Trump yields to impulse, causes war

Trump yields to impulse, causes war

Expected patriotic reaction

Gordon L. Weil

The spreading effects of the U.S.-Israel war against Iran reveal both President Trump’s impulse and the reflexive reaction to it.

Trump became committed to the attack thanks to the false confidence he gained from his easy success in toppling Venezuela’s president and to unrelenting pressure from Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu, who argued that Iran was ripe to end Ayatollah Khamenei’s theocratic rule and its regional terrorism.

By deploying a U.S. Navy armada to the region, Trump prepared to deliver a quick and devastating blow to Iran.  Not only could the anti-American regime be toppled, but the liberated people of Iran could install a more democratic government.

Enjoying almost unlimited power in the U.S., Trump would be able single-handedly to bring peace to the Middle East.  The Middle East would hail his efforts.   By deploying the American power at his disposal as commander in chief, he could gain a quick and positive outcome, bringing himself great credit.

It’s no secret that Trump covets the Nobel Peace Prize.  He defines peace as the absence of war, so that if he can halt battlefield deaths, he should qualify.  The creation of conditions to bring lasting peace, while desirable, is not essential to the achievement.   However, the Nobel Committee is unlikely to award the Prize to a person who bombed his way to it.

Acceding to Israel’s sense of urgency ended the prospects of a negotiated settlement with Iran, though its representatives said that an agreement was at hand.   While a negotiated peace might achieve immediate objectives, especially on Iran’s nuclear development, it would not bring regime change.  Better to destroy its theocracy now than to settle with it.

Trump’s impulse to build on Venezuela fed on itself.  Lacking any military experience, he is obviously impressed by the vast power at his disposal without understanding the limits of purely armed power, especially in relying exclusively on aerial attacks.  He favored air power, because he sought to avoid the political risks resulting from the direct deployment of ground troops.

But his simple impulse caused Trump to ignore the potential effects of his action within and beyond the borders of Iran.  If the U.S. prevailed quickly, there would be few downsides to his brief war.  But the war now drags on, and Trump makes no clear decision on what it will take to end it.  Israel keeps pushing for its continuation.

Impulse ignored inflation.  Endangering the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran can control, the war has driven up the price of oil.  Americans pay more at the gas pump and in the price of many goods.  Strategic petroleum reserves must be drawn down to deal with effects of an artificial emergency.  Improving affordability and reversing inflation are lost. Promises, promises.

Impulse ignored Iran’s ability to extend the war across the Middle East, resulting in deaths of U.S. service personnel, while blindsiding and harming the economies of friendly countries.   Iran was stronger than he thought and pursued a strategy that could deny American victory.

Impulse ignored the need for the help and support of European allies which had only recently been told that they did nothing for the U.S. and weren’t important to American interests.  They had stiffened their backs when he sought to grab Greenland.

Impulse ignored faltering trust and confidence in the U.S., boosting the power of China and Russia.  The Iran war has created opportunities for them with no offsetting American gains.

Trump claimed Iran posed a threat to the U.S.  If an Iranian attack might happen at any moment, instant action, without considering unintended consequences, might be justified.  No evidence was offered that this threat was imminent, requiring an immediate preemptive strike. 

By proclaiming an Iranian threat, the president asked Americans to “rally round the flag.”  The country will support the president when meeting a real threat or attack.  President G.W. Bush’s popularity had soared when he responded to the 9/11 attacks.  Trump might transcend current political issues by issuing his alarm.

The American reflex is to drop partisanship in favor of patriotism when faced with aggression.  Members of Congress feel they must show their loyalty to the country and to the commander in chief.  Their reflex can unify the nation behind its leader.  Their conformity matters, and presidents count on it.

Many Republicans reflexively backed Trump, while Democrats fumbled over a clear reaction, calling for more information and investigations.  That sounds like action, but produces nothing.

The U.S. finds itself in a costly war of questionable necessity.  If skepticism and doubts about the war keep growing, Trump may be held to account by the voters.  Worry about electoral blowback could end the war, but its effects would linger.

Perhaps the answer is TACO – Trump always chickens out.   His overheated impulse could give way to cold reality, repackaged as victory.

 

 

 

This means war! U.S. starts Middle East conflict

 

Gordon L. Weil

Here’s the classic dictionary definition of war.  “War is a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units.”

The U.S. and Israel, its ally, attacked Iran, a nation state, and Iran counterattacked. This met the definition of war, and the conflict quickly spread to other countries in the Middle East.

The war is probably not “legal” under the Constitution or international law.  So what?  Its legality may be a matter of debate, U.S. politics or international law – none of it enforceable.  But it is taking place, legal or not.  To harp on its illegality is impractical self-righteousness.

The U.S. was not attacked, so President Trump launched a preemptive war.  Get them before they get you.  To merit war, the threat must have been imminent, despite Trump having recently claimed that the U.S. had “obliterated” the Iranian nuclear capability. 

Israel may have forced Trump to act by its own intention to strike militarily, which could bring Iranian attacks on U.S. forces, but the president has a hard case to make that Iran directly threatened the U.S.

For good reason, the U.S. and Europe, to say nothing of Israel, have worried about Iran’s nuclear development.  If Iran’s intentions were not aggressive, it surely let its threatening rhetoric get beyond what was acceptable.  If war came, Iran seems to have strategized that it could create chaos throughout the region.  It would not prevail, but it could keep the U.S. from winning.

Iran bothers Trump.  Contrast it with North Korea, Russia’s troops-on-the-ground ally in the Ukraine war.  It is openly aggressive and, like Iran, has medium-range missiles.  But Trump was willing to travel to meet with its leader and even to say he loved America’s avowed enemy.  He has launched no preemptive war there.  In Asia, there is no oil and no Israel, but there is China.

Trump apparently believed that he could bomb Iran into submission quickly.  Israel would eliminate the Supreme Leader, just as the U.S. had toppled the Venezuelan president, making it possible to gain Iran’s submission.  As a result of his assumption, he did not pay sufficient attention to Iran’s ability to launch a missile response and extend the war.

He admitted that he was “surprised” by Iran’s response.  His statement was a direct admission of the failure of American intelligence or of his having ignored the CIA, consistent with his past low regard for its reliability regarding Russia.

The war quickly involved about a dozen countries, led to the deaths of American service personnel and the possibility of more, caused the closure of an essential waterway for oil exports to Japan and left many Americans and others under fire across the Middle East.  The price of oil immediately increased and financial markets, his favorite indicator, suffered losses.

In a nation preoccupied by affordability, Trump undertook a war sure to drive up prices.  Perhaps he recognized that he could not win the pocketbook argument, but it might be explained away by a war that people could be made to believe was necessary.  And Epstein could be forgotten.

In preparing to launch the war, the U.S. had repositioned major naval assets in the area.  This stripped the South China Sea of forces impeding Chinese control and endangered Taiwan.  The Venezuela blockade was almost forgotten.

It looks like what may have been impulsive and poorly planned actions had been undertaken without adequate consideration of their broader implications.  Solo policy making, without the benefit of congressional input, the views of experienced, long-time allies, reliable intelligence and defined goals, results in high human cost and a possibly prolonged impact.

For about a century, the United States has been the leading world power.  World War II made it both the principal instrument of victory and the potential guarantor of world peace.  Cognizant of its great power, but changing its role, Trump chose to deploy its armed forces in the hope of quick military results, preferable to difficult, long and complex negotiations.

As a candidate, Trump promised to keep the country out of war.  Many voters saw armed conflict as a waste of American lives for pointless results, and they supported him.  His America First had the merit of leaving foreign wars to others, while focusing on domestic economic growth.  Then, he abandoned this key promise.

He turned the Department of Defense into the Department of War.  While deterrence kept America out of war and influenced other nations to negotiate, having vast U.S. military power under his exclusive command was too tempting.  The models of Putin and Netanyahu, unchecked in their ambitions, were appealing.

The prize of victory that he thought he could gain quickly was better than the Nobel Peace Prize that he might never gain.

Mid-east peace elusive; China's move

 

Gordon L. Weil

Missing handshake

After almost any peace deal, the representatives of the two sides shake hands. 

When a conflict ends without a deal, it’s either because one side won or because it’s not peace but a truce, there’s no handshake.

In Northern Ireland, the two sides shook hands.  In the Camp David accord between Egypt and Israel, the two sides shook hands.  Even in Vietnam, Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger shook hands, though both regretted it when hostilities continued.

Eisenhower did not shake hands with a German general.  McArthur did not shake hands with the Japanese surrender representatives. 

At Sharm El-Sheik, while Trump basked in the aura of a yet unwon Nobel Peace Prize, Israel’s Netanyahu was absent to avoid being in the same room as Palestinian leaders.  Hamas was absent, perhaps of a split within its own ranks leaving people who know nothing other than terrorism in charge in Gaza.  No handshake.

Since the flash summit, Israel has killed Gazans because they came too close to the IDF and Hamas has refused to disarm.  Israel has slowed food supplies, because Hamas has not turned over all bodies of hostages, though they may be difficult to find.

In the final rush to free the hostages and line up Trump for an instant Nobel Prize, there was no apparent concrete action to put the next steps into motion. That was left for more negotiating though neither side has shown an inclination toward final peace. 

Trump can earn his Prize, but the U.S. must do much more.  Hamas holds on.  An international occupying force is urgently needed, including the still-reluctant Arab nations.  Israel must not limit food deliveries, and they must flow from Egypt, with the U.S. putting real pressure on Israel if necessary.

Meantime, no handshake = no peace.

Who’s worse?

Suppose a major power seeks to enrich itself at the expense of other nations.  It imposes tariffs without a basis for their rates and that probably violate the rules of the World Trade Organization.  It refuses to negotiate, but imposes conditions that will intentionally harm its trading partners.  It does not fully understand the impact of its trade policies on its own people.

Name the country.  China?  U.S.?

The correct answer is both.

The U.S. has also imposed high tariffs on key Canadian exports that have hit the economy there hard.  It wants to destroy an auto agreement with Canada that has existed for decades, since long before any free trade agreements.  Their auto industries are integrated. 

To oblige the U.S. and protect the auto deal, Canada had joined it in imposing its own matching 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.  That move gained Canada nothing with Trump.  Canada is blocked by no real negotiating progress.   Canadian people grow increasingly angry with Trump’s talk of their country becoming the 51st state.

Along comes China.  It offers to remove the reciprocal tariffs it placed on Canadian agricultural exports in response to the EV tariff, if Canada eliminates the EV tariff.  It will buy Canadian oil at market prices when Canada gears up to make such exports.  But Canada worries that China seeks great power equivalence with the U.S., Canada’s traditional ally.

This story is a bit oversimplified, but what is Canada to do?  Which is better for Canada?  With China, it can get some relief from Trump’s trade policy and immediately increase farm exports. Trump avows he wants to dominate the U.S. and Canadian auto markets.  Would Chinese competition improve the outlook for Canada?

It will take time for this testing to end, and perhaps U.S. policy may change.  But Canada won’t support “America First,” opting instead in favor of a newly strong Canada.  Losing the Canadian connection would be a massive unintended consequence of Trump’s trade policy.

Trump versus Marconi

On December 12, 1901, Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi transmitted a message from England to Newfoundland.  It was the first wireless connection between two continents.  It began to shrink the world.

While globalism is rejected by some people, including Trump, Marconi made it inevitable. He sent a technological signal that the earth’s seemingly great distances would come to mean little.  An increase in world commerce would become inevitable as technology quickly followed, developing countless possible links across countries and continents.

“No man is an island,” wrote the British poet John Dunne.  After Marconi, no nation is an island.

The original America First believed that the U.S. could concede Europe to Hitler, because America was protected by a vast ocean.  U-boats off New York City quickly proved that wrong.

Trump does not seek world domination, but to make the U.S. an island of self-sufficient prosperity.   This simply cannot work without a high cost to Americans.  Despite the theories of some short-sighted economists, the bill is just beginning to be paid.

 

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.

Peacemaking: Trump’s empty promise

Gordon L. Weil

“My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” declared Donald Trump at his January 2025 inauguration.  His statement was not a hope, but a promise.

On that day, the world witnessed two major wars with other conflicts coming close to hostilities.  Wielding the power of the United States, Trump had the possibility of earning the title of peacemaker.

Russia had invaded neighboring Ukraine three years earlier.  It sought to nullify Ukraine’s pro-West leanings and return it to the orbit of Russian influence, just as it had been under the Soviet Union.  Russians viewed Ukrainians as inferior and had historically exploited them.  The invasion was expected to amount to a restoration of Russian dominance.

But the self-awareness of Ukrainians had grown, and they did not wish to again be subservient to Russia. To the world’s amazement, they resisted the Russian invasion, despite losing some territory.  President Biden sent them help.

Trump believed he had a good personal relationship with Russian President Putin.  He could deal with him over the head of Ukraine, heavily dependent on the U.S. for its defensive arms. Offering sanctions relief and help in ending a costly war, Trump thought he could induce Putin to accept Russia’s territorial gains and end his invasion.

For Putin, the historical need to conquer Ukraine required him to press on.  Trump did not understand Putin and was disappointed. He told Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy that Putin had all the cards. He was right, because he himself did not play his cards.  He avoided new sanctions on Russia and only reluctantly supported Ukraine.  Not a peacemaker.

In the Middle East, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu turns his country’s response to the Hamas attack into a drive to raze Gaza and dominate the region.

Trump proposed to turn Gaza into a new Riviera, after the removal of its Palestinian residents. That idea may appear entirely out of historical context, but it fits right-wing Israeli views that their country should rule Gaza and deport its Arab inhabitants.  Neighboring Arab countries are not enthusiastic.

Despite increased doubts, both in Israel and the U.S., about the destructive way Netanyahu is pursuing military action in Gaza, Trump has put no effective pressure on him.  The U.S. remained the essential military supplier of Israel.  Trump must have known what the New York Times has just revealed about how Netanyahu has repeatedly prolonged the conflict.

Trump set aside hopes of expanding cooperation between Israel and its Arab neighbors, extending the Abraham Accords, in favor of backing Israel.  Trump allowed Netanyahu to guide his policy.  Ceasefire negotiations are fruitless, but the U.S. does not use its relationships with key parties to convene full scale peace talks.   No room for peacemaking.

After exiting an earlier agreement on Iran’s nuclear development, Trump tried to negotiate a new deal.  But he was under Israeli pressure that amounted to an ultimatum.  The message was that the U.S. should reach an agreement with Tehran soon or Israel would bomb Iran.  Israeli pressure would overcome U.S. patience.

Time ran out, and Israel attacked, and the U.S. engaged in massive bombing as well.  From an effort to negotiate and avoid armed conflict, the U.S. became a combatant.  Once again, Trump’s potential role as a peacemaker, deploying the power and influence of the U.S., was absent.

Other menaces grow.  China continues using its fleet to push its claims to the South China Sea.  It has also sent clear signals that it would move on Taiwan.  The U.S. mobilized opposition from Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia and the Philippines.  By a persistent and increased show of force, the U.S. and its allies would try to force China to lower tensions.

This was a clear case of Trump using American power, together with allies, to reduce the risk of greater conflict by deterrence and opening the possibility of negotiations with China from a position of strength.  But the U.S. then moved one aircraft carrier from the South China Sea to the Mediterranean to defend Israel from Iran’s counterattacks.

The president also undermined his own policy by launching trade attacks on his most valuable allies in the Pacific region.  Instead of strengthening relations with countries sharing a common interest, he menaced them with trade policies that would weaken their economies.  They could come to see the U.S. more as an adversary than as an ally.

Whatever the merits of Trump’s trade measures, their arbitrary and inconsistent application has created uncertainty.  Unpredictable American policy raises international tensions, reducing the opportunity for the U.S., as the dominant nation, to lead the way to settling conflicts.

“Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent, and totally unpredictable,” Trump promised in his inaugural address.

When?  How?

 

 

 

  

Will U.S. bombing of Iran pay off?

 

Gordon L. Weil

When the B-2 bombers took off from Missouri on their way to bomb nuclear sites in Iran, that was not the beginning of the direct conflict between the two countries.

It began in August 1953 and continues.  President Trump may have seen the bombing only as an attempt to end Iran’s nuclear weapons development, but it was part of an historic confrontation. 

In 1953, the CIA led an effort that toppled the Iranian government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh.  He had nationalized the oil industry, stripping British and American interests of their control, and was also seen as a threat to the stability imposed upon the Middle East following World War II.  

The Shah, the country’s nominal ruler, had American backing to take control of the government in Tehran.  But the coup brought deep Iranian resentment of the U.S., which falsely denied the CIA’s role.  Iranian militants opposed the Shah who had appropriated some of the nation’s wealth for his own use.

Eventually, the Shah was forced into exile and fell ill.  The Iranian opposition sought his return to face judgment, but he was granted access to health care in the U.S.  Infuriated, in 1979 militants turned a street demonstration into the occupation of the U.S. Embassy.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile, became Supreme Leader of Iran’s refashioned Islamic State, and approved the occupation.  The new regime labelled the U.S. as the “Great Satan.”  Even after Iran freed the embassy hostages, its conflict with the U.S. intensified.

Iran detested American backing of Israel.  It saw Israel as gaining power in the Middle East, at the expense of fellow Muslims and undercutting its own plans for power in the region.  Israel saw Iran as its major regional threat.  Iran considered the U.S. and Israel as a common enemy.

Iran extended its war against Israel by arming and supporting hostile forces all around it: Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad regime in Syria, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthi in Yemen.  Its growing power moved it toward regional domination.

Iran’s economic strength comes from its oil exports.  It claimed that it would develop nuclear power to free up more oil for export.  As a non-weapons state, it subscribed to the Nonproliferation Treaty and accepted inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

But Iran enriched uranium to levels that could be used in nuclear weapons to threaten Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East.  Under pressure, it agreed with leading world powers to limit its enrichment for a fixed period but could continue to develop missiles capable of delivering atomic devices.

Trump condemned that accord and in 2018 withdrew the U.S. from it.  Iran stepped up enrichment, getting close to weapons grade.  IAEA inspections were hampered and, at last, it formally voted that Iran was not obeying its treaty obligations.

Soon after Russia failed to win rapid victory over Ukraine in 2023, Iran supplied it with drones and even technical help on the ground.  The Russian attack sought to regain control over Ukraine to prevent it from joining with the West, which aligned with Iran’s anti-American objectives.

Trying to reduce nuclear threats, Trump tried to coax North Korea, also long hostile to the U.S., to give up its nuclear weapons, but failed to charm Kim Jong-Un..  Like Iran, North Korea drew closer to Russia and assists it in the Ukraine War. 

European nations and Canada joined in Trump’s determination not to allow the emergence of Iran as another nuclear state.

Some foreign leaders preferred more negotiations, despite a dismal record, instead of the bombing and its unknowable consequences.  But if unproductive talks went on, the closer Iran might come to being a nuclear power.  And Iran had not shown itself to be negotiating either realistically or in good faith.  So, Trump chose to act.

Given Iran’s ongoing hostility to the U.S, its enmity toward Israel, its growing relationship with Russia and its deceit about its intentions, Trump’s move to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites is understandable, though opposed by many Americans who are wary of war.  Arguing about the effectiveness of the bombing is pointless; the result will become apparent enough. 

What comes next?  Will Iran finally recognize that it must abandon any possibility of having nuclear weapons, perhaps only possible after a regime change, or will it continue to threaten Middle East stability.  If Iran persists in denying that its territory and nuclear development are vulnerable, Trump faces a choice.  

Negotiations might lead to a new agreement like the one he rejected, with enrichment limited indefinitely and limits placed on missiles.  In return, Iran would get eased economic sanctions and new foreign investment.

Without a negotiated deal, the alternative would be an unpopular, prolonged American military confrontation with Iran, perhaps even in a wider conflict.

 

 

 

Antisemitism, the latest wedge issue

Gordon L. Weil

In his 100-day whirlwind, President Trump has transformed a public concern into a mega-wedge issue.  It’s antisemitism.

He uses charges of antisemitism to attack institutions and show his support for Israel.  While antisemitism is real and historic, Trump exploits it to drive a political wedge that could bring him added support, based on his position on this single issue.

The 2023 Hamas attack on Israel provided the fuel for his policy.  Most of the world was shocked by the brutal raid, killing and kidnapping and agreed that Israel was entitled to act to prevent any recurrence.  The unchecked power of Hamas had to be ended.  Jews across the world joined in this sentiment.

In its retaliation and counterattack, Israel not only went after Hamas but also hit innocent Palestinians, first in Gaza and then on the West Bank, presumably to undermine any possible support for Hamas.  Israel appears to leverage its Hamas response to repress or expel Palestinians, so it can ultimately exercise total control over the former territory of Palestine.

Just as great sympathy had been shown for Israelis in the wake of the Hamas attack, sympathy also emerged for the many Palestinians, not Hamas activists, who saw their families, homes, and hospitals devastated.  Some worried about the fate of the Palestinians, though among them were those who went overboard and backed Hamas.

This is the point where U.S. antisemitism became an issue. 

With the second largest Jewish population in the world, the politics of this issue divide American Jews. They all continue to be concerned about their survival as a small minority among the world’s billions, but they disagree on the current events in the Middle East.

For some, support for Israel, a Jewish state, is essential to their beliefs, making it a large part of how they define themselves as Jews.  Their support for Israel readily translates into support for any actions taken by the Israeli government under Netanyahu.  In short, backing the Israeli government, no matter what it does, has become an integral part of their faith.

Other American Jews base their faith less on Israel and more on their traditions and shared values.  While they support Israel’s existence, they focus on protecting and improving the lives of others.  In recent decades, this has become frequently expressed as a duty to “repair the world.”  That belief can lead to opposition to Israel’s aggressive, sometimes brutal, tactics.

Trump agrees with the pro-Netanyahu hard-right views.  Jews and others who oppose Israel’s repression of the Palestinians are labelled as being self-hating or antisemitic. 

Trump may exploit antisemitism as a way of gaining support in the Jewish community, which has usually voted strongly Democratic.  This is what happened in the recent Canadian elections, when a Trump-like Conservative picked up some traditional Liberal Party supporters. He also appeals to Christian conservatives, who see Israel’s existence as central to their own beliefs. 

Labeling opposition to the Israeli government and showing support for non-violent Palestinians as antisemitism dismisses deeply held beliefs in the Jewish community.  Those who express these views, even Jews, become targets for political retaliation and may threaten their freedom of speech.

Anti-Arab militants, whether for racist or political reasons, claim that supporters of beleaguered Palestinians are antisemitic.  That makes it impossible for a person either to see some merit on both sides or to reject both sides. 

For people who want to suppress Arabs, the Israeli government has become the authority on who is a good Jew, defined as those who share that view.  To be clear, Israel cannot “excommunicate” a Jew.  That is an individual’s decision.

Trump’s allies in Congress could deem criticism of Israel virtually illegal through a definition of antisemitism in proposed new legislation.   They are forcing Jewish members of Congress to face a choice between backing Trump and seeming to be indifferent to antisemitism.

“We are witnessing the co-opting of the fight against antisemitism to pursue unrelated, authoritarian goals by the Trump Administration, and the so-called Antisemitism Awareness Act will give them another tool,” wrote one leader of a Jewish group opposing the bill.  “Antisemitism is a serious problem,” he said, “but this legislation combined with the current administration’s actions aren’t making Jewish Americans any safer.”

By politicizing antisemitism, Trump may make the situation worse.  He increases an unwanted focus on American Jews and adds to national divisiveness.  He uses this policy to attack institutions that foster free speech and open debate.  Is it wise to end funding for some of the world’s best scientific research, because a university administration badly handled a campus protest?

Trump has taken extreme action in withholding federal funding to kill “woke” efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion for some groups.  But his singular and favored focus on antisemitism makes it appear that for one group, he, too, is “woke.”

 

 

  

Peacekeeping nearly dead

 

Gordon L. Weil

Peace came close to a fatal failure this week.

The global effort against war suffered a possibly mortal blow when Israel, a member of the United Nations, supposedly the world’s peacekeeper, attacked U.N. outposts and tried to drive them away.  

Just as Russia had unimaginably launched a European ground war against Ukraine, Israel flagrantly attacked the multinational U.N. mission monitoring its boundary with Lebanon.

In the fleeting glow of their World War II victory over Nazism, Fascism and imperialism, the winners set out to create international organizations with real power to step in to prevent conflict and provide a forum for negotiated solutions.

The U.N. was the most ambitious, and it eventually came to include almost all sovereign countries.  Its Security Council, dominated by the war’s leading powers, could mandate joint peacekeeping measures.

But Security Council decisions could be vetoed by any one of the five countries – China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States.  China was soon taken over by the Communists and the Soviet Union, later replaced by Russia, wasted no time in reneging on its commitments and became the American rival.  A flood of vetoes came.

The U.N. could perform some useful functions even as peacekeeping efforts faltered.  It has tried to dodge the Security Council deadlock and use the General Assembly, including all members, to pass non-binding resolutions.  Groups of willing members could back peacekeeping measures proposed in General Assembly resolutions. 

Some peacekeeping operations have worked, because the U.N.’s thin blue line was respected.  Others have struggled, including one in southern Lebanon, begun under a Security Council order.  It has now come under the most serious attack ever by a U.N. member.  Contributors to the U.N. force insist they won’t budge, but Israel may not be held accountable.

Regional groups also developed.  In Europe, a new international organization was formed, designed to interconnect nations so that Germany and France could never again launch a world war.   It grew into the European Union.  It was openly based on supranationalism, authorizing EU agencies to overrule national sovereignty.

The effort was successful in creating a single trade area with a single market.  It was poised to make Europe a major world power alongside the U.S.   Then the demands of national sovereignty overwhelmed the promise of supranationalism.

Unlike a truly federal nation like the U.S., the EU required the unanimous vote of its then 28 members on many major issues.  Hungary, a small country, has tried to block decisions.  The U.K., preferring its sovereignty, Brexited from the EU.  No common foreign or defense policy could be agreed upon.   European unity was half done, leaving it far short of its original promise.

The U.N. and the EU, both common efforts to build working relations among nations and reduce the chances for renewed warfare, did not accomplish their purposes.  Instead, the world relies on military alliances whose strength might deter others from aggression and war.

NATO is the prime example.  Equipped with a unified military command and responsive above all to the U.S., its most powerful member, it served as a deterrent.  But it grew weaker as it became more successful.  Only after Russian aggression proved that NATO had let its guard down, did it renew itself.

In the Pacific region, China’s increasingly hostile moves have led to new military cooperation.  AUKUS joins Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. in a cooperative agreement. The Quad includes Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. in developing defenses against China. The U.S. also has defense agreements with Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand.  

As peacemaking gave way to deterrence, Donald Trump’s administration was striking because it accepted neither.  He quit three U.N. agencies and the Paris agreement on the environment, threatened NATO and killed the deal slowing Iran’s nuclear weapons development.  His “America First” policy alienated potential allies.

This isolationism was accompanied by his fawning over authoritarian leaders.   Did he appease such leaders in hopes that he could trade concessions to them for a period of peace?  Did he see agreeing with them as “the art of the deal,” recalling his days developing real estate?  Or did he merely enjoy being in a club with leaders who answer to nobody?

Whatever the reason, he clearly believes his superior personal ability to deal with Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi, North Korea’s Kim, Hungary’s Orban and even Israel’s Netanyahu is all that is required for a successful policy.  He now claims that he could solve major conflicts with such autocrats in a single day, though inevitably that would mean accepting their demands.

Trump’s policy is neither deterrence nor peacemaking.  It is disengagement, even in the face of aggressive actions by adversaries.  Pursuing this high-wire personal policy with any success would depend on the fading skills of an aging man.

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.