Congressional Democrats have begun responding to Bibi Netanyahu’s election promise to annex major settlements in the West Bank. Four pro-Israel House members offered a milquetoast warning to Netanyahu not to take any measures which would preclude a two-state solution. This statement is ludicrous because not only does Bibi oppose two-states, there isn’t a hope in hell of two-states happening regardless of who’s in power. This is the deluded figment of the liberal Zionist imagination.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez herself followed up on this with her own statement saying that reducing Israeli military aid was definitely “on the table” in the event of annexation. Bernie Sanders, during a 2017 interview with Mehdi Hassan, endorsed the same approach in a back-handed manner:
Would he, therefore, ever consider voting to reduce U.S. aid to Israel — worth at least $3bn per annum — or U.S. arms sales to the Israeli military?
“The U.S. funding plays a very important role, and I would love to see people in the Middle East sit down with the United States government and figure out how U.S. aid can bring people together, not just result in an arms war in that area. So I think there is extraordinary potential for the United States to help the Palestinian people rebuild Gaza and other areas. At the same time, demand that Israel, in their own interests in a way, work with other countries on environmental issues.” He then, finally, answers my question: “So the answer is yes.”
It is — by the depressingly low standard of modern U.S. politics — a remarkable and, dare I say it, radical response from Sanders. “Aid to Israel in Congress and the pro-Israel community has been sacrosanct,” the Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted earlier this year, “and no president has seriously proposed cutting it since Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s.”
In case there was any doubt that the Senator’s position has changed in the interim, his foreign policy advisor, Matt Duss, reiterated it in a tweet yesterday:
Yes it is. And headline actually undersells the great, nuanced answer from @AOC. U.S. has lots of tools to signal opposition to Israeli policy. Withholding or cutting aid is one. An administration seriously interested in getting a peace agreement will use them. https://t.co/PmshPOSmzS
— Matt Duss (@mattduss) April 15, 2019
It’s remarkable that even liberal Zionist groups like J Street have come around to this position, which at one time would have been unthinkable:
Nuanced position from @AOC in wake of Netanyahu annexation pledge: open up discussion of US-Israel relations. J Street view: US can assure Israeli security w/o funding activities that run counter to US values, interests such as annexation, demolitions. https://t.co/TiaKIutdvT
— Jeremy Ben-Ami (@JeremyBenAmi) April 15, 2019
It’s unremarkable that pro-Israel Democratic foreign policy mandarins like Aaron David Miller scoffed at the notion, saying it was political unfeasible:
Maybe in a parallel galaxy far far away. But not back here on planet earth.This is an other worldy talking point that no US Administration ever took seriously since there was a so-called peace process. And likely never will.
— Aaron David Miller (@aarondmiller2) April 15, 2019
It’s useful to remember who scoffed at Martin Luther King when he began the Montgomery bus boycott. And who scoffed Thurgood Marshall when he began litigating civil rights cases in the early 1950s. And who scoffed at Ruth Bader Ginsberg when she brought her first case arguing sex discrimination. And who scoffed at Barack Obama when he announced he was running for president. Those too were considered impossibly impractical, dead-end campaigns by many of their compatriots. But look what happened.
I expect such derision from these circles. They themselves could not bring peace when they had a chance. Their approach has gone bankrupt. Now they demean more aggressive approaches, which actually confront the severity of the crisis, rather than try to put a band-aid on it. To people like Miller, I say, get out of the way and let others try something different.
Despite all the good pushback from these Democrats, it may be time to rethink this issue. Instead of warning Bibi not to annex, something he appears likely to do anyway given Trump’s expected support for the idea, why not base our opposition to Bibi on how much territory and population should be annexed? He wants to take the major settlement population centers (and probably even smaller ones) and absorb them into Israel. A more strategic response would be to demand Israel annex all of the Occupied Territories, and offer all residents, Jews and Palestinians, citizenship and equal rights.
Yes, that is the dreaded one-state solution. But what’s left once we admit two-states is dead? It’s the equivalent of the last man standing.
NOTE: This weekend I will be delivering a paper, Israel and the Marketing of the Surveillance State, at the Islamophobia conference at UC Berkeley. I delivered this paper on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia at last year’s conference. If you live in the Bay Area, you’re welcome to attend.
Not just Gerald Ford. George H. W. Bush and his sec of State James Baker effectively used “withholding US aid” to institute a freeze on the wild settlements expansion in the West Bank. Perception sometimes is a house of cards. Change is just a little blow away.
IMHO AOC et al are a passing phenomenon. Obama made the 10 year deal at 3.8 billion a year. However I think it was back to back with giving the Iranians all that money plus a promise from the Iranians not to pursue nuclear weapons. But Trump re-sanctioned Iran which could be a deal breaker.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
BTW a few weeks ago I wrote a comment hereon the ‘theoretically’ bad idea of Iran nuking Israel etc.
It seems TA is only 45 miles from Jerusalem which was brought up in a semi-lengthly article in the JPost by some psychiatrist in the past week or so. You probably saw it.
@ natasha: As I wrote in this post, you’re echoing all the dismissive statements made about MLK, Malcolm X, Obama and RBG who pioneered radical change in their respective fields (possibly with the exception of Obama, who offered the promise of change). Your judgment of past history and predictions of the futures aren’t worth a bad penny.
We didn’t “give the Iranians money.” That’s a feeble GOP talking point (glad to know who and what you are). We gave them access to their own funds which had been frozen by sanctions.
As for the Post, I don’t read it unless I’m looking for the latest hoax it’s published, or I’m doing research on a specific subject.
The Senate has approved the U.S.-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018, giving that defense package the imprimatur of Congress, and keeping any future president from reneging.
The $38 billion deal was negotiated in 2016 by the Obama administration.
So Bernie and AOC are chasing the horse once it’s left the barn?
I don’t understand.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/senate-passes-bill-to-enshrine-military-aid-package-to-israel-into-law-1.6340748
@ Eunice: You don’t understand how U.S. appropriations work. It doesn’t matter whether Congress passed the appropriation. Do you think this is the only aid we give Israel? We give Israel so much aid in so many different programs that it would be quite easy to both threaten and actually cut aid in ways that would be painful and meaningful to Israel. And I’m more than certain that that aid package can be delayed in significant ways as well. We also share intelligence with Israel. That too could be curtailed.
You say you “don’t understand.” More like you don’t want to understand.
The State of Palestine has been recognized by 137 other states, and is recognized as an observer state at the UN. It cannot be said that the two-state solution is dead when the existence of the two states is recognized by a majority of the world’s other states. I agree that one-democratic-state is the desirable long-term solution, but it can only come about by an agreement between the two existing states to form a union into a single sovereign state. There is a precedent: in the eighteenth century England and Scotland, independent nations with their own parliaments, decided to unite under a single parliament to form Great Britain, while retaining their national identities. To see how this idea might work out for Israel and Palestine please look up the One-State-Two-Nations proposal.
I really can’t understand how can anyone believe a one state solution is viable in the foreseeable future.
Even the US, with common history between the people, seems to get closer to a melt down between the citizens, half of which do not respect the last elections and looking for ways to eliminate Trump.
To think Israelis and Palestinians can share a government in a decade is completely delusional.
@ Schlesinger: You ought to learn a bit more about multi-ethnic states throughout the world. Canada, though it has many tensions, is a multi-ethnic state functioning quite well. The U.S. is a similar type of state doing quite well despite tensions (many induced by right wing demagogue, friends of Israel like Trump). Switzerland too is doing decently.
Half of Americans “don’t respect the election?” What are you smoking? This guy is a criminal. We don’t accept him because he’s the worst president in history and a crook. It has nothing to do with an election.
Israeli Jews (not “Israelis”) and Palestinians can and will share a state and equal rights eventually.
“I expect such derision from these circles. …. To people like Miller, I say, get out of the way and let others try something different.”
Do you not see the irony in this?
This is exactly what Trump is doing.
“Everything has failed until now. Why not a new approach?”
The approaches are mirror images of each other. The only difference is which side you support and which side you coerce.
“Progressives” advocate forcing the stronger side into an agreement and Trump advocates forcing the weaker side.
I leave it to your readers as to what is more realistic…”justice” doesn’t matter here.
No I’m NOT a concern troll, I don’t care about the Palestinians’ demands.
@ DrS: The only delusion is your own. To argue that a one-state solution is the same as unilaterally obliterating five decades of U.S. foreign policy and betraying our role as honest broker is beyond preposterous. The one state solution has been seriously debated for decades. Trump’s policies have been extemporized on the fly with no input from serious experts. They have been imposed on the Palestinians with violence and indifference.
Nor have the Palestinians murdered 40,000 Israelis since 1948. NOr have they operated an apartheid state denying rights to another people. They have not methodically suppressed the political and economic rights of another people since 1948. So no, one-state has nothing to do with Trump and any suggestion otherwise is a pathetic argument in bad faith.
“Forcing the weaker side” to acquiesce in an agreement, the position you support, is immoral, cynical and evil. But good luck to you. It will lead to generations more bloodshed, all of which will be on your own head.
I really don’t understand how Israel is going to annex the territories or even part of them without things getting worse for Israel. Netanyahu claims to be about security and yet he jeopardizes it. He dares (like Trump). There will be a moment when Israel has gone too far(it has long since already) and all hell will break loose and drown cries of anti-Semitism “two state solution””it’s been ours for 5000 years””We won they lost””they refused generous offers””they want to push us into the sea”.Those dogs will not hunt anymore.
Imagine a race so despicable that they have to pass laws to keep normal people from hating them.
@ maria: I don’t much care for analyzing this in terms of “race.” I think it’s far too loaded a term. And calling a race ‘despicable’ is getting pretty far off the deep end.
“…position you support, is immoral, cynical and evil…”
Moral outrage aside, what are the prospects of forcing a overwhelmingly stronger side to concede to a weak side?
A pipe dream? Impossible? A peace agreement in a parallel universe?
Where has that worked?
Basic game theory and logic says that this cannot happen, or if it does, would be inherently unstable.
The Europeans are too weak and distracted to force anything. The other superpowers, China and Russia don’t care and only want to do business with the Jewish State. The US is perhaps the only superpower that can impose an agreement. What is the chance that any viable US candidate would impose on Israel an agreement that the Palestinians would voluntarily accept??
Zero. zilch. Even a Democratic candidate openly hostile to Israel will be limited in what they can do. They won’t waste their political assets on something so hopeless. Even Obama was led by the nose by Netanyahu.
While I am not in the business of prophecy, I don’t see any prospect in the foreseeable future of Israel not being overwhelmingly powerful– economically, militarily, politically.
This is not triumphalism. This is reality and seems to be the trendline.
For this same reason nobody is going to force Russia to retreat from Ukraine or Crimea, or from China threatening Taiwan, or getting Turkey out of Cyprus. Ain’t happening.
Russia imposed an “unjust” solution in Syria. The US and its allies can do the same in Israel/Palestine.
The French ambassador to the US, Gérard Araud, who is familiar with the current diplomatic chatter, said that “if you offer the Palestinians the choice between surrendering and committing suicide, they may decide the latter”.
I don’t know if he’s right, and as you have pointed out, the Palestinians aren’t asking my opinion. But my sense is that they are at a critical juncture in their movement. I certainly think that Israel should grab this opportunity to get the best deal they can.
@ DrS:
No, that’s just the point: morality is not an “aside” and cannot be thrust aside. Certainly not as cavalierly as you do. It is critical to consider Israel’s polices and behavior through a moral lens. Once you case aside morality, then you’re drowning in the same swamp of cynicism in which you flail about.
That’s nonsense. Since when has military power been the sole determinant of history? If that was the case, Rome would never have fell; the U.S. would still be a British colony; the Rwanda genocidaires would still be running the country; the Soviet Union would still exist; and the U.S. would be able to run roughshod over whoever stood in its way. The truth of all these examples and many others is that pure might is never enough to guarantee success or victory. THere are many other factors determining whether a nation succeeds in pursuing and securing its interests.
Human events and history are not determined by game theory.
There will be no peace agreement the Palestinians “voluntarily accept” unless the Saudis and their cronies impose Mohammed Dahlan and he agrees to betray the Palestinian cause. So your speculation is ridiculous.
Again with the disgusting, smarmy cynicism. OBama was led by the nose because he refused to expend the capital necessary to stand up to Netanyahu. That’s because Obama was beholden to the Lobby. Bernie Sanders is not beholden to the Lobby. If he wins, you can be sure that Netanyahu will be persona non grata in the U.S. And the Lobby no longer has the juice to impose its will in this matter. Bernie Sanders cannot be intimidated by Bibi or the Lobby as Obama could.
That’s a vast understatement.
You keep up this delusion. Because when everything comes crashing down, it will be because people like you maintained their smug facade while all around you crumbled.
Ah I do love that smugness. No one thought the Soviet Union would fall. Idiots like you think Putin will be a dictator forever and that Russia can never become a democracy; or at least a country ruled by leaders who are not bloodthirsty murderers. Again you maintain that cynisicm. It makes it easier for you and those you admire to be toppled when the time comes.
“Unjust” to whom? To ISIS and Israel’s pals, Al Nusra? To the Saudi moneybags who funded the headchoppers? To Bibi who zealously attempted to do the Saudi’s bidding in aiding Assad’s enemies.
Not in a hundred million years…
I do love it when the chattering hasbara classes quote white Europeans speaking on behalf of Palestinians. And this diplomat has access to Palestinian thinking, how?? You as also conveiently conveiently neglected to mention that this same ambassador called Israel “an apartheid state.” And added for good measure that the Kushner plan was “doomed to fail.” Why did you omit that part of his interview??
Which “critical juncture” is this? #1, #10, #100, or #1000?? THere have been so many imagined and imposed upon Palestinians by outsiders like you over the past decades. People who have no interest in either understanding Palestinians or their interests. As for your “sense,” as I’ve already said, really, who the hell cares?
I suggest you cut the cynicism crap. It irks me and is a good way to go from moderated, which you already are, to more restricted status.
Israel is guilty of many war crimes, as is the USA. We need to stop bombing other countries, and stop giving our tax money to Israel.
I agree fully. The policy position of the USA should be a simple one: either Bibi has to do his shit or he has to get off the shitter.
He either annexes ALL the West Bank or he withdraws Israeli forces out of ALL the West Bank, and if he refuses to accept either of those options then ALL the US aid to Israel should be withdrawn.
As for the Israeli “settlers” the USA should consider them to be exactly what they are – colonists.
Their fate can be determined in negotiations between Israel and Palestine, and the Israelis can offer whatever inducements they can afford to entice the Palestinians to agree that they can remain inside Palestine.
As permanent residents, or “Jewish Palestinians”, or whatever. Make it worth their while.
Or not. Be intransigent, in which case all those colonists can pack up and go back to Israel.
But the Aaron David Miller’s of the world have nothing to offer. Nothing whatsoever.
So be bold. Make Israel aware that the only remedies are stark ones: annex it all, or withdraw from it all.
And if they don’t, then show them how difficult life becomes when you piss off the USA.
DrS “Moral outrage aside, what are the prospects of forcing a overwhelmingly stronger side to concede to a weak side?”
At the end of WW2 the British Empire was still overwhelmingly stronger than the independence movements in its constituent colonies. Yet pressure from the USA saw the British divest itself of Empire very quickly.
DrS “Where has that worked?”
I suggest you acquaint yourself with the 20th century history of decolonization.
After all, Israel is an anachronism – a country predicated on 19th century concepts of colonial expansionism that attempts to delude the gullible that it is a hip and happening 21st century go-getter.
That works, in a fashion. But fashions come and go.