Israel & Occupied Palestinian Territories Archives

The Killing of a Hamas Leader Is Part of a Larger War

The assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, presumably by Israel, is the latest deliberate provocation in a series of deliberate provocations to keep the conflict going. Yet every provocation risks wider regional conflagration, and so long as US policy continues to shield Israel from the consequences of its actions, instead of pushing it to the negotiating table, the situation becomes more precarious.

Most crucially, the United States has plenty of existing leverage over the actions of Israel that the Biden administration could pursue, most immediately by adhering to, instead of sidestepping, US legal limits on arms sales to the country.

There’s another way, Matt Duss and Nancy Okail write for The New York Times:

At the time of this writing, a ground war in Lebanon and devastating, sustained missile barrages may still be staved off, but to do so will require deft, immediate diplomacy and actionable changes on the pipeline of arms to Israel. That will necessitate more action than we have seen in the last 10 months, leading us to worry that the conflagration may occur as much as the Americans would like to wish it away.

The time is late, but it is essential now for President Biden to finally apply real pressure to stop this war, by halting the supply of offensive arms, facilitating the return of hostages to Israel and enabling the provision of desperately needed humanitarian aid into Gaza. The United States must state loudly and clearly that the country will no longer support this war. And then show that it means it.

Read the full piece.

A Diminished Netanyahu Meets Growing Protest in Congress

Editor’s note: On July 24, 2024, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel spoke before a joint session of the US Congress. Concurrently CIP co-hosted a counter-programming event, featuring among others Representative Pramila Jayapal, pictured above. The IPJ is happy to publish this paired response to Netanyahu’s speech, authored by Y.L. Al-Sheikh and Hadar Susskind.

Protest honors the dead. Action can save the living

Y.L. Al-Sheikh is a Palestinian-American writer and organizer.

Despite being responsible for the murder of more than 40,000 Palestinians and one of the most horrific campaigns of mass starvation in modern history, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was rewarded with the opportunity to come to Washington D.C. for a victory lap.

There will rightfully be many articles written on the saber rattling against Iran, or the slanderous attacks on American college students, but the most important element of the Prime Minister’s speech was by far his unsurprising rejection of Palestinian freedom and self-determination. By proposing that Gaza remain under Israeli “security control” for an indefinite amount of time, Netanyahu made clear yet again that he is ideologically opposed to anything but apartheid and Jewish supremacism between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. While it is obvious to anyone who pays attention that this sort of regime does not guarantee Jewish safety, the facts seemed to matter little on Capitol Hill.

Netanyahu peddled lie after lie about the last ten months of warfare and destruction. When the Prime Minister claimed there were no civilian deaths in Rafah, this was of course a lie. The Prime Minister said that there has been no use of starvation as a weapon of war against Palestinians, and that is plainly untrue. The Prime Minister insisted that there are no plans to “resettle” Gaza, but his most senior coalition partners openly advocate for cleansing the land of its Palestinians and embedding Israeli settlers in their place. This is just a sampling of the falsehoods he threw at the audience.

Yet it was perhaps those who were or were not in attendance which painted the bigger picture. Roughly half of all the Democratic members of Congress opted to boycott Netanyahu’s propaganda tour, and those who didn’t were not keen to visibly approve of his rant. Palestinian-American state legislator Ruwa Romman (D-GA) was right to note that this demonstrates significant progress compared to the measly 58 Democrats who chose to boycott back in 2015. The boycott was hardly limited to socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC, instead being embraced by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clyburn, and Dick Durbin. This is likely because they know support for this war is unequivocally unpopular. Poll after poll shows that the demand for a ceasefire is a mainstream view, with voters more likely to cast a ballot for a Democrat who expresses clear support for a ceasefire than a Democrat who mirrors the Republican point of view. More than 45% of voters who expressed support for the Biden-Harris ticket believe that military assistance to Israel should be decreased. Some of the biggest labor unions in the country want President Biden to suspend military assistance entirely until the war is concluded. It is likely because of these facts that the Vice President herself opted not to attend Netanyahu’s remarks so soon after she became the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party in the forthcoming presidential election.

As promising as the trend-line is for the long-term prospects of a Democratic party that values Palestinian life, slow shifts offer cold comfort while the Biden-Harris administration still supplies Netanyahu and his government with the bullets and bombs that kill Palestinians and the United States still acts as a diplomatic shield protecting the State of Israel from the consequences of its decades-long illegal occupation. Displays of discontent do not bring our dead back to life, and symbolic gestures will not secure us what we are entitled to.

Without an arms embargo, sanctions on the government of the State of Israel and its settler enterprise, and an internationally coordinated push for Palestinian self-determination, it is unlikely that any ceasefire will actually be permanent. Durable peace is not possible without Palestine, and the sooner that Democrats in the United States understand this the better. Occupation and apartheid systems are systematic obstacles to peace, not just the choices of the present Prime Minister, and as such require systematic response, and not just a change in Israel’s leadership, to remedy.

It is time for the Democratic Party to face the one-state reality in the eyes, admit that there will be no such thing as peace in the Middle East so long as Palestinians are subject to military rule and displacement, and take meaningful action. If those who boycotted the Prime Minister’s speech are truly disgusted with what this war has produced, then they should demand that not another bomb be sent to the government of Israel until a permanent ceasefire is established. If those who claim to support democracy at home want to prove their sincerity, they ought to oppose military rule and racial segregation abroad and fight for an end to the illegal occupation of Palestine. It will be up to us who care about Palestinian and Jewish life alike to ensure that these advancements finally happen. The Vice President, if she wins in November, has the chance to work with us and be bold on this front. I hope that she takes it up.

Netanyahu and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Hadar Susskind is President and CEO, Americans for Peace Now, and an Israeli-American dual citizen.

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stood before a joint session of Congress and spoke eloquently about Israel, about the October 7th attacks by Hamas, about the conflict with Hezbollah, about the looming threat of Iran, and about the US-Israel relationship. It was heartfelt, it was well delivered, and it was mostly not true.

He spoke about how Israel has allowed so much food into Gaza that any accusations of hunger as collective punishment are absurd. Sadly, it is his statement that strains credibility. The accounts of hunger are widespread and well documented.

He spoke about how he will do anything and everything to bring home the hostages still being held in Gaza. And yet, at this very speech, seven Israeli family members of those hostages were arrested for the “crime” of wearing t-shirts reading “Seal the Deal Now”. Those grieving family members showed up in those shirts knowing that they could be arrested, but did so despite that risk because they cannot otherwise get their Prime Minister’s attention, unless it’s for a photo-op.

He also spoke about how Iran is funding the “anti-Israel” protest in the United States, including those that took place right outside of the Capitol Building yesterday. As someone who helped lead, and spoke at, one of those protests, I can assure you, that wasn’t true either. The protest I spoke at, organized by UnXeptable, a group of Israeli ex-pats living here in the United States and cosponsored by many American Jewish organizations, featured rabbis, IDF veterans, and hostage families. Each demanded that Netanyahu end the war, bring home the hostages, and stop prioritizing his own political survival over the good of the nation he is supposed to be leading.

One remarkable facet of Netanyahu’s speech was how few people were there to hear it. Approximately half of the Democratic caucus (and one Republican) declared that they were unwilling to be used as props for Netanyahu’s speech, and they didn’t go. And many of those who were there, including the senior Jewish member of Congress Jerry Nadler, made their disdain for Netanyahu very clear. Even Senator Chuck Schumer, a longtime friend of the Prime Minister, gave him barely a nod as he entered, and received even less in return. This of course stems from Senator Schumer’s remarks in May in which he said he believes “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his way and is an obstacle to peace in the region”.

Netanyahu spoke in English, but his real audience was back in Israel. He has, for his whole career, told Israelis that he and he alone knows how to “manage America”. That he can captivate Congress and build bipartisan support. Like most of his speech, it was never very true. But yesterday it was made absolutely clear that through his words, his actions, and his failed government, Netanyahu has alienated not only Democrats in Congress, but the many millions of Americans who they represent. If anything, Congress lags behind the opinions of those Americans, many of whom were surprised and disappointed to see that any Democrats showed up for the speech.

Between the protests outside, the members of Congress who skipped the speech, the hostage families who showed up only to get arrested, and the disdain that the speech was met with in Israel, it is clear that Netanyahu had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day.

Harris Candidacy Gives Democrats a Chance to Pivot on Gaza

When President Joe Biden announced he was dropping his bid for reelection and endorsing his Vice President, Kamala Harris, to succeed him to the Presidency, he created the space for Harris to set out a new policy on Gaza. In Foreign Policy, CIP executive vice president Matt Duss writes that Harris can plot a new path, distinct from Biden’s nearly unconditional support for Israel’s indiscriminate destruction of Gaza.

Writes Duss:

While no one expects Harris to dramatically distance herself from Biden, there are steps that she can take to show that she speaks for the Democratic Party of today and not 40 years ago. She can announce that as president, she will immediately suspend the U.S.-supplied military aid being used in violation of U.S. law. She can publicly make clear that she agrees with the assessment of countless Israelis—including Israeli opposition lawmakers and top sitting security officials—that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is stalling hostage release and cease-fire efforts in order to cling to power. She can reject the baseless and inflammatory claims that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the largest and most important relief agency in Gaza, is a “Hamas front,” and state that she’ll work to see UNRWA funding resumed as soon as legally possible. In doing so, she would join U.S. partners—such as Britain, France, and Germany—that have already resumed their contributions.

Read the full piece here.

Matt Duss on Netanyahu visit & protests, Gaza policy, Kamala Harris

In his first public call since leaving the race, President Joe Biden vowed to end the war in Gaza during his final months in office as he is set to meet with Netanyahu this week.

But much of the attention will be on Vice President Kamala Harris. The presumptive Democratic nominee will reportedly have her own face-to-face chat with Netanyahu.

CIP executive vice president Matt Duss joined Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s RN Breakfast to discuss. Listen here.

Continue reading “Matt Duss on Netanyahu visit & protests, Gaza policy, Kamala Harris”

Harris bid for Oval Office puts spotlight on foreign policy track record

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington and prepares for a July 24 address to Congress, CIP executive vice president Matt Duss discusses Kamala Harris’s record on Israel-Palestine. The Hill’s Laura Kelly and Rafael Bernal report:

Advocates for a tougher U.S. policy towards Israel point to Harris’s March speech in Selma, Ala., as a promising example of the vice president addressing the plight of Palestinians at a time when Biden was under increasing pressure to hold back weapons deliveries to Israel over the toll of death and destruction in the Gaza Strip amid its war against Hamas.

“The Israeli government must do more to significantly increase the flow of aid [to Palestinians]. No excuses,” Harris said to applause.

“She really lifted up the humanitarian crisis in Gaza in a much more aggressive way, much more critical of the Israeli government’s approach there. I think that was noticed by everyone,” said Matt Duss, executive vice president for the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

But it’s unclear if Harris’s speech represented a major policy difference or only a shift in rhetoric. Stepping forward as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, she now has an opportunity to articulate what she wants to do differently, Duss said.

He added it’s an important signal that she will not attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress on Wednesday. A number of Democratic lawmakers have announced they will boycott the speech, largely progressives.

“I hope and expect that she and her team will engage with the whole array of voices that make up the Democratic Party, and that includes its growing progressive [wing].”

Read the full story in The Hill here.

ICJ Determination of Violations in Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territories a Welcome Step

The Center for International Policy welcomed today’s advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) determining that Israel’s conduct in and policies toward the Occupied Palestinian Territories and its Palestinian residents constitute multiple serious violations of international law. In response, CIP president and CEO Nancy Okail issued the following statement:

“The Court’s advisory opinion affirms what virtually the entire world has recognized for decades – that Israel’s 57 year occupation of the Palestinian Territories has long served as a project to illegally dispossess the Palestinian people and annex their land.

International law allows for occupation as a temporary measure in a time of active conflict. It does not allow for occupation as a cover for relentless land theft, apartheid and other grave violations of the national and human rights of an entire people. The Israeli Knesset’s unequivocal rejection this week of any Palestinian state west of the Jordan River only provides additional conclusive evidence supporting the Court’s opinion.

While the ICJ’s action is non-binding, countries that seek to uphold international law should respect the Court’s determination and take all appropriate steps to counter the injustices of the occupation and bring it to a peaceful end. At a minimum, countries should not engage in actions which help to perpetuate the occupation and its discriminatory, annexationist goals. In particular, the United States must end the unconditional supply of arms that Israel uses in connection with the dispossession and settlement of Palestinian land and other violations of Palestinian rights.

We also reiterate the importance of rejecting all attempts to delegitimize, intimidate or penalize the ICJ or its officers in light of this or any of its other proceedings. The security and rights of people around the globe hang in the balance as the institutions tasked with upholding international law are being attacked by right-wing nationalist and autocratic figures worldwide. Disagreements with the Court’s actions may be expressed appropriately and challenged through the established processes, but attempting to undermine or criminalize the multilateral legal bodies that are a core part of the rules-based international system threatens essential US and global security interests.”

Duss on Democracy Now! discusses JD Vance, Trump and Biden foreign policy

Following J.D. Vance’s first speech at the Republican Convention as the official vice presidential nominee, CIP Executive Vice President Matt Duss joined Democracy Now! to discuss the competing narratives and records on foreign policy espoused by Vance, Trump and Biden. Below are excerpted transcripts of Matt’s discussion.

On the Iraq War:

“The story he wants to tell America about Trumpism, about the MAGA movement is that he was misled; he was told by Washington elites that this [the Iraq War] was a just war, a necessary war and was lied to, so he did his duty as an American citizen and went to serve in Marines in Iraq but then came to realize that that war was based on a lie. And of course that is a very valid argument. It was based on a series of lies and and and untruths and had enormously disastrous effects of course for the region but also for the United States. And that’s again an area where President Biden is quite vulnerable. He was a strong supporter of the Iraq War and to this day has never fully accounted for his support for the war.”

On Trump’s foreign policy record:

“If you look at the actual record of Trump’s presidency, it was in fact quite militarist. It was not isolationist, it was certainly not dovish in any respect. It was just unilateralist. And that I think is consistent with what we saw [in Vance’s speech] last night. It’s not that the United States will be pulling back from the world necessarily. It’s that we will be much more aggressive in advancing our own perceived interests. And if you look at some of the steps Trump took with North Korea, we came closer than ever before to a war in North Korea in 2017. We were on the brink of war with Iran in the wake of the assassination of Qasem Solemaini in January 2020. There was of course the attempt at regime change in Venezuela. So again, I think it’s important to understand all of these in the background even while we recognize the validity of the critique of the foreign policy establishment that we’ve seen from Trump and now from Vance.”

On support for Israel:

“What [Vance] said at the beginning about the kind of political support from many Americans, particularly Christian Americans –I myself grew up in the evangelical church so I can relate to what he’s talking about– there is a deep understanding, a deep sympathy culturally, religiously and politically for the state of Israel for a whole bunch of reasons. I think that is valid, it’s important to understand that. But I think there is a separate conversation about what is the correct policy if people care about Israel. What actually leads to security, not just for Israelis, but to Palestinians, for Palestinians, and for people across the region. And I think that is where we’re going to have real disagreement.”

Read Matt’s recent analysis with co-author Daniel Levy, In the U.K. and France, There Was a Gaza Vote. And in the U.S.?, in The New Republic.

On the Abraham Accords and plans for a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia:

“You heard […] Vance praising the Abraham Accords, and unfortunately the Abraham Accords are not a formula for genuine security. It’s important to understand what the countries in the region –Israel, the United Arab Emirates, some of these other undemocratic and repressive countries– see the purpose of the Abraham Accords as, and that is sustaining their own undemocratic rule. I think that ultimately is not going to be formula either for security of Israel in the long term, certainly not for the Palestinians. I don’t want to blame the Abraham Accords for October 7th attacks, but I will note that the logic behind the Abraham Accords, which is that the Palestinians can just be pushed to the side and kind of just managed in perpetuity. That is the logic and environment in which the October 7th attacks happened.

“Unfortunately this is not an area where the Biden administration is able to offer a counterargument because President Biden himself has adopted the Abraham Accords and now pretends that they can be a basis for regional peace and security, which they cannot.”

In the U.K. and France, There Was a Gaza Vote. And in the U.S.?

Today, Matt Duss of CIP and Daniel Levy of the U.S. / Middle East Project have an article in The New Republic arguing that a Gaza voting block helped the left in France and cost Labour votes in the U.K., and will likely play a pivotal role in the 2024 Presidential election in the United States.

Describing the UK experience, they write:

Among Muslim voters and a slew of progressive and younger voters, positions on Gaza had translated into electoral choices. That had never happened before in U.K. politics. While some of it may have been a luxury vote, assuming an inevitable Labour win, Britain’s governing party is well aware of the consequences for maintaining its rule if this trend cannot be reversed. In sum, the evidence suggests that the narrative that Labour’s aggressively distancing itself from Corbyn-era criticism of Israel by aligning with the Sunak government on Gaza was an essential element of its success was not only wrong but precisely wrong, with that shift acting as a drag on the party in the current circumstances.

Read the full piece here.

The Gaza Pier Is a $320 Million Symbol of the Biden Administration’s “Ineffectiveness”

On July 11, US officials announced that the pier it funded and built to get more humanitarian aid into Gaza would be dismantled. CIP executive vice president Matt Duss discussed this announcement and what it says about the Biden administration’s Israel/Palestine policy with Mother Jones’ Sophie Hurwitz:

The pier was more of “a way for the Biden Administration to try to look busy,” said Matt Duss, the executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), than an actual solution.

“I don’t ever want to diminish efforts to get more humanitarian aid to people who desperately need it,” Duss continued. “But there were other things the administration should have been doing to facilitate the delivery of aid that they…continue to refuse to do. [The pier] is essentially a physical symbol of this administration’s ineffectiveness around this war.”

[…]

The pier’s months of shutdowns and breakdowns made food aid delivery haphazard at best. And, as Duss explained, the deliveries that do make it into Gaza are difficult to distribute due to the sheer scale of infrastructure demolition, as well as the ongoing bombings. Smaller amounts of food aid are still being delivered through Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing, but news reports say that aid is piling up on the Gaza side of the border without making it to those who need it.

“The problem wasn’t just that people weren’t getting enough aid…it’s that the amount of actual physical destruction in Gaza, which is enormous, just makes it nearly impossible to deliver that aid,” Duss said. “This is done with the complete support of the United States.”

Read the full piece in Mother Jones.

Post-CNN Debate: Visions for the World in 2025

On June 27, CNN held a debate between former president Donald Trump and incumbent president Joe Biden. Both men are in the unique position of running against a previous office holder, and the election itself is a rematch of the socially distanced contest held between the same two candidates in 2020.

There is arguably no area of governance where a president has greater freedom and impact than foreign policy. To better understand how the candidates used foreign policy positions on the debate stage, and the limits of their understanding or desired policies, the fellows of the Center for International Policy have assembled to offer some deeper insight. A transcript of the debate can be read here.

Sina Toossi, on the Middle East in the Debate

The presidential debate offered little hope for a more peaceful and just U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East. The most egregious moment was Trump’s use of “Palestinian” as an insult in an exchange with Biden over their “pro-Israel” stances, a shocking display of racism that has largely escaped mainstream scrutiny.

Trump’s false claims about his Iran policy—asserting Iran was impotent and “broke” by the end of his term—belie the reality of his maximum pressure campaign, which provoked increased aggression from Iran, including unprecedented attacks on U.S. assets and allies, and accelerated nuclear activities.

Biden also faltered, with factual inaccuracies about Iran having intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities and misleading claims about U.S. military members not being killed under his watch in the region. Both candidates failed to present a coherent vision of the realities of U.S. policies towards the region.

Joanna Rozpedowski, on NATO in the Debate

Voters concerned about America’s security and geopolitical strategy face a pivotal choice between two starkly different approaches to international conflicts the new president will inevitably confront.

In the CNN debate, President Biden emphasized the importance of robust alliances and collective security measures, arguing that NATO and allied support are essential for deterring Russian aggression and maintaining global stability.

Former President Trump’s transactional approach prioritized national sovereignty, extreme frugality, and direct negotiation over costly multilateral commitments. His rhetoric indicated skepticism about the economic and tactical burdens the US bears in supporting NATO’s Ukraine approach, which thus far failed to result in the war’s peaceful settlement and risks further escalation onto neighboring European countries.

In November, this strategic divide presents Americans with a critical decision: maintain strong international alliances, an aggressive deterrence posture, and multilateral NATO engagement or attempt to resolve the conflict through diplomatic channels and direct negotiation. The decision rests squarely with the electorate.

Michael Chamberlin, on Mexico in the Debate

Regarding the issue of fentanyl crossing the border, neither candidate focuses on addressing the root causes. They fail to discuss how to collaborate with Mexico to strengthen its justice and anti-corruption institutions or how to stop Mexican criminal groups from obtaining guns in U.S. stores. Nothing was said about gun control in the United States or the movement of guns south through the same border, which arms the cartels that later send fentanyl north. Additionally, they overlook the importance of preventive measures from a health service perspective. Approaching the problem from a prohibition standpoint alone will never stop drug abuse.

Negar Mortazavi, on Iran in the Debate

Neither Trump nor Biden offered a coherent policy on Iran and the broader Middle East. Trump claimed that Iran had no money under his administration which is false. It’s true that he imposed broad sanctions against Iran that hurt the economy. But the impact of sanctions is mainly felt by average Iranian citizens and it does not really influence or change Iran’s foreign policy and regional spending. In fact, during Trump’s term tensions were high between Iran and its network of allies, the Axis of Resistance, and the U.S. and its regional allies.

Trump’s assassination of the top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani brought the two countries to the brink of a dangerous war, with Iran retaliating against the U.S. by shooting missiles from its soil targeting U.S. forces in Iraq. Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy towards Iran was not only dangerous but failed to achieve its stated goal of bringing Iran to the negotiating table for a better deal.

Biden’s policy towards Iran in general has not been very different or successful either. Candidate Biden had promised to prioritize diplomacy with Iran and revive the nuclear deal, but he couldn’t deliver on that promise.

Van Jackson, on China in the Debate

Biden has accepted Trump’s premise about China and economic statecraft. He now thinks reducing the trade deficit with China is a mark of progress. He imagines political economy as a zero-sum terrain where their gain is not just our loss; it’s a threat to us. This is the kind of economic nationalism that ultimately serves defense-industrial interests and reactionary political projects.Trump, for his part, openly accused the sitting American president of treason and corruption–he called him a “Manchurian candidate.” This is actual red-baiting; literally John Birch Society stuff. The notable thing, which is of pattern, is that Trump is using China as the wedge to attack his political opponent. The fascistic, corrupt politician is using the China bogeyman to advance his politics against his democratic opponent. The GOP did much the same in 2020 and 2022.

It’s true that politicians from both parties try to play the “China card” to their advantage…but it’s false that the “China card” is some value-neutral object that anyone can use for their purposes with equal effectiveness. China-threat rhetoric systematically biases toward reactionary, demagogic political outcomes; it’s unfavorable terrain for democratic politics. That’s why Democrats who tried to out-hawk their opponents on China in 2022 fared poorly in the general election.

Trump is not wrong that Biden’s foreign policy is pushing us toward World War III—we’re still insisting on a strategy of primacy in a world where power realities simply make it impossible. And by pursuing primacy anyway, the national security state naturalizes the necessity of the most dangerous kinds of policies: containment, arms-racing, and economic nationalism. This will not end well for anyone. The falsity in Trump’s rant though is that he is any better. Indeed, Biden’s China policy is Trump’s China policy. Worse, Trump’s implied theory of war prevention appears to be a form of extortion. Cultivating personal relationships with dictators, he insists, is the way to prevent World War III. That means that Trump puts himself in the position of telling the public, “Look, you want me to be friends with Xi and Putin and Kim. That’s how I’m preventing Armageddon.”

Country: Israel & Occupied Palestinian Territories