The current letter is hardly the first statement issued by Democrats on the topic. 198 Democrats in the House (including the Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer) have signed a separate letter voicing opposition to Israeli annexation. This followed a different Senate letter warning against annexation, signed by 19 Democratic members. Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has also repeatedly voiced his concerns. And perhaps most notably, Ben Cardin, Chuck Schumer, and Bob Menendez declared their opposition to formal annexation. These are three of the most hawkish Senators when it comes to Israel, who opposed the Iran Deal and have supported anti-BDS legislation which the ACLU argues would restrict Americans’ First Amendment rights. So, what is the difference between all of these statements and letters, and the one issued by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and her colleagues?
Simply put, AOC’s letter is the only one that offers a clear plan for how Democrats can stop annexation, beyond issuing empty threats. The letter warns Sec. Pompeo that Congress will respond to annexation by considering legislation that will condition US military funding to Israel. This statement stands in stark contrast to other Democratic letters and statements, which are little more than political smoke and mirrors. While ostensibly vocalizing opposition to annexation, these letters and statements obscure the possibility that Congress could (or should) respond to annexation with meaningful legislation that could hold the Israeli government accountable for annexation—and its other daily acts of violence against Palestinians.
We might even compare these other Democratic responses to the Republican reply to gun violence. For years, Republican representatives have consistently released boilerplate “thoughts and prayers” statements of sympathy in response to every mass shooting. Implicit in these statements is a profound abdication of responsibility. Such GOP statements portray gun violence as a tragic, yet unavoidable, feature of American life, a problem these representatives are powerless to address.
Gun control activists figured out the game pretty quickly. They understood that GOP legislators were using their “thoughts and prayers” to distract from the fact that they were actively choosing not to address the problem of gun violence through substantive legislative action (such as an assault weapons ban or universal background checks.) Painfully, a similar dynamic is presently unfolding with annexation. The decision by so many Democratic politicians to express their opposition to annexation without publicly entertaining the possibility of legislative action signifies at best a reluctance, at worst a refusal to address the issue in a manner that might actually pressure Israel into changing its behavior.
Of course, gun violence and annexation are widely disparate issues, and I do not mean to compare them directly. Rather, the point is that these responses by those in power—to actively forgo using that power—are structurally quite similar.
By virtue of controlling the U.S. budget and determining US military funding to Israel, Congress has tremendous capacity to influence if and how annexation occurs. The US currently gives Israel over $3 billion in military funding annually—by far the most it awards to any country. For three decades, the U.S. has distributed military funding to Israel without conditions, irrespective of Israeli human rights abuses towards Palestinians. Ongoing house demolitions in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, warrantless detentions, restrictions on freedom of movement, economic precarity, health crises in Gaza, and widespread political repression have not stopped Congress from issuing a massive check to the Israeli military. The morally unjustifiable assumption held by too many in Washington is that Palestinian human rights are (at best) a secondary concern to Israeli security needs.
Refusing to even consider leveraging military funding is ineffective foreign policy. Israel regularly and publicly ignores U.S. pleas that it protect Palestinian rights. Netanyahu had no problem disrespecting President Obama when Obama was pushing for the Iran Deal, going so far as to address Congress in person without the President’s consent. The Israeli government actively sabotaged the last round of U.S.-led negotiations with the Palestinians in 2014, through settlement construction. And how did America respond? With a ten year memorandum of understanding that guarantees Israel more than $3 billion in US military funding annually, until 2028.
It has not always been this way. In the past, even Republican administrations were willing to leverage aid to Israel. During Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, a Congressional investigation determined that Israel had used cluster bombs against civilians. This contravened US-Israeli defense agreements, and the Reagan Administration responded by suspending cluster bomb sales to Israel for six years. Several years later, as the US sought to assemble the 1991 Madrid Conference, the Bush Administration withheld $10 billion in loan guarantees until Israel—then under the leadership of right-wing Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir—agreed to attend. It worked, and highlights how the strategic use of American financial might can pressure Israel to alter its behavior. With unconditional military funding, the US has simply sacrificed far too much of its leverage. Signing onto Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s letter and supporting the promised legislation would be an important step in changing that.
AIPAC and other Israel hawks mislead politicians and the public by framing leveraged military funding as a policy outside the political mainstream. This is a dramatic distortion. A 2019 poll from the Center for American Progress found that 56 percent of Americans oppose unconditional military aid to Israel. This included over 70 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents, who supported placing conditions on military aid in response to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
It is time for Democratic politicians to follow the lead of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. Her letter offers a unique opportunity for Democrats to change the conversation on Israel and meaningfully support efforts to stop annexation. Statements alone won’t stop annexation, or immediately improve the lives of Jews and Palestinians on the ground. But the right statements—ones that offer a clear path forward for Congress to act—will make all the difference in this political moment.
Miko Zeldes-Roth is a member of IfNotNow and is currently pursuing his MA in political theory at the University of Chicago.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
