The Coming “Epic Change” in US-Israel and US-Middle East Relations

I want to cut my energy bill. Can solar panels help? Yes, that's good energy. And they'll help lower my carbon emissions too. That's good energy. And I can get paid for the energy I don't use. Yes, that's good energy. And you have 25 years experience in-house engineers and a five-star rating on trust pilots. Yes, that's good energy. Sounds great! One more thing, the solar panel's battery is another hardware. It's all quality tech that's built to last. Of course! Making solar simpler for your home. That's good energy. Visit goodenergy.co.uk 9 12 10 28 2 23 This is Deep State Radio. Coming to you direct from our super secret studio in the third sub-basement of the Ministry of Snark in Washington DC and from other undisclosed locations across America and around the world. Hello and welcome to DSR Special Episode. I'm David Rothkoff, your host. And we are joined today by two special guests who are going to give us perspectives on not just breaking news, but some of the most important issues we know you're interested in. We have with us Senator Chris Van Hollen, who is the senior senator from the state of Maryland and therefore my senator. Welcome, Senator! It's great to be with you, David. Thank you. And another Maryland resident, Jeremy Ben-Ami, who is the founder and president of J Street, which is rapidly becoming the mainstream leading Jewish organization of its kind in the country. How are you, Jeremy? All good. Thanks, David. Great. Senator, before we get into sort of more forward-looking stuff about the relationships in the region, today, like every day, we've got conflicting stories about what's going on with the war in Iran. The president of the United States has said, in the course of the past few hours, there is a settlement around the corner, and we are going to inflict huge damage on them. And he doesn't care about inflation. In fact, he likes inflation. Today's twist was that he actually likes inflation. And I'm just wondering, from your perspective, you have been one of the most active voices on calling this out as an illegal war and actually trying to reign in the president, so he follows the law. So I'd be interested in your perspective. David, one thing is indisputable, which is that candidate Donald Trump had the right instincts when he said he wanted to keep us out of war, and he wanted to focus on the economy and prices and living conditions here at home. And of course, he's broken both those promises. He started a war against Iran along with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And as you said, today, he said he loved inflation. We've seen the highest rate of price increases in years, and it's costing the American people. And all of this was very predictable for folks who have been paying attention to Iran for a very long time, which is that the United States would get bogged down. You'd have a closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And of course, this is the president who ripped up the JCPOA years ago, which was the agreement in place to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear war. So this has been a disaster from the start. We've now had multiple votes on war powers resolutions here in the United States Senate. We still have not gotten a complete majority. We won a majority recently because of a Republican absence. But for the most part, Republicans continue to be complete rubber stamps for the Trump administration and are completely neglecting their obligations under the Constitution. So all this means we all need to keep pushing because the American people are against this war. And without getting you too far into the prognosticating business, it doesn't look like there's a solution around the corner. This could fester for a number of months, couldn't it? It could well fester. This is a president who declared well over 100 days ago that we won. And the obvious question is, well, if we won 100 days ago, what are we still doing there? And of course, you also, in addition to the war in Iran, you have the war in Lebanon and the whole region is on fire. Gaza remains a hellish place. We of course see violent settlers on the West Bank trying to push Palestinians off their land. So this is getting to be a larger and larger fire throughout the Middle East. And again, the best way to end it, when you're digging a hole, you should stop digging. Unfortunately, Donald Trump, every time he suggests he's going to stop digging and a solution is around the corner, he gets pushed into sticking with this war, this war that's making us less safe and less well off. So that leads exactly to where I wanted to take this. And if Jeremy will bear with me for two more minutes, I think the right transition there is, Senator, you had a piece in the New York Times on May 26, and the title of the piece was, The Hard Truth My Party Needs to Face. And the piece laid out very well. Some things that Jeremy has also laid out extremely well in recent pieces of his, saying the stance that we have long had in terms of the U.S.-Israel relationship and by extension, a number of our other relationships in the region isn't working. It's not working for our national interests. It's not working for the interests of Israel. It's not working for the interests of the Palestinians. It's not working for regional stability. And that we need to go someplace new. You lay out some of the points that we might want to embrace in going someplace new. And I was just wondering if you might go to those and say, where do you think we need to go from here? Well, thank you for mentioning that piece of mine in the New York Times, where I really laid out what I think are the key components of a new plan. And we should all recognize that the current approach, and when I say current, I mean the approach the United States has taken now for decades, is completely broken. Because for decades, we have said, and certainly the Democratic Party has said, that we support a two-state solution. We support self-determination for Israel, and we support self-determination for Palestinians. And that remains the case. I support self-determination for both peoples, but we've not delivered on it, not even close. And during this period of time, you have seen government after government in Israel extend the occupation and illegal settlements deeper and deeper into the West Bank. And of course, we had the awful Hamas attack of October 7th, and then the huge disproportionate response from the Netanyahu government, imposing collective punishment on Palestinians in Gaza. So I do think this is sort of the last gasp effort to try to both stop the expansion of settlements, begin to roll them back. This will only happen, and this is what we need to recognize. This will only happen if the United States decides to use its leverage. And so I do think we should end all American taxpayer support to the government of Israel. And I think we should be conditioning our arms sales to the government of Israel on U.S. law and U.S. policy and international law, which means no supporting the continuing of the occupation. I also think we should just once and for all declare and recognize a Palestinian state. Some of our European partners have done that, and then engage in what we call differentiation, differentiate in our policies through how we treat Palestinian state, and of course how we continue to treat and support the state of Israel. Well, thank you. Now, Jeremy, when you founded J Street, almost everything that the senator has just described would be considered not mainstream. And yet here we are, post an extended period of Bebih Netanyahu and the Israeli rights influence in Israel, post Gaza, post what's going on in the West Bank, post this latest incursion in Lebanon. And it appears that the very substantial majority of Democrats in the United States and a majority of Americans are moving in the direction of these views. And I'm just wondering, are the old rules out the window? Are we in a new era? Is this generational to some degree? I just want to get your sense of how big a sea change we're seeing. I think it's epic sea change. I think that the rules have fundamentally changed. Everything that the senator just said is precisely on point. American policy, rather than being part of the solution to the problems, has actually been part of the problem. And the way that we have gone about our business in the Middle East has only made the situation worse. This idea of providing a blank check to Israel, of providing Israel with diplomatic immunity from accountability for its actions under international law, and saying that the reason we're doing that is because this will give them the strength to make the hard sacrifices for peace. Well, in reality, what they did was they just pocketed the money, pocketed the get out of jail free card and kept on doing whatever it was that they wanted. I mean, it was completely the wrong approach. And then at the same time, putting ourselves forward as the United States, as an honest broker, and saying, well, we have to be the broker of this piece. But we're actually one side's lawyer, right? This is not the way to conduct a mediation. You don't hire the one party's lawyer to be the neutral arbiter. So the United States has just been a huge part of the problem. And the senator is exactly right. We need a fundamental reassessment of the way the United States operates in this theater. And that's what we were calling for 20 years ago, when we launched Jstream. I think we've gotten to the point today where that is a mainstream view in, I would say, Senator, I don't know if you would agree with this, but I think it's emerging in both parties. I think it is definitely the questioning of the way we've gone about this is happening in the Democratic Party for sure. But I see it also in the Republican Party. Build Your Brand Marketing tools that get your products out there. Integrated shipping solutions that actually save you time. From startups to scale-ups, online, in-person, and on the go. Shopify is made for entrepreneurs like you. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at Shopify.com slash setup. Well, Senator, let's turn that to you as a question. Because many of us who I served in a Democratic administration, many of us who've been involved in these issues for all of our lives, have come a long way because of what we've seen. But the Biden administration didn't come a long way. The Biden administration didn't recognize this change. Do you feel when you talk to your colleagues on the Hill that the center of gravity has moved to where you are? Do you expect if there's a Democratic Congress, there's a Democratic administration in 2028, that we are going to see something very different? Or are the old establishment views, do they have their claws into this so deep, that it's going to be hard to move away from them even though they're no longer in step with the times? So, David, that is the question of the hour, the question of the next couple years. I would say this, and you and Jeremy just mentioned it, we have seen a dramatic change among American public opinion. That's certainly true among Democrats. And I would argue the public opinion among Republicans has also changed. But I want to distinguish between where public opinion is and where we are right now on Capitol Hill. On Capitol Hill, things are moving, but they're moving slowly. I mentioned in my New York Times op-ed piece that a little more than a year ago, there were 15 Democratic senators who said we're not going to send bombs to Netanyahu while he's devastating Gaza. And more recently, we had a vote with 40 Democratic senators that said we won't send certain kinds of military equipment to the government of Israel. And so that clearly was progress. But the forces resisting change are significant. And APAC has this position of unconditional U.S. support to the government of Israel, regardless of what the government of Israel does. That is their position. In contrast to J Street's position, which doesn't have a support of a position of automatic support, regardless of the conduct of the government of Israel, but has the goal of self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution and a broader regional approach. I do think we're making progress, no doubt among the electorate. We just need to translate that progress into votes and change here on Capitol Hill. And the answer to that question is really up to everybody who's watching this and everybody who cares about human rights, who cares about peace, who cares about stability in the Middle East. Yeah, and it's five months away. And Jeremy, you know, one of the things that has distinguished the primary season is APAC, which is the more long-term established mainstream group that was allied with, mainstream is not the right word, but it was allied with, very closely with the Net Yahu government, and has gone hard against candidates that have expressed views like those that the senator and you have expressed. Do you expect that this, you know, we're going to see trench warfare between now and November, between APAC and other groups trying to, you know, achieve some kind of victory on the balance of where we come out on this stuff and with the new Congress? Well, just in terms of raw politics, when APAC has engaged electorally over the 22 and 24 cycle, and now so far in 26, it has always been in Democratic primaries. Small little investment here and there in the Republican primary, but what they haven't done is taking their tens of millions of dollars and actually trying to affect the outcome of a general election. And that remains to be seen in the 26th cycle, you know, is APAC so far gone at this point that they will take their war chest and invest it in trying to beat Democratic senators who represent the mainstream of American public opinion on these issues and thereby endanger American democracy, because they don't seem to care whether they are endorsing candidates who vote to overturn a free and fair election year. They don't seem to care whether or not the candidates they're supporting have any interest in the quality of life here in the United States. But if they start to engage in that way and try to beat candidates, pro-democracy, anti-Trump candidates who are critical of what Israel is doing, if they try to beat those candidates and elect MAGA far-right anti-Democratic candidates from the Republican Party, that will fundamentally change the equation for them forever. And they haven't made that decision yet. When I make that clear, they play in the Democratic primaries and they have so far done it very ineffectively in this cycle because they are so toxic. The idea that you're going to have millions of dollars spent by an organization that raises its money from Republican billionaires and then spend it in Democratic primaries doesn't go over very well with Democratic primary voters. And now APAC's involvement and its engagement are in albatross around the neck of Democratic candidates who can't get away from them fast enough. So that's a, again, a fundamental change. But will they affect the makeup of the Senate and the House in terms of partisan breakdown? That remains to be seen if they're going to make that move into general election politics. Senator, I don't know if you've been hearing anything along those lines from your colleagues, but I haven't seen that yet. I've not seen that yet either. And as Jeremy was just saying, most of the monies that APAC funnels into these races have been in Democratic primaries, both Senate Democratic primaries and House Republican primaries. Since we're all Marylanders on this call, I would point out that in Maryland's fifth congressional district, this is the congressional seat being vacated by Steny Hoyer, APAC's Super PAC has made a significant investment, along with, I would say, a big investment from the crypto industry. So about four and a half million dollars combined from these outside super PAC tax. Again, trying to pick the candidate and the Democratic primary that they think will essentially adopt their position, which is unconditional support for the actions of the Netanyahu government or the government of Israel. And as Jeremy said, that is a fundamentally unpopular position. We don't do that with any other countries, say that US taxpayers should essentially be on the hook for whatever actions a foreign government takes. In this case, the government of Israel, which is why when APAC runs these ads, they never, they never talk about the fundamental issue that brings them into the election. They talk about any other issue except for that because they know that their position on these issues is not popular. And as Jeremy said, is becoming more and more toxic. Well, as your column pointed out, as you've pointed out many times, Jeremy and I have talked about it, their position is actually in conflict with US law. I mean, one of the things that we saw and it was so troubling in the Biden administration, there are laws that say who we can give our weapons to and who we cannot give weapons to. And you've been very pointed and saying, let's just start out by following the law as it's written. And that's something that they object to. Well, that's exactly right. And as you said, I was extremely critical of the Biden administration's foreign policy when it came to the Middle East and especially Israel-Palestine issues because you had the Netanyahu government at certain points, absolutely blockading all humanitarian aid in the Gaza. And we have a law on the books called the Humanitarian Quarters Act that says any country that's receiving US military assistance, if those weapons are being used in a particular area, in this case Gaza, that country has to open up access to humanitarian assistance. And yet, you had the Netanyahu government at some times absolutely cutting off all assistance. You had people starving in Gaza. You have a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. You had collective punishment, visited on the Palestinian people in Gaza. And so, yes, the Biden administration completely failed. And I should say, David, it actually started before the war in Gaza began because on the campaign trail, Joe Biden had said that he was going to try to reverse some of the policies that the Trump administration, Trump won, put in place as they went out the door. And including simple but important measures like reopening the consulate in East Jerusalem, allowing the PLO office here in Washington. And yet, they didn't do any of that. Some of the actions they took were much later, in fact, after the war started. So right from the get-go, unfortunately, the Biden administration did not follow through on the commitments that it made in the campaign when it came to these matters. I want to cut my energy bill. Can solar panels help? Yes, that's good energy. And they'll help lower my carbon emissions too. That's good energy. And I can get paid for the energy I don't use. Yes, that's good energy. And you have 25 years experience in-house engineers and a five-star rating on trust pilots. Yes, that's good energy. Sounds great. One more thing, the solar panel's battery is another hardware. It's all quality tech that's built to last. Of course, making solar simpler for your home. That's good energy. Visit goodenergy.co.uk. When you put the right things together, boom, great things happen. It's like having a chat with the Cambridge Building Society. You'll always find us in tune with you. The Cambridge Building Society, mortgages and savings. We can work it out. Yeah, you know, Jeremy, among the many head spinning developments of our time, and virtually all developments these days are head spinning, when you look at the 2028 Democratic field, whether you think it's 12 people or 15 people or 20 people, extraordinarily enough in the middle of this, there are potentially four Jewish Democratic candidates, depending on how things play out with Pritzker and with Shapiro and with Rahm Emanuel, and maybe with John Awesome. And yet, you would think that there would be some tension in that group. They represent different views. But on these issues, there seems to be an emerging consensus. Do you think that's an overstatement? It's going to be four Jewish candidates. You're going to have at least five opinions, because you can't possibly have that many Jews without a multiplicity of opinions. So I don't know whether you'd get to consensus, but I will say that I think what the senator is outlining in terms of the rapid ramp down of financial assistance, the enforcement of our laws, the pursuit of our interest, the centering of the need to respect international law, I really do believe that those are consensus items that can form a democratic, unifying position that 70 to 80 percent of Democrats will be able to get behind in this process. The thing that I think would be most harmful for Israel, and I'll say for the American Jewish community, is if the one issue that becomes the divisive and explosive issue within the Democratic Party for the course of a full year of a primary for president, if that one issue is Israel, that is not good for the state of Israel. It's not good for US-Israel relations. It's not good for the American Jewish community. One of the things that I want to say with the senator on the screen here is the things that Senator Van Halen is outlining are pro-Israel. They are good for the state of Israel. So many times when people lay out the things that he is for and the J street is for, they say, oh, well, you're anti-Israel. No, this is the only way for Israel to be secure, for it to ensure that it remains democratic, for it to find a way to normalize its relations with its neighbors. This is a pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-peace set of positions, and it can become a point of consensus in the Democratic Party. And I think we have a way to get there, and I think it's important that we get there, or else it's going to be very bad for the party, for the Jewish community and for Israel. Yeah, no doubt that that's true. Now, as we head towards the fall, we also have another election, which is in Israel. It doesn't seem super likely that you're going to get a big change from Netanyahu whether he wins or loses. And that does raise a question, Senator, that is, overall, where does US policy go from here? If we move to a policy with Israel that's, I don't know, I sometimes describe it in conversation as a little bit like, you know, our stance with France. It's a good ally. We don't agree on everything. When we do agree with them, we work with them. When we have a dispute, we talk about it in a constructive way as we might between friends. But the US has lots of interest in this region, whether it's Iran and nuclear weapons, or whether it's extremist groups and so forth. And Israel has been kind of the go-to partner throughout the Cold War, because it was, you know, on our side in that, because it was democratic, more democratic than it is now, because it was an aid in the fight against extremism since the global war on terror began. But things have changed. And, you know, can you envision a US-Middle East policy that isn't as Israel-centric as it has been? Well, David, I think if we center the idea that our policy has to be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, that is the only way to secure a peaceful future for both peoples, and also to secure American interests in the region. And, you know, I remember well over a year ago saying, you know, you can be pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian at the same time. And, you know, some people would say, that's not possible. It is the only way forward, because you've got to address the equities on all sides here. You need security for both peoples, you need self-determination for both peoples, you need human rights for both peoples. And without that, you're going to have continued, continued turbulence. I mean, no people will be willing to live and should not, once they ever live or be willing to live, under permanent occupation. And so the United States needs to weigh in here. As I said in my piece, the next, if the next Israeli government is not willing to support self-determination for Palestinians, while we also have and support a state of Israel, that's going to put the United States and Israel, at least the Democratic Administration, on a collision course, because we can't just keep doing what we've been doing, because it's made the situation worse, not better. And look, I know Netanyahu and others like to dismiss the idea that the plight of the Palestinians is one of the root causes of conflict in the region, but it is one of the root causes of conflict in the region. It leads to all sorts of stability. Many of these other conflicts, many of them, are directly related to the fact that we've not resolved the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And so, unless we're finally willing, when I say we, the United States government, to, as Jeremy said, not become the lawyer for the government of Israel, but really pursue our interests and our values, then we're going to see perpetual conflict. And the American people are not willing, and should not be willing, to be dragged into more and more conflicts in the Middle East, when we have a way forward, if we're willing to use our leverage. Yeah, and one of the points you make in the piece, which I think is, should be taken to heart, and again, it's not a partisan point, because you essentially say that the process of normalization, which began under Trump, also needs to continue, and that the Palestinian issue is related to that process of normalization. I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, but that's correct, right? No, let me comment on that, because, you know, Donald Trump, within the last couple of weeks, have said, you know, to end the war in Iran, we need all the Arab countries, Saudi Arabia, and others, to recognize the state of Israel. Well, anybody who's looked at this issue for even a short period of time would recognize that, if you want that to happen, and I would like to see normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and the Arab countries and other Muslim countries in the region and Israel, but the only road and path to doing that is to address the Palestinian issue, the rights of self-determination and human rights of Palestinians. The UAE, as you know, entered into the Abraham Accords with a commitment from Israel that they wouldn't annex the West Bank for a certain period of time. I think most observers, you know, think, you know, here we are, and Israel has effectively de facto annexed the West Bank. So without resolving this issue, rights for Palestinian self-determination for Palestinians, as we also provide security for Israel, there's no other way forward than addressing these fundamental questions. Yeah, just as a final question to you, Jeremy, in our last remaining minute or two, related to what the senator was just saying is the fact that Bibi Netanyahu has become the most, the least trustworthy partner he could have. And this week, Trump is like, I talked to Bibi. We talked to a friend of this podcast, at least the Financial Times, on Sunday afternoon, and said, I got him. He's not doing anymore. And three hours later, they were attacking Iran. And I'm just wondering, you know, how do you see the decay of that relationship, which, by the way, has been pretty lousy with every American president since Bibi became prime minister, as affecting all of this? Well, the good news is that we're hopefully within months of Bibi Netanyahu leaving office, right? The election is in September, October, take a month or two to form a government. He's not in any position right now to put together a coalition. And the best thing that can happen for any of us who care about peace and a future for the Middle East is that, you know, Bibi Netanyahu's era be over. This has been nearly 30 years of an absolute nightmare and watching what Israel has done. And much of it rests at the feet of Bibi Netanyahu. So, you know, I hope that the future will be a different leadership, but maybe a center-right leadership. We're not going to get the second coming of Ben-Gurion or Rabin or Perez. We're going to get, you know, a center-right leader. But I hope one who sees the national interest of the state of Israel in resolving this conflict, because it opens the door to the regional comprehensive approach. Jastri calls this a 23 state solution. We don't like to talk about a two-state solution anymore, because this isn't really just about Israelis and Palestinians. It's about Israel's relation with the whole region. And as the senator said, this Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the root of so much conflict in the region. You can't solve those conflicts without solving this, and there shouldn't be normalization without resolving this. And so a next leader of Israel can say to their people, we are going to normalize relations with all of our Arab neighbors and end the Arab-Israeli conflict after 80 years of Israel's existence. But we do have to facilitate the creation of a viable, secure, and prosperous neighbor of ours called the state of Palestine. And that's the deal. And I totally agree with the senator that unless the next leader of Israel is willing to make that commitment, it's going to be very hard for a democratic next administration to have any kind of a normal relationship with that government. It's got to make that commitment to a Palestinian state. You know, we live in- David, I would say that, you know, the United States, I mean, Jeremy mentions 30 years of, you know, Netanyahu-like governments, most of them, most of them over that period of time, headed by Netanyahu. But as we both said, and it's also the result of American complicity. In other words, saying one thing, you know, two-state solution, two-state solution, I mean, people, this is why people don't take seriously the Democrats when they simply mouth those words. And that's why I thought it was important to write the New York Times op-ed to say that unless we finally use our considerable leverage and influence to really make that happen, we're not going to be successful. And for those of us who believe that everybody, every human being is entitled to justice and human rights, and those of us who believe in a foreign policy based on values and believe that our interests are also advanced by advancing those values, then this really is the last gasp. And, you know, we'll have to look at other alternatives. But I want to focus all of our efforts in trying to seriously address this last gasp. But that does mean using American influence and leverage. Well, I have to say, we live in difficult times, and there are not a lot of stories that are encouraging. But one of the most encouraging is that while you guys have been saying these things, smart things, wise things for a long time, they haven't always been had the broad support of the American people. We are now moving to a point where they do. That's very encouraging. Jeremy and his organization, my organization are working on trying to help deal with the next generation issues, help shape views on this with leaders in the Democratic foreign policy community. And this kind of conversation is very helpful. We do live events as well. Hopefully, you'll participate in those as well, Senator. And, you know, over time, we will move to something new, and it can be something better. And the parameters are well described in the Senator's column, in what the Senator has said here, in what Jeremy has written, and what Jeremy has said here. So for those reasons, I'm extremely grateful both of you could join us. And I very much look forward to continuing this conversation in the future. For now, thanks. Thank you, David. Thank you. Thank you both.