‘Unconditional support’ from America is bad for both countries, the Democratic leader warned.
When Rahm Emanuel, a prominent Jewish Democratic Party stalwart, stepped up to the podium at Tel Aviv University last week to offer his “tough love” speech to Israelis, he may well have been thinking of the irony, and parallels, to Bibi Netanyahu’s famous/infamous speech delivered to a joint session of the US Congress in 2015 in opposition to President Obama’s planned nuclear deal with Iran.
The two speeches were quite different in substance, but the occasions had a key element in common: a prominent politician addressing a close foreign ally, calling out its leadership for making a dangerous mistake that must be addressed to prevent disaster and preserve the relationship.
To put the dramatic moment in context, Emanuel, having served as a congressman, White House chief of staff, mayor of Chicago and US ambassador to Japan, is a likely contender for his party’s presidential nomination. His chances seem slim at this point, but his views on the US-Israel relationship are important because of the distinct position he has – as a deeply committed Jew and supporter of Israel as well as a leading Democrat whose party’s support for Israel is cratering. Emanuel set out to express to Israelis his love for the state, yet offer sharp criticism of its political leadership – a view held by most Israelis. More challenging, he sought to thread the needle between America’s anti-Israel left and pro-Israel right.
His speech, titled “An Honest Conversation,” received wide coverage the next day but is worth exploring more closely now for what he said, how he said it, and how it was heard in both countries. Reading the text alone doesn’t fully inform us. Emanuel’s voice, in delivering the talk and explaining his views on several podcasts, conveyed his passion, sincerity and concern for – and frustration with – Israel.
He began by warning his audience: “Hold your applause because you may not like it.” He then proceeded to explain why he believes the US-Israel alliance is “at a crossroads” and “cannot stand or survive as it has been,” calling for “significant changes and a new direction.”
To soften the coming blow, Emanuel offered his family bona fides – his Israeli father fought in the War of Independence; an uncle, buried in Jerusalem, was a member of the underground. He described his own involvement in Jewish life and extensive experience in past Mideast peace efforts. He said he fully understood why Israelis are cynical about criticism from outsiders and why they deeply distrust Palestinians who want only to kill Jews. But most of the talk was devoted to calling out Netanyahu as a leader whose focus only on “a military approach” has led Israel, he asserted, into “a dead end.”
“The most important thing a true friend can do is to tell the truth even when it’s painful. And today is a day for truth,” Emanuel said.
It was clear from the outset that there is no love lost between the American politician and the Israeli prime minister who, he noted, once called him a “self-hating Jew” for questioning Israel’s continued building in the West Bank. Early on in the speech Emanuel made reference to their deep disagreement more than a decade ago on how best to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.
That threat was what prompted Netanyahu to appear before Congress in March 2015, without the invitation of the Obama administration. He spoke out forcefully in seeking to rally support against the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), the White House’s proposal to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The prime minister may well have been right in warning of the danger Iran presented to America, the Mideast and international security. But in terms of the vital US-Israel relationship, his public attack on the proposed deal was seen as an act of deep disrespect of Obama, and a dramatic move away from bipartisanship. It led to an increasingly bitter relationship between the two leaders and is viewed as the beginning of the Democratic party’s dislike and distrust of Netanyahu, which is more pronounced than ever today.
Emanuel made reference to the JCPOA in his address, asserting that Netanyahu’s campaign against the Obama deal, including encouraging President Trump to abandon it in his first term, and to “embrace a military-only approach” and “scuttle all diplomatic opportunities prior to February 28 [the day the US and Israel attacked Iran], when Iran was weaker,” has led to Israel losing ground. “You’re less safe today, not more,” he told his Israeli audience. “And the problem isn’t a lack of military strength, but something more fundamental: Israel has failed to convert its military wins into strategic advantages.”
Emanuel said that Netanyahu’s “Sparta” approach, with no “day-after” plans for dealing with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the regime in Tehran, has taken its toll on the US-Israel relationship. “Here I want to be very clear,” he said. “The United States cannot continue to finance and support that cynicism in silence. You cannot fight indefinitely against a world that has stopped believing you have a right to fight. You must instead find a new, sustainable path to peace, security and prosperity. America stands ready.”
Emanuel sought a middle ground at times, like noting that the call for a Greater Israel among some Israelis was “as self-destructive and fanatical as the chant ‘from the river to the sea.’” But his words were forceful in calling for US sanctions against Israelis who attack people and property in the West Bank, Israeli leaders who support violence against Palestinians, and companies and banks that build or finance illegal settlements on the West Bank. Most notably, he called for an end to “American taxpayers’ subsidy of Israel’s defense budget,” pointing that Israel has a strong economy, a defense budget of more than $45 billion, and that the US would “ensure the IDF maintains its qualitative edge.”
What is required of Israel’s government, Emanuel said, is the pursuit of negotiations that require compromise. He cited the potential progress that might be achieved with the first non-Assad leadership in Syria in many decades, and a government in Lebanon that is fed up with Hezbollah. He spoke of “an end goal” of a “23-state historic act of regional integration that establishes full diplomatic relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors,” which would mark “Israel’s best day and Iran’s nightmare.”
Emanuel made clear that he knew full well such proposals have been made before to different Israeli leaders, and he pointed out that there have been diplomatic successes with Egypt and Jordan, and that the onus will be on the Arab states to pressure the Palestinians to end their dream of a Mideast without a Jewish state.
Perhaps his most sincere, though less than eloquent, stated belief in calling on Israel to at least pursue talks was, quoting a line from Bill Clinton: “something is better than nothing.”
“I have spent 30 years standing up for Israel when it was politically costly, and watching the window for peace narrow – not because peace was impossible but because leaders on both sides found conflict more convenient than compromise,” Emanuel said. He added that Israel today “may be more strategically secure,” but it is a pariah in the eyes of the world and “more diplomatically isolated than ever. … What we need now is an Israel that is not naive but is also not blind to possibility.”
Much of the response to Emanuel’s speech has been predictable along party lines, with many supporters of Israel insisting he was too tough on Israel and not enough on her enemies. There is no doubt that American progressives will not be persuaded to heed a politician who doesn’t describe Israel as guilty of genocide and apartheid. And of course the potential candidate doesn’t have all the answers to the Mideast crisis, nor does he claim to. But Emanuel came to Israel as a caring friend, not just a political ally. It would be wise for fervent supporters of Israel, here and in Israel, to pay attention not only to his speech but to the larger message he is trying to convey – and its urgency.
Israel’s status quo of an ongoing war, seeking “total victory,” refusing to define that phrase or explain an alternative to its own exhausted, traumatized citizens – and to its American allies – is a dream, not a reality. The path forward is, in the words of Winston Churchill that Emanuel cited, recognizing that “weapons are not sufficient by themselves. We must add to them the power of ideas.”
And the clock is ticking.