The Gazan beach staging area for the future American "surge" of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians there has already been attacked, according to official reports.
According to U.S. and Israeli sources, United Nations reps who were on the beach prepping the area for the new pier came under limited mortar fire early Thursday. No one was hurt, and there was minimal damage to some engineering equipment. Early reporting from i24 News speculated that Palestinians were targeting Israeli Defense Forces in the area, but that has not been confirmed. The Pentagon did not return a request for comment from RS.
Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that he believes the risk can be mitigated, though there seems to be outstanding questions on who exactly is providing the security on the beach for this project.
“Nothing we do is risk-free,” the general said during an appearance at Georgetown University in Washington.
The U.S. Army vessels that are supposed to be marshaling the supplies and equipment to build a floating pier and causeway to surge humanitarian aid into Gaza are in place in the Mediterranean. The project, which will ostensibly allow the U.S. to facilitate aid from inspection points in Crete to the floating pier then onto a trident causeway off the beach and into Gaza, will supposedly be ready early-May, according to the DOD.
The U.N. has agreed to serve as the delivery system into the strip. The Biden Administration has insisted no American troops will be operating on the ground.
That last point is the critical one since critics say Washington is playing a dangerous game by getting so close to the battlefield of a brutal conflict. The attack this week, no matter how minimal, underscores the dangers of a spark setting off a situation in which U.S. personnel come under fire and are forced to react.
"Placing American service members in harm's way will not solve the underlying crisis in the Middle East and will continue to escalate tensions," read a statement by Concerned Veterans of America yesterday. "After decades of open-ended missions in the region, @POTUS needs to immediately reevaluate involvement in a crisis that risks American lives, now, before casualties occur."
Interestingly, the Washington Post and others are now reporting that the pier will be near Wadi Gaza, a coastal area near the corridor that the Israelis have established cutting across the Gaza strip and upon which are establishing what appears to be permanent outposts. The Post indicates this will make it easier for aid to travel north and south, but will the location of a new pier allow Israel to deliver supplies and equipment to its own military, too?
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is Editorial Director of Responsible Statecraft and Senior Advisor at the Quincy Institute.
Palestinians on Gaza coast amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in Deir Al-Balah, in the central Gaza Strip, on April 24, 2024. (Photo by Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto)NO USE FRANCE
Palesitinians leave Khan Yunis towards safer areas in Rafah following the directives of the Israeli army, instructing residents of the Hamad area to vacate their homes and proceed towards Rafah, near the border with Egypt, 03/04/2024 via Reuters
Israel has begun launching airstrikes in Rafah ahead of a likely invasion of the city, where more than 1.5 million Gazans have taken shelter in camps near the border with Egypt.
The airstrikes came just hours after the Israeli government told Palestinians to flee the city, a demand that aid groups fear will worsen the already dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, where famine has begun to take hold. The European Union’s foreign policy chief called the evacuation order “unacceptable.”
The apparent decision to invade Rafah comes as ceasefire talks broke down over the weekend. Israel says the logjam came after an alleged Hamas attack on Israeli soldiers at the Kerem Shalom crossing, while Hamas blamed the breakdown on Israel’s decision to start evacuations of Rafah.
The possibility of an Israeli assault in Rafah puts President Joe Biden in a precarious position. The White House has already found itself at odds with many Democrats due to Biden’s refusal to break with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his deadly campaign in Gaza. A bloody escalation of the war would further divide his party and ratchet up pressure to do something to stop Israel’s campaign.
Biden may have already internalized that message. On Friday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that, absent a credible plan to protect civilians, “we can’t support a major military operation going into Rafah because the damage it would do is beyond what’s acceptable.”
But the Biden administration has consistently balked at opportunities to hold Israel accountable for alleged war crimes and human rights abuses. Just last week, the White House walked back a threat to restrict weapons transfers to certain Israeli units due to “gross violations of human rights.”
A new chance to restrict arms sales could come Wednesday of this week, when the Biden administration will issue a mandatory report to Congress evaluating Israel’s assurances that it won’t use American weapons in ways that violate U.S. and international laws.
An independent analysis from legal experts and former State Department officials found numerous attacks that should have already triggered a cutoff in U.S. support. And nearly 90 House Democrats signed a letter last week calling on the administration to suspend certain weapons transfers to Israel.
A key question is whether a Rafah invasion will further restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid. Experts say Israel has already violated U.S. law stipulating that Washington will not give weapons to countries that block American aid transfers, and a Rafah invasion would likely lead to further violations.
There is also significant doubt surrounding Israeli assurances that its operation will minimize harm to civilians. Those who are now fleeing Rafah will reportedly have to evacuate to nearby Khan Younis and al-Mawasi, neither of which has the capacity to receive incoming displaced people or provide them with much-needed aid.
It’s unclear how many Gazans will be able to escape before the full-scale assault begins. Israel’s previous actions suggest that its tolerance for killing civilians is higher than that of that of the Biden administration.
Biden will have a chance to impart that message later today, when he will reportedly speak with Netanyahu and presumably urge the Israeli leader to change course. But the question remains: Is the Biden administration finally ready to publicly break with Israel?
keep readingShow less
Palantir adviser Jacob Helberg (L) moderates a conversation with Palantir CEO Alex Karp (R) during a forum in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday. (Screengrab via thehillandvalleyforum.com)
It’s only been six years since thousands of Google employees forced their employer to pull out of an AI contract with the U.S. military. At the time, it seemed like a watershed moment: Despite long historical links to the Pentagon, Silicon Valley appeared poised to shake off its ties with the world’s most powerful military.
But a lot can change in half a decade, as Palantir CEO Alex Karp gleefully reminded his audience in the U.S. Capitol Wednesday. “I historically would have been one that would rage against Silicon Valley venture [capitalists],” Karp said, joking that he used to have “all sorts of fantasies of using drone-enabled technology to exact revenge.”
Now, patriotic investors and officials are “coming together around some obvious truths,” he argued. In Karp’s telling, these principles include a realization that Western values must be protected against burgeoning threats from America’s adversaries in China and Russia as well as the dangerous “pagan” forces behind pro-Palestinian protests.
Karp’s free-wheeling presentation was the most entertaining of Wednesday’s Hill and Valley Forum, a four-hour-long event featuring a who’s-who of the growing defense tech ecosystem. But, rhetorical flourishes aside, the series of talks gave a unique window into the increasingly porous border between Silicon Valley’s most hawkish entrepreneurs and their ideological allies in Washington.
Above all, the two groups came together around their shared hatred for the Chinese Communist Party and its various nefarious doings. Panelists called for everything from slashing regulation of the weapons industry to fielding fully autonomous weapons, lest our enemies get a chance to do it first.
“Technology is moving extremely quickly, and you have your adversaries that are moving super quickly as well,” remarked Alex Wang of Scale AI. “We’re in a moment where we have to act really quickly.”
The conduit for this growing collaboration is Jacob Helberg, the event’s baby-faced organizer. In recent years, Helberg has shed his more conventional think tank background to become Silicon Valley’s man in Washington. He’s convened countless meetings between policymakers and tech leaders where attendees pitch policies to stick it to China.
Helberg now works both as an adviser to Palantir and a member of a congressional commission on U.S.-China relations. Some say this dual-hatting amounts to a conflict of interests given that he now “stands to benefit from ever-frostier relations between the two countries,” a claim that Helberg strenuously denies.
Some of Helberg’s efforts, like the campaign to ban TikTok, have already paid off. But he has his sights set on something bigger, according to the Washington Post, which reported Wednesday that the young hotshot has already started drafting an executive order for a potential future Trump administration that would strip away President Joe Biden’s AI regulations (limited as they may be).
Helberg’s convening powers were on full display Wednesday: Some of Washington’s most powerful politicians graced the stage, including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), as well as Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who holds an important position on the House Appropriations Committee.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) — who, you may remember, is currently fighting for his political life — took time out of his schedule to warn the crowd about the threat China poses to our very way of life. “We must make clear that if America and American companies lose, that means China wins,” Johnson said.
Even Donald Trump made an appearance, if only in the form of a brief, pre-recorded statement filmed on what appeared to be the ex-president’s private jet. “Our country’s going through a lot of problems right now, but we’re going to make it bigger, better, and even stronger than before,” Trump said, noting that he’d had a “very productive” meeting about AI with Helberg.
The day’s panels had an odd quality to them, possibly because none of the journalists in attendance were invited to moderate. Instead, the audience was treated to a series of largely unstructured conversations between politicians and the kind of people who can buy an island.
Graham warned the audience that Chinese cars could be little more than “roving spy labs” meant to gather information on American patriots. Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) argued that Americans will have to come around to the idea of AI drones that make “life and death decisions” because our enemies will surely do the same.
The growing bonds between Silicon Valley and Washington are “recreating a culture that says it is great to be American,” remarked Josh Wolfe, a VC at Lux Capital, adding that “we do have adversaries with malicious aims” that can only be countered with good old-fashioned American capitalism.
The funhouse mirror aspects of the event, plentiful as they were, are a distraction from the fundamental problem: A growing part of Silicon Valley is ready to unshackle AI from most if not all oversight, and Congress is more than happy to help them.
There is perhaps no greater evidence of this fact than the effusive praise Sen. Booker lavished on his fellow panelists, all of whom lead various AI firms. “Often unsung heroes are those that are the innovators and the scientists and those who are creating systems and opportunities that we now in our generation take for granted,” the lawmaker said. “You three are frontline players in ways that have me humbled and in awe.”
keep readingShow less
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, during Blinken's week-long trip aimed at calming tensions across the Middle East, in Al Ula, Saudi Arabia, January 8, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/Pool
Amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, which in recent weeks spread to direct military exchanges with Iran, Biden administration officials remain convinced they can achieve a broader Middle East peace through an Israel-Saudi Arabia normalization deal which would entail a U.S. security guarantee for Saudi Arabia.
Indeed, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during his recent trip to Saudi Arabia, said that a U.S.-Saudi security pact is nearing completion. However, Washington should reject this lopsided strategy as it works against U.S. interests and is not practical.
The Biden administration does not appear to be considering an alternative approach. In late March, President Joe Biden said, “I won't go into detail now. But look, I've been working with the Saudis. They are prepared to fully recognize Israel,” re-affirming Washington’s obsession with the Abraham Accords and all its flaws.
Multipleofficials continue to push this position, highlighting the administration’s focus on advancing Saudi-Israel relations, especially after Riyadh assisted in taking down Iranian drones and missiles headed toward Israel last month.
The details of a potential deal — including major U.S. concessions — have reportedly not changed. This includes U.S. security guarantees for Riyadh and a green light for its civilian nuclear program in return for normalization with Israel and limiting relations with China. Washington is also reportedly considering security assurances with Israel to sweeten the deal given extensive anti-Saudi sentiments in Congress.
This outline is concerning for multiple reasons. First, it further enmeshes the United States in the Middle East’s security makeup at a time when U.S. citizens broadly support a decreased military role abroad, particularly in the Middle East. Second, it puts the cart before the horse by offering significant incentives to U.S. partners to normalize when every indication suggests these two states already desire normalization anyway.
Both concerns present real threats to U.S. interests. Regarding security guarantees, Washington would promise to commit troops to the defense of both Saudi Arabia and Israel in an unstable region filled with rivalries and ongoing conflicts, reportedly within an understanding short of a NATO Article 5 treaty agreement.
Iran’s destabilizing role — exemplified in its attack on Israel and its aligned militias’ decision to attack U.S. bases in Syria on April 21 for the first time in two months — should raise red flags in this regard. Its rivalries with Israel and Saudi Arabia, alongside broader regional infighting prevalent for decades, risks bringing U.S. forces into a conflict that has nothing to do with America.
This context should matter to American officials, especially today. The region is experiencing the worst instability since at least the Arab Spring revolutions of the early 2010s — when multiple autocratic regimes collapsed in the face of popular upheaval. The destabilizing nature of that moment produced many wars still raging in Syria, Libya, and Yemen. A second round of revolutions in the late 2010s produced the same outcome in Sudan.
Multiple U.S. officials argue the region has not witnessed such instability since 1973. This administration should not take that sentiment lightly — Israel’s war with Hamas and the tit-for-tat hostilities with Iran marks a scary moment for U.S. foreign policy and the region.
American forces are currently in active hostilities with the Yemen-based Houthis over Red Sea shipping security. Until recently, Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria fired on U.S. positions over 180 times, killing three and injuring more than a dozen, and appear to be slowly testing the contours of that strategy today. The April 21 attack highlights that strategy, where U.S. forces are regularly targeted for the actions of Israel and other U.S. partners in the region. The odds of another Israel-Lebanese Hezbollah war remain unacceptably high.
Meanwhile, Washington’s avowed regional partner — Israel — appears increasingly disinterested in preventing a broader regional war, opting to strike an Iranian consulate in Damascus on April 1 that shifted dynamics further up the escalatory ladder in blatant disregard for basic diplomatic and state sovereignty norms. It does so with an understanding that U.S. forces will face the brunt of any response, arguably goading the U.S. into a conflict with Iran.
No U.S. president can reasonably argue for deeper security guarantees amid those risks. Far too many tripwires threaten to pull the United States into conflict. This says nothing of the wider conflict that Saudi Arabia or Israel could create either accidentally or with their U.S. patron behind them. Indeed, the longest-running U.S. foreign policy theme in the region centralizes U.S. security guarantees for its regional partners, hardening divisions and giving states more confidence to take risks — a classic moral hazard.
For now, a deal appears distant given Israel’s Gaza operation, which is producing substantial anger among Arab populations. Riyadh is currently disincentivized to normalize relations with Israel given fears of another Arab Spring. While some might argue that Saudi-Israeli cooperation against Iran’s recent attack suggests otherwise, this perspective fails to accept Riyadh’s recent shift towards pragmatism — a move supportive of stability that helps advance its Vision 2030 development plans as it shifts from an oil-based economy.
As such, U.S. officials should adopt a restrained approach. Lofty goals often lead Washington to create more problems while only temporarily resolving current ones. Ultimately, the United States can be the “indispensable nation” Biden proclaims it to be without committing to unwieldy security guarantees that put American citizens and broader U.S. interests at stake.