Thoughts on events in the Middle East, part two
In my last piece, my aim was to discuss what I saw as the most obvious things regarding the events of the last few weeks in the Middle East. In this piece, my aim is mostly to discuss aspects of it that are more in doubt, uncertain, controversial and/or less obvious. I think it’s best to start with the less important things and get them out of the way quickly so we can move on to the things that matter a lot more.
There have been countless videos on social media of people tearing down pictures of those who are being held hostage by Hamas. I don’t care what someone’s cause is, if they do that they’re lowlifes and rotten to their core. Tearing down pictures of kidnapping victims is not a viewpoint, it is behavior and is something those doing it should face social, if not legal consequences for. If someone who does that loses their job because of it, that’s fine with me.
There have also been some incidents where ostensibly pro-Palestine protestors blocked roads, blocked entrances to buildings or caused other kinds of disruptions. Those kinds of tactics are not unique to any particular cause and are fairly common among parts of the professional protester class on the left. Environmental protestors have done things like that here and abroad.
For those wondering how anyone could believe doing those things will help their cause, that is overthinking things. The people blocking roads and causing other disruptions don’t care about Palestinians. They care about getting attention for its own sake. There is a segment of the far-left that rejects the entire notion of normal politics, i.e., persuasion and winning elections, and believes in being obnoxious asses as an end to itself. It’s thankfully a very small number of people with no actual power and, while they should be condemned, they should not be talked about as if they rule the world.
When it comes to cancel culture, the left is getting a bite of their own medicine. For the better part of a decade now, it has been the left that has had more cultural power and has been more likely to use it against people who say things not to their liking. Since the October 7 attacks, there have been many times where people have suffered consequences for making statements that were seen by some as antisemitic or insensitive.
I haven’t followed the specifics of any of those incidents, but as someone who is strongly against cancel culture, I’m instinctively inclined towards thinking most, if not all of them, were wrong.[i] It should be a teachable moment for those on the left who have tried to cancel people they don’t like. When you legitimize punishing someone for a viewpoint, you’re opening a door and validating those tactics. Sooner or later, those tactics will be used against you or someone you like.
The US role in the Middle East
With the less important stuff out of the way, let’s move on to the more important items. I mentioned in my last piece that I think the Abraham Accords are very good. My reason for thinking that, though, is probably very different from most others. A large majority of those involved in foreign policy in the US believe the US should continue to play a large and active role in the Middle East. I don’t agree with that at all.
I’m all for the US doing everything possible to broker a partnership between Israel and Saudi Arabia. The reason I support that is because I want the two of them to take charge of the Middle East. Since both are part of that region, it’s obviously very important to them and they can’t ignore it. That is not the case for the US.
The Middle East offers the US almost nothing. The biggest reason by far that the US has ever cared about it is oil. If there was no oil there, the amount of attention it would get in US foreign policy circles would be close to zero. Oil is obviously a critical commodity and if a crisis in the Middle East broke out and cut off a good chunk of the world’s oil supply that would be very bad. Trying to prevent that from happening is a legitimate goal, but it doesn’t require the US to have a large presence there.
As partners, Israel would bring the most advanced firepower in the region and Saudi Arabia would bring the biggest economy. The region’s biggest troublemaker, Iran, is not the US’ problem or responsibility. Israel and Saudi Arabia are Iran’s biggest enemies and it’s their responsibility to deal with them.
If the Israel-Saudi Arabia deal becomes a reality, I want the US response to be, “Great, you’re partners! Now, we’re going to step back and let you take it from here.” The US has much bigger fish to fry than the Middle East. Israel and Saudi Arabia together are capable of handling it and should do so as they see fit. I look forward to a future where, when something goes awry in the Middle East, the response from the US is, “Israel and Saudi Arabia will handle it.”
Dealing with Russia still matters, but the US’ top priority has to be China. I support what the US is doing with Ukraine and believe it has been aid very well spent. I want to continue doing that, but it needs to be made clear to Europe that it’s their primary responsibility. The US should continue to play a role, but Europe will need to take the lead because the US needs to focus on China. China is by far the biggest adversary the US has and nothing else comes close.
I also mentioned in my last piece that I think it’s in the best interest of Israelis and Palestinians to find some sort of two-state solution. But, and this is sure to be controversial, I don’t believe that is something the US should be involved in. The amount of attention it gets in US political discourse relative to its importance is millions to one. At the end of the day, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a local fight over local issues that don’t concern the US.
If there is going to be any kind of lasting peace, it will be up to Israelis and Palestinians to make it a reality. No foreign power is going to do that for them. Both sides are capable of making decisions on their own accord. If they aren’t willing to coexist peacefully, that is their choice. Nobody can force them to do it.
With respect to Israel’s war against Hamas, I support providing them with the aid package the Biden Administration has requested. But in the future I want the US relationship with Israel to be like that of any other country. The US provides Israel with billions of dollars in aid each year. I support that now, but, if the deal with Saudi Arabia becomes official, I want it to wind down and come to an end. Needless to say, that is a very controversial position.
I want to end that aid not out of hostility to Israel, just the opposite. Even now they don’t need it and that’s a good thing. They have accomplished a lot since 1948. The economy has grown massively and living standards there are on par with or greater than most developed countries. The goal of helping other countries should be to get them to the point where aid is no longer needed and they become fully independent. Israel has achieved that and is a big success story.
Biden, friends of Israel and calls for a ceasefire
I think Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict has been exemplary. I doubt there is anyone who could have done it better. His experience in foreign policy is unmatched by almost everyone around today. One of his first international trips as a Senator was to Israel in 1973. He has met every Israeli prime minister since Golda Meir.
For all the flak he gets for his age, with age comes experience and that has likely helped him immensely. He has known Netanyahu for years and is one of the few Democrats to even somewhat get along with him. They have spoken almost daily since October 7. That has allowed him to thread the needle almost perfectly. By being very vocal in his support of Israel, it has gained him credibility there and has given him leverage. While he has been very supportive of Israel, he has not been dogmatic about it.
Biden has played a large role in hostage negotiations and has talked Israel out of attacking Hezbollah. Without his being so publicly vocal in favor of Israel, he may not have had the leverage to do the latter. That is something his domestic left-wing critics miss. A Democrat who was a staunch critic of Israel would have no credibility over there and their words wouldn’t carry any weight. That would likely mean an expanded war and even more death and destruction.
Biden also played a role in convincing Netanyahu to allow brief pauses in fighting each day to give civilians a chance to leave Gaza. Currently, there are hostages being released, which will mean a ceasefire is in place for at least a few days. I have no idea what will happen next, but getting hostages released is obviously very good and a good sign for future diplomatic efforts. Fingers crossed the remaining hostages will be released soon.
The phrase “friend of Israel” has been around for a long time. To be honest, I often have a negative reaction to hearing it. That’s not because I object to the concept, but because I have frequently heard that phrase used to either justify supporting someone awful or to make someone awful sound less bad, i.e., “I’m not a fan of Putin, but he’s a friend of Israel.” Pro tip, there are people who are awful and that’s all you should say about them. Everyone is going to be right about something, but you don’t have to hand it to them. Whatever your definition of a friend of Israel is, you can find someone who meets it who isn’t human garbage and praise them for it.
In my view, a friend is someone who tells you what you need to hear. By that definition, Biden is as good a friend of Israel as there is. He supports Israel in their efforts against Hamas and is doing everything he can to make that task easier. At the same time, he’s been willing to tell them when he thinks they’re making a mistake. Eliminating Hamas is something that needs to be done, but not everything is justified in pursuit of that goal.
Too often, people who are described as friends of Israel (or anyone) are just flatterers and sycophants, as Machiavelli famously described in The Prince. Flatterers and sycophants tell you what you want to hear. An example of that happened at the most recent Republican debate. When asked what advice they would give Netanyahu, most of the candidates basically responded with, “Do whatever you want, you’re perfect and can do no wrong.” That is something Netanyahu and his coalition partners would love to hear. But if that is what those candidates would really do, they’re encouraging Israel to overreach and spark a backlash that will be a big problem for them.
There have been calls in the US and abroad for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Biden has rightly rejected that. It’s not clear to me what those calling for it even have in mind. Assuming all the hostages were released, would the idea be that Israel just agrees to never touch Gaza? Are they supposed to forgive and forget what happened on October 7? Ceasefires have been agreed to in the past only to be broken. There was a ceasefire in place on October 6.
True, if Hamas agreed to surrender, lay down their weapons and allow their leaders to be held accountable there would be a permanent ceasefire. That, of course, is not going to happen. Hamas makes no secret that their goal is not peace, but to eliminate Israel. That’s something those calling for a permanent ceasefire don’t seem to get. Asking someone to just ignore an enemy who wants them eliminated isn’t fair or reasonable.
If Israel did heed the calls of those demanding a permanent ceasefire, it would save lives today. The problem is it would allow Hamas to regroup and launch attacks in the future. That would mean even worse fighting and more deaths. There is plenty of debate to be had about how Israel should go about fighting Hamas. There will be times where it’s more important to prioritize saving civilians over taking out Hamas fighters and capabilities. But that can’t be done categorically without effectively asking Israel to let Hamas get away with what they’ve done.
US domestic politics
Since electoral politics is the one area that I’m bold enough to call myself an authority on, I can’t not write about it. Simply put, the effects of the Israel-Hamas conflict on next year’s election are likely to be non-existent. Foreign policy is rarely something people vote on. The few times when it has been a big issue, i.e., 1968, were when the US was directly involved in a war.
I think that’s a shame because foreign policy is the area where the president has the most control. A president can’t unilaterally create or undo Medicare, but they can start a war. Foreign policy is the reason I think Trump is so uniquely dangerous. If it weren’t for that, I might rather have him again than Ron DeSantis.
My wishes notwithstanding, Biden’s reelection prospects won’t be boosted that much no matter how well he handles the situation in the Middle East. A president can have a very successful foreign policy, but if people don’t like the domestic situation they’re likely to lose (see George HW Bush). Conversely, a president who is very unsuccessful with foreign policy will likely still win if the domestic situation is good.
Lately, there has been plenty of coverage about Biden losing ground with younger voters because of Israel. Left-wing activists have gleefully emphasized that and insisted that only by doing everything they want can Biden win young voters and get reelected. That narrative, of course, is wrong. Public opinion in the US is firmly on the side of Israel. Biden may alienate some on the left with his stance, but he would alienate far more people by adopting the left’s position.
Nobody knows how long the Israel-Hamas conflict will last. It may last for months or years. Even if it lasts for years, it may not involve heavy fighting all the time. It has been a dominant news story since October 7 and will continue to be a big story, but it’s unclear how much longer it will dominate the news in the US. It may be background noise by the time general election voting begins next year.
The only way the Israel-Hamas conflict could affect elections in the US is if it spread to the broader Middle East. If Iran got involved and a good chunk of the world’s oil supply got cut off, that would send oil prices surging, which would lead to much higher gas prices here. That wouldn’t be Biden’s fault, but it would probably be fatal to his reelection chances.
Am I saying there is essentially no political upside for Biden in all this? Unfortunately, yes. He’s done a very good job on foreign policy during his tenure. Leaving Afghanistan was the right decision. Supporting Ukraine has been a good decision as have his efforts to counter China. He’s doing a great job now with Israel. He should continue to do those things because they’re good policy, not because of electoral politics. The one bit of good news for Biden is that the events of the last few weeks are unlikely to have any negative impact on his reelection chances either because they won’t be something many people vote on.
Being president can sometimes be a thankless job. It’s not uncommon for presidents to have to deal with problems abroad that aren’t their fault and have no upside if things go right, but a lot of downside if things go wrong. I wish it wasn’t like that, but it is and everyone who becomes president knows what they’re signing up for. Anyone who doesn’t know that should pursue another line of work.
[i] It’s not always an easy line to draw, but, for me, what someone shouldn’t be cancelled for, with rare exceptions, is a viewpoint. What can be acceptable to cancel someone for is behavior. Accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza is a viewpoint I strongly disagree with, but is not something someone should lose their job over. I feel the same way about saying Israel should bomb Gaza with no regard for civilian lives. Blocking roads and committing vandalism are behavior and if someone gets in trouble for that, I don’t have any issue with it.