GIỚI THIỆU VỀ TẬP NÀY
What happened
Donald Trump endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a seventh term ahead of an Oct. 27 election, presenting Netanyahu as the leader Israelis should retain. AlterNet argues that the endorsement is less likely to decide the close contest than to advertise Trump’s own preference for aggressive military policy, personal loyalty and dominant leaders.
The outlet reports that Netanyahu is campaigning primarily on security while facing a fragmented opposition, unresolved questions over the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and criminal cases before Israeli courts. It also describes escalating Israeli conduct in Gaza and the West Bank, including an occupation encompassing 70 percent of Gaza and attacks on Palestinians, diplomats and journalists; those claims are presented by AlterNet and are not independently established here.
AlterNet further portrays Trump as favoring Netanyahu’s military approach despite objections attributed to U.S. intelligence and diplomatic advisers. The endorsement, on that account, signals a political partnership centered on force and loyalty rather than accountability or a durable settlement.
The power is governmental
The decisive actors are not abstract “voters on both sides” or an amorphous cycle of Middle East violence. Netanyahu leads the Israeli government and commands the institutions prosecuting the war. Trump, as described by AlterNet, can supply political cover and align American weapons, money and diplomatic influence with that government’s choices.
Palestinians facing military occupation, destroyed homes or inadequate food and medical care do not possess comparable agency. Treating this as a quarrel among equally empowered communities would erase the state machinery determining who may move, build, fight and survive.
Loyalty replaces scrutiny
Trump’s endorsement asks voters to evaluate Netanyahu through Trump himself: Is Netanyahu loyal, forceful and useful to the political image Trump wants to project? Questions about warnings before Oct. 7, Netanyahu’s court cases and the conduct of Israeli forces become secondary.
That is the same personalization AlterNet identifies in Trump’s domestic endorsements. Institutions and policy consequences are reduced to whether a candidate wears the approved political brand. Governance becomes a loyalty franchise.
Security becomes an alibi
Israeli polling cited by AlterNet places security at the center of the election, and Netanyahu presents his coalition as its indispensable guarantor. But a leader invoking security also bears responsibility for answering how a catastrophic security failure occurred and what his policies have produced since.
The reporting’s essential tension is therefore not security versus naïveté. It is power without commensurate accountability. Military escalation can display control while postponing harder questions about civilian survival, political settlement and whether the strategy is making anyone safer.
The framing still slips
AlterNet correctly directs attention toward Trump and Netanyahu, but at points it retreats into phrases such as a world “in a mess” and a “constant cycle” of violence. Cycles do not bulldoze homes, approve attacks, supply weapons or decline to investigate failures. Officials and institutions do.
The sharper account identifies each decision and its author. If Israeli forces looked away during assaults, that conduct requires institutional scrutiny. If Trump overrode intelligence and diplomatic objections to Iran attack plans, the relevant fact is his exercise of presidential power—not a vague absence of “strategic thinking.”
The larger design
This endorsement reveals a model of politics in which force supplies legitimacy, loyalty displaces oversight and spectacle substitutes for strategy. Trump’s apparent attraction to a leader willing to project military dominance is politically useful at home even if his endorsement changes few Israeli votes.
The systemic danger lies in how easily alliance management becomes personal patronage. Once public institutions are treated as instruments of powerful men, civilian consequences become background material, dissent becomes disloyalty, and accountability is dismissed as interference with the leader’s freedom to act.
Thanks to Alter Net
Source: Trump’s major foreign endorsement reveals way more about his own ambitions
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com/subscribe
