Frankly Speaking: The Arab verdict on the US election debate

Short Url
Updated 30 June 2024
Follow

Frankly Speaking: The Arab verdict on the US election debate

  • Middle East Institute Senior Fellow Firas Maksad shares his assessment of, and key takeaways from, recent Biden-Trump debate
  • Describes how the Gaza war might impact US election outcome, offers three scenarios for a Hezbollah-Israel full-scale war

DUBAI: If the statements made by US President Joe Biden and his rival Donald Trump during Thursday’s election debate are anything to go by, it will be bad news for the Palestinian people no matter who wins the White House race in November.

Indeed, in the first televised head to head of the US election campaign, Biden reiterated his commitment to siding with Israel in the war in Gaza and accused Hamas of resisting efforts to end the conflict.

For his part, Trump called Biden “a weak and a very bad Palestinian” — using the name of the national group as a slur — and argued that Israel should be given a free hand to finish the job in Gaza.

Firas Maksad, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C., says the arguments posed by the candidates during the debate should not be considered their official stance.

“This is American electioneering at its worst,” Maksad said during an appearance on the Arab News current affairs show “Frankly Speaking.” “We all know that American elections tend to be the silly season.

“Candidates will say anything to get elected pretty much, only to turn around and change their position, or at least adjust their position, and in favor of a more nuanced one once they are in fact in the Oval Office. So, I think much of what was said (ought to be taken) with a grain of salt.”




Appearing on “Frankly Speaking,” Firas Maksad, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C., said the arguments posed by the candidates during the debate should not be considered their official stance. (AN Photo)

Maksad said it was “quite shameful” for Trump to use the term Palestinian in a “derogatory” way in a bid to undermine Biden by painting him as being relatively pro-Palestinian. “This, while both candidates were falling over themselves to demonstrate their support for Israel.”

Maksad, who is also the Middle East Institute’s senior director for strategic outreach, believes the style and tone of the debate is “just the reality of American electoral dynamics” and should not be considered a concrete policy position of either candidate.

“We can take our pick in terms of examples in the past where candidates have said one thing about nations in the Middle East, only to reverse course and even visit these countries once they become elected president,” he said.

One point that commentators were united on following the election debate was how poorly Biden performed — struggling to express his ideas clearly, fumbling over his words, and pausing for long periods, raising fresh doubts about his cognitive ability.

Although Trump is also prone to meandering speeches, commentators agreed the Republican nominee delivered a more concise and agile performance than the Democratic incumbent.

“I think it’s safe to say that most Americans were shell-shocked by the debate that they saw,” Maksad told “Frankly Speaking” host Katie Jensen.

“Going into this, the Democratic Party objective was to make this, first and foremost, about (Trump’s legal woes) rather than on the cognitive ability, or lack thereof, of President Biden.

“I think what we clearly saw was the Trump campaign had a great night, a celebratory night, whereas most of the Democratic operatives, fundraisers, and supporters of the president are left scrambling, wondering whether it’s too late in the game to try and draft in another last-minute, 11th hour candidate.”

Although many commentators said Biden offered more substance in his remarks, his poor delivery appears to have cost him in the eyes of voters.

“I very much had that debate with close friends in the Democratic circle, some of whom had served in the White House, as this debate was ongoing, and they kept pointing out to that very point, which is listen to the substance. Our candidate has much more substance,” Maksad said.

“Trump, in fact, rambles and says very little in terms of substance, not much in terms of specific policy focus and policy options being put on the table here. I think that’s true. I take the point, but I do think that in elections and American elections, how you come across to a voter is equally, if not more, important.

“And it was abundantly apparent that (former) President Trump was the more capable, confident, powerful in his presence on stage in this debate.”

If those watching the debate were hoping to learn more about where the rivals stood on the big foreign policy questions of the day, they would have been sorely disappointed as Biden and Trump focused mainly on domestic issues.

There were, however, some minor indications of similarities and differences on Middle East policy.

“President Biden — very much in favor of diplomacy. Some might say even accommodating Iran in the region, its aspirations,” said Maksad. “President Trump — much more confrontational when it comes to Iran, looking to contain its influence in the region.

“But that’s not to say that there aren’t similarities, too. I think, when it comes to regional integration, a possible normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, you see a bipartisanship on these issues here in Washington, D.C.”

Gaza, meanwhile, has become a deeply polarizing issue in the US, even beyond the Arab and Muslim communities, with protests taking place on university campuses across the country.

Asked whether the war is likely to influence the outcome of the election, however, Maksad said it was low down on the list of priorities for the majority of US voters.




If the statements made by US President Joe Biden and his rival Donald Trump during Thursday’s election debate are anything to go by, it will be bad news for the Palestinian people no matter who wins the White House race in November. (AFP)

“I think it’s both unimportant but also very crucial,” he said. “If you take the laundry list of issues for most Americans that they care about, priorities, I don’t think Gaza features anywhere near the top.”

Since the conflict in Gaza began in the wake of the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, there have been fears that the war would spill over into the wider region. Lebanon, in particular, is seen as being especially vulnerable following months of tit-for-tat exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah.

Maksad, who is himself Lebanese and an expert on the nation’s troubled past, believes there are three likely scenarios, as all-out war appears increasingly inevitable.

“One is the current diplomatic efforts that are being spearheaded by Amos Hochstein, President Biden’s envoy on this issue, point person on this issue, who will be visiting areas and coordinating very closely with the French presidential envoy on this matter,” he said.

A diplomatic breakthrough of this kind would mean finding a way for Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah to step back from his position of a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.

“That might be through some Israeli withdrawal from the disputed points along the Blue Line, the border between Israel and Lebanon, northern Gaza being something to watch out for,” Maksad said.

“But if the diplomatic breakthrough that we’re all looking, and hoping, for in the coming weeks does not materialize, scenario two here is a limited war … limited to the deep populated areas of northern Israel and southern Lebanon.

“And the US and French diplomacy would then kick in to try and bring things back with the diplomatic track. And that could help dislodge the current stalemate.”

The “catastrophic scenario,” meanwhile, would be a situation that “starts out as an attempt at a limited conflict, a limited war in northern Israel and south Lebanon, very quickly expands to population centers like Beirut and Haifa and beyond that. And we see the 2006 scenario on steroids where Israel is flattening entire blocks of southern Beirut.”

The UK’s Daily Telegraph newspaper recently suggested that Rafic Hariri International Airport in Beirut is being used by Hezbollah to store and smuggle weapons. Although Hezbollah has denied the allegation, there are fears Israel may use the claims as a justification to bomb the airport.

“I’m not too sure that Israel needs a justification to bomb Beirut International Airport,” said Maksad. “They have done so in the past. They’ve done so repeatedly. They’ve cratered the runways. They have done so as far back as the 1960s when the PLO was the major concern operating out of Lebanon.

“So, there’s a long track record there of Israel targeting Lebanese infrastructure. And I’m not too sure that this particular article in the Telegraph is what the Israelis are looking for.

“But that said, also given my Lebanese ancestry, I mean, I think every Lebanese knows that the airport is by and large under the influence and control of Hezbollah or Hezbollah’s allies.”

He added: “Whether in fact the Telegraph article is accurate in that it’s being used as a storage base for Hezbollah missiles is something that’s beyond my capability in terms of being able to assess that.”

Asked whether Hezbollah is likely to make good on Nasrallah’s threat to attack Cyprus — a country that could host Israeli jets should Israel launch an aerial campaign against Hezbollah — Maksad said he thought the comments were merely intended to signal the potential reach of Iran and its regional proxies in the event of war.

“There are multiple views as to why Hassan Nasrallah chose to include Cyprus in the list of threats he made in his recent speech,” he said.

“I do think that, first and foremost, he was thinking from a military perspective in terms of where Israel, and particularly the air force, might be able to operate from if Hezbollah rained missiles on Israeli airports in the north and hamstrings Israel’s ability to operate against it. And Cyprus is high on that list of alternatives for Israel.

“But I do think that he’s also sending a broader message … which is one about Hezbollah’s ability to intercept and contradict and complicate shipping in the Eastern Mediterranean.

“And so through Hezbollah, you have Iran here very clearly signaling its ability to interdict and disrupt global commerce, not only in Hormuz, not only in Bab Al-Mandeb, but also in the Eastern Mediterranean, arguably as far south as Suez.”




Firas Maksad, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington D.C., says the arguments posed by the candidates during the debate should not be considered their official stance. (AN Photo)

He added: “This is part of Iran signaling its ability now to project influence and power into the Mediterranean, into the Red Sea and certainly within the Arab and Persian Gulf.”

As turmoil rages in the Middle East at the very moment that the US is turning its attention inward to the looming election, doubts have been raised about the possibility of securing the hotly anticipated deal between the US and Saudi Arabia.

“I see very low prospects of the Saudi-US deal being able to move forward,” said Maksad. “In fact, it will continue to be tethered to an Israeli leg with a precondition of a viable, non-reversible pathway towards a Palestinian state.

“But the politics is simply not there on the Israeli side, but also on the Palestinian side. This is the proposition that is entirely devoid of reality on the Israeli and Palestinian side.

“That said, the deal itself, the bilateral aspects of this deal, are largely negotiated and done. Whether it relates to a defense treaty or civil nuclear cooperation or commerce and AI and cyber, those issues have all been successfully negotiated by both the US and by Riyadh.

“But the issue is that if you are seeking a treaty which requires congressional, mainly Senate ratification, it is difficult to see that being passed in the Senate short of normalization with Israel.

“And normalization with Israel, given the very clear Saudi preconditions on the Palestinian state, or a pathway to a Palestinian state, are simply not there.”

 

 

 


Iran Guards chief says Netanyahu ICC warrant ‘political death’ of Israel

Updated 3 sec ago
Follow

Iran Guards chief says Netanyahu ICC warrant ‘political death’ of Israel

  • Revolutionary Guards chief General Hossein Salami calls the ICC warrant ‘a welcome move’
  • Salami adds it is a ‘great victory for the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements’
TEHRAN: The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards on Friday described the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a former defense minister as the “end and political death” of Israel, in a speech.
“This means the end and political death of the Zionist regime, a regime that today lives in absolute political isolation in the world and its officials can no longer travel to other countries,” Revolutionary Guards chief General Hossein Salami said in the speech aired on state TV.
In the first official reaction by Iran, Salami called the ICC warrant “a welcome move” and a “great victory for the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements,” both supported by the Islamic republic.
Israel and its allies criticized the ICC’s decision to issue an arrest warrant on Thursday for Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu and the country’s former defense minister Yoav Gallant.
The court also issued a warrant for the arrest of Hamas’s military chief Mohammed Deif.
The warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant were issued in response to accusations of crimes against humanity and war crimes during Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, sparked by the Palestinian militant group’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The move drew angry reactions from Netanyahu, who denounced it as antisemitic and from Israel’s closest allies, including the United States, but was welcomed by rights groups including Amnesty International.
The ICC’s move theoretically limits the movement of Netanyahu, as any of the court’s 124 national members would be obliged to arrest him on their territory.
The court’s chief prosecutor Karim Khan urged the body’s members to act on the warrants, and for non-members to work together in “upholding international law.”

Israel armys say ‘eliminated’ five Hamas militants in north Gaza raid

Updated 22 November 2024
Follow

Israel armys say ‘eliminated’ five Hamas militants in north Gaza raid

  • Israeli military: Slain militants had ‘led the murders and kidnappings in the area of Mefalsim’

JERUSALEM: The Israeli military said on Friday it had “eliminated” five Hamas militants, including two commanders, in an overnight raid in northern Gaza’s Beit Lahia.
In a statement, the military and the Shin Bet security agency said they had “eliminated five Hamas terrorists, including a Nukhba (commando) company commander and an additional company commander who participated in the Oct. 7 massacre” that sparked the Gaza war last year, adding that the slain militants had “led the murders and kidnappings in the area of Mefalsim,” a kibbutz in southern Israel.


Strikes hit Beirut’s southern suburbs after Israeli evacuation call

Updated 22 November 2024
Follow

Strikes hit Beirut’s southern suburbs after Israeli evacuation call

  • Latest raids follow intense Israeli attacks on south Beirut as well as other areas in Lebanon’s south and east

BEIRUT: Strikes hit the southern suburbs of Beirut, a bastion of Hezbollah militants, shortly after an Israeli evacuation warning early on Friday, according to Lebanese official media and AFPTV footage.

The state-run National News Agency said “enemy warplanes” had carried two raids on south Beirut, and that “thick smoke was seen rising from the vicinity of the Lebanese University” in the Hadath neighborhood.

Live AFPTV footage showed plumes of smoke over the area after the Israeli military called for the evacuation of three locations, warning on social media of imminent attacks.

The military later said in a statement its “fighter jets completed a new round of strikes” on Beirut’s southern suburbs.

The latest raids follow intense Israeli attacks on south Beirut as well as other areas in Lebanon’s south and east, where Israel says it has been targeting Iran-backed Hezbollah militants.

More than 11 months of cross-border fire between Israel and Hezbollah over the Gaza conflict escalated into all-out war in September, with Israel conducting an extensive bombing campaign, primarily targeting Hezbollah strongholds, and sending ground troops into southern Lebanon.

The Lebanese health ministry said at least 52 people were killed on Thursday in Israeli strikes, including some 40 dead in Lebanon’s east.

On Friday, the Israeli army also issued evacuation warnings for parts of the coastal city of Tyre and the nearby Burj Al-Shemali Palestinian refugee camp.

The pace of the strikes across Lebanon has increased since US envoy Amos Hochstein ended his visit to Beirut on Wednesday, seeking to broker an end to the Israel-Hezbollah war.

Lebanon’s health ministry said Thursday that at least 3,583 people had been killed in the violence since October 2023. Most of the deaths have been since September this year.


UN could meet with Israel PM despite warrant: UN

Updated 22 November 2024
Follow

UN could meet with Israel PM despite warrant: UN

  • UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and Netanyahu have not spoken since the war started
  • UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said UN policy on contacts with people facing arrest warrants dates back to a document issued in 2013

UNITED NATIONS: The arrest warrant issued against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the war in Gaza does not bar UN officials from meeting with him in the course of their work, the UN said Thursday.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres and Netanyahu have not spoken since the war started as a result of the Hamas attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, although there have been contacts with the Israeli leader by UN officials in the region.
Guterres has been declared persona non grata by Israel, which accuses him of being biased in favor of the Palestinians. So talks between him and Netanyahu are very unlikely.
After the warrants issued Thursday by the International Criminal Court against Netanyahu, former defense minister Yoav Gallant and Hamas’s military chief Mohammed Deif, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said UN policy on contacts with people facing arrest warrants dates back to a document issued in 2013.
“The rule is that there should not be any contacts between UN officials and individuals subject to arrest warrants,” Dujarric said.
But limited contacts are allowed “to address fundamental issues, operational issues, and our ability to carry out our mandates,” he added.
In late October, at a summit of the BRICS countries in Russia, Guterres met with President Vladimir Putin, who faces an arrest warrant from the ICP over the war in Ukraine.
That meeting, during which Guterres reiterated his condemnation of the Russian invasion, angered Ukraine.


Palestinians welcome ICC arrest warrants for Israeli PM and former defense minister

Updated 22 November 2024
Follow

Palestinians welcome ICC arrest warrants for Israeli PM and former defense minister

  • Palestinian Authority calls on UN member states to ensure the warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, who are accused of war crimes, are acted upon
  • The EU’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrel, says decision is ‘binding’ on all members of the International Criminal Court

LONDON: Palestinians welcomed the decision by the International Criminal Court on Thursday to issue arrest warrants for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former minister of defense, Yoav Gallant.

The Palestinian Authority said the court’s decision comes as Israeli forces continue to bomb Gaza in a conflict that has killed nearly 45,000 Palestinians since the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas, and it hopes the ruling will help to restore faith in international law, the official Palestinian WAFA news agency reported.

Netanyahu and Gallant are the first leading officials from a nation allied with the West against whom the ICC has issued arrest warrants since the court was established in July 2002. It also issued an arrest warrant for Mohammed Deif, the head of the military wing of Hamas. Israeli authorities said in August he was killed by their forces in an attack the previous month, though Hamas have not confirmed this.

All three men are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity over their actions during the war in Gaza or the Oct. 7 attacks.

The PA said the decision to issue warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant was important because Palestinians “are being subjected to genocide and war crimes, represented by starvation as a method of warfare,” as well as mass displacement and collective punishment.

The PA, which signed up to the ICC in 2015, called on all UN member states to ensure the warrants are acted upon and to “cut off contact and meetings with the international wanted men, Netanyahu and Gallant.” Israel is not a member of the ICC.

The EU’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrel, posted a message on social media platform X on Thursday in which he described the court’s decisions as “binding” on all those who have signed up to it.

“These decisions are binding on all states party to the Rome Statute (the treaty that established the ICC), which includes all EU member states,” he wrote.

Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister who has spent 17 years in office during three spells in charge since 1996, denounced the decision by the ICC to issue the warrant as “antisemitic.”

He said it would “have serious consequences for the court and those who will cooperate with it in this matter.”