By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Mar 14 2024 – In recent weeks, the Biden administration has found itself facing a serious dilemma as to how to balance its commitment to Israel’s national security along with the humanitarian crisis facing the Palestinians in Gaza.

Whereas the United States provides military aid to Israel, including bombs and other defense systems, as a part of the US strategic alliance, this support has always been rooted in their shared democratic values, mutual security interests, and historical ties.

It is also influenced by domestic political factors within the United States, including strong support for Israel among the American people and American lawmakers.

At the same time, the US is facing tremendous pressure to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians in Gaza, including food, water, medicine, and fuel.

Having failed to persuade Israel to increase these supplies to the Palestinians recently, the United States decided to drop this aid from the air and now is also considering building a floating pier to provide such support from the sea, aiming at alleviating the humanitarian crisis.

This could lessen, to some extent, the dire shortages of these essential supplies, but they are no substitute for direct deliveries from Israel in terms of quantities and speed.

This dual approach of supporting Israel’s security needs while also providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians is part of the US’ broader diplomatic effort to balance its interests in the region.

However, the United States’ effort to promote regional security by supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while advocating for the Palestinians’ humanitarian needs and acting on them presents a dilemma for President Biden. The Biden administration may well have to resort to direct measures to force Netanyahu to change his policy.

There are significant policy differences between Netanyahu and Biden that go back years before the Israel-Gaza war. They include policy differences related to the expansion of the settlements in the West Bank, the Iran nuclear deal, and President Biden’s efforts to renegotiate a new deal in the wake of Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA.

In addition, and perhaps most importantly, they differ dramatically regarding the overall approach in the search for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the United States supports a two-state solution to which Netanyahu vehemently objects.

There is also significant disagreement on two other major issues: The Biden administration would like the Palestinian Authority to take charge of the Strip following the end of the war.

Conversely, Netanyahu completely opposes the return of the PA to Gaza, primarily because he wants to maintain security control over most of the Palestinian territories and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

As he stated in January, “I will not compromise on full Israeli security control over the entire area in the west of Jordan – and this is contrary to a Palestinian state.”

In addition, whereas President Biden wants to see a clear exit strategy from the war, Netanyahu is insisting on maintaining indefinite security control over Gaza, which, from the United States’ perspective, will result simply in the expansion of the Israeli occupation and creeping annexation of Palestinian territories, with no resolution in sight.

It should be noted that the upcoming US presidential elections in November are playing a role in Netanyahu’s strategy. If there are only two people in the world who want Trump to win the election this fall, the first is Trump himself, and the second is Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister will do everything in his power to undermine President Biden’s reelection.

He is cheering the fact that President Biden is intensely criticized by some Congressional Democrats as well as a multitude of young voters who oppose his unwavering support of Israel while tens of thousands of Palestinians have died and counting.

He will prolong the war as long as it serves his personal interest and weakens Biden politically as he is embarking on his reelection campaign.

President Biden should not allow Netanyahu to set the agenda. He must now take definitive measures to alert the Israeli public that, although the US commitment to Israel’s national security is unshakable, the US administration differentiates between the state of Israel and the current Netanyahu government with which he has fundamental disagreements.

To that end, there are five different measures that will not affect the US commitment to Israel’s national security but will send a clear message to Netanyahu that the US must draw the line and will not allow him to drag the US into the morass of his own creation.

Although some of these measures are sensitive and may raise some objections from Congress, nevertheless, the Biden administration has no choice but to act to alleviate the massive humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

First, as one of Israel’s largest financial supporters, the US could use its economic aid as leverage. Adjusting such aid levels and stipulating specific conditions related to its use could pressure Netanyahu, at least in part, to reconsider his policies, albeit as indicated, this particular approach is sensitive and would need to be carefully balanced to prevent unintended consequences.

Second, since the United States provides significant military aid to Israel, the administration should assess the kind of weapons it is providing to Israel that indiscriminately kill many innocent Palestinians, such as bombs.

This may well force Netanyahu to follow the US’ advice to resort to a surgical approach to weed out Hamas fighters and potentially capture or kill some of Hamas’ leaders. This, too, would send a clear message that the United States cannot sit idly by while the carnage in Gaza continues, however inadvertently that might be.

Third, on a political level, the United States can introduce a resolution or vote in favor of a resolution in the United Nations Security Council that calls on Israel to agree on a ceasefire for six to eight weeks and allow the flow of aid to the Palestinians while negotiating the release of the hostages.

Fourth, since President Biden has been advocating a two-state solution, he should act by taking interim measures to demonstrate his commitment to that objective. To start, Biden should allow the reopening of the United States mission in East Jerusalem to serve the Palestinians.

In addition, Biden should invite the Palestinian Authority to reestablish its mission in Washington, DC, to restore ties between the United States and the Palestinians. These two measures will demonstrate to the Palestinians that Biden means what he says and, community, congressional Democrats, and many of the EU and Arab states.

Fifth and most importantly, President Biden himself should make a public statement to the effect that while the United States is and will remain committed to Israel’s national security, it has clear disagreements with the Netanyahu government.

As such, the US will no longer support the Netanyahu government in any way that might aid it in continuing its military campaign without clearly spelling out a strategy that will achieve four objectives: 1) dramatically minimize civilian casualties by resorting to surgical operations; 2) articulate a credible exit strategy from Gaza; 3) allow for the creation of an international peacekeeping force to assume overall security; and 4) facilitate the return of the Palestinians to their homes once the fighting comes to an end.

Needless to say, these measures rest on a set of considerations as stated above and their political implications. Nevertheless, President Biden has no choice but to act to balance his commitment to Israel’s national security and his determination to permanently alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 14 2024 – The Biden administration’s sheer hypocrisy is reflected in its policy of dropping food packages into a devastated Gaza, while at the same time, it continues to arm Israel with missiles and heavy artillery to kill Palestinian civilians suffering hunger and starvation.

As US Congressman Ro Khanna (Democrat of California) said last week: “You can’t have a policy of giving aid (to Palestinians) and giving Israel the weapons to bomb the food trucks at the same time”

And as the New York Times put it: “From the skies over Gaza these days fall American bombs and American food pallets, delivering death and life at the same time, and illustrating President Biden’s elusive effort to find balance in an unbalanced Middle East war.”

Mouin Rabbani, Co-Editor of Jadaliyya and Non-Resident Fellow at the Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies, told IPS the US deliveries of token amounts of aid to the besieged Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip has several, inter-related dimensions:

At one level, he pointed out, the air drops, plans for a mobile pier, and the like are pure theater, smoke and mirrors intended to divert scrutiny away from active US participation and complicity in Israel’s genocidal assault, including its medieval siege, on the Gaza Strip.

“The current crisis has demonstrated Israel’s extraordinary dependence on the US and its inability to conduct sustained military operations or evade accountability without US sponsorship.”

Yet the US, he said, has made it a matter of policy not to instruct its Israeli proxy to either cease its genocidal onslaught, nor to terminate a siege that is explicitly designed to produce famine, epidemic disease, and the like.

“To the contrary, Washington has deployed the full range of its influence, including the delivery of tens of thousands of tons of high explosives, UNSC vetoes, and bullying of its allies and client regimes, to ensure that Israel can continue with its genocidal onslaught and continue to do so with impunity.”

These theatrical air drops are as much of a charade as is the recent decision to promote an image of opposition to Israel’s state policy of West Bank settlement expansion by sanctioning four Israeli settlers, Rabbani said.

A calculation of the ratio of bread to bombs delivered by the US to the Palestinian population of the Gaza Strip tells you all you need to know regarding US intentions, priorities, and preferences, he declared.

In an oped piece for IPS, Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations, most recently, at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University, wrote the dual approach of supporting Israel’s security needs while also providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians is part of the US’ broader diplomatic effort to balance its interests in the region.

However, the United States’ effort to promote regional security by supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while advocating for the Palestinians’ humanitarian needs and acting on them presents a dilemma for President Biden.

The Biden administration may well have to resort to direct measures to force Netanyahu to change his policy, he added.

“It should be noted that the upcoming US presidential elections in November are playing a role in Netanyahu’s strategy. If there are only two people in the world who want Trump to win the election this fall, the first is Trump himself, and the second is Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister will do everything in his power to undermine President Biden’s reelection.”

He is cheering the fact that President Biden is intensely criticized by some Congressional Democrats as well as a multitude of young voters who oppose his unwavering support of Israel while tens of thousands of Palestinians have died and counting. He will prolong the war as long as it serves his personal interest and weakens Biden politically as he is embarking on his reelection campaign.

“President Biden should not allow Netanyahu to set the agenda. He must now take definitive measures to alert the Israeli public that, although the US commitment to Israel’s national security is unshakable, the US administration differentiates between the state of Israel and the current Netanyahu government with which he has fundamental disagreements, said Dr Ben-Meir, who taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

Elaborating further, Rabbani said every specialist and agency that has commented on these air drops has without exception concluded that air drops cannot even begin to address the humanitarian emergence created by the US and Israel in the Gaza Strip, but that this can be addressed by the delivery of aid which is already present through overland routes.

“The latter would require no more than a phone call from the White House to the Israeli government. Washington has made a policy decision not to pursue this option”.

Secondly, these charades are intended to legitimize Israel’s genocidal onslaught on the Gaza Strip, much as the November temporary truce was, in the words of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, required to maintain Western endorsement for Israel’s war and for its resumption and intensification in early December of last year.

Given the above, Palestinians would be better off without these air drops, particularly since at least five have already been killed by them, declared Rabbani.

Meanwhile, in a new report released March 13, CIVICUS, a global alliance of civil society organizations (CSOs), said hypocrisy by powerful countries undermined the rules-based international order in 2023, making it harder to promote human rights and resolve the world’s most devastating wars.

In its 13th annual State of Civil Society Report, the Johannesburg-based CIVICUS detailed how powerful states selectively chose to respect international laws, shielding allies but castigating enemies.

The most blatant examples are countries that rushed to Ukraine’s defence against Russia’s invasion but backed Israel’s assaults on civilians in Gaza, and vice versa.

“Armies, rebels and militia around the world committed horrific human rights abuses in 2023 because they knew they could get away with it thanks to a flailing international system full of double standards,” said Mandeep Tiwana, CIVICUS Chief Officer of Evidence and Engagement.

“Starting with the UN Security Council, we need global governance reform that puts people at the centre of decision making,” he declared.

Asked about a report from the Gaza Health Ministry that deaths in Gaza have now topped 31,000, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters March 13: “It’s another grim marker, and I wish we weren’t here waiting for these markers to fall’.

“What we want yet again, and we’ll call it for it again, is an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, a silencing of the guns so we can get the humanitarian access that we need, we can run the humanitarian operations on a scale that we need, that the civilians in Gaza can stop suffering, can get food, can get the basic services they need, and that we see the hostages, the Israeli hostages and others still held in Gaza immediately released,” he said.

Meanwhile, amid the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, US Senators. Bernie Sanders, Chris Van Hollen, Jeff Merkley, and five Democratic colleagues in the Senate on Monday sent a letter to President Joe Biden urging him to enforce federal law by requiring Netanyahu’s government to stop restricting humanitarian aid access to Gaza or forfeit U.S. military aid to Israel.

In the letter, the senators made clear that Netanyahu’s interference in U.S. humanitarian operations in Gaza violates Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, also known as the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act.

The law states: “No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter or the Arms Export Control Act to any country when it is made known to the President that the government of such country prohibits or otherwise restricts, directly or indirectly, the transport or delivery of United States humanitarian assistance,” according to a press release from the office of Senator Sanders.

To President Biden, the senators wrote: “According to public reporting and your own statements, the Netanyahu government is in violation of this law. Given this reality, we urge you to make it clear to the Netanyahu government that failure to immediately and dramatically expand humanitarian access and facilitate safe aid deliveries throughout Gaza will lead to serious consequences, as specified under existing U.S. law.”

“The United States should not provide military assistance to any country that interferes with U.S. humanitarian assistance,” the senators continued.

“Federal law is clear, and, given the urgency of the crisis in Gaza, and the repeated refusal of Prime Minister Netanyahu to address U.S. concerns on this issue, immediate action is necessary to secure a change in policy by his government.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Emilio Godoy
MEXICO CITY, Mar 14 2024 – Mexico has taken important steps to protect native corn, even standing up to its largest trading partner, the United States, to do so. But the lack of a comprehensive legal framework in its policy towards genetically modified crops allows authorizations for other transgenic crops.

In fact, the dispute with Washington over corn exposes the regulatory gaps regarding opposition to the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Mexican agriculture.”If we win, we will call into question a model of production. We will take a huge step forward, we will set an international precedent. But if corn is defeated in its center of origin, we will see the same in the birthplaces of other crops, and the offensive strategy of the companies will be strengthened.” — Monserrat Téllez

Experts consulted by IPS concurred with the need for a better legal framework to strengthen the evaluation of GMOs.

Monserrat Téllez, a researcher at the non-governmental Seeds of Life Foundation, pointed out that GMOs appeared after the reform of agricultural and trade policies derived from the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

These free trade policies, she added, harmed Mexican farmers by eliminating subsidies and opening the market to imports.

“There was already a concern about regulation. The aim of the law was to boost planting. Although there is a special regime (for corn), it is not enough. It is not only a genetic reservoir, but also includes a series of traditional cultivation practices. The basis should be the precautionary principle, we would like very careful regulation,” she told IPS.

Téllez was referring to the Law on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms, in force since 2005, which specifies three types of cultivation.

Experimental plantations must be in controlled areas, protected to prevent contamination, with risk assessments and other safeguards. In pilot plantations they are optional, and in commercial plantations they do not exist.

However, Mexico lacks an effective GMO monitoring system, say the experts.

In the case of corn, it applies a special protection regime that, based on the centers of origin and diversity of corn and its wild relatives, prohibits the release of GMOs in certain areas.

Lessons learned

In December 2020, the current government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador issued a decree ordering the replacement of the herbicide glyphosate with environmentally friendly alternatives by Jan. 31, 2024 and putting a halt to permits for the planting of genetically modified corn and its use in the food industry.

In order to ingratiate itself with the industry, and therefore with the United States, the Mexican government softened the decree by endorsing the importation of yellow corn for industrial and animal feed purposes, but it failed to win over the United States.

During the last few months of 2022 and the first months of 2023, both governments held several unsuccessful technical meetings to resolve the conflict.

For this reason, the United States announced last August the opening of a dispute settlement panel within the framework of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), based on the chapter on sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

However, it does not mention the chapter of the USMCA, in force since 2020 and which replaced NAFTA, on biotechnology and its trade, which is the elephant in the room, since in the background lies the use of biotechnological products.

At these meetings, the Mexican government conveyed to its U.S. counterparts that the priority was corn, for environmental, health and cultural reasons, and that they were not concerned about other crops, such as canola or soybeans.

The United States accuses its partner of applying excessive measures, lack of scientific evidence on the effects of GMOs and economic damage to corn exports.

In its response dated Jan. 15 and published on Mar. 5, Mexico presented scientific studies that demonstrate the negative impact of GM crops on animals such as rats and on the environment, while at the same time showing that the economic damage complained about by the U.S. did not exist.

The planting of GM corn has been blocked since 2013, when a group of 53 people and 20 small farmer, indigenous, academic, scientific, artistic, consumer and gastronomic organizations won an injunction in a class action lawsuit filed for damage to the biological diversity of native corn and the rights to food and health.

Mexico depends on corn imports, especially from the United States, to satisfy its high domestic consumption. Despite its attempts, the government has failed to increase production. Infographics: Conahcyt

The three million corn farmers who plant around eight million hectares allocate two million to family consumption, in a country that has 64 varieties and 59 native ones.

Mexico is the world’s seventh largest corn producer and the second largest importer of corn, producing some 27 million tons annually. But it still has to import some 20 million tons to meet domestic consumption.

Corn is not only a native and predominant crop in Mexico, but a staple in the diet of its 129 million inhabitants that goes beyond the culinary sphere and is part of the country’s cultural roots.

Despite the promises made, GMOs have not raised agricultural yields, improved pest resistance or offered greater resistance to the effects of the climate crisis, such as drought. Moreover, there is evidence of damage to health.

The planting of genetically modified soybeans offers lessons on regulation. In 2012, US biotech transnational Monsanto obtained a commercial planting permit for some 235,000 hectares in seven Mexican states.

After a legal battle, the Mexican Supreme Court blocked the authorization in 2015 due to potential environmental damage and lack of consultation with affected indigenous communities.

But in the southeastern state of Campeche the crop has expanded, with strong impacts on biodiversity and beekeeping, as foreseen by the government’s National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity, which recommended not approving the permit in 2012.

Despite the loopholes, the lawmakers of the governing National Regeneration Movement (Morena) have not modified the legal framework.

“The formal regulatory framework has shortcomings. There are no clear criteria, and there is a lack of clarity on precautionary measures. The law includes special protection for corn, but it is not defined in the regulations. So any authority can interpret it in its own way,” Alma Piñeyro, a researcher at the public Autonomous Metropolitan University, based in Xochimilco, south of Mexico City, told IPS.

This country is the origin and center of corn and cotton cultivation and the government bases its control on this, but the history of GM soybeans shows the lack of breadth of the approach. Therefore, GMOs should be regulated more strictly than corn and with specific measures for each crop.

Unbalanced figures

In Mexico, the release of GMOs into the environment began in 1988, with an authorization for a tomato planting trial, which has since expanded to 19 crops. Since then, agribusiness has focused on crops such as cotton, corn and soybeans.

Statistics from the government’s Interministerial Commission on Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms on requests and approvals are inconsistent, contradictory, if not inaccurate, which hinders evaluation, according to the review by IPS.

Between 2005 and 2021, Mexican authorities issued 671 permits, of which 359 were for cotton, 202 for corn, 50 for wheat, 44 for soybeans and the rest for other varieties. The vast majority consisted of experimental licenses, although the total does not match the reported number of permits.

Mexico’s official response to the U.S. complaint, made public on Mar. 5, lists 651 permits, of which 53 percent are for cotton and 30 percent for corn, suspended by the 2013 class action lawsuit.

The administration of López Obrador, who took office on Dec. 1, 2018 and whose term ends on Oct. 1, slowed the pace of approval of GM crops.

In 2022, it rejected six applications for corn, five for cotton, one for soybeans and one for canola. But between that year and the next, it endorsed four permits for canola, two for cotton, two for potatoes and one for soybeans.

On the corn panel, five Mexican and five U.S. non-governmental organizations are preparing to submit comments by Friday, Mar. 15, in an attempt to support the Mexican position.

Piñeyro said it is necessary to analyze each species in the Mexican context.

“Canola, as a crop, can become invasive, because it survives weeds and can displace other native species. It has undergone genetic dispersal, which has happened in Canada, where they have an agronomic problem, and it could happen in Mexico. The monitoring data are opaque. Without sufficient data, it is very difficult to evaluate the whole picture,” she said.

Téllez said the panel with the United States is decisive. “If we win, we will call into question a model of production. We will take a huge step forward, we will set an international precedent. But if corn is defeated in its center of origin, we will see the same in the birthplaces of other crops, and the offensive strategy of the companies will be strengthened,” she stressed.

The USMCA review is scheduled for 2026 and its future appears to be tied to that of corn.