Israel, Gaza, Iran – does democracy have any answers?

More swiftly, democracy can play a role if incumbent leaders fear a potential verdict at the ballot box in a pending election. Such is the case, at least in fragmentary part, with the current situation in the Middle East. I will not pretend that the impact is other than tangential, even confused. But it is possible to identify pressure points.

Self-evidently, there are few routes through which to apply pressure upon organisations which are commonly regarded as terrorist by states such as the UK. One must hope for humanitarian impulses.

Israeli armoured carriers in the Gaza Strip (Image: free)

Equally, there is little evidence that democratic pressure can be exercised in Iran: a theocracy with a democratic patina. Again, though, there are thoughtful players there. One must, again, simply hope that their influence is heard and heeded.

Among other participants such as Qatar and Jordan, there are decided signs of continuing efforts to sustain peace, where possible. Not, perhaps, though any sense of electoral pressure but through concern for people nonetheless. Not least their own citizens.

By definition, stateless Palestinians lack an established, permanent forum through which to express their wishes and desires. Their broad cause, however, is not without variegated global support – from sundry advocates of a two-state solution to those who seek the removal of Israel. When we contemplate democratic motivation, we should look rather to the USA, to the UK and other European states. And to Israel itself.

Joe Biden, the current incumbent of the White House, seems decidedly conflicted. Generally and with specific regard to the Middle East. It is not easy, in truth, to occupy the Oval Office. But President Biden appears notably torn. In December, indeed, he indicated he might not have run again for the Presidency were it not for his desire to resist his rival.

Donald Trump, by contrast, offers unquestioning certainty – which critics characterise as self-delusion. On every topic, including Israel and the Middle East, Mr Trump declares that he alone has discerned the core of the problem, that he alone has the solution. This assumed certainty enthuses Trump supporters. Frankly, it terrifies sceptics who would perhaps prefer a Commander in Chief who was, at least, open to discourse, to persuasion and dissuasion.

Read more by Brian Taylor

Tax in Scotland: Why will nobody tell us the blunt truth?

How do we fix Scotland's NHS? This could be the start

Right now, President Biden exudes disquiet. And that is driven by the democratic imperative. He inherits America’s ingrained support for the state of Israel. He inherits the motive to content the USA’s substantial Jewish population. These are given. But he also frets that his Democratic base is appalled by the scenes from Gaza shown on television. Of death, destruction and looming famine. He fears the electoral consequences.

Aides advise him to remember, remember the fifth of November, when America goes to the polls to choose the next President. And so Joe Biden tells Israel that it must act militarily in a way which minimises civilian casualties. Then, in the next contribution, he declares that his general support for Israel is “ironclad”.

I believe such seeming confusion is understandable. American policy is to support the continued existence of Israel, explicitly threatened by Hamas. Equally, though, Americans would not remotely wish the prosecution of that policy to result in the obliteration of Gaza.

Let alone President Biden’s worst fear, the expansion of the conflict to the wider Middle East, starting with Iran. There is a comparable dichotomy confronting the UK and other European governments. And, again, it reflects potential electoral opinion.

The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, went to Jerusalem this week to urge Benjamin Netanyahu to limit his response to what the UK described as an “appalling” attack upon Israel by Iran. Given the circumstances, Lord Cameron’s aims were deliberately constrained. Not to prevent an Israeli response, but to contain it.

Mr Netanyahu politely advised Lord Cameron that Israeli would “make its own decisions.” Lord Cameron departed, forecasting – accurately, as it turned out – that Israel would respond militarily to the Iranian attack.

As in the USA, there is an election pending here in the UK. Do I believe conflict in the Middle East will be a decisive factor in that electoral contest? No, I do not. But I do believe that concern for Gaza – and a wider desire to avoid war – are prevalent in popular thinking. Hence, Lord Cameron’s restraint, in order to avoid a damaging rebuff.

Hence, too, Sir Keir Starmer’s caution, aware of Labour’s internal disputes over claims of anti-Semitism in the relatively recent past. Hence, too, Humza Yousaf’s assertion that his demand for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza matches Scottish sentiment. Perhaps one positive note in an otherwise calamitous week for the FM.

Then there is Israel itself. It may not be regularly apparent but, to a degree, Benjamin Netanyahu is also conflicted over future action. Yes, he can rely upon domestic support when he stresses his determination to defend the continued existence of Israel. He can rely particularly upon the religious Right in his coalition. But there are voices raised too about the conduct of the conflict in Gaza. Is it right – or even feasible – to seek the elimination of Hamas? What might be the consequences for the region, for Israel? What might be the consequences for the campaign to free the hostages held after the Hamas attack upon Israel on the 7th of October?

Mr Netanyahu also knows that he must sustain global support for Israel – from countries like the USA and the UK where there are democratic anxieties. He was arguably helped in that regard by Iran’s direct attack. It reinforced his argument that Israel needs defending. But he knows too that, to sustain international support, he may need to pay heed to the various voices advocating caution. We gaze, we guess, we fear.