1. Tal Shalev et al, “Israel Launches Diplomatic Attacks on Its Western Allies Ahead of Palestinian Statehood Recognition,” CNN.com, August 20, 2025.
Wednesday, August 20, 2025
On Presumptuous Pride: Netanyahu Castigates Europe
Monday, August 18, 2025
The E.U. on Ukraine: On the Human, All Too Human
On August 17, 2025, Ukraine’s
president Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Ursula von der Leyen, president of the
E.U., as a precursor to both of them meeting with Don Trump, president of the
U.S. on ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. President Von der Leyen had
decided to accompany Zelensky to Washington in part to potentially play
interference should the U.S. president again publicly berate Zelensky to his
face and in part to protect Zelensky should Trump’s position/pressure be too
pro-Russia (i.e., pro-Putin). To virtually all Europeans and to many Americans,
Trump’s verbal outburst at Zelensky in the Oval Office had been shocking,
especially as it seemed to be pre-meditated and orchestrated. Taking emotional
advantage of the head of a state being invaded by the empire-scale Russia can
assuredly be reckoned as being a bad host, and even low class for the president
of the empire-scale United States. International relations do indeed contain a
very human element, and in fact leaving it out of an analysis of an
international situation is nothing short of negligent.
Our political entities are,
after all, artifacts made by us and thus can at best restrain our most base
instincts. Even as such, as Hobbes points out in Leviathan, living under
a sovereign is much preferable to being in the brutish state of nature. It is
important to remember in assessing international relations that Hobbes’ state
of nature is not completely extinguished or blocked by the establishment and
maintaining of government. As for Hobbes’ social contract, I would be surprised
if there even was a group of humans living in proximity without some hierarchy
of power, and thus de facto government, in which case the scenario of a number
of free individuals social-contracting from nothing, ex nihilo, to form
a government is, as Aristotle wrote of Plato’s theory of the Forms, “beautiful
but false.” By the way, Plato eventually rejected his own theory wherein forms,
or pure ideas, are metaphysically real.
Lest I be presumed to have digressed,
my point with all of the historical philosophy was not to put you to sleep;
rather, I contend that Von der Leyen’s presence with Zelensky in Washington is
not only to be analyzed in terms of Europe’s geo-political interests in
countering any plans that Russia’s president might develop to invade any of the
E.U.’s eastern states, but also of the human, all too human—to borrow a phrase
from Nietzsche—element. The latter is also highly relevant to the E.U.
president’s trouble with the governor of the E.U. state of France, whose
efforts to upstage the federal president as the figurehead of the E.U.,
including in speaking for the E.U. rather than just for his own state,
have not gone unnoticed in Europe. By the way, the U.S. avoids such a pitfall
by making foreign policy an exclusive competency, or enumerated power, of the
U.S., such even the governor of California or Texas cannot publicly state a
foreign policy for the United States.
In stating after his meeting with
Von der Leyen that Europe “needs to stand united in any further negotiations to
stop Moscow’s all-out war in Ukraine, Zelensky was essentially saying that the
governors of even large E.U. states should get behind the president and foreign
minister of the E.U. rather than go it alone in foreign policy with respect to
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Moreover, because Russia is on the scale of an empire whereas E.U. states are “kingdom”-level, the E.U. is needed to face off against President Putin of Russia, especially of the president of the empire-scale U.S. leaned in Putin’s favor to end the invasion even if that means rewarding an invasion with additional territory. On this point, Von der Leyen stated, “Our position is clear: international borders cannot be changed by force; these are decisions to be made by Ukraine . . . and not without Ukraine at the table.”[1] To be sure, this statement can be viewed as naïve, for it omits any mention of the E.U.’s role in safeguarding Zelensky from being faced with intense political pressure from Trump and military threats from Putin to “help” Zelensky make the “right” decision. Considerable military and political pressure from two empire-scale polities can be brought to bear on a single kingdom-level polity. Hence, Zelensky also said after his meeting with Von der Leyen, “It’s crucial that Europe is as united now as it was at the very beginning, as it was in 2022 when the full-scale war began.”[2] Ukraine desperately needed the support of at least one empire-scale polity, especially if the American and Russian empires were actually on the same side.
American support for Putin would mean that America was at the time in favor of two invaders: Russia and Israel. There was a time when the U.S. stood for freedom-fighters rather than bullies. Whether a person or the head of a militarized polity, a bully is a bully. That is to say, the human, all too human element should not be left out of the equation.
I submit that militaries around the world, whether voluntarily
or through a semi-sovereign world federalism, as discussed by Kant in Perpetual
Peace and has seemed definitively necessary after Russia’s unimpeded
invasion and Israel’s genocide and holocaust in Gaza, should try to counter rather
than enable or ignore the worst of human nature. We cannot assume that Hobbes’ infamous
state of nature has been, or even would be, replaced by the institution of government, especially
in international relations, but our species could do much better, and it is not at all utopian to say so.
2. Ibid.
Wednesday, August 13, 2025
Trump Meets Putin on Ukraine: On the Exclusion of the E.U.
Like proud male birds dancing
for a female for the chance to reproduce, U.S. President Trump and Ukraine’s
Zelensky engaged in public posturing ahead of the negotiations set to take
place between Trump and Vlad the Impaler Putin of Russia in Alaska on August
15, 2025. For the public, to take the postures as real positions, set in stone,
would be nothing short of depraved naivete. Missing in action in all this
posturing was E.U. President Van der Leyen and the E.U.’s foreign minister.
Instead, the governors of two, albeit large, E.U. states were busy making
demands as if their respective political bases were more powerful than the E.U.
as a whole. In short, Van der Leyen missed an opportunity to join the dance of
posturing.
After a virtual meeting with
Trump, Zelensky postured by saying, “Putin is bluffing that the sanctions do
not work, that they are nothing. In fact, sanctions are hitting the Russian
economy hard.”[1]
The Ukrainian president added that Putin had not changed his military goal with
respect to occupying “the whole of Ukraine.”[2]
Meanwhile, Trump was rattling his saber by warning Putin that there would be “very
severe consequences” if Putin does not agree to a ceasefire.[3]
This warning is sheer posture; no one should assume that Trump was saying what
would actually happen, so protests against Trump unleashing World War III would
be unfounded and based on a failure to distinguish negotiating posturing from
announcing a new policy.
Different from posturing were demands
from the governor of a large E.U. state, including that a ceasefire “must be at
the very beginning. Later, there may be a framework agreement. Third, . . .”[4]
A leader of an E.U. state who was not to be included in the upcoming
negotiation between Trump and Putin, whose respective federations are empire-scale
and consist of states and regions, respectively, that are themselves the size
of E.U. states, was making demands as if that leader were to be a
participant in the negotiations, for otherwise to make demands would not make
sense; all that could be offered would be suggestions.
As the de facto head of state
for the E.U., and de jure president of its executive branch, the European
Commission, President Von der Leyen would have had more sway with Trump and
Putin were she to have made suggestions; it would have been improper for
her as a non-participant to make demands. So E.U. foreign minister
Kallas overstepped in stating, “Any deal between the US and Russia must have
Ukraine and the EU included.”[5]
Even though Kallis’s rationale, that “it is a matter of Ukraine’s and the whole
of Europe’s security,”[6]
is a valid argument for why the EU rather than a governor of even a large EU state
should be included in the negotiations, her demand is but from the
sidelines of the playing field on which negotiations take place, and thus her
making a demand only shows her weakness as being situated as such. That the
E.U. had stood a better chance of edging its way into the Trump-Putin
negotiations was undone by state officials jumping in for Von der Leyen in
meeting before the negotiations with Trump and by Kallas’s deference to state
officials in her own meeting with them. That the E.U. state of Hungary blocked
an E.U. foreign policy supporting Ukraine also reflects on the weakness of the
E.U. in not having sufficiently resisted opposition by governors to getting rid
of the necessity of unanimity on foreign-policy (and other significant) matters
at the federal level.
Between the lack of respect
for the federal officials by state-level governors and foreign ministers, and
the continuing inherent weakness at the points of state involvement in federal
institutions, blame for the E.U. being sidelined by Trump and Putin applies at
least partially to the Europeans themselves. Merz and Macron should have made
way for Von der Leyen stand for the EU being the European to meet vicariously
with Trump a few days before the negotiation in Alaska, and the foreign
ministers at the state level should have respected the necessary role of consensus,
as unanimity is difficult to achieve with 27 states, so Kallas could have made
E.U.-wide suggestions for Trump and Putin. There is indeed a very
practical cost in world affairs that Europeans pay in refusing to expand qualified
majority voting in the European Council and the Council of the E.U., and for
not increasing the power of the European Parliament, which represents E.U. citizens
rather than states. Although it would be unwise to cut state involvement off at
the federal level as has happened in the U.S., that just one governor can
paralyze the E.U. in foreign policy is indication enough that the state
governments have too much power at the federal level—much more than is
necessary to safeguard the interests of state government from being eclipsed by
a much more powerful federal government, as has happened in the U.S., keine
Zufall, especially after state governmental institutions ceased appointing
U.S. senators to Congress in the early 20th century. The state
governments in the E.U. could give up the ghost on the principle of unanimity
at the federal level without worrying about unfettered encroachment from the
federal institutions. State governments should continue to be
represented in the European Council and the Council of the E.U., but on the
basis of qualified majority voting rather than unanimity. The result, I
contend, would be that the E.U. would be better able to muscle its way into
negotiations between the E.U.’s counterparts: The U.S., Russia, and China.
2. Ibid.
3. Sacha Vakulina, Aleksandar Brezar, and Alice Tidey, “Trump Warns of ‘Very Severe Consequences’ for Russia if Putin Does Not Stop War in Ukraine,” Euronews.com, August 13, 2025.
4. Sacha Vakulina, “’Putin Is Bluffing,’ Zelenskyy Tells Trump as European Leaders Push for Ukraine Ceasefire,” Euronews.com, August 13, 2025.
5. Jeremy Fleming-Jones, “Kallas Calls Snap Meeting of EU Foreign Ministers on Ukraine on Monday,” August 10, 2025, italics added.
6. Ibid.
Thursday, August 7, 2025
Sikh Ethics on Netanyahu
Israeli state officials met on August 7, 2025 to debate Prime Minister Netanyahu’s plan to expand the presence of the IDF, Israel’s military, to include all of the territory in Gaza, which had been under Israeli occupation anyway for many decades. With Gaza already under Israeli occupation, characterizing Netanyahu’s plan as being “to conquer all or parts of Gaza not yet under Israeli control” is strange.[1] Similarly, mischaracterizing the E.U. as a bloc even though that union has the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial is odd. The media’s artful way of reporting is without doubt superficial relative to Netanyahu’s unvirtuous decisions and their respective consequences to which the labels of genocide and holocaust have justifiably been applied around the world. Behind the relevant vice lies an extreme egocentricity that the ethical theory of Sikhism describes quite well, even to the level of ontology or metaphysics.
The full essay is at "Sikh Ethics on Netanyahu."
Tuesday, August 5, 2025
Maimonides on Netanyahu
On August 5, 2025, Israel’s
prime minister, Ben Netanyahu and his cabinet were considering conquering all
of Gaza as cease-fire talks came to naught. According to the Associated Press, he
“hinted at wider military action in devastated Gaza . . . even as former
Israeli army and intelligence chiefs called for an end of to the nearly
22-month war.”[1] Roughly
thirty years earlier, Netanyahu had admitted in an interview that Israel
destroys countries (or peoples) it doesn’t like very slowly. The slow process
of starvation amid Israeli troops and American mercenaries enjoying shooting
Gazans at designated food-distribution sites through at least the summer of
2025 instantiates Netanyahu’s perhaps careless admission of cruelty befitting a
man out for vengeance. Never mind the scriptural passage, Vengeance is mine,
sayeth the Lord; Netanyahu and his cabinet, and even the president of Israel
felt entitled to take that task upon themselves, such that even just death
would be too good for Palestinians, rather than having faith in their deity,
whose vengeance would presumably be narrowly and properly directed to the Hamas
attackers and kidnappers rather than to innocent people, including small children
who could not possibly be considered to have been culpable two months shy of two
years earlier in 2023. The religious depth of the betrayal of Yahweh by
Netanyahu and his cabinet can be gleamed by recalling passages from Maimonides.
The full essay is at "Maimonides on Netanyahu."
1. Julia Frankel and Wafaa Shurafa, “Netanyahu Hints at Expanded War in Gaza but Former Israeli Military and Spy Chiefs Object,” The Associated Press, August 5, 2025.
Friday, August 1, 2025
The Gaza Holocaust
I contend that the genocide in
Gaza being committed by the Israeli government can also be termed a holocaust.
This is actually not much of a leap; what is surprising is that American mercenaries—retired
U.S. Army officers working as subcontractor security forces at food distribution
sites in Gaza—have also enjoyed the sport of shooting adult and even children
Gazans under the reasonable assumption of impunity. As the funder of the
subcontractor, the U.S. Government can be considered as an accomplice even more
directly than in merely supplying Israel with the weapons to use to kill off
the population of Gaza. The sheer inertia of the American electorate and the intractability
of the federal representatives can itself be viewed as a subtle accomplice in
the ongoing atrocity of the Gaza Holocaust. Even in the E.U., the electorate
and its federal representatives have been slow to adjust, as for instance E.U.
President Von der Leyen made an excuse in July of 2025 not to end the trade
agreement with Israel. With the U.S. so ethically compromised, the world wisely
looked to the E.U. and even to China to step in and stop the holocaust, especially
after an American who had witnessed the killing publicly described the horrendous
role of both the Israelis and Americans providing “security” at the food-distribution
sites.
Anthony Aguilar, a retired
U.S. Army employee who had served a quarter century in the Special Forces as a
Green Beret, worked as an independent subcontractor for UG Solutions as armed
security for GHF, which is funded by the U.S. Government to manage food-delivery
sites in Gaza. So he is very credible. He ended his contract on June 14, 2025 “after
witnessing his fellow security officers and soldiers with the Israeli Defense
Forces repeatedly open fire on Palestinian civilians who had trekked to GHF’s
four aid hubs. Armed officers often celebrated hitting civilians at the sites,
where the United Nations says more than a thousand Palestinians have been killed.”[1]
That is, a retired U.S. Army employee working as a subcontractor witnessed not
only Israeli soldiers, but also American mercenaries, carry out atrocities “against
starving Palestinians trying to access aid.”[2]
The IDF lied that soldiers have used their guns at the sites only to “deliver
warning shots for unruly crowds. But Aguilar said that officers attacked
civilians with tank rounds, mortars and fully automatic weapons with at least
210 rounds each of green-tipped armor-piercing ammunition designed to kill.”[3]
Aguilar has stated, “(a)ll four distribution locations were intentionally,
deliberately constructed, planned and built in the middle of an active combat
zone.”[4]
In other words, it is no
accident that Israeli soldiers and American mercenaries have shot so many
Gazans at the food-distribution sites. Perhaps it could even be said that the
idea for the sites was part of a wider strategy in the Israeli government to kill
as many Gazans as possible while seemingly placating objections by other
governments that Israel had been deliberately starving Gazans under the
ethically-discredited notion of collective justice. Similar to the Nazi strategy
of representing the concentration camps as labor camps, the Israeli strategy
seems to be to turn a humane response—food distribution sites—into a means of shooting
even children under the false claim of “crowd control.”
The Israelis’ Gaza Holocaust and the Nazi’s Jewish Holocaust resemble on another in that extermination of a people (i.e., people who group-identify themselves in a particular group) can be said to be the goal. In fact, the Israeli leveling of entire cities in Gaza goes beyond the Nazi’s Jewish ghettos. Put another way, whereas the Israeli government has sought to render Gaza as uninhabitable so the residents would suffer for an extended period of time before dying, the Nazis did not render the ghettos uninhabitable before the Jews were taken to the camps. In this way, the Gaza Holocaust is actually worse, assuming that it is unethical to intentionally make people suffer, especially if severely. An Israeli government official even stated that death is not bad enough for what the Gazans deserve, as if even the children were culpable for Hamas’ attack back in 2023. Perhaps therein lies the real difference between a genocide and a holocaust.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.