foreignpolicy--2020-10-23--Trump, Biden Fight to Bitter Draw in Final Debate

With his back against an electoral wall only 12 days out from Nov. 3 , Donald Trump sought to undermine the integrity of his opponent Joe Biden in their final debate Thursday , with personal attacks that the president hoped could somehow reverse his grim poll numbers and swing the election his way .
But for the most part , the beleaguered president—though notably more controlled than in the first debate—failed to deliver the knockout blow most of his advisors believed that he needed .
Trump still trails Biden badly in polling averages , including in several key swing states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s big national advantage has slightly narrowed .
As of Thursday morning , the NBC News national polling average had Biden up more than 8 percentage points over Trump , 51 percent to 42.7 percent , down nearly 1 point since last week .
Even so , Biden is ahead of where Hillary Clinton was at this point in 2016 , both in national polls and critical battleground states .
FiveThirtyEight ’ s national polling tracker now gives Biden an 87 percent chance of winning the election .
Nor was Thursday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stalemate , expected to change many minds .
Only a sliver of voters are left undecided and 48 million people , nearly a third of the electorate , have already voted .
Despite the bitter back-and-forth between the candidates over their personal ties overseas , the debate was notably more restrained than their first contest late last month , a chaotic event that was considered little more than a shout-fest .
A replay of that ugly debate was avoided Thursday in large part because of new rules that muted the microphone of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question put by NBC News anchor Kristen Welker , the youngest-ever presidential debate moderator , who gave a strong , controlled performance in the 90-minute debate .
Much of the early part of the debate focused on Trump ’ s much-criticized response to the COVID-19 pandemic .
Trump , himself recently recovered from the virus , contended that although he takes “ responsibility , ” the main blame goes to China , and “ more and more people are getting better .
This is a worldwide problem but I ’ ve been congratulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we ’ ve been able to do.
” ( In fact , Trump has been widely criticized around the world for his response , which has led to the United States , with just 4 percent of the global population , to suffer 20 percent of the deaths . )
Trump also accused Biden of seeking to destroy the American economy and undermine American morale by seeking to shut down normal activities in towns , cities and states .
“ We ’ re rounding the turn , ” Trump said , promising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going to go away.
” He added : “ We can ’ t keep this country closed .
People are losing their jobs , they ’ re committing suicide… ” Biden responded that he had no intention of keeping the economy and schools shut down , except in isolated , badly affected places , and Trump “ thus far still has no comprehensive plan ” for dealing with the pandemic in his second term .
Biden said another 200,000 Americans could join the 220,000 already dead from the pandemic by the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing a “ dark winter.
” Overall Biden put in a fairly strong performance , appearing to stand up to Trump through the evening without any major gaffes—a pitfall for him in past campaigns .
Still Biden may have left himself vulnerable to right-wing attacks by saying he would “ transition away ” from the oil industry , a remark that could hurt him in close battleground states dependent on petroleum like Texas and Pennsylvania .
Trump continued his attacks on Biden ’ s integrity , despite advice from his advisors that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show he ’ s virtually tied with Biden on handling the economy .
When Welker noted new reports that Russia and Iran are working to influence the election , Biden responded : “ I made it clear and I ask everyone else to take the pledge .
Any country that interferes in America ’ s elections will pay a price.
” Trump pounced , saying “ there has been nobody tougher than me with Russia .
I got NATO to put up an extra $ 130 billion.
” He contended that Biden received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ very friendly with the mayor of Moscow .
… They were buying you .
The horrible emails , the kind of money you were raking in , you and your family .
I think you owe an explanation to the American people.
” Trump kept returning to the same theme , calling Biden “ a corrupt politician ” at one point .
Biden responded : “ I have not taken a penny from a foreign source ever.
” He then drew on a recent New York Times report that Trump had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he closed it before he ran for office ) .
He also raised Trump ’ s as-yet-undisclosed tax returns , saying , “ I have released all tax returns .
For 22 years .
You have not released a single tax return .
The foreign countries are paying you a lot .
China ’ s paying you a lot .
Russia ’ s paying you a lot.
” In one of his best moments , Biden then turned to the camera and declared : “ It ’ s not about his family and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your family .
And your family is hurting.
” Other than the heated repartee over their personal ties abroad , foreign policy played only a small part in the debate , mostly over whether Trump had handled the North Korean nuclear threat better than the Obama-Biden administration .
When Trump said he had avoided a war because of his “ good relationship ” with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un , and that the previous administration had left him a “ mess , ” Biden responded : “ We had a good relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hoping for some foreign policy victories to soften the blow of COVID and the economy , the administration has made a slew of concessions to foreign powers .
Russian President Putin , who is said to desire Trump ’ s re-election , appeared to give him a hand earlier this week by proposing a year-long freeze on the number of nuclear warheads on each side and an extension of the Obama-era accord known as New START for one year .
Trump is also seeking to draw down U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 4,500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2,500 and 2,800 by early 2021 .
But other efforts have encountered roadblocks : his bid to broker normalization talks between Sudan and Israel ran aground after the transitional government in Khartoum demanded key concessions , including Washington ’ s removal of Sudan from the state sponsor of terrorism list .
On Monday , Trump conceded he would do that .
In his personal attacks on Biden , Trump appeared to be trying to build on unsubstantiated claims that “ the Biden family is a criminal enterprise , “ as he said at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
“ Lock up the Bidens .
Lock up Hillary , ” he said .
The exchanges were prompted by the return of Biden ’ s son Hunter to the news in recent days following a widely questioned article in the pro-Trump New York Post last week about unverified emails on a laptop that appeared to come from a fringe internet source of online disinformation , 4chan .
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was reportedly the original source of the emails , but he has been accused of consorting with Russian intelligence to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Ratcliffe , Trump ’ s largely loyal director of national intelligence , told Fox Business Network that he believes the “ laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign ” ) .
The Post story suggested that emails found on the drive indicate that while Biden was vice president , his son used his connections to get Biden to meet with an executive from Burisma , a Ukrainian energy company whose board Hunter served on .
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials have said in the past that no proof exists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Every single solitary person when he was under impeachment said I did my job impeccably.
” In September even two Republican-led Senate committees concluded that while Hunter Biden ’ s position on Burisma ’ s board was “ problematic ” during his father ’ s vice presidency , there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing .
The report concluded that “ the extent to which ” Hunter Biden ’ s role “ affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine is not clear.
” In a further attempt to besmirch Biden , Trump also brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter Biden , as his guest at the debate Thursday night .
Bobulinski , a retired lieutenant in the U.S. Navy and the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings , said the company “ was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family.
” Bobulinski , in a statement to Fox News , said he does not believe Joe Biden ’ s past claim that he did not discuss his son Hunter ’ s business affairs with him .
But even as he attacked Biden over his son Hunter ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by new revelations that his enormous indebtedness leaves him open to foreign influence—which he has already been accused of in the case of Putin , whom he has never criticized directly .
New revelations from the New York Times ’ s investigation into Trump ’ s tax records showed he has pursued expansive business projects in China and maintained a Chinese bank account .
The report also revealed allegations of criminality , impropriety and corruption .
Trump has made accusations against Biden and his family ’ s ties to China that have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he himself was said to have taken in at least $ 73 million from foreign sources during his first two years in office , according to the New York Times .
In the polls , Trump appears to be suffering from his inability to focus on the issues that matter to most Americans , and which have body-slammed his bid for re-election : the resurgence of the COVID pandemic , and the still-staggering economy .
Though the economy has recovered somewhat , with the unemployment rate falling to 7.9 percent last month from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is certainly not “ roaring back , ” as Trump claims in his forthcoming interview with 60 Minutes this week .
New jobless claims unexpectedly dipped below 800,000 last week , but still remained historically high as hundreds of thousands of more Americans were put out of work during the ongoing pandemic .
And according to an analysis by Axios ’ s Felix Salmon , much of the declining rate includes people who are working part-time or for partial wages .
For anyone looking for a full-time job that pays a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the U.S. is a stunning 26.1 percent .
… The official unemployment rate is artificially depressed by excluding people who might be earning only a few dollars a week .
It also excludes anybody who has stopped looking for work or is discouraged by a lack of jobs or by the demands of child care during the coronavirus crisis.
” Experts argue that more fiscal stimulus is desperately needed , but Trump has provided scant leadership here , at one point calling off talks and then tweeting that he wants a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of passing another aid package before Election Day are slim at best , with the Trump administration resisting funds for “ Democrat-led ” state and local governments .
Trump again tried to attack Biden for adopting “ socialist ” solutions on health care , but the Republican Party appears somewhat out of step on this issue , with more and more Americans desiring universal health care backed by the government .
Economists Alex Rees-Jones , John D ’ Attoma , Amedeo Piolatto and Luca Salvadori conducted a survey of over 2,500 Americans that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ real or perceived exposure to COVID-19 ’ s consequences has influenced support for expansions to the U.S. safety-net system .
”

With his back against an electoral wall only 12 days out from Nov. 3, President Donald Trump sought to undermine the integrity of his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, in their final debate Thursday, with personal attacks that Trump hoped could somehow reverse his grim poll numbers and swing the election his way.
With his back against an electoral wall only 12 days out from Nov. 3, President Donald Trump sought to undermine the integrity of his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, in their final debate Thursday, with personal attacks that Trump hoped could somehow reverse his grim poll numbers and swing the election his way.
But for the most part, the beleaguered president—though notably more controlled than in the first debate—failed to deliver the knockout blow most of his advisors believed that he needed.
Trump still trails Biden badly in polling averages, including in several key swing states, but the former vice president’s big national advantage has slightly narrowed. As of Thursday morning, the NBC News national polling average had Biden up more than 8 percentage points over Trump, 51 percent to 42.7 percent, down nearly 1 point since last week. Even so, Biden is ahead of where Hillary Clinton was at this point in 2016, both in national polls and critical battleground states. FiveThirtyEight’s national polling tracker now gives Biden an 87 percent chance of winning the election.
Nor was Thursday’s debate, which most pundits considered largely a stalemate, expected to change many minds. Only a sliver of voters are left undecided, and 48 million people, nearly a third of the electorate, have already voted.
Despite the bitter back-and-forth between the candidates over their personal ties overseas, the debate was notably more restrained than their first contest late last month, a chaotic event that was considered little more than a shout-fest. A replay of that ugly debate was avoided Thursday in large part because of new rules that muted the microphone of each candidate at the outset of each question put by the NBC News anchor Kristen Welker, the youngest presidential debate moderator of this election cycle, who gave a strong, controlled performance in the 90-minute debate.
Much of the early part of the debate focused on Trump’s much-criticized response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump, himself recently recovered from the virus, contended that although he takes “responsibility,” the main blame goes to China and “more and more people are getting better. … This is a worldwide problem, but I’ve been congratulated by the heads of many countries on what we’ve been able to do.” (In fact, Trump has been widely criticized around the world for his response, which has led to the United States, with just 4 percent of the global population, to suffer 20 percent of the deaths.)
Trump also accused Biden of trying to destroy the U.S. economy and undermine American morale by seeking to shut down normal activities in towns, cities, and states. “We’re rounding the turn,” Trump said, promising a vaccine soon. “It will go away.” He added: “We can’t keep this country closed. … People are losing their jobs. They’re committing suicide.”
Biden responded that he had no intention of keeping the economy and schools shut down, except in isolated, badly affected places, and Trump “thus far still has no comprehensive plan” for dealing with the pandemic in his second term. Biden said another 200,000 Americans could join the more than 220,000 already dead from the pandemic by the end of the year, with the nation facing a “dark winter.”
Overall, Biden put in a fairly strong performance, appearing to stand up to Trump through the evening without any major gaffes—a pitfall for him in past campaigns. Still Biden may have left himself vulnerable to right-wing attacks by saying he would “transition” away from the oil industry, a remark that could hurt him in close battleground states dependent on petroleum like Texas and Pennsylvania.
Trump continued his attacks on Biden’s integrity, despite advice from his advisors that he needed to focus mainly on the issues—polls show he’s virtually tied with Biden on handling the economy. When Welker noted new reports that Russia and Iran are working to influence the election, Biden responded: “I made it clear, and I asked everyone else to take the pledge. I made it clear that any country, no matter who it is, that interferes in American elections will pay a price.”
Trump pounced, saying that there has been “nobody tougher than me on Russia. … I’ve got the NATO countries to put up an extra $130 billion.” He contended that Biden had received $3.5 million from Russians and was “very friendly with the former mayor of Moscow. … They were paying you a lot of money.” He continued: “The horrible emails, the kind of money you were raking in, you and your family. … I think you owe an explanation to the American people.” Trump kept returning to the same theme, calling Biden a “corrupt politician” at one point.
Biden responded: “I have not taken a penny from any foreign source ever.” He then drew on a recent New York Times report that Trump had a Chinese bank account. (The president said he closed it before he ran for office.) He also raised Trump’s as-yet-undisclosed tax returns, saying, “I have released all of my tax returns. 22 years, go look at them, 22 years of my tax return. You have not released a single solitary year of your tax return. … The foreign countries are paying you a lot. China’s paying you a lot. Russia’s paying you a lot.”
In one of his best moments, Biden then turned to the camera and declared: “It’s not about his family and my family. It’s about your family. And your family is hurting.”
Other than the heated repartee over their personal ties abroad, foreign policy played only a small part in the debate, mostly over whether Trump had handled the North Korean nuclear threat better than the Obama-Biden administration. When Trump said he had avoided a war because of his “good relationship” with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and that the previous administration had left him a “mess,” Biden responded: “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe.”
Hoping for some foreign-policy victories to soften the blow of COVID-19 and the economy, the administration has made a slew of concessions to foreign powers. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is said to desire Trump’s reelection, appeared to give him a hand this week by proposing a yearlong freeze on the number of nuclear warheads on each side and an extension of the Obama-era accord known as New START for one year. Trump is also seeking to draw down U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 4,500 before next month and to between 2,500 and 2,800 by early 2021. But other efforts have encountered roadblocks: His bid to broker normalization talks between Sudan and Israel ran aground after the transitional government in Khartoum demanded key concessions, including Washington’s removal of Sudan from the state sponsor of terrorism list. On Monday, Trump conceded he would do that.
In his personal attacks on Biden, Trump appeared to be trying to build on unsubstantiated claims that the Biden family is a “criminal enterprise,” as he said at a rally in Macon, Georgia, last week. “Lock up the Bidens. Lock up Hillary,” he said.
The exchanges were prompted by the return of Biden’s son Hunter to the news in recent days following a widely questioned article in the pro-Trump New York Post last week about unverified emails on a laptop that appeared to come from a fringe internet source of online disinformation, 4chan. Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani was reportedly the original source of the emails, but he has been accused of consorting with Russian intelligence to gain access to the information (though John Ratcliffe, Trump’s largely loyal director of national intelligence, told Fox Business Network that he believes the “laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign”). The Post story suggested that emails found on the drive indicate that while Biden was vice president, his son used his connections to get Biden to meet with an executive from Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company whose board Hunter served on. U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials have said in the past that no proof exists for such claims.
Biden responded: “Every single solitary person, when he was going through his impeachment, testifying under oath, who work for him, said I did my job impeccably.” In September, even two Republican-led Senate committees concluded that while Hunter Biden’s position on Burisma’s board was “problematic” during his father’s vice presidency, there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing. The report concluded that the extent to which Hunter Biden’s role “affected U.S. policy toward Ukraine is not clear.”
In a further attempt to besmirch Biden, Trump also brought Tony Bobulinski, a former associate of Hunter Biden, as his guest at the debate Thursday night. Bobulinski, a retired lieutenant in the U.S. Navy and the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, said the company “was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family.” Bobulinski, in a statement to Fox News, said he does not believe Joe Biden’s past claim that he did not discuss his son Hunter’s business affairs with him.
But even as he attacked Biden over his son’s dealings abroad, Trump remained dogged by new revelations that his enormous indebtedness leaves him open to foreign influence—which he has already been accused of in the case of Putin, whom he has never criticized directly. New revelations from the New York Times’s investigation into Trump’s tax records showed he has pursued expansive business projects in China and maintained a Chinese bank account. The report also revealed allegations of criminality, impropriety, and corruption. Trump has made accusations against Biden and his family’s ties to China that have not held up well to scrutiny, but he himself was said to have taken in at least $73 million from foreign sources during his first two years in office, according to the New York Times.
In the polls, Trump appears to be suffering from his inability to focus on the issues that matter to most Americans and which have body-slammed his bid for reelection: the resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the still staggering economy. Though the economy has recovered somewhat, with the unemployment rate falling to 7.9 percent last month from a high of 14 percent-plus last spring, it is certainly not “roaring back,” as Trump claims in his forthcoming interview with 60 Minutes this week.
New jobless claims unexpectedly dipped below 800,000 last week but still remained historically high as hundreds of thousands of more Americans were put out of work during the ongoing pandemic. And according to an analysis by Axios’s Felix Salmon, much of the declining rate includes people who are working part time or for partial wages. For anyone looking for a full-time job that pays a living wage, “the true unemployment rate in the U.S. is a stunning 26.1%. … The official unemployment rate is artificially depressed by excluding people who might be earning only a few dollars a week. It also excludes anybody who has stopped looking for work or is discouraged by a lack of jobs or by the demands of child care during the coronavirus crisis.”
Experts argue that more fiscal stimulus is desperately needed, but Trump has provided scant leadership here, at one point calling off talks and then tweeting that he wants a big package right away. But the prospects of passing another aid package before Election Day are slim at best, with the Trump administration resisting funds for Democrat-led state and local governments.
Trump again tried to attack Biden for adopting “socialist” solutions on health care, but the Republican Party appears somewhat out of step on this issue, with more and more Americans desiring universal health care backed by the government. The economists Alex Rees-Jones, John D’Attoma, Amedeo Piolatto, and Luca Salvadori conducted a survey of over 2,500 Americans that concluded, no matter their party affiliation, “real or perceived exposure to COVID-19’s consequences has influenced support for expansions to the U.S. safety-net system.”


foreignpolicy--2020-10-23--Trump and Biden Are Both Touting Foreign-Policy Failures as Achievements

Trump and Biden Are Both Touting Foreign-Policy Failures as Achievements Matthew Kroenig : Well , we are just over one week away from the big day .
And the candidates had their last opportunity to reach a large , nationwide audience in last night ’ s debate .
Were you able to watch it ?
What did you think ?
Emma Ashford : Well , it wasn ’ t the best debate ever , but unlike the last one , it was at least watchable .
EA : Hang on , my two minutes weren ’ t up .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was definitely a better debate , but I thought it was pretty laughable that this was described as the “ foreign policy ” debate .
It was only about 15 minutes of foreign policy , most of which was arguing about which candidate ’ s family took money from overseas .
Quite depressing .
MK : OK. Can I talk now ?
MK : Thank you , moderator .
This debate was a big improvement over the first one , but foreign-policy wonks were disappointed .
It was light on foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption from international business dealings were not a shining moment for the United States .
It makes me wonder whether some kind of reforms are necessary to prevent politicians ’ families from profiting from their office .
EA : I share your concerns about corruption and elected officials ; any normal person would be denied a security clearance if they had some of these financial or family liabilities !
But I ’ m not sure I have a solution ; after all , the American people elected them .
They have the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration , I ’ m not sure the public is such a good judge of character .
And so here we are in 2020 : Hunter Biden might be a bit sketchy , but reforms to prevent corruption would probably put the whole Trump clan out on the street .
MK : Normal people also find it outrageous .
My friends and family in Missouri can ’ t believe that a politician ’ s son earned more money in a month than they do in a year , in a field in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his last name .
It fuels the anti-establishment and populist sentiment that we have seen in the past few years .
The candidates were able to cover several issues if only briefly , including : China , Russia , North Korea , climate change , and COVID-19 .
Did you find their arguments on these issues compelling ?
EA : Not particularly .
You ?
MK : I did find it strange that they boasted about their North Korea achievements .
From Bill Clinton to Donald Trump , Washington has tried everything , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missile arsenal continues to grow .
I would have steered toward areas where there are more signs of success .
EA : For me , the North Korea section was a reminder of the fact that neither candidate is particularly good on foreign policy .
The Obama administration failed to prevent North Korea from growing its arsenal , and the Trump administration has actually allowed it to progress to intercontinental ballistic missiles that could threaten U.S. cities .
Not to be hyperbolic , but in terms of actual threat to the U.S. homeland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia and China !
And neither candidate on stage has a good solution .
Trump just talked about his love affair with Kim Jong Un , ignoring the fact that Kim just unveiled yet another new missile .
What will he do with another four years ?
More flattery from Pyongyang while letting Kim do whatever he wants , regardless of U.S. interests ?
And Joe Biden is barely better .
He said last night that he wouldn ’ t meet with Kim unless Kim agreed to denuclearize .
That ’ s entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually mitigate some of the risks involved .
MK : I agree , it is serious .
North Korea is only the third U.S. adversary capable of nuking the U.S. homeland .
There is only one realistic path forward regardless of who wins : keep up the sanctions pressure and hold out the hope of diplomacy , even as Washington deters and defends against the nuclear and missile threats that continue to grow .
EA : For me , the theme across many of the foreign-policy questions was that neither candidate is great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better on foreign policy , but his answers last night were a reminder of how often he ’ s supported a failed Washington consensus on foreign policy .
MK : There have been failures , like North Korea , but the Washington consensus on foreign policy over the past 75 years has been a stunning success .
But that debate would require its own column if not a book .
EA : Well , how about this : What was missing from the debate on foreign policy was almost as interesting as what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the Middle East , despite the fact that the country is still fighting multiple wars in those places .
No questions about the defense budget and whether it should be cut or increased .
No real questions about trade .
There was certainly a lot of China .
If I only watched this debate and didn ’ t know much else about foreign policy , I ’ d probably believe that China is responsible for everything bad in the world .
MK : Given the challenge Washington faces from Beijing , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible message to get across to the American people .
Maybe one day we will finally be able to ban TikTok .
And populations around the world are starting to understand .
Public opinion on China is declining globally , with 81 percent of Australians , for example , now viewing the country unfavorably .
EA : Perhaps , but the tone of the debate on China wasn ’ t really helpful .
Trump spent most of his time blaming China for the coronavirus , and Biden spent his time trying to portray @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden did manage to give a broad overview of his China policy , but I was struck by the extent to which it sounded just the same as Trump ’ s China policy , but with more international cooperation .
For example , he highlighted the Obama administration ’ s choice to fly bombers in contested airspace near China to push back on Chinese territorial claims .
The two parties seem to be aligning on China , which I find worrying .
I guess you don ’ t ?
MK : Yes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including China and to some degree COVID-19 , seemed to be “ I will do the same things , but without the drama.
” I welcome the growing bipartisan consensus on China .
This is a generational challenge , and in order for U.S. strategy to be sustainable it will need bipartisan support .
Trump also had his best line yet on Russia , saying he provided Ukraine with “ tank-busters ” to fight Moscow when Biden was only willing to send “ pillows and sheets.
” He is right about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s alleged collusion with Russia that they have overlooked a defense policy that has been tougher on Russia than any U.S. president since Ronald Reagan .
You know , there were events in the world last week other than last night ’ s debate stage .
Have you been following developments in Thailand ?
EA : I have !
I spent quite a lot of time in Bangkok when I was younger , and I ’ ve been frankly amazed to see the changes over the last few years .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Thailand , and protests are nothing new .
But it used to be the case—under the old king ’ s rule—that the royal family was seen as above politics and revered by many .
Even without the draconian lèse-majesté laws , few Thais would have criticized the king .
The father was one of the longest-ruling monarchs in history , and he was widely loved by his citizens , to the extent that the monarchy was basically unquestioned by major protests and a coup in the mid-2000s .
But his son is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewed as corrupt , he ’ s on his fourth wife , plus an official concubine , and he has taken an increasingly dictatorial approach to politics .
In just a few short years as king , he ’ s managed to drag the royal family into politics , and he ’ s brought Thailand to a place where there are now pro-democracy protesters who openly oppose the king ’ s policies .
That would have been unheard of a decade ago .
MK : My knowledge of Thailand is mostly limited to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at D.C.-area restaurants .
But I do have some thoughts about the implications for U.S. foreign policy .
Thailand is a formal U.S. treaty ally—a legacy of the Cold War Southeast Asia Treaty Organization , the anti-communist Cold War alliance in Southeast Asia .
And Southeast Asia will be an important region for competition with China , with Thailand ’ s ruling military junta moving closer to Beijing in recent years .
Washington has advocated for democracy in the country , and I hope that it is able to maintain , or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dust settles .
EA : It ’ s a difficult spot for the U.S. government to be in—wanting Thailand to stay stable , but the government appears determined to push toward autocracy .
This is the place where a coherent administration could have a quiet word with the government about its response to protests , putting the U.S. finger on the scale .
Still , as we saw during the Obama administration and the Arab Spring , it doesn ’ t always work .
What about Nigeria ?
The protests in Lagos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve effectively shut down the largest city in Africa .
MK : The United States isn ’ t the only country dealing with issues of police brutality .
Nigerians have been protesting against SARS , a special Nigerian police unit .
EA : To be clear : SARS in this case is a police unit , not a coronavirus disease ?
MK : That was my first thought when I saw the news as well .
But it stands for the Special Anti-Robbery Squad , and its “ special anti-robbery ” techniques apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After nearly two weeks of nightly protests , the Nigerian police opened fire , reportedly killing dozens of innocent protesters .
The government claims that SARS will be merged into a new unit , but people are skeptical that anything will really change .
EA : It ’ s an interesting reminder that outside the United States—where such issues are often viewed mostly through the prism of race—there are still questions about policing and violence , even in a country like Nigeria where both the victims and perpetrators are Black .
Elsewhere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much bigger role , or at least a bigger role than we usually acknowledge in the United States .
In Nigeria these protests are being driven by young people ; Nigeria has an average age of 18 , with a huge youth bulge .
That ’ s a trend that ’ s replicated all over Africa and the Middle East , and it has the potential to create unrest in the future , particularly if governments can ’ t create an environment that offers opportunities for these young people .
MK : Africa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. foreign policy , but Nigeria is important in its own right .
It is the most populous country in Africa and a major oil producer .
EA : It ’ s not just a major oil producer , it ’ s one of the top oil-producing states in the world .
And like a lot of petrostates , that oil production has been detrimental to Nigeria ’ s ability to develop economic opportunities , and to the conduct of good government .
Unfortunately , U.S. foreign policy continues to see Nigeria—and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterterrorism .
The U.S. military presence in Africa has grown substantially in recent years , and it ’ s all focused on militant groups like Boko Haram .
But as these protests show , Africa is a vibrant , developing region , with a growing youth population and the potential for trade and diplomatic engagement .
Viewing it just through the prism of terrorism is a huge mistake .
MK : Foggy Bottom is paying attention to another African country this week .
Washington took Sudan off the state sponsors of terrorism list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced it will became the latest majority-Muslim nation to normalize relations with Israel , following the example set by United Arab Emirates and Bahrain .
EA : I ’ m going to try to put this as delicately as possible : It sometimes seems that the Trump White House is more concerned with Israeli foreign policy than with U.S. foreign policy .
And I don ’ t mean that in the conspiracy theory sense , or the absurd anti-Semitic arguments about Israel and U.S. foreign policy .
What I mean is simply that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a line of decisions—from Jared Kushner ’ s Middle East peace plan to the Serbia-Kosovo deal ( which hinged on Serbia moving its embassy to Jerusalem ) —that the Trump administration has made that seem far more concerned with whether Benjamin Netanyahu is happy than with whether it ’ s good for U.S. foreign policy .
To be clear , the state sponsor of terrorism list is a bit of a joke .
States only get placed on it if the United States doesn ’ t like them , and they never get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups they fund—if they ’ re a U.S. partner like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan .
But it would have been nice to see that designation for Sudan used as a bargaining chip for something that was in U.S. interests , rather than just another attempt to force states to be nicer to Israel .
But we ’ re running out of time here .
Let ’ s finish with a lightning round .
What do you think of the New START treaty extension ?
MK : Well , I think Middle East peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but for Washington , and much of the rest of the world .
On New START , like with Sudan , the Trump administration is seeking another preelection diplomatic win .
The reported deal would extend New START for one year in exchange for a freeze on all nuclear warheads .
It is better than the alternatives .
No one wants to see arms control collapse altogether , but a clean five-year extension is not in the U.S. interest either .
Russia is building a new generation of nonstrategic and exotic nuclear systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the proposed way forward would freeze those systems and give Washington one year to try to negotiate a more sweeping agreement .
I ’ m not sure that was brief enough for a lightning round .
Can you do better on Brexit ?
EA : It ’ s a mess .
Even in January , when the results of the U.S. election—and possibly the Trump presidency—have come and gone , Brexit will still be a mess .
Boris Johnson ’ s government is fumbling badly , and a no-deal Brexit is back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned about the potential impact on the union .
Sentiment for independence is growing where I ’ m from in Scotland , and there ’ s a strong sentiment that the Scottish government has handled COVID-19 far better than Westminster .
I ’ m not alone among British expats in fearing that Brexit could push renewed independence sentiment , and it ’ s looking like that fear is well founded .
Still not brief enough .
Bolivia ?
MK : Bolivia just elected a socialist president in the mold of Evo Morales .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy and for U.S. interests in Latin America .
EA : Deadly clashes after a contested election , and while election observers say that it was fairly conducted , the 82-year-old president is probably not actually allowed to rule for this third term under the constitution .
It ’ s a mess .
Look , it ’ s hard to boil complex foreign-policy decisions down to one-liners for debate .
But I still think we did a better job than Donald Trump and Joe Biden .
After all , we actually talked about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MK : I agree .
But I better go .
The delivery guy from Mai Thai just rang the doorbell .

Matthew Kroenig: Well, we are just over one week away from the big day. And the candidates had their last opportunity to reach a large, nationwide audience in last night’s debate. Were you able to watch it? What did you think?
Matthew Kroenig: Well, we are just over one week away from the big day. And the candidates had their last opportunity to reach a large, nationwide audience in last night’s debate. Were you able to watch it? What did you think?
Emma Ashford: Well, it wasn’t the best debate ever, but unlike the last one, it was at least watchable.
MK: [SILENCE]
Emma Ashford is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.
Matthew Kroenig is deputy director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center. They debate foreign policy and the 2020 election.
EA: Hang on, my two minutes weren’t up. I think you’re still on mute.
It was definitely a better debate, but I thought it was pretty laughable that this was described as the “foreign policy” debate. It was only about 15 minutes of foreign policy, most of which was arguing about which candidate’s family took money from overseas. Quite depressing.
MK: OK. Can I talk now?
EA: Please.
MK: Thank you, moderator. This debate was a big improvement over the first one, but foreign-policy wonks were disappointed. It was light on foreign policy. And the cross-accusations about family corruption from international business dealings were not a shining moment for the United States. It makes me wonder whether some kind of reforms are necessary to prevent politicians’ families from profiting from their office.
EA: I share your concerns about corruption and elected officials; any normal person would be denied a security clearance if they had some of these financial or family liabilities! But I’m not sure I have a solution; after all, the American people elected them. They have the public trust, even if after the Trump administration, I’m not sure the public is such a good judge of character.
And so here we are in 2020: Hunter Biden might be a bit sketchy, but reforms to prevent corruption would probably put the whole Trump clan out on the street.
MK: Normal people also find it outrageous. My friends and family in Missouri can’t believe that a politician’s son earned more money in a month than they do in a year, in a field in which he had zero experience, because of his last name. It fuels the anti-establishment and populist sentiment that we have seen in the past few years.
The candidates were able to cover several issues if only briefly, including: China, Russia, North Korea, climate change, and COVID-19. Did you find their arguments on these issues compelling?
EA: Not particularly. You?
MK: I did find it strange that they boasted about their North Korea achievements. From Bill Clinton to Donald Trump, Washington has tried everything, yet North Korea’s nuclear and missile arsenal continues to grow. I would have steered toward areas where there are more signs of success.
EA: For me, the North Korea section was a reminder of the fact that neither candidate is particularly good on foreign policy. The Obama administration failed to prevent North Korea from growing its arsenal, and the Trump administration has actually allowed it to progress to intercontinental ballistic missiles that could threaten U.S. cities. Not to be hyperbolic, but in terms of actual threat to the U.S. homeland, that places North Korea behind only Russia and China!
And neither candidate on stage has a good solution. Trump just talked about his love affair with Kim Jong Un, ignoring the fact that Kim just unveiled yet another new missile. What will he do with another four years? More flattery from Pyongyang while letting Kim do whatever he wants, regardless of U.S. interests? And Joe Biden is barely better. He said last night that he wouldn’t meet with Kim unless Kim agreed to denuclearize. That’s entirely unrealistic and would preclude talks that could actually mitigate some of the risks involved.
MK: I agree, it is serious. North Korea is only the third U.S. adversary capable of nuking the U.S. homeland. There is only one realistic path forward regardless of who wins: keep up the sanctions pressure and hold out the hope of diplomacy, even as Washington deters and defends against the nuclear and missile threats that continue to grow.
EA: For me, the theme across many of the foreign-policy questions was that neither candidate is great. I generally think Biden would be better on foreign policy, but his answers last night were a reminder of how often he’s supported a failed Washington consensus on foreign policy.
MK: There have been failures, like North Korea, but the Washington consensus on foreign policy over the past 75 years has been a stunning success. But that debate would require its own column if not a book.
EA: Well, how about this: What was missing from the debate on foreign policy was almost as interesting as what was included. No questions about Afghanistan or the Middle East, despite the fact that the country is still fighting multiple wars in those places. No questions about the defense budget and whether it should be cut or increased. No real questions about trade.
There was certainly a lot of China. If I only watched this debate and didn’t know much else about foreign policy, I’d probably believe that China is responsible for everything bad in the world.
MK: Given the challenge Washington faces from Beijing, “China = bad” is not a terrible message to get across to the American people. Maybe one day we will finally be able to ban TikTok. And populations around the world are starting to understand. Public opinion on China is declining globally, with 81 percent of Australians, for example, now viewing the country unfavorably.
EA: Perhaps, but the tone of the debate on China wasn’t really helpful. Trump spent most of his time blaming China for the coronavirus, and Biden spent his time trying to portray Trump as cozy with Xi Jinping.
Biden did manage to give a broad overview of his China policy, but I was struck by the extent to which it sounded just the same as Trump’s China policy, but with more international cooperation. For example, he highlighted the Obama administration’s choice to fly bombers in contested airspace near China to push back on Chinese territorial claims.
The two parties seem to be aligning on China, which I find worrying. I guess you don’t?
MK: Yes. Biden’s arguments on several items, including China and to some degree COVID-19, seemed to be “I will do the same things, but without the drama.”
I welcome the growing bipartisan consensus on China. This is a generational challenge, and in order for U.S. strategy to be sustainable it will need bipartisan support.
Trump also had his best line yet on Russia, saying he provided Ukraine with “tank-busters” to fight Moscow when Biden was only willing to send “pillows and sheets.” He is right about that. Critics have been so focused on Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia that they have overlooked a defense policy that has been tougher on Russia than any U.S. president since Ronald Reagan.
You know, there were events in the world last week other than last night’s debate stage. Have you been following developments in Thailand?
EA: I have! I spent quite a lot of time in Bangkok when I was younger, and I’ve been frankly amazed to see the changes over the last few years. There’s always been internal political divisions in Thailand, and protests are nothing new. But it used to be the case—under the old king’s rule—that the royal family was seen as above politics and revered by many. Even without the draconian lèse-majesté laws, few Thais would have criticized the king. The father was one of the longest-ruling monarchs in history, and he was widely loved by his citizens, to the extent that the monarchy was basically unquestioned by major protests and a coup in the mid-2000s.
But his son is very different. He’s widely viewed as corrupt, he’s on his fourth wife, plus an official concubine, and he has taken an increasingly dictatorial approach to politics. In just a few short years as king, he’s managed to drag the royal family into politics, and he’s brought Thailand to a place where there are now pro-democracy protesters who openly oppose the king’s policies. That would have been unheard of a decade ago.
MK: My knowledge of Thailand is mostly limited to the comparative strength of chicken satay offerings at D.C.-area restaurants. But I do have some thoughts about the implications for U.S. foreign policy. Thailand is a formal U.S. treaty ally—a legacy of the Cold War Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, the anti-communist Cold War alliance in Southeast Asia. And Southeast Asia will be an important region for competition with China, with Thailand’s ruling military junta moving closer to Beijing in recent years. Washington has advocated for democracy in the country, and I hope that it is able to maintain, or even strengthen, its relations with Bangkok after the dust settles.
EA: It’s a difficult spot for the U.S. government to be in—wanting Thailand to stay stable, but the government appears determined to push toward autocracy. This is the place where a coherent administration could have a quiet word with the government about its response to protests, putting the U.S. finger on the scale. Still, as we saw during the Obama administration and the Arab Spring, it doesn’t always work.
What about Nigeria? The protests in Lagos are now so big that they’ve effectively shut down the largest city in Africa.
MK: The United States isn’t the only country dealing with issues of police brutality. Nigerians have been protesting against SARS, a special Nigerian police unit.
EA: To be clear: SARS in this case is a police unit, not a coronavirus disease?
MK: That was my first thought when I saw the news as well. But it stands for the Special Anti-Robbery Squad, and its “special anti-robbery” techniques apparently include murder, rape ,and torture. After nearly two weeks of nightly protests, the Nigerian police opened fire, reportedly killing dozens of innocent protesters. The government claims that SARS will be merged into a new unit, but people are skeptical that anything will really change.
EA: It’s an interesting reminder that outside the United States—where such issues are often viewed mostly through the prism of race—there are still questions about policing and violence, even in a country like Nigeria where both the victims and perpetrators are Black. Elsewhere, age and socioeconomic status play a much bigger role, or at least a bigger role than we usually acknowledge in the United States.
In Nigeria these protests are being driven by young people; Nigeria has an average age of 18, with a huge youth bulge. That’s a trend that’s replicated all over Africa and the Middle East, and it has the potential to create unrest in the future, particularly if governments can’t create an environment that offers opportunities for these young people.
MK: Africa has never been a priority region for U.S. foreign policy, but Nigeria is important in its own right. It is the most populous country in Africa and a major oil producer.
EA: It’s not just a major oil producer, it’s one of the top oil-producing states in the world. And like a lot of petrostates, that oil production has been detrimental to Nigeria’s ability to develop economic opportunities, and to the conduct of good government.
Unfortunately, U.S. foreign policy continues to see Nigeria—and the states around it—primarily through the lens of counterterrorism. The U.S. military presence in Africa has grown substantially in recent years, and it’s all focused on militant groups like Boko Haram. But as these protests show, Africa is a vibrant, developing region, with a growing youth population and the potential for trade and diplomatic engagement. Viewing it just through the prism of terrorism is a huge mistake.
MK: Foggy Bottom is paying attention to another African country this week. Washington took Sudan off the state sponsors of terrorism list, and on Friday the White House announced it will became the latest majority-Muslim nation to normalize relations with Israel, following the example set by United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
EA: I’m going to try to put this as delicately as possible: It sometimes seems that the Trump White House is more concerned with Israeli foreign policy than with U.S. foreign policy. And I don’t mean that in the conspiracy theory sense, or the absurd anti-Semitic arguments about Israel and U.S. foreign policy. What I mean is simply that this Sudan decision is the latest in a line of decisions—from Jared Kushner’s Middle East peace plan to the Serbia-Kosovo deal (which hinged on Serbia moving its embassy to Jerusalem)—that the Trump administration has made that seem far more concerned with whether Benjamin Netanyahu is happy than with whether it’s good for U.S. foreign policy.
To be clear, the state sponsor of terrorism list is a bit of a joke. States only get placed on it if the United States doesn’t like them, and they never get placed on it—no matter how many proxy groups they fund—if they’re a U.S. partner like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. But it would have been nice to see that designation for Sudan used as a bargaining chip for something that was in U.S. interests, rather than just another attempt to force states to be nicer to Israel.
But we’re running out of time here. Let’s finish with a lightning round. What do you think of the New START treaty extension?
MK: Well, I think Middle East peace is not just good for Israel, but for Washington, and much of the rest of the world.
On New START, like with Sudan, the Trump administration is seeking another preelection diplomatic win. The reported deal would extend New START for one year in exchange for a freeze on all nuclear warheads. It is better than the alternatives. No one wants to see arms control collapse altogether, but a clean five-year extension is not in the U.S. interest either. Russia is building a new generation of nonstrategic and exotic nuclear systems not covered by New START, so the proposed way forward would freeze those systems and give Washington one year to try to negotiate a more sweeping agreement.
I’m not sure that was brief enough for a lightning round. Can you do better on Brexit?
EA: It’s a mess. Even in January, when the results of the U.S. election—and possibly the Trump presidency—have come and gone, Brexit will still be a mess. Boris Johnson’s government is fumbling badly, and a no-deal Brexit is back to being likely. I’m more concerned about the potential impact on the union. Sentiment for independence is growing where I’m from in Scotland, and there’s a strong sentiment that the Scottish government has handled COVID-19 far better than Westminster. I’m not alone among British expats in fearing that Brexit could push renewed independence sentiment, and it’s looking like that fear is well founded.
Still not brief enough. Bolivia?
MK: Bolivia just elected a socialist president in the mold of Evo Morales. Bad news for that country’s economy and for U.S. interests in Latin America.
Guinea?
EA: Deadly clashes after a contested election, and while election observers say that it was fairly conducted, the 82-year-old president is probably not actually allowed to rule for this third term under the constitution. It’s a mess.
Look, it’s hard to boil complex foreign-policy decisions down to one-liners for debate. But I still think we did a better job than Donald Trump and Joe Biden. After all, we actually talked about foreign policy in our foreign-policy debate.
MK: I agree. But I better go. The delivery guy from Mai Thai just rang the doorbell.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-23--How Chinese Americans Could Help Democrats Flip Texas

How Chinese Americans Could Help Democrats Flip Texas Chinese Americans in Texas and elsewhere have long sympathized with the Republican Party ’ s tough stance against the government in Beijing .
But many in the community are increasingly worried about Trump ’ s anti-China rhetoric—specifically his repeated references to the “ China virus ” that causes COVID-19—and the way it ’ s driving racial violence .
According to one anti-discrimination group , Asian Americans in Texas have reported in recent months being spat on , yelled at , and in one instance , nearly run over .
In March , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children in a grocery store in Midland , Texas , because “ he thought the family was Chinese , and infecting people with the coronavirus , ” according to an FBI incident report .
The incident has become symbolic of the discrimination faced by the Asian American community .
“ I know people who have bought guns , which is shocking because Asian-Americans do not have a history of purchasing guns , ” said Benjamin Chou , the director of innovation for the Harris County Clerk ’ s Office and a prominent Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said many Chinese Americans are socially conservative , but now see the anti-China backlash as a “ tangible threat.
” Gene Wu , a member of the Texas House of Representatives , said the community recognizes the threat emanating from the kind of white nationalist sentiment Trump whips up .
“ The Chinese American community isn ’ t stupid , ” said Wu .
“ They may not be in the streets protesting about it , but they know what white supremacy is .
They get that our community is not wanted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live in Texas , many of them clustered around the Houston area .
About 73 percent of Chinese Americans nationwide favored Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election , but the group does not have a strong affinity for either party , according to community leaders—giving the population group in Texas more leverage than the number might suggest in a state of some 29 million residents .
“ Because we have such large numbers of people that are still independent , there ’ s an open opportunity for either party to really reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Debbie Chen , the executive director of Houston ’ s OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates chapter .
The community is also characterized by generational divisions .
While many second-generation and younger Chinese Americans have shown sympathy for Black Lives Matter , some older immigrants who fled former Chinese leader Mao Zedong ’ s communist rule eyed the social-justice marches this year with suspicion .
“ The statues being knocked down , the riots going around in many cities , censorship on the media , far-left agenda promoted by some members of the Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the Cultural Revolution that happened in China , ” said Lily Bao , a member of the Plano City Council , in a region with one of the state ’ s highest populations of Chinese Americans .
“ And they believe President Trump is leading the country in the right direction by rejecting this ideology.
” Texas is also home to a large number of nondenominational Chinese churches whose participants tend to support positions advocated by the Republican Party—including support for Israel ’ s hard-line government and disdain for the Chinese regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Americans said in a recent poll that the issue of racism and racial discrimination was important to them .
And Asian Americans are the fastest-growing voting bloc in the United States .
All that notwithstanding , community leaders said the Democratic Party was not doing much to connect with Chinese Americans .
More than 60 percent of Chinese Americans nationwide say they have not been reached out to by either party .
In Texas , where Democrats have broken records for TV ad spending this year , the party has aired just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competitive Houston congressional race , Chou said .
“ The Democratic Party doesn ’ t talk to Chinese people , ” he said .
“ If they did , they would show up to Chinatown .
They would put paid ads into Chinese-language TV and newspapers .
”

Will Chinese American voters help turn Texas blue for the first time in a generation? Republican U.S. presidential candidates have carried the state ever since Ronald Reagan’s first bid for the White House in 1980, but polls show that the Democratic Party candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, is in a dead heat with President Donald Trump just two weeks ahead of the Nov. 3 vote.
Will Chinese American voters help turn Texas blue for the first time in a generation? Republican U.S. presidential candidates have carried the state ever since Ronald Reagan’s first bid for the White House in 1980, but polls show that the Democratic Party candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, is in a dead heat with President Donald Trump just two weeks ahead of the Nov. 3 vote.
Chinese Americans in Texas and elsewhere have long sympathized with the Republican Party’s tough stance against the government in Beijing. But many in the community are increasingly worried about Trump’s anti-China rhetoric—specifically his repeated references to the “China virus” that causes COVID-19—and the way it’s driving racial violence.
According to one anti-discrimination group, Asian Americans in Texas have reported in recent months being spat on, yelled at, and in one instance, nearly run over. In March, a man stabbed an adult and two children in a grocery store in Midland, Texas, because “he thought the family was Chinese, and infecting people with the coronavirus,” according to an FBI incident report.
The incident has become symbolic of the discrimination faced by the Asian American community.
“I know people who have bought guns, which is shocking because Asian-Americans do not have a history of purchasing guns,” said Benjamin Chou, the director of innovation for the Harris County Clerk’s Office and a prominent Chinese American leader in the state.
He said many Chinese Americans are socially conservative, but now see the anti-China backlash as a “tangible threat.”
Gene Wu, a member of the Texas House of Representatives, said the community recognizes the threat emanating from the kind of white nationalist sentiment Trump whips up.
“The Chinese American community isn’t stupid,” said Wu. “They may not be in the streets protesting about it, but they know what white supremacy is. They get that our community is not wanted by these people.”
Some 250,000 Chinese Americans live in Texas, many of them clustered around the Houston area. About 73 percent of Chinese Americans nationwide favored Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, but the group does not have a strong affinity for either party, according to community leaders—giving the population group in Texas more leverage than the number might suggest in a state of some 29 million residents.
“Because we have such large numbers of people that are still independent, there’s an open opportunity for either party to really reach out and share their message,” said Debbie Chen, the executive director of Houston’s OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates chapter.
The community is also characterized by generational divisions. While many second-generation and younger Chinese Americans have shown sympathy for Black Lives Matter, some older immigrants who fled former Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s communist rule eyed the social-justice marches this year with suspicion.
“The statues being knocked down, the riots going around in many cities, censorship on the media, far-left agenda promoted by some members of the Democratic Party, all these remind Chinese Americans about the Cultural Revolution that happened in China,” said Lily Bao, a member of the Plano City Council, in a region with one of the state’s highest populations of Chinese Americans. “And they believe President Trump is leading the country in the right direction by rejecting this ideology.”
Texas is also home to a large number of nondenominational Chinese churches whose participants tend to support positions advocated by the Republican Party—including support for Israel’s hard-line government and disdain for the Chinese regime.
Still, some 89 percent of Chinese Americans said in a recent poll that the issue of racism and racial discrimination was important to them. And Asian Americans are the fastest-growing voting bloc in the United States.
All that notwithstanding, community leaders said the Democratic Party was not doing much to connect with Chinese Americans.
More than 60 percent of Chinese Americans nationwide say they have not been reached out to by either party. In Texas, where Democrats have broken records for TV ad spending this year, the party has aired just one major Mandarin-language spot, in a competitive Houston congressional race, Chou said.
“The Democratic Party doesn’t talk to Chinese people,” he said. “If they did, they would show up to Chinatown. They would put paid ads into Chinese-language TV and newspapers.”


foreignpolicy--2020-10-23--Campaign Debates Are Democracy Theater

Campaign Debates Are Democracy Theater

The two sheets of plexiglass that stood on the stage at the vice presidential debate were , according to experts , largely useless for preventing the spread of the coronavirus within the hall .
They might have played a symbolic role in reminding us that we should participate in anti-coronavirus measures .
But in suggesting a protection they did not afford , they were a form of public health theater , analogous to the security theater of taking off our shoes at the airport : a meaningless measure for the purpose of display , not practicality .
Much like those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself was a transparent , flimsy attempt to pretend that the United States has a thoughtful , policy-based approach to choosing its leaders , a kind of democracy theater which may make Americans feel better about the electoral process , but which does little to inform our choices .
Debates come to us through a historical context that holds them up as a pinnacle of statehood and of functioning democracy .
Classical studies have held up the emphasis on rhetoric in ancient Greek democracy as a critical foundation for learned statecraft .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial in swaying other members of tiny ancient Greek city-states and carrying policy proposals .
Americans ’ insistence on public speaking as a key skill set for politicians comes from that long-ago ideal , further enshrined by the classical obsession of their more recent ideological forebears , Enlightenment scholars .
But is public speaking really so important for today ’ s politics ?
Yes , there are still speeches , and some of them may sway people .
But most legislative decisions , along with most international diplomacy , come down to negotiations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments are brought to bear they are provided in the form of policy briefs rather than oral presentation .
Some Americans might think of Congress as the site of heroic , Capraesque debates , but a few hours with C-SPAN would disabuse them of that misconception .
Debates , of course , are more than discussions of policy questions : They are part of the campaign process .
When Abraham Lincoln contested incumbent Stephen A. Douglas ’ s U.S. Senate seat for Illinois in 1858 , voters didn ’ t usually have much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interact .
( The Lincoln-Douglas debates , with their format of a 60 minute speech by one candidate , a 90 minute speech by the other , and a 30 minute rebuttal by the first were also far closer to the ancient Greek style of rhetoric than today ’ s two-minute exchanges between candidates ) .
Voters in the 19th century also had fewer opportunities to learn about the policy positions , particularly in nonwritten form .
Today , it ’ s hard to avoid seeing video images of candidates speaking , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , video , or audio with a couple of clicks .
Debates now don ’ t offer much beyond what the rest of the campaign has already given the public , either in terms of observing the candidates or of learning about their policy positions .
Even the skill they purportedly test , public speaking , is of marginal importance to today ’ s leaders—evidenced by the number of incompetent speakers in the ranks of the Capitol and working in the White House .
And yet , every cycle debates are built up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and followed closely as though they will offer the climactic reveal scene on which the whole election hangs .
True , debates supposedly offer the opportunity to see candidates thrown off their prepared speeches by a question or delivering a snappy retort .
But those circumstances are relatively rare , thanks to all-encompassing debate preparation and short , timed answers .
For such a supposedly ad hoc contest , the answers are largely scripted .
A snappy retort gets replayed in soundbites for the next week , but that ’ s hardly a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; banter is probably even less useful for successful legal wrangling than rhetoric .
And at some level voters seem to know that : Even in crowded fields , debate bumps rarely have lasting impacts .
It ’ s no secret why the United States keeps doing debates despite their relative uselessness : They make for a television event , which makes ratings , which makes money .
And the debates do concentrate interest in the electoral process .
But as democracy theater , they make voters feel like they ’ re more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they are basing their judgment of the candidates on something more substantive than what they actually have .
Like supposedly nutritious food that is actually a combination of sugar and processed carbs or so-called educational children ’ s TV that mostly teaches them about toys to want , debates are a sop that feed voters ’ complacency and let them skip more worthwhile efforts .
As such , they weaken democracy .
What should happen instead ?
Move the focus from the people to the policies .
Anything voters haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit-down interviews , impromptu questions at press conferences , town halls , and biographical articles they ’ re not going to learn during a 90-second answer at a highly controlled event .
Policy platforms , on the other hand , are complex , nuanced , and undercovered .
Take the time to dig into them .
Find ways to make them accessible—and interesting—to people without a background in the specific issue : data visualizations , real-world examples , quizzes .
Prerecord segments with people affected by the issue .
If it must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they chose a particular position , or invite on their advisors to argue with each other .
Get out of the media environment .
Over and over , we ’ ve seen well-hyped , experienced journalists completely fail to push the debates beyond soundbites and stump-speech snippets .
Those journalists have regular access to the candidates and are the same people asking them questions in formal interviews and press conferences .
Make the debates something different .
Invite subject-matter experts—academics , activists , workers in industries affected by the policy under discussion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” but not for a sop question at the end of the debate : Give them the preparation and the rules that they need to push for the information that they deserve in making choices about their government .
Fact-check properly .
Fact-checking today is an inconsistent patchwork of independent websites , half-winking asides in newspaper articles , chyron alerts , and the rare interjection by an interviewer or moderator .
Any network or university responsible for holding a debate—or campaign event of any kind—should commit to a consistent approach to fact-checking .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sources are they using ?
What will they do about claims rather than facts ?
How will the fact check be communicated ?
The debates as they stand now are billed as exciting events , but they have little impact either on the campaign or on our preparedness for voting .
It ’ s time to move from democracy theater to focusing on an informed , participatory , and engaged democracy .

The two sheets of plexiglass that stood on the stage at the vice presidential debate were, according to experts , largely useless for preventing the spread of the coronavirus within the hall. They might have played a symbolic role in reminding us that we should participate in anti-coronavirus measures. But in suggesting a protection they did not afford, they were a form of public health theater, analogous to the security theater of taking off our shoes at the airport: a meaningless measure for the purpose of display, not practicality.
The two sheets of plexiglass that stood on the stage at the vice presidential debate were, according to experts, largely useless for preventing the spread of the coronavirus within the hall. They might have played a symbolic role in reminding us that we should participate in anti-coronavirus measures. But in suggesting a protection they did not afford, they were a form of public health theater, analogous to the security theater of taking off our shoes at the airport: a meaningless measure for the purpose of display, not practicality.
Much like those two sad stand-alone oblongs, the debate itself was a transparent, flimsy attempt to pretend that the United States has a thoughtful, policy-based approach to choosing its leaders, a kind of democracy theater which may make Americans feel better about the electoral process, but which does little to inform our choices.
Debates come to us through a historical context that holds them up as a pinnacle of statehood and of functioning democracy. Classical studies have held up the emphasis on rhetoric in ancient Greek democracy as a critical foundation for learned statecraft. The ability to persuade in public discussion was crucial in swaying other members of tiny ancient Greek city-states and carrying policy proposals. Americans’ insistence on public speaking as a key skill set for politicians comes from that long-ago ideal, further enshrined by the classical obsession of their more recent ideological forebears, Enlightenment scholars.
But is public speaking really so important for today’s politics? Yes, there are still speeches, and some of them may sway people. But most legislative decisions, along with most international diplomacy, come down to negotiations and political deal-making, and where persuasive arguments are brought to bear they are provided in the form of policy briefs rather than oral presentation. Some Americans might think of Congress as the site of heroic, Capraesque debates, but a few hours with C-SPAN would disabuse them of that misconception.
Debates, of course, are more than discussions of policy questions: They are part of the campaign process. When Abraham Lincoln contested incumbent Stephen A. Douglas’s U.S. Senate seat for Illinois in 1858, voters didn’t usually have much opportunity to see their candidates speak or interact. (The Lincoln-Douglas debates, with their format of a 60 minute speech by one candidate, a 90 minute speech by the other, and a 30 minute rebuttal by the first were also far closer to the ancient Greek style of rhetoric than today’s two-minute exchanges between candidates). Voters in the 19th century also had fewer opportunities to learn about the policy positions, particularly in nonwritten form. Today, it’s hard to avoid seeing video images of candidates speaking, and voters can find their platforms in text, video, or audio with a couple of clicks.
Debates now don’t offer much beyond what the rest of the campaign has already given the public, either in terms of observing the candidates or of learning about their policy positions. Even the skill they purportedly test, public speaking, is of marginal importance to today’s leaders—evidenced by the number of incompetent speakers in the ranks of the Capitol and working in the White House. And yet, every cycle debates are built up as a critical element of the campaign and followed closely as though they will offer the climactic reveal scene on which the whole election hangs.
True, debates supposedly offer the opportunity to see candidates thrown off their prepared speeches by a question or delivering a snappy retort. But those circumstances are relatively rare, thanks to all-encompassing debate preparation and short, timed answers. For such a supposedly ad hoc contest, the answers are largely scripted. A snappy retort gets replayed in soundbites for the next week, but that’s hardly a good basis for deciding on a leader; banter is probably even less useful for successful legal wrangling than rhetoric. And at some level voters seem to know that: Even in crowded fields, debate bumps rarely have lasting impacts.
It’s no secret why the United States keeps doing debates despite their relative uselessness: They make for a television event, which makes ratings, which makes money. And the debates do concentrate interest in the electoral process. But as democracy theater, they make voters feel like they’re more engaged than they really are, and that they are basing their judgment of the candidates on something more substantive than what they actually have. Like supposedly nutritious food that is actually a combination of sugar and processed carbs or so-called educational children’s TV that mostly teaches them about toys to want, debates are a sop that feed voters’ complacency and let them skip more worthwhile efforts. As such, they weaken democracy.
What should happen instead?
Move the focus from the people to the policies. Anything voters haven’t learned about candidates through campaign videos, sit-down interviews, impromptu questions at press conferences, town halls, and biographical articles they’re not going to learn during a 90-second answer at a highly controlled event. Policy platforms, on the other hand, are complex, nuanced, and undercovered. Take the time to dig into them. Find ways to make them accessible—and interesting—to people without a background in the specific issue: data visualizations, real-world examples, quizzes. Prerecord segments with people affected by the issue. If it must be the candidates, make them explain why they chose a particular position, or invite on their advisors to argue with each other.
Get out of the media environment. Over and over, we’ve seen well-hyped, experienced journalists completely fail to push the debates beyond soundbites and stump-speech snippets. Those journalists have regular access to the candidates and are the same people asking them questions in formal interviews and press conferences. Make the debates something different. Invite subject-matter experts—academics, activists, workers in industries affected by the policy under discussion. Or bring in “ordinary citizens,” but not for a sop question at the end of the debate: Give them the preparation and the rules that they need to push for the information that they deserve in making choices about their government.
Fact-check properly. Fact-checking today is an inconsistent patchwork of independent websites, half-winking asides in newspaper articles, chyron alerts, and the rare interjection by an interviewer or moderator. Any network or university responsible for holding a debate—or campaign event of any kind—should commit to a consistent approach to fact-checking. Who will be doing it? What sources are they using? What will they do about claims rather than facts? How will the fact check be communicated?
The debates as they stand now are billed as exciting events, but they have little impact either on the campaign or on our preparedness for voting. It’s time to move from democracy theater to focusing on an informed, participatory, and engaged democracy.


foreignpolicy--2020-10-23--How a Biden Presidency Could Hurt Netanyahu—and Help Him

How a Biden Presidency Could Hurt Netanyahu—and Help Him TEL AVIV , Israel—If Joe Biden wins the White House next month , as the polls predict , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a lot to lose .
But he could also have something to gain .
No world leader has benefited more than Netanyahu from the presidency of Donald Trump , who abandoned Barack Obama ’ s nuclear deal with Iran , moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem , and helped Israel normalize ties with two Gulf Arab nations—policies that bolstered the Israeli right .
The White House announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Sudan , would also forge diplomatic relations with Israel , though the details remained scant .
Biden , by contrast , will look for ways to reengage with Iran on nuclear issues and restore Washington ’ s bilateral ties with the Palestinian Liberation Organization that Trump downgraded .
His administration would likely be populated by policymakers from the Obama era who still begrudge Netanyahu ’ s incursions into U.S. domestic politics .
The result could be a kind of simmering tension between Israel and the United States reminiscent of the Obama years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as having to play defense .
And now with the Trump administration , he could go on offense , ” reshaping the parameters of the conflict with Iran and the Palestinians , said Dan Rothem , a Tel Aviv-based analyst who served as an advisor to former Israeli President Shimon Peres .
“ With a Biden administration , he ’ ll have to go back on defense.
” The tensions won ’ t necessarily flare immediately .
Biden has long-standing ties to Israel dating back to a meeting with then-Prime Minister Golda Meir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will take months to get going in earnest and will be complicated by the events that transpired since Trump abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in 2018 .
The United States has imposed painful economic sanctions on Iran , and Tehran has resumed uranium enrichment in violation of the original agreement—a multilateral deal that barred Iran from building a nuclear weapon for 15 years .
Mistrust of Washington in Iran has only deepened .
Moreover , Biden won ’ t seek to simply revive the nuclear agreement , which was criticized by Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” A former U.S. foreign-policy official advising the Biden campaign said returning to the pact will be a “ way station ” on the path to a longer-term nuclear agreement that is stricter and covers a broader swath of issues .
Biden would seek to include limitations on Iran ’ s ballistic missile program in a new deal and address Tehran ’ s regional involvement in Lebanon and Syria .
Achieving that , analysts say , will require diplomatic finesse .
“ [ Biden ] speaks of his desire to return to [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not very clear how he is going to do that , ” said Raz Zimmt , a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University .
“ There are many obstacles to going back .
As long as we don ’ t see concrete negotiations between Iran and the U.S. , Israel will be more cautious in its response.
” Indeed , any sign of U.S. concessions to Iran or easing up on sanctions to return to negotiations is likely to rankle Netanyahu and leave Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whether under Netanyahu or the [ parliamentary ] opposition , is going to be out of step with the U.S. [ under Biden ] , ” said Meir Javedanfar , an expert on Iran who teaches at Israel ’ s Interdisciplinary Center .
“ Israel wants the sanctions to continue .
This means that Israel will be alone in having to deal with the threats posed by Iran in Syria and Lebanon , as well as the threats posed by the Iranian missile program.
” Still , a clash with Washington might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help could him deflect attention from his corruption trials and his political woes , and prompt Israelis to rally around him .
During the Obama years , Netanyahu preached to the international community against Iran with ideological zeal , likening Tehran to Nazi Germany .
While that ran up against Obama ’ s pragmatic approach to the region , it helped galvanize Netanyahu ’ s base and power him to successive election victories .
A resumption of tensions with United States would allow Netanyahu to portray himself as the only Israeli politician with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress , the American Israel Public Affairs Committee , and pro-Israel evangelical Christians—required to fight a new deal .
Daniel Ayalon , a former Israeli ambassador to the United States , said Netanyahu would do well to initiate a “ heart to heart ” with a Biden administration and seek common ground on Iran rather than whip up U.S. domestic political opposition regarding Iran .
“ I was always against trying to walk this fine line between the administration and Congress .
Policy decisions are made by the administration , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensuring bipartisan support in Congress.
” While diplomacy with Iran takes months to evolve , Israel and the United States are liable to clash much sooner on policy toward the Palestinians .
The Trump administration pandered to Netanyahu by crafting a lopsided proposal for peace with the Palestinians , naming a benefactor of Jewish West Bank settlements as its ambassador to Israel , and taking other steps to diminish the prospects of Palestinian statehood .
Biden is not expected to immediately renew a push for a comprehensive peace agreement that Obama pursued or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he won ’ t reverse Trump ’ s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem .
But he is expected to revisit Trump ’ s decision to downgrade ties with the Palestinians .
Trump has cut U.S. aid to the Palestinian government , defunded the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees , closed the Palestine Liberation Organization ’ s embassy in Washington , and eliminated the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem , which served as a separate diplomatic mission for the Palestinians .
“ It ’ s the small things that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ravid , a diplomatic reporter for Walla !
News .
Ravid said that a Biden administration would push back if Israel announced massive plans for settlement expansion or imperiled the stability of the Palestinian Authority .
Fantasies of the Israeli right of annexing swaths of the West Bank , which seemed about to come true when Trump unveiled his peace plan earlier this year , will surely come off the table .
“ Bibi will have to go through detox from his addiction to Trump .
It made him into a Superman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he ’ s like an athlete who stopped taking steroids and needs to do a sprint in his real capacity .
Even the most moderate people around Biden can ’ t stand Netanyahu.
” Ksenia Svetlova , a former Israeli parliament member from the Labor party who is a fellow at the Mitvim Institute , said both Trump and Obama , in their own separate ways , broke accepted conventions toward Israel in Middle East policymaking .
And while Biden represents more business as usual , it will still require Netanyahu to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
“ It ’ s not going to be easy , especially after you get accustomed to working with a president who answers your every heart ’ s desire .
Every possible dream and idea that Netanyahu had about the Middle East seemed possible for him .
Now there will be a lot of suspicion , ” she said .

TEL AVIV, Israel—If Joe Biden wins the White House next month, as the polls predict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a lot to lose.
TEL AVIV, Israel—If Joe Biden wins the White House next month, as the polls predict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a lot to lose.
But he could also have something to gain.
No world leader has benefited more than Netanyahu from the presidency of Donald Trump, who abandoned Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and helped Israel normalize ties with two Gulf Arab nations—policies that bolstered the Israeli right.
The White House announced on Friday that a third Arab country, Sudan, would also forge diplomatic relations with Israel, though the details remained scant.
Biden, by contrast, will look for ways to reengage with Iran on nuclear issues and restore Washington’s bilateral ties with the Palestinian Liberation Organization that Trump downgraded. His administration would likely be populated by policymakers from the Obama era who still begrudge Netanyahu’s incursions into U.S. domestic politics. The result could be a kind of simmering tension between Israel and the United States reminiscent of the Obama years.
“Netanyahu described the Obama years as having to play defense. And now with the Trump administration, he could go on offense,” reshaping the parameters of the conflict with Iran and the Palestinians, said Dan Rothem, a Tel Aviv-based analyst who served as an advisor to former Israeli President Shimon Peres. “With a Biden administration, he’ll have to go back on defense.”
The tensions won’t necessarily flare immediately. Biden has long-standing ties to Israel dating back to a meeting with then-Prime Minister Golda Meir in 1973. Any negotiation with Iran will take months to get going in earnest and will be complicated by the events that transpired since Trump abandoned the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in 2018.
The United States has imposed painful economic sanctions on Iran, and Tehran has resumed uranium enrichment in violation of the original agreement—a multilateral deal that barred Iran from building a nuclear weapon for 15 years. Mistrust of Washington in Iran has only deepened.
Moreover, Biden won’t seek to simply revive the nuclear agreement, which was criticized by Republicans and Israel as a “bad deal.” A former U.S. foreign-policy official advising the Biden campaign said returning to the pact will be a “way station” on the path to a longer-term nuclear agreement that is stricter and covers a broader swath of issues. Biden would seek to include limitations on Iran’s ballistic missile program in a new deal and address Tehran’s regional involvement in Lebanon and Syria.
Achieving that, analysts say, will require diplomatic finesse.
“[Biden] speaks of his desire to return to [the nuclear deal], but it’s not very clear how he is going to do that,” said Raz Zimmt, a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. “There are many obstacles to going back. As long as we don’t see concrete negotiations between Iran and the U.S., Israel will be more cautious in its response.”
Indeed, any sign of U.S. concessions to Iran or easing up on sanctions to return to negotiations is likely to rankle Netanyahu and leave Israel more isolated.
“Any Israeli government, whether under Netanyahu or the [parliamentary] opposition, is going to be out of step with the U.S. [under Biden],” said Meir Javedanfar, an expert on Iran who teaches at Israel’s Interdisciplinary Center. “Israel wants the sanctions to continue. This means that Israel will be alone in having to deal with the threats posed by Iran in Syria and Lebanon, as well as the threats posed by the Iranian missile program.”
Still, a clash with Washington might offer benefits for Netanyahu: It could help could him deflect attention from his corruption trials and his political woes, and prompt Israelis to rally around him.
During the Obama years, Netanyahu preached to the international community against Iran with ideological zeal, likening Tehran to Nazi Germany. While that ran up against Obama’s pragmatic approach to the region, it helped galvanize Netanyahu’s base and power him to successive election victories.
A resumption of tensions with United States would allow Netanyahu to portray himself as the only Israeli politician with the kind of relationships in Washington—with Republicans in Congress, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and pro-Israel evangelical Christians—required to fight a new deal.
Daniel Ayalon, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, said Netanyahu would do well to initiate a “heart to heart” with a Biden administration and seek common ground on Iran rather than whip up U.S. domestic political opposition regarding Iran.
“I was always against trying to walk this fine line between the administration and Congress. Policy decisions are made by the administration,” he said. “The holy grail is ensuring bipartisan support in Congress.”
While diplomacy with Iran takes months to evolve, Israel and the United States are liable to clash much sooner on policy toward the Palestinians.
The Trump administration pandered to Netanyahu by crafting a lopsided proposal for peace with the Palestinians, naming a benefactor of Jewish West Bank settlements as its ambassador to Israel, and taking other steps to diminish the prospects of Palestinian statehood.
Biden is not expected to immediately renew a push for a comprehensive peace agreement that Obama pursued or demand a settlement freeze. He has said he won’t reverse Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
But he is expected to revisit Trump’s decision to downgrade ties with the Palestinians. Trump has cut U.S. aid to the Palestinian government, defunded the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, closed the Palestine Liberation Organization’s embassy in Washington, and eliminated the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem, which served as a separate diplomatic mission for the Palestinians.
“It’s the small things that can create huge tension,” said Barak Ravid, a diplomatic reporter for Walla! News.
Ravid said that a Biden administration would push back if Israel announced massive plans for settlement expansion or imperiled the stability of the Palestinian Authority. Fantasies of the Israeli right of annexing swaths of the West Bank, which seemed about to come true when Trump unveiled his peace plan earlier this year, will surely come off the table.
“Bibi will have to go through detox from his addiction to Trump. It made him into a Superman,” Ravid said. “Without Trump, he’s like an athlete who stopped taking steroids and needs to do a sprint in his real capacity. Even the most moderate people around Biden can’t stand Netanyahu.”
Ksenia Svetlova, a former Israeli parliament member from the Labor party who is a fellow at the Mitvim Institute, said both Trump and Obama, in their own separate ways, broke accepted conventions toward Israel in Middle East policymaking. And while Biden represents more business as usual, it will still require Netanyahu to chart a new course with the United States.
“It’s not going to be easy, especially after you get accustomed to working with a president who answers your every heart’s desire. Every possible dream and idea that Netanyahu had about the Middle East seemed possible for him. Now there will be a lot of suspicion,” she said.