Meir Jolovitz

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.” – John F. Kennedy

There is extant a fundamental misunderstanding of one specific aspect of the November 2024 US presidential elections which has led, inevitably and invariably, to a misbegotten understanding of the Biden/Blinken foreign policy calculations in dealing with the post-October 7 Middle East.

It’s all about Michigan, we are told.

It is not.

Any student of a Logic 101 course at any university – perhaps even at Harvard, despite it have suffered a terrible blow to its cachet as the epicenter of scholarship – will understand the following: if the premise is wrong, there is a great certainty that the conclusion that follows might indeed be wrong as well. The percentages tell us as much. That’s the way logic works.

Well, to argue that the vote in Michigan – as it affects the 2024 election – is a pivotal reason that the progressive Left has seduced, deceived, and pressured the Biden Administration to abandon Israel in its effort to properly prosecute the war in Gaza is foolishly wrong. And it can be very easily exposed, despite the fact that virtually every political commentator, and no fewer voices throughout the media – both liberal and conservative – have taken the bait. A ubiquitous chorus of punditry.

It’s all about Michigan, we are told.

And they are wrong.

Everyone has been bamboozled by a spurious argument, and it is rather remarkable that it hasn’t been exposed.

As proof of this fear that Michigan – which is accurately seen as one of the important votes that will determine who occupies the White House on January 20, 2025, and axiomatically the direction of American foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel – the so-called experts cite the Leftist protest vote against Joe Biden in the Michigan Democratic Primary on February 27, 2024. The primaries (!), mind you.

As a demonstration of their displeasure with the Biden Administration’s handling of the war in Gaza – under the very mistaken belief that it was decidedly pro-Israel (a nonsensical misreading of the realities that suggested exactly the opposite), there was a well-coordinated and well-financed campaign to vote “uncommitted” – an option available to the voters. And the anti-Israel lobby exercised it most effectively. Over 100,000 voted their protest – a staggering 13% of the vote – enough to make Joe Biden’s knees buckle. And enough, every pundit understood, to drive the Blinken/Biden foreign policy (that is the proper pecking order) to pressure, and then threaten Israel.

The Left had joined the large Arab population of Michigan in a hyperactive drive to influence American foreign policy by promising to influence the election. If you don’t compel Israel to abort its assault on Gaza, the argument was crafted to suggest, we will not vote for Biden, in the general elections. And if Biden doesn’t win Michigan, Trump very likely might become president again.

That was a fraudulent lie. A manufactured myth. A transparent poker hand that everyone has chosen to ignore. Willful blindness. Or just an amateurish reading of political realities. Lacking the intellectual horsepower, the political analysts have failed to grasp that if the premise was disingenuous, the conclusion was therefore not logical.

Let’s look at the facts.

Fact: The state of Michigan has 16 electoral votes and is considered, axiomatically, one of the important battleground states. To win the 2024 presidential election, Michigan is central. Even critical.

Fact: In the 2020 Presidential elections, Joe Biden had 2,804,040 votes (50.6%); Donald Trump had 2,649,852 (47.8%). The margin was 154,188. There were nearly 85,000 votes cast for third parties.

Fact: There are 200,000 registered Muslim voters in Michigan. There are 300,000 whose ancestry is either Middle East or North Africa. Significant numbers – enough to determine a final count in a close election.

The Democrats consider Michigan absolutely pivotal to victory in 2024. They are convinced, given the polls of the past few months – where Trump is leading by a few percentage points – that they must do anything – everything! – to ensure a win in Michigan. Yes, even alienate the Jewish vote which traditionally votes 70 percent for the Democratic candidate. No matter what is happening in the Middle East, the sun rises in the East. Jews vote Democrat.

Therefore, they cleverly surmised – they have threatened not to vote for Biden if he continues to support (sic) Israel. And his knees, and those of his puppeteers who control his every move, have buckled.

Because no one dared to suggest that the emperor has no clothes.

So, let’s offer the last and most important fact: If the Democrats, including 100 percent of the Arabs of Dearborn, Michigan – where one finds as many signs in Arabic as there are in English – carry out their duplicitous threat not to vote for Biden, then Trump wins. Handily. If they opt to vote for one of the other, third-party candidates – either Robert Kennedy Jr, Jill Stein, or Cornel West – then Trump wins. Handily. Or, if they choose to sit out the election, as some have threatened to do – then Trump wins. Handily.

Those are the premises. So, let’s draw the proper conclusion.

It’s November 5, 2024. You are a progressive Democrat, angry at Joe Biden. You are a Muslim, angry at Joe Biden. You hate Israel. You support Gaza. Who do you vote for?

You vote for Joe Biden. Because you hate Israel. It’s really that simple, and no one seems to get it.

Laurence J. Peter, author of The Peter Principle, wrote: “Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” One might more properly ask: “Sometimes we wonder whether the Democratic Party in Michigan is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who relay mean it.” We believe the former.

There is another side to this coin, not lost on those willing to look. Few do.

That one should not conclude that the Biden foreign policy team was railroaded into its growing antipathy towards the Jewish State, one more important fact needs to be stated. The anti-Israel hostility is evidenced by something much greater than its pressure against Israel because of the myth of the Michigan vote – with the demands of a humanitarian pause, a lengthy cease-fire as a prelude to a complete cessation of military action against Hamas, and the ultimate trump card (note the lower-case t).

It’s all about that Holy Grail by which the Biden/Blinken/Sullivan/Austin/Power/Amr foreign policy hopes to memorialize its legacy. A 2-State solution.

The Hamas (read: Iranian) invasion of Israel on October 7 and the subsequent months of an Israeli response that has been hampered by an American stick in the wheels of the Israeli military spokes have brought the United States one step closer – where it always wanted to be – to former Undersecretary of State George Ball’s preferred American Middle East policy (April 1977): Saving Israel in spite of herself.

That is the greatest danger of all. It is why the progressive voters of Michigan will indeed vote for Joe Biden (or whomever the Democrats might wish to replace him with as we near November 2024).

Meir Jolovitz is a past national executive director of the Zionist Organization of America, and formerly associated with the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.

Disruption and Discourse: The Counterproductive Tactics of Anti-Israel Protests

In recent weeks, a series of high-profile anti-Israel protests across the United States, including at key transport hubs and public spaces, has sparked intense debate and frustration among the public. The activists’ choice of tactics—interrupting a dean’s dinner at the University of California, Berkeley, blocking major bridges, and shutting down bustling transit stations such as Penn Station and Grand Central—has thrust them into the spotlight, not for the merits of their message but for the chaos they’ve engendered.

These disruptions, intended to draw attention to the protesters’ stance against Israel, instead highlight a profound disconnect between their methods and the public’s reception of their cause. An angry motorist’s reaction on the Golden Gate Bridge encapsulates this disconnect: “Do you think I care?” This rhetorical question, posed amidst a traffic snarl caused by the protest, calls attention to the broader societal frustration with tactics perceived as extreme or unreasonably inconvenient.

Public opinion data corroborates the sentiment of broad disapproval. According to the Pew Research Center, a mere 22% of Americans view Hamas’ reasons for fighting Israel as valid, and only 5% find the Iran-funded group’s violent actions on October 7 “acceptable.” This stark disconnect is indicative of a significant alignment with Israel’s right to defend itself against the most egregious forms of terrorism.

The strategic missteps of the protesters are manifold. First, by choosing disruption over dialogue, activists alienate those who might otherwise be open to a reasoned discussion about the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Effective protest—aimed at winning hearts and minds rather than merely capturing attention—requires a connection to the audience’s values and daily realities. Disrupting people’s lives, especially in a manner that evokes feelings of frustration or anger, is unlikely to foster openness or sympathy.

Moreover, branding such protests with a broad anti-Israel message can be particularly divisive. This approach often oversimplifies a complex conflict and might unintentionally align the protesters with elements that the majority of Americans find reprehensible, such as the actions of Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.

The recent surge of anti-Israel protests has brought not only disruption but a troubling echo of anti-American sentiment, as evidenced by the chilling chants of “Death to America,” alongside “Death to Israel,” heard in the streets of Chicago. This rhetoric, coupled with the deliberate obstruction of daily life through the blockading of bridges and major thoroughfares, starkly contrasts with the values of dialogue and peaceful protest foundational to American democracy. As such, it is becoming increasingly clear that a firm response is required to uphold public order and safeguard the rights of all citizens to navigate their lives without undue interference.

In cities such as San Francisco and New York, responses to these disruptions have been markedly lenient—a decision that may embolden further chaos. For instance, after the arrest of 80 protesters who obstructed the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, a mere promise to perform five hours of community service was deemed sufficient penalty. This soft approach does little to deter future disruptions, thereby failing the wider community that suffers the consequences of such actions.

Contrast this with the approach taken in Florida, particularly in Miami-Dade County, where protesters blocking major routes such as Biscayne Boulevard face serious legal consequences, including potential jail time. This stronger enforcement reflects a commitment to maintaining public order and protecting the rights of the majority from being held hostage to the whims of a disruptive few. It is a stance that other municipalities could well consider emulating, particularly those that have seen repeated disruptions.

The principle at stake here is the balance between the right to protest and the rights of individuals to carry out their daily activities without disruption. Protest, an essential part of democratic expression, must not trample on the rights of others. The chants advocating death to America and Israel, expressed in the heart of American cities, exacerbate this balance, pushing the activities of these groups from legitimate protest to potentially seditious behavior that undermines national unity and public safety.

Municipal leaders and law enforcement must therefore recalibrate their approach to handling such protests. This involves not only immediate and firm action against unlawful disruptions but also a broader strategy to prevent the escalation of such events. Policies that include clear consequences, akin to those enforced in Miami-Dade, could serve as a deterrent to those considering similar disruptive actions.

Moreover, it is crucial for the legal system to follow through on penalties that reflect the severity of the disruption caused by such protests. Letting offenders off with minimal community service sends a message that the rights of commuters, workers, and everyday citizens are secondary to the agendas of protesters, however extreme or unpopular those may be.

As we move forward, it is imperative for cities across the nation to adopt a unified stance that protects the foundational rights of all its citizens. This means not only preserving the right to protest but also safeguarding the public’s right to peace and order. It is not just about penalizing wrongdoing but about preserving the very fabric of our society, ensuring that freedom and respect for all remain at the heart of our public life. By taking decisive actions, cities can demonstrate their commitment to these principles, ensuring that the chaos and disruption do not become the new norm.