Suchergebnisse

On Monday, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp owner Meta said that it was going to ban a number of Russian state media outlets, including RT (formerly Russia Today). "After careful consideration, we expanded our ongoing enforcement against Russian state media outlets: Rossiya Segodnya, RT and other related entities are now banned from our apps globally for foreign interference activity," Meta said in a statement. This occurs just days after the Biden administration announced sanctions against RT. United States Secretary of State, Antony Blinken said that Russian media entities "are no longer merely fire hoses of Russian propaganda and disinformation. They are engaged in covert influence activities aimed at undermining American elections and democracies, functioning like a de facto arm of Russia's intelligence apparatus."In its own statement, the State Department said "The United States supports the free flow of information. We are not taking action against these entities and individuals for the content of their reporting, or even the disinformation they create and spread publicly. We are taking action against them for their covert influence activities."Those covert activities, the agency charged, include RT employees allegedly working with Russian intelligence services to influence the election in Moldova, as well as to crowdfund weapons and supplies for the Russian military in Ukraine, among other activities.Earlier this month the Department of Justice announced the seizure of 32 web domains it said were linked to the Russian government-directed foreign malign influence campaigns in violation of U.S. money laundering and criminal trademark laws. Two former employees of RT were indicted for their links to a U.S. media platform designed to covertly spread Russian disinformation via American influencers, according to the DOJ.Despite Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg's recent lamentations over what he called government pressure to censor posts relating to the pandemic during the COVID era, he is likely still smarting from two previous presidential election cycles in which Facebook was accused of not doing enough to manage Russian bots and misinformation (a problem that has been hotly debated for its actual impact on the elections).Meanwhile, during an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton was asked whether the U.S. government was doing enough to combat the kind of Kremlin-directed propaganda cited in the recent indictments. She suggested that government censorship was also necessary to combat Russian misinformation, even positing that Americans might be criminally charged for proliferating it."I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda," she said. "And whether they should be civilly or even in some cases criminally charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States."The Quincy Institute's Marcus Stanley pointed out the ironies last week in a report about the House passing an authorization for $1.6 billion for a program that would allow the U.S. government to pursue its own potentially covert information operations via foreign media and civil society sources to combat Chinese "malign influence" globally.Stanley points out that in addition to potential foreign blowback from such legislation, "another problem raised by the proposed legislation is the possibility that anti-Chinese propaganda financed by this program will flow back into the American media space and influence American audiences, without any disclosure of its initial source of funding." Washington is more than happy to participate in covert message management, all while Antony Blinken claims that aggressive moves against Russian media entities are "shining a bright light on what the Kremlin is trying to do under the cover of darkness."In other Ukraine war news this week: The New York Times reported on Tuesday that Moscow's troops have been engaging in a counter-offensive in Kursk, reclaiming a few villages and threatening Ukraine's ability to hold onto the territory it has seized. At the same time, Russian soldiers in Ukraine have continued advancing on the eastern Ukraine city of Pokrovsk, which is a strategic hub for Ukraine's forces, and if lost would greatly impact Kyiv's ability to move men and supplies to the front and take away a key buffer for central Ukraine. This comes after Putin ordered all Kursk territory to be returned to Russia by October first. The number of Ukrainians and Russians killed or wounded has reached around one million according to the Wall Street Journal. A Ukrainian estimate placed Ukrainian deaths at 80,000 and wounded at 400,000. Russian casualties are estimated to be as high as 600,000 dead and wounded. This staggering number is bound to have long-term effects on both nations, especially as Russia and Ukraine have seen population declines in recent years. As Western powers discuss the possibility of allowing Ukraine to send long-range missiles further into Russian territory, Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of Russia's lower house of parliament affirmed that such an action would be extremely antagonistic. According to Reuters, Volodin said "What the European Parliament is calling for leads to a world war using nuclear weapons," on Telegram. In this week's Sept. 17 State Department briefing:State Department spokesman Matthew Miller was asked whether the Biden Administration would be announcing anything regarding White House approval for the use of American-made long-range missiles in attacks deep inside of Russia. Miller said no. When asked if the administration felt there was an urgency for a decision soon, given Ukraine's need to improve its position on the battlefield, Miller responded by saying the administration wants to "make sure that with everything that we provide them there's a strategic rationale for doing so.""There is no one capability that ultimately, by itself, is the magic wand that is decisive in this conflict," he added. "There are a number of different capabilities that taken together can help Ukraine win this war, and that's what we continue to provide them, and we will continue to assess whether there are additional capabilities, additional tactics, additional techniques that we ought to provide to them. And when we assess that it is in their interest and the interests of the United States to do so, we'll do so."

In an interview with Foreign Policy on Monday, outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenburg doubled down on his hawkish outlook toward Russia. Stoltenberg, who has been NATO chief since 2014 and will be replaced by former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte in October, indicated that Since North Korea, China, and Iran have been supporting Russia in its conflict with Ukraine, that NATO should work more closely with its allies in the Asia-Pacific region.He added: "North Korea is providing an enormous amount of, in particular, ammunition to Russia. And a lot of that is transported on railroad, railroad which is crossing the border from North Korea, the land border, into Russia, and then all the way to the frontlines, and that capacity is quite huge to transport by railroad, and that's also reason why it is important to continue to have severe sanctions on North Korea, and also reason why NATO has stepped up further the cooperation we have with our Asia Pacific partners, that includes South Korea, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand."When interviewer Ravi Agrawal, Editor-in-Chief of Foreign Policy, mentioned the potential for NATO overextension and that sanctions have not historically worked, Stoltenberg replied, "so while NATO is a regional alliance, we need a global approach, and that includes also our approach to China. Because again, the war in Ukraine demonstrates that our security is not regional. Our security is global." He then added, "what happens in Asia matters for Europe. What happens in Europe matters for Asia. Or, as the Japanese Prime Minister said recently, that what happens in Ukraine can happen in Asia today can happen in Asia tomorrow."He also pushed the narrative that China and Russia were closer than ever "That's not because NATO has pushed them together," he charged, "It's because they align in standing of what they believe in a different world order." Because of this, Stoltenberg said he believes that increased sanctions are necessary.This narrative should be challenged, said Mark Episkopos, Eurasia fellow at the Quincy Institute. "Stoltenberg's comments reflect the catechistic view — one that stubbornly persists even in the lack of any corroborating evidence — that "Dragonbear," or the Sino-Russian axis against the West, is the inevitable result of what he and others see as an global, predetermined conflict between the two incompatible poles of democracy and authoritarianism." "In fact, this convergence is the result of concrete choices made by Western policymakers since the end of the Cold War," he added. "The Western maximum-pressure campaign against Russia after 2022 has failed in its basic purpose of compelling Moscow to relent its invasion of Ukraine, but it has successfully severed Russia from the Western economic and political sphere in a way that greatly increased its commercial and diplomatic dependence on China."Meanwhile, Stoltenberg said he strongly supports Ukraine using long range missiles to fire into Russian territory, stating that they were imperative if Ukraine was to take out Moscow's artillery positions.When questioned whether this could potentially push President Putin into using nuclear weapons, the NATO chief seemed to suggest that Putin would not act and therefore the West could keep pushing. "We are monitoring and tracking very closely what Russia is doing," he said, however, "so far, we haven't seen any changes in their nuclear posture that require any changes from our side." The unfortunate reality is that when a party chooses to utilize nuclear arms, escalation is hard to manage. What about Ukraine's possible NATO membership? Stoltenberg said the process to join has been streamlined, with Ukraine no longer having to submit a Membership Action Plan, and is now awaiting a formal invitation. No timeline was given — but the outgoing NATO chief was quick to highlight how integrated the alliance and Ukraine were becoming.He touted the fact that Ukrainian forces are being integrated into NATO standards, training command facilities are getting set up in Poland and Germany, and the establishment of the NATO Ukraine Council, which is, according to NATO "the joint body where Allies and Ukraine sit as equal participants to advance political dialogue, engagement, cooperation and Ukraine's aspirations for membership in NATO. It provides for joint consultations, decision-making and activities. It also serves as a crisis consultation mechanism between NATO and Ukraine." He also reiterated that Ukraine's path to NATO was "irreversible."

In an interview on September 3, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland lent credence to reports that Western powers pressured Kyiv to reject a deal during the Ukraine-Russia peace process in April 2022 that would have ended the Russian invasion. "Relatively late in the game the Ukrainians began asking for advice on where this thing was going and it became clear to us, clear to the Brits, clear to others that (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's main condition was buried in an annex to this document that they were working on," said Nuland, pointing to the requirement that Ukraine's military be subject to hard caps on personnel and weaponry.Her assertions can be added to a series of comments made by a host of officials and diplomats who have made similar claims. According to a Foreign Affairs article from October 2022, multiple former senior U.S. officials said that "Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries." This supports the idea that a workable solution was present in Istanbul. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett played a large role in those April 2022 negotiations. In an interview, he also claimed that Russia and Ukraine were willing to make major concessions and end the conflict, until pressure from then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson convinced Zelensky to back down from such a deal. Davyd Arakhamia, a Ukrainian parliamentary representative at the talks, made a similar claim. "They were hoping almost to the end to put pressure on us to sign such a document and accept neutrality. It was a big deal for them," he said in November 2023, referring to the Russians. "They were ready to end the war if we, like Finland once did, would accept neutrality and pledge not to join NATO. In fact, that was the main point. All the rest are cosmetic and political 'additions.'"Nuland's comments provide additional perspective to how Washington was thinking about the situation. "People inside Ukraine and people outside Ukraine started asking questions about whether this was a good deal and it was at that point that it fell apart," she said. It's unclear at this point who those people "outside Ukraine" Nuland is referring to were, and how much direct authority they had in the situation.Indeed, according to Mark Episkopos, Eurasia Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute, "The extent to which these Western reservations were decisive insofar as they constituted a hard veto over the peace talks is a trickier question. One can reasonably surmise that Ukraine would have found it difficult to ink a deal that did not command at least tacit support from the Western countries on which it overwhelmingly relies." He added, "Victoria Nuland's comments lend further credence to the proposition that a settlement between Russia and Ukraine was on the table in Istanbul, that the West played a role in shaping Ukrainian thinking on the desirability of pursuing negotiations, and that Western leaders apparently conveyed the view that it was a bad deal.In other Ukraine war news this week: — President Biden is mulling over whether or not to cross another one of Putin's red lines. According to The New York Times, Biden is meeting with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Friday to discuss whether or not to extend the current 60 mile limit on the use of U.S. weapons over the border into Russia. European powers who gave Ukraine "bunker buster" missiles seem to be waiting on Washington's approval before also allowing these munitions to be used against targets far into Russia. — The U.S. accused Iran of sending missiles to assist the Kremlin in its fight against Ukraine. The Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Tuesday that Iran had begun supplying these munitions to allow the Russians to keep some of their own in reserve. "We've warned Tehran publicly, we've warned Tehran privately, that taking this step would be a dangerous escalation," he said. "Russia has now received shipments of these missiles." Blinken added that in exchange, Russia was assisting Tehran with its nuclear program. The U.S., France, Germany, and the UK responded with a new round of economic sanctions on Iran. Spokespeople from Tehran and the Kremlin deny the arms shipment allegations altogether. — Ukraine launched a drone attack on Moscow on Tuesday September 10. Reuters reports that the attack killed one woman and damaged homes in the city. Dozens of people were evacuated, with three airports in Moscow being temporarily shut down. This was part of Ukraine's largest drone attack thus far, with Russia claiming to have destroyed around 20 drones in Moscow, and 124 in other regions. — Russia responded to the drone attacks and the recent Kursk invasion by initiating counterattacks on Thursday. CNBC summarizes the new operation, explaining that Russian troops have already taken back control of around 10 settlements in Kursk. Putin has reportedly ordered Kursk to be recaptured by October 1.

Congress is set to return to session next week and with the November elections and the holidays right around the corner, it is possible that some controversial or significant pieces of foreign policy-related legislation won't get touched until the new year. With that said, lawmakers are expected to push legislation related to China and Ukraine spending, with the massive annual defense appropriations coming, as well as its yearly authorization, otherwise known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), before the end of the year. Meanwhile, political games in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have stalled the introduction of any new legislation in the Senate.Currently in contention is a Republican bill set to sanction the International Criminal Court (ICC) in response to the court issuing arrest warrants against members of the Israeli government. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho) is refusing to sign off on any other legislation or nominations until this bill is moved forward, with the necessary agreement from Democrats. The House passed the bill with bipartisan support, but the White House reportedly opposes the measure. The ICC sanctions bill may see movement later in the year, but Senate Democrats say they would rather support a "bipartisan" version. "Unfortunately, the Biden administration has not engaged in a full-throated opposition to this maneuver, suggesting that perhaps there are 'other ways' to punish the ICC short of what Republicans are proposing," noted Bill Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute.Hartung added that "we need prominent leaders in Washington to truly stand for the 'rules-based international order' they reference ad nauseum by standing back and letting the ICC do its job on this urgent issue."Various anti-China measures could see some action in September. "The House will be voting on a series of bills to empower the next administration to hit our enemies' economies on day one," said GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson at a recent Hudson Institute event. "We'll build our sanctions package, punish the Chinese military firms that provide material support to Russia and Iran, and we'll consider options to restrict outbound investments." Among these bills, according to recent reporting, are the End Chinese Dominance of Electric Vehicles in America Act of 2024, which restricts the clean vehicle tax credit to those companies whose electric cars feature domestically manufactured batteries. Additionally, the Protecting American Agriculture from Foreign Adversaries Act would make it harder for foreign nationals to buy farmland in America.Two other bills, reported by Punchbowl News on Labor Day, include:– DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act introduced by Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), which would bar the Department of Homeland Security from funding a university that receives financing from the Chinese government.– The Protect America's Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act of 2024 introduced by Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas), which would re-establish a China-focused division in the Justice Department.Speaker Johnson said that House Republicans were motivated to present this China-focused legislation before the end of the year, with Hill staffers indicating that bills could get a vote sometime in September. On the budget side, the House passed a $833 billion FY2025 defense appropriations bill in June. It is $8.5 billion above the FY 2024 level of $825 billion, a 1% increase, but below the president's 2025 request of $849 billion. The Senate is currently considering a $851 billion package.The House package allocates $200 million for Taiwan's international security cooperation programs and defense services, as well as $500 million for Israeli Cooperative Programs (missile systems), and prohibits funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).It is likely that appropriations, along with other spending bills, won't be addressed until after the election, with a stopgap measure put in place through mid-December.This year's NDAA passed the House in June, and through Senate committees, but is unlikely to hit the Senate floor until December. A House amendment that prohibits funds for any NATO related activities until each member country has spent 2 percent of its respective GDP on defense expenditures failed, 81-346. A measure that would have barred funds from being used for assistance to Ukraine also failed, 74-343, but the House approved an amendment to require the president to submit a strategy for the Ukraine war to the body before further funding is allocated (note: the White House missed a deadline for a similar mandate in June). Many mostly symbolic amendments were also added to ensure support for Israel. Meanwhile, Congress may consider a measure to keep funding flowing to Ukraine as it is possible current funding could run out as early as January (Ukraine received $61 billion in emergency funding in April). According to Punchbowl News, this could entail "tweaking" current Pentagon authorities, which would give the Biden administration the ability to continue sending weapons to Ukraine, possibly by expanding the drawdown authority of the president, or by taking from other funding streams. These changes could find their way into the upcoming NDAA. Pro-Ukraine Republicans, according to the reporting, are trying to ensure that Ukraine doesn't lapse in its funding, perhaps setting up a skirmish with fellow GOP lawmakers who have been opposed to more aid without a defined strategy for ending the war."It appears that the GOP's traditionalist wing is attempting to constrain the ability of the New Right under Trump — should he win the election — to reorient American policy toward Ukraine and Russia," said George Beebe, Director of Grand Strategy for the Quincy Institute.Some indicated they will put up a fight against unconditional funding, particularly after the election. "The next administration needs to make it a Day-One priority to establish a strategy for Ukraine, driven only by U.S. interests and with full awareness of the strategic trade-offs involved in supporting Ukraine at the expense of higher priority theaters," charged Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) in an interview with the Daily Signal."Parallel to a coherent strategy, the next administration needs to be immediately candid with Zelenskyy that the days of appeasement are over, that U.S. weapons may not be used inside Russia, and that any future U.S. aid will be contingent upon peace negotiations," he said.With Congress in campaign mode, and only weeks left in the 2023-2024 session, we shouldn't expect a ton of signed legislation by December. But we can expect that the upcoming House "China Week" will feature the introduction of anti-China related legislation. The NDAA will have to be approved before the end of the year, and the defense appropriations bill may be approved, but will likely be replaced with a temporary funding stopgap bill for now.

A July poll shows that a majority of the American public does not support sending U.S. troops to defend Taiwan or Ukraine, sentiment that lines up with findings from other recent surveys on these heated subjects, which suggests that Americans appear to be warming to restraint and non-interventionism in international affairs. Indeed, another poll, conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in February found that a majority of Americans (56%) do not believe that the United States should pick a side in Israel's war on Gaza. And a more recent survey from Council this month found that just four in ten support the United States sending troops to defend Israel if attacked by its neighbors. Similarly, Americans' suspicions of foreign intervention were uncovered in a recent YouGov poll, which found that 79% said that they only support intervention if the U.S. were directly threatened (that number significantly dropped to 49% if an ally were attacked). In the same study, the only recent war that a majority of Americans viewed as justified was World War II. Despite these findings, Washington continues to push forward with fanning the flames of war around the world, whether being slow to work toward peace settlements in Ukraine and Gaza, stoking conflict with China, or throwing gargantuan amounts of money, unnecessarily, at the Pentagon and thus, the weapons industry. "The general through line of the polling data is there is a disconnect between official U.S foreign policy and the preferred policies of the American people," Tucker Kass, spokesman at Defense Priorities which conducted the July survey, told Responsible Statecraft concerning their findings. "The policy coming out of D.C. is interventionist but the American people, at least based on the answers we received, support a more judicious, more discerning policy that would frankly be wiser than current policy."The Defense Priorities poll also found that just 22% of those surveyed support the United States defending Ukraine. Forty-six percent opposed while 32% were neutral. Thirty percent said they support America militarily defending Taiwan against China, while 37% opposed and 33% were neutral. Additionally, a plurality of Americans surveyed, 44%, agreed that avoiding war with China is more important than Taiwan's autonomy.Meanwhile, Americans have been increasingly less likely to support U.S. military aid being sent to Ukraine. A 2022 survey from the Chicago Council found that 79% of Americans supported sending military aid to Kyiv, but that number shrunk to 63% in the Council's September 2023 poll. Defense Priorities' July survey found that only 20% of Americans supported continued unconditional support for Ukraine. Other surveys also found that Americans have opposed the U.S. militarily defending Taiwan against a Chinese attack. In addition to the previously mentioned Defense Priorities poll, a survey from November 2023 by the Chicago Council found that only 39% would support defending Taiwan, rising to 43% in 2024. Support among Americans for defending Israel militarily has also been trending downwards. According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, support for using U.S. troops to defend Israel has hovered just over 50 percent from 2015 through 2021, but dropped to 41% in 2024. The American public appears to be questioning U.S. military involvement in world affairs more generally. Support for U.S. military bases in Germany, Turkey, Poland, Baltic partners, Japan, South Korea, and Australia is down across the board from 2022 to 2023. Despite these apparent trends, there are some caveats. As seen in the Defense Priorities poll from July, Americans don't tend to follow U.S. foreign policy closely, leading to large shares of neutral or "don't know" responses to related polling questions. Polls also have the potential to differ widely. For example, some polls have shown support for America defending Taiwan, including one survey from the Global Taiwan Institute showing 61% in support as recently as 2022. Additionally, the public can be swayed by conflict or strong media driven narratives. For example, after the September 11th attacks, the media helped to normalize the idea of deposing Saddam Hussein. By January 2002, 73% of the American public supported the use of force in Iraq, believing what the Bush administration said about the presence of WMDs in the country. After years of hindsight, only 32% of Americans considered the Iraq War the right thing to do according to a 2024 survey. Americans today are now able to see alternative opinions on social media and non-mainstream outlets, leading to perhaps more skepticism towards official Washington perspectives. As polling has shown, Americans have appeared to be able to see through pro- war narratives on Taiwan, Israel-Hamas, and Ukraine."Presidents and other interventionists often win short-term public support for military adventurism by moralizing and scaremongering," Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, told RS. "However, when the effects of these tactics begin wearing off — and Americans start coming home in body bags — public enthusiasm typically wanes. Hence eventual popular disgust with the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and more."

The Israeli Defense Forces have been targeting civilian centers and using Palestinian civilians as human shields during its operation in Gaza, according to explosive new reporting from Haaretz. Ironically, this comes the day after the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Convention, a groundbreaking series of treaties which established international laws around human rights during war time.The report also arrives after weeks of the Israeli military bombing schools in Gaza used by Palestinians for shelter. In each of the attacks, the IDF has claimed that Hamas was using civilians as human shields. In Haaretz's new investigation however, Israeli soldiers have been seen using "random Palestinians" as human shields on camera for operations in the Strip. This is based in part on the footage, published by Al Jazeera two months ago, which shows Palestinians being forced into buildings and rooms ahead of soldiers to ensure that IDF are kept out of harm's way. Video shows the soldiers placing body cameras on the handcuffed detainees and dressing them in military uniforms with protective vests as they are forced to enter tunnels and buildings before the Israeli soldiers, as a way to check for explosives. Further investigation by Haaretz, published on Tuesday, exposes just how widespread this practice may be among the IDF ranks in Gaza. Combat soldiers and commanders alike were interviewed during this investigation."Our lives are more important than their lives," soldiers were told, according to Haaretz. "The thinking is that it's better for the Israeli soldiers to remain alive and for the shawishim to be the ones blown up by an explosive device."One of the sources interviewed by the paper claimed that the practice of using Palestinians as human shields was well-known, saying "when I saw the report from Al Jazeera, I said: 'Ah, yes, it's true.'" They also charged that leadership knew about the practice adding, "it's done with the knowledge of the brigade commander, at the least." Another soldier added to the testimony saying, "About five months ago, two Palestinians were brought to us. One was 20 and the other was 16. We were told: 'Use them, they're Gazans, use them as human shields.'"According to sources, minors and the elderly are also used. One soldier said, "There were times when really old people were made to go into houses."The list of incidents described in the investigation took place all over Gaza, but were very similar in nature and description, giving credence to the stories. Some soldiers said they felt uneasy about what they were doing, but concerns brought to leadership were met with a wave of the hand. A battalion commander is reported as saying in response to soldiers' questions: "A soldier doesn't need to take an interest in the laws of war. You need to think about the IDF's values and act according to the IDF's values, not the laws of war."The released footage has led to increased calls for an official probe. The IDF Spokesperson's Unit issued a statement saying, "IDF instructions and orders prohibit the use of Gazan civilians caught in the field for military missions that pose a deliberate risk to their lives. The IDF's instructions and orders on the subject have been made clear to the forces."These reports come as Israel is dealing with another alleged human rights violation. It was reported Monday that the IDF admitted to targeting the Taba'een school complex in Gaza City. Gazan civil defense officials claim that over 90 people were killed, including at least 17 women and children. Some of the bodies have yet to be identified due to the level of carnage produced by the strike. The IDF justifies the bombing by claiming that Hamas operatives were using a room inside of the complex's mosque. This has been disputed however, with the Israeli strike list including the name of a child under 12-years-old. Annelle Sheline, Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute, said the Haaretz investigation exposes the lie that the IDF is the "most moral army in the world." "Media routinely criticize Hamas for using Palestinians as so-called human shields," she said. "This is not actually accurate, because the use of a human shield involves coercion and the mere presence of Hamas in Gaza does not mean they have coerced Palestinians to inhabit their own homes, schools, and hospitals."Comparing IDF actions to that of Hamas, she adds, "In contrast, this report and others demonstrate that the Israeli military routinely uses Palestinians to do life threatening work against their will.This is not only a war crime but also goes against IDF rules."Driving the point home, Sheline points out that "The IDF's use of Palestinians as human shields, despite violating both the Geneva Conventions as well as their own rules, demonstrates the depravity of a military organization that still likes to refer to itself as 'the most moral army in the world'."Principal Deputy Spokesperson for the Department of State, Vedant Patel, responded to concerns about the school attack on Tuesday from a reporter during the daily press briefing, stating that Israel has the moral imperative to minimize the impact on civilians, claiming that concerns are raised when necessary and that deterrents are in place.

America's most influential pro-Israel lobby group, AIPAC, has been boasting about its success in recent congressional primary elections. Rep. Cori Bush's (D-Mo.) loss on August 6 was the second instance of a so-called "squad" member losing their primary against an AIPAC-backed candidate this election season, following Rep. Jamal Bowman's (D-N.Y.) defeat on June 25.
AIPAC and its partners have spent over $24 million so far this year to influence elections and has enjoyed a series of successes all summer, bragging on X that 100% of the Democratic candidates it endorsed have so far won their primaries, a narrative that may cause many aspiring politicians to see AIPAC as a force they cannot afford to cross.
But that may be more a function of AIPAC simply opting not to intervene in races in which it is unlikely to win, even if it means allowing critics of the U.S.-Israel relationship to coast to victory.
Rep. Ilhan Omar's (D-Minn.) primary this week, for example, appears to be a race that AIPAC would prefer not to call attention to. AIPAC hasn't offered significant support to Omar's Democratic challenger, former Minneapolis City Council member Don Samuels, who has pleaded for AIPAC's assistance. And judging from AIPAC's social media activity and public statements, the lobby group is largely signaling it has no interest in this race, which could unseat one of the most outspoken critics of U.S. arms transfers, foreign aid and political support for Israel in Congress today.
Indeed, at times, AIPAC has pulled the trigger and misfired. For example, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — a member of the House Liberty Caucus, and a strong defender of non-intervention overseas — has been critical of how much American aid goes to Israel, and other nations, and spoke out against anti-Semitism laws proposed in Congress this year as potential violations of the First Amendment's free speech guarantees. AIPAC spent roughly $400,000 in an effort to defeat him in his primary in May. Rather than succumbing to AIPAC's efforts, Massie trounced his opponent, pulling in over 75% of the vote.
A few Democrats who have criticized America's relationship with Israel have also successfully dodged AIPAC's wrath. It doesn't appear that AIPAC tried to unseat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) during her first re-election campaign in 2020, perhaps realizing it would be a lost cause and thus tarnish its stellar endorsement record. Ocasio-Cortez won almost 75% of the vote in her 2020 primary, went unchallenged in 2022, and won 82% in the 2024 primary.
Another strong critic of Israel is Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). Tlaib, who won her first race in 2018, was the first Palestinian-American to be elected to the United States Congress. Detroit City Councilwoman Brenda Jones challenged Rep. Tlaib's first reelection campaign during the 2020 primary, but Tlaib won the nomination with over 66% of the vote, despite AIPAC spending more than $600,000 in an effort to defeat her.
Tlaib defeated three other candidates in 2022 with almost 64% of the vote. One of her challengers that year, Janice Winfrew, received support from AIPAC, as well as from a new organization largely funded by out-of-state billionaire pro-Israel donors, the Urban Empowerment Action PAC. After her victories in 2020 and 2022, Tlaib ran unopposed in 2024 and appears to be on a safe glidepath to another term, with no AIPAC intervention, in November.
Omar used to be a big target of AIPAC. Americans for Tomorrow's Future, an AIPAC-connected PAC, spent around $2.5 million trying to defeat her during her first reelection campaign in 2020, but she still won 58% of the vote. The 2022 Democratic primary would prove to be much more competitive — in that case, Omar won by just two percentage points against Don Samuels, the former Minneapolis city council member who is also running against her this year. United Democracy Project, an AIPAC-connected group, quietly spent $350,000 via a shadowy group, Make a Difference MN, to assist Samuels in the final weeks of that campaign which ultimately proved ineffective. UDP is a group largely funded by pro-Israel Republicans seeking to influence Demoratic primary races.
Over the past week, however, mysterious anti-Omar mailers have shown up in her district, sent by Make a Difference MN. The group has spent around $90,000 on anti-Omar mailers in the last days of the primary this week, an amount that is unlikely to affect the election outcome.
AIPAC does like to brag about its successes, and will largely persist in endorsing candidates who criticize Israel in ways that AIPAC considers too harsh or too effective. But in choosing not to invest heavily to defeat Omar, apparently to avoid an embarrassing loss, it seems that the purportedly all-powerful pro-Israel lobby group knows its limits.The electoral victories of Reps. Massie, Omar, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez should offer some hope to lawmakers who, for example, do not believe that the U.S. should continue providing billions of dollars in aid to Israel without conditions. Perhaps AIPAC isn't so invincible afterall.

According to a survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, only 41% of Americans support the idea of U.S. troops defending Israel, even if its neighbors attacked it. This is a decrease from 53% in 2021 and represents the lowest level of support since the the council started tracking the question in 2010.According to the survey, 55% of Americans overall are against the idea of sending troops to defend Israel. These numbers show a decrease in support from Republicans, typically Israel's biggest supporters, from 72% in 2021 to 55% today. Democrats went from 42% in favor of defending Israel with U.S. troops in 2021 to 35% today.The poll was conducted online from June 21 through July 1. Americans still believe in a peacekeeping mission, however, with 54 percent of Americans supporting sending peacekeeping troops if a deal between Israel and the Palestinians is arranged and kept, according to the survey.The polling results come as the region is on tenderhooks over whether it will blow up into broader conflict. The United States, a stalwart partner to Israel, is at the ready if Israel is attacked by Hezbollah or Iranian allies in retaliation for high profile assassinations over the last two weeks. On the other hand, it is not clear how far Washington will go to intervene if Israel is the one to start a major conflict with Hezbollah or Iran.Meanwhile, Iranian proxies attacked Americans in Iraq on the 5th and in Syria in late July. Additionally, the United States has committed to protecting shipping against the Iranian-supported Houthis off of the coast of Yemen. Aggression from Iran and its proxies has increased primarily because they object to Israel's brutal conflict in Gaza, but also in response to deadly strikes from Israel into Syria in April, and Israel's killing of Hezbollah leader, Fouad Shukur, in late July. While it is reportedly seeking to diffuse tensions behind the scenes, the United States has positioned further military assets toward Israel, with more naval ships and fighter planes being sent to the region. But the Chicago Council's polling shows that Americans are still unwilling to send U.S. troops into another warzone, no matter the relationship. Perhaps the political will amongst Americans is shifting towards some semblance of international realism after generations of never-ending war. Nevertheless, this should be a signal to Israel that it can only take it's own escalations so far, that there are real limits to American support and that includes American skin in the game.