Israel Is Losing

Finally, a piece about Israel where we don't have to apologize for our lack of expertise, because this one's in our wheelhouse. In short, it is clear that Israel is losing the PR battle. And in a conflict like this, that is tantamount to losing the war.

Clausewitz wrote that "war is politics by other means." Well, OK, he wasn't quite that spare in his language; he actually wrote that "war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means." And it's hard to think of anyone who knows that better than terrorists, whether it's Al-Qaeda, the Basque Liberation Front, ISIS, the United Liberation Front of Assam, or Hamas. After all, the whole point of terrorism is to pursue political goals that are outsized relative to a group's actual numbers.

Hamas knows that it cannot win a conventional war; it has neither the manpower nor the resources. And yet, the trick they've pulled off in the last six months or so is absolutely mind-boggling. They launched a vicious attack on Israel and killed hundreds of people, and the result is... that the world is now paying close attention to the fate of the Palestinians, and a sizable minority is taking the Palestinians' side (especially on the campuses). Yes, we know Hamas and the Palestinians are not the same thing, but their goals are broadly aligned.

Meanwhile, you know who else can't win a conventional war here? Israel. We don't know the Middle East all that well, but we do know something about war. And we see a lot of parallels between Hamas and the Viet Cong (or pick any other insurgent/guerrilla/terrorist movement of your choice). They can't be stamped out; for every combatant you kill (probably also taking along a couple of civilians at the same time), you radicalize two others to step up and take their place. Put another way, there was no clear win condition (or, at least, no achievable win condition) in Vietnam, and that seems also to be true in Gaza right now.

Yesterday, Hamas made a pretty big move, and it was that move that prompted this item. What did they do? They announced that they accept a ceasefire proposal put forward by Egypt and Qatar. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu quickly put the kibosh on the proposal, and said that "more negotiation is needed."

We cannot speak to the nuances and subtleties of this proposal, or any other. We cannot tell you if it is fair to both sides or not. We don't have a strong opinion on this proposal, because we don't have a dog in this fight. We are not Jewish or Muslim, pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, pro-two-state-solution or pro-any-other-solution. To the extent that we are pro-anything, it is pro-peace. That's it.

In short, we are neutral, and while we are familiar with the situation in Israel, we are not expert. And guess what? There are considerably more American voters like us than there are staunch pro-Palestine/pro-Israel partisans. We can't speak to the Jewish or Israeli point of view, and we can't speak to the Muslim or Palestinian point of view. But we think we can speak to the point of view of the folks who are sitting on the sidelines, who are a majority. And, as we wrote yesterday, it looks to us like the primary obstacle to peace is the Israeli War Cabinet and, more specifically, PM Benjamin Netanyahu. It would be one thing if it was a direct proposal from Hamas being rejected, but when it's a third party that has stepped in, and that third party is Egypt—which has embraced the causes of diplomacy and peace since the 1970s—the presumption that most will make is that the proposal is basically reasonable.

Again, it is absolutely wild that this is where things are, given how this all started. But it looked to us, very nearly from the outset, that the Israeli government's position was weak, and that it had been dealt a losing hand. And we're not the only ones who thought that; former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert sounded the alarm back in fall of last year that if Israel did not bring this to an end within a few weeks, that nation's position would become untenable.

Bringing this back to American politics, Olmert's prediction is coming to pass; the latest poll from Pew says that 7 in 10 Americans say they don't trust Netanyahu to do the right thing. They are not anti-Israel, mind you, they are anti-Netanyahu.

Thus far, Joe Biden has been unwilling to turn against Netanyahu; at least not in public. As Ronald Brownstein points out, in an analysis worth reading, Biden is a huge believer in the notion that good interpersonal relationships are essential to good diplomacy. In other words, the President badly wants to give only carrots to his Israeli counterpart, and never to bring out the stick.

That said, Biden has shown a willingness to change course when he feels he has no choice. He's sometimes slow to do it, but he certainly has the capacity. And the day may soon come that playing patty-cake with Netanyahu is a luxury that Biden can no longer afford. That doesn't necessarily mean a total severing of the relationship, but it could mean using a few sticks here and there. Indeed, as we noted yesterday, the White House halted a shipment of armaments to Israel last week; it's still not known why. On top of that, Biden will be making a speech today in honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day (albeit a day late), and he'll be reporting to Congress on Wednesday as to whether or not Israel is using U.S. weapons in accordance with international law, and whether or not humanitarian aid is being delivered properly. Needless to say, the world will be watching both days for insight as to Biden's current thinking.

And now, as much as we regret the necessity of this, a couple of program notes that are very much related to each other and to this item. First, we have run numerous letters in the last two months in the name of giving readers exposure to various points of view on the situation in the Middle East. This despite the fact that the politics angle of these letters was implicit at best, meaning they were somewhat off-topic relative to the focus of this site.

This was, we now think, an error. In particular, we allowed a few letters through that went beyond "sharing a point of view" and crossed into propaganda and outright lies. We just didn't know enough to know that these letters were peddling falsehoods (though we had plenty of readers who alerted us the next day, in each case). Anyhow, if readers care to send in letters that address the U.S. politics angle of what's going on in the Middle East or on the campuses, those remain welcome. Those, we are expert enough to evaluate. But beyond that, we will decline further messages on this subject, because it's just not our bailiwick. We have had a few readers suggest sites useful for learning about the perspective of the various parties involved in the Israel/Hamas struggle, and we'll share a rundown later this week. If anyone has recommendations for that list, please do send them to us at comments@electoral-vote.com.

The second programming note is this: The vitriol directed at us in some of the letters we have gotten in the last week has been off the charts. Perhaps, because we ran one or two such letters this weekend, we gave the impression that this was acceptable. It is not. We welcome constructive feedback and differing opinions, and believe we have made that clear, over and over, with our words and actions. But we are not here to be abused or to allow angry people to vent their frustrations.

What this means is that nasty, poisonous messages will be deleted instantly from here on out. The general rule of thumb here is that if we would not tolerate a message if it came from one of our students, we will not tolerate it if it comes from one of our readers. This particularly applies to any person who says or implies that we are racists, bigots, antisemites, Islamophobes, or who ascribes any other such hatreds to us. Such attacks are patently unacceptable.

To be clear, it's only a small minority of readers who are responsible here. But that doesn't mean it wasn't extremely unpleasant to be showered with venom. And, to be entirely blunt, (Z) is captaining the ship solo right now because (V) is traveling (so, now you know who is responsible for everything you are reading here). On Tuesday, he has many essays that need to be graded, such that writing a posting for Wednesday will require some rather significant sacrifices. Think 6 hours of lectures Wednesday delivered on 90 minutes' sleep. At the moment, he's not much feeling like making that sacrifice, and he may well take the day off to clear his head. We'll see what the next 24 hours bring.

Regular readers know we've never written anything like this. That should tell you how bad it's been. (Z)

Columbia Cancels Commencement

Columbia University, which has been one of the flashpoints for Israel/Palestine protests, and for the related violence that has sometimes ensued, canceled its commencement yesterday, following in the footsteps of USC, Humboldt, and possibly Emory (reports vary).

We imagine that many, perhaps most, readers are familiar with how modern-day college graduations work, but we thought we'd use the opportunity to illuminate those who are not. It used to be that there was only one graduation or commencement, or maybe a handful at large universities, done by division (Humanities, Sciences, etc.). In the last 25 or 30 years, however, it's become customary to have a bunch of smaller graduations, hosted by departments and/or student activity groups (say, the African Students Union). You can't read 2,000 names at a big graduation, but you can certainly read a couple hundred at a smaller one.

Some students go to the main commencement, still, because it has the pomp and pageantry and it also tends to have the highest-profile graduation speaker. But many others only go to the smaller graduations (sometimes several of them; it's not unheard of for someone to "graduate" four or five times in one day). So, when a school cancels its main graduation/commencement, it's not quite so dire as it seems. All they are really doing is depriving potential protesters/disrupters of a really big target. It is much harder to be disruptive/get publicity when there are 40 balkanized graduations, as opposed to one biggie. (Z)

Trump Legal News: The Trial (Day 12)

It would be hard for a trial that is about sex to be less sexy than Donald Trump's trial was yesterday. Here are the highlights:

• Zip It: Judge Juan Merchan ruled yesterday on the second group of gag order violations. We predicted that "Trump will be fined $3,000 for the second group of violations, and will be warned that further violations will result in jail time." In fact... it was $1,000. Merchan told the former president: "The magnitude of such a decision is not lost on me, but at the end of the day I have a job to do, and part of that job is to protect the dignity of the judicial system... So, much as I do not want to impose a sanction [of jail] and I have done everything I can to avoid doing so... I will if necessary."
  
  Trump continued to play martyr, and said outside the courtroom: "Frankly our Constitution is much more important than jail. It's not even close. I'll do that sacrifice any day." Yeah, you're a real champion for free speech there, Donald, a modern-day Lenny Bruce. Oh well, it must goose the fundraising.
  
  
• The Paper Trail: This is where things got very dry. Former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney was led through a painstaking description of how money was funneled to Michael Cohen, $35,000 at a pop. There were signed checks. There were spreadsheets. There were memoranda. It's enough to make a CPA's heart flutter.
  
  
• More Paper Trail: Deborah Tarasoff, who still works in accounts payable for the Trump Organization, was effectively the other side of McConney's labors, as she was the one who actually cut the checks. She said that Trump generally insisted on signing checks himself, and would not sign off on expenditures that he did not approve.
  
  
• Wakey, Wakey: A solution to Trump's sleep problems appears to have been discovered. He has a much easier time staying awake when business matters are being discussed, it would seem.
  
  
• Two Weeks: The prosecution said yesterday that it would be able to finish mounting its case in about 2 weeks. So, the original 6-week timeframe is looking basically correct, though it may be shorter depending on the nature of Trump's defense.

Not a terribly exciting day, on the whole. (Z)

Duncan Endorses Biden

Geoff Duncan, a Republican who served as Georgia's lieutenant governor from 2019-23, wrote quite the op-ed for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, announcing that he will be voting for Joe Biden, and explaining his reasoning. Here's the money passage:

It's disappointing to watch an increasing number of Republicans fall in line behind former president Donald Trump. This includes some of his fiercest detractors, such as U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu and former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, who raised eyebrows during a recent interview by vowing to support the "Republican ticket."

This mentality is dead wrong.

Yes, elections are a binary choice. Yes, serious questions linger about President Biden's ability to serve until the age of 86. His progressive policies aren't to conservatives' liking.

But the GOP will never rebuild until we move on from the Trump era, leaving conservative (but not angry) Republicans like me no choice but to pull the lever for Biden. At the same time, we should work to elect GOP congressional majorities to block his second-term legislative agenda and provide a check and balance.

Duncan also concludes with this: "Unlike Trump, I've belonged to the GOP my entire life. This November, I am voting for a decent person I disagree with on policy over a criminal defendant without a moral compass." Ouch.

Does this actually mean anything, or is it just an interesting anomaly? After all, there are high-profile apostates in every election. Georgia, in particular, seems to produce them with great regularity. Think Zell Miller, for example.

Truth be told, we can't answer that question. But we'll tell you a few ways it could end up meaning something:

1. If Duncan proves to be representative of some percentage of Georgia Republicans. In such an evenly divided state, not too many people have to cross the aisle to hand the election to the other party.
   
   
2. If Duncan proves to be an avatar for some percentage of those people who are voting for Nikki Haley in the primaries. We still don't know exactly what those folks are planning to do in the general.
   
   
3. If Duncan somehow gives permission for other Republicans to speak out in this way, we could eventually reach a tipping point.
   
   
4. If Duncan is given a speaking slot at the DNC (just as Miller was at the RNC in 2004). The former lieutenant governor is making the kind of argument that might make some Republicans' ears prick up.

Mind you, we wouldn't bet money that Duncan's flip turns out to be a big deal. But it's worth mentioning, because it's not impossible. (Z)

RNC Cashiers Chief Lawyer

The new-look post-Ronna RNC was trying out a strategy of having grown-ups in a few key positions, and election-denying sycophants in the rest. It didn't work out so well.

One of the grown-ups, and probably the most important one (since chair Michael Whatley and vice-chair Lara Trump are in the sycophant group), was chief counsel Charlie Spies. He's a well respected election law attorney who has been doing this work for nearly 30 years, literally since he was in law school at Georgetown (1998 graduate), and who works for the white shoe law firm Dickinson Wright.

Spies did have one fatal flaw, however, and that was his view that the 2020 election was not stolen, and that RNC resources should not be wasted trying to re-litigate that issue. So, he had to go. It was made to look like a voluntary, "I just don't have the time in my schedule" resignation, but insiders say he was forced out by Donald Trump.

Trump, classy as always, greeted the news by getting on his curiously valuable social media site to post "Great news for the Republican Party. RINO lawyer Charlie Spies is out as Chief Counsel of the RNC." Presumably, Spies will be replaced by someone familiar with the concept of toeing the party line and bowing to the Dear Leader. Too bad John Eastman doesn't have a valid law license anymore. (Z)

You'll Be Able to Feel the Bern into the Next Decade

Allegedly, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was considering retirement. We found that hard to swallow, and yesterday, we were proven right to be skeptical, as he announced that he will stand for election for a fourth term to the Senate. Inasmuch as Vermont is quite blue, and he has cleared 65% of the vote in each of his previous three elections, he's a shoo-in to win a fourth. Assuming Sanders serves to the end of a fourth term, ending in 2031, he'll be 89.

Sanders explained to reporters yesterday that the deciding factor for him was the lack of a successor as spokesperson for the nation's progressives. He thinks Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) will eventually be able to assume the mantle, but she's not there yet. We don't doubt there's some truth to this, but we kinda suspect that Sanders is quite enjoying himself right now, and doesn't want to give up his prominent position in American politics. He is at the height of his power, and is probably the third-most important member of the Senate, behind Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), by virtue of being not only the preeminent spokesperson for the left, but also the chair of the powerful Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

There are three other candidates in the race right now, one an independent, one a Democrat, one a Republican. All of them are perennial candidates who have run for office before and been crushed. They can now look forward to another crushing. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

Our map isn't set up for the way that Maine and Nebraska do their EVs, but in case you are wondering, in the one district that Joe Biden might win (NE-02), PPP has Trump up 46% to 43%. (Z)

State	Joe Biden	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Nebraska	34%	57%	Apr 24	Apr 25	PPP

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger