Welcome to Home & Away. Lots to discuss this week, from domestic politics to the latest in Gaza and how that war is being fought here at home. Also, some thoughts on AI for good measure. So, let’s get to it.
Politics
Here at Home, the Republican presidential field is shrinking, with former vice president Mike Pence deciding he has had enough. It is a sad commentary that Pence’s best moment, and the one he will be remembered for in history, his standing up for the Constitution on January 6, contributed to his downfall in today’s Republican Party.
The question becomes who benefits from a shrinking field. Many assume it would be whomever occupies second place: initially Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, increasingly former South Carolina governor and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. Maybe…but there is also reason to believe some, and possibly many, of the votes for those dropping out will go to Donald Trump and thereby add to his formidable lead. As for the frontrunner, I have nothing new to report. The question remains the relationship between the legal and political calendars and whether setbacks on the former actually help him more than hurt him on the latter.
The new Speaker of the House of Representatives is in place, and what is clear is that little has changed. House Republicans remain unserious about governing. The president put forward a large aid proposal, one that included funds for Ukraine, Israel, the southern border, and Taiwan, but the new Speaker is only prepared to take up aid for Israel. Even that comment needs qualification, as Speaker Mike Johnson has linked approval of aid to Israel to cutting funding for the IRS, even though doing so would actually raise the deficit since it would force the IRS to curtail its enforcement, leading to lower tax revenues (as the Congressional Budget Office confirmed). This will be a non-starter with Democrats, meaning additional aid to Israel will be delayed. The fate of aid for Ukraine is less certain. Why Republicans are so unwilling to stand up to Putin’s Russia continues to baffle. I don’t think the answer to that can be found in the Bible, but maybe I have missed something.
Meanwhile on the Democratic side, there is the unexpected entry into the presidential race of Dean Phillips, a relatively young (54) congressman from Minnesota. It will be interesting to see if this largely unknown figure does better than expected by attracting the “ABB,” i.e., “Anyone But Biden” vote and, if he does, what follows. Potentially a bigger problem for Biden is Cornel West, who is now running as an independent, and who I expect will pick up support from progressives, particularly those disaffected with the president’s strong support of Israel. Also of note is how well Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is doing in some polls, although it is possible that he could end up pulling more votes from Trump than Biden (a concern some on Fox News seem to have, which may account for their suddenly tough coverage of him).
Just think: by the time you read this, the election will be a mere 52 weeks away. The one thing I know for sure is that the outcome could be consequential given the unprecedented gap between the policies of the likely major party nominees. It would, however, be less consequential if someone like Nikki Haley, who operates largely within the traditional confines of the Republican Party, were to be the Republican candidate. But this is still something of a long shot.
Until 2016, similarities between the major party candidates outweighed any differences. Many (including yours truly) didn’t realize this was no longer true in 2016, as I incorrectly assumed Trump, if elected, would jettison much of his radicalism. This proved wrong. Now we know. It is hard to exaggerate the differences between Trump and Biden on foreign policy and fidelity to democracy, which is to say next year’s election will hold momentous implications for this country and the world. Indeed, a second Trump presidency would be even more radical and untethered than the first, as he would reenter the Oval Office looking to settle scores and surrounded by advisors who would not even attempt to constrain him. Right now, I’d say the race sits somewhere between a toss-up and a slight edge for Trump, but if a week is a long time in politics, then a year is close to an eternity.
Gaza a Month On
Away, the focus is still on Gaza and the Middle East. The crisis is nearly four weeks old. Israel has introduced a large ground element into its strategy. If the means have evolved, its stated goal remains the same: to end the rule of Hamas in Gaza and reduce much or all of its capacity to cause harm. I applaud these goals in principle but remain unpersuaded they are achievable in practice. It is not just the challenge of militarily routing Hamas; it is also finding or developing what would constitute an effective successor governing authority in Gaza. I don’t see the Palestinian Authority, Arab League, or United Nations as being up to it. I should add that the history of regime change is not encouraging. In this case, I am also unsure if it is truly necessary as Israel could rebuild its ability to defend against Hamas and ensure that something resembling October 7 never again happens. I explain all this in a piece that appeared in the Financial Times last weekend.
In addition, the costs of the Israeli effort are increasing. Israel is being accused of collective punishment and war crimes, while international pressure is growing, and will continue to grow, for a ceasefire. Israel remains adamant in its rejection of a ceasefire and so far has U.S. backing.
The question is how this will play out over time. What makes a war just is both its rationale and the manner in which it is fought. Israel is falling down on the latter consideration. Israeli strikes are leading to too many civilian casualties and too much civilian suffering. As a result, Israel risks forfeiting the support of much of the West, not just in the current crisis, but in the long term. Anti-semitism is increasing in this country and around the world at an alarming rate. The potential for the conflict to spread to Lebanon, and by extension northern Israel, and to the West Bank likewise increases if Israel’s involvement in Gaza is large and seen as causing widespread death and hardship.
For the United States, all this increases the risks and costs of this unexpected and unwanted crisis. The U.S. military presence in the region has been raised to deal with potential Iranian-backed threats to U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq, and it has already shot down missiles fired by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. The last thing the United States needs is a prolonged crisis in the Middle East given the strategic imperative of helping Ukraine against Russia and enhancing its capacity to deter and, if need be, defend against China moving on Taiwan. What is going on in the Middle East could also lead to deeper divisions and domestic violence at a time when the fabric of American society is already severely strained.
I would add that I worry as well about the long-term impact of what is taking place in Gaza on American views of Israel. The era of goodwill that coincided with Israel’s founding and the 1967 War is long gone. David has become Goliath in the eyes of many. The strong emotional response for Israel in the wake of the horrific October 7 attacks has largely faded as the story for many observers is increasingly one of civilian casualties caused by Israeli military action. A less democratic Israel is still a possibility, as is one that rules a large number of Palestinians for years or even decades. None of this bodes well for the future of this relationship.
But to suggest that what Israel is doing in Gaza is proving costly and may well not succeed is not to argue (as many are doing) for a ceasefire. Israel has the right and the need to strike at Hamas, both to retaliate for October 7 and to prevent future such attacks. Indeed, so long as Hamas remains Hamas, a full ceasefire is unimaginable as Hamas would not forever give up the option of attacking Israel and Israelis, and Israel could not be expected to give up the option of preventive or preemptive strikes against a Hamas dedicated to destroying the Jewish state.
A Third Option
There is a third option, an alternative to both large-scale Israeli attacks from the air and ground followed by an occupation and to an immediate ceasefire. It would be more measured and more patient. The characteristics of this third option would be as follows:
Israel’s right to take military action would be open-ended, with no permanent ceasefire, so long as Hamas existed with its current agenda.
Military action by Israel would only be undertaken when intelligence indicated Hamas targets could be attacked from the air or by Israeli commandos without causing substantial collateral damage.
There would be pauses (possibly for 24-hour periods or even several days) in the military operations to allow for aid to enter Gaza and hostages to be exchanged for either aid or prisoners. Pauses would also calm the diplomatic waters without requiring Israel to give up on what would be an open-ended effort to degrade Hamas.
This option would also come to include a political dimension, one that would aim in the near term to preserve the possibility of a Palestinian state through American pressure on Israel to restrict settlement expansion and forego any new annexation. Over time, the United States and Israel would need to work together to build up a Palestinian partner in the West Bank that is willing to eschew violence and negotiate with Israel. Only then could negotiations aimed at bringing about a Palestinian state commence. Gaza would remain outside the process so long as Hamas was in charge. Either a version of the status quo would continue (a de facto three entity solution), or a revamped Palestinian Authority would gain popular support in Gaza and come to succeed a Hamas that is rejected by most of the locals.
What would this third option require? Israel’s military effort would be recast as long-term and low intensity rather than short-term and intense. Israel would need to forego military strikes that would likely result in a large number of civilian casualties. Israel would accept pauses, if Hamas did as well, restrain settlement activity and hold off any further annexation. Settler violence would be reined in and dreams of transfer of Palestinians out of occupied territories would be jettisoned.
I expect much of this would be unacceptable to Bibi Netanyahu, Israel’s embattled prime minister. It would be up to Israel’s parliament to replace him or the Israeli public to elect someone prepared to back something along the lines of this third option. I expect this would only have a chance of happening if President Biden were to become a strong advocate for such an Israeli policy. That both Biden and Secretary of State Blinken are now calling for pauses in Israeli military activity is an encouraging sign.
Speaking of Bibi Netanyahu, the New York Times ran a story about Israeli intelligence and political failures in the run up to October 7. It is hard to see how Netanyahu survives the inevitable investigations, which may explain his embrace of an intense military campaign that he believes has the potential to eliminate Hamas and thereby offset his failures in the run up to October 7. It is also possible that Netanyahu believes a long military campaign will by definition delay the investigations and reckoning with these failures.
The War at Home
It is impossible to write about all this and not comment on the growing chorus of critics of Israel and the United States, both at home and away. I am struck more than anything by their hypocrisy. I may have missed it, but I don’t recall them being so vocal or strident in their objections to unprovoked Russian aggression against Ukraine and its deliberate targeting of Ukrainian civilians. Or to Saudi actions in Yemen, which have led to 4.5 million people being internally displaced in that country – over twice the entire population in Gaza. Or to Syrian and Iranian violence against their own people. Or to Chinese actions against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang, which the United States has labeled a genocide. Nor can I recall their marching to protest the quality of life under Hamas, who manifest much of the repressiveness that is the Muslim Brotherhood.
On top of this, what is taking place on several American campuses is troubling and then some. Imagine if the target of such vitriol and worse were people of color or members of the LGBTQ community. School authorities would come down hard and fast against the protesters. But in case you missed it, there is a double standard at work here, which looks an awful lot like anti-semitism to me.
That said, I am not sure pulling funding from these institutions is the right idea. A more creative response would be to sit with presidents and boards and assess the adequacy of the curriculum, what is being offered on campus in the way of outside speakers, and the rules for conducting life on campus in and out of classrooms along with the sanctions to be imposed when those rules are violated.
Grappling with AI
One other Away matter deserves mention here. This week the British government hosted a two-day gathering at Bletchley Park (of World War II codebreaking fame) devoted to discussing Artificial (or Augmented) Intelligence and what ought to be done about it. Some two dozen countries and many of the firms active in the space sent representatives.
I am somewhat skeptical as to what will come of this and similar efforts. There is the problem of dual-use technologies, namely, that one way to think of the challenge is how to encourage constructive applications of AI and discourage or restrain those that are judged otherwise. This will prove difficult as it will often involve the same technology. Making it even more difficult is the reality that AI is evolving so quickly that it will be near impossible for any regulatory framework to keep up. And then there is the real-world consideration that countries and companies are competitive and will have different agendas and priorities. I expect to have more to say on all this down the road.
Book Note
On a personal note, this seems like the right time to mention that next Tuesday, November 7, is publication day for the paperback edition of The Bill of Obligations. What is different about this new edition (in addition to the cover and the price) is that it includes four pages of questions to guide discussions in classrooms, reading groups, book clubs, libraries and around dinner tables. For classrooms it also includes several suggested simulations that would give students the opportunity to both learn about history and policy issues as well as put many of the themes of the book into practice.
As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.
Richard Haass in the news
Monday, October 30: MSNBC Morning Joe on Israel’s response to the Hamas attack (audio only; begins at 11:29). MSNBC Katy Tur Reports on the U.S.-Israel relationship. CNN The Lead with Jake Tapper on Netanyahu's rejection of a ceasefire.
Wednesday, November 1: Supreme Court Historical Society on civics and American democracy.
Articles
Israel’s war must distinguish between Hamas and the people of Gaza (Financial Times)
Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens.