

A situation that could quickly devolve into serious conflict is the tensions between China and Taiwan. Taiwan was a piece of former imperial China, before a revolution pushed out the reigning parties, specifically to Taiwan. China claims that Taiwan is territorially the property of China, though Taiwan favors democracy and a policy of self-determination. China has repeatedly taken piece-meal approaches to dominating Taiwan, such as briefly invading its airspace with fighter jets before pulling them out again. In the event that China were to suddenly invade, it is unclear whether the United States would intervene or not, but this is certainly something to watch for. President Biden has suggested that he would lead the United States in support of Taiwan should China invade, but no official stance has been taken.

The Status Quo

When it comes to the rollercoaster of relations between China and the United States, we can use history as a method of trying to predict the future. Imagine this: you have two juggernauts on the global stage. One, the United States, has been the heavyweight champion for a while, and the other, China, is rising through the ranks at a dizzying pace. This kind of scenario has a name: the "Thucydides Trap." It's not as fancy as it sounds. In fact, it's a concept borrowed from Thucydides, a Greek historian from around 400 B.C., who's kind of a big deal in the world of international relations.

Thucydides came up with this idea that when a new actor emerges, like Athens back in his day, challenging the reigning power, in this case, Sparta, you get a big, messy conflict. The underlying reasons are pretty straightforward: shifts in power, fear, and general insecurity can make nations very suspicious of each other, and these suspicions often lead to a cycle of escalations. This Thucydides Trap idea is like a historical one, offering a template or conflict, some aspects of which have an eerie resemblance to what's going on today between the U.S. and China.

We can imagine the United States as the heavyweight champ and China as the up-and-comer, sparking concerns about this same Trap. The past couple of decades have seen plenty of sparks between these two, from territorial squabbles in the South China Sea to economic showdowns and tech competitions. The question is, where's this drama heading?

The future of these U.S.-China tensions isn't as black-and-white as you might think. On one hand, you've got the optimists who believe in peaceful coexistence. Both the U.S. and China know that a full-blown clash isn't a good idea. They've been engaging in talks, like the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, to work through their differences. Plus, these two giants are so intertwined with the rest of the world that going to war would be like setting off a global time bomb. It's just not in anyone's best interest.

But, here comes the curveball: the pessimists. They say that deep-rooted mistrust and good old-fashioned geopolitical rivalries might just push these two over the edge. History buffs will remind you that rational thinking sometimes takes a back seat when big powers feel threatened. It's a bit like the lead-up to World War I – nobody really wanted a war, but it happened anyway.

Then there are some middle-of-the-road possibilities. You might get a long, drawn-out period of competition and rivalry that stops short of an all-out war. Think of it like a constant tug-of-war for dominance in trade, tech, and global influence. It might not be full-blown combat, but it's not exactly a picnic either.

On a more upbeat note, there's the chance for a new international order. Both the U.S. and China could take a step back, realize they're heading toward the Thucydides Trap, and decide to rewrite the global rulebook. This could lead to a more cooperative era where they share the responsibility for running the world, from keeping the peace to fostering economic growth.

In a nutshell, the Thucydides Trap is a pretty useful way to look at the U.S.-China situation. The future remains a mystery, with possibilities that range from peaceful coexistence to conflict and everything in between. It's like a high-stakes game of chess, and the world's watching, fingers crossed for a peaceful resolution. [4]

[1] Jervis, Robert. “Hans Morgenthau, Realism, and the Scientific Study of International Politics.” Social Research 61, no. 4 (1994): 853–76.

[2] “The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides.” Accessed October 14, 2023. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7142/7142-h/7142-h.htm.

[3] “Hans Morgenthau | Realist Theory, International Relations, Political Theory | Britannica.” Accessed October 14, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hans-Morgenthau.

[4] [4]   ChatGPT, edits in response to “Make this short essay more readable and less academic-sounding” October 18, 2023, OpenAI, https://chat.openai.com/chat.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 17, 2023 (Thursday)

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

Philip Stephens of Financial Times today pointed out how much global politics has changed since 2016. That was the year of Brexit and Trump, when those calling for national sovereignty and iron-bound borders seemed to have the upper hand, and it seemed we were entering a new era in which nations would hunker down and international cooperation was a thing of the past.

But now, just seven years later, international cooperation is evident everywhere. Stephens pointed out that a series of crises have shown that nations cannot work alone. Migrants fleeing the war in Syria in 2015 made it clear that countries must cooperate to manage national borders. Then Covid showed that we must manage health across political boundaries, and then Russia’s invasion of Ukraine proved that European nations—and other countries on other continents—must stand together militarily in their common defense. 

That embrace of cooperation is in no small part thanks to President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who have focused on bringing together international coalitions.

The new global stance is on display in the U.S. right now as President Biden hosts the first-ever trilateral summit with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan and President Yoon Suk Yeol of South Korea. This is not an easy meeting—Japan and South Korea have a long history of conflict—but they are working to mend fences* to stand firm against North Korea, including its missile tests, and to present a united front in the face of Chinese power. 

Secretary Blinken noted for reporters on Tuesday that the world is currently being tested by geopolitical competition, climate change, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and nuclear aggressions. “Our heightened engagement is part of our broader efforts to revitalize, to strengthen, to knit together our alliances and partnerships—and in this case, to help realize a shared vision of an Indo-Pacific that is free and open, prosperous, secure, resilient, and connected,” he said. “And what we mean by that is a region where countries are free to chart their own path and to find their own partners, where problems are dealt with openly, where rules are reached transparently and applied fairly, and where goods, ideas, and people can flow lawfully and freely.”

Cooperation between Japan and South Korea “helps us promote peace and stability and furthers our commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It advances our shared values and helps uphold principles of the UN Charter like sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity. It allows us to even more expand opportunity and prosperity.”

Blinken addressed Ukraine’s resistance to the Russian invasion, backed by an international coalition, and reiterated that Ukrainians are upholding “the basic principles—sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence—that are vital to maintaining international peace and security.”

In squeezing Russia, international cooperation has again been vital. The Swiss corporation Société Internationale de Télécommunications Aéronautiqes (SITA), which is responsible for booking, flight messaging, baggage tracking, and other airline applications, announced in May that it will leave Russia this autumn. Russian carriers are scrambling. 

Blinken also confirmed that the Biden administration last week achieved a deal with Iran over U.S. prisoners. Iran moved four dual citizens from the infamous Evin Prison to house arrest, and the U.S. is working to get them, along with one more who was already under house arrest, home. In exchange, the U.S. will release several Iranian prisoners along with $6 billion of Iranian oil revenue currently held in South Korea.

Several Republicans have opposed that deal. The senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James E. Risch of Idaho, said that the “unfreezing” of funds “incentivizes hostage taking & provides a windfall for regime aggression,” and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) called the money “ransom” and said it was a “craven act of appeasement.” 

But in an op-ed on the national security website Defense One, Ryan Costello, the policy director for the National Iranian American Council, called the deal a win-win. The Iranian money will be released to Qatar, which will release it for purchases of food and medicine, which are not sanctioned. Medicine is desperately needed in Iran, and as Biden said in 2020: “Whatever our profound differences with the Iranian government, we should support the Iranian people.”

In his remarks to reporters on Tuesday, Blinken defended the administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan almost exactly two years ago, saying the decision to withdraw was “incredibly difficult” but correct. “We ended America’s longest war,” he said. “For the first time in 20 years, we don’t have another generation of young Americans going to fight and die in Afghanistan. And in turn, that has enabled us to even more effectively meet the many challenges of our time, from great power competition to the many transnational issues that we’re dealing with that are affecting the lives of our people and people around the world.”

He noted that the U.S. continues to be the leading donor of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, contributing about $1.9 billion since 2021, and that the U.S. continues to work to hold the Taliban accountable for the rights of women and girls. 

In Niger, a key U.S. ally in Africa against terrorism, military forces took power from the democratically elected president on July 26, and now the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), a regional union of fifteen countries, has said it will intervene militarily if diplomatic efforts to restore President Mohamed Bazoum to power fail. Army chiefs met today in Ghana to discuss creating a standby force. Nigeria’s chief of defense staff, General Christopher Gwabin Musa, told the meeting: “The focus of our gathering is not simply to react to events, but to proactively chart a course that results in peace and promote[s] stability." 

Blinken said Tuesday that the U.S. strongly supports the efforts of ECOWAS to restore Niger’s constitutional order, but the African Union apparently opposes intervention out of concern that such intervention might trigger a civil war.

Meanwhile, in Sudan, where the Biden administration hoped working with two rival generals would pressure them to restore civilian democracy, the country has been torn apart as those two generals now vie for power. Days ago, the U.S. government warned of corruption and human rights violations in South Sudan, with one of the rival military forces, the Rapid Support Forces, apparently engaging in widespread targeted killing and sexual violence in the western Sudan region of Darfur.

Yesterday, the State Department called for the two factions to stop fighting. “Every day this senseless conflict continues, more innocent civilians are killed, wounded, and left without homes, food, or livelihoods. The parties must end the bloodshed. There is no acceptable military solution to this conflict,” it said. 

—

*The expression “mending fences” appears to come from U.S. Senator John Sherman (R-OH), who in 1879 told reporters he had to go home to take care of his farm (including mending his fences) when everyone had a pretty shrewd idea he was trying to repair political relationships to shore up support, hoping for a presidential nomination. (It didn’t work: his chief manager was Representative James A. Garfield (R-OH), who ended up getting the nomination himself.)

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[winterbirb]

Upon assuming office, President Richard Nixon reportedly told his staff that foreign policy was to be handled by the White House, "not by the striped-pants faggots in Foggy Bottom."

The offensive language apart, such uneasiness about the State Department appears to be the rule rather than the exception. Recent presidents seem quickly to have concluded that, except for the Secretary and a handful of others, people in State are not to be trusted. Many New Deal, Kennedy, and Carter Democrats believed State to be hidebound and resistant to progressive policies; many Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan Republicans were convinced it was infested with suspect left-wingers and liberals. Regardless of party, presidents often are predisposed to blame State for unauthorized leaks of sensitive information.

— Foreign Policy, Spring 1987, "Why State Can't Lead"

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS

No more arms transfers! Ceasefire now. The hostages must come home.

637 so far! Help us get to 1,000 signers!

Last week, President Biden expressed his outrage over the Israeli military’s killing of seven World Central Kitchen workers directly to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Within hours, the Israeli cabinet voted to increase aid deliveries in Gaza — a welcome sea change in its months-long siege that can help tens of thousands of people avoid famine.

There’s no need to wait for the Israeli military to make another deadly decision for President Biden to do all he can to save lives now. President Biden should enforce U.S. law immediately to suspend U.S. military aid to Israel and ensure the indiscriminate killing of aid workers and mass starvation of Palestinians ends today. We need the focus to shift to peace negotiations, rescuing the hostages, and rebuilding.

The U.S. government is likely the only one capable of swaying the Israeli government from deepening the crisis and tipping the entire region into all-out war. It must do so. Americans overwhelmingly want the carnage to stop.

Thanks.

▶ Created on April 8 by Jess Craven · 636 signers in the past 7 days

📱 Text SIGN PXPEFM to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409