In a sudden reversal, the Israeli government decided on Thursday to bar two members of Congress—Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN)—from
Photo tweeted by MPower Change
entering Israel. This means that they also cannot enter the West Bank, which was where they intended to spend bulk of their time in Israel-Palestine. After announcing the ban on the two congresswomen, Israel said that Tlaib could visit her family in the West Bank if she agreed “not to participate in any BDS activities.”
The decision to bar entry to the congresswomen met with widespread condemnation in the United States, including by groups that normally march in lockstep with Israel. AIPAC, for example, said they disagree with Tlaib and Omar, of course, but “We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand.” The American Jewish Committee said that “AJC believes that, out of two less-than-ideal options, neither of which was risk-free, Israel did not choose wisely by reversing its original decision [to allow Tlaib and Omar in].”
These were typical reactions from the center-right of the pro-Israel community in the U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), one of the most devoted Israel supporters in Congress, typified much of the congressional response, saying “No democratic society should fear an open debate. Many strong supporters of Israel will be deeply disappointed in this decision, which the Israeli government should reverse.”
Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader who just returned from leading a congressional delegation of dozens of members to Israel and who is as lock-step a pro-Israel voice as any Democrat, said, “The decision of the Israeli government to deny entry to Israel by two Members of Congress is outrageous, regardless of their itinerary or their views. This action is contrary to the statement and assurances to me by Israel’s ambassador to the United States that ‘out of respect for the U.S. Congress and the great alliance between Israel and America, we would not deny entry to any Member of Congress into Israel.’ That representation was not true.”
What was so interesting about these responses, beyond the unusual tone of rebuke for Israel, is the seemingly deliberate decision not to blame President Donald Trump. After all, Israel had made it quite clear that they intended to admit Tlaib and Omar, and then reversed its decision quickly after a tweet from Trump, which read: “It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel and all Jewish people, and there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds.” Read more at LobeLog
This has not been a good week for Democrats, especially those who wish to cast their party as the progressive alternative to the Trump-McConnell regime. As the feckless party leadership continued to avoid taking any action against Donald Trump for his numerous crimes—which go well beyond the Russia questions—they managed to find time to pass a bill opposing the right of U.S. citizens to use economic leverage to press for change in Israel-Palestine.
H. Res. 246, a nameless bill which declares the House of Representatives’ opposition to the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, passed with 398 in favor and only 17 (16 Democrats and one Republican) representatives voting against it. The bill was considerably weaker than the sort of legislation the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) had hoped to pass to criminalize BDS at the federal level. Those efforts ran afoul of free speech concerns among a wide variety of Congress members.
In the end, H. Res. 246 addressed those concerns sufficiently to attract the support of comparatively moderate Jewish groups such as J Street, Ameinu, Partners for Progressive Israel, the National Council of Jewish Women, and Reconstructing Judaism. But fundamental issues remained, and if we were having a rational discussion about BDS and U.S. policy toward Israel-Palestine in general, those issues would have been more of an obstacle. Read more at LobeLog
When Donald Trump announced that he was immediately removing all U.S. troops from Eastern Syria, I was surprised by the reaction. There was near glee in anti-war corridors. The initial response is understandable; the United States should not be in Syria, and that is true for many reasons. Moreover, many of those objecting to the decision are doing so because it doesn’t fit with their objectives to heighten tensions with Iran and continue to pursue endless conflict in the name of fighting terrorism. But leaving the way Trump intends is foolish and will not lead to a good outcome. Read more at LobeLog
The imbroglio over House Speaker John Boehner’s unseemly invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and John Boehner
Netanyahu after President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last month is continuing to rage in Washington. But when it comes to the Palestinians, it is business as usual in Congress.
On February 4, the House of Representatives’ Sub-Committee on the Middle East and North Africa will hold a hearing on suspending aid to the Palestinian Authority as punishment for their temerity in exercising their legal right to bring their grievances against Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The sub-committee, chaired by hawk Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), has stacked the deck well against the Palestinians.
The panel appearing before the committee is a group of staunchly pro-Israel academics and think-tank pundits. It consists of Jonathan Schanzer of the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracy; Danielle Pletka from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute; David Makovsky from the AIPAC-inspired Washington Institute for Near East Policy; and Eugene Kontorovich, a professor of law who is one of a tiny handful of legal scholars who try to make the case that Israel is not actually an occupying power in the West Bank according to international law.
The constitution of the panel is not surprising, given the hard push AIPAC has been giving on this issue, the rightward tilt of the sub-committee, and the Republican impetus to confound any moderation on Middle East issues by the Obama administration. In many ways, though, this is a grandstanding play by Congress. They have, after all, already passed legislation mandating that aid to the Palestinian Authority be suspended if it initiates or assists in a case that the ICC pursues against Israel. Now, with AIPAC cheering hard behind them, they are pushing it a step further and demanding that the Palestinians completely withdraw from the Rome Statute (the treaty that created the ICC).
Congress and the White House do not have a sharp disagreement on this issue, unlike the question of a nuclear deal with Iran. Both the White House and the State Department have publicly expressed their displeasure at the Palestinian decision to join the ICC, and the State Department has initiated its own review of aid to the Palestinians as a result.
Nonetheless, the Obama administration would clearly prefer to deal with this issue in a way that doesn’t cause further, perhaps fatal, damage to the Palestinian Authority. But whereas in the past both the Israeli government and its advocates in the United States have agreed that sustaining the PA was a priority, Jerusalem seems to have changed its position.
The hearing follows a letter, signed by prominent members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Addressed to Secretary of State John Kerry, the letter explicitly states that continued ICC membership would “threaten the viability of the PA itself.” It goes on to declare that the “United States should not support direct economic assistance to the PA until it demonstrates a meaningful reversal of this destructive course and proves it can be a willing partner for peace.”
Clearly, this Congress is determined to force the Palestinian Authority to abandon the ICC or it will destroy the PA entirely. This approach is not limited to the House. Last week 75 senators signed on to an AIPAC-authored letter spearheaded by Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) similarly urging harsh reprisals against the PA for its action.
Turning reality on its head, the Senate letter tells Kerry that “Israel needs a Palestinian partner that has renounced violence, refuses to partner with terrorists, accepts Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and is willing to make compromises for peace. President Abbas’ recent actions undermine these efforts.” With the lone exception of Israel’s insistence that, unlike every other country in the world, the Palestinians, and the Palestinians alone, recognize it as a Jewish state, Abbas has gone to extraordinary lengths over the last decade to fulfill all of these demands.
These letters and hearings have come about under the shadow of the controversy over Netanyahu’s announced address to Congress in March. As such, they have received relatively little attention in Washington. But they represent a significant upgrade in the intensity of congressional action against the Palestinian Authority.
Neither the House nor the Senate letter makes any mention of urging Kerry to push for a resumption of negotiations, even though both note that this is, in the view of the signatories, the “only path” to resolving the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Considering that the upcoming House panel doesn’t have a single voice on it that is anything less than hostile toward the Palestinians, the inescapable conclusion is that these congressional actions are, in fact, intended to strip the Palestinians of any means to defend their rights and claims in a non-violent fashion.
In March, whether Netanyahu addresses Congress or not, he will be coming to Washington. He will be coming with the clear purpose of scuttling the efforts of the Obama administration, as well as of the key European allies of Israel – Great Britain, France, and Germany—to reach a diplomatic resolution to the long nuclear standoff with Iran. A few days ago, Marsha Cohen and a team of experts ably deconstructed the likely substance of the case he will be bringing.
In light of those realities, the question that needs to be asked of both Netanyahu and the Obama administration is, quite simply, “why aren’t we talking about the Palestinians?” Instead of scuttling peace talks with Iran and blocking every non-violent route the Palestinians have to address their ongoing occupation and dispossession, would we not do better to seek peaceful and reasonable resolutions to both? Or is that just too much to ask of the United States?