US Midterms. From Charybdes to Scylla?
Trump’s party has clearly lost the majority in both chambers. Seeing Trump’s hands bound and a clear parliamentary opposition to his anti-American activities that make America weak and humiliated can only be rejoicing and may bode well for the future. But this comes at a very high price, that of the passive emergence of a new wave of democrats featuring Islamist and Woke ideologies that is no less frightening. Very much like elsewhere in the Western world and in particular in France, the moderate and rational slice of the population seems to be getting increasingly squeezed between extremes. It may be and probably is a majority but the issue is that of an ultra-polarized political offer with an impossible choice between extremes.
It is noteworthy by contrast while less pointed-out by international political commentators, that the political offer in Israel, with all its irrational and destructive extreme fringes, makes room for a significant spectrum of right to left centrist parties, with extensions to a Zionist left (Golan-and a hard-core Zionist right (Lieberman). This gives more leeway to a reasonable voter as compared to the much more squeezed electorate in France and, in different ways but with similarities, in the US[1]. How can an unbiased and reasonable American Jewish voter decide with the necessary peace of mind in-between increasingly Israel or even Jew hostile Democrats or Republicans? The frequently heard argument of choosing the “least of two evils” is highly debatable both per se in philosophical terms and also in plain decision-making no-nonsense terms. Indeed, which one is the least of the two evils in the short and long term? Mr. Vance or Mr. El-Sayed? Mr. Mélenchon or Madame Le Pen? Charybdes or Scylla ?
In this respect, Trump’s erratic and whimsical stop-and-go handling of the triangular US-Israel-Iran context where alliances can be shifted without too much advanced notice[2] is to be watched closely in the coming days if not hours.
Here, Netanyahu and his clique, seeing their power irreversibly gone and hopefully for good, are using all sorts of illegal tricks to reverse the tide and maintain themselves indefinitely and at any cost, including further twisting the law and endangering a fragile democracy that cannot indefinitely survive a constant state of war and existential threats on all fronts. These alas include internal enemies, some of them Jewish terrorists with ethnic cleansing agenda and full support from within the current and not yet ousted government. The implicit support by Netanyahu and the explicit one from thugs playing ministers within the government has been a decisive element towards the spectacular increase of the Arab vote. This clique fits well with the definition of the arsonist firefighter.
This being said, assault on the Knesset seems unlikely here but not completely ruled-out if worse comes to worse. The tragedy of the situation is that a final and decisive round against Iran may well be timely and even urgently needed while it would also serve as a tool for Netanyahu whose cold-blooded cynicism knows no border to stay in power under the constraints of a national emergency.
To make things worse, such an assault would probably have no effect and may-be even fire-back without sufficient strength, duration and of course full support from the United States, its armed force, arsenal and, sorry to say, boots on the ground. Its historically confirmed habit to blow the whistle when the game turns too much in favor of Israel to its liking stands indecisively in-between the search of a balanced compromise and a Munich-like dining with the devil.
Never has De Gaulle’s assertion that a Nation has no friends but only interests[3] proven so true so as to ridicule Netanyahu’s boasting on his exclusive friendship with such a deeply untrustworthy character as Trump while going as far as making it his supposedly ultimate electoral argument.
It may well be, future telling, that one of the most irresponsible orientations of Netanyahu was to depart from a bipartisan neutral attitude by leaning fully on the Pro-Trump Republican side with a mix of short term benefits that ought to be out-weighed by longer term vital considerations that hinge on the lost crucial strategic interest of Israel to maintain an alliance with the US that is not to be reconsidered at each presidential and parliamentary turn of the tide. That a relatively shrewd Netanyahu has not considered this matter of vital interest for Israel is difficult to assign, either to his fundamental lack of state’s man elevation and intelligence in the deep sense or to a mix of political or personal interests that Trump is supposed to favor. The last-minute minimal lip-service paid by Trump’s weighing in his favor just a few days before the elections should have served as a warning to Netanyahu rather than a last-minute electoral argument to help him garner votes. There were other unmistakable signs of the decline in Netanyahu’s supposed standing with the White House, a decline likely obscured from him by his own self-perpetuating, megalomaniacal delusion of a friendship with Trump, characterized by a level of intimacy and trust that no Israeli prime minister, past, present, or future, could ever claim to achieve or have achieved with a US President. It would be hard to find a more blatantly self-defeating as well as ridiculous claim.
If it were not tragic it would simply be buffoon and at the level of a Shakespearian play, not its main dramatic plot but its farcical Elizabethan interludes. The confusion between Netanyahu’s undisputably superior skills to maneuver in the politically troubled waters of Israeli domestic policy is often confused with the intelligence of a statesman. This is part of more general slippery confusions and blurred barriers, such as say between religious observance and idolatry, between public and private spaces[4] or between technology and science and a number of other dangerous instances that the onset of artificial intelligence with its abusive terminology is bound to further deepen.
That the majority of the US opinion is concerned by the prices at the gas station is understandable. Public opinion cannot be expected to have a vision much beyond the daily filling of the fridge and of the tank, thereby prioritizing the short term. This is precisely where statesmen are expected to raise against the tide and show an eventually unpopular direction. It would indeed require such a statesman of real stature to explain the situation and make the right decisions however demanding and painful in the first range. Some sacrifices, eventually severe ones, are to be made to ensure a reasonably good future for the coming generations.
One cannot expect such a state of mind from greedy gerontocrats who deem themselves irreplaceable and immortal by means of upfront dynastic family maneuvering. In that respect, comparison between Netanyahu’s and Eizenkot’s family cultures should have long disqualified the former if any minimal ethical principle would have been applied which, unfortunately, was not the case. This by the way raises a big question-mark on the issue of morality in modern politics and ethical barriers not to be crossed. Sheer lies, violent provocations and virile postures seem to pay-off, probably by way of the display of power it exudes and the reassuring identification that goes with it at times of trouble and danger. This topic is to be left to upcoming psycho-socio-political studies that are well needed in the current and probably long-lasting context of ultra-personalization of power sustained by an all-pervading brain-washing and memoryless propaganda machinery via the social networks.
The midterm results will have to be analyzed by slices of age but it is sad to see that part of those coming generations are themselves willingly submissive to the worst enemies of democracy with the riots in France exemplifying this mix of naivety and ignorance. The wake-up call, if any, will be painful and may come too late.
All this tragic more than farcical turmoil when so many urgent challenges are at stake and facing mankind from climate change, the resumption of massive epidemics and the era making shock of AI of which little is being felt now in comparison with what is to be expected, of massive anthropologic dimensions. That a wiggling low brood senile agitator with those ugly taste advertisement caps is pushed aside remains a positive first step which deserves to be celebrated as such, regardless of what may come next. Seeing tyrants humiliated and pushed aside may be a source of deep satisfaction but standing below falling elephants or even in their vicinity is not a recommended position.
Returning to the subject of Israel and our vital interests which transcend petty partisanship, personal egos, and questionable agendas, it is more imperative than ever to shield our young, courageous nation, with all its military and socio-economic foundations whose resilience and fighting spirit will one day be recognized, from any fallout of Netanyahu’s inevitable downfall, which began on October 27. However slow or gradual the process may be, the beginning of the end is now irreversibly underway. This collapse is, above all, the sole responsibility of a self-absorbed leader who has grown increasingly blind to the common good. Let his fall remain his alone and not ours, nor that of our nation. In the face of the pathetic decline surrounding the Maison Netanyahu—and to protect ourselves from the toxic, debasing atmosphere that has permeated our society to the point of saturation long before October 7, let us cultivate, as best we can, a form of detached humor, tinged with benign neglect. At the same time, let us avoid being drawn into vengeful considerations which are always a poor counselor.
We must, however, remain vigilant against recurring temptations toward anti-democratic regression until the long-awaited process of recovery is firmly established and beyond. Progress and setbacks will continue to mark our path, for such is the fragile nature of democracy Like that of an eternal yet smiling Sisyphus[5], our duty and ultimate dignity are to protect and, if and when needed, defend it as best we can.
[1] The fact that some—particularly within the so-called “sophisticated” circles of Tel Aviv and other major cities—chose to squander these precious degrees of freedom by voting for fringe parties with no substance nor future, or even by abstaining altogether, is a dangerous “spoiled child” phenomenon. It warrants an analysis of the havoc wreaked in politics by hedonism and narcissistic intellectualism—attitudes that stand in stark opposition to the ethos of the founding fathers. Such a lack of awareness regarding the issues is striking, especially coming from an electorate that considers itself sophisticated and can be rightfully considered as such. A new version of Julien Benda’s famous pre-second world war the great betrayal (« La trahison des clercs ») would be welcomed with the clerk’s elite now opting for suicidal dissolution versus survival priorities.
[2] The precedent of De Gaulle’s shift towards a generally hostile stance towards Israel in the wake of the Six-day war should provide matter for thought to politicians with a minimal historical background. Such a shift came abruptly after years of an opportunistic, but nevertheless strategic alliance between France and Israel that was instrumental in delivering the then superior Dassault’s Mirage warplanes that won the day, and possibly more importantly so, to the nuclear armament by way of the Dimona plant, a « gift » that, it is safe to say, the US would never have offered to any ally, be it the most reliable one. The fact that De Gaulle brought order to what, in the late 1950s, amounted to a near-interpenetration of the Israeli and French military high commands cannot reasonably be held against him—at least from the perspective of a certain conception of national interest, which countries like England and the United States have elevated to the status of an immutable doctrine, just as France has.
[3] In the original wording « Les États n’ont pas d’amis, ils n’ont que des intérêts ». In a Paris-Match interview, he said, probably in direct reference to both his esteem and personal friendship with Ben Gurion together with the six-day war embargo and his infamous November 1967 declaration that opened-up a still ongoing era of cold relations with Israel and pro-Arab stance « Un grand pays n’a pas d’amis. Les hommes peuvent avoir des amis, pas les hommes d’État. »
(“a great nation knows no friend. Men can have friends, not statesmen “.
[4] See for example the now all-pervading habit from political fringe to demonstrate at the provate domiciles of public figures, making for spectacular images that are almost instantly relayed by media. All of this contributes unwillingly or not to the customization of the opinion towards a new and fundamentally immoral poisonous political culture. All of this with no apparent contradiction and at no prejudice by the same firebrand thugs as to the most scandalous private family misdemeanors of their political idols.
[5] « Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux. » (one must fancy a happy Sisyphus) in Albert Camus, le Mythe de Sisyphe (1942)
