Rift (March 29, 2024)
Welcome to Home & Away. There is an Arabic expression about how life tends to include the good and the bad: one day honey, one day onions. It was that sort of week for Donald Trump. On Monday, a judge reduced the amount of money he needs to come up with while he appeals his civil fraud case from $464 million to $175 million. The judge also gave him ten days to produce the funds, which he should be able to do, especially since Truth Social (in which Trump has a large stake) has since gone public (the ticker symbol is DJT for those interested) and has reached stratospheric valuations that bear no relationship whatsoever to the intrinsic value of the enterprise. My guess is that this valuation of DJT is unlikely to last beyond the six-month lockup period, but it will make it easier for Trump to borrow money in the short term.
A side note. The shell company that took Truth Social public is backed by Jeff Yass, who also has a significant stake in TikTok. And then there is the fact that Trump came out publicly against legislation that would force TikTok’s Chinese owners to divest the social media company. Make of this what you will. One more thing. If Trump were to be elected, his stake in DJT would provide a never-ending opportunity for foreign parties (be they private individuals or sovereign wealth funds) to enrich the U.S. president and generate leverage in the process, despite the emoluments clause in the Constitution. As Michael Kinsley once pointed out, what is truly scandalous is not what’s illegal but legal.
This past week Trump’s legal delay strategy hit a wall as another judge set a date, April 15, for jury selection in his criminal case involving the alleged payment of hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels. As for President Biden, there was some encouraging new polling showing him closing in on Trump’s lead in several critical swing states, including Pennsylvania and Michigan, and pulling ahead of Trump in Wisconsin. That said, I wouldn’t take polling all that seriously eight months out from the election.
Speaking of the November election, I published a piece earlier this week in Project Syndicate. Titled “America’s Year of Living Dangerously,” it breaks down the next twelve months and beyond into three phases: the run-up to November’s election, the 75-day period between election day and the inauguration, and the period after January 20, 2025.
Each of the three phases brings distinct challenges. The first phase is already under way and runs until election day, November 5. The problem is already clear: with politics taking priority over policy, it has become difficult to enact important legislation, whether it’s securing the border, providing military assistance to Ukraine, or funding the government. This dynamic may persist as a challenge in the third, post-inauguration period, if Biden is re-elected but Republicans control one or both chambers of Congress.
A very different set of issues would dominate if Trump wins given that presidents enjoy great latitude when it comes to the hiring and firing of personnel and setting the policy agenda, especially if their party controls Congress. If Republicans gain control of the executive and legislative branches, both the post-World War II international order and American democracy itself could come under enormous pressure.
The phase that worries me as much as anything, though, is the two-and-a-half-month period following election day. The peaceful transfer of power—once a hallmark of the American system—can no longer be assumed after the violent insurrection of January 6, 2021. The window between election and inauguration could again become the most perilous phase of an already dangerous year. What is all but certain is that a country distracted and divided over election results will lack the focus and unity to act in the world. America’s adversaries could be tempted to take advantage and press to achieve long-sought objectives.
Bibi & Biden
It was another extraordinary week when it came to the Middle East. To recap: Last week ended with Russia and China vetoing the U.S.-authored UN Security Council resolution that called for a temporary case-fire in Gaza. Clearly, both countries enjoy seeing the United States twist in the wind on account of its support for an increasingly unpopular Israel and saw no reason to let Washington off the hook. There was as well the announcement that Israel would be sending senior officials to Washington to discuss its looming Rafah operation.
This week began with the passage of a different UN resolution (the United States abstained from the vote, allowing it to pass) and the Israelis canceling the scheduled visit to Washington in response. The resolution calls for an immediate ceasefire that would hold through the end of Ramadan, i.e., the middle of the second week of April. It expresses the hope such a pause would lead to a lasting, sustainable ceasefire and also calls for the immediate, unconditional release of the hostages as well as much greater flows of humanitarian aid.
The likely reason for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu calling off the visit of the high-level delegation was anger at the Biden administration’s decision not to cast its fourth veto since October 7, which would have killed the UN resolution. The Israeli complaint was that the resolution did not criticize Hamas and that the ceasefire call was not explicitly linked to the release of hostages, even though it demands “the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages.”
The Israeli reaction was unjustified on the merits. The Biden administration has not moved away from its support for defeating Hamas and releasing the hostages.
Meanwhile, half a world away from the UN in Qatar, prospects for talks with Hamas on a temporary ceasefire that would be tied to the release of some hostages and Palestinian prisoners have dimmed with Israel recalling its negotiating team. Hamas clearly sees the hostages as valuable and is in no rush to give them up or soften its position. Netanyahu publicly blamed this on the U.S. abstention, leading the Biden White House to point out publicly that the negative Hamas response to the Qatar package came before, not after, the vote in the UN.
Netanyahu, in addition to picking a fight with Biden, seems to be prioritizing his (what I believe to be futile) effort to eliminate Hamas over bringing the hostages home. Many in Israel are criticizing the prime minister both for his misplaced priorities and for doing much damage to Israel’s most important relationship, which has led to reports that the delegation’s trip to Washington is now back on. If so, it was Bibi Netanyahu, not Joe Biden, who blinked.
All this comes after more than five months of mostly unsuccessful U.S. efforts to shape Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks. The introduction of a U.S.-drafted resolution followed by the abstention on the subsequent resolution were but the latest evidence that U.S. policy is becoming more critical of and separate from Israel’s.
Israel’s prime minister seems not to care. He continues to deflect U.S. entreaties, marking a major departure from decades of Israeli policy, which placed great emphasis on its relationship with the United States. The immediate question is whether Netanyahu will structure an Israeli offensive in southern Gaza to minimize civilian casualties and allow more aid to flow in. The longer-term test will be whether he chooses to rein in settlement activity and introduce a meaningful political track into Israel’s policy that would meet at least some Palestinian political concerns. My sense is he will not, other than at the margins, lest his coalition collapse and he be forced to face the Israeli public and elections. His decision to approve thousands of new settlement units throughout this war and just last week transfer another two thousand acres in the occupied West Bank to the government is but one indication of this.
We could thus be heading toward the greatest rift between the two countries since the Suez Crisis in 1956. For those unfamiliar with that history, in the aftermath of Egypt’s Arab nationalist leader Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, Israel, in collusion with the United Kingdom and France, invaded Egypt and marched close to the Canal in an attempt to create a pretext that France and Britain could use to regain control of the Canal.
U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower was furious. He feared this joint action by three of America’s friends would hand the Soviets a major opportunity to offer itself up as an alternative to the United States in the Middle East. He was also furious that the escapade turned the world’s attention away from the brutal Soviet crackdown in Hungary. He threatened the Israelis with cutting off economic support and made clear he would not support the British currency as it came under extreme pressure.
There was some pushback against Eisenhower among pro-Israel senators, but they were no match for the popular president. Over the ensuing decades, however, Israel and its supporters built up a strong lobbying effort to ensure that no future president could ever again exert such pressure. Many Israeli prime ministers since have called on this lobby to back its policies when the two governments came into conflict and, more often than not, Israel prevailed.
What Netanyahu sems to have missed (one wonders what his ambassador in Washington is telling him) is that things have changed. Israel can no longer count on the reflexive support of the American Jewish community or assume its friends will prevail over the administration of the day as there are countervailing political forces, including young voters and Arab- and Muslim-Americans. Gallup’s most recent poll shows that Americans now oppose Israel’s military campaign by a solid margin, with approval for it having dropped from 50% in November to 36% now. As that renowned strategist Bob Dylan long ago pointed out, the times they are a changin.
Terror in Putin’s Russia
There are several takeaways from last week’s terrorist attack in Russia that resulted in the deaths of almost 150 people. First, while our focus may have shifted away from old-fashioned terrorism of the sort caried out by ISIS-K, that threat has not gone away. Terrorists are patient and persistent. They also have a long memory. The anti-Russian bias of ISIS stems not just from Syria (where Bashar Al-Assad has taken on ISIS with Russian help), but also the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, which came to a close 35 years ago.
Putin’s initial reaction was to blame the attack (apparently carried out by four men from Tajikistan) on Ukraine and the West. Even when he later acknowledged the ISIS dimension, he still wouldn’t let go of the Ukraine angle, despite no evidence to support it. All of which suggests Putin will use what took place as a “justification” for renewed attacks on Ukrainian civilians.
There is one other curious aspect of this affair worthy of mention. The U.S. embassy in Moscow, first privately through intelligence channels, then publicly, warned the Russian government that a terrorist attack on a large gathering in Moscow was being planned by ISIS-K, even advising Americans in Russia to avoid concerts. The warning was not only dismissed but mocked publicly by Putin.
I actually think it is good that the United States followed through on its duty to warn and that it is working to maintain at least some semblance of a relationship with Russia, despite profound differences over Ukraine and other issues. That there are even active channels where such a warning could be conveyed to the Russian government is also a good sign. That Putin didn’t act on the warning underscores how focused he is on repressing dissent and the war in Ukraine.
Recommendations: 3 Articles and a Series
I want to call attention to three articles I read. The first, in the New York Times, discussed how the Covid-19 pandemic continues to shape American politics. It argues that the effects of the pandemic, including pessimism and greater distrust of government, are very much with us four years later. The pandemic has also emptied cities’ downtowns, increased depression, anxiety, and loneliness, and set back student performance. It ranks with the 2007/8 financial crisis and the 2003 Iraq war in explaining the rise of populism in this country.
The second article, also in the New York Times, highlighted the trend that Republicans who do not regularly watch Fox News are less likely to support Donald Trump. It turns out that Trump-inclined voters turn away from him the more they are exposed to alternative news. This reinforces my call for schools to teach information literacy and what I’d call information hygiene, i.e., teaching students, and citizens of any age for that matter the best practices when it comes to getting and filtering news.
The third article couldn’t be more serious. It is in the New Yorker by Adam Gopnik about those in Germany who enabled Hitler’s rise. It is based on a new book (which I have not read but now plan to) by Timothy Ryback: Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power. My point is not that history is about to repeat itself—it never does, even though it has been known to rhyme—but that authoritarian figures rise not just through their own actions, but through what others rationalize or even go along with. Sleepwalking through history all but ensures history will turn out badly.
On a lighter note—a much lighter note—I want to recommend a limited series on Netflix, Full Swing, now in its second season. It offers a close look at professional golf. The current season begins with a focus on the PGA-LIV debacle, ends with two episodes on the most recent Ryder Cup, and in between profiles a number of golfers, many of whom are certifiable head cases. It is a good way to get a respite from all that is going on at Home and Away and to get ready for the Masters (now less than two weeks away) and for the coming season.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Wednesday, March 27: MSNBC Morning Joe on the domestic strategy of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the war against Hamas.
Podcast
Single Best Idea with Tom Keene (Bloomberg Surveillance Radio)
Article
America’s Year of Living Dangerously (Project Syndicate)
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens