The anti-BDS act: What’s at stake for Democrats?
At the end of a week that was dominated by a virus (that’s why I wasn’t here for a few days), here are five comments on things I missed writing about since Monday:
The Temple Mount crisis is in a short respite – not over. The specific tension that ignited the recent strife is calmed, but another round it all but inevitable. Why? Two reasons. 1. The Palestinians learned that Temple Mount serves them well, and can provide them with small victories. It is tempting to use such useful tool again. They will not be able to resist such a temptation. 2. Too many Israelis are displeased with the status quo and will keep working to weaken it. The record number of Jews that visited Temple Mount on Tisha BeAv is telling.
The police might pull a decisive card in its investigation against Prime Minister Netanyahu, by having the PM’s former top aide Ari Harow as a state witness. Does this mean Netanyahu is doomed? There are two answers to this question: The answer of those convinced that Netanyahu is guilty, and that the only thing standing between him and a term in jail is a proper witness that could make his guiltiness official’ and he answer of those convinced that the investigation is a witch hunt, and that no witness can make a non-guilty person guilty.
What we do not know is this: Does Harow merely confirm the known facts– that is, he makes it even clearer that Netanyahu received many gifts from wealthy people – or does he contribute new facts to the mix, facts that make it impossible to argue that these were gifts and not bribe.
If it is all about gifts, the question will be one of interpretation: is it illegal for the PM to receive gifts, even many gifts, and is it an offense worthy of prosecution. If it is more than gifts – if someone can prove that Netanyahu was getting champagne in exchange for favors – that’s a whole different ball game.
I understand why some people are furious with Jared Kushner and his sober comments on the Israeli-Palestinian process, but must say I find nothing objectionable about them. “We’re trying to follow very logically'” he said, “We’re thinking about what the right end state is, and we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution. And there may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on. So we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future”.
Why are some people angry with Kushner? For two main reasons:
- One complaint is about tactics: Because Kushner was open, and a broker should be more discreet (tactics is the prerogative of the tactician, and maybe Kushner decided that honesty is what the peace process needs).
- One complaint is about content: Because Kushner is not certain there is a solution – and some people think they have a solution (it usually involves forcing Israel to do things that will put it at risk).
There is no reason to be angry with Kushner, but a follow-up question is due: if there is no solution, what should be the next step? What should it be for the parties themselves, and what role is the US supposed to play in the coming years of no solution?
The anti-BDS bill is becoming an interesting test for Democrats in Congress. The ACLU opposes the bill, and some legislators seem nervous about it – Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) removed her name from the bill, and my guess is that she will not be the last one to do so. New Hampshire Senator Maggie Hassan is already under pressure to do the same. And progressive Democrats will continue to exert such pressure on members whom they deem vulnerable to it.
What’s at stake? The simple explanation is that there are concerns about the bill and its impact on free speech. The real story is different: Elements on the left wing of the Democratic party oppose the bill because of their support of BDS. These elements wisely see this occasion as an opportunity to score a rare victory for BDS in the US, by torpedoing a highly visible bill. What needs to happen for them to succeed is simple: more Democrats must decide that the political price they will pay for shunning progressive pressure is higher than the price they will pay for shunning pro-Israel voters. In other words: the more Democrats decide not to support the bill, the more it becomes clear that Democratic legislators can no longer sustain the gap between what Democratic voters think about Israel, and how the party leaders vote on Israel.
When it was still widely assumed that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States, I wrote (in the New York Times) the following paragraph about the Democratic Party and Israel:
For relations between Israel and the Democrats to remain strong, one of two things needs to happen: Either Democrats’ attitudes and Israel’s policies must converge, or Democrats must become convinced that weakening support for Israel will come with a political price. Mr. Netanyahu and Mrs. Clinton will have to find out which it is to be, or else the drift will continue.
A year later – it continues.