At ABC News Sophia Tareen reports that a Muslim boy has been killed in a hate crime in Will County, one of Chicago’s “collar counties”:

CHICAGO — A 71-year-old Illinois man was charged Sunday with a hate crime, accused of fatally stabbing a young boy and seriously wounding a woman because of their Islamic faith and the Israel-Hamas war, authorities said.

Officers found the 32-year-old woman and 6-year-old boy late Saturday morning at a home in an unincorporated area of Plainfield Township, southwest of Chicago, the Will County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement on social media.

The statement added that the boy was pronounced dead at a hospital and the woman had multiple stab wounds and was expected to survive. An autopsy on the child showed he had also been stabbed multiple times.

“Detectives were able to determine that both victims in this brutal attack were targeted by the suspect due to them being Muslim and the on-going Middle Eastern conflict involving Hamas and the Israelis,” the sheriff’s statement said.

That’s awful. I can’t think of any justification for such a crime. ABC 7 Chicago adds:

Will County investigators said on Sunday that Wadea and his mother were attacked by their landlord, Joseph M. Czuba. The 71-year-old is now charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and two counts of committing a hate crime.

“What we have is a murdered Palestinian child by someone who is radicalized by the environment in which we live right now, that casts Palestinians as human animals,” said Ahmed Rehab, president of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

In announcing the charges, the Will County Sheriff’s Office called the crime “senseless” and “cowardly,” saying, in part, “Detectives were able to determine that both victims in this brutal attack were targeted by the suspect due to them being Muslim and the on-going Middle Eastern conflict involving Hamas and the Israelis.”

The world is truly going mad.

I’m also hearing that Hamas is kidnapping Bedouins in Israel for ransom. The entire situation is turning into a CF.

Recently, it was claimed that nobody is supporting Hamas’s actions. That statement is untrue.

A coalition of 34 Harvard students organizations said they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence” following decades of occupation, adding that “the apartheid regime is the only one to blame.”

The organizations signing the letter included Muslim and Palestinian support groups plus others named for a variety of backgrounds including the Harvard Jews for Liberation and the African American Resistance Organization.

Reuters could not verify how many students supported the letter.

Harvard President Claudine Gay and senior leadership including 15 deans issued a statement on Monday that said they were “heartbroken by the death and destruction unleashed by the attack by Hamas that targeted citizens in Israel this weekend.”

But the statement avoided direct references to the student letter or the reaction to it.

Black Lives Matter chapters across the country are celebrating the terrorist attacks that have claimed hundreds of innocent lives in Israel.

Over the weekend, Hamas launched a brutal assault on Israeli civilians that included the beheading of babies, the mass rape of women, and the burning of men, women, and children alive.

One of the most gruesome scenes took place at the Nova music festival, where over 260 attendees were killed by assailants, some of whom arrived in vans and some of whom came on motorized paragliders. Survivors reported that many of the women were raped before being murdered.

The massacre was commemorated by Black Lives Matter in Chicago, which posted a graphic of a paraglider, the Palestinian flag, and the caption “I stand with Palestine” on X Tuesday.

That least passage highlights something that I think should give us pause. It reflects supporters of the Palestinians equating Hamas with the Palestinians.

NEW YORK — Pro-Palestinian demonstrators on Sunday in New York celebrated Hamas’s massive deadly terror attack against Israel, as supporters of the Jewish state held rallies to mourn and express outrage over the slaughter.

Several hundred pro-Palestinian demonstrators rallied in Times Square, waving Palestinian flags and chanting “Resistance is justified,” “Globalize the intifada,” and “Smash the settler Zionist state.”

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” they chanted.

Some fringe-left groups are aligning with anti-Zionist organizations in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel, by expressing support for Hamas’s atrocities in the name of “resistance” and “liberation.” The Party for Socialism and Liberation, the World Workers Party, chapters of the Democratic Socialists for America, independent chapters of Black Lives Matter and more have shared these views in official statements and on social media. These groups are also helping to organize in-person, anti-Israel events, where participants are sharing further support for terrorism and violence, as well as expressing antisemitic rhetoric.

They go on to cite direct passages from the statements of these organizations justifying Hamas’s actions.

If by “nobody” no elected officials was meant, sadly that isn’t true, either. As of today several members of “the Squad” have made mealy-mouthed statements regarding Hamas’s terrorist attacks. One is facing censure over her remarks.

I would have agreed with the commenter had he said that only idiots justify Hamas’s actions. Sadly, there is a superabundance of idiots these days.

At Responsible Statecraft Matthew Petti remarks on Egypt’s refusal to accept Gazan refugees:

Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said in a speech late on Thursday that Egypt was committed to providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, but that Palestinians must “remain on their land” because their removal from Gaza would bring “the elimination of the [Palestinian] cause.” He had earlier claimed that “Egypt will not allow the Palestinian cause to be settled at the expense of other parties.”

I continue to wait for an explanation of how Israel can support its goal of eliminating Hamas while minimizing civilian casualties while Hamas, Egypt, Jordan, and other Palestinians insist that Gazans remain there. It’s clear to me at least that they have priorities other than preserving Gazan lives.

James Joyner has a pretty good round-up of media reports and commentary on Israel’s war against Hamas at Outside the Beltway. He concludes:

It may well be that the answer to Khalidi’s question is Yes. It’s not obvious that a Gaza strip governed by Palestinians, and which would almost surely eventually become the launching place for more terrorist attacks on Israel, is an acceptable end state. Alas, such ethnic cleansing is a war crime and not a small one.

While declarations that Israel is effectively an apartheid state are overblown, they are not without basis. Zionism and pluralism are, almost by definition, incompatible. Either Israel is a Jewish state, run by and for Jews, or it is not.

which illustrates the point I have been making here for some time. Although means and objectives of Israel and Hamas are not symmetric which renders attempts at equivalence meaningless, the United States should not support Israel’s objectives full-throatedly. I agree with Rashid Khaledi’s conclusions cited in James’s post:

It is past time for the United States to cease repeating empty words about a two-state solution while providing money, weapons and diplomatic support for systematic, calculated Israeli actions that have made that solution inconceivable — as it has for roughly half a century.

It is past time for the United States to cease meekly acquiescing to Israel’s use of violence and more violence as its reflexive response to Palestinians who have lived for 56 years under a stifling military occupation.

It is past time to accept that American efforts to monopolize a tragically misnamed peace process have helped Israel to entrench what multiple international human rights groups have defined as a system of apartheid that has produced only more war and suffering.

although I disagree with his premises.

Nowhere in any of the articles or opinion pieces cited is there any criticism of Hamas’s failure to protect Gazan civilians (quite the opposite) or Egypt’s refusal to accept Gazan refugees. I attribute those omissions to misplaced paternalism.

James follows that up with a post on just war theory. Having actually read what Augustine, who first enunciated the principles of just war theory, wrote, I can only observe that Augustine did not share the misgivings expressed by his modern critics or followers.

In response to the question that forms the title of this post, I don’t believe that we should support Israel’s full goals and it is not ours to strategize its operations. The conflict between Israel and Hamas is not our conflict and we are only involved that to the extent that we have put ourselves in that position.

You might be interested in this history of West Bank Settlements at the Israel Policy Forum. If you don’t think it’s fair and balanced, I would appreciate hearing why.

Yesterday the Chicago City Council approved a resolution condemning Hamas’s attack on Israel last weekend and in support of Israel. Demonstrators disrupted the City Council meeting. Tara Molina and Charlie De Mar report at CBS Chicago:

CHICAGO (CBS) — The Chicago City Council on Friday approved a resolution declaring solidarity with Israel, and condemning a brutal attack by Hamas over the weekend, after pro-Palestinian protesters angrily disrupted the proceedings.

Ald. Debra Silverstein (50th), the council’s only Jewish member, introduced the symbolic Israel Solidarity Resolution to show support for Israel, after Hamas militants launched a surprise attack from the Gaza Strip over the weekend, killing hundreds, and taking many more hostage.

“I urge my colleagues to be on the right side of history, and to take a stand against Hamas’ evil. The United States of America stands with Israel. President Biden and Vice President Harris stand with Israel,” Silverstein said.

During a special City Council meeting to debate Silverstein’s resolution, pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian demonstrators repeatedly shouted at each other, interrupting aldermen on the council floor. Basically, I think it’s benign.

The cited article includes a photographic reproduction of the text of the resolution. I have been unable to find a plain text version online including at the City Council’s website.

I believe the resolution would have been improved by striking the clause “stand in support of Israel”. I believe that people have a right to demonstrate for or against the activities of the City Council outside City Hall. I believe that disrupting city council meetings is undemocratic on its face. I have stronger feelings than that but I’ll keep them to myself.

I believe that those who objected to the resolution should write a resolution of their own and reach out to their alderman to sponsor it. That’s the proper course of action. Every City Council resolution cannot be about everything.

I originally started out writing a post titled “Questions That People Aren’t Asking” but as I did my reading this morning I learned, somewhat to my surprise, that the editors of the Wall Street Journal are asking at least some of those questions:

If Hamas cared about Palestinian civilians, it would encourage them to leave Gaza. But instead it is demanding that they remain. The terror group intends to use its own people and the hostages it abducted from Israel as human shields. Their hope is that either Israeli concern about causing collateral damage or global opprobrium will force Israel to scale back its counter-invasion.

Egypt is the only place to which Gaza’s civilians can flee for now. Yet Cairo insists on maintaining its strict quota for entries from Gaza via the Rafah crossing—with only 800 able to leave on Monday, and the crossing reportedly closed in recent days.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi bears no warm feelings toward Hamas, which is allied with the Muslim Brotherhood that tried to impose an Islamist regime in his country not too long ago. He’s concerned that Hamas terrorists might slip across the border into Egypt with a tide of civilians.

That’s two of the questions:

1. Is Hamas organizing evacuations from the northern part of Gaza?
2. Are the Egyptians allowing Gazans to seek refuge in Egypt?

So much for Arab solidarity, even Gazan solidarity. Hamas is the government of Gaza. As far as I’ve been able to discover they’re doing the opposite of organizing evacuation of civilians from the northern part of Gaza. They’re encouraging them to stay presumably so they will function as human shields against an Israeli ground invasion. That should exhaust any sympathy you might have for Hamas.

And the Egyptians aren’t even allowing foreigners (like Americans) to exit Gaza into Egypt let alone Gazans. To my eye Gazans would be legitimate refugees and Egypt has a legal obligation to accept them. They aren’t. The reasons for that include the political, security, and just plain bigotry. Palestinians don’t seem to be particularly popular in the Arab world. Or, possibly more precisely, they’re popular as a cause to beat the Israelis, Europeans, and Americans over the head with but not otherwise.

Here’s another question. If you don’t think the Israelis should be bombing and invading Gaza, what do you think they should do? IMO if you disagree with what the Israelis are doing you have an intellectual and moral obligation to say outright what you think they should be doing. As a regular commenter here said in a thread at OTB:

The asymmetry between the standard for Israeli conduct and Hamas’ conduct is very revealing – Israel is held to an impossible standard where any killed civilians are immediately counted as war crimes and condemned. Hamas is held to no standard at all despite it being one long string of continuous and intentional war crimes and having an explicit goal is to murder Jews.

I’ll rise to my own challenge. I think the Israelis are doing pretty much what I would expect them to do. I don’t fully agree with the full set of objectives of any of the parties and in particular I disagree with how the United States has been managing its relationship with Israel. I think the United States should be anti-murder of civilians, anti-kidnapping, anti-beheading of babies, and anti-raping of women but I also do not believe that we support the goal of displacing all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza. None of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank is self-supporting. Without the support of the Israeli government life would be even harder for the settlers than it already is. We should exert whatever influence we have on the Israeli government to discourage them from providing financial support for West Bank settlements.

In terms of Gaza I don’t believe there are any good options. Of the bad options creating a buffer zone of the northern, say, five miles of Gaza that is left as a no-go zone is probably the best but it’s pretty awful. The Israelis have told Gazans to evacuate. I don’t know if 24 hours is enough; honestly, I think they’d be condemned regardless of what they did. I think that a house-to-house, block-by-block search of Gaza is an error.

In looking through my archives I found this piece, which echoes the post I just wrote but was written in 2016, riffing off some remarks by George Friedman. Short version: nothing has changed.

I agree with the editors of the Wall Street Journal to the extent that I think we should be able to provide munitions to Israel and Ukraine without degrading our own defense capabilities. Where I think I disagree is over whether we are able to at present:

President Biden hinted Tuesday that he may ask Congress for appropriations for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. That makes military and political sense. The U.S. is confronting an authoritarian axis that is increasingly working together.

Iran, the ventriloquist for Hamas, is helping Vladimir Putin as he tries to subjugate Ukraine. Tehran is pouring drones into Russia’s war, and the Biden Administration has warned of deepening cooperation, including a new weapons plant in Russia. The two are allies in Syria. Mr. Putin is also dining out on his “no limits” partnership with the Chinese Communist Party. The axis wants to set the rules of the world and topple the relative global stability the U.S. has enforced since World War II.

Yet some in Congress want to separate Israel from Ukraine and force a false choice. “Israel is facing existential threat. Any funding for Ukraine should be redirected to Israel immediately,” GOP Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley tweeted this week. The Heritage Foundation is encouraging lawmakers to “resist attempts to link emergency military support for Israel with additional funding for Ukraine.”

The implication is that the U.S. can’t supply both at once. But the two conflicts are different enough that the U.S. has weapons that can help Ukraine and Israel. The Ukrainians are trying to break through entrenched defenses of concrete and mines, a different job than destroying Hamas in Gaza.

I sometimes wonder where the editors have been for the last 30 years. The story of the last 30 years of American enterprise is that businesses have wrung all of the excess capacity out of our economy. Now in order to produce significantly more of practically anything it isn’t enough to place an order and turn the spigot a little more. We need to build whole supply chains.

It isn’t 1941 any more. Eighty years ago with a little retrofitting typewriter factories could be changed into machine gun factories in short order. There were dozens, maybe hundreds of munitions manufacturers. Now there are just a handful of primary defense contractors. We don’t have excess production of steel, microchips, and thousands of other things necessary to producing munitions. The “arsenal of democracy” is no more.

Maybe we still have that capacity. I don’t believe we do. If we did we wouldn’t be depending on China (and Russia!) for mission-critical materials and components. Furthermore, I’m skeptical that we can reduce our use of coal and oil, replace them with wind and solar, and produce enough munitions to supply two conflicts using munitions at a pace greater than during World War II concurrently.

“We just have to!” is not a plan. It’s an aspiration.

Update

Here’s a brief history of American steel production:

Present utilization is estimated at between 80% and 90%. In other words we’re not going to produce 30% more steel, for example, in the near term. I suspect we’d be hard put to produce 10% more.