I find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position of agreeing with Thomas Friedman’s proposal in his New York Times column:
Hamas has not only taken Israelis hostage; it’s taken Gaza’s civilians hostage as well. They did not have a vote in Hamas’s savage kidnapping of Israeli grandmothers and babies. Take a moment and listen to this Center for Peace Communications and Times of Israel series “Whispered in Gaza†from January — interviews with Gazans about what they really think of Hamas’s corrupt and despotic leadership. Israel has to respect and build on their views if it hopes to build anything sustainably positive in Gaza from this war.
But Israel today is in raw survival mode. We Americans can advise, but Israel is going to do what it is going to do.
Where I have a vote — just one — is in America. The president, in his prime-time speech Thursday night, vowed to ask Congress for an additional $14 billion in assistance for Israel to get through this war, along with an immediate injection of $100 million in new funding for humanitarian assistance to Palestinians in Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
I’m all for helping Israelis and Palestinian civilians at this time — but not without some very visible strings attached.
If Israel needs weapons to protect itself from Hamas and Hezbollah, by all means ship them. But in terms of broader economic aid for Israel, it should be provided only if Israel agrees not to build even one more settlement in the West Bank — zero, none, no more, not one more brick, not one more nail — outside the settlement blocs and the territory immediately around them, where most Jewish settlers are now clustered and which Israel is expected to retain in any two-state solution with the Palestinians. (Netanyahu’s coalition agreement actually vows to annex the whole of the West Bank.)
Pledging unconditional support for Israel is not just a difference in degree from what Mr. Friedman is suggesting—it is different in kind. Furthermore, putting strings on economic aid is one thing. Being willing to follow through on the restrictions is something else again. I honestly do not believe that President Biden would risk part of his base (not to mention campaign contributions) to follow through on a pledge to stop providing economic aid to Israel unless Israel stops putting new settlements on the West Bank. In an election year?
I would add that Israel continues to fund the existing settlements—they are far from self-supporting. Refraining from building new settlements is a trivial first step and at this point we’re not even willing to advocate that.
One last point. Why does Mr. Friedman think that the Israeli leadership gives a damn about what the U. S. stipulates or does not stipulate? I think that Israel will do what Israel will do as it pursues its national interest regardless of U. S. preferences or support. The present Israeli government clearly sees West Bank settlements as in its national interest, our unconditional support ensures it will continue to do so, and we may not actually have much say in the matter.
Lets see, but one factor not mentioned in the blog post is the current Israeli government (i.e. Netanyahu’s coalition) is on the way out.
Polling seems consistent that Israeli’s expect Netanyahu and his coalition to resign at the end of the war (if successful), or if gets stuck at an impasse militarily.
What Israeli politics looks after Netanyahu is gone will be very different from pre Oct 7th. How it defines its national interest is likely to be transformed too.
Whatever Netanyahu’s political destiny, will the dominant Israeli party following his departure be more or less anti-Palestinian? And how do you know? I would be greatly surprised if Netanyahu is replaced by someone who is opposed to settlements.
Said another way I don’t think that Netanyahu is the cause of Israel’s political preferences so much as a reflection of its changing preferences.
It’s a question of timing. Now isn’t the time for the US to put the screws to Israel to get it to behave differently in the West Bank. It would, at a minimum, send the signal that Hamas’ attack and goals are at least somewhat legitimate.
And those are conversations that need to happen privately. Biden was, I think, directionally correct in signaling and warning that Israel should not make the same mistakes the US did. That tells me there are probably some more frank conversations happening behind closed doors.
And I think Curious’ point is very good. There is little point in trying to get such concessions from a government that will likely be replaced relatively soon by a government that will be more amenable to the message.
But will it? I think the message of the last 50 years is that the pattern is something like this:
– Israel gets attacked
– Israel hands its opponent its butt
– Israel takes a larger buffer
– Israeli politics gets more nationalistic
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I KNOW that Netanyahu is being blamed for Hamas being able to attack Israel. But will a Netanyahu, victorious over Hamas, be similarly blamed? And, assuming he is replaced, will whatever replaces him be less nationalistic and less anti-Palestinian?
I’m not championing him. Far from it. But as the Magic 8 Ball would put it outlook not so good.
From a security POV Netanyahu is almost definitely responsible for the attack. (Disclaimer: Hamas is evil. They should all be killed. They are solely responsible for the brutal attacks.) He prioritized having the IDF on the West Bank on the anniversary of the Yom Kippur war. It’s being leaked that their intelligence reported increased activity but he ignored it. All that said, he was carrying out the Will of the party in prioritizing the settlements.
If he can declare a stunning victory I can see him staying power. Voting him out might be seen as validating some of the complaints about Israel.
Steve