 |
| Senator Chris Murphy, one of the signatories to the letter (Arutz Sheva) |
There has been a lot of talk about losing bi-partisan support ever since the President moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and abandoned a decades long US policy of opposition to settlements on the West Bank. Calling them an obstacle to peace.
I understand the reasons for that now abandoned policy. The US position had always been that even though its support for Israel was strong, Palestinians had a point. They had no desire to be part of a Jewish state and wanted a state of their own. At least that is what their leadership said from the very moment they started calling themselves Palestinians. A term that was once used to refer to all residents of pre-state Israel when it was still called Palestine.
But ever since Yassir Arafat’s founding of the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) they started referring to themselves that way. The name stuck. That is how they now all identify; that is what the world calls them... and that is what they are: Palestinians.
Now as I’ve said many times, Palestinians do suffer because of Israel’s security needs. Security needs based on the very cause the PLO’s name actually stands for – the liberation of Palestine. All of it.
Arafat eventually realized this would never happen and was willing to negotiate for a 2 state solution. But the goal of liberating it all was never abandoned as the ultimate goal. I believe it is still part of the PLO charter.
The name PLO has now morphed into a more respectable name: The Palestinian Authority (PA). The last several US administrations on both sides of the political aisle bought into the notion that the PA was the precursor to an eventual governing body of a Palestinian state. A state that would live side by side with Israel in peaceful relationship. Nice dream. But about as likely as the Pope converting to Judaism.
I had always opposed settlements. Mostly ‘hilltop’ type settlements deep into the West Bank comprised of a few trailer homes. The purpose of which was to ‘to show the Arabs who’s boss!’. That antagonized Palestinians who lived there. And making it easier for Palestinian leaders convince the world of the justice of their cause. I found that to be an incitement to violence that would increase death and destruction. But I also opposed settlements in general because they antagonized Israel’s closest friend in the world, the US, whose policy opposed any settlement activity.
That was before the US - under the current President abandoned its anti settlement policy. Which has allowed settlement activity to resume. While I am still opposed to ‘hilltop’ type settlements, I am happy to see residents of larger and more established border settlements add to their homes or build new ones. Especially since the PA had already agreed bck i the 90s that Israel could retain most of settlements on the border in exchange for with land in uninhabited areas. (Known as land swaps.)
We are in a new reality now. One that has exposed a split between the political left and thepolitical right in this country. The right (mostly Republicans) support Israel unequivocally. As Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said recently when asked about it: Israel is a soveign nation that has the right to make its own decisions. Which the US support.
This is where bi-partisan support diverges. Israel has announced that with the US's new policy it seeks to annex large portions of the West Bank. Make no mistake about it. This is the policy of both Netanyahu and Gantz. The vast majority of Israelis that voted for one or the other of them. (Or more accurately - the political parties they head.)
This development has generated a letter of protest by some Democrats. From Arutz Sheva:
A group of Democratic Senators have backed down from a threat to end bipartisan support for Israel if it goes through with a move to apply sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, Jewish Insider reported on Sunday.
Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) are now pushing a revised, watered-down letter to Senate offices after circulating an initial draft which warned that sovereignty would end the bipartisan support.
The original letter, addressed to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Knesset Speaker Benny Gantz, warned the Israeli leaders that “If you move forward with unilateral annexation, we could not support that action and would sadly conclude that Israel no longer values the bipartisan support that Congress has provided it for decades.”
What this means is that if Democrats get control of congress and the White House, Israel will be in trouble. It will face support that is conditional. If those conditions are not met, it may very well face reduced support or maybe even abandonment. That is not what I call support.
I don’t know of it will ever come to that. Israel would surely stop settlement activity of Democrats win congress and the White House. But at this point seems like a distinct possibility.
This puts me in an ethical bind. Because the Republican candidate is man whose character is so low, a man who is so vindictive - vilifying all those that criticize him, I find it difficult to support him.
And with support for Israel so shallow on the left side of the political aisle - as the initial letter indicates (as does even the revised one) - of what value is bi-partisan support anyway? Of what value is the kind of support that is conditional on the whims of a foreign government?
I am happy about the support of Republicans most of whom are political conservatives. But am unhappy about the reality that bi-partisan support is only skin deep. But apparently that IS the reality.