We begin today with Charles Blow of The New York Times, pointing out the soft body blow that Nikki Haley was able to land on Donald Trump—even as Trump won the New Hampshire primary by double digits over Haley.
Haley’s survival is a testament not to a steel spine, but to a gelatinous one: her Play-Doh-like tendency to try to fit the mold of whomever she’s talking to; her attempts to be authoritative while simultaneously tying herself into knots trying not to offend a Republican base that has ditched her brand of Republicanism.
And although she has lately ramped up her verbal attacks on Trump, those attacks are wobbly and mostly trivial. Haley still suffers from what brought down most of Trump’s other opponents: She doesn’t want to vanquish him as much as tiptoe past him.
Haley keeps insisting that she’d do better than Trump in a general election matchup with President Biden, pointing to the other side of a mountain that won’t be moved.
[...]
However, I do believe that the longer she stays in the race, the more damage she’ll do to Trump’s bid. She has begun to highlight his shopworn, confused-sounding rants. We’ve spent a lot of time focusing on Biden’s age and acuity, but Trump is almost as old. He flubs and gaffes, too. Haley is drawing out a small piece of the unvarnished version of Trump.
The national media has always been aware that the same focus that has been given to President Joe Biden’s age and mental acuity could also be applied to Number 45 and then some.
To the extent that Haley’s challenge to Trump has angered Trump and made him sound even more incoherent, Blow is right.
However, let’s also not forget that Haley, during a talk with CNN’s Dana Bash, has already agreed to endorse Trump once she does drop out because she “doesn’t want to see a President Kamala Harris.”
Watch:
Ian Ward of POLITICO takes up The Atlantic’s McKay Coppins’ challenge to readers by attending Trump rallies in New Hampshire.
Trump is, no doubt, less omnipresent than he once was. His Truth Social posts no longer drive entire news cycles, and the major networks rarely broadcast his full speeches. But, based on his recent swing through New Hampshire, Trump’s speeches don’t teach us much about Trump or his plans for a second term that we don’t already know. I arrived at Trump’s rallies as a prime target for Coppins’ advice — a Brooklyn journalist who has followed Trump closely but, until last week, had never been to a rally in person — and I came away thinking this: The reason to ignore the rallies is not merely to avoid “amplifying [Trump’s] lies,” as Coppins put it, but also because they have little to offer anyone but Trump’s most loyal fans, either in the way of education or entertainment.
[...]
In speech after speech in New Hampshire, Trump mentioned, in no particular order: Joe Biden’s inability to pick up a beach chair; his uncle Dr. John Trump’s career at MIT; Al Capone and Scarface; the difference between prison and jails; Hannibal Lecter; a real estate deal with Ted Kennedy; and the weather in Iowa. Trying to discern a clear picture of Trump or his plans for a second term from these remarks is like trying to find patterns in a Pollock painting. [or Chinese encyclopedias, for that matter… ck]
The rallies provide only limited insight into the movement that Trump leads. Off the campaign trail, Trump and his allies in Washington have not been shy about touting their policy prescriptions for a possible second term, which include a sweeping crackdown on immigration, an overhaul of the federal bureaucracy, an expansion of protectionist trade policies, a retreat from multilateral alliances and a campaign of political retribution against his enemies. At think tanks and in the right-leaning press, conservatives are still hashing out the debates — about the political economy, foreign policy, philosophy, conservative history and even art and culture — that Trump’s election in 2016 sparked. Yet none of these substantive issues received more than passing mention at Trump’s campaign events. Coming away from a Trump rally, a neutral observer could be forgiven for thinking that Trumpism — as opposed to Trump himself — is less complex and contradictory than it actually is.
A six-person research team for Pew Research Center provides analysis on who “religious nones” are and what they believe.
Our survey data shows:
- Most “nones” believe in God or another higher power. But very few go to religious services regularly.
- Most say religion does some harm, but many also think it does some good. They are not uniformly anti-religious.
- Most “nones” reject the idea that science can explain everything. But they express more positive views of science than religiously affiliated Americans do.
Surveys have consistently shown that many Americans view religion’s declining influence in society as a bad thing. “Nones” tend to vote less often, do less volunteer work in their communities and follow public affairs at lower rates than religiously affiliated people do.
But the latest data shows that on a variety of measures, lower rates of civic engagement are concentrated among “nones” whose religion is “nothing in particular.” Atheists and agnostics tend to participate in civic life at rates matching or exceeding religiously affiliated people.
This has been a week of many important stories in sports media, including Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova uniting in a story for The Washington Post to excoriate the Women’s Tennis Association’s intentions to stage the WTA finals in Saudi Arabia.
Lately, we seem to be so inseparable that you might as well call us Evertilova. We have not always been so in step with each other; one of us is quiet, the other unquiet. But there is a matter on which we have always been perfectly united. Over many years we were opponents, sometimes in matches with an intensity that felt personal. Then we became friends, and then we met cancer together. Over the years, 50 of them now, no matter what occurred on the court or in our lives, we shared an understanding that we were engaged in a common cause, one that connected our hearts and amounted to our life’s work: the building of a Women’s Tennis Association tour founded on equality, to empower women in a male-dominated world.
That work is now imperiled. WTA Tour officials, without adequate consultation with the players who are the very foundation of the sport, are on the verge of agreeing to stage the WTA Finals in Saudi Arabia. This is entirely incompatible with the spirit and purpose of women’s tennis and the WTA itself.
We fully appreciate the importance of respecting diverse cultures and religions. It is because of this, and not despite it, that we oppose the awarding of the tour’s crown jewel tournament to Riyadh. The WTA’s values sit in stark contrast to those of the proposed host. Not only is this a country where women are not seen as equal, it is a country where the current landscape includes a male guardianship law that essentially makes women the property of men. A country which criminalizes the LGBTQ community to the point of possible death sentences. A country whose long-term record on human rights and basic freedoms has been a matter of international concern for decades.
Staging the WTA final there would represent not progress, but significant regression.
I’m aware that some of the political and even sports commentary of both Evert and Navratilova can be problematic, but they are absolutely right about this issue—even if MBS is opening up the first liquor store in Saudi Arabia in 70 years.
Former President of the International Criminal Court Chile Eboe-Osuji writes for Just Security, criticizing South Africa for not also including genocide charges against Hamas (or Palestine) for its actions on Oct. 7.
This limitation in South Africa’s case appreciably resulted from a general confusion about pleading either Hamas or Palestine as parties to ICJ proceedings. That confusion results, first, from the argument that Hamas is not a State actor and therefore there is no way to conceive of its actions as the subject of proper complaints before the ICJ. Notably, Israel and its allies are implicated in this mindset in their perfunctory description of Hamas as a “terrorist” organization. They intend, of course, that Hamas as such should enjoy no rights in international law. But, that kind of messaging can also mislead the mind to think of Hamas as beyond the formal zone of accountability in international law.
I have elsewhere faulted the thinking that Hamas is not a “State actor.” Considering that Hamas is clearly an entity exercising governmental functions in Gaza, it is mistaken, in my view, to say that it is not a State actor. A careful review of articles 4, 5, and 9 of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts should reveal the possibility that the conduct of Hamas, as the regent of governmental authority in Gaza, is justiciable at the ICJ. Specifically, in the terms of Article 9 of the Articles of State Responsibility, Hamas is “in fact exercising elements of the governmental authority in the absence or default of the official authorities,” and, as such, their “conduct … shall be considered an act of a State under international law.” Since Hamas runs Gaza, a federated geographic entity of Palestine, Hamas’s conduct can anchor proceedings at the ICJ in a similar way that the conduct of the government of the state of Arizona was justiciable at the ICJ in the LaGrand Case, though the United States was the nominal respondent in the case.
[...]
[T]he more pressing reason for South Africa to include Hamas in its suit was the need to try to curb the ongoing armed conflict, by compelling both sides to stop fighting, given the U.N. Security Council’s proven inability to adopt a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. During their oral submissions before the ICJ on Jan. 12, Israel’s lawyers wondered whether South Africa’s request of the Court for a provisional order to stop fighting would only tie the hands of Israel and not those of Hamas. It was a compelling argument indeed.
Note, by pointing to Hamas’s potential actions as genocide, South Africa’s application would have also properly raised the issue of other States’ obligations to repress genocide and not militarily support a group engaged in a genocidal campaign were the court to make that finding. That is the mirror image of the concerns raised with respect to the allegations against Israel and its arms suppliers.
I looked up a few definitions of “state actor,” both online and even in some of those correspondence courses that I took on foreign policy.
I came to the conclusion that while Hamas (and the Palestinian Authority) do have limits on what they can govern, they do have the ability to govern—through the appointment of mayors, governance of administrative districts, setting budgets, the running of hospitals, the building of security forces, etc. Both Hamas and the PA can (or could, in the case of Hamas) conduct their own foreign policy. Their recognition as “state actors” by other state actors is not an important fact (e.g., it doesn’t matter that Hamas does not represent Gaza in the UN General Assembly).
Arvind Mohan of The Diplomat looks at some of the ways that foreign policy might figure into India’s upcoming national elections.
The BJP has consistently relied on its foreign policy credentials to bolster its domestic popularity; foreign policy machismo is central to Modi’s image as a strongman. The government now touts India as a “Vishwaguru” (world teacher), an exemplary state that is a role model for others. With elections round the corner in 2024, it was by design that India’s G-20 presidency last year was advertised by the government as indicating India’s arrival on the world stage as a country in the comity of great powers. The BJP will continue to drive home these messages as it gears up for campaigning.
Moreover, the condition of the Hindu minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh has always animated BJP’s election campaigns. Regional parties have also made ethnic issues outside national borders into key poll planks. The Sri Lankan Tamil issue played an important role in the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam winning 18 of the 39 states in Tamil Naduin the 2009 elections. And for people who live in border areas, India’s relationship with its neighbors is always a key electoral issue.
[...]
While India’s relationship with one great power, China, will be a point of disagreement between parties, her equation with the United States is unlikely to be a major bone of contention. With the decline of left parties, ideological antipathy toward Washington has all but vanished from Indian politics. There might be some quarrels over specific issues but there is now broad consensus in favor of India’s growing ties with the United States. Due to the rise of China, there is now a strong structural logic undergirding Delhi’s strategic partnership with Washington, an equation that will continue irrespective of which formation comes to power in the two countries.
Finally today, Veronika Melkozerova and Eva Hartog of POLITICO Europe introduce us to the felines of Ukraine’s war with Russia.
Ukraine’s social media are full of felines, showing how they help soldiers as emotional support animals, attract donations to the military with their fluffy cuteness, and also fight invaders — in this case mice.
[...]
Cats usually arrive at Ukrainian army positions from nearby villages or towns destroyed by war. Abandoned by their owners, the pets seek human protection from the constant shelling, drone strikes and minefields.
“When this scared little creature comes to you, seeking protection, how could you say no? We are strong, so we protect weaker beings, who got into the same awful circumstances as we did, just because Russians showed up on our land,” explained Oleksandr Yabchanka, a Ukrainian army combat medic.
[...]
The adopted felines also fight their own battles against the mice that infest the trenches and chew Starlink satellite comms cables and car wiring, destroy food supplies and military gear, and even nip the fingers of sleeping soldiers.
Not all stories about the hostilities of war are dark. Considering what these felines have gone through, I’m pretty sure the emotional support is a two-way street.
Try to have the best possible day everyone!