The United States is in better shape than one might think for the short term and maybe even the long term for at least three reasons. One, the astonishing, hard-won victory of the Democrats in Georgia, which is a signal for the ‘centrist’ Republicans—there are perhaps more of them than one thinks or at least several are recasting themselves as such—as well as for the Democratic Party, that it is necessary to go back to political programs—the Republican Party had not even bothered to offer one for the November 2020 elections—and collaborate on certain issues rather than wage an all-out war that started long ago with Newt Gingrich. Two, the election of Biden and the putative composition of his cabinet, which seems very professional, measured, centrist, and experienced. All the capitalist institutions are of necessity behind the new government, given the events. And finally the failure of the insurrection of Wednesday, after which a Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley of the senate, as well as a hundred plus representatives of the chamber, still felt constrained to repeat Trump’s lie and place their bets as his demagogue heirs for 2022 and especially 2024.

I was personally afraid of seeing this demagoguery succeed, because we cannot hide the fact that the labor, health, financial, and economic situation of the states and the country, despite the present possibility of borrowing at very low interest, is causing great misery. Greater difficulties may follow. It would not be surprising to see the Republicans play this old card of capitalist redistribution and quickly rebuild their reputation: less taxes and above all less social programs, no matter the consequences of the pandemic, while stoking anger, radical mistrust, and division to mask their support of economic and social division. Prior to Wednesday’s events, I thought that Trump’s haphazard demagoguery was a logical step in sync with the consequences of vast economic disparities. I thought that it would lead to worse demagogues like Cruz and Hawley, who would be far more calculating, organized, and dangerous than Trump himself. Now I think that these cynical demagogues have erred in judgment by betting on Trump. But the poisonous lie that they glibly repeat regarding the fraudulence of all elections has taken a life of its own and will live on, whether there is a Trump in the background or not. The coming weeks will tell us if the Republican Party will stop to think about its choices and anchor itself in a traditional right rather than marking time and eventually continuing its march towards fascism.

In yesterday’s NYT, T. Friedman gave a wrong-headed analysis of the situation in the Persian Gulf and what Biden should try to do now that he is boxed in by the attack in Iran three days ago. His advice is that one should recognize how significantly the Middle-East is changing because the US have become the top world producer—fourth exporter, however, far behind Saudi Arabia—and this has led to a new alliance against Iran by Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia (mezzo voce). This fundamental fact should be recognized in new negotiations. Not a word about Palestine or about the history of the Persian Gulf and Iran, most importantly. According to him, the negotiations should not center on the past nuclear agreement but on a second reality-changing fact, namely that Iran has been manufacturing and using dangerously sophisticated missiles, as shown for instance by an attack in September 2019 on the Abqaiq refinery (by Iran or the Houthis?), and selling them to its proxies (Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis). Not a word about the continued presence of overpowering US forces in the Persian Gulf. And even less on the sale of US sophisticated weaponry to the UAE, SA, Israel, and others.

Very bad news today: the assassination of Iran’s head of nuclear research, Dr. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, by an armed group of at least five to six people who were clearly very prepared and had complex support. How did they put a pickup truck full of explosives on the road this scientist was supposed to take, have a car full of armed operatives right near, and then manage to disappear?

The most worrying aspect is the date chosen for an attack whose objective appears to be—on the most irenic reading of it—to prevent a return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in 2015. In fact, I don’t think it simply makes the declared task of the president-elect—rejoin or renegotiate the JCPA—much harder or rather impossible. It goes much further, into uncharted territory. The murders of two weeks ago (by Israel?) and the prior assassination of Qasem Soleimani by US forces, make it more likely now that Trump’s electoral goals and the military designs of those who use him (the present government of Israel and Pompeo, I imagine) have become one single end, just when US election laws and courts left no hope to Trumpists. It looks like the circumstances—new right-wing personnel in the Defense Department and reluctance by this outgoing administration to inform Biden’s team—are ripe for war, whether Iran retaliates or not.

The Associated Press published the election results. Here are the details, plus some calculations I did to see by what margins Biden won battleground states.

1. Very clear popular vote (plurality) for the presidency: 75,215,431M (50.6%) for Biden, 70,812,515M (47.7%) for Trump. Difference: 4,402,916 votes out of 146M. The count is not finished and the recounts will need to be taken into consideration. I am quoting here the results given by the AP at 10:00 am PST.
2. Translation of these results in electoral college slices: 290 voters for Biden, 214 for Trump. The total is 538, the absolute majority 270.
3. For battleground states, the figures are:
   

   States	Electoral college	Margin (Biden)	total votes	Comment
   Michigan	16	146 123	5.4M	clear
   Wisconsin	10	20 540	3.24M	narrow
   Georgia	16	10 195	4.9M	narrow
   Arizona	11	18 610	3.2M	narrow
   Pennsylvania	20	41 223	6,6M	narrow

4. Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Iowa, were clearly for Trump. Remember that Biden’s margins in disputed states are much larger than Trump’s in 2016.
5. For the Senate, no democratic blue tsunami but a nail biter: 46 Democrats, 2 independents (who will have a lot of power, practically), two seats in Georgia that will be disputed in January, against 50 Republicans (including 2 who are in the process of being confirmed in North Carolina and Alaska). Even if two Democrats are elected in Georgia, no major decision can be made by majority without calling for a vote by the vice-president. Tensions will be very strong as soon as the new government is put in place.

Results, from my point of view: the constitutional checks and balances of the electoral college and the senate continue to play their basic, anti-democratic role, seventy-five years after the second world war. This role is to protect the institutions of the republic but also to ensure that the accumulation of all created wealth goes to a narrowly defined minority — certainly capable and merit-driven but including many who inherit culture and power—, rather than to the whole society. The existence of the electoral college and the choice of two senators per state — be it Alaska (pop .: 731,000) or California (pop .: 39.5M) — are awful brakes on democratic decision-making. Nothing solid can be done without the Senate, for example, when more than 40M citizens are not represented there. This is in addition to the over-representation of the conservative right in a majority of states (governors, local senates, and chambers of deputies). This over-representation is the result of political divisions that the Republican Party has encouraged since at least Nixon, say the 1970s. Cultural and moral war (religion and abortion), as well as immigration and latent racism, have served as a cover for anti-social programs that are much more costly for society and eventually for those who vote on the right: lower taxes on profits and increased inequalities, very conservative internal and foreign security policy, budgetary restrictions aimed at destroying social security (pensions) and Medicare / Medicaid, impossibility of setting up a universal health program.

Given the structure of the American republic and the economic, social, cultural, and moral divisions that exist, what can Biden, the Democratic House, and a divided Senate do?

Let’s think of the possibilities, let’s dream. Fortunately, certain elements of the economy are favorable. Public treasuries can borrow huge sums at very low cost. At least that’s what we’re told. So Biden may well be able to fund both the jobless created by the pandemic and his climate and job creation program. Perhaps some of the GOP representatives would join him in this. There may also be a real effort on labor laws (maternity or paternity leave, sick leave, and most importantly, a decent minimum wage): I very much doubt it, however, when we see that the deceptive ideology of the “independent contractor” continues to wreak havoc in California (I am thinking of Uber and Proposition 22, which passed easily). What about a universal health program, or at least one with a public option? Perhaps the loss of insurance due to the pandemic will make many rethink their opposition to Medicare for all. Further: can one have more regulation of deposit banks and big investment banks? I don’t believe it will happen either, although there certainly might be one or more study committees … Next, eliminate the taxation law passed in 2017 and so disadvantageous in the long run to the vast majority of Americans? I don’t think it can even be seriously discussed, because the opposition will be too strong. As for foreign policy, there are lots of positive: support of NATO, reintegration into the World Health Organization, rejoining the Paris climate accord, perhaps also the resumption of negotiations on the Pacific treaty (strategy of “Containment” of China, but too late perhaps? The horse bolted out of the barn…). As for Iran, let’s hope Biden will be loyal to Obama’s plan and will work with Europeans, Russia, and China, on reintegrating Iran in the global economy. The opposition of Israel’s present government and the two parties will be very strong, however. Biden himself felt compelled to approve of the “treaties” made between the emirates and Israel, and didn’t say a word, as far as I know, about the complete lack of quid pro quo …

A few comments on this Amichai poem, part 5 of Jerusalem 1967 (below the translation).

Translation slightly different from that of Stephen Mitchell:

On Yom Kippur in 1967, I put on
my dark holiday clothes and walked to the Old City in Jerusalem.
For a long time I stood in front of an Arab’s cave-like shop,
not far from Damascus Gate, a shop with
buttons and zippers and spools of thread
in every color and snaps and buckles.
A precious light and many colors, like an open ark.

I told him silently that my father too
had a shop like this, with thread and buttons.
I explained to him silently about all the decades
and the causes and the events, why I am now here
and my father’s shop was burned there and he is buried here.

When I finished, it was time for closing.
He too lowered the shutter and locked the gate
and I returned home with all the worshippers.

My few notes on this poem, verse by verse: the date in the first verse (1967) reminds me of my daily walks from the Collège des Frères to the École Biblique, via Damascus Gate. Sometimes four times a day, between August 1966 and June 1968. There were people selling vegetables, bread, drink, haberdashery. A dense and jostling crowd came from the Gate on their way to the Holy Sepulchre or the Western Wall, or emerged from the two large shuqs where they had shopped for food or clothing. I didn’t stop to contemplate the goods of any seller, especially since I had been warned not to do that. I don’t think that the Jaffa Gate was yet open and allowed orthodox Jews and Christian pilgrims to go directly to the Western Wall. So, visitors usually came to the Old City via Damascus Gate. Gone was the tall cement wall and the no man’s land that ran along the Old City’s northern wall and that separated Jordan from Israel since 1948. That Yom Kippur was on Saturday, October 14, 1967, about four months after the Israeli victory in June and the immediate taking over of Arab Jerusalem as part of Israel. The initial shock of the loss and victory was beginning to wane.

1967–68 corresponds to תשכח in Hebrew, which can be vocalized to mean: “Forget,” or as Stephen Mitchell translates, “the year of forgetting?” The poet puts on his dark holiday clothes, though on Yom Kippur, it is an old custom to wear white. Dark clothing, as in a scene of mourning or rather because of the all-around sadness of the situation? The Arab’s shop becomes the ark in the temple, or rather the souvenir of this long-disappeared ark. A heavy curtain, the parokhet, separated the hekhal (sanctuary) from the holy of holies, where this ark rested and the divine presence was expected to abide. This parokhet was embroidered in threads of all kinds and must have been an extraordinary sight, if the book of Exodus and Josephus’ accounts are to be believed. The liturgy’s or poem’s ark and the temple extend to an Arab’s shop and the souvenir of the poet’s father’s livelihood.

The poet stands and later gives in petto explanations, as in the Amidah prayer, recited standing and silently, three times a day in synagogues, but five times on the day of atonement. Can peace arise between the two displaced peoples, without a house they can call home, caught in a concatenation of endless events?

Closing time and locking of the gate(s), late in the day. Closing is the name of a special ceremony of closure at the temple when the amidah, the prayer of repentance, was recited, silently again, for the fifth time. Closure: messianic solutions to historical conflicts are for dreamers. After closing, it is time for all the praying masses to go home to their mini-temples, in peace for now, neither in triumph nor in shame.

Last night, the Washington pharaoh read re-purposed hieroglyphs from teleprompters. Like kings of old, he wrapped his prosthetic iron hand in velvety empathy. The sun god once more guaranteed order. His family and fly-swatting servants reminded everyone that he has been showering us with infinite blessings such as our beyond-belief response to plagues. Everything is great! If only our brick-making people were content to eat onions in their gilded cages and stopped dreaming of a trustworthy foreign god in the Sinai desert.

Palestinians were sold out by a coalition of billionaires: the Trumps and Kushners for the USA, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia—though silently so far for the latter. The quid pro quo was Netanyahu’s promise that the noises he had been making regarding the annexation of part of the West Bank would die down for a while. It is a win-win-win for the UAE, SA, and Israel. Also a win for China’s long game, and a draw so far for Iran. It will lead to the further development of military ties, energy investments, technological amd cultural exchanges. With so many winners, what could go wrong?

Why did this occur right now? The most obvious reason—the November elections in the USA—is the most superficial part of this shadow theater, as the UAE and SA have to plan for either a victory of the Trumps or the Biden-Harris ticket. The normalization of the relationship with Israel, a long-sought goal by the latter, will indeed be celebrated by either US party, and certainly by the democratic party on the whole. Biden hailed it as a “historic step.”

The less obvious and more weighty reason has to do with the new role of China in regard to Iran and Saudi Arabia. In recent developments, China has been signing not only long-term contracts in energy and technology with Iran but proposing investments in atomic energy to Saudi Arabia, Iran’s declared enemy. China has much to win in risking new relationships in the Persian Gulf, and not much to lose. The USA is retreating in diplomatic terms if not in military posture. Its own global dominance over the oil business and lesser need for the Gulf oil is not the only reason for its retreat, however.

Iran is likely to benefit from China’s involvement. It may suffer little in the long term from the alliance of the UAE and Saudi Arabia with Israel. Iraq, Syria, southern Lebanon, Hamas, Houthis, are not likely to follow the emirates and the Saudis. The larger question is that of China’s goals in the area. The fact that they engaged both Iran and Saudi Arabia very recently shows that they are willing to keep these new allies in an unstable equilibrium and to take advantage of the US mistakes. Their military development, however, and especially that of their navy and air force, is not yet very far ahead. Even Israel may be of interest for them in this respect. As many observers have been saying (in Haarets and other publications), Israel may soon have to choose between the USA and China.

Trump is keen to get the votes of as many Jews and Christian evangelicals as possible. This may be one reason for announcing the successful negotiation of a diplomatic arrangement between the United Arab Emirates and Israel. There are plenty of other reasons. Commercial, technological, military, cultural, and diplomatic ties are to open between the two states, provided that Israel promises, for now, not to annex the Palestinian territories. This is likely to be an empty promise, as the right in Israel will keep the pressure on Netanyahu to annex a large part of the West Bank, while the center or the left will not reward him with any support. It looks like a sellout of Palestinian aspirations for great financial gains. And finally, there is another, more global reason, having to do with the realignments of the global capitalist scene. It is an insurance policy by the UAE and Saudi Arabia (silently) in case either Trump or Biden wins in November, as well as a tightening of close ties by the US, UAE, and SA, as China and Iran (perhaps also Qatar, which shares large natural gas resources with Iran), and China and SA (atomic energy), are doing their own long-term deals. Biden would play along and has already hailed the arrangement. Israel may have to choose between China and the US sooner than later.

My present hope, in the wake of the democratic party’s and Biden’s choice of Kamala Harris as co-runner, is that more Black women and independents or disaffected Republicans will vote for the democratic ticket. I don’t think that the young will be moved to vote in greater numbers. This conservative ticket, however, makes it possible now to achieve a majority in the senate. Harris will be replaced by another democratic senator in California, which is an addition. A democratic majority in the house and the senate will encourage this center-right president to aim bigger than thought possible and pursue more progressive and smarter policies in health care (a public option for instance), in education (debt reduction?), family support, banking regulations, industrial policies, labor protection, international cooperation, and climate change.

While we sit on a still deck,
tethered to the house,
tree fronds around us rustle
at the slightest breeze.
We trust in joists, planking, paneling,
cut years ago from rooted, swaying, living trees.
We keep pulling up stakes
to seek food and companions, shelter and home.
Yet our roofs, fields, and shops
turn into hard-edged shells, till the next big storm
draws soft skins from below the nacre.
We sing, teach, paint, cook, knit, write, and dance,
at the most imperceptible move of the spirit.