The White House illuminated in the blue and white colors of Israel on Oct. 9, 2023. (Photo: (White House/Adam Schultz)
Oct. 13, 2023 by David Silverberg
For many people, these confusing days may seem like the end of the world. We’ve had war and pestilence. Can famine and death be far behind? Is Armageddon upon us?
It’s distressing to say the least and Southwest Florida isn’t even in the direct line of fire.
In such circumstances, one response makes a great deal of sense.
“My father taught me when I was very young, that if you’re ever in an emergency, become calm. Become the calmest person in the room and if you do you have the best chance of surviving.”
That’s sage advice. It comes from—of all people—Rudy Giuliani. Not the crazed, drunken, conspiratorial, Trump-infected Giuliani with hair dye running down his sweating face but the strong, rational, clear-headed Giuliani of 9/11 when he did his job amidst a devastating terrorist attack and emerged as America’s mayor and Time magazine’s 2001 Man of the Year.
So amidst what seems like mounting chaos, it’s perhaps best to stop for a moment, draw a deep breath, survey the landscape, gather the facts, discern the trends and become the calmest person in the room. Only then can one respond rationally, whether in one’s own life or in the public space.
The article that follows is the author’s attempt to analyze and assess current events from a political standpoint. It evaluates them in the global context, the national context, and the local context. It attempts, as best as one is able based on public sources, to discern and project likely implications and outcomes. It’s hardly complete and it’s necessarily speculative.
Fair warning: It’s also very long, so find a comfortable chair.
The global context
The current global conflict—and it is global, not confined to Ukraine or Israel—is an autocratic, anti-democratic reaction to a tide of democratic aspirations around the world.
That tide—a tsunami, really—can be said to have started with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and peaked with the “Arab Spring” of 2010 to 2012 when people in the Middle East rose up against longstanding dictatorships and overthrew them. Inspired by the example of the United States and fed on the hope and change promised by the presidency of Barack Obama, the wave of democracy seemed unstoppable.
This springtime of democracy was not confined to the Middle East. Democracy budded in the former republics of the Soviet Union and nowhere more so than in Ukraine, whose people longed to join the European Union and look westward rather than to the country’s former overlord, Russia.
The Hamas-Israeli War that started last Saturday, Oct. 7, is not a separate and discrete conflict. It is a new front in this broader contest and that’s the way historians will likely look back on it. It may have started with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempt to conquer Ukraine but that is certainly not where it will stay.
Overall, future historians will likely view these events and conflicts as a revolt of outlier countries to overthrow democracy, Western dominance and the rule-based international order that evolved after World War II. That order was essentially a “Pax Americana” enforced by the United States. The chief outliers from that system are Russia, Iran and North Korea along with their associated allies, movements and proxies, like Hamas.
The Middle Eastern context
When it comes to the immediate causes of Hamas’ assault on Israel, much of the media speculation is focusing on the past year of rising tensions between the two parties. Hamas itself cited Israeli police incursions on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which infuriated local Muslims. Additionally, Israel has blockaded Gaza in various forms since 2007 when Hamas took over the territory.
However, global currents clearly affected this action.
It’s a truism of Middle Eastern politics that whenever there’s a trend in a particular direction, some opponent will try to disrupt it through terror or violence. It happens again and again.
Regionally, Israel, with American help, was moving toward increased normalization among its neighbors. It had already achieved normal diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and, further afield, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates. Next, the United States was brokering potential recognition with Saudi Arabia.
Mutual Israeli-Saudi Arabian relations would have been a huge game-changer. It would have been particularly important given Saudi Arabia’s status as home of Mecca and Medina, the two most sacred cities and shrines in the Muslim world. Essentially, it would have constituted official Islamic religious acceptance of Israel throughout the Sunni world. Diplomatically, it would have capped inclusion of Israel throughout the region, and would have likely been followed by further normalizations.
Not only would such a rapprochement be opposed by Muslim religious conservatives, it was likely seen as a direct strategic threat to Iran. Saudi Arabia and Israel share a suspicion of Iranian intentions and nuclear capabilities and have actively opposed them. Among the many measures were assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists between 2007 and 2021. In 2010 a debilitating software virus infected Iranian nuclear equipment. Its development and introduction was attributed to Israeli and allied covert action.
The United States also attempted to thwart Iranian intentions. In 2020 the United States assassinated Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, a high-level Iranian general who was in Baghdad. Iran retaliated with a largely harmless missile strike on an American military base in Iraq. But further revenge is no doubt on Iranian minds.
There is evidence that Iran was very involved in the planning and preparations for the Oct. 7 assault, according to The Wall Street Journal. In contrast, reports are circulating that Iranian leaders were taken by surprise. To find the truth is to enter the hall of mirrors that is intelligence-gathering—which has no clear exit.
As of this writing, the United States is pledging aid to Israel, although the country should have robust capabilities to carry out its operations. But other anti-Israeli elements like Hezbollah in Lebanon are entering the fray and may with time stress Israeli capabilities. Both Israel and the United States would best be served by a short, sharp, victorious fight; however, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned of a long and costly war to come.
No doubt both Hamas and Iran are also hoping that a massive Israeli incursion into Gaza will mobilize the Muslim world against Israel and the United States. This was the strategy pursued by Osama Bin Laden in his 2001 attack on New York. He expected the American response to cause a global Muslim anti-Western jihad, which never materialized.
At the very least, the current attack has certainly disrupted the movement toward Israeli-Saudi normalization and integration of Israel into the region.
The Ukrainian context
The Hamas attack, whether directed by Russia or not, opens a new front in Russia’s war against Ukraine and the West. Among its many implications, it distracts the world from the Ukraine war. More substantively, Putin may be hoping to overextend United States military-industrial capabilities or weaken American support for Ukraine, essentially forcing the United States to choose between supplying allies. (In Ukraine, President Volodomyr Zelensky is vocally standing with Israel and pointing out the threat to democracies everywhere.)
Russian and Iranian leaders are no doubt working to draw more countries into their respective battles.
Other flashpoints around the world include the Baltic countries and Taiwan and the Koreas. China is a great fulcrum in this conflict and its weight on either side will have a major impact on the outcome.
It was the possibility of further exploitation by anti-western powers that President Joe Biden alluded to in his speech on Tuesday, Oct. 10. He pointedly warned the world not to try anything: “Let me say again — to any country, any organization, anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation — I have one word: Don’t. Don’t. Our hearts may be broken, but our resolve is clear.”
The American context
Support for Israel in the United States has been reflexive, deep and across the board, from the President, to the whole executive branch, to the entire political establishment, both Democratic and Republican.
It’s too soon to get any hard data on American public attitudes toward the war. However, it seems safe to say that the vast majority of Americans are sympathetic to Israel. After all, the Hamas strike is a reminder of America’s own Sept. 11, 2001 attack. Between the longstanding American relationship with Israel and deep memories of the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-81 and the global war on terror that followed 9/11, Americans are not sympathetic to Middle Eastern causes that employ terror to achieve their aims.
In terms of domestic American politics, Hamas has thrown Republicans a lifeline. Discordant and disorganized, with an indicted, discredited front runner for President and a deeply fractured congressional caucus, the Hamas attack is enabling Republicans to unite. No expression of support for Israel has been too extreme, too vehement or too emphatic. Not only does this work in the halls of Congress, it works at home, playing well both to Jewish constituents, evangelical Christians and the public at large. The growing instances of anti-Semitism on the extreme right can now be overshadowed by the threat to Israel and the Republican pro-Israel response.
The war also distracts from Donald Trump, who is both a liability and asset to the Republican Party and from the chaos in Republican congressional ranks as the caucus wrestles with choosing a new Speaker of the House.
President Donald Trump jokes with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Sergei Kislyak, Russian ambassador to the United States, in the Oval Office on May 10, 2017. (Photo: TASS)
However, as much as anti-Trump Republicans would like to sideline Trump, he is using the war as a vindication for his administration’s actions in the Middle East and his partisans are using it to revise history in his favor. But his unpredictability and seeming derangement is problematic. He has denounced “hummus,” as he pronounced Hamas, but also praised Hezbollah for being “very smart” and criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli defense minister.
Trump’s actions on other fronts have to be considered. During his time in office, Trump diminished and bullied Ukraine, an approach that led to his first impeachment. His behavior and policies during his time in office indicated that he was either an unwitting puppet of Putin or an actual, deliberate Russian agent. His anti-Ukraine approach continues among a significant element of the Republican Party, who seek to cut off funding for Ukraine’s support.
The Hamas war is providing a distraction from these anti-Ukrainian MAGA Republicans. They can now use their support for Israel to mask their willingness to abandon Ukraine’s fight against Russia—precisely as Putin no doubt hoped.
While Republicans can loudly trumpet their support for Israel, for Democrats, the war is more problematic. While the vast majority of Democratic politicians immediately expressed support for Israel, there is a pro-Palestinian faction in the Democratic Party that has drawn the fire of Republicans in the past. In Congress it has been spearheaded by representatives with Muslim constituencies like Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-7-Wash.) and Ilhan Omar (D-5-Minn.).
It needs to be emphasized that these representatives are not necessarily pro-Hamas, which calls for Israel’s destruction. Rather, they favor a two-state solution and criticize Israeli treatment of Palestinians.
However, Hamas has erased all nuances since it aims to destroy Israel, its fighters killed Israelis, took hostages and perpetrated gruesome atrocities. Netanyahu is vowing to destroy Hamas. If the conflict was simmering before, it’s now a stark life or death struggle.
The dilemma for Democrats is going to become more acute as Israeli forces enter Gaza in what will no doubt be a brutal fight that leads to extensive civilian casualties and, at worst, massacres. Democratic Party leaders will have to balance their support for Israel with their concern for humanitarian mercy, and what will likely be a media shift from portraying Israel as the aggrieved victim to Israel as the punishing party.
Adding to the stress and the stakes is the looming 2024 election. As long as Donald Trump is the Republican candidate—and polling shows him continuing to hold a commanding lead among Republican primary voters—Ukraine will be at risk and Israel cannot count on consistent American support either, if he wins.
The local context
Immediately after the attack Florida politicians raced to express whole-hearted support for Israel, the more full-throated the better. This included Southwest Florida Republicans. The war also gave them the opportunity to eclipse far-right use of anti-Semitic stereotypes and tropes.
It was also an opportunity to exploit the situation for political advantage and pursue a variety of vendettas. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on the campaign trail used the occasion to attack Trump: “Now’s not the time to be doing, like what Donald Trump did, attacking Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, attacking Israel’s defense minister, saying somehow that Hezbollah were very smart,” he said in New Hampshire where he was filing papers for the state’s presidential primary election. “We need to all be on the same page, now’s not the time to air personal grievances about an Israeli Prime Minister. Now’s the time to support their right to defend themselves to the hilt.”
As was the case nationally, local Republicans used the opportunity to blame President Biden for the Hamas attack, using a variety of arguments and allegations.
Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) attacked Biden for not sending an airplane to pick up stranded Americans in Israel and chanted “Vote him out. Vote him out. Vote him out,” in an X posting. He also reaffirmed his loyalty to Trump in another post: “President TRUMP was the FIRST U.S. President to visit the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, Israel. [Fact check: then-candidate Barack Obama visited the Western Wall in July 2008.] Israel has had no greater ally in the White House than the Trump administration, and his commitment to the Jewish people never wavered. We need TRUMP back in the White House.”
Rep. Greg Steube (R-17-Fla.) also attacked Biden for not getting Americans home faster: “22 American families want to know if it was worth it for Joe Biden and Antony Blinken to ease sanctions enforcement and free up BILLIONS for Iran to finance Hamas and Hezbollah. Make no mistake: Joe Biden and Antony Blinken’s policies have enabled terrorists and left America & our allies in danger. They have betrayed our country.” (The US government has reached an arrangement with US airlines to get Americans out of Israel.)
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-26-Fla.) echoed the general horror: “The reports of Hamas beheading babies is beyond abhorrent but it shows you the true heinous nature of Hamas. I support everything Israel must do to remove the scourge of Hamas from the face of the earth.”
The immediate political question that arises is whether their attacks on Biden and grievances with the federal government will do much to influence the election outcome in November 2024. Without a doubt, local Republicans will keep attacking Biden every way they can.
Between now and then gas prices will likely rise, supply chains will likely be disrupted and inflation may increase. Southwest Florida is not in the heart of the storm but like the Gulf of Mexico itself, the turbulence affects all shores.
And perhaps more important than all those considerations are the biggest issues and the momentous decisions that will really shape the world to come.
Deciding the future
From its very beginning, democracy has been in conflict with autocracy.
In 431 BCE the rise of a powerful, prosperous, democratic Athens challenged an autocratic and militaristic Sparta, which launched what proved to be a 30-year war. For its time it was a world war, with all of Hellenic civilization becoming involved.
Unfortunately, in that conflict Sparta won. But the democratic experiment never ended and the hope never died. People want to be free and control their own destinies. That’s what democracy offers. Again and again, democracies have arisen and been in conflict with other forms of authoritarianism.
What is happening now is no different.
In 1947 an American diplomat, George Kennan, wrote a long analysis of Soviet motivations and likely actions. Initially contained in a State Department cable, it later appeared as an article in the magazine Foreign Affairs as “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” under the byline X.
Given Soviet impulses, wrote Kennan, “it will be clearly seen that the Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and manœuvres of Soviet policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence. The Russians look forward to a duel of infinite duration, and they see that already they have scored great successes.”
Kennan argued: “It is clear that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Soviet régime. It must continue to regard the Soviet Union as a rival, not a partner, in the political arena. It must continue to expect that Soviet policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist and capitalist worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and weakening of all rival influence and rival power.”
He argued that the United States should pursue “a policy of firm containment, designed to confront the Russians with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon the interests of a peaceful and stable world.”
The Soviet Union is gone now but substitute the word “Russia” for “Soviet Union” and the description is the same. The Russian drive for expansion and domination transcends ideology. It’s partially the result of historical Russian feelings of vulnerability and also an ingrained admiration for domineering, conquering leaders, whether tsars or commissars.
Now, as in Kennan’s time, the United States and the world’s democracies need to contain and—to put it bluntly—roll back and defeat Russian aggression and expansionism for the sake of a “peaceful and stable world.”
But Kennan also realized that victory in the struggle depended on America’s internal strength.
He believed that the Soviet Union and the Communist movement could not endure endless frustration and containment and at some point would have to accommodate itself to the fact that it was defeated and adjust accordingly. It took nearly half a century but he was proven right.
However, he also believed the key to the contest did not really lie abroad.
“Thus the decision will really fall in large measure in this country itself,” he wrote. “The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the over-all worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.”
As this is written, America and the democracies of the world are under assault. But how that assault is beaten will depend on how the democratic peoples respond, since their governments rest on the collective will of their peoples.
There is always the possibility that these conflicts descend into a nuclear cataclysm that destroys all life on earth. But one hopes that there’s sufficient rationality among the world’s leadership preventing that from happening.
It may seem like everyday individuals have no say in the outcome of this conflict but that’s not at all true. Those who live in democratic societies have enormous say. The Ukrainians are speaking with their arms and blood. The Israelis are speaking with their mobilization and a unified, multi-party government.
In the United States, when they vote in the 2024 election. Americans will decide whether the United States stays a constitutional democracy or becomes a dictatorship, whether it remains a global superpower or submits to foreign domination, whether democracy will triumph everywhere or autocrats will rule the world. In short: what will be the future?
Those are big decisions to ride on your flimsy paper ballot. But then again, no one ever said democracy was easy.
Liberty lives in light
© 2023 by David Silverberg