Genocide Joe May be a Fitting Moniker

 

One of the latest slurs against Joe Biden has been calling him “Genocide Joe.” Pro-Hamas protestors are attacking Biden for his support of Israel, and their claim that he is supporting genocide is untrue on its face: the war in Gaza is not genocide. But the negative criticism of the positions that Biden has been taking in support of Israel indicate he doesn’t have global support:

Former Obama apparatchik Van Jones was on CNN Thursday, applying heavy pressure to Old Joe Biden to get him to end the U.S. alliance with Israel and abandon the Jewish state to the tender mercies of Hamas and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Today’s youth, said Jones, and remember, the children are our future and all that, have a cutting new nickname for the sinister old kleptocrat in the Oval Office: Genocide Joe. And if Old Joe doesn’t throw Israel to the wolves, and pronto, that nickname is going to stick. What Jones didn’t say, however, was the most important point of all: Israel is not committing a genocide at all, and this claim is a product of leftist and jihadi propaganda, to which young people today are disturbingly susceptible.

Biden and his sidekick Antony Blinken have teamed up to put even greater pressure on Israel to agree to a two-state solution. In some ways, this is not new discussion, but in many ways the narrative has changed. Instead of using the language from the Oslo Agreements, which insisted on a negotiated agreement, leaders are insisting on giving the Palestinians their own state.

[David] Cameron’s remarks suggest that Britain is now ready to recognize a Palestinian state without waiting for a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

This turnabout in US and British policy aims to create facts on the ground by establishing a terrorist genocidal Arab state on Israel’s doorstep, on either side of Israel, and encourage the Palestinians not to resume peace negotiations with Israel.

The U.S. and Britain are not the only ones changing the narrative:

The EU’s Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said recently, ‘I don’t think we should talk about the Middle East peace process anymore. We should start talking specifically about the two-state-solution implementation process.’ What if Israel does not agree, and views a Palestinian state as an unacceptable security threat? Borrell’s answer was that ‘One thing is clear—Israel cannot have the veto right to the self-determination of the Palestinian people. The United Nations recognizes and has recognized many times the self-determination right of the Palestinian people. No one can veto it.’

This change in narrative suggests that the Palestinians can also continue to behave as they always have:

Why should any Palestinian leader return to the negotiating table with Israel when the Americans and British are already offering them a state on a platter, unilaterally and unconditionally? By making such statements, the US and Britain are sending a message to the Palestinians that they can continue to carry out terrorist attacks against Israel and do not need to renounce terrorism, dismantle the multiple armed groups in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people or do anything at all.

A serious question that arises when discussing a two-state solution is who will govern. No one (outside of the Palestinians) takes seriously the recommendation that Hamas will participate in governing. Then there are those people who recommend that the Palestinian Authority would be a good choice; they would just need to submit to a complete makeover to qualify, according to the United States. Of course, no one has asked the PA how it feels about making potential changes. Meanwhile, the PA continues its policy of paying survivors of suicide bombers and supports Hamas:

It is no wonder then that the PA has until now refused to condemn Hamas’s October 7 atrocities. It is not because the PA is afraid of Hamas. Instead, it is because Abbas and his cohorts consider Hamas an integral and indispensable part of Palestinian society, as well as a future partner in a Palestinian government.

Biden likes to blame Benjamin Netanyahu for being a major roadblock to creating a two-state solution, but the Israeli people are overwhelmingly against that effort. A survivor of the October 7 atrocity made the following statement:

In an interview last month with Israel’s Channel 14, Bachar explained, ‘We need to ask if we are capable of coexisting there. The 7th of October showed that the level of evil there means that coexistence is apparently impossible. We can’t do it anymore. Because we gave them everything. They even worked in our community. And in the end, we were proven wrong. … We reached the point where their children burned us alive in our shelters. The older ones shot us through the doors. And anyone who tried to jump out the window—they shot him again. Their elderly, on wheelchairs, and their handicapped arrived at Kibbutz Be’eri, and they looted us and kidnapped us as hostages. We need to understand this situation. And when a person has infinite demands at negotiations, apparently, either we won’t be here or they won’t be here. We mustn’t leave.’

The problems with creating two states are also enormous. Some aren’t difficult to resolve, but others are serious, as Elliott Abrams explains:

. . . the tough one is Jerusalem. Will East Jerusalem be the capital of a Palestinian state? If so, what does that mean? The old Arab Quarter only, or the Christian and Armenian quarters too? Do their residents have any say in this? Is it actually being proposed that the Western Wall would be the Israeli border, and if you stand there and look up you are looking at another country? Or that David’s Citadel and the Tower of David would be in Palestine? A look at the map of Jerusalem shows how impractical is the division of Jerusalem again if the city is to thrive, but what about politics? Which Israeli politicians of the left or center are going to be in favor of dividing Jerusalem again, going back to the pre-1967 days—and doing it in the aftermath of the Hamas massacres of October 7?

I think that Elliott Abrams addresses the two-state solution with credibility and candor:

Creating a Palestinian state will not end the ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ because it will not end the Palestinian and now Iranian dream of eliminating the State of Israel. On the contrary, it can be a launching pad for new attacks on Israel and will certainly be viewed that way by the Jewish state’s most dedicated enemies. A peaceful Palestinian state that represents no threat to Israel is a mirage. It is an illusion indulged by people in the West who want to seem progressive and compassionate, and those in the Arab world who fear resisting the powerful anti-Israel currents that circulate there and are now fortified by Iran. The future security of Israel depends in good part on resisting the two-state formula for endless conflict.

Given the international pressures being put on Israel, it’s conceivable that somehow Israel will give in to the demands for a two-state solution, and a devastating encounter will follow.

At that point, Joe Biden’s new moniker, “Genocide Joe”, will probably be apt.

Published in Foreign Policy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 79 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. randallg Member
    randallg
    @randallg

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    The difficult issue, in cases of this type, is genocidal intent. Some civilian deaths and suffering is unavoidable in war. One can argue about whether or not such death and suffering is disproportionate, and if so, that constitutes a war crime, but not genocide.

    It’s the evidence of genocidal intent, from high Israeli officials, that is simply shocking in this instance. I urge you to look up the South African brief and the ICJ order. The statements were made by high government and military officials, including both the President and Prime Minister of Israel.

    If the Israelis had genocidal intent, the Palestinians would have all been dead years ago.

    • #61
  2. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    I think that describes Hamas and Iran perfectly.  Why aren’t they being tried at the U.N.??  I’m being serious.

    The ICJ, but why not?  Somebody would need to bring a case.

    imo a case against Turkey for genocide of Kurds would have legs.

    • #62
  3. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    randallg (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    The difficult issue, in cases of this type, is genocidal intent. Some civilian deaths and suffering is unavoidable in war. One can argue about whether or not such death and suffering is disproportionate, and if so, that constitutes a war crime, but not genocide.

    It’s the evidence of genocidal intent, from high Israeli officials, that is simply shocking in this instance. I urge you to look up the South African brief and the ICJ order. The statements were made by high government and military officials, including both the President and Prime Minister of Israel.

    If the Israelis had genocidal intent, the Palestinians would have all been dead years ago.

    Since WWII people have needed to be on the DL about it – especially if they’re dependent on liberal democracies and public opinion in the West.  Let’s see how this Gaza thing plays out and its long term consequences in terms of public opinion in the West about Israel, the Nakba, acceptable levels of collateral damage, ethononationalism and ethnonarcissism – the world is getting more connected and that means people can see commonalities that they were not able to recognise before.

    • #63
  4. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Zafar (View Comment):

    randallg (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    The difficult issue, in cases of this type, is genocidal intent. Some civilian deaths and suffering is unavoidable in war. One can argue about whether or not such death and suffering is disproportionate, and if so, that constitutes a war crime, but not genocide.

    It’s the evidence of genocidal intent, from high Israeli officials, that is simply shocking in this instance. I urge you to look up the South African brief and the ICJ order. The statements were made by high government and military officials, including both the President and Prime Minister of Israel.

    If the Israelis had genocidal intent, the Palestinians would have all been dead years ago.

    Since WWII people have needed to be on the DL about it – especially if they’re dependent on liberal democracies and public opinion in the West. Let’s see how this Gaza thing plays out and its long term consequences in terms of public opinion in the West about Israel, the Nakba, acceptable levels of collateral damage, ethononationalism and ethnonarcissism – the world is getting more connected and that means people can see commonalities that they were not able to recognise before.

    Pay attention and learn how to win wars and defeat evil.

    • #64
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Zafar (View Comment):

    randallg (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    The difficult issue, in cases of this type, is genocidal intent. Some civilian deaths and suffering is unavoidable in war. One can argue about whether or not such death and suffering is disproportionate, and if so, that constitutes a war crime, but not genocide.

    It’s the evidence of genocidal intent, from high Israeli officials, that is simply shocking in this instance. I urge you to look up the South African brief and the ICJ order. The statements were made by high government and military officials, including both the President and Prime Minister of Israel.

    If the Israelis had genocidal intent, the Palestinians would have all been dead years ago.

    Since WWII people have needed to be on the DL about it – especially if they’re dependent on liberal democracies and public opinion in the West. Let’s see how this Gaza thing plays out and its long term consequences in terms of public opinion in the West about Israel, the Nakba, acceptable levels of collateral damage, ethononationalism and ethnonarcissism – the world is getting more connected and that means people can see commonalities that they were not able to recognise before.

    So, you claim Israel is playing some kind of “long game” by first letting the “Palestinians” grow to several million and THEN wiping them out?  Because it’ll be less noticeable if there’s a lot more of them at first, before they disappear?

    • #65
  6. randallg Member
    randallg
    @randallg

    Zafar (View Comment):

    randallg (View Comment):

    If the Israelis had genocidal intent, the Palestinians would have all been dead years ago.

    Since WWII people have needed to be on the DL about it – especially if they’re dependent on liberal democracies and public opinion in the West. Let’s see how this Gaza thing plays out and its long term consequences in terms of public opinion in the West about Israel, the Nakba, acceptable levels of collateral damage, ethononationalism and ethnonarcissism – the world is getting more connected and that means people can see commonalities that they were not able to recognise before.

    Let’s make a bet. I claim that in 5 years from now there will be more live Palestinians than there were on Oct 6 last year. Disagree?

    This is the most incompetent genocide ever.
    The Jews are not incompetent.

    • #66
  7. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Zafar (View Comment):

    From the transcript of the video you posted.

    At the 28 second point:

    …80% of the world’s hungriest people are in Gaza.

    To which I reply. Bovine Excrement.

    There are 700 million hungry people on planet earth. 80% of that is 560M

    There are not 560M people in Gaza.

    Your source is untrustworthy, and on this issue you are untrustworthy.

     

     

    • #67
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    From the transcript of the video you posted.

    At the 28 second point:

    …80% of the world’s hungriest people are in Gaza.

    To which I reply. Bovine Excrement.

    There are 700 million hungry people on planet earth. 80% of that is 560M

    There are not 560M people in Gaza.

    Your source is untrustworthy, and on this issue you are untrustworthy.

    But do we know where the hungriEST people are?  80% of those could be in Gaza.  At least theoretically.

    Although I agree it’s all untrustworthy.

    • #68
  9. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    From the transcript of the video you posted.

    At the 28 second point:

    …80% of the world’s hungriest people are in Gaza.

    To which I reply. Bovine Excrement.

    There are 700 million hungry people on planet earth. 80% of that is 560M

    There are not 560M people in Gaza.

    Your source is untrustworthy, and on this issue you are untrustworthy.

    But do we know where the hungriEST people are? 80% of those could be in Gaza. At least theoretically.

    Although I agree it’s all untrustworthy.

    I was among the world’s hungriest people a few minutes ago, but now I’ve had a snack.  Although I’m sometimes one of the world’s hungriest, I’ve never been among the world’s starvingest. 

    • #69
  10. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    From the transcript of the video you posted.

    At the 28 second point:

    …80% of the world’s hungriest people are in Gaza.

    To which I reply. Bovine Excrement.

    There are 700 million hungry people on planet earth. 80% of that is 560M

    There are not 560M people in Gaza.

    Arguable.  How do we know there are 700 million starving people on the planet. 

    Your source is untrustworthy, and on this issue you are untrustworthy.

    No, just unpalatable.

    • #70
  11. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    From the transcript of the video you posted.

    At the 28 second point:

    …80% of the world’s hungriest people are in Gaza.

    To which I reply. Bovine Excrement.

    There are 700 million hungry people on planet earth. 80% of that is 560M

    There are not 560M people in Gaza.

    Arguable. How do we know there are 700 million starving people on the planet.

    Your source is untrustworthy, and on this issue you are untrustworthy.

    No, just unpalatable.

    It’s on you to prove it. Any idiot can find some figure on the internet to spout whatever his inferiority-complex is saying. 

    To actually try to convince someone rather than prattle on takes a longer and more serious argument rather than links.

     

    • #71
  12. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    duplicate

    • #72
  13. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    No, just unpalatable.

    It’s on you to prove it.

    Prove that Gaza is starving?  How to do that meaningfully without links to sources?

    [Edit: How about a link to a source that proves in a more than anecdotal way that Gaza is NOT starving, only being bombed during the Super Bowl?]

    ([Prove] That I’m unpalatable?  I think it’s self evident, but what proof would you accept?)

    Any idiot can find some figure on the internet to spout whatever his inferiority-complex is saying.

    To actually try to convince someone rather than prattle on takes a longer and more serious argument rather than links.

    It also needs someone with an open mind who’s genuinely able to accept new information on the subject – even if it’s unpalatable and dissonant with their world view.

    • #73
  14. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    No, just unpalatable.

    It’s on you to prove it.

    Prove that Gaza is starving? How to do that meaningfully without links to sources?

    [Edit: How about a link to a source that proves in a more than anecdotal way that Gaza is NOT starving, only being bombed during the Super Bowl?]

    ([Prove] That I’m unpalatable? I think it’s self evident, but what proof would you accept?)

    Any idiot can find some figure on the internet to spout whatever his inferiority-complex is saying.

    To actually try to convince someone rather than prattle on takes a longer and more serious argument rather than links.

    It also needs someone with an open mind who’s genuinely able to accept new information on the subject – even if it’s unpalatable and dissonant with their world view.

    You don’t present this information in a persuasive way. You need to convince use that these data points have some accordance in reality. For example, why haven’t I seen any skeletal Palestinians?

    • #74
  15. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    No, just unpalatable.

    It’s on you to prove it.

    Prove that Gaza is starving? How to do that meaningfully without links to sources?

    [Edit: How about a link to a source that proves in a more than anecdotal way that Gaza is NOT starving, only being bombed during the Super Bowl?]

    ([Prove] That I’m unpalatable? I think it’s self evident, but what proof would you accept?)

    Any idiot can find some figure on the internet to spout whatever his inferiority-complex is saying.

    To actually try to convince someone rather than prattle on takes a longer and more serious argument rather than links.

    It also needs someone with an open mind who’s genuinely able to accept new information on the subject – even if it’s unpalatable and dissonant with their world view.

    Even if you could prove it, then you must prove why they are starving despite foreign aid. One wonders why you think we should care. They elected and support Hamas. Hamas would rather spend money buying assets to kill Jews than ways to feed their people. Their people celebrated the murders of Jews. One must be able to choose between good and evil. When one takes sides, one must decide which side is evil.

    • #75
  16. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    One must be able to choose between good and evil. When one takes sides, one must decide which side is evil.

    The left decides not between good and evil but between weak and powerful, black or white or non-Western vs. Western. 

    King James Bible
    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    • #76
  17. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Guess what the Israelis found under the UNRWA headquarters in the Gaza Strip?

    The subterranean data center — complete with an electrical room, industrial battery power banks and living quarters for Hamas terrorists operating the computer servers — was built precisely under the location where Israel would not consider looking initially, let alone target in an airstrike.

    What a remarkable coincidence! What were the odds?

    • #77
  18. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Percival (View Comment):

    Guess what the Israelis found under the UNRWA headquarters in the Gaza Strip?

    The subterranean data center — complete with an electrical room, industrial battery power banks and living quarters for Hamas terrorists operating the computer servers — was built precisely under the location where Israel would not consider looking initially, let alone target in an airstrike.

    What a remarkable coincidence! What were the odds?

    It appears, then, that  if the U.S. cut off its share of funding for the UN, it would have to spend less on military aid for Israel to defend itself. Win-win! 

    • #78
  19. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    non sequitur 

    • #79
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.