The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune

We often hear about the importance of 'the Jewish vote' in US elections and its influence on America's Middle-East policy stance, but what does it actually mean in practice?

'The Jewish vote' (loosely defined) constitutes around 2% of the US electorate but punches disproportionately above its weight due to its active engagement in the democratic process. This means all US politicians ignore its influence at their peril but, collectively, its vote has gone disproportionately to the Democratic Party for generations and the 2024 Presidential election looks set to be no exception. It tends to be a more progressive voting cohort and the latest polls show some 68% of Jewish voters favouring Kamala Harris, with 25% planning to support Donald Trump. 

This broadly follows the long-established voting pattern and the growing conflict in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, with the very real danger of a widening conflict in the region, seems not to have moved the dial. Or not yet at least. Should the conflict escalate into an all-out Middle-East war, which feels scarily likely, the incoming President will face a more than usually painful dilemma in relation to US diplomatic, military and humanitarian aid engagement in the region.

American Presidents tend to support Israel whilst seeking at the same time to placate Muslim states in the region, especially Saudi Arabia with its vast oil reserves. This comes down to a combination of factors, with the importance of 'the Jewish vote' being a major consideration, of course. However, the fact that Israel is the only truly functioning democracy in the region, with a Western outlook and generally socially liberal culture, is obviously a vital US partner. Israel is a key US ally in the region and (so far) the only regional state with a functioning nuclear armaments capability, which it doesn't officially admit to but is widely believed to possess.

Nevertheless, Israel can be a wayward ally, and never-more so than under its current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He is proving a thorn in the side of the US administration and his belligerence and intransigence risks triggering a widening regional conflict, as we see playing out right now. Netanyahu is playing a cynical game of emotional blackmail with the West, and especially the US, following Hamas' unexpected attack on Israel on 7 October last year, the impending anniversary of which is ratcheting up the tension now. But two wrongs do not make a right.

We must never forget that 1200 Israeli citizens were killed and 250 taken hostage, 100 of whom are still being held in Gaza. With such a brutal provocation, any sovereign nation would be expected to retaliate forcefully and would be condoned in doing so. However, one year later, Israel's (or the Netanyahu government's) reaction has been so disproportionate as to spark widespread revulsion and condemnation in the international community, even amongst nations normally predisposed to support it.

But, as I predicted at the time, Netanyahu's sending the Israel Defence Force (IDF) into the Gaza Strip was a prelude to genocide. It was clear then that his strategy was not merely to destroy the Hamas leadership but the whole Gazan infrastructure and, with it, most of its Arab population. With Egypt refusing to open its border to allow them to escape destruction, the inevitable consequence was mass-extermination, through killing or disease. At the time I referred to this as "shooting fish in a barrel" and I have watched with horror as this has played itself out.

With some 40,000 Palestinians now dead, 95,000 injured, up to 65% of buildings and 91% of roads destroyed and 1.87 million homeless, with winter coming on, I defy anyone to say that this is anything other than deliberate policy - and a scorched earth one at that. It is clearly neither inadvertent nor accidental but Netanyahu seeks to blame the continuing resistance of Hamas and its refusal to release the remaining hostages, or the bodies of those who have since died, for his continuing assault on a trapped civilian population, contrary to international law.

It is a matter of fact that Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in the West Bank and Lebanon are funded, armed and encouraged by the Iranian regime. Hamas' incursion into Israel on 7 October 2023, and Hezbollah's rocket attack into Israeli territory the following day, were deliberately provocative actions on the part of organisations pledged to the total destruction of the Jewish state of Israel. Against this backdrop Israel had to fight back - and fight hard - as a matter of survival. Iran and its proxies pose an existential threat to Israel but, sadly, Netanyahu's provocative policies risk making the fight-back a protacted and possibly perpetual one.

Until recently, Israel had confidently sheltered under its 'Iron Dome' missile protection system, augmented by the so-called 'David's Sling' and 'Arrow' capabilities designed to intercept medium- or long-range ballistic missiles. Incoming rockets from Gaza and Lebanon have mostly been intercepted and destroyed in the air. Now, though, long-range ballistic missile volleys from Iran, one thousand miles away, and from the Houthi rebels in Yemen, are hitting home, with one narrowly missing the Mossad secret services headquarters outside Tel Aviv. Netanyahu has threatened retaliation, risking a cycle of escalation until either his, or the Ayatollahs' regime in Tehran, collapses.

The alternative to either outright victory by one side or the other, regime collapse ditto, or negotiated settlement is almost too horrendous to contemplate but must, increasingly, be concentrating minds in the US administration and amongst its allies. That is the spectre of regional conflagration, possibly including nuclear weapons. Were that to happen the fallout, not just atomic but political, economic and environmental, would be catastrophic - for the region and the world. I suspect the end, whatever that is and whenever it comes, will be swift and unexpected.

We can only hope that common-sense, and -humanity, prevails.


Popular posts from this blog

Looking to Africa - long read

As I sit here on an island just off the coast of North-West Africa I can't help pondering the future of that vast and seemingly unknowable continent, so near and yet so far. I'm writing this in Tenerife, one of the eight Canary Islands forming an archipelago off the coast of Morocco and Western Sahara - tantilisingly close and yet a world away from the 'mainland' of continental Africa. As an Autonomous Community of Spain, the Canaries form an outpost of the European Union (EU). Yet, despite their proximity to Africa, their outlook, politically, culturally and economically, is resolutely European. Africa may as well be Mars, though only a narrow gulf of the Atlantic Ocean separates these offshore islands from their continent. I say resolutely European but that resolve may, little by little, be weakening. There is a growing sentiment, especially, though not exclusively, amongst young Canarians, that they have been sold a pup. True, the economy is superficially buoyant, du
Read more

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more