Biden-Harris v Trump on Hamas’ Hostage Murders

The two parties are not as far apart on the latest murders by Hamas as they usually are. On the surface, they agree. But under the surface, there are profound differences.

Harris

Vice President Harris has strongly blamed Hamas for murdering the six hostages. But she has continued with her both-sidesism. Her most convincing words – convincing in her emotional language, convincing in her body language, convincing in her talk of consequences — have been directed against Israel.

Biden

President Biden did better at first. He instinctively placed the blame squarely on Hamas for murdering the six hostages. “Make no mistake,” he said, “Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes.”

This reaction suffices to make Biden morally superior to Harris, and to their shared support media — the “mainstream media”. These media formed Biden’s most important political base in 2020, just as they did for Obama in his two elections. They were near-unanimous for him, constantly plugging for him, constantly threatening America with prophecies of doom if he didn’t win. They continued backing him in the subsequent years, stooping to obvious public gaslighting about his deteriorating condition – and then, when they decided he was no longer useful, they shifted on a dime to Harris, with a similar near-unanimity.

These media are using the murders to place the only operational pressure – the kind of pressure that shows it is serious because it comes coupled with insistent, actionable demands – on Israel, not on Hamas. They are doing it again with their customary near-unanimity.

What should Biden be doing? He should be showing that he is serious about Hamas paying for it. He should carry out his words with deeds.

He should first explain to his own support media why they need to stop framing things upside-down and start directing their pressures in the right direction. He did try to tell this to his media and Party base some months ago, when he first pointed out that the main obstacle to an agreement was Hamas: he added that it was against Hamas that people should be directing their protests and pressures. His media responded to this with a quizzical, nonplussed attitude, as if to say, “What in the world are you talking about? Don’t you understand that the whole thing we exist for, when we’re talking about this war, is to put pressure on Israel?”

He never followed up at the time. He gave up instead. But now he has a second chance. He should start explaining the point seriously. And consistently. And repeatedly.

He should also start explaining this to his designated successor, Harris.

And he should himself be putting the strongest practical pressure on Hamas. He should not revert to his old ways of putting the operational pressure mostly on Israel.

In the coming days, we will find out which it will be. Thus far it is a mixed bag, but more bad than good.

His Administration’s action in indicting Hamas leaders is a positive indicator, but it is far from good enough. It is mostly symbolic. It is not likely to prove effective: the Hamas leaders are not going to turn themselves in.

In return for this symbolism, the indictments hurt Biden in his efforts to get a diplomatic ceasefire deal. Symbolic prosecutions of enemy leaders always have that effect. It is the opposite policy – the offer of amnesty to enemies, if they will leave power — that sometimes has good effects. We saw that with Ferdinand Marcos, back when we ourselves had a wise President, Ronald Reagan. That was before our elites and NGOs became blinded by their own self-righteousness and took to indicting foreign leaders.

Biden’s other words have been unfortunately more serious than the indictment, and they have been a step in the wrong direction.

Biden said that Israel is not trying hard enough for a deal. He directed the pressure once again solely at Israel.

In so doing, he played once again to the anti-Israel narrative of Harris’ progressive base, and of own his support media. In fact, he did this when prompted by his support media to do so. His media proceeded to broadcast it to the world as the main news. Thereby making it the main thing in practice.

Trump

What about the other side of the political fence?

Former President Trump tweeted out that the hostages were “murdered by Hamas due to a complete lack of American strength and leadership. Just like the Debacle of the Afghanistan withdrawal that claimed 13 American lives, Kamala and Biden’s judgment has not only put lives at risk, but is directly responsible for unnecessary deaths that should have never happened. The day I am back in the Oval Office, America will be strong again, and that will make the world safe and secure.”

Interestingly, Trump invokes a solid, non-isolationist theme here: American strength and “leadership”, and using this to “make the world safe and secure.”

This is not far from the policy he followed in practice as President. But it diverges far from some of his rhetoric and from the intentions usually imputed to him.

Which is the real Trump? He has made a principle of being unpredictable and not letting people know. But the policy he followed in practice as President was closer to his current words on the Hamas murders than by his sometimes words – the words much more often broadcast by the media – in the opposite direction.

It is much to be hoped that his current words indicate the actual policy he would again follow. If he is elected again, we will find out.