The big mistake: one of the strange ways to make policy today

 

Gordon L. Weil

The news overflows with events caused by unrelated and unusual sources: a mistake, harassment, bullying and appeasement, and drinking your own bathwater.

The big mistake

The talks aimed at bringing an end to the Gaza War became possible, because of one man’s mistake.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has held onto power by promising to eliminate Hamas.  Israel has reduced threats from Iran and its proxies, replacing it as the dominant Middle East power.  Arab states, who had lined up with Israel against Iran, are now nervous.

Israel has successfully killed Arab leaders in neighboring countries, crippling Israel’s enemies.  Netanyahu sought to force Hamas to quit by killing its leaders in Qatar, who were invited there to negotiate indirectly with Israel.  His intelligence advisors opposed the plan, but he persisted and launched an attack.  The U.S. was not informed.

President Trump, Israel’s most stalwart backer, was shocked.  That single Netanyahu mistake caused a shift in U.S. policy.  Trump would no longer give Israel unstinting support in its Gaza policy.  He forced Netanyahu to call the Emir of Qatar from the Oval Office and apologize.  Trump pressed Netanyahu to end the Gaza War.

The Israeli leader also saw the U.K., France, Canada and others turn their backs on him.  He could not remain blind to his country’s increasing isolation and the loss of its special place in the world.

External Hamas leaders that Israel tried to kill, not those in Gaza, decided it was time to seek a ceasefire.  That way they could end what was a losing game.

Harassment as a tactic

Trump may believe that he won in 2020.  He discredits the Biden administration, and openly “hates” and seeks revenge against Democrats. If he finds they did anything against his interests, he is out to get them.

It does not matter if they are not guilty of any offense.  By bringing the force of government on them, he tries to sully their reputations and deplete their funds as they defend themselves.  The charges may be inconsequential and lack evidence and amount to little more than harassment.

He replaced experienced prosecutors with his own lawyer to get a flimsy indictment against former FBI Director James Comey.  Comey’s move to get the case tossed may be based on Trump’s open effort at retaliation.  If that succeeds or he is easily acquitted, Trump’s reputation might suffer more than Comey’s.  

Appeasement

Trump’s ego and self-esteem are legendary.  He believes in his own superiority and expects others to agree.  Flattery that might embarrass others nourishes him.

His sudden actions on tariffs have forced other countries to seek relief from losing U.S. markets.  Many have acceded to his demands and others have resorted to lavishing praise on him.

By acting rapidly and forcing other countries to make offers to him to gain relief, he puts “America First,” avoiding true negotiations.  When bullied by him, countries may try appeasement, with the hope of preventing something worse.   History shows that appeasement doesn’t work, though bullying might.

Except maybe not with Canada. Trump demonstrates a profound ignorance and lack of political sensitivity when he speaks of the “51st State.”  Canada plays its own role in North America and the world.  The U.S. and Canada need one another.  But Canadians now move away.  They will not appease, and the U.S. may pay the price.

Appeasement is now occurring in domestic politics.  Nobody favors the government shutdown, but the Democrats will accept Trump’s decision by hammering the loss of medical care by millions.  Surprisingly, Maine’s Sen. Angus King has rejected the Democratic position because he fears that Trump will do something even more harmful during the shutdown.  

Trump frequently backs down when he faces resistance.  He has not yet acted on the threats King feared.  If the threats work, it will partly result from the Democrats’ weakness.

Drinking your own bathwater

Failing to answer Democrats’ oversight questions, Attorney-General Pam Bondi attacked a senator for supporting Trump’s first impeachment.  Her focus is inward-looking, emphasizing Trump’s past grievances. She will not deal with current concerns, instead taking refuge in old complaints.  That’s called drinking your own bathwater.

What’s true of Bondi and other officials, it’s also true of Trump himself.  From the election campaign until his recent remarks to top generals and admirals, he delivers the same speech, loaded with self-praise and loathing for Biden.  It is riddled with factual errors, stated as if they were widely accepted.

His administration aims at enhancing Trump’s reputation, not America’s.  He has failed to note that most of the 2025 Nobel science winners are based at campuses of the University of California.  He wants the Nobel Peace Prize; he rewards his country’s scientific achievements by cutting university budgets.

Journalist attacks by Israel aimed at killing free press

 

Gordon L. Weil

I have been a journalist, full-time, part-time, or sometime, since 1967.  The news this week has made me deeply angry.   Journalists have been killed by the government of Israel as part of its war in Gaza.  Innocent journalists have been killed for no apparent reason other than that they reported on Israeli military operations there.

After the outrageous Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, Israel understandably launched a punitive military operation against the terrorists, vowing to eliminate it entirely. While the reaction was justified, many have questioned whether it was proportionate.  My purpose here is not to question what Israel has done in responding to Hamas, except for one critical element.

To shield its operations from outside scrutiny, Israel has prevented foreign journalists from entering Gaza.  But Gaza journalists remained in the territory and issued their reports to a wider world.  They worked for Al Jazeera, a news organization based in Qatar.

From its origin in the 1990s, Al Jazeera was condemned as allegedly being aligned with terrorist groups.  The opposition came from Arab governments, targets of its revelations, and Israel, mistrustful of Arab news sources.  But it persisted, largely overcame the criticism and has been generally accepted, though not in Israel, as a reputable news organization.

One other element of the Israeli retaliation is relevant.  It designates people as members of Hamas and, being in a state of war, it feels no need to offer proof.  Once an alleged Hamas figure is identified, they are targeted for death.  If they are in the company of innocent people, the others are likely to be killed alongside them, deaths known as collateral damage.

Israel has reportedly killed over 200 journalists in Gaza, though many may have been hit in air raids on civilian populations.  But some clearly have been intentionally targeted.  It is not a question of shooting the messenger; it is an attack on a free press.

Last week, an Al Jazeera news team, reporters for its Arabic and English services and their cameramen, were working out of an identified tent near a Gaza food delivery point.  Naming one of them a Hamas operative, Israel killed all five people – one person whose alleged Hamas affiliation had been widely denied and four admitted cases of collateral damage.

The other slain reporter worked for the English service, providing on-site evidence to the world that some Israeli military claims were not true.  His was surely a voice that Israel would want to silence.

At one time, I appeared regularly on the New York public television station.  When you are on air, you know and appreciate the camera and audio operators, who get scant public recognition.  They are just as important to the story as the person in front of the camera.  Israel killed three of them along with the Al Jazeera reporters.

Almost any reporter is likely to find themselves in an uncomfortable or dangerous situation, but that’s part of their responsibility.  Like a soldier or a police officer, they may knowingly put themselves in harm’s way.

My own experience is truly insignificant compared to the heroic efforts of the Al Jazeera reporters, but a couple of times I put myself in situations where I could suffer harm so I could get the story.  To do the job, you may have to take risks.

Why do it?  In any society, the people deserve to know about events that can affect their lives.  The media is their representative and ultimately is responsible to them.

Beyond that, the press is an essential part of the system of government.  In democratic societies, the independent media holds officeholders accountable for their views and actions.  Power corrupts, and officeholders grow to dislike the media scrutiny that can hold them responsible. 

The arrogance of power resists accountability.   When President Trump attacks publications and individual journalists, he tears at the fabric of the political system.  Still, the media dutifully reports his attacks on the media itself.  The situation is even worse when a government, accused of war crimes, defends itself by suppressing reporting and killing journalists.

Americans may believe that any decent democracy has the kind of freedom of speech and the press guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The U.S. has traditionally supported democratic countries.  But you cannot find freedom of the press or of speech in the Basic Laws of Israel, claimed to be the democratic model in the Middle East.

I have never met a journalist from Al Jazeera.  But what happened to its reporters makes me despair, feel deeply sad for their fate and their families and angry that the U.S. and our supposedly democratic allies readily abandon the enlightened values of truth and justice in favor of untruths and brute force.

Israel-Palestine: Two-state, one-state or war

 

Gordon L. Weil

News reports focus on the presidential election, which both sides warn could have disastrous results. 

But serious attention is just beginning to be paid to the conflict between Israel and the Arab groups backed by Iran that could bring more catastrophic results. 

The ultimate danger of an all-out regional war among nuclear armed states, looms.  And the risk of that Middle East conflict is directly tied to the U.S. presidential election.

The crisis poses a deceptively simple choice.  The outcome of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians could be either a one-state solution or a two-state solution.   The disagreement among the key parties – Israel, the Palestinian Arabs and the United States – runs deep. 

Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders prefer a one-state solution – though obviously not the same one.  The U.S. has long favored a two-state solution, consisting of the countries of Israel and Palestine, but has achieved no success and, in fact, now faces a deteriorating situation. 

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supposedly wants to endlessly pursue the Arab terrorists to avoid facing a new election that could drive him from power and the criminal charges pending against him.  But this misses the point.  Despite saying what Washington wants to hear about two states, he has always opposed the creation of a Palestinian state. 

He relies on far-right parties that openly favor a single state, but he is not their political captive; he agrees with them.  October 7 and its threat to Israeli security gave Netanyahu the opening to pursue his objectives.  Israel has practically obliterated Gaza and says that Lebanon, the Hezbollah base, is not a true country, so it can be bombed and invaded. 

The Israeli goal appears to be complete control of Palestine including Gaza and the West Bank, which it now occupies. These areas might not be formally incorporated into Israel, to avoid creating an Arab majority there. 

Hamas seeks to eliminate Israel and create a single Palestinian state in the entire territory.  Not an established country like Israel with its formal military, its tool is terrorism – the use of violence, even against civilians, for political purposes.  Hamas and Hezbollah have adopted terrorism as the best way to achieve their political objective. 

While much of the world condemns their terrorism, the Palestinians might see it as helping them.  It’s likely they worried about being overlooked when Saudi Arabia and Israel moved toward cooperation.  October 7 suddenly got everybody’s attention and suspended the Saudi-Israeli plans.  Saudi Arabia now won’t make a deal with Israel without the creation of a Palestinian state. 

Netanyahu may see a narrow chance to act before the U.S. presidential election.  He spurns President Biden, whose withdrawal from the presidential race has allowed him and his diplomatic team to focus on trying to achieve a ceasefire.  The Israeli leader may want to gain as much ground as he can before the election decides on his key ally. 

Biden’s options are limited for the moment, because he is avoiding a major policy shift that could damage Kamala Harris’s chances.   If she wins, he will immediately have a freer hand with Israel.  If Trump wins, Netanyahu is likely to keep stalling until his preferred president takes office. 

The American position is based on the belief that the only way to resolve the competing claims of Israel and the Palestinians is through compromise.  The U.S. political system works best when parties reach compromises, but that can only happen when both sides are invested in the success of the system itself. 

That is not the case in the Israel-Palestine confrontation.   Both sides believe that anything less than complete victory is unsatisfactory.   As a result, Israel persists in Gaza, dislikes a ceasefire and has abandoned the hostages held by Hamas. It also explains why no matter their losses, Hamas and Hezbollah will not quit.  Defeat may serve to recruit more followers for them. 

Not far below the surface of this war is the Israel-Iran confrontation. They are bitter enemies.  Israel is a nuclear power, and Iran is not far from it.  And, as the chief arms supplier of Russia, it might be paid off by gaining access to Putin’s tactical nuclear weapons.  The current clashes could be the prelude to a dangerous, regional conflict with unknown limits. 

Until November 5, domestic politics may limit the ability of the U.S. to exert its full force in the region.  Biden is right to keep up as much pressure as possible until then.  With more room to move after the election, he should deploy the political, diplomatic and military power of the U.S. to force the Gaza ceasefire that is the essential first step to pursuing a two-state compromise. 

The time approaches when the U.S. must put its interests first and act as a great power.