[ A former top aide for Bernie Sanders on how Israel’s critics
on the political left see the Hamas attack and what this means for
deal-making in the region.]
[[link removed]]

‘WE’VE BEEN SHAKEN OUT OF THIS FANTASY’: HOW THE LEFT SEES THE
WAR IN ISRAEL  
[[link removed]]


 

Alexander Burns interviews Matt Duss
October 9, 2023
Politico
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ A former top aide for Bernie Sanders on how Israel’s critics on
the political left see the Hamas attack and what this means for
deal-making in the region. _

It has destroyed this whole premise that we can just bottle up the
Palestinians and it won't matter., Fatima Shbair/AP // Politico

 

The cruel Hamas onslaught against Israel this weekend drew expressions
of sympathy and solidarity from across the American political
spectrum, including from some precincts of the left where Israel is
regarded with suspicion or worse. For a moment, the debate about
Israel that has periodically convulsed the Democratic Party —
pitting pro-Israel traditionalists like Joe Biden against
Israel-skeptic forces further to the left — seemed to be on pause.

It is not likely to stay that way for long, as Israel girds for a
drawn-out battle directed by the most right-wing government in the
country’s history. There is already anxiety churning on the American
left about how Israel might respond and the possibility that a
terrorist rampage could escalate into a much broader war.

To understand how progressive foreign policy thinkers are processing
these events, POLITICO Magazine spoke with Matt Duss, executive vice
president of the Center for International Policy. A former top foreign
policy aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Duss has been an outspoken
critic of many traditional Democratic Party security policies,
including those governing the U.S.-Israel relationship.

_This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity._

ALEX BURNS: How does an event like this ripple in the world of left
foreign policy? What do your text messages look like in a moment like
this?

MATT DUSS: First, it’s just staggering: the amount of killing, the
hostage-taking. There are messages that I’m getting from my Israeli
friends, my Palestinian friends — grief, fear for where all this
leads. We all see right now it’s not going to lead anywhere good. I
think people are still trying to get their heads around the gravity of
this and what this means. Others have commented on it, but I will as
well: This is something on the scale of the Yom Kippur war in terms of
people’s perceptions. This will be seen as, I think, a pivotal
moment in the region and for the U.S. relationship with the region.

BURNS: Do you feel like the reaction in your circle — a circle of
like-minded policy thinkers — is distinct in important ways from the
reaction that we would see from the White House and the conversation
that’s happening there?

DUSS: Certainly. On the progressive left, you have a recognition and
a respect for the rights of all people to live in security and
dignity. That includes Israelis and Palestinians. I think the
statements you see from most U.S. officials, including from the White
House, are overwhelmingly focused on one side. It is of course quite
true that Israel has the right to defend itself. Its people have a
right to live in peace and security. The Palestinians have that right
as well. The Center for International Policy put out a statement
responding to the events of the last few days, making this point —
that what Hamas has done is awful. We condemn it unequivocally. We
also note that Palestinians have continued to suffer under an
occupation and blockade that is decades old. That is absolutely
necessary context. That does not excuse what Hamas has done. There is
no excuse for that. But there is an important context of understanding
where this violence grows from.

BURNS: How is it possible that the national security establishment,
the intelligence establishment, did not see this coming?

DUSS: I mean, that’s a great question. That’s a question for
Israeli intelligence as well as U.S. intelligence. I think many in our
system, unfortunately, have talked themselves into this idea that the
Palestinian issue just doesn’t matter. No matter how many times this
conflict has a way of reasserting itself on the regional and global
agenda, people always try to put it back in the corner and focus on
other and bigger and, as they see it, more important things.

The big shiny thing over the past few months has been this so-called
normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, in my view, which
is really just a U.S.-Saudi defense pact, which is being packaged as
normalization — that’s been the focus and one of the premises of
that deal is that the Palestinians could just be kind of shunted aside
and offered some crumbs here and there to keep them quiet.

I think those of us who engage with this region and its peoples
understand that is a fantasy. And I think yesterday and over the past
day, we’ve all seen how dangerous and tragic a fantasy that is.

BURNS: You’ve been a critic of what you called the so-called
normalization deal. Do you buy the idea that this attack was aimed at
sabotaging that deal?

DUSS: I don’t think so. Just looking at the scale of this, I think
we can say this has been in the works for a very, very long time. I
think the drivers of this — the anger, the grievance, the suffering
and the strategy — I think, is far deeper than just the
Saudi-Israeli deal. Was that a consideration? Maybe. But I think
it’s far too simple to just to just pretend that it was all aimed at
that.

BURNS: You just mentioned the painful reality check on the way the
foreign policy establishment tends to think about the Palestinian
issue. Do you think there’s a larger credibility issue at stake here
for what’s considered establishment foreign policy thinking — the
notion that the last few years have been movement in the direction of
stability and, in terms of American interests, progress in the
neighborhood?

DUSS: It has destroyed this whole premise that we can just bottle up
the Palestinians and it won’t matter. It has destroyed the premise,
once again — and it’s not the first time that we’ve been shaken
out of this fantasy — that we can invest in repression, we can
invest in relationships with governments that imprison their own
people and deliver security and stability. It may work for a little
while. But it will not work forever and when it erupts, it’s
extremely dangerous and tragic. And that is what we’ve seen here.

BURNS: How would you like to see the Biden administration handle the
Netanyahu government right now?

DUSS: Certainly, we need to make clear that we support keeping
Israelis safe. But I think the challenge is, we’ve often supported
that with very little concern for how that is done. We’ve kind of
given a green light or, in the best cases, a kind of yellow light for
keeping Israelis safe by exporting massive suffering and destructions
onto Palestinians. And I think what we want to see ultimately from the
Biden administration is an acknowledgment that Palestinian lives
matter. Israeli lives matter. All these people’s lives matter. They
have a right to keep their families safe, to live in safe communities
and to have a hopeful future. And I think years of U.S. policy have
not pointed us in that direction.

BURNS: What would you like to see as the boundaries of an Israeli
response?

DUSS: Israel and the U.S. should be bound by international law with
regard to the protection of civilian populations. There is a body of
law relating to the conduct of war. The United States and Israel have
both steadily eroded those boundaries over the last 20-plus years of
the global war on terror. But if we really believe in a rules-based
order, as the Biden administration continues to say, we need to
recognize that that the response here is bound up with legal concepts
relating to proportionality, relating to civilian harm. Supporting and
observing those rules is going to keep us all safer. If we simply say
that those rules can be ignored by countries we like or countries we
have a special relationship with, we’re not really creating a
rule-based order at all. We’re creating an order of might makes
right.

BURNS: The statements that we’ve seen in the last 30 hours or so
from people like Senator Sanders or leaders of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus have been emphatically about solidarity with
Israel. How much do you think there’s a different conversation
happening, kind of off the record, that’s more in line with the
concerns you’re expressing?

DUSS: Just to stay with Senator Sanders for a minute: Everyone knows
his views on this topic. He has spoken more than, probably, most
members of Congress on these issues. He has spoken out in support of
Palestinian rights, the right of Palestinians to peace and security
and dignity in their own homes and communities. He’s called for an
end to the occupation. However, I think his statement reflects the
gravity and the absolute heinousness of the Hamas attacks. And I think
that’s appropriate. I think CIP’s statement reflects that as well.

BURNS: I guess I wonder how quickly you think we will hear — moving
away from Senator Sanders individually — how soon we will hear
progressive elected leaders speaking to the concern for Palestinians
that you’re articulating in this conversation.

DUSS: I would expect soon. The reason we have more progressive
leaders that are acknowledging these issues is that we have a
progressive movement that is asking them and supporting them to say
these things.

BURNS: You’ve been really articulate in talking about the Ukraine
war in the context of discourse about anti-imperialism and calling out
people on the left who make excuses for the Russians through that
lens. I wonder what your reaction is over the last day as you see some
pretty similar voices talking about this attack in terms of resistance
to empire in a way that clearly makes excuses for it.

DUSS: I think that is disgusting and I condemn it completely. There
is no justification for attacking civilians, for slaughtering
civilians, for kidnapping elderly people in wheelchairs, for killing
people at a rave. This is just — this is disgusting. If we believe
in human dignity, if we believe in international law, I think we need
to condemn that unequivocally. That does not mean we can’t have a
deeper conversation about the context of the situation,
Israel-Palestine. We have to have that conversation. But I think the
way into that conversation has to be very clear about principles of
civilian protection and very clear on how disgusting this violence is.

BURNS: Is it fair to paraphrase that you’re saying there are
principles more fundamental than anti-imperialism?

DUSS: Yes. True anti-imperialism supports a world of rules and not
might makes right. And one of those rules is the protection of
civilians.

_[ALEXANDER BURNS is associate editor for global politics at POLITICO.
His Tomorrow column explores the future of politics and policy debates
that cross national lines.]_

* Israel
[[link removed]]
* Palestine
[[link removed]]
* Gaza
[[link removed]]
* Palestinians
[[link removed]]
* Hamas
[[link removed]]
* Benjamin Netanyahu
[[link removed]]
* Terrorism
[[link removed]]
* the Left
[[link removed]]
* anti-imperialism
[[link removed]]
* apartheid
[[link removed]]
* Nabka
[[link removed]]
* Occupied Territories
[[link removed]]
* Bernie Sanders
[[link removed]]
* U.S. foreign policy
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]