Substacks
Delusion in the White House. Bloodshed in Israel. Eli Lake
As Hamas gunmen were in the initial stages of a raid that has left more than 700 dead, 2,408 wounded, and at least 100 held hostage in Gaza, the U.S. Office of Palestinian Affairs in Jerusalem weighed in on the unfolding horror.
“We unequivocally condemn the attack of Hamas terrorists and the loss of life that has incurred,” the official X account for the office posted. “We urge all sides to refrain from violence and retaliatory attacks. Terror and violence solve nothing.”
Observers of America’s policy in the Middle East will recognize the telltale talking points: the urging of restraint in the face of terror; the implied cycle of violence. The peace process has been dead for years, but the mindset behind it survives.
Let’s be clear. The timing of these diplomatic platitudes was grotesque. Here was the official bureau of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, which deals with the Palestinian Authority, calling on Israel to refrain from responding to the worst slaughter of innocent Jews since the Holocaust.
The original post was soon erased. Subsequent statements from President Biden and his senior advisers have dropped the both-sidesism and focused instead on Israel’s right to defend herself.
Nevertheless, this administration has a serious problem. While the official rhetorical response to the attack has been strong, there is a wide chasm between the president’s words and his administration’s actions.
Since taking office, the Biden administration has taken numerous steps to relieve pressure on Hamas and its international patrons as a means of restoring U.S. foreign policy to the way it was under Barack Obama, complete with a resurrected Iran nuclear deal.
Until last week, the Biden administration considered its approach to the region a success. Speaking at an Atlantic magazine event on September 8, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan boasted, “The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.”
After this weekend, the administration’s Middle East strategy is in tatters. And the self-delusion among our foreign policy establishment is at the root of the problem.
Let’s start with Biden’s policy to restore U.S. funding for Palestinian development after the Trump administration ended it. As the Washington Free Beacon first reported in August, internal documents show the State Department, in 2021, secretly sought a Treasury Department exemption to release more than $360 million to Palestine despite concerns that at least some of it would go to Hamas. (According to a May 2021 State Department press release, that money went to humanitarian organizations providing, among other things, emergency shelter, food, and healthcare, including “mental health and psychosocial support.”)
But the story, based on the State Department’s own documents and obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, is damning. A draft application for the exemption says, “We assess there is a high risk Hamas could potentially derive indirect, unintentional benefit from U.S. assistance to Gaza.” (This document was co-authored by then-acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs Joey Hood and then-deputy assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs Naz Durakoğlu.)
This raises an obvious question after the slaughter on Saturday: was the bulldozer that Hamas used to demolish a border fence between Israel and Gaza, which opened a path for terrorists to flood into Jewish towns and kibbutzim, paid for in part with U.S. development aid?
But even more troubling for the Biden administration is the situation in Iran, which has funded and trained Hamas since the 1990s. On Sunday, The Wall Street Journal laid bare the Islamic Republic’s deep involvement in this weekend’s bloodshed, reporting that “Iranian security officials helped plan Hamas’s Saturday surprise attack on Israel and gave the green light for the assault at a meeting in Beirut last Monday, according to senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah, another Iran-backed militant group.”
Just last month, Biden allowed the release of $6 billion in oil revenues back to an Iranian bank account in Qatar in exchange for the release of five hostages. That money had been frozen because of U.S. sanctions on Iran’s oil exports.
No evidence has emerged that any of that money went toward the Hamas operation. Indeed, a senior Treasury official, Brian Nelson, took to X on Saturday to make this point. “All of the money held in restricted accounts in Doha as part of the arrangement to secure the release of 5 Americans in September remains in Doha.”
That said, it’s clear that the ransom paid to Iran will free up funding for its regional proxy war against America and its allies. That proxy war will almost certainly involve helping Hamas perfect its use of long-range rockets and killer drones.
The Biden administration must now reckon with the fact that it has done a deal with Hamas’s most powerful and important patron. Biden’s efforts to restore a nuclear deal with Iran and its lax enforcement of secondary sanctions have freed up capital for the Islamic Republic to invest in its terrorist proxy.
And let’s not forget Biden’s strategy with Qatar, another backer of Hamas. On January 31, 2022, President Biden named Qatar as a “major non-NATO ally.” This designation was a major diplomatic reward for a country that to this day allows much of the senior leadership of Hamas, including its political leader, Ismail Haniyeh, to live there. (That U.S.-Qatari deal did not include conditions to expel these figures.)
On Saturday, Qatar’s foreign ministry issued a statement that said Israel was “solely responsible for the ongoing escalation.”
The U.S. response?
Silent, except for a report that the U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Qatar’s Foreign Minister Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman Al Thani “agreed to remain closely coordinated.”
Considering their many missteps, it’s no surprise the White House is on the defensive. Responding to Republicans who brought up the $6 billion hostage deal, National Security Council spokeswoman Adrienne Watson said on Saturday, “These funds have absolutely nothing to do with the horrific attacks today, and this is not the time to spread disinformation.”
Ah yes, another case of “disinformation” misleading Americans into thinking their government’s policy is misguided. In this case, though, the real deception is the one that has led so many in the U.S. foreign policy establishment to think that with enough patience, engagement, and money, fanatical regimes like those in Tehran and Gaza can be enticed to join the civilized world.
Eli Lake is a Free Press columnist and host of The Re-Education podcast. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) at @EliLake. For more on Hamas’s attack, read Noah Pollak on why Saturday was Israel’s 9/11.
Become a Free Press subscriber today:
Substacks
Niall Ferguson: The Vibe Shift Goes Global Niall Ferguson
I am a 60-year-old Scotsman with a penchant for red suspenders, oolong tea, and the novels of Walter Scott—so no one will ever accuse me of being an arbiter of cool. But to understand politics and even geopolitics you have to understand culture, which is sometimes—often—upstream of both. And to understand culture you have to understand, well, vibes.
Specifically, vibe shifts.
The pop culture commentator Sean Monahan identified three mini-epochs between 2003 and 2020: Hipster/Indie (ca. 2003–9), Post-Internet/Techno (ca. 2010–16), and Hypebeast/Woke (ca. 2016–20). Each was defined by a distinct aesthetic, and the vibe shift from one to the other was swift and palpable. As the pandemic receded, New York magazine’s Allison P. Davis predicted that another vibe shift had to be approaching. (And indeed, Monahan has dubbed the new epoch “Pilled/Scene.”)
I confess none of this meant much to me. I couldn’t tell a hypebeast from a hipster if my life depended on it.
But the term finally clicked—and acquired a powerful significance—when it was imported to the world of tech. In a clever Substack post in February, Santiago Pliego tried to sum up the change that had occurred from the epoch of woke—which began with the cancellation of James Damore by Google in 2017—to the unfiltered era of Elon Musk’s X.
Substacks
December 11, 2024 Heather Cox Richardson
Substacks
Lee Lakeman and The Whoredom of the Left – Read by Eunice Wong Chris Hedges
Text originally published Nov. 16, 2024
An Unjust Burden — by Mr. Fish
I just got off the phone with the Canadian feminist and activist Lee Lakeman. She is in hospice. The battles she has spent her life fighting, including her advocacy for impoverished aboriginal women prostituted in desolate urban landscapes such as the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver, which once had the highest HIV-infection rate in the West, lay behind her. When she is gone, we are the ones who will be impoverished, bereft of her searing intellect and unwavering fight for justice. She will leave in her wake a sterling example of what it means to live the moral life, a life of meaning.
“Everything you and I have spent our life fighting for is worse,” she said to me ruefully over the phone.
Yes. Worse. But her clear, steely-eyed view of the world, her understanding of power and how it works, never dampened her commitment or passion. To fight battles in the face of almost certain defeat, to demand justice for the oppressed no matter the cost, and to know that despite all your efforts, the forces of oppression are growing stronger and crueler, is the essence of nobility.
Prostitution, she argues, is the quintessential expression of global capitalism. Our corporate masters are pimps. We are all being debased and degraded, fleeced economically and stripped of basic civil liberties and political agency, to service the cruel and lascivious demands of the corporate elite. Jeffrey Epstein surrounded himself not only with prostituted underage girls, but the powerful, including Donald Trump, who 27 women have accused of sexual misconduct, along with Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew. The hard drives found in Epstein’s safe at his Manhattan mansion, which purportedly included videos of sexual encounters filmed on his properties, have disappeared. It is unlikely they will reappear. The wretched of the earth are reduced in the neoliberal model to serving the desires and fetishes of the wealthy and the privileged.
The widening income disparities, the collapse of the social contract and the grotesque entitlement that comes with celebrity, political power and wealth, has deformed all institutions, including the courts, into instruments that serve the exclusive interests of the entitled. The fight for equal pay, equal distribution of wealth and resources, access to welfare, legal aid that offers adequate protection under the law, social services, job training, healthcare and education services, have been so degraded, they barely exist. This is especially true for poor women and girls.
When the elites tire of us, or when we are no longer of use, we are discarded, like the women and girls men exploit. We are being transformed into serfs on a global plantation ruled by corporations and oligarchs. The fight against prostitution, Lee says, is not only the fight for women and girls, but the fight against a dehumanizing neoliberalism. Poverty, she reminds us, is not an aphrodisiac. Those who sell their bodies most often do so out of desperation. They are usually women and girls of color trafficked from the Global South, as well as refugees from countries at war such as Ukraine. They end up physically injured, with a variety of diseases and medical conditions, and suffer severe emotional trauma. The average age at which a girl enters prostitution is estimated to be 12 to 14. Their life spans are often short.
This fight against prostitution – Lee seeks to decriminalize those who are prostituted and bring criminal charges against the clients, pimps and traffickers – along with her insistence that we should not abolish the police but strengthen its mandate to go after those who abuse women and girls, makes her an anathema to the left. But she has as little time for a feckless left as it does for her. The left, with its woke politics, lack of class consciousness and naiveté about “sex work,” she argues, is bankrupt.
“Selling your body for sex is not a choice,” she says. “It is not about freedom. It is an act of economic slavery.”
You can see an interview I did with Lee and Alice Lee, one of the founders of Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution, here.
I met Lee in March 2015. I did not know that my few hours with her would trigger a firestorm. I was in Vancouver to give a lecture. I had admired her as one of Canada’s most important radicals and collective member of Vancouver Rape Relief & Women’s Shelter. I arranged to speak with her and other women from the shelter along with the women who run Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution the morning before my talk in the shelter’s storefront office.
In the 1970s, Lee opened her home in Ontario to abused women and their children. By 1977 she was in Vancouver working with Vancouver Rape Relief & Women’s Shelter, which was founded in 1973 and is the oldest rape crisis center in Canada. She built alliances with groups such as the Aboriginal Women’s Action Network and Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution to mount court cases to challenge the prostitution industry.
Lee and the shelter refuse to give the provincial government access to victims’ files in order to protect the anonymity of the women. They also deny this information to the courts, in which, Lee says, “defense attorneys try to discredit or bully women complainants in criminal cases of male violence against women.” This defiance has led to losses of government funding.
“It is still impossible to work effectively in a rape crisis center or a transition house and not be breaking the Canadian law on a regular basis,” Lee says.
But Lee is not only the bête noire of the state, but of liberals who, she says, think physical abuse of a woman is abhorrent if it occurs in a sweatshop, but is acceptable in a rented room, an alley, a brothel, a massage parlor or a car.
She stands with the feminist Andrea Dworkin who writes:
Capitalism is not wicked or cruel when the commodity is the whore, profit is not wicked or cruel when the alienated worker is a female piece of meat; corporate bloodsucking is not wicked or cruel when the corporations in question, organized crime syndicates, sell cunt; racism is not wicked or cruel when the black cunt or yellow cunt or red cunt or Hispanic cunt or Jewish cunt has her legs splayed for any man’s pleasure; poverty is not wicked or cruel when it is the poverty of dispossessed women who have only themselves to sell; violence by the powerful against the powerless is not wicked or cruel when it is called sex; slavery is not wicked or cruel when it is sexual slavery; torture is not wicked or cruel when the tormented are women, whores, cunts. The new pornography is left-wing; and the new pornography is a vast graveyard where the Left has gone to die. The Left cannot have its whores and its politics too.
Lee battles a world going numb, a world banishing empathy, a world where solidarity with the oppressed and marginalized is increasingly a foreign concept. She warns that with the political and economic upheavals ahead, caused by climate change, the rise of authoritarian governments, misogynist demagogues and the breakdown of global capitalism, the exploitation of women and girls will explode.
“We have never stopped having to deal with misogyny among activists,” she once told me. “It is a serious problem. How do we talk to each other as movements? We want to talk about coalition building. But we want new formations to take women’s leadership seriously, to use what has been learned in the last 40 or 50 years. We deal with the most dispossessed among women. And it is clear to us that every sloppy uprising, or every unplanned, chaotic uprising, devastates poor women. We need to have thoughtfulness built into our practices of revolt. We do not want the traditional right-wing version of law and order. We work against it. We do not call for a reduction in men’s rights. But, without an organized community, without state responsibility, every woman is on her own against a man with more power.”
“We are seeing a range of violence against women that generations before us never saw — incest, wife abuse, prostitution, trafficking and violence against lesbians,” she went on. “It has become normal. But in periods of chaos, it gets worse. We are trying to hang on to what we know about how to care for people, what we know about working democratically, about nonviolence, yet not be subsumed by the state. Yet we have to insist on a woman’s right not to face every man alone. We have to demand the rule of law. Globalization and neoliberalism have accelerated a process in which women are being sold wholesale, as if it is OK to prostitute Asian women in brothels because they are sending money home to poor families. This is the neoliberal model proposed to us. It is an industry. It is considered OK…just a job like any other job. This model says people are allowed to own factories where prostitution is done. They can own distribution systems for prostitution. They can use public relations to promote it. They can make profits. Men who pay for prostitution support this machinery. The state that permits prostitution supports this machinery. The only way to fight capitalism, racism and protect women is to stop men from buying prostitutes. And once that happens, we can mobilize against the industry and the state to benefit the whole anti-racist and anti-capitalist struggle. But men will have to accept feminist leadership. They will have to listen to us. And they will have to give up the self-indulgence of prostitution.”
“The left broke apart in the 1970s over the failure to contend with racism, imperialism and women’s freedom,” she told me. “These are still the fault lines. We have to build alliances across these gaps. But there are deal breakers. You can’t buy women. You can’t beat women. You can’t expect us to coalesce on the ‘wider’ issues unless you accept this. The problem with the left is it is afraid of words like ‘morality.’ The left does not know how to distinguish between right and wrong. It does not understand what constitutes unethical behavior.”
She warns that backing movements such as Defund the Police are counterproductive. The problem is not policing, the problem is the misuse of the police and the courts to protect the powerful, especially powerful men.
“In the progressive left it is popular to be anti-state,” she said. “It is not popular to say we have to press the state to carry out particular policies. But all resistance has to be precise. It has to reshape society step by step. We can’t abandon people. This is hard for the left to get. It is not, for us, a rhetorical position. It comes from our answering the rape crisis line every day. There is cheap, thin rhetoric from the left about compassion for the prostituted, without ever doing anything concrete for the prostituted.”
She has been boycotted. Grants and funds are denied, especially since the shelter does not allow “male bodied” people who identify as women to take refuge there. Many in the shelter are victims of rape and they need to know, Lee argues, that they can heal and recover in a space where biological males are not present. She has been shamed at public events, attacked as homophobic, “transphobic,” hyper-moralistic, pro-state, “hateful” of men and “anti-sex.”
The battle she and the other feminists fight have its origins in not only patriarchy, but settler colonialism and imperialism, systems of power and exploitation where women are viewed as commodities and rape is ubiquitous.
“For women of color, prostitution is an extension of imperialism,” Alice Lee said. “It is sexualized racism. Prostitution is built on the social power disparities of race and class. Women of color are disproportionately exploited through prostitution. This racism is not acknowledged by those in First World countries, including the left. When the left argues prostitution is a choice, its purpose is to cement the sexualized racism and the status quo of men’s access to our bodies. Sexualized racism renders us invisible and irrelevant. It makes it impossible for us to be considered human.”
“The global trade, particularly of Asian women, has been steadily worsened by the neoliberal policies of First World countries,” said Alice, part of the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution. “These policies are grounded in social disparities of race, class and gender. They create conditions that force poor women to migrate and funnels women of color into prostitution. Those who support legalizing prostitution often argue that trafficking is bad, but prostitution is acceptable. But trafficking and prostitution are inseparable.”
Women and girls from indigenous communities are especially vulnerable.
“Indigenous women get beat up and killed because of prostitution more than anyone else,” Lee told me. “They have less access to police and less access to support. This is where the rubber hits the road. If you’re not willing to arrest men for endangering the prostituted indigenous women in the Downtown Eastside, how the hell do you call yourself a leftist or a revolutionary? How do you call yourself a decent human being? And if the people around you don’t call you out, who are you to say you’re leading us to a better future or a better life?”
“When some women are bought and sold,” said Hilla Kerner, who when I interviewed her had worked at the shelter for 10 years, “all women can be bought and sold. When some women are objectified, all women are objectified.”
I included the interviews, which I have quoted from here, in a column titled “The Whoredom of the Left.” Liberals were not pleased. I was scheduled to give the keynote address six weeks later at Simon Fraser University for a conference on the climate crisis and the efforts to halt the extraction of fossil fuels. The conference organizers disinvited me. They said they would pay me the lecture fee, but I should not bother attending.
What they did not anticipate was that Lee and other feminists would mount a nationwide campaign to shame the university. I was reinvited but my lecture, scheduled in a large auditorium, was moved to a smaller hall that sat 300 people. My class visits were canceled. Those on the wait-list were told not to come to the event because there were no seats. There was a reception, but when I arrived it was boycotted.
I have faced this kind of shunning and hostility before. It is not pleasant. But this time I did not face it alone. Ten women from the shelter and Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution, most of whom crashed the event without tickets, joined me. This public solidarity and willingness to face an antagonistic crowd speaks not only to their courage, but their integrity. I was very moved. Of course, I focused the talk on the exploitation of women and girls.
“Hedges’ Keynote Sparks Controversy,” read the headline in the Watershed Sentinel.
“Advocates from both camps chimed in online, some radical feminists denounced Hedges, and a few State of Extraction organizers tried to cancel his opening address,” the article read. “But attend he did, and as to be expected from an unbridled social critic, Hedges’ keynote address on Friday night continued to rattle some chains. Eloquently and with the rolling cadence of a seasoned preacher, Hedges described how the extraction industry gives predatory power to men and launched into a graphic account of sexual exploitation of women and girls, (particularly those of color), under global capitalism. He gave a callout to men and the left to ‘stand with all who are turned into objects, especially girls and women’.”
“What is done to girls and women through prostitution is a version of what is done to all of those who do not sign on to the demented project of global capitalism,” I told the crowd. “And if we have any chance of fighting back, we will have to stand up for all the oppressed, all of those who have become prey. To fail to do this will be to commit moral and finally political suicide. To turn our backs on some of the oppressed is to fracture our power. It is to obliterate our moral authority. It is to fail to see that the entire system of predatory exploitation seeks to swallow and devour us all. To be a radical is to stand with all who are turned into objects, especially girls and women whom the global community, and much of the left, has abandoned.”
Lee’s clash with the university, a clash in which she triumphed, was national news. There was a lot of press.
“I know we disagree on this issue, but we have most everything else in common,” one of the reporters said, turning to Alice Lee.
Alice stared at him icily.
“You and I have nothing in common.” she said.
-
Awakening Video1 year ago
This is What Happens When You Try to Report Dirty Cops
-
Substacks9 months ago
THE IRON-CLAD PIÑATA Seymour Hersh
-
Substacks1 year ago
The Russell Brand Rorschach Test Kathleen Stock
-
Substacks1 year ago
A real fact-check of Trump’s appearance on Meet the Press Judd Legum
-
Substacks1 year ago
Letter to the Children of Gaza – Read by Eunice Wong Chris Hedges