Item one: The U.S. has committed war crimes in its history, but they’ve never been part of stated peacetime policy—until Tuesday. |
When the initial shock began to wear off from Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday evening describing his "beautiful" plans for Gaza that "everybody loves," two schools of thought emerged. The first was that we can’t possibly take this seriously. The president apparently thought of it two hours before blurting it out. It’s preposterous on several levels. Never going to happen. The second was that Trump said it to distract us from his and the Great Salutist’s attacks on democracy at home—making the press obsess about the Middle East so maybe they won’t notice how he’s destroying USAID. These are both wrong. We should assume that Trump is deadly serious about this. This is exactly the stuff of deeply held Trumpian fantasy—hotels, casinos, golf courses, steakhouses, bathrooms with chandeliers. And if that’s true, then by definition it’s no mere distraction. But here’s what it also is: a potential war crime. A plan to forcibly move a people out of a place where they have been living for decades (centuries, actually) amounts to a pretty clear violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1998 Rome Statutes, which established the International Criminal Court. It’s ethnic cleansing, plain and simple. |
|
|
On February 12, we are producing an important event to help you prepare for Trump 2.0. Livestreamed from Washington, D.C., it will gather influential political commentators determined to mitigate the imminent threats of a second Trump term, including Jared Bernstein, Pramila Jayapal, Jamie Raskin, Bennie Thompson, Olivia Troye, Mark Zaid, and more. This event is produced in partnership with Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Rachel Carson Council. |
|
|
One understands the impulse to laugh it off, I guess. It’s ridiculous. But it is not merely ridiculous, and to laugh it off is to minimize its savagery toward a people who have just experienced tens of thousands of deaths and who are now literally walking back to their homes, except for the fact that in most cases, when they get there, their homes are being carted off piece by piece in wheelbarrows. Yes, it’s very hard to imagine how the United States and Israel would pull off the feat of displacing two million Palestinians to places that don’t want them and won’t take them. Very hard—but not quite impossible. The Associated Press reported Thursday that Israel has already begun preparations for the departure of Palestinians from Gaza. Details were thin, but the AP dispatch did report that "Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Thursday that he has ordered the military to make preparations to facilitate the emigration of large numbers of Palestinians from Gaza through land crossings as well as ‘special arrangements for exit by sea and air.’" That sure sounds to me like they’re at least thinking through the logistics. Besides which, forced deportation is all the rage among corrupt authoritarians these days. As goes Aurora, Colorado, so goes Rafah. Ever since Trump blurted this out, the White House has backtracked, and the confusion and crossed signals convey that it isn’t a serious thing. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt assured the White House press corps that no American troops would be committed to this project (Trump himself said the same on Truth Social Thursday morning). Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Palestinians would leave Gaza for an "interim" period only, while it was being rebuilt. Trump of course has said the opposite: that Gazans would find beautiful, modern homes … somewhere. But don’t let the current confusion lull you. Trump means this. How he’d get the Palestinians to leave, and who would take them—yes, those are rather large snags. It’s highly unlikely that this will ever happen on the scale in which it’s happening in Trump’s head right now. But what if Israel manages to "facilitate the emigration" of, oh, 300,000 Palestinians? That’s 15 percent of the Gaza population. What would we call that? But whether it ends up being two million or 300,000 or 157 isn’t really the point we need to be focusing on here. The president of the United States has made the expectation that we will at least abet—if not carry out—a war crime into official U.S. policy. The current impassioned defenses of the USAID remind us, as we often forget, that the U.S. does spread plenty of good across the world. At the same time, we know all too well that we have spread more than our share of misery and committed some war crimes, from Dresden and Tokyo to Abu Ghraib. But I don’t think we’ve ever announced, with pride, that violation of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws is our policy. In fact, the Bush administration took great pains in the run-up to Iraq to ensure that the relevant U.N. resolutions were worded in such a way that the U.S. was not in violation of international law. But now, we are bragging that the potential commission of a war crime is just another weapon in the U.S. arsenal. The administration has showed us pretty clearly on the domestic policy front what it thinks of the law. Why should this be any different? And anyone naïve enough to have believed last year that Trump cares anything about the Palestinian people should have some pretty heavy scales falling from their eyes right now. I’m not lecturing anybody about how they voted. I am saying, though, that if you fooled yourself into thinking that Trump’s campaign stop in Dearborn, Michigan, last year was anything more than a cynical attempt to harvest some disgruntled votes, well, I fear time will reveal to you your miscalculation. Let’s just hope it’s not at the price of two million people being forcibly uprooted from their land. |
{{#if }} Preparing for the Dark Days of a Trump Presidency |
To mount an effective fight for the future, we need facts. We need hard evidence and smart, aggressive reporting. But most of all, we need a well-informed public to unite against the dark days ahead. Help us fight back against Trump’s dangerous second term by subscribing today. |
{{/if}} Item two: Will Trump dump Musk? I’m not so sure. |
As Elon Musk’s polls numbers among Republicans plummet, the media speculation about how Trump must be surely getting close to cutting him loose has grown. We’re all familiar with Trump’s obsession with poll numbers, so we can’t exactly discount this possibility. At the same time, we know that Trump is driven by factors others than poll numbers. Like winning. And trolling the libs and the deep state and the world. Musk is accomplishing all those things right now. I guess "winning" is debatable, as the opposition finds its legs and the lawsuits and injunctions mount. But he’s got establishment Washington on its heels, and Trump loves that. And there’s no one else around who could do that in quite the way Musk can. Obviously, I say none of this with approbation or amusement. It’s all sick—so corrupt and so contemptuous of democracy. If you’ve been checking in on Wired’s excellent reporting on DOGE, you’ve seen shocking revelation after shocking revelation. These college and even high school kids being given top access to some of the government’s most sensitive computer systems. One of these was Marko Elez, until he was discovered this week to have said last year that he "was racist before it was cool" (he resigned). So that’s element one: Musk is willfully and pridefully sending unqualified people into these agencies to tear them to shreds and to outrage people. Element two is the lies they and the White House are telling. Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler went through a White House press release about USAID that made 12 claims and found that 11 were at best misleading. Finally, element three is often overlooked: What Musk is up to isn’t just a Trump project. It’s been a long-held goal of the American right to pare down or get rid of these agencies and departments. It’s all there in Project 2025, which as I’m sure you know comes from the Heritage Foundation, which long predates Donald Trump and is a lodestar of right-wing activism and thought. There’s a vast right-wing counter-establishment cheering Musk on—and undoubtedly pressuring or at least pleading with Trump to let him keep at it for as long as it’s tenable. I remain confident that the American people don’t want this. It’s going to take a little time, but sooner or later, thousands and thousands of Americans will see that USAID money that went to farmers and manufacturers and Christian nongovernmental organizations that were helping people who were literally starving was in fact a pretty good idea after all. The opposition to this will be broad and ferocious. All is not yet lost, friends. |
|
|
The New Republic’s new senior legal columnist talks with editor Michael Tomasky about how Donald Trump is wrecking the Justice Department. |
|
|
Last week’s quiz: "The answer, my friend…" In honor of what I guess we must now call the Complete Unknown phenomenon, a quiz … not on Bob Dylan, per se, but on the early 1960s folk music scene (OK, it’s partly on Dylan). |
1. A Complete Unknown portrays Pete Seeger as Dylan’s main mentor and friend in his early Greenwich Village days, but in real life, it was this person: |
A. Dave Van Ronk B. Phil Ochs C. Paul Stookey D. Fred Hellerman |
Answer: A, Dave Van Ronk. Dylan was friends with Ochs, but poor, fragile Phil wasn’t the mentor type. Paul Stookey was the Paul of Peter, Paul, and Mary, and he was off doing PPM stuff. Fred Hellerman was in The Weavers, and he was a generation older. Interestingly, Robert Christgau writes here that Albert Grossman offered Van Ronk the chance to take Stookey’s place in the famous trio, and he declined. |
2. What’s the name of the legendary folk music club where Dylan first sang "Blowin’ in the Wind"? |
A. Gaslight Café B. Café Wha? C. La Lanterna D. Gerde’s Folk City |
Answer: D, Gerde’s. Story here. |
3. The iconic cover photo of Dylan walking arm in arm in the New York winter with Suze Rotolo, on The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan—on what Greenwich Village street was that photo taken? |
A. Bleecker Street B. Cornelia Street C. Jones Street D. West 11th Street |
Answer: C, Jones Street. It’s in the West Village, just west of Sixth Ave. Not to be confused with Great Jones Street, which is over toward the Bowery. |
4. The Village-based folk singer Mimi Fariña was the younger sister of: |
A. Judy Collins B. Joan Baez C. Ronnie Gilbert D. Susan Brownmiller |
Answer: B, Joan Baez. Here are Mimi and hubby Richard performing "Bold Marauder," with Pete Seeger sitting around watching. |
5. The folk music boom of the 1950s and ’60s is largely credited to the release in 1952 of the three-album compilation Anthology of American Folk Music, which introduced millions of young listeners to the genre. Who compiled this album for the Folkways label? |
A. Harry Jaggard B. Harry Reasoner C. Harry Jones D. Harry Smith |
6. What folk singing group was described by one critic in 1961 as "the most envied, the most imitated, and the most successful singing group, folk or otherwise, in all show business"? |
A. Peter, Paul, and Mary B. The Four Freshmen C. The Kingston Trio D. The New Christy Minstrels |
Answer: C, the Kingston Trio. I bet you thought PPM. And they were massive. But the Trio were massively massive. PPM have sold more over time. But the Trio was the first act that made folk music commercially viable. |
|
|
Why Democrats and the media are struggling to capture the insanity—and danger—of the new Trump administration |
|
|
|
|
This week’s quiz: Get those nachos ready … On the cultural history of the Super Bowl (which kicks off Sunday at 6:30 p.m.) |
1. The first three Super Bowls just featured marching bands at halftime. By Super Bowl IV, the NFL figured out that the game was a big enough deal to have a celebrity. Who was the first Super Bowl halftime-show celeb? |
A. Engelbert Humperdinck B. Herb Alpert C. Lucille Ball D. Carol Channing |
2. It took until 1988 for the halftime show to feature a "rock" performer, using the term very loosely; at least, it was someone from the rock era. Who was it? |
A. David Cassidy B. Gladys Knight C. Chubby Checker D. Cher |
3. Weirdly, "The Star-Spangled Banner" was not performed at one Super Bowl—Super Bowl XI, in 1977 (Oakland vs. Minnesota). Sixties pop songstress Vikki Carr sang which song instead? |
A. "God Bless the USA" B. "America the Beautiful" C. "Battle Hymn of the Republic" D. "America" (Simon & Garfunkel) |
4. Which play-by-play announcer has called the most Super Bowls? |
A. Pat Summerall B. Al Michaels C. Jim Nantz D. Curt Gowdy |
5. How many Americans have watched the Super Bowl every year over the last decade? |
A. Around 150 million B. Around 115 million C. Around 100 million D. Around 85 million |
6. A highly anticipated ad for this year’s game, for Hellmann’s mayonnaise, will feature a reenactment of what famous movie scene? |
A. Rick saying to Ilsa, "Here’s looking at you, kid" (Casablanca) B. Harry killing Voldemort (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) C. The government lobby scene (The Matrix) D. The diner scene; you know, that one (When Harry Met Sally) |
I’ve seen the ad. It’s … rather good. Should be the talk of the water cooler Monday. Answers next week. Feedback to fightingwords@tnr.com. —Michael Tomasky, editor |
|
|
The tech oligarch has unleashed his slow-rolling coup d’état across the federal government, and it’s not clear anything can prevent a total takeover. |
|
|
|
|
Update your personal preferences for newsletter@newslettercollector.com by clicking here. Our mailing address is: The New Republic, 1 Union Sq W , Fl 6 , NY , New York, NY 10003-3303, United States Do you want to stop receiving all emails from Fighting Words? Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them. |
|
|
|
|
