Conditioning Aid is Better Than Nothing, But Bernie Sanders Should Just Demand the US Cut Off Israel Military Aid Altogether
It’s 2023. What are we doing here?
Jewish Currents’ Alex Kane reported Wednesday that Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Sen. Bernie Sanders, along with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Summer Lee, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, Ilhan Omar, and others, have sent a letter to the Biden White House and the State Department urging them to “investigate” conditioning the military aid the U.S. gives to Israel. They cite worsening human rights conditions in Israel—targeting both Palestinians and the rights and democratic norms of Israelis, such as they are. Kane reports:
“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.”
It’s a policy proposal that has picked up steam in recent years. The argument goes like this: Build up auditing systems to make sure U.S. weapons are not used to commit war crimes, and condition military aid based on the supposed division between “self defense” and the acknowledged human rights violations. To be clear, the letter I’m citing does not mention Israel’s self-defense. But the idea of conditioning aid is premised on the notion that, were a state to meet certain criteria—i.e. self-defensive measures—it would therefore be deserving of aid. And while Rashida Tlaib has made public statements in support of BDS, others who are supporting this latest effort, like Sanders, have vocalized support for continuing aid of Israel’s “self defense.” It is the latter position that deserves some unpacking as, I believe, it unnecessarily cedes ideological ground.
To be sure, in our present political context, conditioning aid represents one of the more forceful positions lawmakers have taken, because it takes aim at material support. But, the fact that this represents the pole of debate in Washington is, itself, an indication that political discourse on this issue is far too limited. A sort of BDS-lite, this approach, like boycotts of the Israeli occupation but not Israel in general, attempts to bifurcate the country of Israel into one part normal, democratic, healthy democracy with reasonable self defense needs, and one part a military regime carrying out dispossession, violence, and ethnic cleansing.
But, as Yousef Munayyer, then-executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, laid out in a 2015 debate with Peter Beinart, the idea of partial boycotts, or partial sanctions, do little to meaningfully compel states to act (23:55)
(The entire debate is worth watching: Eight years later, Munayyer’s opponent, Beinart, now supports BDS in all but name. Who says debates don’t change minds!)
The Sanders-Bowman proposal has garnered support from Dream Defenders, IfNotNow, Justice Democrats, the Working Families Party, Jewish Voice For Peace and the aforementioned US Campaign for Palestinian Rights. One can understand why these groups would support this. All politics is relative—and, given the current political environment, even floating such a proposal is potentially a boon to the cause of Palestinian rights. The point of this post isn’t to dump on these good faith efforts—it’s to note that the ask of conditional military aid, in 2023, is not remotely sufficient. Knowing what we know, knowing the wild asymmetry of the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict,” knowing the decades-long status quo of oppression, endorsing sending arms sales with “conditions” is still a support for arming Israel.
One doesn’t even need to support BDS: Simply not arming regimes carrying out decades of ethnic cleansing is a perfectly sensible and base-line demand. Sanders has gestured at such a position in the past, but always did so in one-off instances: a particular missile system here, a single aid package there. The model bill Sanders has supported, introduced by Representative Betty McCollum in 2021, doesn’t even necessarily require cutting off Israel at all: It simply builds systems to review their human rights policies. Per Sanders’ website, via Haaretz:
The bill requires the secretary of state and General Accounting Office to annually report and certify Israeli compliance with such measures, though it does not call on conditioning U.S. assistance to Israel based on potential violations.
Okay, so what does conditioning aid look like in practice? These convoluted State Department lawyer-curated, artisanal boycotts are Civil Unions for human rights. A half measure that’s missing out on the opportunity to push the debate in the firm and clear direction it needs to go.
“But conditioning aid is what’s politically possible” one may respond. But this isn’t really the case, either, since there’s zero percent chance these bills will ever pass Congress, much less be signed by any president. So, if progressive foreign policy is going to be in the wilderness anyway, why not take a more morally coherent position, which is to simply cut off all military aid to Israel altogether?
If it’s all theater (to be clear: theater is important!), then why not make a more ambitious ask—one that firmly says U.S. progressives, both in practice and normatively, ought not support sending weapons to habitual human rights abuses, full stop. At worst, the conditional approach risks sanitizing U.S. support for illegal occupation, killings, ethnic cleansing, and a host of on-going human rights violations against Palestinians by giving the domestic U.S. population the impression we can fund the Good Side of countries but not the Bad Side.
It’s not the same for many reasons, but we saw a similar argument made by Democratic pundits to justify the Biden White House’s sale of “defensive weapons” and not offensive weapons destroying Yemen to Saudi Arabia in 2021. As Sarah Lazare noted at the time, these arguments don’t pass the most cursory moral review. “Upon closer examination, the distinction between ’offensive’ and ’defensive’ Saudi weapons begins to disappear,” Lazare wrote. “So-called defensive weapons are part of a military apparatus that is enforcing a brutal blockade, shutting out aid for Yemen and creating a climate of intimidation and fear. The weapons transfer sends a message to Saudi Arabia, at precisely the moment it is refusing to lift its blockade, that U.S. support is unconditional. It enables Saudi Arabia to prolong its deadly incursions.”
Habitual human rights violators don’t keep their human rights violating F-18s in one hanger labeled “Baddie Things” and their “self defense” F-18s in another hanger labeled “Reasonable Self Defense.” There is no distinction within these political systems.
Of course, conditioning aid to Israel is not a perfect comparison, because many Palestinian rights groups support this measure in hopes that it will lead to an overall reduction of aid, and thereby reduce harm. In contrast, depicting arms as defensive was used to justify sending weapons to Saudi Arabia. But despite these differences, similarities in logic are worth noting: Both policies rest upon the idea that it is somehow justified, under the right circumstances, to continue militarily supporting U.S. allies that are acting as aggressors and occupiers.
We know this logic is thin because none of the people advocating we condition military aid to Israel, or sending “defensive” weapons to Saudi Arabia, would support doing so for Enemy States. None of them would argue the U.S. should provide Russia with “self defense” weapons as it invades and destroys large sections of Ukraine. We all know arming a country, even with “self defense” weapons, is an endorsement of the war crimes part of the military apparatus and system of violence. Sanders proposing we sell Russia “defensive” weapons only, or condition sending military aid to Russia after a State Department review with an elaborate auditing system to make sure our missile systems and fighter jets weren’t used in Ukraine, would justifiably be dismissed on its face. He would uniformly—and correctly—be accused of calling to provide material support for the invasion of Ukraine.
Why are Israel and Saudi Arabia treated differently? Why is it assumed they have two different Defense Ministries, one for Reasonable Security and one for bombing Yemeni school buses or liquidating entire city blocks in Gaza? They don’t: It’s the same country, the same military, the same broader architecture of violence. Under better political circumstances, we would be debating cutting off Saudi Arabia and Israel completely. Again, one is sensitive to progressives inside the decision-making machine who want to pick up wins where they can get them, and limiting demands can do that. This is not a post directed at activists doing what they can in an impossible political position: It’s to those in Congress who ought to be using their platforms to push our conception of what’s possible, not try and tailor demands for justice so they are palatable for mainline Democrats. Indeed, supporting conditional aid and supporting ending all aid in theory are not mutually exclusive. Even rhetorically backing the latter could go a long way. A big-name lefty star like Sen. Sanders, polishing his end-of-career legacy, should be making far more ambitious asks than bush-league Civil Unions stuff. It’s time for progressives of conscience, in 2023, to make the case for cutting off Israel entirely, not just docking their allowance like a wayward child we still love and want to set right. It’s the only position that makes any sense, logically and morally.