Netanyahu and the Legitimacy of the State of Israel

This paragraph led off a story from The Times of Israel a few days ago:

Responding to the ICJ [International Court of Justice] ruling that found Israeli presence in the territories to be illegal, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says: “The Jewish people are not occupiers in their own land—not in our eternal capital Jerusalem, not in the land of our ancestors in Judea and Samaria.”

The Netanyahu quote illustrates a common conception regarding the legitimacy of the State of Israel: Jews were given the land by God and have a perpetual claim on it. This charming nonsense should mean nothing in the twenty-first century, but Jews have done a fine job of selling this particular bill of goods.

Were it a principle of global politics that a people, however defined, have a perpetual claim on a piece of real estate, the Americas would now be governed by natives who inhabited the Western Hemisphere long before any Europeans landed on its shores. Likewise, the Aborigines of Australia would be governing that land. I hesitate to think who should be in power in Europe, Asia, and Africa. In short, the application of Israel’s principle of possession would lead to a very different twenty-first-century world. But Israel does not deserve unique treatment because its government claims that its god gave it the land.

Apologists for Israel indeed believe that Israel’s land should extend “from the River (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) Sea,” though this phrase is usually associated with Palestinian partisans. This includes territory that has never been acknowledged as belonging to the State of Israel by the community of nations. Calling territory by ancient names (Judea and Samaria) is just so much propaganda.

Before the modern State of Israel was formed in 1948, none of the so-called Holy Land had been governed by Jews for two millennia. Jewish rule began centuries before, though that rule was not continuous. Moreover, the Israelites conquered people who already lived there. Should not the descendants of Philistines, Amalekites, and Canaanites govern the land now called the State of Israel?

Israel came into existence through the indulgence of existing nations, particularly the United Kingdom, for their own purposes. and by force of arms. Were prior occupation to confer legitimacy, the more recent occupation by Palestinians would seem more compelling than a Jewish occupation of two thousand years ago that, in any case, was overthrown by the power of Rome.

Given the long history of Jewish persecution, culminating in the atrocities of the Nazi regime, one can appreciate the Zionist dream of a Jewish state. But a state free of Jewish persecution does not demand a state ruled by Jews, let alone one that indulges in persecutions of its own supposedly sanctioned by God. If a Jewish state was somehow necessary, it could, in principle, be anywhere. If the State of Israel is a legitimate nation, it is so by virtue of conquest by the sword. Netanyahu should leave God and history out of it. The rest of the world doesn’t give a damn about his mythology.

Kamala for President

I was driving from Clifton Springs to Geneva yesterday when I heard on the radio that President Biden had decided to end his re-election bid and endorse Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential candidate. Although I had been uncertain whether Biden should stay in the race, I found myself immediately relieved by the news. Subsequently heard commentary suggested that Harris was almost certain to replace Biden on the ticket. Interest quickly turned to who would become Harris’s running mate. No challenger for the top spot has emerged or is likely to do so, though there was a suggestion that Joe Manchin would like to replace Harris. (Manchin, an ex-Democrat, won’t get the nod even after hell freezes over.)

I was a supporter of Harris when she ran for the Democratic nomination in 2020. I was impressed by her prosecutor background and her sharp questioning in a Senate committee. She dropped out of the contest early, however, as she had difficulty distinguishing herself from her Democratic rivals. Her lack of success in 2020 seems of little relevance in 2024. I am eager to see her insightful and aggressive questioning directed at Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.

I don’t discard political buttons unless I have an excess supply of them. Today, I dug out my single KAMALA button, which I intend to wear today and perhaps every day until I obtain a Kamala-whoever button.

The Second Biden Post-Debate Test

President Biden held a news conference tonight at the conclusion of the NATO meeting in Washington, D.C. He faced reporters for about an hour without benefit of a teleprompter and without having been given the questions in advance. So, how did he do, and did he allay fears about his ability to win the election over Donald Trump?

In fact, his performance was better than his recent ABC interview and was orders of magnitude better than his debate performance against Trump. Has he allayed the fears of Democrats that Biden will not only lose but will also take many Democrats down with him? I don’t know.

Biden certainly made some gaffes, and his responses to questions were not always crisp. That said, he seemed like the Biden we’ve gotten used to, rather than the incoherent, bumbling old man of the recent presidential debate. Biden’s propensity for making verbal flubs is legendary. He was no more error-prone tonight than he has been over the many decades of his political career.

The president offered some opening remarks about the need for a strong NATO, and he attacked Trump on his willingness to abandon support for Ukraine. He cited recent good economic news and criticized Trump for his 10% tariff plan. He noted that fewer people are crossing our southern border. He touted his proposed framework to end the Gaza war.

Not surprisingly, several questions concerned Biden’s remaining on the top of the Democratic ticket. He admitted that there are other Democrats who would be strong candidates. Although he might have expected to be a one-term president, he decided to run for a second term because he’s had many successes but wanted to “complete the job.” (I have some Biden-Harris buttons that say “FINISH THE JOB.” We haven’t seen that message emphasized much yet, and I doubt that’s the best the campaign can do.) Biden made a few positive remarks about Vice President Harris, whom he would never have chosen if he had not thought she could handle the presidency. He suggested that convention deputies are free to vote for whomever they choose. (They aren’t at the moment.) He said that he was willing to take a neurological exam if a neurologist says that he needs one. As he has before, Biden expressed skepticism of polling, but he said that he would step down if polls definitively indicated that Democrats would lose if he did not.

Much of the news conference time was concerned with foreign policy issues. This was where Biden’s brilliance and experience shined. Trump could never put on such a display. He was asked about Ukraine, about relations with China, and about the Gaza war. His answers were thoughtful and occasionally surprising. When challenged about the use of American-supplied weapons against Russian territory, he asserted that his policy is based on recommendations by the military and intelligence communities. It wouldn’t make sense, he said, to attack Moscow. (That’s probably true, though it would be satisfying!) He gave a very long answer concerning Sino-American relations and the problem of China’s effective support of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Again, Donald Trump would only spout nonsense in response to the questions thrown at Trump. (Reporters should actually ask Trump some of those questions.)

Biden managed to throw in a few zingers related to domestic matters here and there. One of these: “Corporate greed is still at large.” Also, “when unions do better, we all do better.” He talked about Trump’s filling out his scorecard before he plays the hole. He took a swipe at the Supreme Court and at Project 2025. He cited favorably the button logo “Control guns, not girls.”

Generally, Joe Biden acquitted himself well tonight. I wrote this on Facebook earlier, however: “The question isn’t what Biden has done or will do but whether he can be an aggressive and effective campaigner.” I don’t know if Biden can pull that off. Personally, I am less concerned about Biden’s being a great president for another four years. I know that electing Donald Trump would be a disaster for the Republic.

Sunset in Clifton Springs

The picture above was taken at sunset from the solarium of the Spa Apartments. I have taken to going upstairs as the sun sets to enjoy the evening sky. The cloud in the picture hung over Clifton Springs suggesting how the Hindenburg might have looked had it overflew the village. The photograph is almost perfect, though it is marred by a reflection from the window on an adjacent wall. I didn’t notice the reflection when I took the picture.

The First Biden Post-Debate Test

 President Biden was interviewed earlier today by George Stephanopoulos, and the 22-minute unedited interchange was broadcast on ABC Television this evening. As I noted yesterday, this was an important test for Biden. Donald Trump declined to participate in a similar interview. He could afford to do so.

I think it fair to say that the president did not pass this crucial test with flying colors. I am reluctant to say he failed miserably, but I’m tempted.

We don’t expect the exuberance of Donald Trump from Joe Biden, of course, but Trump’s animation suggests a vigor that Biden’s performance did not.

At the beginning of the interview, Stephanopoulos asked about Biden’s debate performance. The president admitted that he had a bad night, that he was sick with a cold, and that he was distracted by Trump’s speaking after his opponent’s mic was shut off. Incredibly, Biden admitted that he has not watched video of the debate!

Stephanopoulos asked if Biden would take a cognitive test to reassure us of his mental competence. He responded that he is tested every day, by which he meant by his daily work as president. He gave no direct answer to Stephanopoulos’s question.

The president repeatedly spoke of his accomplishments in office and suggested briefly a few objectives for a second term—better health care and child care as well as tax reform, but his fundamental pitch was:

1. “I’m still in good shape.”
2. I know how to get things done.
3. Donald Trump is a pathological liar.
4. I beat Trump once; I’ll beat him again.

George Stephanopoulos asked Biden about his low poll numbers. Biden apparently doesn’t believe them. When asked what he would do if Democratic leaders came to him saying that he must step down. His response: that won’t happen.

Biden simply did not look like someone who would make a good president. His record is admirable, but he did not inspire confidence in his ability to continue executing the job of chief executive. He seems determined not to step down, however. When asked how he would feel if he lost and Democrats lost control of Congress. He said that he would feel that he did his best.

The question now: which two people should be on the 2024 Democratic ticket?

Thoughts on the Biden Candidacy

In light of Joe Biden’s appalling performance in the June 27 debate, Democrats are struggling with whether Biden should remain the party’s standard bearer. Although he is insisting publicly that he intends to continue his campaign, he has been somewhat less certain in private.

Donald Trump was leading in polls before the debate, and his lead has only increased after it. Although Kamala Harris does better than Biden against Trump in recent polling, she also trails the former president. She is, however, the most likely replacement should Biden bow out of the race. In that case, a new vice-presidential candidate would be needed.

As a Democrat who believes the survival of the Republic demands a Democratic victory in November, I am, as I am sure many or even most Democrats are, uncertain as to what Democrats should do at this critical juncture.

The problem, of course, is that it has become difficult to have confidence in Biden’s ability to do the job he is seeking. Even if you believe he has done a remarkable job in his first term and would have been even more successful had Republicans been willing to participate in effective governance, concern about Biden’s age, which has been his greatest liability, was only intensified by his dismal debate performance. Even if that performance was a fluke, it is impossible not to suspect that it presages sub-par performance in office.

In the 2020 campaign opposing a second Trump victory, Biden stepped forward as a seasoned, steady hand, albeit an elderly one. Many thought he would be—should be—a one-term president. It is rare, however, for a president, even a relatively unsuccessful one, to abjure another run for the nation’s highest office. Biden has not proved an exception to the rule.

If Biden does continue as a presidential candidate, he must shore up support among Democratic politicians, and he must reassure the public at large. He is working on the former task, spending more time with Democratic officeholders. Ultimately, the latter task is the more critical. Biden needs to display his competence in public. Presidential events are helpful—he bestowed two posthumous Medals of Honor on Union soldiers yesterday—but of greatest importance is displaying a command of issues in unscripted settings, settings analogous to a presidential debate. Tomorrow he is to be interviewed by ABC News. That will be important. But he also needs to hold press conferences where he must respond satisfactorily to spontaneous questions without the benefit of teleprompters.

I am not at all certain that Biden has the time to reassure the voting public or, in fact, whether he is competent to do so.

Given the rules of the party and the delegates pledged to the president, Biden can be replaced only if he chooses to step aside. His doing so remains unlikely, but may be becoming less unlikely.

Were Biden to bow out of the race, we would likely see an event not seen in America in years: a party convention whose outcome is not known in advance. That would assuredly add excitement to a campaign sorely in need of it. This assumes, of course, that an open convention would be a well-run, civil affair and not a donnybrook.

Should the Democrats change their ticket, what might it look like? As I noted earlier, Kamala Harris is a likely presidential candidate, though it must be said that her own run in 2020 was lackluster. (One hopes she has learned lessons and skills in her present position since then.) Moreover, the last Democratic woman to run lost to Donald Trump. If Harris doesn’t advance to the top of the ticket, should she remain the vice-presidential candidate, or would two fresh faces fire more interest and enthusiasm among both Democrats and the population at large?

I am committed to the Democratic ticket, whatever it is. I have to admit, though, that I find it difficult to work up enthusiasm for the Biden-Harris ticket, though my hatred of Donald Trump is unbridled. A new ticket would surely inspire greater passion.

Democrats are not without credible replacement candidates, but they seem to lack obvious ones. Democratic governors are the most likely candidates. I’m sure readers can name the most likely ones. My favorite of the lot is Gretchen Whitmer, though she is female and should likely not be paired with another woman. I have long thought that Adam Schiff would make a fine candidate, though he has shown no conspicuous interest. He certainly knows Trump’s weaknesses!

In the end, I don’t know what Democrats should do, though they have to make the right decision and make it soon. God help us!

What Biden Should Do

Given the Supreme Court’s immunity decision today, it looks as though Biden can have a Seal Team assassinate Donald Trump. As long as the plan is set in motion in the White House, it would appear that Biden would be immune from prosecution.

Note: I tried to post a version of this comment on Facebook and was warned that it appeared to violate community standards. Facebook does not understand irony.