Underlying
Over the last week or so, U.S. president Donald Trump has said and done some things that seem to have nothing to do with each other. And they probably don’t. But there is a certain connection regarding motive. Politics appears to have taken a hand.
On the eve of the midterm elections in the States last week, Trump announced that America would end the deal that provides Israel with the funds to buy U.S. weapons. It was Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who broached the subject, according to Trump. The ins and outs of such a proposal are many and of interest; they are also for another time. But when asked about the timing, Trump unhesitatingly responded that it would be one less thing for the Democrats to talk about. This, for him it seems, has more to do with politics than policy.
In an interview on 60 Minutes this past Sunday, Trump declared that if it were not for him, there would be no Israel. Trump has irrefutably been Israel’s best friend in the White House. It has not been perfect, but in previous experience with thirteen other presidents, he is lengths ahead of the pack. We are indebted, no doubt. To me, however, this kind of leans toward a bravado that a politician would use to improve his CV.
Or his legacy.
Which brings us to the third thing. While Iran, and ‘getting it done’ there is important, he may have a problem doing what he wants now that the Democrats outnumber the Republicans on the Hill. What might be more accessible is a cleaning up in Gaza. His Board of Peace is having trouble getting going, and Trump has expressed his displeasure. To end the fighting in Gaza and be responsible for its rehab would be a prominent feather in his sizable hat. How that happens is open to conjecture. One possibility is that he pressure Netanyahu – or whoever is prime minister – to accept reconstruction to begin with Hamas still in place. Another is that he give Israel the green light to end it how it must end if Hamas does not willingly surrender. (Yes, I know, but stranger things have happened). It would appear that the appropriate word here is legacy.
I noticed at the beginning of his second term, Trump seemed to be more aware of what it means to be president. He looked more comfortable in the pomp and circumstance of the Office; he appeared more attuned to the politics of Politics. He still spoke his mind, and struck out petulantly at opponents and critics, but the politician angle was more apparent. I suppose the consolation to that is that he will not likely run for any office after this one.
Manipulation of events in order to contrive a desired outcome is often unsuccessful, and the presidential footprint he leaves may, as it has for others, change with time. One really has little, if any, influence on how we are perceived by those who follow us. I would suggest that he go with doing what is right. Is that ever wrong?