THE SUPREME COURT, ABORTION AND APARTHEID

The analogies between Trumpism and Apartheid abound. (See Blog: "Trump, USA, RFK and Apartheid, September 18, 2024). The Supreme Court is playing a central role in creating a dystopian authoritarian America including the abrogation of the fifty year old constitutional right to abortion under the privacy provision of the Constitution.

What deeply disturbs Jay H. Ell is that it is one thing for politicians and "think tanks", (sic), to advocate for totalitarian measures, it is another for the Justice System to literally, arbitrarily flaunt their role and become the arbiters and be the creators and distorters of the intent of the Constitution. In addition to the latter, the Court, unbelievably has enacted legislation declaring them as the experts on every conceivable area such as Environmental Protection. In their total reversal of Roe, which was not an even an issue in the litigation before the court, they became the umpires, to use the term Chief Justice Roberts so loves, of what women's health care should encompass.

While Trump. McConnell and the Republican legislatures of 20 states did not care what the outcome of negating a women's right to choose would be, the Supreme Court, having put themselves in the role of the decision makers on the subject, sought no information into the fact that one out of five normal pregnancies could present with complications that are indistinguishable from those wrought by "abortions". So bad as banning abortions per se might have been, (incidentally they further worsened their edict by making no provision for rape and incest}, their ruling laid open the door for the chaos that has followed. A good start would have been researching the sequalae of "abortion bans" under apartheid rule. There they might have learned of the devastation it wreeked and that in effect they were impacting health care on a wide scale. 

The Court also had to know that a slew of Republican State Legislatures had "trigger" anti abortion laws should Roe be overturned with draconian sentences for doctors who dared to intervene in the death threatening complications of any pregnancy gone wrong lest they be accused of aiding an abortion.  Apparently they cared about the consequences of their legislation as much as the politicians did. 

Jay H. Ell as a physician who acted in two capacities in the apartheid era from 1948 to 1990, primary and the emergency care, had personal experience of what the impact of an "abortion ban" was on reproductive and general medical care. 

THE BACKGROUND OF SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID ABORTION LAW

Before 1975 there was no statutory legislation on the termination of pregnancy in South Africa. There was common law which was a de facto overall ban unless it be the saving of a woman's life. In the 1960's there were approximately 200,000 illegal abortions a year and that epidemic expanded to 250.000 in the 1970's,  (Susanne Klaasen, Med. His., (58.2),  2014). (It should be noted in that period the population of South Africa was about 20 million). Klaasen states in the apartheid period 1 of 9 women had an abortion. 

Professor Derek Crighton, head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Natal, in his defense at his trial for performing 26 abortions stated that between 1954 and 1973 his hospital had treated 40,000 Black Africans with complications from abortion. (In his evidence he apparently did not or could not distinguish between complications of a normal pregnancy and those by induced abortions), He maintained 1 in 200 of those had died and 5 percent had become sterile. In King Edward hospital, which was one of the hospitals that Crighton worked at in 1973, 934 cases of abortion complication were admitted of which 354 were septic. (Klaasen op citra).

 A major difference of apartheid abortion care as compared to the current USA situation was. while the bans on abortion were draconian in both countries, if in South Africa, a woman pitched up to the  hospital bleeding or with complications of pregnancy there was no effective legislation to prevent the doctors from treating the patients regardless whether this was a complication of a normal pregnancy or an "illegal" abortion. 

In 1975 just about a few years after America interpreted the privacy provision in the constitution to permit a woman the right to control her own body, draconian legislation was introduced by the theocratic misogynistic Nationalist apartheid government entitled, "The Abortion and Sterilization Act". Ostensibly the South African allowed for abortions for the life threatening health conditions of the mother even mental health, in rape and incest and where gross fetal abnormalities were detected. However the legislation was similar to those now enacted by American States in that it was impossible to interpret these without fearing the penalties for the health care providers enshrined in the Act. In addition all abortions had now to be performed in State institutions and had to receive the "ok" from the head of those institutions.

The 1975 Legislation had the desired effect of putting the fear of G-D into anyone who had as much advocated an abortion and the backstreet abortion industry thrived. The medical profession had watched the public humiliation and termination of the career of the foremost academic in obstetric and gynecology in his public trial in 1972, so they had little doubt of the outcome as to the impact that their involvement might have on their ability to earn a living and their reputations.

Another important background fact. is that the anti abortion legislation throughout the apartheid history had a socio economic component. Those without resources were more likely than those without to obtain safe abortion care.

HOW DID THIS WORK IN THE REAL WORLD OF PATIENT CARE IN APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA

There were two major differences in apartheid South Africa as compared to the current situation in the USA. There were no arbortifactient medications then so the "illegal" terminations had to be done by back street abortionists. (The introduction of mifesterone as an abortifacteint has revolutionized medical abortion care in that 63 percent of abortions in America utilize this method). So "illegal" procedures in apartheid South Africa were all performed by back street abortionists.

A major difference of apartheid abortion care as compared to the current USA situation was while the bans on abortion were draconian in both countries, if, in South Africa, a woman pitched up to the  hospital bleeding or with complications of pregnancy there was no effective legislation to prevent the doctors from treating the patients. 

The South African "illegal" abortion patients were predominantly non white and a percentage had serious complications, the most ravaging of which was sepsis. Which intern in South Africa cannot remember spending endless hours,"specialing" the septic patient, who was alert to what was happening as one adjusted the isoprenaline intravenous therapy according to the blood pressure which was measured every half an hour. To this day with all the medicine advances the sepsis survival rate is at best 25 percent and at worst 50 percent.  

 There were also the poorer whites. One which stands out in memory was a 12 year old from a rural area who came in holding her teddy bear. A routine chest X-ray revealed a safety pin, a picture to this day that is indelibly printed in my mind, both in the lateral and frontal X-ray views.

What is more memorable are those young women seen in general practice.  These unfortunate patients were part of an ongoing relationship that is part and parcel of family medicine. "Unwanted" pregnancy knew no racial, political or cultural boundaries. The whole experience of devastation that the circumstance evoked in the family as well the life of the individual was ongoing lasting sometimes the length of the pregnancy and beyond. This was in stark difference as compared to the hospital encounters of patients, who had come from G-d's knows where and who would leave to pick up their lives in G-d knows whence. 

As a physician I had the responsibility of putting the limited options to the patient knowing full well that it depended on their circumstances. There were the few who could  get on a plane and fly to the United Kingdom. If they were old enough and had appropriate insurance or funds maybe the Gynecologist would do a Dilatation and Curettage. (Far less likely after 1975). There were those whose family insisted that they have the child. There was a rape victim who was referred to a "State Institution" where doctors had to decide whether her story was valid. 

There were two seventeen year old teenagers who elected to go to an agency out of town where they could continue their schooling and give their babies out for adoption. They were of course far away from their families in this dark time but they had very few options. 

As an activist against apartheid I had to be mindful that I was being watched. There was the time when I was faced with a young university student who was suicidally depressed at her pregnancy. A referral to a psychiatrist confirmed the diagnosis and a D and C was arranged. On completion of the latter the Security Police burst into the Operating Room. This was pre 1975 and a prosecution under common law would have probably failed.  I was questioned and sought legal opinion.  

Nobody arrived in the office announcing they were going to have an illegal abortion. Presumably some took that decision without needing a physician's counsel. There had to be some and I will never know

STATUS QUO IN USA  - THE ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT

The situation of health care providers in America is worse than it ever was in South Africa who in the hospital setting could treat "incomplete" abortions whatever the cause.  Self righteous sanctimonious men have made life or death decisions concerning women illegal, rendering them helpless to respond whether the complications are in a normal pregnancy or as a result of an induced abortion.

Now 20 states have abortion bans some with a life time prison sentence for health care providers. One third of women in America are under an abortion ban.  Anyone who assists in obtaining an abortion can be subject to penalties. Even the Uber driver who speeds you to the airport to go to a state where you can still get care.  The plight of women mainly, with complications of a normal pregnancy has been graphically presented in the media. The examples to date have to be the tip of the iceberg as how many can be strong willed enough to share their personal stories of reproductive grief, loss or relive rape and incest. 

The Supreme Court in the very near future might decide whether or not the FDA's decision to allow the prescription of abortion drugs is "constitutional" or not. They did not decide that issue last time on the basis of "standing". That is those that had brought the litigation had no right to do so. There are right wing judges who will need not much convincing that the FDA have acted "unconstitutionally" by allowing doctors to "subvert the Constitution" by providing all women in America, in person or by mail, the means to procure an abortion.  

The Court  has already ruled that reproductive freedom is not a constitutional right. If they ruled against the FDA that would put America, as bad as the situation is now, in a far far worse predicament than apartheid South Africa. It would open the door to back street abortionists with doctors powerless to mitigate the destruction of women's bodies and their lives. 

AT THE END OF THE DAY

If in November 2024 the President of America is Donald Trump both the women and men of America will be to blame. However if men, particularly the youth, haven't the insight to recognize the danger, women have to really step up to the plate. If they can vote in every referendum in every state, red or blue, in favor of women's reproductive rights how can they then negate that vote by putting the dot next to Trump for President..........?

If in November 2024 Kamala Harris is the President of America and the Democrats retain the Senate and win the House she needs to support Senate Leader Schumer to pass Roe v Wade with a simple majority. The majority isn't "simple" by any means it is the broad will of the people. The issue itself isn't some distorted arcane interpretation of what the white men were thinking in the late eighteenth century it is rather the aspirational belief that "all men, (sic), are created equal". Mitch McConnell never hesitated to "break the rules" when he ensured that the Trump anti abortion judges were elected,  neither should Schumer hesitate when the issue is undoing the law that the Supreme Court enacted in depriving women of their constitutional right to control their own bodies. 

Lest anyone forget, the Supreme Court is on the ballot in 2024. With a Trump Presidency he will carry on his "proud" record and replace aging Alito and Thomas, who will go out to pasture, with two young Aileen Canons who will be there for the next forty years. 

TRUMP, USA, RFK AND APARTHEID

There are marked similarities and differences in the South African and the American story. Race has been a central factor in the politics of both countries since their inception over three hundred and fifty years ago. Ironically, now that one of the archetypical proponents of a racial superiority, South Africa, has long abandoned its apartheid policy, an American candidate of one of the two major political parties is running on the self same canard that was the basis of apartheid - Keep America White or as he euphemistically refers to it - Make America Great Again. 

It was Robert Kennedy, (Senior), in a speech in Cape Town South Africa in 1966 who brought the two countries preoccupation with race into focus.

ROBERT F KENNEDY (THE FATHER THAT IS)

It was Robert F. Kennedy, (the father that is), in his Affirmation Address at the University of Cape Town, June 1966, who highlighted the analogies between his homeland and South Africa. The American icon opined, " I come here because of my deep interest and affection for a land settled by the Dutch in the mid seventeenth century, then taken over by the British and at last independent. A land in which the native inhabitants were first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem today.....a land which was an importer of slaves and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage. I refer of course to the United States of America...... 

THE ACCURACY AND INACCURACIES OF RFK'S NARRATIVE

RFK's narrative was not entirely accurate in so far that South Africa was never a significant importer of slaves nor did it wipe out the indigenous populations which action had stained Kennedy's land of birth. The white race in South Africa was very much in a minority as opposed to the USA.

 By comparison very little immigration has occurred to the Southern tip of Africa while America is characterized as a melting pot of many nations. These circumstances have played a role in racial politics. The South African White Nationalists rated the threat to survival more highly in the 1960's than did their American brethren. 

But both countries enacted policies relating to their pigmented citizenry. Both had had their history dominated by two distinct white groups who wrestled for power and who had differed in their attitudes to their colored brethren. 

Notwithstanding the genesis of the racial politics, in 1966 the two nations were on divergent paths as to meeting the challenge created by their diverse populations. South Africa had engaged in apartheid with the trappings of totalitarianism to keep it in place while America had thrown off their historical shackles through the Civil Rights legislation. Martin Luther King had mobilized public opinion while Nelson Mandela was only a few years into his 28 years into his prison sentence.

LEGISLATION OF APARTHEID TO KEEP SOUTH AFRICA WHITE

The Nationalist Party in 1948 with a minority of votes came into power on a platform of naked racist segregationist policies as well as to promote the Afrikaner in every sector of society. While the latter was a valid objective and many may have voted for that aspect of their program, their reign morphed into the second major human rights travesty of the twentieth century.  In this inflection point in history South Africa went the wrong way.(See blog, January 22, 2104,"Smuts The Man Who Might Have Prevented Apartheid"). 

The new Nationalist Government immediately proceeded to remove any vestige of any pigmented citizens' voting rights. Then followed a slew of legislation to segregate. For purposes of this discussion the focus will be on limiting Black Africans presence in so called"White South Africa". First they enacted the Population Registration Act, whereby everyone was classified according to "race". The latter wreeked havoc especially among the "colored" group who were descendants of some indigenous peoples and indentured labor that had been imported from South East Asia. Families were split. 

For the Black Africans rigid criteria were laid down as to who was entitled to live in "white areas of South Africa". The legislation became tougher and tougher as the years rolled on. "iIlegals"  were rounded up sentenced to jail terms and sent back to rural areas some of which they had never ever seen before. Families were split by the family values regime. The arrests were on an epidemic like scale. In 1971 at the height of this cruel insanity 381,000 Black Africans were arraigned. 

The methods used to find those without documents referred to as "passes" were barbaric. Squad cars could career around confronting anyone who was black demanding to see their pathetic "passports". What occurred in the black townships was out of sight but in the "White Group Areas" the fascism was there for all to see. The police would raid domestic workers quarters for example in the middle of the night, bang on the doors and scream, "Maak oop", ("Open up"). 

THE RATIONALE FOR APARTHEID CHANGED IN 1960

While the day to day impact on the black population didn't change, in 1960 the rationale and the philosophy did. The opprobrium throughout the world was enough alone for the need to put a new face on this racism. 

Enter Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd a theocrat autocrat who was elected Prime Minister in 1960 and had all the answers. The latter was a former newspaper editor who had been sued for pro Nazi propaganda during the war and had led a march against the immigration of Jews in the late 1930's. He was not new to the game having been Minister of Native affairs since nearly the beginning of National Party reign. He introduced an absurd solution - the concept of "Bantustans".Prior to that the "illegals" were sent to rural districts run by hereditary chiefs and the like, now they had a "Homeland". Each of these would be the home to persons of a particular tribe whether they liked it or not. Social engineering on the grandest of scales.

The Bantustans were to be run by parliaments that would be constituted by hereditary chiefs and by election. It is fair to say that they by definition they had to be puppet states as they had few sources of revenue. The first experiment in the Transkei area, the "Homeland" of the Xhosa tribe, nearly came adrift as the government's nominee was almost defeated but with much maneuvering and bribery the anointed one was elected as head. There were eventually 7 such dummy states that did nothing to alleviate the situation and inhumanity that apartheid had engendered. 

In 1986 as a prelude to the historic ending of apartheid the influx control laws were abolished. Verwoerd was assassinated in 1966 by a schizophrenic who was found guilty but insane in a high profile court case.

REPRESSIVE LEGISLATION TO CARRY THIS OUT.

The repressive legislation begun early in the Nationalist Party reign. The first piece of legislation was The Suppression of Communism Act, followed by others including detention without trial. "Communism" was defined by the government and the interpretation would have made Senator Joe McCarthy envious. There was the banning of individuals who were not allowed to be in the company of more than two others. Winnie Mandela was famously banished to a remote area and banned under the  act. There was detention without trial. Defined crimes against the state with minimum sentences. Of course there was the accusation of torture, suspects jumping out of windows, falling down stairs, all illustrated by the infamous Biko case - a student activist who was murdered in detention. 

All this scary stuff what has it to do with MAGA Trump and his side kick Vance?

MAGA TRUMP 

The central MAGA playbook is immigration, illegal and legal. Trump will round up the 11 million criminals, drug dealers, murderers, rapists, lunatics and the rest that Biden and Harris have welcomed into America. Trump will put them in detention camps and presumably send them to G-d knows where. He has proudly screamed at his Nuremberg style rallies that it will be "bloody". 

The comparison to purification of the race by getting rid of the vermin and those that are poisoning the blood of our people sounds more like the language of those who protested in Charlottesville and some of Trump's lunch guests than the purveyors of apartheid. The force and resources needed to effect this cruelty would be on a scale that would make the apartheid operation seem minuscule. 

Just in case Trump really is worried that the illegals that are taking away black jobs he gives the game away by his attack on legal immigration on those who aren't blue eyed and blond. The  attack and unashamed lies about Haitian immigrants is the most recent example of his racism. He has attacked the policy of allowing immigrants from "shit hole" countries. 

In fact if you go through his highly recorded career he has smeared immigrants from virtually every country that have made up America's population. Another tactic is to question whether fellow Americans of different hues were in fact born in the USA. Who can forget his years long polemic that Barak Obama was born in Kenya? And now whether Kamala Harris is really black? 

   AT THE END OF THE DAY

It may be trite to call this the most consequential election in America's history. There are inflection points in history that impact the future for generations. Biden finally did his bit by putting country before ambition, (See blog, July 10, 2024, "Biden's Hubris - A Movie ReRun"). There are many who should search their consciences. 

If the MAGA Republican Party are trashed and Trump defeated it will be the end for years to come. Cults need leaders and Trump has no successor. He will be a geriatric 4 time loser and probably in jail. 

The good news is that Kamala Harris and the Democrats are on a roll. 

Just a thought  - Elon Musk who is a highly intelligent individual surely has taken note of the evisceration of so many who served Trump. In case he has forgotten he hails from one of Trump's "shit holes". 

Another thought - what an irony that RFK, (the son that is), is on the wrong side of the racial equation nearly 60 years after his father was the icon of American equality. 

HAMAS'S SINWAR FLIPS THE NARRATIVE

 

Yahya Sinwar the recently nominated political as well as being the military leader of Hamas, has flipped the narrative in the nearly year long Hamas/Israel war by barbarically cold bloodily brazenly murdering 6 young civilian hostages that were attending a Peace Festival on October 7. By so doing he has reminded the world what brought about this conflict. His shameless act has sequelae on many levels including reawakening the world's perception of his cause which certainly doesn't seek a "Two state solution". Rather it is "From the River to the Sea Palestine will be Free". Significantly it has bolstered the Prime Minister of Israel Bibi Netanyahu's argument to not conclude a hostage/cease fire deal which he reportedly accepted in April this year. 

All this begs the question as to what Sinwar's objectives were in executing this move and how does it impact Israel, Israel's allies, the regional war and the Iran led "Resistance". One fact is for certain, this is a battle between the two decision makers who are both in a massive battle for survival - Sinwar for his life and Netanyahu for his political life, legal jeopardy and legacy. Notwithstanding the latter it has exacerbated the debate in Israel as to whether the return of their hostages or annihilating Hamas is the priority.

So onto Sinwar's modus operandi.

SINWAR THE UNCHALLENGED LEADER

Sinwar has no problems with his long suffering constituency. He has off handedly remarked that whatever number of Palestinians die in the aftermath of October 7 it would be a sacred sacrifice in a an Almighty cause. He relayed his motive for the September 1 barbarism through a spokesman maintaining that, that is his response when Israel attempts to rescue those he has sequestered in his tunnels.(A report in an Israeli daily newspaper claimed that he is surrounded in the tunnels by 22 hostages).  He also believed, correctly, that the Israeli Premier would be subject to more and more pressure both externally and internally to agree to a cease fire in order to save the lives of those still living. 

By unleashing October 7 the all powerful terrorist leader paradoxically gained unimaginable worldwide support. It brought latent anti semitism and hate to the boil as well as widespread advocacy for the Palestinian cause which grew and grew as the Hamas Department of Health reported its unverified casualty lists. September 1 made endorsement of his inhuman stand untenable. Prior to that the longer the war had dragged on the more distant October 7 had became and the more the media was dominated by the grey shambles and the death and misery the war was creating to the innocent Palestinians. 

Not only is Sinwar unlikely to  win friends and influence people he has placed his allies in an uncomfortable position. Iran which also have as a constitutional objective to get Jews off the land and into the sea, have made plaintiff noises via their new President, Massoud Pazeshktian, to alter the status quo as their natives become more and more restless as sanctions bite their economy. In addition much of their oil money is farmed out to their proxies. Thus far they have held back on retaliating to Israel's humiliating assassination of Sinwar's predecessor,The slaughter of innocents is hardly a spur for worldwide mass demonstrations in support in a shocked world.

Nor is it likely that the other "Resistance" members will up their games any further than they have already. Hezbollah the only other affiliate of the cabal that matters have repeatedly made it clear that they are not interested in an all out war with Israel. September 1 is unlikely to dissuade them. 

Sinwar had to be pretty desperate to try this ploy but it is in his psyche. Behavior of religious jihadists don't change.  Like all monsters they only have one playbook. He needs a ceasefire and a guarantee to a safe haven, He is no hurry to be the forty thousand and one Palestinian to be sacrificed for the cause, that is for the plebs. 

Sinwar has done his worst and threatens more. So how will Bibi respond?

NETANYAHU RESPONDS

Bibi Netanyahu hasn't the luxury that his adversary has. The Israeli premier, up to the time of going into print, is in a democracy.  Netanyahu has a fragile coalition dominated by two extremist parties, who represent an answer to Sinwar's absolutism. They would be happy to take Israel from "The Sea to the Jordan River" and both sides of the river if that was possible. But if opinion polls are right they and their handcuffed leader are by far in the minority. However the Israeli Premier still calls the shots even when the streets are chock a block with hundreds of thousands of protestors angrily frustratingly and imploringly demanding him to it call it a day and bring home the hostages. So what are the arguments?

The Israeli Prime Minister called a security cabinet meeting which leaked to the media. He argued that to bow to Hamas's barbarism was to reward their atrocities. He persisted with his deal breaking wrinkle to his negotiating strategy namely that he would not yield on Israel's right to maintain the territory outside of Gaza which was in fact Egyptian territory. Yielding the latter, "The Philadelphi Corridor", he debated would lead to another October 7, the hostages being moved out of Gaza and in summary an unacceptable threat to the security of the country.

The  fight between the Israeli leader Defense Minister Gallant, who was backed by the chiefs of the armed forces and who was dismissive that the so called Philadelphi Corridor was crucial to Israel's safety burst into the public arena. It could easily be reconquered, should the need arise. Gallant blurted in word and in print and that Israel's decision maker's rationale was "A Disgrace". Due to the popularity of the Defense Minister's position there was no way Bibi could axe him from his Cabinet. This alone bore witness to the latter's insight as to how thin the ice was that he was standing on. 

Israeli leaders soon joined Gallant with lengthy statements on TV. These included resigned members of the original National Unity War Cabinet, Bennie Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, both who have extensive military credentials. No one argued that the Corridor was not important but it could be easily be retaken if necessary. President Herzog the apolitical figurehead no longer felt constrained to remain quiet being mindful of the seething populations in the squares he lashed out that Netanyahu should seek unity and not even think of engaging in unilaterally changing the judicial system. 

 So the Prime Minister felt forced to hold a Press Conference, which he has avoided for months, to explain his strategy. 

NETANYAHU'S PRESS CONFERENCE AND FOLLOW UP

In a disciplined fashion the Prime Minister outlined the security threat leaving the Gaza border would maintain, He also unprecedentedly made an apology to the families of the 6 dead youths.The problems arose with reporters' questions such as if the Philedelphi Corridor was so important why did he ignore it for 8 months? To the concept that it could be retaken he unbelievably maintained that the world wouldn't let him! He had no counter to the threat his decision would have on the fate of the kiboshing the deal on the table. He answered that no one had more empathy with the hostage families than him.

 He grew testier and testier as the presser continued. He smeared, in authoritarian style, that  the popular Gallant, a former Major General of the Army and Head of the Southern Command, of aiding the enemy Hamas. He expanded on his own average military career and sneered at a reporter's lack of it. Most significantly he has not uttered one coherent word about the day after. In this high stakes situation Netanyahu let the world know he was calling the shots.  

Second thoughts emerged as the duplicitous Netanyahu's internal plight worsened. Rumors were buzzing that the heads of the Israeli Defense Force, Mossad and Shin Beit, the intelligence agencies, were ready to resign rather than be complicit in the abandonment of the hostages. Netanyahu leaked to the Press that he had informed the Qatari mediators that he would be prepared to leave the Philedelphi Corridor in the second phase of the deal if he was satisfied that the "smuggling" had stopped. 

No longer could it be argued that there could be twin objectives - the total annihilation of Hamas and the release of hostages. A year into the war there had to be a choice.

WHAT ISRAEL CAN LOSE BY THE CURENT POSTURE

Biden has on the table a complicated deal that goes together with the ceasefire/hostage plan which will give Israel allies that it has only dreamed off. First and foremost Saudi Arabia which for its part will receive defensive weaponry in return. In addition a peace keeping force of Egypt, U.A. E. and Morocco are committed to takeover the responsibility of governing Gaza with a presence of the PLO. Israel security will be guaranteed. Netanyahu hasn't floated his obvious intent to occupy Gaza as the citizenry would not buy it.

An accord will allow a relieved Hezbollah to call it quits. Iran may well moderate its "retaliation" while with the powerful Sunni block on sides "The Resistance" may well look to a non aggression pact for the moment. The West Bank which at present is occupying 19 battalions might calm down with a ceasefire.

All this is lost because Netanyahu needs to show Sinwar who is the boss around here while hanging around in the hope that Trump will be elected and tell Israel "to do whatever the hell it wants to".

WHAT CAN BIDEN DO? 

The Biden administration who have been played by the Israeli Premier is losing patience. They have to have resources that could help undercut Netanyahu internally. Biden is extremely popular in Israel and he is in sync with the overwhelming Israeli perception that Netanyahu is not doing enough to get the hostages home. The current USA President may well have commitments to Israel exceeding that of any previous Democratic Party predecessors but he is not going to stand by allowing the Republican Party to outmaneuver him over the popular support for Israel in America. If the cookie crumbles the wrong way it will be quite clear that it was Biden who was on the side of the angels not the Israeli Premier and the Israeli citizenry will make that quite clear. 

Democratic hopeful Kamila Harris struck just the right note at the  Party's Convention and the invitation to the parents of the ill fated Hersh Goldberg - Polin movingly viewed in prime time outlined a sobering and heartfelt analysis of the situation and for their love for son. All in all the Biden/Harris administration's posture on the crisis was reinforced. Sinwar has now weakened the section of the Democratic Party that didn't support Biden/Harris. The campus protests which are expected in the fall trimester, scheduled for October 7, are destined to go nowhere. 

AT THE END OF THE DAY

Yahya Sinwar threw down the gauntlet by inhumanely murdering 6 Israeli hostages. He killed them, not the Israeli Prime Minister. Netanyahu saw this as a personal challenge and humiliation and has tried to persuade a disbelieving Israel that the appropriate response to savagery was to abandon the hostage/ceasefire deal and continue the war - a nearly year long war. 

The Israelis appeared disinclined to buy Netanyahu's narrative and in any case this was not about him it was about their own flesh and blood. 

They argued that the future cost all round did not warrant the minimal gain that could be achieved at this juncture. 

With 70 percent of Israelis consistently polling that Netanyahu should not be the next Prime Minister, the institutional heads piling up against him and with the electorate's fury at having their destiny dictated to by two extremists it is an open question how long Netanyahu can hang onto power. 

Biden, bless his soul, has not given up on a ceasefire/hostage deal. Apparently it is still going on. To a large extent it depends how desperate Sinwar is as Netanyahu has laid down his marker.