Rare Joint Force Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden: Bombarded Netanyahu
Israelis. It’s to be expected. It’s how they show love. But the fights always resulted from the gentlest of prodding on my part—about the occupation, about the expanding role of religious authorities, about why Israeli taxi drivers can seem so obnoxious. They would respond with disproportionate defensivenes. The questioning itself, especially from someone who didn’t live in Israel, was the problem. I would be reminded that only two paths were open to me—pro-Israel or anti-Israel—and that simply by opening my mouth I had made a choice, the wrong one. There are a hundred reasons not to criticize the embattled Jewish state, I was told, and that was doubly true for me, an outsider, an American.
The swelling demonstrations against the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over a bill that, if passed, would drastically curtail the power of the country’s Supreme Court—calling into question, critics say, whether Israel could even be called a democracy anymore.
REP. JAMAAL BOWMAN AND SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS are leading an effort to urge President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken to investigate whether Israel is using US weapons to commit human rights abuses against Palestinians, in violation of United States law, according to a letter and e-mail sent to other members of Congress obtained by Jewish Currents. The letter was written by Bowman, while Sanders is spearheading efforts to garner support from other senators, according to Bowman’s office. The letter has so far been signed by eight additional lawmakers: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Summer Lee, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, Betty McCollum, André Carson, and Ayanna Pressley. “At this inflection point, we ask your administration to undertake a shift in US policy in recognition of the worsening violence, further annexation of land, and denial of Palestinian rights,” the lawmakers wrote. The lawmakers end the letter by calling on the Biden administration to “ensure US taxpayer funds do not support projects in illegal settlements” and to “determine whether US-origin defense articles have been used in violation of existing US laws.” The letter criticizes the new Israeli government’s “alarming actions” and its cabinet of “far-right, anti-Palestinian individuals and parties,” asserting that the Israeli coalition in power is “pushing repressive, anti-democratic policies and escalating violence towards the Palestinian population.”
The laws mentioned in the Bowman-Sanders letter—the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act—stipulate that US weapons can only be used for purposes of self-defense and cannot be used to commit human rights abuses such as torture, extrajudicial killings, and any other “flagrant denial” of “the right to life.” The letter demands that the Biden administration “ensure that all future foreign assistance to Israel, including weapons and equipment, is not used in support of gross violations of human rights,” and that the administration respond to the lawmakers with a “detailed plan” on how the US will make sure Israel does not illegally misuse future aid.
The wide-ranging letter expresses concern over the government’s now-delayed plans to gut the power of the Israeli judiciary. The lawmakers say these changes could enable corruption and “open the path” to further annexation of Palestinian territory, which they acknowledge is already occurring. “Despite massive street protests and a general strike, the Israeli government has merely delayed its judicial overhaul for a short time, and none of the agreements reached this week will lessen the systemic violence against Palestinians, including annexation of Palestinian land,” the letter states. It also addresses what the lawmakers call “shocking and terrifying violence” in the occupied West Bank, such as the Israeli army incursion into Nablus on February 22nd that killed 11 Palestinians, the settler rampage through the town of Huwara on February 26th, and the killing of an Israeli American by a Palestinian gunman on February 27th.
The letter is the most forceful response yet by Democratic members of Congress aimed at Israel’s new far-right government, and reflects a desire to push the Biden administration to enforce their oft-stated policy that Israelis and Palestinians deserve “equal measures of freedom” and that Israel should refrain from actions that undermine peace, such as the building of settlements on Palestinian land. Its criticism of the Israeli government’s judiciary overhaul and concern over the recent escalation of violence in the West Bank hits similar notes to a March 8th letter signed by 92 members of Congress—including Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Jim McGovern, the most powerful Democrat on the House Rules Committee—in which the lawmakers urged Biden to “use all diplomatic tools available” to stop Israel’s government from damaging the judicial system and undermining the potential for a two-state solution. But Zaha Hassan, a human rights lawyer and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that this earlier letter “invites the traditional response from the administration, because the asks aren’t very clear. The framing allows the State Department to do what it’s always done, which is issue statements but not take specific action.” Unlike the March 8th letter, the Bowman-Sanders letter calls on the Biden administration to investigate whether Israeli actions have violated US laws that govern how US weapons can be used.
“The Biden administration’s approach has been to issue statements of concern,” said Beth Miller, the political director for Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action, the political and advocacy arm of Jewish Voice for Peace. “But not only does that not match the dire reality on the ground in Palestine, it also doesn’t align with existing US law that should ensure that the US isn’t complicit in human rights abuses against Palestinians.”
The new letter comes on the heels of growing Democratic alarm at the new Israeli government, including a call from Democratic Senator Chris Murphy for the Biden administration to consider conditioning aid to Israel in response to the new government’s deepening entrenchment of Israel’s military occupation. “We’re in a different moment in terms of what is happening on the ground in Israel/Palestine. Some members of congress are recognizing that,” said Hadar Susskind, president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now, a “progressive Zionist” anti-occupation group backing the Bowman letter. “Things like calling for potentially conditioning aid—that’s not something a lot of members of congress did before. People are understanding that a different situation on the ground requires different responses.”
The Bowman-Sanders letter represents a rare instance of members of Congress publicly asking the State Department whether Israel is violating laws governing how US weapons may be used. When members of Congress do send such inquiries to the State Department, they typically do so privately to avoid blowback from Israel advocacy groups, or because they believe a private letter will have more influence, said Brad Parker, senior adviser on policy and advocacy for Defense for Children International-Palestine. Parker said the letter was also unique in its assertion that “illegal de facto and de jure annexation of the occupied West Bank is well underway,” as the lawmakers write. “Some of the other letters have been limited to home demolitions or other single issues,” said Parker. “This Bowman letter is more about structural or systemic issues like annexation, and specifically recognizes that annexation is happening, rather than [discussing] a perceived threat of annexation, as other letters have.”
Over 20 civil society groups are supporting the letter, including Dream Defenders, IfNotNow, Justice Democrats, and the Working Families Party, according to JVP Action. J Street, the most prominent liberal Zionist group operating in Washington, was not among the public supporters of the letter at the time of publication, even as the letter’s demand for an investigation into whether Israel is complying with the Arms Export Control Act echoes some of J Street’s positions. The organization has requested that the Biden administration investigate whether an Israeli home demolition operation in the West Bank used US weapons in violation of that law; at its policy conference in December, J Street president Jeremy Ben Ami called for “oversight and accountability for how our aid to Israel is actually being used.” J Street spokesperson Logan Bayroff declined to comment on the letter.
The letter builds on Sanders’s long-standing calls for the US to impose restrictions on military aid to Israel to ensure that such funds aren’t used to violate Palestinian human rights. It also underscores Rep. Bowman’s willingness to wade into a politically risky foreign policy issue, becoming one of the most outspoken members of Congress on Israeli human rights violations. Elected in 2020 after running a primary campaign against pro-Israel hawk Eliot Engel, Bowman has had to balance his alliance with the progressive movement with the concerns of his Jewish constituents, some of whom treat the US–Israel relationship as sacrosanct. In September 2021, Bowman voted to send Israel an extra $1 billion in military aid to fund the anti-rocket Iron Dome system. Then, last year, he withdrew his support of a bill that backed Israel’s normalization agreements with Arab governments.
Hassan said that the letter highlights some Democrats’ desire for “action” as Israel’s extremist government enacts more “uncontrolled violence mainly visited upon Palestinians.” But Hassan was pessimistic that the letter would lead to a shift in policy from the Biden administration. “I don’t hold out much hope that the administration is going to respond to a letter by the most progressive members of Congress,” she said. “There needs to be a broader group of signers for there to be a sense of urgency and action from the State Department.”
James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute, echoed Hassan’s skepticism. “The letter honestly addresses Israel’s behavior and the need to draw a line that, if crossed, brings consequences,” he said. “Will the administration do it? They won’t. But the letter moves the needle in the right direction.”
President Biden urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a strong private message to halt his government's judicial overhaul just hours before Netanyahu went on television and announced the suspension of the controversial plan, according to two U.S. sources briefed on the issue.
Why it matters: The White House for months has called on Netanyahu to ensure there was a broad consensus around the plan, but the private message reflects the tensions between the two allies — and just how worried Biden was and how engaged he became in trying to convince the Israeli leader to stop the legislation.
Behind the scenes: Netanyahu’s decision late Sunday to fire Defense Minister Yoav Gallant alarmed the White House and set in motion a flurry of consultations about possible U.S. reactions, a U.S. official said.
One idea was to cancel Netanyahu's invitation to participate in Biden's virtual "Democracy Summit" this week if the prime minister didn't halt the legislation, a U.S. source said.
The White House decided to issue a public National Security Council statement expressing concerns over the developments in Israel, as well as to deliver a private message directly to Netanyahu from Biden emphasizing that the U.S. president wanted the legislation to be halted, the U.S. sources said.
According to the sources, Biden's private message was stronger than the administration's public one. It was delivered by U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides to the Prime Minister's Office on Monday morning, the sources added.
An Israeli official said that several hours before Netanyahu gave his public announcement on Monday, the Prime Minister's Office notified Nides that the legislation would be suspended.
“The message the President referenced was the same message you’ve been hearing from us all along. We strongly urge Israeli leaders to find a compromise as soon as possible," White House NSC spokesperson Adrienne Watson said.
The big picture: The growing tensions between the two allies spilled over into the public on Tuesday, when Biden appeared to confirm the private message, telling reporters the Israeli government "cannot continue down this road."
"I’ve sort of made that clear. … I did not [speak directly with Netanyahu]. I delivered a message through our ambassador," Biden said.
Biden told reporters Tuesday he still hopes Netanyahu "will walk away" from the judicial overhaul. He also made it clear that Netanyahu won't be invited to the White House anytime soon.
Biden’s public remarks, which showed the depth of the crisis between the two allies, created a political shock wave in Israel, with many of the opposition leaders attacking Netanyahu for putting the U.S.-Israeli relationship at risk.
Netanyahu fired back in an unusual statement released around 1am local time. "Israel is an independent country that takes decisions based on the will of its citizens and not based on external pressure, including from our best friends," he said.
On Wednesday morning, several Likud lawmakers and ministers went to Twitter and on the radio and attacked Biden. One went as far as to say Israel doesn’t need the U.S. for its security.
Yes, but: By Wednesday afternoon in Israel, Netanyahu tried to cool down tensions. His office ordered government ministers and Likud lawmakers to avoid any public statements about the relations with the U.S. other than using the statement he issued.
Two senior Netanyahu aides told Axios the prime minister doesn’t want a crisis with the Biden administration.
One of the aides said Netanyahu wants to reach a consensus on judicial reform that will put the issue behind us.
The second aide said Netanyahu wanted to calm down and stabilize the situation because he understands the reality and the security threats Israel faces.
Netanyahu continued to play down the crisis during his speech at the Democracy Summit on Wednesday. “Israel and the U.S. have had their occasional differences, but I want to assure you that the alliance between the world’s greatest democracy and a strong democracy in the heart of the Middle East — Israel — is unshakable. Nothing can change that," he said.
Netanyahu said he announced a “pause” in the legislation of the judicial overhaul to give a chance for getting a broad consensus. “We need to move from protest to agreement," he said.
What they're saying: Dan Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel who is now a fellow at the Atlantic Council, told Axios that Biden is Netanyahu’s old friend and a deeply committed ally of Israel, but "he has left no doubt of what is at stake in the judicial overhaul: Israel's security, economy and reputation as a democracy with the checks and balances of an independent judiciary."
"That can damage U.S.-Israel relations, but also U.S. interests," Shapiro said.
He added that this U.S. message likely helped convince Netanyahu to put the legislation on hold.
“But the possibility remains that the negotiations for a consensus reform could fail and the overhaul that guts the Supreme Court could pass at any time. Under those circumstances, a meeting between Netanyahu and Biden, whose presidency is defined by defending democracy, is very difficult to manage," Shapiro said.
Biden also told that the Israeli government can’t "continue down this road" with its judicial overhaul plan and stressed he is not going to invite Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to the White House “in the near term."
Why it matters: It's the first time Biden has spoken about the judicial overhaul, which has rattled Israeli society, on camera. Netanyahu suspended the legislation on Monday after months of mass protests, a strike that affected much of the country, and calls from some of Israel's closest allies, including the U.S., to build a broad consensus around the plan.
Biden's comment on an invitation for Netanyahu to visit the White House underscored how tense relations between the Biden administration and the Israeli government are at the moment.
Biden told the New York Times earlier this year that any fundamental changes in Israel’s judicial system should be based on a consensus to get legitimacy from the public and be sustainable.
He also called Netanyahu earlier this month and expressed concerns over the plan.
What he's saying: “Like many strong supporters of Israel I'm very concerned. I'm concerned that they get this straight. They cannot continue down this road. I've sort of made that clear," Biden said in North Carolina, where he was kicking off his “Investing in America” tour.
“Hopefully the prime minister will act in a way that he will try to work out some genuine compromise, but that remains to be seen," he added.
The other side: Netanyahu fired back later on Tuesday, saying "Israel is an independent country that takes decisions based on the will of its citizens and not based on external pressure, including from our best friends."
Netanyahu said in a statement that he has known Biden for 40 years and appreciates his commitment to Israel.
He added that the U.S.-Israeli alliance is strong and always overcomes the differences that appear from time to time. "My government is committed to strengthening democracy by restoring the balance between the three branches of power, which we want to do through broad consensus," Netanyahu said.
Driving the news: Earlier on Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides told Israeli army radio that the U.S. welcomes Netanyahu’s decision to suspend the legislation but added that the Israeli prime minister could be invited to the White House after Passover.
Later in the day, Nides walked back part of his remarks and said no date was set for such a visit.
A spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said there is no plan for Netanyahu to visit Washington.
Israel’s national debate over judicial reform and the powers of the Supreme Court is a crucial discussion on one of the great questions of democratic self-government. In every democracy, a balance must be struck between representative government through an elected parliament and executive and an independent judicial system that protects basic rights and preserves the rule of law.
Israel’s constitutional system – or, more precisely, its lack of a constitution – created lacunae that the Supreme Court actively filled in the last few decades, initiated by former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak’s so-called “judicial revolution” in the 1990s.
This revolution provoked serious arguments over whether the court had taken upon itself roles and powers that in a democracy should be filled by the elected organs of government.
Tikvah has been a forum for these debates – at the level of ideas – for many years, beginning with essays that we sponsored in a journal called Azure in the late 1990s, and continuing through our publications more recently in Mosaic. (As a service to the current debate, we have collected some of that work here – including an original translation of a 1949 speech by David Ben-Gurion on why Israel has no constitution.)
The current debate about judicial reform did not emerge suddenly from nowhere, and it is not the creation of the new Netanyahu government.
The issues at stake – including how Supreme Court judges are appointed, the scope of judicial power and judicial review, the role of legal advisers in the political system and the overall separation of powers within Israeli democracy – have been discussed for decades.
The current system has long left many Israelis feeling that representative democracy in Israel did not represent them, and that the worldview of a narrow and largely self-appointed judicial elite was (and is) imposing its values on the nation.
A true democracy takes such concerns seriously. This does not determine the best answers – or the best process – for seeking reform. And just as the American, Canadian, British, Australian and other systems differ, so the Israeli outcome will always reflect its unique history, politics, and society.
Democracies will always include debates
While Israelis might draw upon the accumulated wisdom of other legal and political traditions and learn from wise jurists from around the world, the question of Israel’s constitutional structure is a question for Israeli citizens alone.
A true democracy always includes different factions, different parties, and different interests clashing in the public square. America’s debate over the ratification of our constitution was hardly serene, but the weight of the moment did press anti-Federalist opponents and Federalist defenders of the American Constitution to think politically and persuasively about the structures of American freedom.
Just as Adams clashed with Jefferson, and Jefferson clashed with Hamilton, so in Israel’s early years did Ben-Gurion clash with Begin in the drama of political life in a healthy society.
A strong nation always unites these different factions around a higher loyalty: the nation-state itself. This is all the more essential in Israel – the still-young, miraculously re-born, and only nation-state of the Jewish people.
Israel must indeed be governed by Israelis alone, but all Jews have a stake in its future. As engaged supporters of Israel, we believe that prudent reforms are essential for restoring a more democratic balance of powers in Israeli society.
We are also profoundly saddened to see this urgent and important debate devolve into bitter divisions and a widespread sense of political crisis. The rhetoric being employed, including accusations of “blitzkrieg” and “fascism,” to say nothing of reckless evocations of “civil war,” should have no place in Israeli political discourse. This is a time for statesmanship and wise compromise, not callous and inflammatory accusations. It is also a time for centrist leaders to step up and step forward.
As leaders of Tikvah and as Diaspora Jews with lifelong commitments to Zionism and to the State of Israel, we have asked what our role in this debate should be. Surely it is not to heighten emotions and contribute to the deep divisions on display today. Rather, our view is that all Jews and all friends of Israel should cool the rhetoric and back away from words and actions whose only impact is to weaken the State of Israel.
In our view, a negotiated and broadly consensual agreement remains the best outcome, incorporating those reforms that have the broadest democratic majority and postponing those that do not.
This seems to demand that the leaders of the reform effort accept that some of their proposals require more time for deliberation, debate, and public persuasion; and it demands that the opposition to the reforms move now to replace demonstrations with negotiations and end the refusal to report for critical work (such as military reserve duty) that keeps Israel strong.
And we can only hope – as onlookers – that Israel might eventually move toward a true constitutional convention, deliberating with depth and civility about the fundamental structure of Israeli self-government.
“The greatest threat we face today isn’t the approval or dismissal of the judiciary overhaul…. No, the true danger is that we will stop talking with each other, stop building our consensus, stop finding places where we can say “yes” to one another and to the values we yet share.”
Natan Sharansky
Natan Sharansky, a great Jewish patriot and statesman, recently said it well: “The greatest threat we face today isn’t the approval or dismissal of the judiciary overhaul…. No, the true danger is that we will stop talking with each other, stop building our consensus, stop finding places where we can say “yes” to one another and to the values we yet share.”
We hope that this national debate in Israel may still produce an outcome that improves Israeli democracy and balances majority rule and representative government with the essential power of the judiciary to protect basic rights. That outcome is far more likely if all sides accept that principled compromise—achieved through the deliberative institutions of Israeli democracy—is what true leadership now demands.