Lever Time: Why does America provide so much support to Israel?

12:23AM May 10, 2024

Speakers:

David Sirota

Joe Biden

News Anchor

Arjun Singh

Trita Parsi

News Reporter

Benjamin Netanyahu

Akbar Ahmed

Brett McGurk

Jake Sullivan

Tony Blinken

John Kirby

Nathan Thrall

Keywords:

israel

biden

gaza

palestinians

west bank

war

policy

netanyahu

administration

israelis

iran

deal

israeli

middle east

hamas

civilians

conflict

years

protests

occupied territory

From the levers reader supported newsroom, this is lever time. I'm David Sirota. After months of staunch support for Israel's brutal war in Gaza. President Joe Biden finally seemed to draw a red line with Israel already having killed 1000s of Palestinians. the Netanyahu government announced its intention to invade the Gazan city of Rafah. But Biden this week said he would not supply the Israeli military with weapons that could be used in an assault on the city where a majority of Palestinian refugees have fled to. It was a big shift for Biden, who's considered himself one of Israel's strongest allies in the US government for decades. As the lever previously reported, the President has for months ignored his own administration's stated official policy of denying weapons shipments to countries likely to use the arms to attack civilian targets. But this week, with the prospect of an Israeli ground invasion, Biden seem to change course, under intensifying pressure from growing protests across America. However, Biden's pivot may not deter Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He's been defiant and insisted that he'll continue the war until Hamas leadership is eradicated. But that would require continuing the war. And according to recent reporting, Netanyahu refused to accept a ceasefire deal that would return the hostages that Hamas took on October 7. Today on lever time, we're gonna go to senior Podcast Producer Arjun Singh to get a sense of why the US is so intertwined with Israel's war, and what's motivating the Biden administration to take the actions they have. Our June also takes a look at the prospect of a wider regional conflict, one that could pit Israel against Iran. And our June looks at how the war in Gaza has been seen from the perspective of Israelis and Palestinians. They are on the ground.

Last week, I was sitting in the offices of the Quincy Institute in Washington, DC. Oh, can I just do a quick sound? Sure, introduce yourself.

Yes. Trita Parsi, Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute,

I was there to talk to Trita about the relationship between Israel and Iran.

I don't think Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. And even though that is something that is so widely accepted here in Washington and in fact, mainstream media, oftentimes New York Times in particular, oftentimes when they say Iran is a coma, which poses an existential threat to Israel as if it is a clear fact or at least saying, which Israel views as an existential threat, which is also not entirely true. The

reason I wanted to sit down with Trita is because about a month ago, the Israeli government launched a strike on the Iranian embassy in Syria.

Iran is pledging revenge tonight accusing Israel of attacking its embassy complex in Syria, and reportedly killing at least seven Iranian military officials. That includes at top general

and then the Iranian government launched more than 300 missiles and drones at Israel in retaliation.

We have confirmation from the Israeli military that those drones have been launched, we understand that they are currently in Iraqi airspace. But we also understand that these drones could likely take up to nine hours to even get anywhere near Israel, nine hours. That's

a very long time, nine

hours was enough time for Israel with help from the United States to shoot down a majority of them. But one did kill a seven year old girl. If you just happened to be turning on the news at that time or getting an alert on your phone. This looked like pretty intense stuff. It looked like the Middle East might have been on the verge of a war between the two regional powers of Israel and Iran. But Trita didn't think so?

No, I think it's been very, very clear that if they wanted to have an escalation, they have had seven months of ample opportunities to do so. And that is clearly not what they're seeking to do for quite rational reasons. This would not be a popular war inside of Iran, nor would it be one that Iran necessarily would be able to do particularly well with, compared to what they think their position will be in a couple of years time in the sense that they do believe the time is on their side to

treat the drone attack, though dramatic could have been far deadlier, and Ron's intentions may not have been to escalate the conflict, but send a firm message to Israel. In other words, having most of the missiles and drones intercepted might have been the point and treated felt that was underscored in mid April when both governments played down tensions between the two in the wake of an Israeli drone strike on an Iranian airbase. This regime

has been in power for 44 years now. 45 They've had plenty of opportunities to commit suicide. They have have rejected every opportunity to do so. They are in a more powerful position, arguably than they have been. For the latter part of those 45 years. That's not a track record of any rational actor. It's a track record of a very cunning ruthless regime. But it's not suicidal, nor is it irrational.

Iran and Israel have been engaged in shadow fights with each other for a long time. But that conflict usually takes place in the form of proxy battles between armed groups, the two nations fun and covert operations. Right now it looks like a direct conflict may not escalate. But what might have a greater influence on the potential for more conflict involving Israel is what happens right here in the US. Did you see the protest, and that's the GW protest, right? And that's where I'm going next day, it's treated and I were speaking right outside of the Quincy Institute's office was an encampment of pro Palestine protesters who are occupying part of George Washington University's campus. That's partially what made me want to sit down with Trina last week, even though the war in Gaza may not be top of mind for every American. In fact, it may not be for a majority of the nature and scope of Israel's war in Gaza is imprinted itself on the American psyche. For college students protests on campus have become a daily facet of life for the last couple of weeks in coverage. all over the news and social media. For example, on Wednesday night, Joe Biden sat down for an interview with CNN, something he rarely invokes on the college protests and his recent decision to pause weapons shipments to Israel by going the route

of supplying the weapons that have been used historically, to to, to deal with that problem,

I want to be very clear about the war in Gaza is about much of the United States. But for a long time, American presidents have intervened in the Middle East to promote American interests that happened with President Dwight Eisenhower, authorized the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s. And that helped usher in a dictatorship that lasted until 1970. In my lifetime, the US lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. conflicts that led us troops planning are still true. When it comes to Israel, Israel historically had a very close relationship. It's a relationship Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who spent part of his childhood and teenage years living just outside of Philadelphia usually highlights when he comes to the United States because

America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands, the cherished freedom, and offer hope.

It's also a relationship that's played a large role in President Biden's time as a politician. Starting back in the 1970s, when Biden was a young senator, he met with Israel's Prime Minister at the time golden my air and Biden would continue to be a strong backer of Israel throughout his time in the Senate, and then eventually his vice president. It's

only natural for two democracies like ours. As Ron said, We're like family. We have a lot to say to one another. Sometimes we drive each other crazy, but we love each other. And we protect each other.

As President Biden has doubled down on that commitment to protecting Israel, here he is on Tuesday, and

my commitment to the safety of the Jewish people, the security of Israel, and its right to exist as an independent Jewish state is ironclad, even when we disagree.

That's why to understand what's happening in Israel and Gaza, it's impossible to disentangle the role of the United States. from it all. Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of American aid. On average, the US sends Israel around $3 billion a year. And supporters of Israel have a very powerful lobby within the United States made up of various organizations such as AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who spend money in American elections up and down the ballot to elect politicians who they see is more favorable to Israel. So to better understand the role that the United States is playing in the current conflict, I sat down with Akbar Shaheed Achmed Akbar is the senior diplomatic correspondent for The Huffington Post, and has a deep level of knowledge of how the Biden administration has approached the war in Gaza since October,

where in a world where 35,000 Palestinians at a minimum are dead and Gaza, most houses are gone. Infrastructure is gone, though we will all be dealing with the consequences of this war for not just months, but but years, maybe decades to come. So the US already knows it's incurred a huge strategic and national security humanitarian and moral costs for supporting the war. Their hope is they can get a win out of this and interestingly that they're seeking quite an ambitious win out of this Most

recently, President Biden seem to draw a red line over Israel going to the Gaza City of Rafa, Rafa has become a refuge for Gazans who are fleeing the violence in the rest of the Gaza Strip. It's also where a majority of the humanitarian aid for Gazans goes through with the news of a potential Israeli operation into the city, more than 100,000 Gazans, some of whom have already been displaced have fled again. But it's unclear where in Gaza is now safe. That all being said, according to Akbar, the administration believes they'll somehow be able to craft a long lasting peace deal out of all of this.

There's a lot of wishful thinking going on right now in the White House in the State Department, I argue, many of my sources has talked to me about how they see top levels of the administration being unrealistic with what they're talking about. And the super deal I'm referring to is a deal that covers not just the end of fighting in Gaza, but also reshapes the Middle East in a significant way, by creating a new agreement between Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US and some version of the Palestinians. They see that as a legacy issue for President Biden, they see it as something that could help them electorally. And it's important to remember they've been driven throughout this war since October 7, by a fear of being seen as not pro Israel enough. So they see achieving an Israel Saudi deal with some concessions to the Palestinians, as a way to say look, we he has not only dealt with this war brought home hostages, but also we've delivered new peace for Israel with a major Arab country and arguably the most influential Muslim majority country from what's

been reported. So far. That deal would involve the US signing a security agreement with Saudi Arabia, in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel, the administration would provide civilian nuclear technology and artificial intelligence knowledge with the Gulf nation. What's interesting about all of this is that it's being largely speared by three men who State Department officials have said are ignoring the advice of career diplomats.

There's a real sense in the administration that I've heard consistently from Assad of this war hasn't shifted, which is that a tiny, tiny group of people, and specifically a tiny group of of men, you're close to the president cheek, Solomon, Tony Blinken, Brett McGurk, who's the President's top Middle East advisor and the President himself are driving this policy and the fear among government officials is that their warnings are not heeded that their policy advice and recommendations are being rendered irrelevant.

Let's start with Tony Blinken. Blinken is the Secretary of State and a longtime adviser to Joe Biden, way back in the days when Biden was a senator,

we've said clearly and for some time now on on Rafa that, in the absence of a plan to ensure that civilians will not be will not be harmed. We can't support a military a major military operation.

He's the person who's taking the flack for the Biden administration, right. He's the one who hears from foreign leaders, foreign officials. You're not just dooming us to mass death in Gaza, you are dooming the US and its allies in the Middle East for years to come. Right. You've turned so many people that can't sue Blinken, as a foreign policy professional with many years experience understands that right? So he's in this case where his own agency is in what one set button official described to me as as in a mutiny, right? He's dealing with that he's dealing with foreign leaders who don't trust him. And he's the adversary for Biden going around the Middle East, sort of constantly being kicked in the face by Netanyahu and other leaders in the region because he doesn't have a new policy to offer.

And there's Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser who upward told me is still important, but not quite as influential as the other.

I'm not going to comment on hypotheticals, but I will state here what I stated the last time I stood at this podium, which is that the United States does not believe that a massive ground invasion of Rafah were 1.3 or more million people are sheltering, having been pushed out of other parts of Gaza that are now destroyed into the area where humanitarian assistance comes in. This is not the best way forward there.

Then there's this guy, Brett McGurk,

before major war and peace decisions are made that the President is speaking from his own experience that requires deliberation. It requires asking hard questions. And it requires making sure that you have a plan in place with achievable objectives and that that plan is actually leading to achieving those objectives. Those are the types of questions I know, the Israelis are asking themselves and we are providing whatever advice we can

so cook is a long standing fixture of the DC foreign policy establishment going back to the Bush administration when he first launched his career in global affairs without speaking Arabic or working on the Middle East previously, as trying to help set up the future state of Iraq. After 2003 invasion, since then he's been entrusted with a number of policies by both Republican and Democratic presidents and made a lot of enemies along the way, but also continued to get promoted. I would argue in that 20 year span during which his incidents have limited this policy has grown creature. America does not seem to have trusted in more either humane or, or clearly beneficial policy in the region. And as

far back as January according to Akbar's recording, McGurk was pushing for a Saudi normalization. So they

started by talking about the sidelining of foreign policy expertise, that's very much a product of Ladakh, centralizing power and decision making in on the Middle East in this orbit for the administration, because he's so connected now and personally, quite close to the President. Right. So that's why you've seen his own fixations like the US Saudi Israel deal, they can't really the top priority of the administration, which they were not when President Biden took office, and certainly what's not what President Biden campaign for the GOC, I think, sees that as not just Biden's legacy, but his own legacy. And that's what's so critical here is how much is the policy being driven by a personal sense of importance and mission and eco, rather than a policy analysis of what it means these pre decisive, powerful and what guiding Middle East policy of the present, not only were never elected to a position in our lives ministration or before, but critically have always been sauces.

Those men might be guiding the effort. But it should be noted that Joe Biden is ultimately the one in charge, as his predecessor George W. Bush once said, Biden as president is the decider. And one area that Biden has been especially hit with criticism over is whether he is the leader of this administration, believes Israel has violated international law and possibly committed war crimes. Those are heavy accusations. So I asked Akbar how the administration has grappled with them. You

know, back in February, I broke a story saying that, actually, US government officials were investigating Israeli war crimes. Right. And that was something that was important because governments spokespeople administration spokespeople like John Kirby had been saying for months at that point, no, we believe Israel is following international law. We have seen

them take actions, sometimes actions that that even I'm not sure our own military would take in terms of informing civilian populations ahead of operations. Where to go where not to go?

internally? Yes, it's indisputable. My reporting has shown and I've heard since February that those war crimes investigations are continuing, because he has to write I mean, lawyers at the State Department at the Pentagon, people in the intelligence community know that they are still bound by US law, and they are still bound by international law. And regardless of the political decisions at the White House level. On a working level, that's a huge concern. In terms of appreciation of civilian tool, I think there's definitely been an uptick. And you hear that even at high levels, and from people who initially were willing to kind of deny that Israel was disproportionately hurting civilians. The question becomes, does knowledge lead to action? Right. So I think the awareness is there. I think the President does raise these matters with Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it's always tempered. Right. And I think most notably, you saw that after the World central kitchen killing, right so when and it's really a strike killed, seven, eight workers, six of them foreigners, one of them, American, President Biden, and administration officials were beating that brass saying we're going to have a an unprecedented phone call with Netanyahu. We're going to tell him this needs to stop. And what you later found out about that goal, when I heard from officials, what news reports showed us is that yes, Biden did talk about aid workers who then just told he also talked a lot about Israel's security concerns around Iran. Right, interesting at that point. So there's so many other ways in which they are seeing the US Israel relationship is driven by concerns that are not humanitarian or civilian focus.

This week, the Biden administration was supposed to deliver a report to Congress about whether they believe Israel violated international law. That report was delayed. Its findings could have massive implications not just for American policy toward Israel, but also the Biden administration's role in supporting Netanyahu government since October. Meanwhile, Israeli officials, including Netanyahu have raised alarms to Biden that they're worried the international criminal and intergovernmental body that charges and prosecute, among other things for crimes it soon charged. But so far, in this episode, I've been talking about things happening now. outside of Israel, which is why after the break, we're gonna sit down with the Jerusalem baseboards, to hear what things are laying on the ground

so one thing that's important to know is Gaza is separated from the rest of the occupied territories and it's very difficult for Gazans to leave, they have to go through a really arduous process to apply for permits to exit which are rarely granted. This includes just for medical care that you can't get in Gaza. So the main feeling of Gazans prior to October 7, for the last two decades has been of feeling trapped.

Nathan Thrall is a journalist based in Jerusalem and the recent winner of the Pulitzer Prize for his book a day in the life of Abed Salama anatomy of a Jerusalem tragedy,

in a way when I would visit Gaza and I go to Gaza frequently, it felt almost like travel time travel, like I was going back in time, to an earlier era in the Palestinian national movement, the attitudes of people were really different. And there was a spirit of optimism and a willingness to fight and a belief in the their ability to endure and to prevail. Part of I think that belief and the discrepancy in that belief in Gaza in the West Bank is that Gaza is we're not exposed Israel. And so you could Israel for a younger generation with something in the imagination, and I would be in these conversations in Gaza. And then I go through the eras crossing and reenter Israel and see the skyscrapers and the development and Israel's takeover of land in the West Bank, and it's steady absorption of the West Bank and the settlements in the West Bank. And it was so far removed from what Gazans believed, was on the other side of that wall. So Gaza was a very isolated place,

Nathan's spent a lot of time reporting out of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These are the two areas that encompass what is in theory supposed to be autonomous territory for Palestinians. The two are separated from each other, though, and they have different governments in Gaza. The ostensible government is run by Hamas, while the West Bank is currently occupied by the Israeli government. Some supporters of Israel have argued that Israel's military actions are justified because most civilians of Gaza support Hamas, and that it was the civilians who elected Hamas in the first place. But that claim should really be examined in the context that the last time there was an election in Gaza was 2006 18 years ago. So I asked Nathan, what he understood of support for Hamas from his reporting. There are

two answers to this. On one hand, Palestinians are eight people and they consider themselves a single people, including Palestinians, in refugee camps in the diaspora, Palestinians in Gaza, Palestinians inside Israel with Israeli citizenship and Palestinians in the West Bank. They're all part of the same people. And they feel themselves to be part of the same people. That said, there are, of course, divisions among Palestinians that in some cases are geographical. And part of what Israel has done is to fragment the Palestinian population and to try and ensure that Palestinian nationalism is weakened through fragmentation. And that is a big part of why Israel has made it impossible for Gazans to leave. And to come to the West Bank. You know, as far as the international law is concerned, the occupied territory is one territory, it is not a set of territories, plural, its East Jerusalem, and the West Bank, East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank and Gaza, and occupied people have a right to travel within the occupied territory, which Israel is denying them it's denying them access to East Jerusalem, it's denying them access to Gaza, it's denying Gazans ask access to the West Bank. And so if you really if you dig down in any society, of course, you will find those divisions and resentments. And certainly, Gazans, I know over the years have told me how they don't understand how they keep paying the heaviest price for fighting back against Israel system of control. And, you know, there are these terrible slaughters that people in the West Bank are witnessing and they don't understand how they're of how people in the West Bank aren't doing more. I think the divisions are very real, but at the end of the day, they are one people at with a single national movement.

On the other side of this, however, is the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in the face of protests within Israel and even a change of policy from staunch allies like Biden, Netanyahu has said he's committed to continuing the war. I

say to the leaders of the world, no amount of pressure. No decision by any international forum, will stop Israel from defending itself. As the Prime Minister of Israel, the one and only Jewish states. I pledge here today from Jerusalem on this Holocaust Remembrance Day. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone. But we know we're not alone. Because countless decent people around the world support our jobs costs. And I say to you, we will defeat our genocidal enemies, never again, is now

as the Prime Minister Netanyahu is the face of Israel's actions right now. And he's ultimately the one making these decisions. But even amongst Israeli moderates, Netanyahu, whose perspective on denying Palestinian sovereignty may not be too out of touch with his peers,

I think if Netanyahu were to disappear, you would find remarkable similarity in the overall policy toward the Palestinians from the centrist candidates like gods who wish to replace him. And we saw this, by the way, we had a test run, when there was a government of your lippiett and Naftali Bennett, few years ago, and its policy toward the Palestinians was really no different, and in some ways worse than Netanyahu was. So there is a consensus in Israel in the center center right center left, we can't give them real sovereignty, we can't give them citizenship, we have no choice but some version of this control. And basically, the center left is better able to market that to the rest of the world, it's better able to say that we want it to eventually turn into two states, etc. Whereas the right is just much more blunt about saying no, there's nothing wrong with permanent, limited autonomy under Israeli control. So

where does that leave the Israeli public? Earlier this week, 1000s of Israelis gathered in Tel Aviv to protest the Netanyahu government. They call for a ceasefire and an acceptance of a deal that Hamas reportedly accepted that would bring back the remaining hostages, and Hamas has captivity. It's a powerful demonstration. But is that indicative of how the Israeli public feels?

I mean, Israelis have been tuning out the occupation, that they're administering the control of millions of Palestinians. Without basic civil rights for decades, and Israelis have grown very adept at tuning that out and telling themselves, that's not really happening here that's over there. It's almost as though you know, it's, you know, the US occupation of Iraq at some distant thing. And it doesn't have to do with, you know, life. And in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, which is obviously not the case, it's one in 10 Israeli Jews are living in the occupied territories. It's not as though they're they don't have the ability to see it. It's just a couple of kilometers away. But there is a great ability to tune it out. It's

very unlikely that this decades long conflict will end with this military operation. It's very unlikely that this decades long conflict will end with this war. And it's also unclear how much more the international community will tolerate. Netanyahu has said that he plans to continue the war until Hamas is leadership is eradicated a goal which is tenuous and will surely result in the loss of more civilian life. Ultimately, some sort of reconciliation process will need to take place, one that fairly accounts for the emotions and traumas that Israelis and Palestinians have both experienced. The question is, what would that reconciliation look like? And are Israelis and Palestinians ready to begin having that process? That's

a very good question. And I think that up until now, the paradigm has been separation, we're just going to partition that's been the mainstream idea for the PLO, and for Israel, we're going to partition the territory, there is going to be a wall, they're going to be there. We're going to be here, and we don't need to deal with reconciling and dealing with history. And and that's been part of why all of these past peace processes have failed because they haven't addressed the history. And for Palestinians for this conflict to to really end Israelis are going to have to duress, the ethnic cleansing of 1948. And there is going to have to be a discussion about the injustice for Palestinians of creating a Jewish state in a majority non Jewish territory against the will of the local population. This is going back even prior to 1948. That kind of conversation for the most part by the kind of peace process professionals has been avoided. This is just This is going to lead nowhere. We just have to accept their two irreconcilable narratives. And we can't resolve that issue. And I think that's been a tremendous mistake, and only now out of real despair. Do you have people who think you know, there's actually no chance for any kind of peace in the foreseeable future that I hear some people who are former Peace processors say we need to look at truth and reconciliation. We need to look at how this happened in other places. And I think that it's very hard for me to imagine that there is any kind of sustainable piece that doesn't address the history.

Thanks for listening to another episode of lever time. Lever time is a production of the lever. This episode was produced by me Arjun Singh and edited by David Serota, Lucy Dean Stockton and Joel Warner. Our theme music was composed by Nick Campbell. We'll be back next week with more episodes of leisure time.