Israel aligns with GOP

Gaza crisis creates wedge issue 

Gordon L. Weil

Israel is part of America’s political culture. 

Since its creation in 1948, support for Israel has been constant and bipartisan.  But that is now changing.

For some, this support might have grown as a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust. For evangelical Christians, Israel as the Jewish homeland would be an essential element of their religious beliefs.

Israel’s founding also served the practical need for dealing with the end of the British Empire. The decision to grant Israel independence from British rule came in 1947, the same year that Britain quit India.  In drawing a new world map, the winners could call the shots.  President Harry Truman gave the State of Israel the American seal of approval.

Based on Jewish values and the rejection of totalitarian government in World War II, Israel promised to be a true liberal democracy, making it a rarity in the Middle East and a natural ally. And its existence could go far to reduce the Jewish Diaspora, the worldwide dispersion of the Jews, which had often exposed them to outright hostility.

Surrounded by Arab states intent on its destruction, Israel could count on the steadfast support of the U.S. and many European countries.  In terms of American domestic politics, the unified official position brought the active backing of both parties and the Jewish community.

There were at least two concrete results.  The U.S. provides massive military aid to Israel and has close intelligence ties.  Given its place in American political culture, Israel might rank alongside Britain, Canada or Australia.  This relationship came with assured American acceptance of the policies adopted by the Israeli government.

The relationship began to fray over the issue of dealing with Iran, seeking to develop nuclear weapons, which Israel already possessed. Feeling threatened, Israel wanted tough action to block Iran.  The U.S. and other major powers, including Russia and China, reached an agreement with Iran to slow its nuclear development, while moving toward further limitations.

Republicans continued to adhere to Israeli policy, while Democrats increasingly favored the negotiated approach. In 2015, the partisan break became clear when congressional Republican majority leaders invited Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress without either Israel or the GOP informing Democratic President Barack Obama.

Endorsing Israel’s position, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran agreement, and it collapsed.  He aligned with Netanyahu’s policy without serious partisan conflict, thanks to Israel’s many Democratic backers.  Iran increased as a threat and stepped up its nuclear development,

Last October 7, Hamas terrorists attacked Israel and seized hostages. Israel and most of the world community reacted in horror and strong opposition.  Israel understandably retaliated, attempting to eliminate Hamas from its home base in Gaza. It chose to obliterate large parts of Gaza rather than deploying a more surgical approach.

Its response received renewed Republican support, but revealed a growing split among Democrats.  Some believed Israel’s bombing raids were justified, while others thought they were disproportionate and unlikely to eliminate Hamas.  Over time, the opposition has grown among Democrats and also among the broader American public.

Along with the devastating attacks on Gaza, Netanyahu refused to say what he sought as the ultimate objective.  Apparently, it would not be a two-state solution, despite Israel’s previous nominal support for the idea. A single state runs directly counter to American and European positions.  As a prime financial backer of Israel, the U.S. could be worried about this policy shift,

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is America’s highest ranking Jewish elected official.  In a broad review of the Israel-Palestine situation, he said that Netanyahu should go.  GOP leaders immediately attacked Schumer for meddling in another country. The Israeli Prime Minister responded that his country was not a “banana republic,” to be pushed around by the U.S.

When President Biden agreed with Schumer, the partisan lines were firmly drawn. In effect, the American Middle East policy could no longer always follow Israel’s line.  Israel, obviously not a banana republic, has made its own decision to conduct what many see as an anti-humanitarian war.  That policy has moved Israel outside of the select circle of special American friends.

Despite Republican claims, the U.S. has intervened in other countries, including even helping overthrow an elected Iranian government.  Schumer’s statement that the present Israeli government has mistakenly dropped the two-state solution, a critically important element of U.S. policy, falls far short of treating Israel as a mere dependency.

The GOP likes single hot-button policies known as wedge issues, and is now trying to make Israel into one.  Trump, the current owner of the Republican Party, issues this godlike proclamation: “Any Jewish person that votes for the Democrats hates their religion.”

Whether that influences or changes American politics is unclear.  That Israel’s actions are influencing and changing American policy is clear.

Poll, pundits doing poor job on presidential race

 

Gordon L. Weil

In an old movie, two tribes are fighting brutally on a battlefield in what may be Afghanistan.  Suddenly, a single line of religious monks crosses the field.  The fighting abruptly halts.  All watch in silence and respect as the holy men pass, and then the battle resumes.

The same thing may be happening now in the U.S.  The monks are pollsters, revered for their objectivity and neutrality.  Media pundits are the high priests who explain the “truths” revealed by the pollsters. 

Pollsters’ truths these days are that Donald Trump leads Joe Biden in the presidential race and that, though both are old men, Biden is worryingly older than Trump.  And, while there are about eight months until the election, it’s almost over now. 

This is called conventional wisdom.  It’s not wisdom, because it could easily turn out to be wrong, but it surely is conventional.  The media promotes what’s conventional, because the pundits listen mainly to one another – a kind of herd (or “heard”) instinct.

In reality, polls may be worse than ever.  Technological change has made it more difficult for pollsters to find a truly random sample of likely voters.  That’s essential if survey responses from the 1,000 people interviewed can predict how tens of millions of people will vote.  

Many people randomly selected cannot be reached or refuse to reply, so pollsters artificially weight some participants more than others. Besides, some people don’t give honest answers. 

In the Republican Super Tuesday primaries, Trump performed less well in most states than his polling numbers had forecast.  For example, in Michigan, a swing state, 57 percent of Republicans told polls they would vote for Trump, but only 42 percent did.

Where will the lost Trump supporters go in November?  And what about those Republicans who say they would not vote for Trump if he were convicted of a felony?  Plus, what will be the effect of third parties if the race is close?  The pundits are silent.

Polls are conducted every day, and the results are instantly interpreted by the journalistic herd to suggest to lowly voters what we will do eight months from now. Campaigns and voters may make decisions based on the doubtful data stated as conventional wisdom. 

In short, statistical guesses are treated as sure things.  Excessive reliance on polling misleads and distorts the election process.

By the way, there is one area where we should consider scientific statistics – the age of the candidates.  The media constantly focuses on doubts about Biden’s age but much less on Trump’s.  It ignores so-called “actuarial tables.”

The U.S. government must calculate how long people at each age will live in order to know the future cost of Social Security benefits.  Highly trained and experienced experts, the actuaries, determine how many more years a man or woman at each age is expected to live.  They set life expectancy at the age to be reached by at least half the people born in the same year. 

They calculate with great accuracy how long men the ages of Trump and Biden will live. Trump would be 78 at the start of the next presidential term; Biden would be 82.  At that time, Trump’s life expectancy would be 88, while Biden’s would be 90.  That means either would have a good chance of serving a full presidential term. 

So, the age difference does not particularly favor Trump.  But they are both old men and both are gaffe-prone.  Either could make such a disastrous error in campaigning that it would seriously threaten their electoral chances. No pollster can take that into account, though both parties and the voters may.

Finally, given their ages, will the election focus less on the two men and more on their two running mates?  If voters believe both are dangerously old, they could focus on the vice-presidential candidates.  Their debate could be the most important ever for the number two slot, especially if one or both of the presidential candidates won’t debate.

The biggest and most public decision a presidential candidate makes during a campaign is the selection of their running mate.  Biden’s is known and Trump’s will be a person who hews loyally to his positions.  Either must be viewed as a possible president, maybe even a likely one.  That could make this election more about the running mates than about the top of the ticket.

Finally, much will depend on the media.  The mainline media seems committed to promoting the conventional wisdom, breathlessly reported every day.  It owes the voters more than daily spot reporting and hot-off-the press analyses.  It should avoid snap conclusions drawn from flawed or possibly biased polling.

Questionable polling and hasty analyses dominate the election campaign these days. We need more light and less heat.

America’s court jester has Middle East peace plan

 

Gordon L. Weil

In medieval times, kings had court jesters who could give them serious warnings or advice, candy-coated with humor.

America may now have its own court jester:  Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”  Perhaps he’s worth our attention, even when it concerns a subject as difficult as the Gaza War.

Israel exists in a hostile corner of the Middle East.  It was created in 1948 to provide a homeland for the Jewish people, in an area that was also the home of the Palestinians. Nazi Germany had shown that, without their own territory, Jews might always face the risk of mass killing.

Israel’s survival has depended on a combination of factors.  Almost its entire Jewish population is trained and armed for defense.  The government has one of the best intelligence operations in the world.  It projects its power into neighboring countries to quash remote efforts to organize attacks against it.  And it has the unwavering support of the U.S.

When Israel was created, much of the Arab population of Palestine either fled or was driven out in what Arabs would call the “Nakba.”  But Israel continued to have Palestinians within its borders, but did not rule parts of the territory that remained under Palestinian control.

Threatened by internal Palestinian dissidents, surrounding Arab countries and terrorist groups, Israel assigned its highest priority to its national security. The U.S. was its guarantor, even if not formally.

As Israel became more secure, repelling failed military attacks, it occupied parts of Palestine that were adjacent to its territory.  Gradually, Israel has moved toward ultimately absorbing the occupied territories and maintaining dominance over the Palestinians.

That policy has been expected to provide security for Israel.  It implied that the Jewish state would keep Palestinians under its control, even if they had limited self-government.

For the Palestinians, this outcome is unacceptable, and some are willing to engage in armed resistance. Desperation has led to the formation of terrorist organizations whose agendas seem focused on continual efforts to disrupt the Israeli plan.  The murderous October 7 Hamas attack on Israel reflected enormous Arab frustration and anger with what their future might be.

The bottom line is that Israel wants to be a secure state able to protect itself, and the Palestinians want the ability to govern themselves independently.  These seem to have become mutually exclusive goals.  Sensing the Hamas attack offered it an opportunity, Israel’s response both in Gaza and the occupied West Bank has been to move toward complete control.

The U.S. and other countries have always favored two equal side-by-side states.  This is not what Israel wants.  But it is doubtful that its military control of the entire territory of Palestine would bring regional peace or enable it to completely control the Palestinians.  From American post-Civil War Reconstruction to Russian oppression of Ukraine, history shows this policy does not work.

Israel rejects a two-state solution, because it lacks confidence that the Palestinians would refrain from using their homeland to launch continual attacks on the Jewish state.  In short, Israel seems to believe that a two-state solution fails to provide what is most essential – security.

Along comes Jon Stewart.  With humor and feigned modesty, he advances a way to make the two-state solution work.  He proposes stationing a buffer force all along the border between the two states. At crossing points, each state could control the passage of people and goods.

Stewart suggests a force staffed and financed by neighboring Arab countries. Israel would get security and the Palestinians would get their own country.  Yet it’s impossible to believe that Israel would find Stewart’s arrangement durable or better than complete control of Palestine.

The neighboring countries should provide financial support.  So should the U.S. and European nations who now pay to arm one or both sides, trying to patch over an impossible regional security situation.

The border force patrols could be staffed by three elements: Israelis, Palestinians and well-trained third-party soldiers from countries outside the region.

Israel seeks to impose its own unilateral solution to its security needs, so rejects international involvement with the Palestinian problem.  But the world community has great concern about Middle East peace, and Israel is somewhat dependent for its security on the U.S. and Europe, and cannot go it alone.

Stewart’s proposal may be labeled naïve and impractical.  Yet, after 76 years, nothing else has worked.  Maybe the buffer force is not the best solution, but it’s something new and that alone makes it worthy of serious consideration. Perhaps there are other ideas still to be explored. 

The U.S., as Israel’s prime military backer, should take the lead.  The bloody Hamas-Israel confrontation requires America to do more than just plead for peace and pass the hat.

Supreme Court’s new split emerges in Colorado case

 

Gordon L. Weil

The Supreme Court’s decision preventing Colorado from keeping Donald Trump off the Republican primary ballot revealed two splits among the nine justices.

While all nine agreed that were adequate grounds to determine that a decision relating to a federal office could not be made by individual states, but only by the federal government, five justices went even further. 

The five ruled that Congress is required to pass a law giving effect to a ban on insurrectionists holding public office before they can be blocked.  In other words, the Constitution’s 14^th Amendment ban cannot function without additional congressional action.  This ruling was not necessary to overrule Colorado, but, for the first time, it established rules for the future.

Three justices disagreed vehemently and protested that it was not necessary for the majority to go that far, and it should not have.  Frequent judicial practice is to avoid making decisions that are not needed to produce a result.

Another justice wrote that sending a unified message rather than displaying a heated and unnecessary split would have been in the public interest.  This justice agreed with the three that the Court should not have gone beyond what was required and did not endorse the majority’s additional ruling. The justice said the Court should not have entered into unneeded controversy during a campaign year.

This justice stated: “In my judgment, this is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency. The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”

This justice put the public interest ahead of the frequent partisanship shown even on the Supreme Court.  She is Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.  Thus, this was not a purely partisan split, though the three other justices who opposed the extra ruling had all been appointed by Democratic presidents.

So, aside from the split on the wisdom of the extra opinion, what other split existed? 

Male-female.

Five justices, all men and all GOP appointees, couldn’t resist going too far in their enthusiasm to overrule Colorado and ease Trump’s way.  Without their unnecessary and potentially controversial expansive ruling, the women might have simply agreed with the decision to block Colorado’s decision.  The result would have offered the public a unanimous and appropriate decision.

Instead, the majority got a scolding by Barrett, and the Court did nothing to repair its declining image.

Putin has lost his Ukraine gamble, but has U.S. won?

 

Gordon L. Weil

Vladimir Putin has lost in Ukraine.

Has the U.S., Ukraine’s major backer, won?

Putin stated Russia’s goals, has not met them and has no chance of success.

The U.S. has not stated America’s goals in intervening in the Ukraine War. Simply saying that the U.S. backs Ukraine has proved to be inadequate.

Putin has had two objectives. First, he wanted to prove that Ukrainians were really Russians and a second-rate version at that. In line with Soviet mythology, “the Ukraine” is merely a part of Greater Russia, he thought, and its people were inferior and subject to exploitation. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin had literally starved millions of them to death in the 1930s.

Second, Putin worried that the truly independent Ukraine, having expelled his puppet president in 2014, would bring the West, notably NATO and the EU, right to Russia’s borders. He wanted Ukraine to serve as a buffer state subject to Russian domination, just as is neighboring Belarus.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine two years ago is an utter failure. Ukraine’s heroic stand to repel the Russians has made the entire world aware of the strength of its people and their rejection of Russia. Despite Putin’s hopes, there would be no Russian puppet president ruling in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.

Both the EU and NATO have begun moving toward positive consideration of Ukraine’s membership. The Russian threat has led Europe to step up its own defense efforts. If Ukraine joins NATO, the U.S. and Europe will be committed to defend it against any further Russian invasion. That could be a powerful deterrent.

Meanwhile, reacting to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden are becoming NATO members, more than doubling Russia’s border with NATO members. It would just about double again with Ukraine as a member. Putin’s policy backfired.

If defeating Putin is the U.S. objective, then it has won. But American policy still seems to support Ukraine’s hope of expelling Russia from all territory it has taken since 2014, notably eastern Ukraine and Crimea. The question is whether that’s possible.

While Russia can seize territory and bomb Ukraine, Russia itself is almost immune from attacks by Ukraine using NATO-supplied weapons. Russia’s nuclear weapons give it a military advantage that cannot readily be overcome. It’s like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

Aside from arming Ukraine, other wartime developments have been less favorable for the U.S. and Europe. The U.S. ended the great powers’ agreement with Iran that restrained its nuclear ambitions. That propelled Iran into a closer relationship with Russia under which it supplies military drones.

Russia replaced its trade links with Europe by an enhanced relationship with China, making the Chinese Yuan into Russia’s main international exchange currency, displacing the U.S. dollar. It managed relatively easily to evade American economic sanctions, using intermediary countries like Armenia to launder transactions.

The military stalemate in Ukraine and the failure of the efforts to cripple the Russian economy, which would force it to end its invasion, have contributed to increased American political fatigue with the Ukraine War. A broad understanding that the U.S. opposes invasions to seize the territory of free countries has been turned into a partisan issue by some Republicans.

The U.S. might yield some of its leadership responsibilities to Europe if countries there continue their recent moves to strengthen their own defenses, simultaneously reducing reliance on the U.S. Would the U.S. willingly cede some of its international influence?

If not, the U.S. needs to better define its objectives in Ukraine and pursue them while leading the Western alliance. Could Russia be further weakened by continued American pressure? Or is the GOP correct that endless conflicts have become sufficiently unpopular that a path to the end of the current level of Ukraine support must be found?

A stronger policy based on American interests could require less deference to Ukraine’s understandable desire to recover all of its lost territory.

Of course, Russia must accept formally what it has already lost in Europe and recognize Ukraine as a future member of the EU and NATO. Russian troops must withdraw from territories taken in the past two years, allowing referendums on their future. As for Crimea, Ukraine could gain free access through it to the open sea, just as it gave Russia when it controlled Crimea.

The Republicans are desperate for issues to fight out with the Democrats and Ukraine increasingly looks like one. But allowing U.S. policy on Ukraine to become part of this year’s political campaign would serve Russia’s purposes and weaken America’s place in the world.

An end to conflict in Ukraine may depend on avoiding political conflict on this issue in the U.S. The first step toward ending the conflict might begin with an attempt by the parties to find a bipartisan endgame policy.

Younger generations will pick next president

 

Gordon L. Weil

America is divided. While that may hardly be news, it’s more than a matter of liberal versus conservative or Democrat versus Republican.

Part of the population seems to live in another country. It has a different history, a different culture and, as the annual additions to the dictionary reveal, a different language. It is composed of generations known as Gen X and Millennials.

It may be joining the political process at a pace unusual for younger people often more concerned with getting their feet on the ground than their hands on the ballot. It may now be the critical element in decisions about the future.

On the older side of the dividing line are the members of the Silent Generation, children of the Depression and World War II, and the Boomers, children of the post-war world. These people have been shaped by their experiences and may participate in the political process to protect what they have and to preserve what is familiar.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden are both well tied to the older side of this division. While their physical and mental abilities may raise doubts about their serving four more years, they are also out of touch with many people generations younger than them who could decide the election.

The New York Times has recently reported on an effort to encourage older people to sit down one-on-one with younger people to exchange ideas and experiences. This is not a matter of the senior educating the youth; the teaching flows both ways. Has Trump or Biden had such a conversation – a chat between equals across generation lines – in recent years?

The younger half of the population is not a “constituency” simply to be fed promises about issues like student loan forgiveness or excessive government regulation. It is a large, growing share of the population, people that the government is supposed to serve, not a segment to be patronized. But the two people who may be this year’s presidential candidates have little real contact with it.

Some analysts criticize the Democrats for yielding their traditional blue-collar constituency to the GOP. Trump’s success can easily be attributed to this failure of the pro-labor party to prevent the slide of their key backers to the pro-business Trump Republicans. But the facts about younger Americans suggest this thinking is flawed.

A few years ago, Pew Research, a respected independent organization, conducted a broad survey of the American population by age. What it discovered could give political comfort to the Democrats.

Pew found that the younger generations are better educated, wealthier, and less likely to be married than the older generations were at the same age. Among the younger people, women are better educated than men, and many more women are employed than had been the case with their parents’ generations.

A majority of Gen Xers and Millennials consider themselves liberals and Democrats or leaning that way. The breakdown for the Silent Generation and Boomers is just the reverse. But liberals outnumber conservatives, according to Pew.

The GOP may not worry about these numbers, because older people are more likely to vote than the younger generations. That could be one reason for Republicans opposing easier voting access, asserting that such access increases cheating. With limited access to the polls, newcomers may be discouraged from voting.

While it remains true that the older groups are generally more conservative than the younger groups, their ranks are not growing. Meanwhile the number of liberals is increasing, thanks to the two younger generations. This growth comes mostly from independents, who have often seen themselves as moderates.

Look at Maine. In the 1950s, when Democrat Edmund Muskie pulled off an upset to become governor, Republicans heavily outnumbered either Independents or Democrats. Now they have fallen to third position, with the Democrats leading in party registration. Muskie caused some Republicans to become Independents, and later they transitioned to the Democrats.

The challenge for the Republicans is to prevent the continued drift of voters to liberalism, difficult in light of economic and social change. That leaves the GOP with efforts to keep down voter participation in the belief that older people are less affected than new participants when they face artificial obstacles to voting. Above all, Trump must focus on conserving his support.

The Democrats must get out their vote. That, too, may be a challenge, illustrated by reactions to the Gaza conflict. Many young voters are critical of Biden’s reluctance to support a ceasefire. He seems caught between traditional but aging political allies and the younger generations, which still need to be motivated to vote and to support him.

Biden may count on winning, relying on popular dislike of Trump. The demographic divide shows he must do more to bring the younger generations, especially women, on board.

George Washington’s message to Biden, Trump: It’s time to go

Gordon L. Weil

Once again, it’s time for Presidents Day. If you ask people what it celebrates, you may get a shrug or the easy conclusion that it recognizes all the presidents since the beginning of the country.

In both federal and Maine law, the holiday is Washington’s Birthday, intended to recognize the person called “The Father of His Country.” As is my tradition, this my annual column on George Washington, who I believe is our greatest president.

We usually pick our presidents based on who they are more than because of the promises they make to us. In terms of quality of character, a standard that seems mostly forgotten these days, Washington is virtually unbeatable.

The principal measure of character is integrity. Define yourself and then live your life in line with who you are.

When Washington was selected as commanding general of the Continental Army, composed of state-contributed forces, he was possibly the only official American. Throughout his career, he defined himself that way and tried always to act in the national interest and not his personal interest. He saw his job as MAG – Make America Great.

The Constitution was only a document when he became president in1789. With Congress, he had the task of creating a new government for a new country. He could have become its king, but believed so strongly in its promise, that he chose to stick to the job of making the Constitution work. That may look easy from today’s vantage point, but it wasn’t.

Aside from creating the departments of government with their powers and responsibilities, he had to develop national policies to represent the interests and needs of about four million people from Maine, then part of Massachusetts, to Georgia. He understood that a country already so vast and destined to be much greater, could only be governed through compromise.

From the outset, he faced a conflict over the role of the federal government. On one side were the Federalists, who favored a strong central government. The Anti-Federalists, which would develop into the Democratic-Republicans, favored an agrarian country with powerful states. Alexander Hamilton led the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson headed the opposition.

Washington’s approach was to attempt to find a compromise. Of course, the majority party should have the greater influence over the final decision. Washington, though not a partisan politician, agreed with the Federalists, based largely on his unhappy experience in trying to assemble and finance a wartime army dependent on voluntary state contributions.

He succeeded in creating compromises and in developing policies that a majority could support in the national interest. The work produced controversy and Jefferson quit the government, when he did not prevail. He later came to realize that he had gone too far in opposing Washington.

Washington, the war general, became the successful post-war president because of his character. He understood that there were limits that applied to the role of government and that those limits applied to him. He would not abuse the power given to him.

He tried to show his commitment to the people, reassuring them that independence was worth the sacrifices that had been made to win it and that the government merited their support.

He had not sought the presidency. After the Revolutionary War, he returned to his farms and lands in Virginia. He had removed himself from farming and real estate investing while serving his country. One of the wealthiest people in the country, he had left virtually all management to others, however much he wanted to return to Mount Vernon.

Whatever satisfaction he took from his service as general was personal and he did not seek attention. Yet, after the Constitution was ratified, attention came to him based on his previous service. The country wanted him as their first president. His proven integrity reassured national leaders that he could head the government without seeking personal advantage.

The proof of his integrity came when he voluntarily decided that two terms as president was enough, setting a precedent that much later became part of the Constitution. He retired back home to great acclaim. That’s called “leaving on a high note.”

Washington understood a simple fact that seems to have escaped many of his successors. After a president leaves office, there’s still one more election – the judgment of history. That depends heavily on how a person conducted themselves and led the government and often relatively little on specific policies. And it may take a long while for that judgment to be made.

History’s judgment about George Washington is clear. Two of his successors are now vying to live in the White House, the house he built. They should learn at least one lesson from him before the last election they will ever face. That’s knowing when it’s time to go.