Kristof’s position doesn’t make a great deal of sense — not that I think he much notices the dichotomy in his treatment of these two American allies.
A solid piece of advice is: Never take a Nicholas Kristof op-ed in the New York Times too seriously.
That said, I do find Kristof’s most recent column illuminating, but probably not for the reason that the globe-trotting, much-honored, and self-important writer intends.
The conceit of the op-ed is Kristof posing a series of “tough questions” to both Donald Trump and Joe Biden in advance of Thursday night’s debate.
Here’s a question posed to Biden regarding the Israel–Gaza war:
President Biden, for months you called on Israel to refrain from invading Rafah and to allow more food into Gaza. Yet Israel did invade Rafah, and half a million Gazans are reported starving. Haven’t you been ignored? And isn’t that because of your tendency to overestimate how much you can charm people — Senate Republicans, Xi Jinping, Benjamin Netanyahu — to cooperate with you? When will you move beyond charm and use serious leverage to try to achieve peace in the Middle East?
And here’s a question posed to the president on the Ukraine–Russia war.
President Biden, you have rallied the world behind Ukraine and given that country enough weapons to survive — but not enough to win. You’ve slow-walked some weapons systems because of concern that Russia might respond with tactical nuclear weapons, but isn’t it dangerous to signal to China and Iran that we yield to nuclear blackmail?
What’s fascinating here is not merely the difference in tone. It’s the delta between Kristof’s view of the apparent possibility of victory for one American ally fighting a war of self-defense against a brutal anti-Western enemy (Israel) and the other American ally fighting a war of self-defense against a brutal anti-Western enemy (Ukraine).
In the first question, Kristof scolds Biden for not preventing Israel’s democratically elected government from invading Rafah and pursuing victory against Hamas. What’s more, Kristof assumes that the American interest in the war is to use our “serious leverage” to “achieve peace in the Middle East.”
But with regards to Ukraine, Kristof scolds Biden for giving Ukraine the weaponry and support it needs to survive but failing to give Ukraine “enough to win.” Indeed, Kristof objects to the Biden administration’s “slow-walk[ing]” of weapons out of concern for the Kremlin’s reaction.
This is all pretty bizarre. I can only conclude that the difference in tone reflects Kristof’s priors, not a coherent analysis of the geopolitical or military situation in either conflict.
Setting aside the wisdom or prudence of an Israeli assault on Rafah in an effort to destroy Hamas root and branch, it’s surely the case — from an operational military point of view — that Israel is much, much closer to defeating Hamas (i.e., “winning”) than Ukraine is to defeating Russia. Even in the best-case scenario in which our Ukrainian friends drive the Russian army from all sovereign Ukrainian territory, Ukraine is unlikely to effect the destruction of the Russian regime. Whatever the outcome of this war, Ukraine is very likely to be faced for the indefinite future with a Kremlin hostile to its existence. But Israel can destroy Hamas militarily. Israel has the capacity to destroy Hamas as a fighting organization and, if it chooses, to occupy and pacify the territory that Hamas once ruled.
Kristof’s position doesn’t make a great deal of sense — not that I think he much notices the dichotomy in his treatment of these two American allies.
One final thought: Kristof seems very distressed by collateral damage done to Gazan civilians by American-supplied Israeli munitions. He laments the “half-million” Gazans who are reported to be starving. But his obvious preference is for more lethal aid to be given to Ukraine, which leads me to wonder whether he’s thought about the fact that Ukraine wants to use high-tech American missiles to target Russian military targets inside Russia, which due to the nature of modern warfare will almost certainly result in Russian civilian casualties.
I don’t have a problem with that outcome — but why doesn’t Nicholas Kristof?