SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Given serious concerns about his qualifications, dangerous beliefs and values, and lack of meaningful track record, Hegseth is a poor choice for the consequential position of secretary of defense.
This week, Pete Hegseth will face questions from Congress as President-elect Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense. If he is confirmed, he would become the civilian authority over the U.S. military, second only to the president. The job of secretary of defense is as difficult as it is critical. Pete Hegseth, a television presenter and author who formerly served in the National Guard, does not have the qualifications to perform this role. Worse, his values and beliefs make him a downright dangerous candidate.
The Department of Defense is the largest federal agency, with a budget of more than $850 billion, almost 900,000 civilian employees, and oversight of 2.5 million service members. Pete Hegseth is not qualified to manage this sprawling bureaucracy—he has not served in a senior role in the military, served in the government, made national security policy, nor led any large organization, in stark contrast to the last 10 confirmed secretaries, who all had either decades of senior military service, ran large organizations, or served in governmental or policymaking roles. Hegseth headed two small nonprofit veterans advocacy organizations, though was reportedly removed from those positions due to financial mismanagement and personal and sexual misconduct.
The secretary of defense also shapes strategic decisions, advises the president on sensitive issues of national security, and engages with counterpart defense ministers in both allied and adversarial countries. The next secretary will have to perform the job during a challenging time, when existing arms control structures are collapsing, ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are threatening to pull more countries into these conflicts, and tensions in East Asia are rising. In the event of a crisis, especially a worst-case scenario involving nuclear weapons, the secretary of defense may be one of the only people the president consults. That’s why it’s extremely important the job be filled by someone with experience, a steady hand, and a proven record of seeking the best information before making decisions. In each case, Pete Hegseth falls short.
In terms of the most consequential decision anyone could face—and with little time to make it—there is no scenario worse than if U.S. early warning systems detected an incoming nuclear attack. The president would only have minutes to assess whether the warning was false or real and whether to retaliate with U.S. ICBMs. An emergency conference would be convened for the president with the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders. While the secretary of defense is not officially in the nuclear chain of command—the president has the authority to use nuclear weapons without the agreement of anyone else—the president would look to the secretary for advice.
Through his writing, candidacy for public office, and time as a Fox News contributor, we know some things about Hegseth’s personal views, and many of them are dangerous. For example, he has expressed hostility and contempt for international humanitarian law, blaming rules that protect human life for hindering the operations of the U.S. military. Hegseth has argued repeatedly that U.S. forces should ignore international humanitarian laws governing the conduct of war. The United States has a legal and moral obligation to follow these rules, and has devoted significant resources to operationalizing that commitment. International law not only protects civilians and soldiers in war, but helps recruit allies and undergirds support at home.
Hegseth’s disregard for international humanitarian law and the rules of armed conflict is consistent with his alarmingly cavalier attitude towards the use of nuclear weapons. In his book The War on Warriors, discussing the United States’ use of nuclear weapons in World War II, Hegseth writes, “They won. Who cares.” Meanwhile, the few remaining Japanese survivors of nuclear weapons are trying desperately to get the world to understand the horror of nuclear weapons and eliminate them before they can be used again.
Nuclear risks are rising globally. Arms control is on life support. The military is pursuing an unnecessary trillion-dollar project to replace every weapon in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Given serious concerns about his qualifications, dangerous beliefs and values, and lack of meaningful track record, Hegseth is a poor choice for the consequential position of secretary of defense. The members of the Senate Armed Services Committee should ask hard questions in this week’s hearing. Given the enormity of the challenges facing the next secretary, the United States deserves someone with the experience, expertise, and judgment to deal with them wisely.
The time is long overdue for liberal Zionists to find the courage to take a long hard look at their uncritical support for the actions of the Israeli state as it becomes increasingly indefensible.
Palestine solidarity activists, students, and scholars are facing an astronomic rise in attacks for calling attention to Israeli policies in the occupied territories, for naming the assault on Gaza a genocide, even for mentioning the health impacts of the massive bombing and killing campaign and calling for a ceasefire. Project Esther—a right-wing task force from the Trumpian Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 and designed to crush the pro-Palestine movement—is about to make the repression much worse.
This creates a problem for liberal Zionists in the U.S., deeply allied with Israel but worried about the rightward political swing and distressed by the carnage in Gaza, violence of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and the widening of Israeli attacks in the region. These progressive folks get all tangled up when words like “war crimes” and “genocide,” as well as ending military funding to Israel or support for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, get mentioned in the very next sentence. Repeatedly, liberal Zionists respond to this reality with very illiberal behavior, pulling financial donations from universities and organizations, resigning from groups and institutions they otherwise support, condemning friends, children, and grandchildren for engaging in protests, encampments, and other unruly behavior, complaining that spaces are now “unsafe” for Jews, that “antisemitism” is rampant on college campuses.
Historically, the price of Israel’s settler colonial origins is the hostility of the people who lost their land, homes, and lives towards the people who promulgated this catastrophe. Moshe Dayan, one of the founding Israeli generals, famously stated “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” The strategies of tolerance, negotiation, compromise, humility, respect for international law and human rights, were never woven into the Israeli psyche.
It is possible to be horrified by the suffering of those killed, harmed, kidnapped on October 7 or fleeing to bomb shelters as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian drones and missiles are fired over Israel, and at the same time, to call the brutal, unrelenting assault on Gaza a genocide. There are increasing reports in mainstream media as well human rights organizations from the United Nations to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, to B’Tselem. They document Israeli violations of multiple international laws about the rules of war, violations of the protected status of health care institutions and health care workers, massive civilian injuries and casualties, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, educational facilities, sanitation, water, and agriculture.
At the same time, Israeli allegations promote the idea that Palestinians are savage, hypersexualized animals, capable of horrific acts of violence, and thus, deserving of slaughter. This tactic was common in the Jim Crow south with the descriptions of Black men attacked and lynched. The language is also mirrored in Trump’s depictions of undocumented people coming into the United States. The foundational racism is obvious. The double standard exists because of societal assumptions about who are the “good guys” and who are the “bad,” which men are inherently decent and which men are capable of egregious violent behavior. If Gazans are all “animals,” “terrorists,” “Jew-haters,” then it is much easier to kill them with a clear conscience.
Exceptionalizing Jewish trauma only leads to a complete disregard for international law, proportionality in war, and the degradation of the Israeli military’s claim to be “moral,” to have any respect for the modern rules of warfare, the protected status of hospitals, the dignity of every human being, the safeguarded status of civilians.
When liberal Zionists object to the use of the word “genocide” as “too political,” it reflects their inability to grapple with the historical and current truths about the Israeli government and military and their demonization of Palestinians as less than human. When folks attack people for advocating for a ceasefire, (which is the first step towards ending the assault and protecting what is left of Gaza and releasing hostages), they often charge them with “antisemitism.” This is a descent into a tribal abyss that cannot see the “enemy” as human; cannot imagine the day after when the war ends and over two million hungry, sick Gazans are faced with unimaginable trauma and vast needs to survive and remake their lives; cannot remember that the only time a significant number of hostages were released alive was during a ceasefire.
The time is long overdue for liberal Zionists to find the courage to take a long hard look at their uncritical support for the actions of the Israeli state as it becomes increasingly indefensible and destabilizing, a pariah state that has lost its claim to be a so-called democracy (however flawed) that is endangering Jews in the country and abroad as well as Palestinians everywhere.
"The U.S. must not send more bombs to Netanyahu's extremist government," said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders vowed late Monday to do everything in his power to block the Biden administration's newly proposed $8 billion arms sale to the far-right Israeli government, which has used American weaponry to commit atrocities across the Gaza Strip over the past 15 months.
"The U.S. must not send more bombs to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's extremist government, which has already killed 45,000 people; destroyed Gaza's housing, healthcare, and educational systems; and caused starvation by blocking humanitarian aid," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media. "I will do all that I can to block these arms sales."
The State Department formally notified Congress of the proposed sale late last week, and reports indicate that the latest weapons package Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), missiles for attack helicopters, and 500-pound bombs.
The new sale adds to the tens of billions of dollars worth of arms and other military assistance the U.S. has provided Israel since its large-scale assault on the Gaza Strip began in the wake of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack. In at least two cases, the Biden administration bypassed Congress to deliver the weapons to Israel.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is seen at a press conference on his effort to block U.S. arms sales to Israel on November 19, 2024. (Photo: Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Sanders is one of the few members of Congress who has vocally opposed continued offensive weapons sales to Israel and attempted to block the transactions, arguing that they violate U.S. laws prohibiting arms transfers to countries blocking American humanitarian aid.
Late last year, the U.S. Senate rejected a Sanders-led effort to thwart a sale of JDAMs, tank rounds, and other weaponry.
The newly proposed $8 billion weapons sale comes just days before U.S. President Joe Biden is set to leave office, which Haaretz correspondent Ben Samuels called "a fitting end to four years of policy that seemed to please no one and antagonize anyone unhappy with the status quo."
"The proposed arms sale is yet another wrinkle after a series of missed opportunities to press the Israeli government as hostages remain captive and Gaza's humanitarian crisis worsens," Samuels wrote.
In a statement on Monday, a top United Nations humanitarian relief official said that "despite our determination to deliver food, water, and medicine to survivors, our efforts to save lives are at breaking point."
Tom Fletcher, the U.N.'s under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, pointed to several recent Israeli attacks on aid operations in Gaza, including a strike "at a known food distribution point where a partner of the World Food Program was operating" and an attack on a clearly marked WFP convoy.
"These incidents are part of a dangerous pattern of sabotage and deliberate disruption," said Fletcher. "Israeli forces are unable or unwilling to ensure the safety of our convoys. Statements by Israeli authorities vilify our aid workers even as the military attacks them. Community volunteers who accompany our convoys are being targeted."
"I call on U.N. member states to insist that all civilians, and all humanitarian operations, are protected," Fletcher added. "This should not need to be said."