Suchergebnisse

Part one of an interview with Salvatore "Sal" Pisciotta. Topics include: How Sal became a barber and eventually quit because he didn't like the work. How his parents immigrated to the United States from Italy. His parents lived in Ashburnham, MA and then moved to Fitchburg, where Sal was born. His parents were uneducated and the disadvantages they faced because of that. Stories Sal's parents told about Italy. How his family felt when World War II broke out. Sal's feelings about the events of September 11th and terrorism in general. His father's work as a laborer. The differences in how girls and boys were treated in his family. Education. What his mother was like and what a typical day was like for her. The garden his parents kept. Memories from his childhood. The food his mother used to prepare. His mother's experience working at a mill. What it was like to buy groceries and have ice delivered. Making wine and sausages. What Fitchburg was like when Sal was growing up. The boarders his parents housed. ; 1 LINDA: This is Linda [Rosenwan] on Friday, November 9. It's 9:50 a.m. We're with Sal Pisciotta, 208 Woodland Street in Fitchburg. And hello, Sal. SAL: Hi. Hi, Linda. LINDA: Okay. Here we go. So why don't you tell me -- you were just telling me a little bit -- I hate to ask you again, but tell me what happened after you graduated from Fitchburg High School in 1948. SAL: Oh. I went to barber school in Boston; that was for six months. Six months course, and then brother Joe and I, we opened up a barber shop down the street here, you know, in Fitchburg. And I always disliked being a barber, but I was forced into it. I always wanted to be civil engineer, but I mean, in those days if your father or brother was a barber you had to be a barber or a tailor or a cobbler or what the heck ever they were. LINDA: So he was an older brother. SAL: Oh, yeah. He was 17 years. I never grew up with him. I mean, I never grew up he and I being brothers. I mean, he was 17 years. He was… I was 3 years old when he got married, so we never grew up being close as brothers. And then the Korean War came along, I got drafted, and I went to Korea. I was there for, well, 15 months in the 24th Division. When I came back I wanted to go to school but then I got married, and one thing led into another. I went back into barbering, but then that was it. I couldn't take it anymore. I just had to get the heck out of there. LINDA: Did your brother know that you hated it? SAL: Oh, yeah. He knew it. He didn't want to see me leave, but hey, I quit. I told him I was leaving, then I had problems with my wife and I couldn't find a job. The country was in a recession back in '63, '62. So finally I landed this job in Leominster for the Doyle Estate, which was a wonderful thing, working for this lady. She's been very gracious and great to me and my three children. And that's it. I'm supposed to be retired here. LINDA: Okay, so we're going to stop the interview. Again. SAL: Okay. What we said is all gone, right? LINDA: All gone. We were just starting. See, it's at two minutes again.2 SAL: Okay. LINDA: Because we were just talking about -- so we won't talk about her personally. SAL: No, please, no. Don't say it. Nothing about her personally. LINDA: Okay. So then let me thing back what we should talk about. SAL: [Unintelligible – 00:02:55]? LINDA: Yes, we could start there. So your parents, Antonio… SAL: Antonio and Antoinette. LINDA: Now, did they come from Italy together? SAL: Yes. He came -- Dad was born in 1883. He went into the Italian Army. I think he was in the Italian Army a couple of years. Then he came to America, I think it was in 1906, or '07, whatever it is. And he worked in the Sumner Tunnel in Boston, I'd say. And then I guess he got laid off. He got laid off, and then he was going to go back to Italy. You know, the Italian government was calling these people, these immigrants, these Italian people that came over here. There was no work, and for $5 you could get on ship and go back to Italy. And my father had bought a ticket; he was going back to Italy. He was down on Hanover Street or one of the streets in the North End, and he met another Italian man, and they asked my father where he was going, where he was working. And my father says, I have no job here. I'm going back to Italy. So he said, tomorrow you meet at a certain place here in Boston, and we're going to go to Wellesley. In Wellesley there was a very, very wealthy man that has horses and stables and greenhouses, exactly what these Italians could do. So that's how my father went to work there, and he worked there for a few months. Then he did go back to Italy, and he was going to go marry this woman that he had left that he was in love with.3 Come to find out, she didn't wait for him. She had already gotten married to somebody else. So he struck up a relationship, which I think actually was a fixed marriage, with my mother. And anyway, he met somebody on the street, another -- I think Papa says once he was the mailman or something and says, Tony, get married and go back to America. Italy is about ready to go to war with Tripoli. LINDA: Oh, so wait a minute. So he did go back to Italy? SAL: Yes. Yeah. He went back to Italy to get married, but the woman that he was in love with, that he liked, she already got married. A letter carrier said to him, go back to America; that Italy is ready to go to war with Tripoli and that's when the 1912, I think it was, Dad came back with -- and she was 19 years old and my dad was 27, I guess. In 1912 they came and they landed in Boston. LINDA: So at this time he had been -- it was a married arranged for him, to a 19-year-old Antoinette. SAL: Yes. It was just, in those days, it was all arranged marriages. LINDA: Yeah. So they both came back here? SAL: Yeah. And I think they settled in South Ashburnham, a little jerk town up the street here, in South Ashburnham. And then he raised his family there. LINDA: Now, why do you think he ended up there? SAL: In those days, Linda, if Joe came, or Frank came to America, he would call him brother and his brother, he comes to America and didn't even know how to speak English, so where do you go? You go with your brother, or you go with somebody that you knew that called you. Then when you get here, you call your father-in-law or your sister-in-law, whatever it is, and you all get together. Because in those days, they all came here to Fitchburg. There was quite a population there was here, they call it the patch down on Water Street, and there was a lot of Italian people.4 But had there been work here in Fitchburg, today the Italian population would have been greater than it is in the North End of Boston, because what had happened was the work stopped. There was no more work, they weren't building any more factories, and then they started building the State House in New York, and all the Italians -- not all the Italians, but a lot of Italians, picked up their roots here from Fitchburg and Leominster, and they went to Albany, New York to live. LINDA: So who did you father follow then to Ashburnham? Do you know who was living there? SAL: Oh, yeah. His brother. LINDA: His brother. SAL: Yeah. LINDA: Now, what kind of work was he doing there? SAL: Laborers. That's all they ever do. Laborers. In those days they were building the paper mills, and that's it. A pick and shovel. There was no call up the cement truck and the cement truck come over with some cement. Everything was made by hand. It was laborers. And they were getting maybe $5 or $6 a week, and that was it. A week. Not a day or an hour, a week. LINDA: Now, where were they living, do you know? Were they living in a boarding house? SAL: No. It was a regular house. In fact, my daughter, Cynthia, lives up the street but the house is demolished now. The house isn't there anymore. Then from there they moved from South Ashburnham, they came down here on Orchard Street here in Fitchburg. They lived there for a few years, then they moved to [Edlee] Street and that's where I was born 72 years ago. LINDA: So what made them come to Fitchburg? SAL: Because one of his brothers was here, and there was work. LINDA: So he had a brother in Ashburnham and then Fitchburg?5 SAL: Then they came to Fitchburg because there was work here. They were building the paper mills, there was work. That's what they would do. They would just follow wherever work was, and then these Italians, the woman, would take in their brothers as boarders, so maybe about 65, or 70, a dollar a week they would cook for these guys, they would wash their clothes, iron, for a dollar a week. Cook their meals, make their lunch. That was America. They were the ones that built this country, those immigrants. Not only the Italians, I'm talking about the Swedes, the French and all that. Of course, and then the Italians. And then you get the Englishmen that came to this country and those -- is this being…? LINDA: Go ahead. That's fine. That's what history's about. SAL: So we got all these people that came over from Ireland, those guys ended up with the good jobs because they knew how to speak English. You get the Italians, the French, the Polocks, what do they know? They don't even know English. And that's how all the Kennedys and the rest of those rich families survived. Or got started. LINDA: That's what was so interesting about my interview yesterday. I think I told you, the Italian Citizens Club, with the [unintelligible - 00:10:20], was that they formed so that the Italians, they could teach them English and get them to become citizens and then show them the way to get better jobs. So they had to do that because there was a language barrier. SAL: Yeah. A language barrier. Like my father. My father and mother never went to school a day in their life. LINDA: Did they ever learn English? SAL: Yeah, they learned English. Very, very broken English, but they never went to school. I mean, we spoke in the house; it was all Italian as we grew up. I mean, with my mother and father usually would speak Italian, but amongst us kids it was English. But amongst Mom and Dad it was always Italian. LINDA: So they never became citizens?6 SAL: Oh, they did. Yeah. LINDA: Oh, they did? SAL: Yeah, during the Second World War, and then I can still remember before the Second World War my father became an American citizen. He was the happiest guy in the world. Then my mother, she became a citizen because she had a son that was in the Navy and he was in the war, and automatically she became an American citizen. LINDA: Wait, how did that work? SAL: What's that? LINDA: She automatically became a citizen? SAL: Her son was in the service, and I guess contributed to his country, and she just went to city hall one day and they had the ceremony and she became a citizen. But she never went to school. She never even knew how to sign her name. LINDA: I have my grandmother's passport where she has just an "x" where it says, sign your name. SAL: Dad could sign his name but it was… anyway. LINDA: It's amazing, though, isn't it? That they could come here and… SAL: They're the ones that built this county, right? LINDA: So you said your dad was the happiest man in the world. SAL: Oh, yeah. He was so proud. He became an American citizen, and he never had any desire to go back to Italy. He says, America's my home now. I want to stay in America. I don't want to go to Italy anymore. LINDA: Isn't that amazing? I mean, can you imagine yourself going to another country and…? SAL: And not even speaking a word of English? LINDA: And not becoming a citizen? SAL: And then becoming a citizen. Yeah. LINDA: So where were they from in Italy? SAL: Salemi. LINDA: Is this in Sicily?7 SAL: Yes, it's in Salemi. S-A-L-E-M-I. Salemi. Province of Trepani. T-R-E-P-A-N-I, Sicily. LINDA: Spell the Salemi again? SAL: S-A-L-E-M-I. LINDA: All right. So both your parents were from there? SAL: Yes. LINDA: Okay. So do you ever remember them talking about the old country? SAL: Oh, yeah. My father told me -- he would tell me that when he was courting my mother—because where they came from was all hills and mountains and there was no flashlights in those days and they used to have like a lamp and the lantern and my mother lived in the hills—and at nighttime he would slip, he would fall 200 or 300 feet down the cliff running. She came from the hills, poor thing. Nineteen years old she came to this country. Never went back, never saw her mother or father anymore, but anyway. LINDA: Did she used to have anyone write letters? Well, they probably couldn't read them. SAL: No, they could. My sister could speak Italian, and they would call [unintelligible - 00:14:11], but then naturally when the Second World War broke out, they were, you know, we were against the war on Italy, against Italy, so there was no communication then. LINDA: How did your parents feel about that when the United States was at war with Italy? Do you remember anything? SAL: That was terrible because they figured they were Americans, and they thought it was stupid that he got -- Mussolini in those days, got involved with Hitler. They thought it was a disgrace. The Italians, you know, if you look at history, they were the ones that turned against Hitler and the Italian army gave up. Every time they would see the American army coming they would always wave their hands and give up. They didn't want to fight. LINDA: So did your father have any brothers or sisters that stayed in Italy?8 SAL: Oh, yeah. Yeah. There were two of them, I think, that stayed in Italy. Sisters, no he didn't have. He had brothers. One of them was here in American, and two of them, I think, stayed in Italy. But he never saw the ones in Italy anymore. LINDA: He didn't try to get them over here? SAL: No. LINDA: No? What about your mother's family? SAL: She tried to get her brother over here. I can still remember going to city hall, and she tried to get her brother, whose name was Salvatore also, and the girl at the city hall says there was a quota in those days of foreigners coming into this country, and we asked how long it would take before her brother came to America, and they told me seven years. In those days. Today, what the hell happened to this quota? Right? So I guess he got disgusted or discouraged and he moved to Venezuela. And he did come here. He was here to visit my mother. He was here for about four or five weeks and then went back to Venezuela. But what happened to the quota in this country where you had to wait to come in here? Now the doors are open and every [screwball] can come in and out as they please. Right, Linda? LINDA: Do you think we'll go back to a quota system? SAL: No. LINDA: No? SAL: Of course not. Hey, you've got Bush, who just says what? Mexicans, a couple of months ago he says there's three million of them and we're going to go make them all American citizens. LINDA: How did people of your generation -- I mean, do you talk to your friends about what happened on September 11th? SAL: No, it's a tragedy it happened. And like everybody else we haven't seen nothing here. What the hell? Everybody that's -- not everybody, but that's the consensus… anybody doesn't have to be a brain surgeon to 9 figure that out. That war's going to be worse. [Unintelligible - 00:17:32] watching the bridges, they're watching the water supplies, airports. It's too bad. LINDA: I just always wonder how veterans of the war feel, because at least you knew who the enemy was, and you knew the country to attack. SAL: Right. And we would attack the enemy. These people, September 11, they attack these poor civilians, which was terrible. I mean, if they want to attack an army base or a Navy base or a ship, okay, that's war, like Pearl Harbor was war. But these people… again, it's their faith in Allah and the Mohammed and the wacky people that they are. But they're never going to erase terrorism. You're not going to wipe it out in this world. Never. [Unintelligible – 00:18:37] Mohammed and [unintelligible - 00:18:38] what the hell. You know it. There's another hundred guys right behind him that are worse than him. Am I right, Linda? LINDA: I'm afraid you might be. I know. That's a bad situation. SAL: Yes is it. It's terrible. LINDA: You think back to how your parents were. Their concern was putting a roof over their children's heads and putting food on the table, and now… SAL: Now we -- right. That's terrible. Like you say, you've got to worry about your grandchildren and your children, and that's… we've seen the better days of America. Let's put it that way, Linda. LINDA: I think of how heartbroken my grandparents would be to see something like this. SAL: Oh, God. They wouldn't believe it. When you see two big buildings like that just crumbling down, it's unbelievable. LINDA: Well, so getting back to… SAL: Do you want a cup of coffee? LINDA: No, do you? SAL: No. LINDA: I'm all set. SAL: You're all set?10 LINDA: Thanks. Every time I talk about it I get a little… SAL: Well, naturally, of course. It's a terrible thing that's happening in this country, and in the whole world. Even Italians, in Italy they're having their problems, too. [Unintelligible - 00:20:10] a few more, they had explosives in their car, they don't know where they were going. Anyway. LINDA: Back in your father's day, or even when you were younger, people just loved America. They even liked to be here. Now there's such an anti-American sentiment. Just, you know, in a relatively few short years things have really changed. SAL: Well, you know, America is the greatest country in the world, there's no question about it, okay. But the trouble with this country, I mean, is we try to force democracy down the throats of a lot of these small countries. Hey, let them live the way they want to live. If they want to live in communism, let them live in communism. Why do we have to spread democracy all the time? Am I right? It's a good forum, it's like a lecture. They want the communist rule, I mean, there's no more communism out there, I guess, and there's more crime. But anyway. LINDA: So your father must have been somewhat old when you were born, not old but what, like 40 years old? SAL: Oh yeah, he was. I think he was 42 or 43. LINDA: So he was still working as a laborer. SAL: Yeah. No, he worked in Simon's, it was a steel -- it was near Fitchburg, it was where they fabricated saws and paper knives and stuff like that, [unintelligible - 00:21:53] Steel. He worked there for 32 years, then he retired when he was 65. LINDA: So what did he do for them? SAL: Labor. Just hard work, just a hard laborer. LINDA: But it must have seemed like kind of a cushy job after working outside with a shovel. SAL: Oh yeah, I'm sure it must have been. But I mean, the way he was talking I guess they had this kind of a stones of a brace of [unintelligible -11 00:22:23] and they'd grind them down. I'm sure it must have been hard work for the poor guy. Then he used to walk back and forth to work to save a nickel or a cop there in those days. LINDA: How far is that? SAL: It used to be on North Street, right on Main Street. Right here at [unintelligible - 00:22:40] College, North Street. LINDA: Okay. He would walk from here? SAL: He would walk, yeah just to save a nickel on the bus. LINDA: He probably didn't have a very -- he didn't have [unintelligible - 00:22:55] back then, right? SAL: Oh God, no. Just a hardworking man, that's all he was. Poor guy, I feel so sorry. What a life he lived. But anyway. LINDA: Why do you say that? Because he worked so hard? SAL: Oh, he worked so hard and didn't have all the conveniences that we have today. We didn't have a telephone in the house. I think we had to go to the fire station to use the telephone. There was no telephones back when I was growing up. I think I was about five years old before I ever sat in an automobile. LINDA: So tell me about making a phone call. You'd walk down to the fire station? SAL: Yeah, there was a fire station. So you'd make a telephone call to somebody. We didn't have a phone. LINDA: Did they charge you? SAL: I don't remember, that I don't remember. But the first one we got was a four-party telephone. The phone used to ring three or four, that's not ours, that's not ours. LINDA: I vaguely remember my grandmother having that, yeah. SAL: We had a four-party telephone. LINDA: So tell me what your mother was like. SAL: Very strict. She was a strict woman, yeah. She brought up five daughters, and not one of them ever crossed the line. Real proud girls.12 LINDA: Were girls and boys treated differently? SAL: Oh yeah. To an Italian woman the sons were always the favorite. Yeah, I was the favorite. Especially the oldest one, he was always the favorite one. LINDA: Now, was that Joe? SAL: Joe, yeah. LINDA: So he decided to be a barber. That was a good decision that you would have to follow? SAL: Well. LINDA: A good decision for him. SAL: Good for him I guess. And in those days we didn't have the opportunity to go to high school anyway. At 16 years old everybody had to quit and go to work. LINDA: Did you quit high school? SAL: No, I graduated in '48. Out of seven, my sister Millie and I were the only ones that graduated. LINDA: You were the youngest? SAL: I was the youngest, yeah. LINDA: And she must have been a young… SAL: Millie right now I think is 78, I think, 79. LINDA: So did your parents think that education was important? SAL: Yes, they did, but food on the table was more important, yeah. LINDA: So were the children expected to go out and get jobs and contribute? SAL: Yeah, we all had to pay board in those days. Yeah, whatever the pay was that you brought into the house, a certain percentage had to go to the household, to my mother. She was a strict woman, very strict. But she was a good lady. Poor thing, she spent eight years of her life, eight years was in a nursing home after Alzheimer's I guess, after the sclerosis. Poor thing, didn't know who the hell she was, she didn't know who we were either. LINDA: Did she die after your father?13 SAL: Yeah. LINDA: So what was her day like every day? SAL: Well, when she was younger [unintelligible - 00:26:50] with her kids. She even worked in one of the yarn mills here in Fitchburg; she even had a job. I mean, she was a hardworking woman. And I used to remember her doing the canning; she'd can tomatoes and beans and dad had a little garden a couple miles away from here, a little piece of land. And he used to make his own grape, his own wine, rather. And it was great. All the Italians around here were living the -- I mean a lot of [unintelligible - 00:27:22] and the trucks used to go by this time of the year loaded with grape from California, and we would go down south, he would buy the grape, and we'd go down in the cellar and we would make two or three barrels of wine. All the Italians used to make barrels of wine. It was interesting, it was very interesting. But it's all gone now. I've got fond memories of that. LINDA: So it seems like maybe it didn't seem like work. But it was the way of life. SAL: No, it wasn't. The way of life, right. LINDA: So was it typical for a family to buy a little piece of land to garden? SAL: Oh yeah. They all had to have their grape arbor, had their grape arbor and land. They all had to have their piece of land. They had to grow their squash and their tomatoes. Well, most of them anyway. LINDA: So who would take care of the garden? SAL: My dad and I would. Come home from school, my father, he would come home, and there was no cars in those days, we used to have a big wagon. We'd pull the wagon, the garden was maybe a quarter of a mile away, half a mile away from here, and we would go up there. After school there was no going to play football with the kids or going swimming; it was work, work, work. That's how it was. And I would help my father. He would plant this and plant that. The poor guy didn't know how to read how to 14 plant this and what you should do, and I used to read and explain everything to him. LINDA: So who owned the land? I mean, did one person own the land and they kind of subdivided it? SAL: No, he bought the piece of land from the seller, the man who owned a lot of pieces of land. Of course, they're all houses now, but in those days it was all woods and stones, and he would, one of my uncles with a horse, they cleared all the land, chopped down all the trees, piled up all the stones. They cleared the land themselves. There was no bulldozers in those days; everything was done by hand. LINDA: Where was that? Do you know the street? SAL: Yeah, it was off between Herd and Exeter Street. LINDA: Now, did he continue doing that all the way? SAL: Until he passed away, yeah. LINDA: And what happened to it? SAL: The land? His dream was always having a house on this land, but my mother, in those days, again, five daughters, she figured if he built a house there was no men or boys that was still bringing in the pay. In other words a girl gets married, she's out of the house, there's no more money coming in. So my father went to one of the lumberyards in those days, I think it was $4,000. It would have cleared the land, built them a six-room house, and turned over the keys for $4,000. And my mother says no. She says we've got five daughters, there will be no money coming in. So that broke my father's heart. He never seen a house on that piece of land that he had. So he passed away, and the funeral parlor up the street here -- next to the funeral parlor there was a house, and it belonged to, I guess, his aunt or something, and he bought the land from him, my brother Joe, and they moved the house to the land over there, and somebody else is on our place now. The land is gone. LINDA: So why is it that your generation didn't keep the garden still?15 SAL: Number one it was a lot of work. And then my sisters all got married, and they would have a little garden behind their house. But I mean, as far as that big piece of land that my father had, nobody was interested in it anymore. Then I went into the service, the land just got lost. My brother Joe sold it to this undertaker over here and he moved the house. The house is on the land now. LINDA: So do you think your father had that garden to feed his family mostly? SAL: Oh yeah. Oh yeah, definitely that's what it was for. And they used to have a little -- everybody had a shack, my father had a shack, [oceandino] they'd call it, a shack on there. And he had a little stove in there. I can still see my mother with the tomatoes cooking her tomatoes on the wood burning stove. And there was a little bed in the corner where my father would get tired during the day working, he'd lay on the bed and take a nap. That's one thing about him, every afternoon he used to take a nap. Even if it was for 20 minutes, Dad would always take a nap. LINDA: It's the Italian way, right? They still do that now. SAL: Yeah, he used to take his nap. And Mom used to do all the canning. We used to go up there, we were kids, we used to go up there and had a big table underneath the grapevine and there was a well. We used to pump water out of the well. It was fun. I mean, you don't see that anymore. LINDA: They used to have a shack right on the land? SAL: Oh yeah, there was a shack. LINDA: And what was it called? SAL: Well, in Italian oceandino. But yeah, there was a wood burning stove in there, a nice wood burning stove. And there was a bed. And Msom had a table in there and chairs, and when it would rain we would eat inside. If not we would go outside to eat under the -- it had a grape arbor with a well, the well, and then there was a grape arbor all around. LINDA: Was this on weekends mostly? SAL: Weekends, or even after school. Get out of school at 2:00 and we used to walk up there, and Mom was there doing the canning. There was no cars 16 in those days. We used to have a big wagon, put everything in the wagon, and come down through the streets with the wagon. LINDA: So can you still smell that sauce cooking? SAL: Sure can. Boy, she could make it wonderful. And pizza, she used to make that pizza, not that stuff you buy in the stores today, that little thin stuff. She used to make the regular Sicilian pizza with about a good inch thick, yeah. LINDA: What other kinds of things did she make? SAL: She wasn't a fancy cook. Like I said, she left Italy when she was 18, 19 years old. But no, not to knock my mother, but she used to make a tremendous sauce. She used to do a lot of cooking with ricotta, you know that cottage cheese, ricotta. And a lot of fried stuff in those days, like fried peppers and fried squash. But real fancy dishes, no, poor thing, she didn't know anything about that. LINDA: Did she make her own cheese? SAL: No, no. LINDA: Did she use a lot of fish? Did she… SAL: Not too much. Mom didn't go for fish so much. And the fact that she didn't… she really didn't cook with garlic. LINDA: No? SAL: You know why? The poor thing, she was in the mill down at [unintelligible - 00:35:25] yard, and all the Italian women, the bosses and those ladies, they used to call them hey, you garlic eaters, you garlic eaters. My mother got offended because they would call her a garlic eater, and she never would cook with garlic. That's something, huh? LINDA: So do you think she was afraid that she'd smell like it? SAL: Yeah, she'd smell the aroma. LINDA: So when did she work at the mill? SAL: Oh geez, it was when I was born. After I was born, actually. It could have been in the early '30s, had to be. LINDA: So who was taking care of you?17 SAL: My sisters. LINDA: What else can you tell me about her experiences at the mill? SAL: Well, other than they were known as garlic-eating Italians, women were known as garlic-eaters; that's about all I can remember. I know there were long hours. She used to leave here about half past five in the morning and start to work at six. She used to work from six to twelve I think it was, or six to one. Then come home, wash clothes. And really, there was no fancy washing machine like they have today. I still remember her with an old scrub board. LINDA: Did she ever get the washing machine with the rollers? SAL: Yeah, yeah. Old Maytag, I remember that with the rollers in the back and you feed the -- she got that… and had a wood-burning stove. And that thing used to shine, God you could see your reflection on that black [unintelligible - 00:37:20]. And that thing used to shine, and gosh it was clean. She was immaculate, my mom. She used to have a big couch, not a couch but a piece of furniture over there. The telephone would ring and she would be there. While she was on the phone she would have the rag and she was wiping it, and my father would say [unintelligible - 00:37:47] when you're dead in your box you're still going to have that rag, you're still going to be wiping and wiping. She was crazy clean. Oh God, clean. God, was she clean! LINDA: Did she expect all her kids to be clean? SAL: Yeah. LINDA: Were all the [unintelligible - 00:38:11] immaculate too? SAL: No, it's not. LINDA: Looks like it. SAL: No, never, far from it. Messy. Messy, messy, I've got to get that damn counter cleaned. LINDA: So what was life like for your sisters when they got home from school?18 SAL: They helped Mama do the cooking, wash the clothes, do the shopping. But like I said one of my sisters was the only one that had the opportunity to graduate high school. But the rest of them at 16, they all had to quit and they had to go to work. And they all did their share when they came home as far as working and housework. There was no fancy supermarkets like they are today. LINDA: So tell me, what was it like to buy groceries? SAL: There used to be a little First National store down here, First National store, okay. And then the bottom of the hill there used to be another [Gigopies] market. And you just used to buy groceries for the day, whatever you needed. The bread, they used to make their own bread. I can remember coming home and my mother having that big wooden shovel making the bread and making the dough rise. There used to be a big pan and she used to put that on there, that dough would rise up, and then the dough that was left over, she used to make pizza with it. Yeah, they used to make their own bread. LINDA: So would they make the bread for the week? In one day? SAL: Oh, yeah. Yeah. LINDA: So whose job was it to knead all the bread? SAL: She would do all that. LINDA: She would? SAL: And my sisters, too, would help her. But mostly she would do it with her flour. She used to buy flour by 50-pound sacks. LINDA: Now, did someone used to come around on a truck and sell the flour? SAL: Yeah. Then there used to be trucks that used to come around, and they used to -- I can still remember, they used to come around, they used to sell -- maybe even was -- oh, geez. There used to be -- next street over there used to be a guy that used to go around with a horse and the meat in the back, he had a covered thing and he used to sell meat. Imagine that? Unrefrigerated. With a horse. A horse-drawn cart and go around, and then maybe about once a week or twice a week there used to be trucks that 19 used to come in from Boston, and they had all kinds of Italian cheese and Italian food in these trucks, and the mother or the people would go down and go around the truck, and they'd have all these goodies that they would be selling. Cookies, Italian cookies, cheeses, olive oil. LINDA: So did they go up and down all the streets? SAL: Yeah, they would go down the street, but they would go mostly to where Italian families were. They knew where the Italian families were. There used to be a lot of Italian families here in Fitchburg at one time. Even in this area here. A lot of them. But now they've all passed away now and they're married and they're gone. LINDA: Did they used to ring a bell? How did you know they were coming? SAL: Sometimes, if they had selling dishes they used to [hit] the dishes together and you'd know they were coming, or they would lay out in the street and yell out [foreign language – 00:41:56], which meant, "chickens, chickens, chickens." They would sell chickens, too. And in those days, too, they used to sell the chickens. They weren't like going to the [unintelligible - 00:42:05] market or buy them all packaged. You had to buy them, and I remember my father on the shed, he used to take the chicken by the neck and pull it, and the poor bird would bop-bop-bop, and he'd have the hot water going, stick it in hot water right away. You had to pull all feathers off before the water got cold. That's the way they used to do it. LINDA: Did you ever learn how to do that? SAL: No, but I didn't want to learn how to do that. Put the place together while he went, and then I clean all the innards. Thank God for [unintelligible – 00:42:45]. LINDA: Did your family eat meat much? SAL: No. No. What we ate was mostly chicken, but she would cook a lot of Italian dishes. Peasant dishes. Like lentils. LINDA: Thank you. Thanks for understanding. So we were talking about cooking. What do you think about what we were talking about?20 SAL: She would make the peasant dishes. Ricotta with cheese, [unintelligible – 00:43:26] escargot, ricotta with [unintelligible - 00:43:29]. LINDA: What's that with the [unintelligible - 00:43:32]? SAL: The lentils. LINDA: Oh, lentils. SAL: Come on, Linda. Don't you understand? LINDA: I guess not. Now who made the decision to buy groceries? Who decided how much money to spend? SAL: Oh, no. Mama would do that. Mom would do that, yeah. On Friday night in Fitchburg there used to be -- on Main Street there used to be an old A&P store years ago. And Millie, who is the only one that knew how to drive then, we had a 1938 Dodge that Papa had bought then. Of course, he couldn't drive. Naturally he didn't drive, and she was the driver and she was the chauffer. And Friday nights I could still remember them, Mama and Millie, would go down to A&P and do the grocery shopping. Let's see. What else can I tell you? LINDA: Well, what about the -- I like the stories about the trucks coming in from the North End. What about ice? Do you remember ice being delivered? SAL: Yeah. Ice. There used to be an ice truck that used to come around, and then what you would do, the ice truck would stop, and we used to have iceboxes in those days, naturally. And there used to be a card that you put at the window and it was either 25, 50, 10 cents, or a nickel. In other words, if you wanted the 25-cent piece you would put that standing up, 25. Do you follow me? If you wanted a 10-cent piece then you turn the card over. And the iceman would chop a piece, put it on his back, and bring it up and put it in the icebox. And he put that -- most of it, the iceboxes were in the sheds. They used to have sheds. Do you know what a shed is? Outside of the house there used to be up on the porch, there used to be like another little, a little but no heat in there, and we put the [unintelligible - 00:45:33] stuff like that and 21 put the icebox -- we used to call it the icebox, was in there, and then there was a pail underneath for the water to drip. And sometimes if you forget to empty the pail, you would hear downstairs, they were knocking on the ceiling that the water was running down through the house. You had to empty this pail. Yeah. LINDA: So they keep it out there even in the summer? SAL: Yeah. Oh, yeah. That was the refrigeration was this icebox. LINDA: It probably wasn't very big? The icebox? SAL: Where we were living, I guess… is that too strong or what? LINDA: No, it's good. SAL: Okay. Because I make coffee too strong. LINDA: No, I like it. SAL: In the park, this man used to cut the ice. They used to cut the ice on Wayland Park, and then they used to bring it over and store it in the barn, and they used to put sawdust on it in the wintertime. That used to preserve it. In the summertime they would take the sawdust off the ice and ice was still there. It wouldn't melt. Did you know that? LINDA: No. I've heard it before. But where did they used to store it? SAL: They had a big, big shed, a big barn, and they used to store the ice in big, big cakes of ice. LINDA: Now, did the ragman come around? SAL: Yeah, the junk man would come around. The ragman. Yeah. Or the horse-drawn wagon. And if you had any rags they would sell it, pick it by weight and they used a scale, used to weigh it, and they used to give you maybe 10 or 15 cents for a bag of rags or whatever kind of junk you had. LINDA: What would they do with those rags? SAL: I have no idea. I don't know. And you would have the trucks that would come around at this time of year, all full of grape, and they would go to different places, the Italians, and the men would… I actually remember my father used to either 40-, 42-pound box of grape; maybe he'll sell it for 22 about a dollar, dollar 15 cents. Now, today, it would cost about 20, 21 dollars for the same sized box of grape. LINDA: So was that a family affair making wine? Or was it the boys? SAL: Mostly the boys. Dad and I would -- of course my brother had been… then I took over. We used to grind the grape by hand. And always my father, watch the fingers, watch the fingers, as you're grinding the grapes, all those spokes. You had the fingers stuck in there; your fingers would have been caught. But it was all done by hand. Now they have machines, a bunch of machines, dump a box in there, push the button, it's all done. LINDA: Did you keep that tradition? SAL: Yeah, I was making it up about three or four years ago, and then I had bad luck on a whole barrel of wine. I had to throw it down the sink. It went bad on me, and so I said, from now on if you want wine, go up to Kathy's Package Store. But I did. I was making my own wine, but anyway. I still make my own sausages. LINDA: Oh, you do? SAL: Yeah. LINDA: Is that a seasonal? SAL: Mostly, it's pork, but you eat in the wintertime. I don't like to eat pork in the summertime. But sausages, it's more seasonal. Like Thanksgiving and Christmas. LINDA: Have you made it yet? SAL: No but I just bought a new machine. I don't know, one of those KitchenAid machines, I just bought one of those a couple of weeks ago. LINDA: So explain to me how you make it. SAL: What, sausage? Well, you buy either the pork butt or the shoulder. Okay. You debone it, and then you take all the meat out and cut it into small pieces, and you put it through the grinder. Once you put it through the grinder, then you lay it out on the table, then you put your seasoning on it. Your fennel, salt, pepper, whatever you want for seasoning, okay? Then you put it through the grinder again, okay? Then you mix this all up, and 23 you can put wine in it if you want, then you got your casings. You know what casings are? All right. Then there's an attachment, you put the casing on there, you put the meat and you grind it up and go through the casings, and you make the sausage. LINDA: So do you freeze a lot? SAL: No. By the time you give some to this daughter, that to this guy, then some to my nephew, 20, 25 pounds disappears fast. LINDA: Now, did your mother used to make that? SAL: Oh, yeah. LINDA: So how are things different now? I'm sure she didn't have a grinder. SAL: They had a hand grinder, and I can always remember every time Mom and Dad got together to make sausage, boy, there was a war. You could hear them. LINDA: Why? About the seasoning? SAL: Oh, you're doing this wrong. You're going too fast. Watch your fingers. You don't do it this way, you do it that way. It was hell. Yeah. LINDA: So what about filling the casings though? That may have been a little harder back then? SAL: Well, it's… you've got to coincide with the one that's holding the casing and the one that's grinding it by hand. Now it's all done by electricity. It's powered. But that's the only tricky thing. As the machine is feeding the meat in the casing, you've got to make sure that you don't put too much all at once in the casing or it'll crack or break. LINDA: So probably every family has their own recipe. Sort of like meatballs. SAL: Well, I don't think anybody makes it. Very few people make their own sausages now. I know my sister Marilyn still makes it. I make it. That's about it. LINDA: What other things do you make that your mother used to make? SAL: Oh, green olives. Yeah. She used to -- this time of year, with green olives used to smash those and cure them. And pizza, naturally. Everybody 24 makes pizza. But some of her peasant dishes, once in a great while, but I was never too fond of them anyway. LINDA: No. So what about Christmas Eve, do you know? SAL: Christmas Eve, not like the ones years ago. Christmas Eve years ago was my uncle and my mother and father and all the Italians used to all get together, and they used to cook on the stove some kind of a fancy dish of fried dough, dumplings like. No more. We don't get that closeness of families anymore. LINDA: Why not? SAL: I don't know why. I think number one, there're cars. Everybody goes here, everybody goes there. I would say cars. Anyway, we used to get together years ago on holidays and Christmas. We still get together, but it's not the way it was on Christmas Eve. It's different. I'm sure it must be the same with your family, right? LINDA: Yeah. When my grandmother was growing up and even after she got married, all of her sisters lived close by. But then when they started having children, everyone moved on. SAL: That's right. That's the way it goes. From generation to generation is always different, which is good, in a way. But it's good to keep up traditions though, I think. LINDA: So have any of your daughters learned how to make the sausage? SAL: No. They wait for Daddy to call them up and say, okay, come and get your sausage. LINDA: Now, did your parents have chickens? SAL: Oh, God no. LINDA: No? Why do you say it like that? SAL: Because we lived in the neighborhood, and no, we didn't. But when we had that piece of land up there, my father used to raise pigs. I remember we had pigs, a couple of pigs, and he used to slaughter those. I remember that when I was a kid.25 LINDA: Now, what was that like? Was there a particular name of that day when people would slaughter their pigs? Would they call it anything? SAL: No. It was just at the end of the season, like at this time, winter was coming and people -- I can still remember that shed that he had with the water boiling and the poor pigs, shooting and killing the poor pigs. Thank God I don't have to go through all that anymore. LINDA: Did they use every piece of the pig? SAL: Oh, yeah. Even the squeal. Only the squeal is the only thing that you don't use on the pigs. LINDA: Oh yeah, I know. So was there a smokehouse in the area? Did anyone have one? SAL: No. Not that I remember. LINDA: What about buying groceries? Was that on credit? SAL: No, that was cash. Everything was cash. My folks, everything was cash. There was no plastic in those days. Even if there was, if they didn't have the money, the Italians, they didn't buy it. Everything was cash. LINDA: So what is this area of Fitchburg called? SAL: This section here? This is called Cleghorn. LINDA: This is? So this is really the French? SAL: It was the French district at one time, but now it's Puerto Rican and everything else. Fitchburg was in different sections. Like you had Cleghorn was the French. The patch was at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Street. Okay. That was the Italians. Then you had Greektown. Naturally, that was the Greeks. They all stuck together. Then West Fitchburg was the English, then you have Southside, that was the Irish. LINDA: So when the Italians started moving in here, were your parents part of that group that started moving into Cleghorn? SAL: I don't know. When they left South Ashburnham, I don't know when it was, but then they moved on to Orchard Street. They lived here -- I guess a few of my sisters were born out here on Orchard Street. But I know I was the only one of the family that was born over here on Edward Street. 26 And then it was in '48, yeah, 1948 I guess it was that one of my sisters went back home. Of course, in those days the girls had boyfriends, and they wanted their boyfriends to pick them up at a nice house. So, one of my sisters saw this place over here that was for sale. And anyway, Dad would come over, and they finally looked at it and they bought it. The price that they paid for it, I just had the roof, and the roof cost me the same price. And they bought the whole house. LINDA: What was that about? Three thousand or something? SAL: They paid $11,000 for the house, and I just spent $11,000 for a new roof. LINDA: So they paid $11,000 for this, but your mother didn't want to pay $4,000 for the other house? SAL: Yeah. Because she had the money but she wasn't going to spend it. And she wouldn't spend $4,000 to have a brand new house up there. But a few years later she spent $11,000 and bought this house. LINDA: Oh, so this was bought after. SAL: Oh, yeah. After. LINDA: I see. So about the different sections in Fitchburg, was there any competition or rivalries or differences? SAL: No. No. Maybe this will be interesting. My father was here down on the bottom of the hill one day, and in those days, like the mafia, there was the Black Hand. And it was a society that was shaking down these immigrants, and they approached my father, and this guy from the Black Hand wanted $5 from my father, and my father told him, I got two kids at home, I haven't got no $5. The $5 I've got is a week's pay. I've got to feed my family. And he says, you have that money here tomorrow at a certain time, otherwise there's going to be harm that's going to come to you and your family. So in those days, my mother had boarders, and one of them was this fellow from Albany, New York. He was boardering in my father's and my mother's house, and so Papa came home and he told him. And he was 27 [unintelligible – 00:59:56]. So he told him what had happened, so this man said to my father, he says, yeah, you let me know where this guy is and what time you're supposed to meet him. And he says, I'll go to meet him. Anyway, he approached this guy and he never bothered my father anymore. LINDA: So who were these people? SAL: Black Hand. It's like a society that's like the mafia or something like that, but they were gangsters shaking down these fellow Italians. So this guy must've taken a knife and shoved it up to his throat and said you won't bother this man anymore. LINDA: Do you think it was a group living in Fitchburg? SAL: I think so. LINDA: You think so? SAL: Yeah. LINDA: Your parents would take in boarders? SAL: Yeah, she took in boarders for a while. Like men that she knew, like my father's -- like a cousin or something like that, they came to this county and they had no place to go, and where do you go? You go see your paisano, you go see your relative or brother until they get located or until they get situated, and they used to take care of these men. Cook for them, make their lunch. Mostly all the Italians would take in boarders. LINDA: So were there many paisanos living around? SAL: Oh, yeah. There was quite a few. Like I said, the work came to an end, and then a lot of them left. They went to Albany, New York. But yeah, my mother had one of her brothers living the next block over, and Dad had another brother that was a few blocks up the street [unintelligible - 01:01:50], and they grouped together. They stayed together. LINDA: Because even though there were a lot of Italians living here, some in different regions, they speak a different dialect. SAL: Oh, yeah. I was in Italy here about three years ago, I think there's about 150, 200 dialects in Italy. When I was growing up there used to be like 28 Beech Street over here that's a bunch of Italians not from Northern Italy, but once they start talking, I don't understand them. I really don't. /AT/pa/my/cy/es

Much of the scholarly literature on peacekeeping focuses on particular peacekeeping operations, or on the political bargaining between peacekeeping participants at both the institutional and national levels. However, there is very little published research on why nations commit forces to peacekeeping operations. As Sandra Whitworth noted in a book review of six books on peacekeeping in the International Journal, "the important political questions thus far have not been asked: who benefits, who pays, and who is excluded?". This book addresses that need.The authors focus specifically on the political and economic motivations that influence the decision to participate in peacekeeping. They consider how definitions of national interest frame the political debate, and what the reasons are for the military support or opposition for peacekeeping operations. They also explore the role of inter-agency politics, the role of public opinion in peacekeeping decisions, and the influence of pressure from other nations and non-nation actors to commit peacekeeping forces. Each chapter includes several recent cases of national peacekeeping to illustrate how national political debates framed their country's political decisions on the commitment of peacekeeping forces. The countries chosen for analysis are Australia, Argentina, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the United States, Nigeria, Canada, India, and Austria.?The ContributorsAlan James Bullion has a Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of Southampton; and is currently Associate Lecturer/Research Associate in Politics, The Open University, UK (1992–). His current research interests include Sri Lanka, India, UN peacekeeping, Tamil nationalism, and Asian agriculture.Mary N. Hampton is an Associate Professor of Political Science from the University of Utah, and was in residence at Air War College during 2000– 2003 as a visiting professor in the International Security Studies Department. Her areas of research and teaching include international relations theory, international security issues, German/European foreign and security policy, and US foreign and security policy. She has published numerous articles and written or co-edited two books. Her most recent publications include 'Eagle in the Field of Blackbirds: U.S. Military Lessons Learned and Applied in Bosnia and Kosovo', a chapter in Lily Gardner-Feldman (ed.), Cooperation or Competition?; ' ''The Past, Present, and the Perhaps'': Is Germany a ''Normal'' Power?', in Security Studies (winter 2000); and 'Kosovo: Boom or Bust for the trans-Atlantic Relationship?', co-authored with Heiko Borchert in Orbis (spring 2002). Herbert M. Howe is Research Professor of African Studies at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. He is the author of Ambiguous Order: Military Forces in African States (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001), as well as articles on African militaries in such journals as The Journal of Modern African Studies and International Security.Alexander Ramsbotham heads the UN and Con.ict Unit at United Nations Association-UK. He previously edited the International Peacekeeping News and its successor the Con.ict Resolution Monitor, publications produced by the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, and continues to edit the 'Digest' and 'Documentation' sections of the Frank Cass journal International Peacekeeping. He is co-author, with David J. Francis, Mohammed Faal and John Kabia, of The Dangers of Codeployment: UN Co-operative Peacekeeping in Africa (Ashgate, forthcoming) and regularly comments on UN and related affairs in the British media.David Rudd served in the Canadian military between 1985 and 1990. He holds a graduate degree in international relations from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and has been the Executive Director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies (CISS) since 1998. He is a regular contributor to print and electronic media analyses of Canadian defence and security issues.Erwin A. Schmidl is head of the Section of Contemporary History at the Austrian Defence Academy in Vienna (Institute of Strategy and Security Policy). He has worked and published on various aspects of peace operations for the past 12 years. Also, he has served as desk of.cer for peacekeeping in the Foreign Ministry's UN Department in 1991–92, and was UN observer in South Africa in 1994. Hugh Smith is Associate Professor in the School of Politics, University College, University of New South Wales, at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra and was Founding Director of the Australian Defence Studies Centre at the College from 1987 to 1991. He has edited several books on peacekeeping and has published widely on armed forces and society, including topics such as of.cer education, conscientious objection, recruitment, women in combat, and reserve service. His most recent publication is an edited collection entitled The Strategists, published by the Australian Defence Studies Centre.David S. Sorenson is Professor of International Security Studies at the US Air War College. He previously served on the faculty at Denison University, and was Senior Research Associate at the Mershon Center at Ohio State University. He has a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver, and has published books and articles on American national security issues.Cynthia A. Watson is Associate Dean for Curriculum and Faculty Development at the National War College, Washington, DC, where she has been a faculty member since 1992. She writes extensively on militaries and security issues in the former 'Third World', focusing particularly on Argentina, China, and Colombia. She is on the Editorial Board of Third World Quarterly, and is currently completing a book on the collapse of Colombia. She has an MA in Latin America Studies and Economic History from the London School of Economics and earned her Ph.D. in International Studies from the University of Notre Dame.Pia Christina Wood is Director of International Studies and Associate Professor of Political Science at Wake Forest University. She has published articles and book chapters on French foreign policy, the politics of the European Union, and Franco-German relations. Her forthcoming book is entitled French Foreign Policy toward the Arab–Israeli Conflict from Charles de Gaulle to Jacques Chirac: The Search for Influence.Tom Woodhouse holds the Adam Curle Chair in Conflict Resolution at the Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, UK. He was the founding director of the department's Centre for Con.ict Resolution and has written widely on con.ict analysis and conflict resolution. He edited the special issue of the journal International Peacekeeping, entitled Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution, published by Frank Cass (spring 2000). He has recently completed a report on con.ict prevention and the war on terror, entitled 'Building the Democratic Peace' (IDEA, Stockholm).

 Watching students getting arrested and expelled was bad.  Watching them get pummeled by right wing assholes (Zionists or far right provocateurs) with the cops' permission and watching cops use "rubber" bullets that are super dangerous has been even worse.  I have many thoughts about all of this so let me spew a bit to figure some of this stuff out.Some really basic stuff about identity and anti-semitism:No individuals or groups are actually acting on behalf of entire ethnic groups despite, oh my, all of the assumptions and data I used when I was an ethnic conflict scholar.  This means:Not all allies of Israel are Jews.  Not all pro-Palestinians are Muslims.  Not all Jews are pro-Israel at this moment.  What is anti-semitism?  Hatred of Jews.  Criticism of Israel can be anti-semitic but is not necessarily.  Israel is a country, and it has a government.  All governments can and should be criticized when they abuse people and engage in bad policies.  Identifying Israel with all Jews can be anti-semitic because it is generalizing about an entire group.  Not all Arabs or Muslims are pro-Saudi Arabia AND criticism of Saudi Arabia is not always Islamophobic.  Are these various encampments and anti-Israel protests anti-semitic? It depends.  Sorry, but it is not clear--it depends on their demands, their statements, their treatment of Jews.  If they happen to have a bunch of Jews within them, then they are probably not anti-semitic. Back to basic stuff, this time about punishing students:Any punishment of students should involve some kind of due process.  No student should be evicted without a big hunk of due process.Students should not be suspended or expelled or evicted for engaging in collective dissent as long as it is not violent.  Universities are supposed to places where speech should be at its freest.  Such protests can be inconvenient and/or annoying--that is how they make themselves known. When I mentioned this on social media, someone raised the John Lewis line about good trouble.  What protests should not do and protestors can be punished for is threatening other students. But that raises two important distinctions:individual punishment, not collective punishment.  Entire groups of students should not be punished for the statements of individuals or actions of individuals especially if those folks happen to be off campus (see the non-students outside of Columbia)Saying negative things about Israel may hurt one's feelings but does not count as threats.  Again, not all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.  The actual words and actions matter.  It may suck for Jewish students to be on campuses where there are protests against Israel as insults of those sharing one's identity does hurt one's own self-esteem.  But hurt feelings are not tantamount to violence or assaults.   No president of any university should be calling in the cops to arrest their students unless their students are engaged in or threatening to engage in violence.  Campuses need to be safe for all students, including those engaged in dissent.  Calling in the cops is an escalation that can and often leads to violence.  The students at many of these places have been harmed, way out of proportion to whatever their alleged crimes.  These universities have failed a very basic part of their mission--to protect their students.  Again, there are now cops on campus using rubber bullets and pepper spray.Everyone should have learned by now that no one controls the cops in North America AND they like to escalate AND infiltration is probably too benign of a word to address how deeply the far right is embedded in North American police forces.  So, calling the cops is worse than throwing gasoline on a fire because the latter has no illusion of deniability. Now, let's get to the far right bullshit of all of this: Republicans, Fox, and the rest of the far right apparatus complaining about "anti-semitic" students on college campuses is just bad faith bullshit.  These folks are not interested in protecting Jews, or they might have spoken up a bit with all of the anti-semitism whipped up by the far right.  Charlottesville?  Remember that?  Where were these folks who are so concerned with anti-semitism when the Nazis were yelling about Jews not replacing "us"?  Where were these folks when George Soros was being used to incite anti-semitism?  Oh wait, many of these folks were doing precisely that.  Fuck all of them.  Ok, one last thing: to put this into context, if Nazis have the right to march into Jewish neighborhoods, like Skokie, Illinois, then even if the students were all anti-semites, they have a right to protest.  So, again, why is it ok for far right anti-semites to protest but not far left?*  To be clear, I am not saying that the students are all anti-semites, but just making the point that if they were, they would still have a right to protest.  On college campuses?  I am not so sure since many have hate speech regulations.  All I do know for sure is that the college administrators have failed their students and have also abetted the far right in undermining higher education. The urge to do something should have been ignored  The semesters in these places were winding down--they could have easily outwaited the students.  Move graduate ceremonies if you must, but for fuck's sake, don't invite cops onto campus to beat your students and professors!* I fear far right anti-semitism more than far left.  Why?  First, the far right has far more power.  Second, if one did the math, I am pretty sure the far right anti-semites have killed far more Jews than the far left.  When Netanyahu and others hang out with ideological kindred anti-semites "since everyone out there is anti-semitic," they are just giving those with the greatest ability and the most violent history more deniability. 

As most EU governments and the bloc's high representative for foreign policy Josep Borrell try to emphasize the need to de-escalate tensions between Iran and Israel, the European Parliament has moved sharply in the opposite direction. During its plenary session on April 25 the body adopted a resolution on "Iran's unprecedented attack on Israel, the need for de-escalation and an EU response" which included a series of ostensibly tough measures to set that response into motion.Already the title betrays a pro-Israeli bias: it refers to Iran's drone and missile attacks on Israel, but not to the equally unprecedented, and lethal, Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, which was the direct trigger of the Iranian strike in the first place. Titles matter as they frame the debates and resolutions.It's easy to be cynical about Iran's appeals to the inviolability of diplomatic premises when its revolutionary regime held the U.S. diplomats hostage in 1979 — an act never repudiated, much less apologized for, by the Islamic Republic. Regardless of Iran's track record, however, as a self-proclaimed guardian of the international legality, the EU could be expected to be consistent on the matter. The resolution does refer to the bombing of the Iranian consulate, but in a rather clever-by-half fashion: it "deplores" the attack but won't say who perpetrated it. A last-minute amendment by the Left faction in Parliament pointing to the Israeli authorship was rejected by the majority.But the real issue is the trifecta of measures within the resolution called for by the MEPs: invoking the snapback of all UN sanctions related to Iran's nuclear program if Iran fails to comply with its nuclear obligations under the JCPOA by a deadline to be set unilaterally by the E3 (France, Germany, the UK); adding the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to the EU terrorist list; and designating the Lebanese Hezbollah as terrorist organization in its entirety (currently only the military wing, not its affiliated political party, is classified as "terrorist" by the EU).The Trans-Atlantic Institute, the Brussels-based office of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), has hailed the adoption of these measures as a "historic, momentous decision" and praised the Parliament for "real leadership by calling for an end to the years of fruitless and toothless diplomacy that has only emboldened the regime in Iran."Yet the adopted measures do not amount to much. The European Parliament's resolutions are not binding. The body does not set the EU's foreign policy — it's a prerogative of the Council of the EU. The decisions of the Council are taken by consensus among the 27 member states, at a proposal of the high representative Borrell who sets the agendas of the meetings of the bloc's foreign ministers.While the E3 is concerned with Iran's nuclear progress, and French President Emmanuel Macron hinted in the wake of the Iranian strike on Israel that pressure has to be increased on Tehran also on the nuclear file, to trigger a snapback of the U.N. sanctions would require a political agreement with Washington. This may not be forthcoming as Biden signaled unwillingness to escalate matters with Tehran further. An U.N. snapback would most likely lead to Iran abandoning the Non-Proliferation Treaty and expelling the remaining International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, which, in turn, would dramatically increase the risk of an Israeli military action against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure or an Iranian push for a nuclear bomb. A big war in the Middle East is certainly not what Biden needs in the election year.Of note, Borrell himself evinced a considerable skepticism about the usefulness of escalating sanctions during the parliamentary debate. He underscored that "sanctions are not policy, but only a tool of policy," and that decades of piling sanctions on Iran have not led to positive changes in Iran's policies. Rather than expressing support for the MEPs' mulled ultimatum on the snapback, he stressed continued commitment to the nuclear diplomacy with Tehran.As to the mounting pressure to include the IRGC in the EU terrorist list, that, again, requires unanimity of the member states and, as Borrell repeatedly stressed, a judicial ruling in an EU member state implicating the IRGC in a terrorist activity. At the moment, none of these conditions seem to be present. Germany is leading the way for a tougher approach, but not all the member states are convinced that prescribing an entire security body of a foreign nation would advance the EU interests. Spain and Italy are among notable skeptics. And the designation itself would largely be symbolic. The EU already has, and uses, the necessary tools to sanction individual IRGC members and related entities for a host of transgressions, such as human rights abuses and support for violent activities and Russia's war in Ukraine.The full prescription of Hezbollah as a terrorist group — a long-term goal of the AJC — has likewise proved to be elusive. In 2013, in response to the French pressure to punish the Lebanese organization for its role in supporting Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria, the EU has invented a creative solution: designate the military wing of Hezbollah, but not the political one, in order to keep venues of dialogue with this influential Lebanese actor open.Designating Hezbollah entirely would deprive the EU of that direct contact. That would be counterproductive as the EU leaders are clearly worried about the potential fallout of the war in the Middle East on Lebanon's precarious stability — the country hosts 1.5 million Syrian refugees and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians which could be heading to Europe in the case of further destabilization.Of further note, several European countries, such as Italy, Spain, France, Germany, and Poland, deployed troops on the Lebanese-Israeli border as part of the UNIFIL peace-keeping mission. Declaring Hezbollah terrorist could potentially make these troops targets. These are far weightier considerations for the EU decision-makers than a European Parliament resolution.In sum, more than a turning point in the EU strategy towards Iran, the European Parliament's resolution may not add up to much more than a simple virtue-signaling exercise. Yet it would be wrong to completely dismiss its significance: its political message testifies, once again, to the abysmal state of the EU-Iran relations.

Don't expect apologies from Louisiana's leftist
institutions and activists having now been caught out on supporting the erroneous
"gender affirmation" model of addressing difficulties faced by a small number
of youths, which state policy-makers continue to address.

The tiny proportion of youths who express "gender
dysphoria," or a feeling their mental maps of themselves are incongruent with their
physical sex, has multiplied in numbers over the past decade. Until then, from
the last part of the 20th century medical professionals addressed this
through watchful waiting as children, perhaps with psychological therapy,
sorted out their feelings. Data indicated that feelings of this dysphoria were
highly related to, if not a reflection of, other psychological maladies and
that most children by their adult years shed the condition.

But in the early 21st century the
competing "gender affirmation" model developed in the U.S. and was exported
globally. Over time the approach became more radicalized, dictating that even
the youngest children who appeared to see themselves associated with typical conceptions
of one physical sex while the other, whether consciously picking up on any cues
to do that from adults called in to evaluate them, had to be catered to with
social and even physical interventions to physically alter them to the sex with
which they identified at that particular point in time.

Yet in recent years it became increasingly clear
gender affirmation was doing much more harm than good. Those children and even
young adults who underwent interventions by and large remained unhappy and some
expressed regret to the point that they underwent "detransition" back to their previous
physical sex. Meanwhile, a whole cottage industry catering to affirmation model
sprung up – clinics, professional associations, media outlets, and ideological
activists with some in elected office – that in increasingly shrill terms tried
to defend it.

That
all fell apart last week with the issuance of the Cass
Review in Britain. Its National Health Service commissioned this research
into treatment of dysphoria as part of an investigation into its practices on
the issue, particularly with its Tavistock Clinic that had gained a reputation for
aggressive promulgation of the affirmation agenda. The report reviewed the
relevant and recent literature as well as data collected for it and determined
the affirmation model almost entirely wanting in validity, stating "Gender
medicine for children and young people is built on shaky foundations." It
reiterated that no surgery should be performed on children and that that no one
under 18 get hormone drugs and on that account that "great caution" should be
exercised with patients under 25.

Actually, much data available already indicated as
such. One previous Dutch study popularly held out by the affirmation lobby as supporting
evidence long ago withered under methodological critiques. Another recent longitudinal
Dutch study revealed that transgenderism among children mostly
is a fad. Besides the claim found wanting that suicidal ideation increased
among children without affirmation, the report also shredded the view of adherents
of affirmation who also hung their hats on the myth that detransition was rare.

The report dispatched
all of this misinformation, thereby confirming the approach that Louisiana
took last year when it banned use of puberty blockers for children. It also
excoriated primarily American professional societies that favor affirmation for
the poor research quality, almost evidence free in nature, and lack of
independence among them for their treatment guidelines – strictures that the
pro-affirmation lobby often cites to justify its extremist views. Additionally,
it faults protocols that disregard the real phenomenon of desire to detransition.

And, most importantly for the current debate in
Louisiana, it criticizes affirmation's uncritical advancement of social
transition – such as educators calling school students by a different name
and/or pronoun – and strongly discouraging this among younger children, noting
this may alter profoundly alter a child's developmental trajectory, with
long-ranging consequences. Should parents insist on this, the review
recommended that a health care professional be involved in helping parents
understand the risk-return ratio of such a profound and likely life-altering
decision. For older teens, it strongly recommends that parents be involved in
the decision, noting that secret transitions cause a rift between teens and
their families, destabilizing the very support networks that are essential for
young people's long-term well-being.

That's the approach behind Republican state Rep. Raymond Crews'
HB 121, which would have school employees address students by their given names
or nicknames, and by the pronoun aligned with their natal sex, unless their parents
wished them to do otherwise. Even in that case, the employee may not follow that
wish if it conflicts with sincerely-held religious beliefs, echoing an approach
endorsed
late last year by Virginia's highest court in a case there.

The bill provides protection from employees from
being punished over confusion about a desired name and related pronoun of a
student. It protects parents in that they can't be subverted by schools
officials' ideology concerning social transition, which
has become increasingly common. But, most importantly, the bill protects
children from what the review identifies as a problematic, if not harmful, approach
fulfilling an agenda where education employees may identify susceptible students
then coach them into social transition by encouraging the use of different
names and incongruent pronouns.

Naturally, legislative opponents during floor
debate on the bill several days after the review's release studiously avoided
its implications, trying to steer debate into lacunae irrelevant to its
protective intent of teachers, parents, and children. In fact, some repeated
the same talking points discredited in the review. Nor have these same
politicians, nor activists, special interests, and media outlets that opposed
last year's successful legislative effort to halt the interventions severely
criticized in those few days after issuance, delivered apologies for being
wrong on this issue and they continue to spread misinformation appertaining to
the bill, which easily passed the House.

In fact, by amendment Crews bent over backwards to
accommodate parents who, regardless of the caution expressed in the review,
would want to facilitate social transition. The bill's path to follow must continue all
the way into statute, because on a matter this important policy-makers must
disregard an agenda that suits the desires of a minority of adults in favor of fulfilling
children's needs.

Three Baltic foreign ministers gathered earlier this week to make the case for embracing Ukraine's maximalist war aims and pursuing a total defeat of Russia."Ukraine is not fighting for their own freedom; Ukraine is fighting instead of us," Estonian FM Margus Tsahkna proclaimed when he joined the FMs of Latvia,and Lithuania at the hawkish Hudson Institute think tank on Monday to share their perspectives on security issues in Northern Europe.The Baltic officials also argued for the continuous expansion of NATO to deter Vladimir Putin — including eventually allowing Ukraine to join the alliance—and the necessity for "American leadership" in NATO.Yet many of these talking points are detached from actual reality on the ground in Ukraine and will only perpetuate the cycle of violence in Eastern Europe.The three Baltic FMs said that Ukraine's total victory is imperative for peace in Europe and security for NATO. FM Tsahkna's eight-point plan for Ukrainian victory advocates for further sanctions on Russia, utilizing frozen Russian assets for Ukraine's reconstruction, incorporating Ukraine into both the EU and NATO, and relying on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's peace plan as the only way to preserve Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The ministers also agreed that a peace plan without Russia's total defeat would only delay inevitable future invasions from Russia. "Cutting a deal would be great for the autocrats," Latvian foreign minister Krišjānis Kariņš said as he noted that the world is actively observing the war in Ukraine. In the eyes of the Baltic FMs, only a hard power "containment" strategy can deter Vladimir Putin's imperial ambitions. "We will have this Russia problem or challenge for a long time. NATO needs to focus on how to contain them for the next twenty years with strength," Kariņš continued. Peace in Europe depends solely on the threat of force. But Ukraine's prospects of total defeat of Russia are nonexistent. Kyiv has suffered massive losses, as Russia's capture of Avdiivka last month was Russia's most considerable territorial advance since its victory in Bakhmut in May 2023. Furthermore, Ukraine is running out of troops. The Ukrainian military has faced an average personnel shortage of 25% across its brigades and is unlikely to mobilize the required number of men to match Russia's manpower advantage. Draft dodging has become rampant throughout Ukraine as thousands have fled the country. As a result, Ukraine is on the brink of a demographic catastrophe, which would imperil Ukraine's future after the war concludes.Additionally, according to the Baltic FMs, Putin has been the best salesman for NATO expansion, given that both Finland and Sweden ended their many decades of neutrality and joined the alliance. "Russia has erased the idea of a neutral zone. It's either Europe and NATO or Russia," said Kariņš. Therefore, neutrality is not an option for a post-war Ukraine since neutrality serves as a "green light" for Putin to invade as he did in Georgia in 2008. The Lithuanian foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis went as far as to say that "European security architecture will not be whole, secure, or safe without Ukraine."Without a hard power deterrent, countries that have remained neutral, such as Georgia and Moldova, will fall next to Putin's aggression.While the foreign ministers of the Baltic countries made several references to Putin's imperialistic tendencies, they discounted the possibility that NATO expansion fanned the flames of Russian nationalism and expansion. As Dr. Joshua Shifrinson has highlighted, "Russian nationalism and imperialism did not develop in a vacuum." Instead, NATO expansion gave Russian nationalists a cause to rally behind as it reinforced their belief that Moscow's national interests were at stake. The Baltic FMs also insisted that there is no substitute for U.S. leadership. "Without U.S. leadership, I don't think we will have a happy ending," Landsbergis asserted. While the Baltic countries are doing their part by exceeding the 2% spending guideline, the United States must work to defend the "rules-based system" created by the United States following World War II. Russia is actively posing a "direct challenge to U.S. power and authority," as FM Kariņš puts it. Thus, the war in Ukraine is not only a regional problem but a global problem. Additionally, the way of life enjoyed in NATO countries, including in the Baltics, is also under direct threat.Despite NATO's technological and military superiority to Russia, the Baltic FMs worry that Putin expects the West to be politically unprepared. Russia's economy is geared toward war, given that nearly 40% of its budget is spent on defense. Russia's regular army is also expanding, signaling Russia's refusal to end the war effort and its potential to challenge the NATO alliance. Therefore, NATO must get up to speed and unite against the Russian threat. Lastly, the Lithuanian FM proposed that NATO members should restrict themselves when referring to the Russian missile that recently briefly entered Polish airspace. "I'm a proponent of not drawing red lines for ourselves. If we say specifically that we're not going to do A, B, C and make a whole list of things we are not going to do, it sounds like an invitation for Putin to try," Landsbergis said. But adopting an aggressive strategy is not the best path forward for NATO. Expanding the member base will not make its participants safer. Finland and Sweden's ascension into NATO ended many decades of neutrality, under which both countries have become prosperous democracies. It also elongated NATO's border with Russia by 820 miles. Adding more countries to the alliance, including Ukraine, will be more of a liability than an asset.Moreover, an aggressive force posture from NATO spearheaded by the United States is unnecessary to satisfy a "containment" strategy toward Russia. Despite its ability to adapt throughout the war, Russia has still fallen far short of its maximalist aims to subjugate Ukraine as a vassal state. U.S. aims in Europe have historically been counter-hegemonic. The current realities suggest that no European state can establish itself as a regional hegemon. Thus, Russia has little to no hope of defeating NATO through conventional means. There is an alternative option. Washington and Kyiv should pursue a diplomatic path to preserve Ukraine's sovereignty while avoiding a NATO-Russia conflict. There remain reasons for Russia to come to the negotiating table, given that Moscow wants to establish a "demilitarized zone," de facto Western acquiescence to Russian control of Crimea and the Donbas, and a legitimate role to play in Europe's security order. However, Kyiv and its allies should pursue this path urgently, as Ukraine's leverage will inevitably decrease over time.

 A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times had a piece on the upcoming election that said "Red and Blue Americas are moving farther and farther apart geographically, philosophically, financially, educationally and informationally."  It went on to say "In 1960, about 4 percent of Americans said they would be displeased if their child married someone from the other party. By 2020, that had grown to nearly four in 10. Indeed, only about 4 percent of all marriages today are between a Republican and a Democrat."  I already wrote about the last point.  I think it refers to perceived voting differences from one's spouse (there aren't many political surveys which interview both members of a couple):  they are rare today, but were also rare in the previous years for which I had data (1944, 1960, and 1984).  This post will consider the hypothetical question about a child marrying someone from the other party.  This is a summary of all the relevant questions I could find:Year                       Positive               Negative             Survey

1960                     14%                       4%                         Almond/Verba
2008                                                     24%                     YouGov               
2010                                                     41%                     YouGov
2014                     28%                       17%                       Pew
2017                                                     14%                      PRRI
2018                     69%                       35%                       PRRI     
2020                                                     38%                      YouGovThe three figures in boldface involve the same question:  the others all had different questions and different response categories.  Some of the surveys just asked one question about marrying someone from the other party, but others asked everyone two questions--one about marrying a Republican and one about marrying a Democrat.  For the ones with two questions, I also show positive responses--people who say they would be pleased if the hypothetical child marries in the party (rather than saying it wouldn't matter to them).  There's clearly been an increase in both positive and negative reactions, although the differences among the questions makes it hard to say much about its exact timing (I wish people had stuck with the 1960 question).Why do we have stability with (perceived) party differences within actual marriages but increasingly negative reactions to party differences in a hypothetical marriage?  People generally know something about their spouse's political views (although there's undoubtedly a tendency to exaggerate agreement).  But with the hypothetical question, they have to come up with an idea of what an unspecified Democrat or Republican would be like.  The most likely source for that would be prominent Democratic or Republican political leaders.  In a time when ideological differences between parties were small and political leaders tried to show respect for the other side, that wouldn't seem so bad.  But with larger differences and more conflict between the parties, it would.  That is, increased objections to a hypothetical marriage to someone from the other party don't necessarily reflect increased social distance between Democrats and Republicans in the public--they could just reflect increased differences at the elite level.[Data from the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research]

(JAKARTA, INDONESIA) — Soon after voting ended in the world's fourth-largest country and third-largest democracy, Prabowo Subianto is claiming a knock-out blow winning more than half the vote and the necessary number of provinces to eliminate both his challengers.According to unofficial tallies, which have been historically accurate, Prabowo has garnered 58% of the vote in today's contest. The official count will not be announced until mid-March and his opponents have yet to concede defeat.Nevertheless, highly popular incumbent president Joko Widodo (Jokowi)'s backing for the former special forces commander, and active undermining of his own party's candidate Ganjar Pranowo, is a big reason for the ostensibly lopsided result. But the famously temperamental Prabowo's clever rebranding as a cute and cuddly grandpa seems to have helped quite a bit, too.Arriving in Jakarta just as the three-day "quiet period" was beginning spared me all the raucousness of the election campaigning. But the billboards of the three candidates — Anies Baswedan, Ganjar Pranowo, and Prabowo — were prominently plastered across the city. The few everyday folk I spoke to seemed to favor the former general. A young hotel housekeeper told me she voted for Prabowo (as did almost all her friends and family) as he was "a strong leader, and honest." Reports here speak of the youth vote as being a big factor in the result. Much of the U.S. commentary has pointed out that Prabowo was once banned from entering the U.S. for his links to a military unit accused of human rights atrocities. To that the feisty general might say: get over it. After all, the United States was forced to lift the ban on his entry after Jokowi — after beating Prabowo in a bitterly-fought election in 2019 — invited him to become his defense minister. Now that Prabowo is likely to become president, such musings are chiefly academic. While my interlocutors in town seemed worried about democratic backsliding in the country (and this has been apparently underway for a couple of years), relatively few voters appear swayed by this concern. And in an increasingly multipolar world, Washington is less able to influence how other countries choose their leaders, and tell them how they should govern. For his part, as president Jokowi has focused relentlessly on economic growth and domestic issues, though he also skillfully steered Indonesia's G20 presidency in the turbulent wake of the Ukraine war. Under him Indonesia has not only prospered, but also put into place a tough industrial policy, including limiting or banning the export of certain valuable natural resources, such as nickel. This encourages these resources to be processed in-country, which helps grow and sustain economically valuable industries that require these resources, such as electric vehicle parts, thereby diversifying and strengthening the Indonesian economy.The European Union has responded by taking him to the WTO, and the United States has not been exactly enthusiastic on these "downstreaming" policies. But China has played ball, building ore-processing plants in the country. Beijing has also built shiny new infrastructure, most prominently a new "Whoosh" bullet train from Jakarta to Bandung.Meanwhile, Jakarta has not expressly taken sides in the U..S-China tussle. This is hardly surprising. Non-alignment (or bebas dan aktif — free and active — as the Indonesians call it in Bahasa) is a core Indonesian grand strategy principle. Indonesia was a foundational contributor to the idea of non-alignment in the Global South, with the famous 1955 Bandung conference being held there. Even under the authoritarian leader Suharto, who tilted toward the United States, Indonesia maintained strong relations with arch-communist Vietnam. Though China was shunned by Suharto — and the Chinese-Indonesian minority treated poorly — it all seems in the rear-view mirror in today's Indonesia. China is Indonesia's biggest trade partner and among its biggest investors. Hoardings commemorating the Chinese new year are visible in parts of the city and the community is much better integrated than in the past. Furthermore, when it comes to Russia, Indonesian social media has been rife with sympathy with Moscow on the Ukraine war. What will Prabowo's foreign policy be like? His past record indicates that the ex-general is much more a strong-willed, if volatile, pragmatist than an ideologue. Today, this means a continuation of Jokowi's policy record of economic growth and the development of domestic industry and infrastructure. Thus business-friendly relations with Beijing, as also attempts to attract more American investment and trade, will continue.Prabowo is also far more exposed in his youth to the world than was Jokowi when he was sworn in. The former general has lived in Europe and Singapore and was trained by the U.S. military. Which means that Indonesia under him could be somewhat more vocal on regional and international issues than it has been. Recall Prabowo's bold play on a Ukraine peace plan at the United Nations last year. Nevertheless, unless Washington makes a big deal of past human rights issues (unlikely), there are opportunities for incremental strengthening of ties. Military exercises between the two have been on an upswing lately. Indonesia has also softened its earlier opposition to AUKUS and refrained from joining BRICS, partly keeping relations with Washington in mind.Trade relations are something to watch however, with Washington's new focus on imposing labor standards on its major trading partners. This is not always welcome in Global South capitals which see lower labor costs as a comparative advantage. Unlike the United States these days, Indonesia is also very comfortable with trade integration. It was the most important ASEAN member leading the RCEP process and continues to lead in shaping the implementation of the world's largest trade agreement. Should there be a Republican in the White House next year, issues such as trade deficits could loom large. Indonesia also seeks a critical minerals agreement with the United States and hopes to benefit from the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy subsidies, but it will be a long haul to get there.As long as Washington understands that Indonesia is committed to a non-aligned rise, there is much scope to deepen ties. Indonesians see their relations with other major powers as being defined on their own merits and not as a byproduct of any other relationship. That ought to be a good basis for moving forward.

If there's one theme in Washington this week, it's this: Ukraine needs more weapons, and it needs them now. Two top Biden administration officials told Congress Wednesday that, if new Ukraine funding isn't passed soon, Russia could win the war within months or even weeks."A sovereign and secure Ukraine is critical to global security," Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said during a meeting with European defense leaders earlier this week. "And we must not waver in our support for Ukraine." While European leaders are attempting to fill some gaps in Ukraine's stockpiles on a bilateral basis, there is little that can be done to bolster Kyiv's defenses and keep its economy afloat without U.S. help. Congressional talks have so far failed to produce a deal that would trade border security measures for increased aid, and it's looking increasingly likely that any future funding, if it is forthcoming, will narrowly focus on military aid at the expense of economic support.A failure to pass new economic aid would badly damage Ukraine's government, which currently relies on American and European cash to pay state employees and provide many essential services in the country.Making matters worse is the fact that the European Union — which has been far more generous with budgetary support than military aid — is facing its own internal struggle over future funding. As the EU considers a new, $54 billion aid package, all eyes are on Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has long been skeptical of support for Ukraine."It's difficult. I know Viktor Orban well," said Luxembourgeois Foreign Minister Xavier Bettel. "It won't be easy to convince him."There is, however, some hope that Orban will change his mind. The Hungarian leader has long opposed Ukraine's accession to the EU but was willing to sit out a vote on the question last month after the bloc freed roughly $11 billion in Hungarian funds that had been frozen due to alleged democratic backsliding. In other words, Orban may throw his support behind more aid for the right price.Ukraine also marked a consequential victory Wednesday when Slovakia's controversial prime minister announced that he would back new aid during a visit to Kyiv.But all of this uncertainty has left Ukraine in a difficult position. The blame game has already begun in anticipation of challenges on the battlefield, according to Politico. "If Russia wins the war against Ukraine, some officials in Kyiv are ready to pin the blame on the West," an anonymous Ukrainian military official told the outlet.If the tide starts to turn against Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky "will desperately look for options of whom to blame," the official continued. The shifting dynamics suggest that the potential for a negotiated peace — a reasonably probable possibility just a month or two ago — is quickly fading as Russian leaders see an opportunity to pursue their likely advantage on the battlefield.In other diplomatic news related to the war in Ukraine:— Russia President Vladimir Putin "may be willing to consider dropping an insistence on neutral status for Ukraine and even ultimately abandon opposition to eventual NATO membership" in exchange for keeping the Ukrainian territory Russia currently occupies, according to anonymous people close to the Kremlin who spoke with Bloomberg. The report says the proposal is part of Moscow's quiet signaling to Washington that it is open to talks to end the war, though U.S. officials deny any backchannel communications.— Russia's ambassador to Switzerland slammed the country's decision to host a pro-Ukraine peace conference without Russian participation, saying that Swiss actions have caused it to lose "its role as an impartial international mediator," according to Reuters. The Swiss talks will only include Kyiv's supporters and will be based on a 10-point Ukrainian plan that the Kremlin has rejected out of hand. The ambassador also reiterated Moscow's public demands for talks, which include an independent status for Ukraine and the protection of Russians and Russian speakers in the country.— Talks aimed at restarting the Black Sea grain deal have quietly begun, according to Ukraine's ambassador in Turkey, the country that held several previous rounds of negotiations on the issue, Reuters reports. Details on the new discussions are scarce, but the renewed interest in talks suggests that Ukraine's alternative shipping route, which hugs the coast of Romania, has not been as effective at boosting trade as was previously hoped. The news also points to Russia's increasing desperation to resume exports of fertilizers and fertilizer components, a key part of the original deal that Moscow abandoned due to alleged shortcomings in implementation.— Turkey's parliament formally approved Sweden's accession to NATO, marking a major step in Stockholm's so far arduous path to joining the bloc, according to the BBC. The Biden administration urged Congress to approve a sale of F-16s to Turkey shortly after the announcement, shedding light on what inducements helped Ankara come around.The final country that must sign off is now Hungary. While Budapest has yet to give a specific reason for slow-rolling the decision, some members of the ruling Fidesz party have said they oppose Sweden's accession due to its criticisms of alleged democratic backsliding in Hungary. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Orban said Wednesday that he "supports the NATO membership of Sweden" and will push parliament to move forward with ratification as soon as possible.— Russian officials threatened to seize as much as $280 billion in Western assets if the U.S. and Europe follow through on their proposal to give $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, according to Reuters. Cyprus and the Netherlands have the most to lose, according to Russian state media, while countries like France, Germany, Britain, Japan, and the U.S. would also have significant assets seized. Meanwhile, a bill that would allow the U.S. to seize Russian funds overwhelmingly passed a U.S. Senate committee Wednesday. Backers of the proposal expect that it will pass both chambers of Congress with significant bipartisan support.U.S. State Department news:In a Wednesday press conference, State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel praised Turkey's approval of Sweden's accession to NATO and called on Hungary to follow suit. "We look forward to Hungary concluding their ratification process and the Alliance welcoming Sweden into NATO without further delay," Patel said.

Ukraine and the UK announced a security agreement Jan. 12, the first of its kind and one that Kyiv hopes puts it on a glide path into NATO. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also increased military funding for Ukraine by 200 million pounds to 2.5 billion pounds in 2024-2025. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called the deal an "unprecedented security agreement." This seeming hyperbole is accurate. It is the first bilateral security pact involving Ukraine forged since the Russian invasion in 2022. However, he then slipped into speculation, tweeting "If the UK and other countries had provided such a level of guarantees after 1991, there would have been no Russian aggression at all." Maybe. If such pacts had accelerated Ukraine's entrance into NATO, before Russia recovered from its 1990s collapse, the 2022 invasion might never have occurred. However, all evidence from 2008 onward is that Moscow implacably opposed Ukraine joining NATO. If the West had moved in the 1990s to extend security guarantees to Ukraine, it is equally likely that Russia would have intervened much earlier — and if Russia was much weaker in the 1990s, so too was Ukraine.Elements of the new UK-Ukraine security pact, like intensified intelligence sharing, have already made Moscow suspicious that the West intends to end-run a possible NATO membership, that is, to supply Ukraine with actual NATO soldiers. Indeed, the pact's announcement drew a swift response from Kremlin hard-liner Dmitry Medvedev — no stranger to hyperbole himself — accusing London of planning just that, and threatening a nuclear response. So what does this bode for the war's future? Nothing good. It is not that the UK on its own can guarantee anything to Ukraine, let alone sufficient military aid to maintain Ukraine's defense. (The British army now has only around 150 main battle tanks and in 2022 Britain's production of artillery shells for the entire year was less than the number expended by Ukraine in a three-day period at the height of the counteroffensive. Contracts inked in 2023 to ramp up will take an estimated two years to fulfill.) Rather, this British move will create yet another impediment to the opening of peace talks, both by increasing Russian distrust and by strengthening opponents of talks elsewhere in Europe.The Kremlin's goal of keeping Ukraine out of NATO has been consistent since peace talks collapsed in spring of 2022, and this latest British assault can only serve to slow Russian willingness to end combat and talk. Indeed, there's little evidence right now that Moscow intends to cease fighting; this new security deal only makes things worse. As Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute tells me in an email, "Although as far as London is concerned much of this agreement is just the usual British play-acting as a great power, it could have serious consequences in the real world." In short, it's a provocation. The British announcement comes at an especially bad time, too, amid reports that the Biden administration wants to start moving toward a negotiated settlement to end the war. This security pact ensures that no such settlement will be forthcoming soon. Because if it sketches out the West's general refusal to contemplate a neutral Ukraine, it's hard to see Moscow backing off. Indeed, on Jan. 15, came news of the "Moldova Highway" between Ukraine and Romania. According to reports this highway will greatly speed the time needed to transfer U.S. weapons and equipment to Ukraine.In addition to the security agreement funds, this pact promises "swift and sustained" help for Kyiv, if Moscow attacks again. It also advocates Ukraine's future NATO membership, provides "comprehensive assistance to Ukraine for the protection and the restoration of its territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders," including the maritime zone, rebuilding the economy, protecting citizens, preventing and deterring Russian military escalation, and support for Ukraine's European integration, according to the agreement's text. Key elements are intelligence sharing, military and medical training, cyber security, and defense industrial cooperation. The UK's commitment to provide thousands of military drones, "the largest ever," according to Sunak's office, doubtless also did little to advance peace negotiations.In the context of President Joe Biden's remarks two weeks ago about a "U.S.-Russia direct war" — and his earlier claim to congressional Republicans that if they failed to fund Ukraine, American and Russian soldiers would fight each other, in other words, World War III would erupt with all its dreadful nuclear implications — one might well conclude that Washington plans to follow London along the escalatory route. "The stakes of this fight extend far beyond Ukraine," Biden recently said, "and affect the security of both NATO and Europe." That is an open question. There is little evidence that Moscow intends to invade other neighbors, though fears are often whipped up by the media and carelessly chattering politicians, only impeding the necessary shift toward diplomacy.However, given the failure of Ukraine's counteroffensive, and Russia's slow, steady forward movement all along the line of contact, the U.S. has indicated an interest in talks in recent months. This is the wiser of the two courses currently, albeit schizophrenically, being signaled from inside the Beltway. Ukraine is running out of manpower, and European military cupboards are bare, since almost everything was shipped to Ukraine and destroyed by Russia, while Moscow's wartime industrial base has expanded. Meanwhile, NATO is out of ammo. Talks now would likely secure a better deal for Ukraine than they would in six months or a year."It is now obvious to all that the Ukrainian summer counteroffensive failed. Meanwhile, as Russian military supplies have been ramping up, Ukrainian supplies have been dwindling," notes Nicolai Petro, University of Rhode Island professor of comparative and international politics, in an interview. "This inevitably sets the stage for a potential Russian counteroffensive."But recognizing that requires a depth of Western realism for which there is so far little evidence. If Russia is the victor – and that is the path events currently follow – the Kremlin will dictate the terms. And Moscow has long made clear that it must talk with Washington, not just Kyiv. Time to salvage any aspect of this fiasco for the West is running out. New aggressive security pacts just make it run out faster.

In 1874, the British magazine "Punch" published a cartoon showing a conversation between a young girl and her mother:"Mamma, shall you allow me to go to the Wilkinsons' ball?""No, darling," the mother responded"You've been to a great many balls, mama?""Yes darling – and I have seen the folly of them all," she said."Mightn't I just be allowed the folly of one, mamma?"This comic, which may have reminded readers of the one-sided settlement of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871, would have a lasting resonance. Over the course of the 20th century, European and American leaders imposed harsh terms on their vanquished enemies in the grand peace conferences that formally ended World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.In each case, the winner excelled in sowing the seeds for the next conflict. Those who seek a peaceful Europe should keep these lessons in mind when the time finally comes to end the war in Ukraine.In 1871, Prussia chose the Chateau de Versailles — the masterpiece and symbol of French might — as the ideal place to proclaim the German Empire. The provinces of Alsace and Lorraine were incorporated into the new German polity despite the majority of the population feeling French.WWI ended with a German defeat in November 1918, after which the victors dictated peace terms to Germany and left it no option but to sign. Alsace and Lorraine reverted to France. Germany found itself too weak to protest the terms but too proud to bear their consequences.The opportunity for revenge came in 1939. Adolf Hitler's hubris led him to attack Poland. Ultimately Germany lost WWII to a grand coalition of Britain, France, the U.S., and the Soviet Union.The winners chose to carve out almost all of the province of Prussia and give it to Poland. The rest morphed into the Federal Republic of Germany, which chose the Western camp, and the German Democratic Republic, which joined the Soviet system. Germany today bears no resemblance to the Germany of 1871 to1945 and is still struggling to find an identity.Fast forward to 1991, when the victors of the Cold War rather unceremoniously stamped their mark on a new global power balance.The Warsaw Pact, established in 1955 as a counterweight to NATO, was immediately dissolved. NATO, for its part, gradually expanded to include ten countries that were formerly either a part of the Soviet Union or a member of the Warsaw Pact.Russia, as the successor state to the Soviet Union, was left without the "buffer zone" of Eastern European states that had been vital for the Czars and the communist leader Josef Stalin. Russian rulers had long deemed this area imperative due to their lack of natural geographical defenses like north-south rivers or mountains.For centuries many Central and Eastern European countries were compulsorily included in the Czarist and Communist Empire. Not surprisingly, they do not trust Russia and are not willing to grant it influence on their choice of security. Russia and Central and Eastern European countries are each impinging on what the other party considers to be its vital interests.Russia was too weak to block the role assigned to it by the victors but too strong to be kept down for long — a picture sorely reminiscent of Germany in 1919. Now, Moscow hopes to rescind what it perceives as the wrongs of history by reintegrating Ukraine in its sphere of interest or even as a part of the Russian Federation. Ukraine's vigorous defense illustrates Kyiv's defiance in the face of this unilateral attempt to resuscitate Russian power and global role. Ukraine has ferociously defended its independence after several hundreds of years in a Russian empire. Russia and Ukraine, then, are each impinging on what the other party considers to be its vital interests.Russia has the largest resources, including manpower, but mobilizing them comes at a cost. Western observers have estimated that Russian troops have suffered about 300,000 casualties. And even if the economy is doing relatively well despite sanctions, this pressure comes at a cost.Russian President Vladimir Putin said earlier this month that peace would come when Russia's war aims had been achieved, reiterating that he sought Ukraine's denazification, demilitarization, and neutrality. He didn't lift the veil much, which gives him room to maneuver without hinting at how he might contemplate using it. President Putin speaks exclusively to the Russians – and the Russian voters — so Western observers should be reluctant to interpret it.Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been fairly intransigent when it comes to peace talks, which is necessary to rally the troops. He addresses both the domestic and foreign audience, which also complicates any rash interpretation. There are – unsubstantiated – inklings that inside his close circle opinions may differ. Allegedly, some argue time is not on Ukraine's side. The summer 2023 offensive did not play out as hoped. Ukraine is dependent on Western aid, and no one knows for sure how solid the commitment is.The European Union laid down a marker December 14 by formally deciding to open accession negotiations with Ukraine. It now seeks ways to continue financial aid by overcoming Hungarian opposition.It is conventional thinking that a President Trump, if elected in 2024, will close shop vis-à-vis Ukraine. He has indeed declined to commit to continued military assistance, saying only that he would get a deal done in a day and warning both sides of consequences if that doesn't come to pass.The rest of the world should remind both sides that they need to be cognizant of history and not try to use demands to crush or humiliate the other side so as to sow the seeds of the next conflict. A sore point is obviously territory, where outside parties should be wary about voicing strong views. It must be done in a way that closes the chapter once and for all. Otherwise, the risk is that Donetsk and Luhansk could go the way of Alsace and Lorraine.The Russian attack on Ukraine may be perceived as an isolated and regional conflict, but it isn't. The Western world should realize that the background for the war is, to a large extent, about Russian feelings of insecurity and dissatisfaction with the world order. This feeling is widespread outside the Western camp and helps explain China's stance.Only a genuine attempt to produce a global power balance that takes into account how the world looks today can bring about lasting peace and stability — not only in Ukraine but in other hot spots around the world.

As the U.S. Congress gears up to vote on a supplemental spending package that includes $14.3 billion in aid for Israel, Democrats on the Hill have started questioning the long-standing bipartisan consensus in Washington to supply military aid to Tel Aviv with very few strings attached.
President Joe Biden and a large majority of Congress have thus far expressed full support for Israel's military response to Hamas's October 7 attack, but a short-term pause in the fighting has given some Democrats time to air concerns about how Israel is waging its war. Nearly a dozen senators met with Israeli officials in Washington on Monday to have what Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) called an "extremely frank" discussion about how the war is unfolding.
Democratic senators have remained tight-lipped about whether they support placing conditions on aid to Israel or how they will vote on the upcoming spending package, instead conveying general discomfort with Israel's conduct during a war in which it has killed more than 15,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, according to the government media office in Gaza. Senators have also expressed concern about escalating settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
"We want the president to secure express assurances from the Netanyahu government regarding a plan to reduce the unacceptable level of civilian casualties, and we want the Netanyahu coalition to commit to full cooperation with our efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "The bottom line is we need those express assurances. How we achieve that is something that we are discussing right now."
"I fully support Israel's right to pursue those who ordered and carried out the attacks of October 7th. But Israel must not do so in a way that leads to massive civilian casualties and the large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza," added Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) in a statement. "This will only incite more enemies against Israel and the U.S."
This growing discussion serves as more evidence that Washington's support for Israel's war is causing a split among Democrats in Congress. While Biden has helped broker a short-term pause to hostilities that is set to expire this week, other Democrats have demanded that the U.S. push for a more long-term ceasefire. In the nearly two months since the October 7 attacks, the number of Democrats who publicly support a ceasefire has slowly grown to 49 as of Wednesday. Public opinion polling has shown that a strong majority of Americans support a ceasefire in Gaza."Achieving a lasting ceasefire remains the most urgent priority for all sensible advocates and policymakers," Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, tells RS. "But as efforts to secure a ceasefire continue, it is encouraging to see growing talk about conditioning aid to Israel, which was once unimaginable on Capitol Hill."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has been criticized by progressive advocates for stopping short of calling for a ceasefire, has been one of the few Senate Democrats to explicitly endorse making military aid subject to more conditions on the way it is used. "Currently, we provide $3.8 billion a year. President Biden has asked for $14.3 billion more on top of that sum and asked Congress to waive normal, already-limited oversight rules. The blank check approach must end," Sanders wrote in a New York Times op-ed last week. "The United States must make clear that while we are friends of Israel, there are conditions to that friendship and that we cannot be complicit in actions that violate international law and our own sense of decency."
Other Democrats have pushed back on this idea. "Any legislation that conditions security aid to our key democratic ally, Israel, is a nonstarter and will lose scores of votes," Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) said in a statement.
"I don't think there's a need for conditionality," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Ben Cardin (D-Md.) added on Monday. "The way the president has handled his conversations with the Israelis has produced tangible results, including the amount of humanitarian assistance and the strategy on the military side."
Amid these debates, U.S. Senators were shown a film produced by the Israeli government showing footage of the Hamas attacks in October. The images left Senators in "tears and silence," according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Biden has called the idea of conditioning aid a "worthwhile thought," but administration officials has since said that it was "not something we're currently pursuing," according to Politico.
The Intercept reported on Tuesday that Sanders could force a vote on conditioning aid in the coming weeks.
Conversations in the Democratic caucus revolve around the Leahy law, which prohibits the U.S. from providing military aid to specific units where there is credible information that they have committed gross violations of human rights. As Josh Paul, a veteran State Department official who resigned in protest of the administration's approach to the war, explained to RS last month, Israel is held to different standards than other countries when it comes to the application of the law.
"For most countries, we vet the units that are receiving the systems before they receive the assistance," Paul said. "In the context of Israel, we provide the assistance, and then if certain allegations come to light of potential gross violations of human rights, we investigate those and decide if such things have actually happened."
What these discussions in the Democratic conference mean for U.S. policy in the short-term remain unclear, especially as most in Congress continue to strongly support aid for Israel, but as the war likely continues, it will be a question that lawmakers may not be able to avoid.
"Irreversible trends in how voters see Israel's brutal actions means this focus will only increase going forward," says Sperling. "In light of Israel's unprecedented toll on human life and also on U.S. global credibility, ending U.S. complicity in these cruel and illegal Israeli policies can't come soon enough."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, has said that the Senate will vote on the administration's emergency supplemental request as soon as next week, but a possible attempt to condition support for Israel only adds another roadblock to a sprawling bill that will likely also spark debates over future aid for Ukraine and border security policies.

Among the many diplomatic risks for the United States amid the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza, further alienating the Global South — including Africa — is high on the list.It is difficult to generalize about African public opinion, especially given the absence of continent-wide polling data regarding the present violence. Yet after African governments' initially divided reactions to the round of conflict that began with Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel, there are now numerous indications that most African governments, key African political factions, and substantial portions of African publics are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and appalled at the current Israeli military campaign in Gaza.Many African governments have historically supported an independent Palestine. In recent decades, however, Israel has increased its diplomatic presence on the continent, although not always in a linear fashion. Mauritania, for example, recognized Israel in 1999 before suspending ties in 2009. Amid the current crisis, however, African governments have virtually all been opposed to Israel's bombardment and invasion of Gaza.For example, on October 23, a Jordanian resolution calling for an "immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities" passed in the United Nations General Assembly by a vote of 120 for, 14 against, and 44 abstentions. Thirty-five African states (counting North African states) voted for the resolution, including Morocco and Sudan, which are signatories to the Abraham Accords that normalized their relations with Israel in late 2020. No African state voted against the resolution, although some did not vote, while a handful of others, such as Cameroon and Ethiopia, abstained. Support for such resolutions went directly against American wishes.At the diplomatic level, the African Union continues to support a two-state solution and, on October 15, joined the Arab League in a statement calling for peace and decrying "collective punishment" — a reference to the high civilian toll resulting from Israel's heavy bombing campaign.Meanwhile, at least two African countries have recalled their diplomats from Israel: South Africa and Chad. South Africa's ruling African National Congress (ANC), even before coming to power in 1994, was a longtime supporter of the Palestinian cause and, in particular, the Palestine Liberation Organization of Yasser Arafat, whom the ANC's Nelson Mandela called an "outstanding freedom fighter." On November 6, Pretoria summoned its ambassador back from Israel, citing civilian deaths in Gaza and what Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor called "collective punishment" of Gazans by Israel and what her government has also framed as "genocide."Two days earlier, Chad had recalled its chargé d'affaires from Tel Aviv, calling for a "ceasefire leading to a durable solution of the Palestinian question." Chad's move was particularly significant because it only recently upgraded its diplomatic relations with Israel and opened an embassy just this past February.Some African countries that initially appeared highly supportive of Israel immediately after Hamas's October 7 attack have since taken more nuanced stances as the death toll from Israel's response mounted: Kenya, for example, initially made a strong statement of "solidarity" with Israel, but has since backed calls for de-escalation. Despite their UNGA votes, African governments have been somewhat more cautious when it comes to allowing mass pro-Palestinian mobilizations on their own soil. The caution reflects at least two factors: such demonstrations could be used by their domestic political opposition, and some governments hope to quietly maintain their ties with Israel.In North Africa, pro-Palestinian protests have been stronger than in sub-Saharan Africa, with even Morocco — a signatory to the Abraham Accords and a partner of increasing importance for Israel — permitting huge protests. In sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, even the governments of some Muslim-majority countries have been reluctant to allow protests to proceed: on October 28, for example, Senegal denied permission for the National Alliance for the Palestinian Cause in Senegal to hold a rally, although a protest did eventually go forward in Dakar. South Africa, meanwhile, has unsurprisingly seen some of the largest protests south of the Sahara, given the historical solidarities mentioned above, as well as the presence of the Economic Freedom Fighters, an outspoken party to the left of the ANC. Another significant protest theater is Nigeria, both among Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.Expressions of condemnation of Israeli policy in different parts of the African continent come against the backdrop of a largely failed push by the United States to cajole African governments into taking sides on the Ukraine war. Before and after the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit in Washington in December 2022, Biden administration officials have found even longstanding allies, such as Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, unwilling to break completely with Russia.Given the massive financial, diplomatic, and military support that Washington is currently giving to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and the Israel Defense Forces, lining up African governments against Russia — or on other globally relevant conflicts — may become an even tougher sell.In the Global South, the idea of a "rules-based international order" rings increasingly hollow for many governments and their publics as Western governments (with few exceptions, such as Ireland) offer virtually unqualified support to the Israel's military offensive. Those actions are in clear violation of international laws against collective punishment, the targeting of civilians, the targeting of journalists, and the cutting off of food, water, and electricity, according to major Western-based international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and major media freedom groups such as Reporters Without Borders.In The Continent, an influential South African magazine, one prominent commentator accuses the U.S. (and Germany, among others) of deep hypocrisy when it comes to Palestine — for example, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier's public apology in Tanzania earlier this month over genocidal-level colonial repression landed awkwardly for some Africans. One Kenyan writer laments that the United Nations is toothless, the U.S. government seems "blasé" about Palestinian deaths, and "Western media…appears to have become a mouthpiece for US and Israeli propaganda."Meanwhile, amid both the Ukraine war and the crisis in Gaza, some Africans feel that the continent's own conflicts and tragedies (in Sudan, Ethiopia, and beyond) have been ignored, a dynamic that veteran observers have warned about as well. Washington may thus find it increasingly difficult to convince Africans that the United States represents a particular set of universal values.In Africa, the situation of Palestine evokes numerous solidarities: ethnic, religious, political, and more. Those solidarities are growing amid the present conflict, undoing some of Israel's diplomatic gains and posing long-term challenges to Washington's own diplomatic clout.

The U.S. has a bad habit of backing its clients to the hilt in their wars. That puts the U.S. in the unenviable position of being implicated in the war crimes that the clients commit while Washington refuses to use the leverage it clearly has to rein its clients in.Just as the U.S. did for years in supporting the Saudi coalition war on Yemen, Washington has reflexively backed Israeli military campaigns over the years, and it has not restricted its military assistance despite repeated attacks on civilian targets. In the current war in Gaza, the Biden administration has not only resisted pressure to call for a ceasefire, but it has also set no red lines that might trigger a reduction or cutoff in aid.The message that the U.S. has sent through its actions is that there will be no consequences for the Israeli government no matter what it does in Gaza. Washington needs to be using its influence to limit the harm done by this war and ideally to bring a halt to the fighting, but instead it is abdicating its responsibility. The current approach is a disaster for the people of Gaza and it is a blot on America's reputation. There is still time to prevent even worse outcomes, but it will require a dramatic change in U.S. policy.The Washington Post recently reported on the administration's unwillingness to put conditions on U.S. assistance to Israel. According to the report, conditioning military aid was considered a "nonstarter" in the administration because it would be unpopular and because of Biden's "personal attachment to Israel." These are poor excuses to justify supporting the status quo and backing the war without qualification. The U.S. could use the considerable leverage that it has to restrain the Israeli government, but the administration doesn't want to because of a combination of fear, ideology, and sentiment.In any relationship between the U.S. and a client, it is irresponsible to rule out a cutoff of military assistance. There must be limits to what the U.S. will permit its clients to do with the weapons it provides them, and when those limits are reached it is imperative that the U.S. halts further assistance. The U.S. should not be aiding and abetting another government when it commits war crimes, but by giving any client an effective blank check, the U.S. is guaranteed to be an accomplice. It makes no difference if U.S. officials issue hollow warnings about following the law when the U.S. is enabling the client's war. The only thing that is likely to focus the attention of a client government in the middle of a war is the prospect of losing some or all of the backing from Washington that it has come to rely on.The Post report also said that the administration believes that Israel's war has been "too severe, too costly in civilian casualties, and lacking a coherent endgame," but the people running the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world are throwing their hands up in frustration and claiming that they can't do anything about a war that they are actively supporting. If the administration is convinced that the Israeli response has been too harsh and the costs have been too high, they have an obligation to make every effort to change that. There is no excuse for giving up on trying to rein in a client before they have even made the attempt.It is telling that the same administration that prides itself on the importance of American leadership simply will not lead if that means breaking with a client. When the U.S. has extraordinary influence that might be used to mitigate or end an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe, we hear over and over how pitiful and powerless the U.S. suddenly is. We heard much the same thing during the debate over U.S. involvement in Yemen, and it was just as ridiculous then as it is now. The U.S. may not be able to control everything that its clients do, but it can control whether it provides them with weapons and diplomatic cover to make it easier for them to wage their wars.Defenders of the blank check approach will say that a client won't stop its war just because Washington disapproves. That could be right, but in practice when client governments begin to fear that they are losing U.S. support they tend to look for a face-saving way to stop fighting. Maybe the client will keep fighting without U.S. backing, or maybe the threat of removing U.S. support will force them to rethink what they are doing. There is no way to know what the reaction will be until the administration tries to apply the pressure it has so far refused to apply.One of the pitfalls of offering automatic, uncritical support at the start of a conflict is that it makes it politically more difficult to reduce that support when things go wrong. That is why the U.S. should be much more careful about how and when it provides support to other states' wars. Especially when the U.S. has no formal obligations to support another state at war, the default response from Washington should be to refrain from making any major commitments. Unless vital U.S. interests are clearly at stake, there is usually no compelling reason for Washington to throw its support behind another country's war.The U.S. is already overstretched around the world with too many commitments, so it is foolish to volunteer to be involved in additional conflicts. Such involvement not only adds to the immediate burdens on the United States, but it also risks entangling our country in larger conflicts as well. When a war breaks out, the U.S. response should not be to rush to take sides, but to press for a halt to the fighting before it escalates further. Even if entreaties for peace from Washington are rebuffed at first, it is much better for our government to be playing the part of a would-be mediator instead of being an enabler of bloodshed.Giving U.S. clients a blank check is an invitation to abuse and to what international relations scholar Barry Posen has called "reckless driving." That is bad for the U.S. and for regional peace and security, and in the long run it is also bad for the clients themselves. It is long past time that Washington put conditions on the military assistance it provides to its Middle Eastern clients, including Israel, and it should not be afraid of cutting off that assistance when the clients start driving recklessly.

The U.S. is poised to supply Ukraine with ATACMS missiles, according to an ABC News report on Saturday. "They are coming," an official said, adding that all plans concerning security assistance to Ukraine are subject to change. Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, are "on the table" for a future aid package, a second official told ABC. ATACMS missiles — which boast a range 190 miles or 300 km — could help Ukrainian forces strike targets in Crimea, regarded by top Ukrainian officials and many Western observers as the Ukraine War's decisive terrain. The planned ATACMS transfer has not been corroborated by any officials willing to speak on the record. "There's no decision on ATACMS right now," said White House spokesman John Kirby, according to ABC News. "As the president has said, they're not off the table… we continue to discuss the viability of ATACMS," he added.The reported decision to send ACAMS missiles to Ukraine, if confirmed, would follow a longstanding Western pattern of initially refusing to supply Kyiv with certain high-profile weapons only to reverse course as the war drags on. Senior U.S. officials asserted in the opening weeks of the 2022 Russian invasion that there are no plans to send Patriot missile batteries to Ukraine. They noted that these systems would need to be operated on Ukrainian territory by American troops, thus making the U.S. an active participant in the conflict. Meanwhile, as late as January 2023, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley reportedly opposed sending M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine amid concerns that they don't serve the Ukrainian military's needs and are too complicated to operate, maintain, and repair. The White House has since reversed its stance on both issues, supplying Kyiv with one Patriot system and approving the transfer of 31 M1A2 Abrams tanks. The ongoing debate over deliveries of F-16 jet fighters is playing out in similar fashion. President Biden and top administration officials have repeatedly ruled out sending F-16s to Ukraine over the past 18months, echoing concerns about escalation if the jets are used to strike targets inside Russia. The White House announced in August that it will begin training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s later this year, a dramatic volte face that is intended to lay the groundwork for Ukraine to receive and operate F-16s provided by U.S. allies Denmark and the Netherlands. Saturday's report is the clearest indication yet that the provision of ATACMS could follow this well-established pattern of months of hesitancy or even outright refusal followed by a stark, sudden reversal. Not everyone thinks it's a good idea."As the Biden administration grows more desperate to show progress in the war, it is running greater and greater risks in daring Moscow to retaliate against the West," the Quincy Institute's Director of Grand Strategy George Beebe said Saturday after the news. "The danger is that we will only discover where Russia's red lines are drawn after we have crossed them."The West's "boiling the frog" approach to Ukraine aid appears to be premised on a range of calculations concerning Russian behavior and the war's underlying dynamics. Western policymakers reportedly share the concern that a sudden, drastic surge in aid, marshaling the full might of NATO's arsenal into colossal aid packages announcing all available weapons within a short time span, could invite catastrophic escalation up to and including the use of nuclear weapons and a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO. By spacing out deliveries of major weapons systems, the thinking goes, the West can slowly dilute Russia's red lines and ramp up aid to Ukraine at minimal risk. Secondly, Ukraine's armed forces (AFU) are limited in how much aid they can absorb by training, logistics, and maintenance requirements. Western governments can pledge everything at once, but it would still take years for the weapons to be delivered, deployed, and utilized in substantial quantities. The ATACMS report follows closely on the heels of a surprise announcement by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that Ukrainian forces have begun using domestically produced long-range missiles. Zelenskyy said the mystery missile was used to successfully strike a target as far as 700 kms away, with the secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, Oleksiy Danilov, noting that the new weapon boasts an even longer range.No details concerning this unnamed missile have been independently confirmed, nor has its existence been verified. Whereas the weapons provided by Kyiv's western backers come with prohibitions on strikes against targets inside Russian territory, the AFU can use missiles it manufactures without any such constraints. Ukrainian officials made no secret of their plans for this new weapon: "Believe me, already very soon someone [in Russia] will be burned, and burned in the direct sense of the word," Danilov said, according to the Washington Post. Though ATACMS possess roughly four times the range of the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, missiles being transferred by the U.S. to Ukraine, there is no evidence to suggest that they significantly outrange the Storm Shadow missiles pledged and supplied to Ukraine by the British and French earlier this summer. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova insisted in September 2022 that the provision of longer-range weapons to Kyiv is a "red line" that would make the U.S. "a party to the conflict." Moscow's response to such deliveries, threatened Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, will be to capture more of Ukraine's territory: "The further you supply weapons, the further we will move away from our territory the line beyond which [Ukraine can strike Russia]," he said. Signals that the U.S. is inching closer to greenlighting the provision of ATACMS missiles may have been spurred by disappointing battlefield developments. As the main thrust of Ukraine's much-anticipated summer counteroffensive in the southern Zaporizhzhia region continues to yield marginal gains at a "slower than expected" pace, Western planners and policymakers are already discussing upcoming Ukrainian offensives in 2024 and beyond. Though neither platform can make it to Ukraine in time for the summer counteroffensive, some military observers believe that F-16s and ATACMS can play a key role in Ukraine's future attempts to recapture Russian-occupied territory in the country's south and southeast.