While Harris and Trump face off, Biden’s Middle East policy — and especially Israel — is an election issue with unclear implications. Everyone except the current government saw this coming
For the 11th time in 12 months, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Israel and other countries in the region to pressure, even beg, them to accept a ceasefire. Blinken means well, and US policy, based on President Joe Biden’s “post-war Gaza” plan from last December, is sensible and workable.
However, in the Middle East – and in particular with Benjamin Netanyahu – good intentions, rational policies and American interests are not always enough.
From December to April or May, all of Washington’s attempts failed.
There were efforts to obtain a ceasefire and a hostage agreement, change Israel’s conduct of the war, influence the use of high-yield munitions, secure more humanitarian aid for Gaza, and extract some kind of post-war scenario from Israel.
During this period, Netanyahu actively sought open confrontation with the Biden administration.
We heard everything, from “They are imposing a Palestinian state on us”, which was never considered and, in any case, is unfeasible, to “We are not receiving all the necessary military aid”, despite the US providing US$14.3 billion and various complements.
Since April, with the intensification of the war in Lebanon and the start of the dangerous missile game between Israel and Iran, a new dimension has emerged: the US presidential election.
It is no secret that Netanyahu would like to see the US involved in a conflict with Iran, turning the disaster of October 7, 2023, which occurred under his watch, into a strategic triumph.
When that didn’t happen and the American election approached, Netanyahu resorted to an old tactic: intervening in the US elections.
In recent months, he has maintained the war in Gaza without clear military objectives and intensified conflicts in the other main theaters, against Hezbollah and Iran.
His reasoning may be legitimate, but there is also another motivation: to keep the war as an active issue, reject any ceasefire or diplomatic initiative, and hope that this approach will hinder Vice President Kamala Harris and benefit Donald Trump, her “soulmate.” in Mar-a-Lago.
Will this work? It’s doubtful, but not impossible. The conflict in the Middle East, in particular Israel, is unlikely to have a significant impact on the US election.
Of the 161.5 million eligible voters, few care about foreign policy. Americans vote based on issues such as the economy, health care, abortion, immigration, law and order and democracy, not the Middle East or Israel.
Rarely is an American presidential election dominated by foreign policy. Exceptions were 1968, with the expanding Vietnam War, and 2004, amid the effects of 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. At these times, the US was deeply involved in conflicts. In the Middle East today, this is not the case – at least, not yet.
Still, the Middle East and Israel are controversial and important issues for many younger voters.
Millions of other Americans watched scenes of violent war on TV. Even if the impact is limited, the election could be decided by these margins.
In a September poll, Data For Progress, a progressive think tank, asked voters ages 18 to 29: “Do you support or oppose the U.S. imposition of an arms embargo on Israel?”
The result – 55% support and 29% oppose – reflects changes in American public opinion, especially among young people, since the Hamas attack in October 2023 and the subsequent war in Gaza.
Among younger Republicans, 52% support an arms embargo, while 36% oppose it. This trend reflects changing views on Israel, with growing support for restrictions. Among young Democrats, support for the embargo is 62%, compared to 21% who oppose it.
These polls do not mean that voters unhappy with the Biden-Harris policy toward Israel will stop voting for Harris, but they do indicate that Middle East policy – and Israel, in particular – is an electoral issue of uncertain impact.
Months after the start of the war, the destruction of Gaza became evident, with images of ruin and thousands of dead civilians occupying TVs and social media. The issue has become especially relevant in Michigan, a swing state.
In the USA, there are about 3.5 million Arab Americans, many Christians or Muslims of Palestinian, Lebanese or Egyptian origin. The Detroit metro area is home to more than 400,000, while cities like New York and Los Angeles, with large Arab populations, are in states where their electoral impact is smaller.
In Michigan, where the race is tight, the Arab-American vote could make a difference.
In 2016, Trump won Michigan by a margin of just 0.2%, or 10,700 votes, while Biden won the state back in 2020 with a 2.8% lead. If Arab Americans in Dearborn decide not to vote for Harris, Michigan could be lost.
An Arab News/YouGov poll showed Trump ahead of Harris among Arab-Americans, 45% to 43%. In 2020, the Arab-American vote favored Biden with 64% against 35%, reaching 70% in Michigan.
Harris could overcome that gap with a strong turnout in Detroit, but the signs are alarming given Michigan’s importance to her electoral victory.
With the war ongoing, the destruction in Gaza worsens, and Biden-Harris’ military and diplomatic support for Israel remains firm. The issue has become broader, moving from a focus in Michigan to a movement among young people, seen on college campuses and reflected in polls.
With 11 days until the election, the three main conflicts are intertwined. Neither Harris nor Trump want to inherit the war, but both will have to deal with the consequences on January 20.
Source: https://www.ocafezinho.com/2024/10/29/o-plano-sinistro-de-netanyahu-funcionou-fazer-de-israel-e-da-guerra-de-gaza-uma-questao-eleitoral-nos-eua/
