Duss: Trump’s Gaza Proposal is Less Original Than He Thinks

Trump’s Gaza ethnic cleansing plan reflects the same disregard for Palestinian rights that has handicapped U.S. policy for decades. He’s making the same mistake as past administrations, just in a bigger and uglier way, argues Matt Duss in a new Foreign Policy analysis. He writes:

While it’s possible that Trump has proposed the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza as a bargaining ploy, creating a potential “concession” out of thin air, we shouldn’t lose sight of the gravity of this moment.

The president of the United States has made the commission of a crime against humanity the explicit policy of his administration. The fact that Trump sees such a proposal as within the realm of acceptable discussion is itself a reflection on our deeply broken and corrupt political discourse, especially as it relates to the Palestinians.

While Trump’s proposal was particularly offensive, Tuesday’s press conference with Netanyahu demonstrated more continuity than many in Washington would like to admit. The spectacle of a U.S. president and an Israeli prime minister presuming to determine between themselves the future of the Palestinians is emblematic of decades of U.S. policy toward the conflict and a key reason for that policy’s consistent and continued failure. Trump is making the same mistake as past administrations, albeit in a bigger and uglier way.

Read the full piece on Foreign Policy or at the PDF below.

###

Trump’s Suggested Gaza Takeover Would Be Crime Against Humanity

In response to comments by President Donald Trump on Gaza following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Center for International Policy President and CEO Nancy Okail issued the following statement:

“President Trump’s comments proposing that the Gaza Strip’s population be permanently relocated and that the United States ‘take over’ the territory is nothing less than an open call for the commission of a crime against humanity. 

“It is unconscionable that a United States President would promote the forcible displacement of a population and acquisition of territory in the 21st century. These are ideas from the darkest chapters of history and an affront to human rights, the rule of law and basic decency.

“His comments proposing ethnic cleansing should be unequivocally rejected and condemned by world leaders and American lawmakers regardless of party. They should also serve as one of the most undeniable warnings yet that Donald Trump, if left unchecked, poses a catastrophic threat to international and human security.”

###

Nancy Okail discusses ceasefire, view from the region

On January 20, Center for International Policy President & CEO Nancy Okail joined ABC News Australia to discuss the ceasefire deal that went into effect on Sunday.

Watch here.

Biden, Trump and the Impact of US Pressure on Gaza Ceasefire Deal

Stephen Semler is a non-resident senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and author of the Polygraph newsletter on Substack.

The Israeli government is slated to meet today to ratify the recently-announced ceasefire deal with Hamas, despite mixed messages from Netanyahu on implementation and resistance from some of his most extreme ministers. The Israeli government is slated to meet today to ratify the recently-announced ceasefire deal with Hamas, despite mixed messages from Netanyahu on implementation and resistance from some of his most extreme ministers. For its part, Hamas remains committed to the ceasefire agreement, and has reportedly urged president-elect Donald Trump to pressure Israel to honor its initial commitment. Pressure is what had been missing from Joe Biden’s approach.

The framework of the deal is nearly identical to the ceasefire agreement Biden presented from May. At the time, Biden stated that Israel had initiated the proposal, but Netanyahu dismissed it as a “nonstarter” the next day. Netanyahu then derailed negotiations by introducing new demands, such as the permanent occupation of Gaza’s border with Egypt, which appeared to be aimed solely at undermining the deal. Negotiations over a ceasefire and hostage release stalled thereafter. The fact that the agreement announced Wednesday is nearly identical to the one proposed in May suggests that Israel has since abandoned some of the key demands that previously sabotaged the deal.

What changed? As far as US actions are concerned, Biden and Trump both credited themselves for the diplomatic breakthrough, and are now jockeying for the greater share of it. “I laid out the precise contours of this plan on May 31, 2024,” Biden declared in a statement. “My diplomacy never ceased…to get this done.” That’s true, but Netanyahu publicly rebuffed the plan, embarrassing the administration. Yet, when presented with a nearly identical proposal seven months later by Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, Netanyahu agreed to it.

The difference was Trump’s willingness to pressure Netanyahu—pressure Netayahu knows he is better off not to resist. Arab officials reportedly told The Times of Israel that Trump’s envoy “swayed Netanyahu more in one meeting than Biden did all year.” While Netanyahu brushed off Biden, Trump “bulldozed” him into accepting the deal, according to Haaretz. A diplomat familiar with the negotiations told The Washington Post that Trump’s intervention was “the first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side to accept a deal.” Former Democratic Congressman Tom Malinowski acknowledged this dynamic, writing, “This was Biden’s deal…but he couldn’t have done it without Trump.” Malinowski credited the breakthrough to Trump’s blunt warning that the war must end by January 20, contrasting this with Biden’s reluctance to exercise similar leverage.

The Biden administration pretended it was powerless to shape Israel’s behavior over the last year. For instance, in February, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller claimed, “There is a mistaken belief that the United States is able to dictate other countries’ sovereign decisions.” Meanwhile, the administration was sending Israel new weapons shipments every 36 hours, on average. These shipments empowered Netanyahu’s government to reject ceasefire agreements and pursue its preferred course of action instead, namely, continuing its genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

Without the unprecedented levels of military aid approved by Biden, Israel’s war machine would have ground to a halt. Retired Israeli General Yitzhak Brik underscored this, stating, “All of our missiles, the ammunition, the precision-guided bombs, all the airplanes and bombs—it’s all from the US. The minute they turn off the tap, you can’t keep fighting. Everyone understands that we can’t fight this war without the United States. Period.” Instead of forcing Israel to accept a ceasefire, the Biden administration spent tens of billions in US taxpayer dollars incentivizing Netanyahu not to. Achieving the current breakthrough did not require Trump’s election but rather a change in course from the policy Biden enacted and Kamala Harris endorsed on the campaign trail.

The path forward is clear: Trump must sustain pressure on Israel. Without it, the massacres that have continued even after the ceasefire announcement are likely to persist. If Trump’s administration fails to maintain this pressure, Netanyahu’s statement from last month may become a grim reality: “If there is a deal—and I hope there will be—Israel will return to fighting afterward. There is no point in pretending otherwise because returning to fighting is needed to complete the goals of the war.”

Fortunately, the United States holds immense leverage over Israel. It is crucial to question whether the Trump administration will use it effectively to ensure the ceasefire progresses past its initial stages and leads to a lasting ceasefire, one that involves the unconditional release of hostages and political prisoners, a total Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and implementation of security and reconstruction efforts needed to allow Gazans to return home.

This piece was co-published with Common Dreams.

CIP Logo Wordless Transparent

Trump Willingness to Pressure Israel on Ceasefire Positive But Complicity with Other Abuses Likely

Any pressure for Israel to accept the terms is good, but likely to be accompanied by full-throttle support for West Bank annexation, Security Assistance Technology & Arms Trade Director Ari Tolany tells Voice of America Indonesia:

“I think it is likely that Biden still wants to get some degree of credit for this ceasefire still happening on his watch, even though it does seem from speaking to a range from sources both in Israel, Arab states and Palestinian groups that pressure from the incoming Trump administration was really what moved the needle with the Netanyahu administration.”

“They [the first Trump administration] moved the United States embassy to Jerusalem. They did a lot of inflammatory actions including backing Israel’s annexation of territory in the West Bank. And so, while I think the ceasefire is a good thing and I think Trump’s willingness to use the leverage that he does have with Netanyahu is a good thing, I remain pessimistic for what the Trump administration is going to look like vis-a-vis Palestinian affairs.”

Watch the full interview here.

###

Security Assistance Monitor (SAM) is the first and only public resource to comprehensively collect, organize, and house all available federal data on U.S. weapons sales and transfers in one place, making it easily searchable by year or country on its website.

Long-Overdue Ceasefire a Bitter Relief After Netanyahu’s Obstruction

In response to reports that a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release framework has been agreed between Israel and Hamas, the Center for International Policy’s President & CEO Nancy Okail issued the following statement from Jerusalem:

“It is a bitter relief that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has finally accepted a long-overdue phased Gaza ceasefire and hostage release framework that has been on the table and endorsed by the rest of the world for more than half a year. It is an outrage that he obstructed and delayed this agreement, first characterized by President Joe Biden as an Israeli proposal, while thousands of Palestinian civilians died and Israeli hostages held since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks were killed or remained in captivity.

“The fact that Netanyahu is finally accepting the deal mere days before his favored candidate in the recent U.S. presidential election will return to the Oval Office is confirmation of what Israeli, Arab and even some U.S. officials involved in negotiations have been saying for months – that Netanyahu obstructed and delayed a ceasefire and hostage release to further his own personal political interests. Netanyahu’s acquiescence to Donald Trump’s insistence that a ceasefire be in place when he takes office next week ironically shows how effective actual pressure can be in changing Israeli government behavior. 

“It will forever be part of the legacy of President Biden and his top foreign policy advisors that they not only provided diplomatic cover for and enabled Netanyahu’s prolonging of this horrific war, but continued to arm Israeli atrocities against civilians in Gaza in clear violation of international and U.S. law. Thanks largely to his role in sustaining the carnage in Gaza, Biden hands over to Trump a foreign policy landscape in which international norms and U.S. credibility have been further eroded rather than strengthened.

“All parties must now adhere to the terms of this agreement, which only provides for a temporary ceasefire that requires further negotiations to extend, and work in good faith to ensure it is made permanent to ensure a sustainable cessation of hostilities. A massive humanitarian relief effort and steps to provide for administration and reconstruction of the territory must also begin in earnest with the backing of generous international assistance, including from the United States. All parties must also work to prevent deadly escalation from resuming elsewhere in the region, including between Israel and Iran.”

###

The Center for International Policy (CIP) is a woman-led, progressive, independent nonprofit center for research, education, and advocacy working to advance a more peaceful, just, and sustainable U.S. approach to foreign policy.

Biden Administration Defies Law with Israel Arms Transfers

ProPublica’s Brett Murphy reports on the Biden administration’s violation of arms transfer law:

In late May, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to stop its assault on the city, citing the Geneva Conventions. Behind the scenes, State Department lawyers scrambled to come up with a legal basis on which Israel could continue smaller attacks in Rafah. “There is room to argue that more scaled back/targeted operations, combined with better humanitarian efforts, would not meet that threshold,” the lawyers said in a May 24 email. While it’s not unreasonable for government lawyers to defend a close ally, critics say the cable illustrates the extreme deference the U.S. affords Israel.

“The State Department has a whole raft of highly paid, very good lawyers to explain, ‘Actually this is not illegal,’ when in fact it is,” said Ari Tolany, an arms trade authority and director at the Center for International Policy, a Washington-based think tank. “Rules for thee and not for me.”

Read the original article on ProPublica, A Year of Empty Threats and a “Smokescreen” Policy: How the State Department Let Israel Get Away With Horrors in Gaza.

###

Security Assistance Monitor (SAM) is the first and only public resource to comprehensively collect, organize, and house all available federal data on U.S. weapons sales and transfers in one place, making it easily searchable by year or country on its website.

The Biden Administration’s False History of Ceasefire Negotiations

Muhammad Shehada is a Gazan writer and analyst

Over the past months, outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken has given several interviews in which he repeatedly claims that Hamas, rather than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has been the key obstacle to achieving a ceasefire and hostage deal in Gaza. This messaging has been echoed by other Biden administration officials and surrogates. 

At a workshop in Geneva in November, a recently retired US ambassador, who had just returned from meeting White House officials, claimed, “There are currently three ceasefire deals on the table and Hamas isn’t responding to any of them.” The veteran diplomat acknowledged the suffering in Gaza but blamed it on Hamas’ “rejection” of an agreement to end the war.

To my surprise, a former senior Israeli security official in the room rushed to challenge this claim, which he described as a “shameful attempt to rewrite history and blame Hamas rather than Netanyahu for the obstruction of ceasefire talks.”

A few weeks later in Doha, I met a senior Arab official who emphasized to me one of the most crucial things Biden can do in his “lame duck” period is name and shame Netanyahu for systematically foiling ceasefire talks. But the official quickly added the White House is “instead rewriting history.”

Since July, all of the sources I have spoken to confirmed that Hamas had accepted Biden’s ceasefire proposal that was endorsed by the UN Security Council, which is premised on an 18-weeks long ceasefire divided into three phases, at the end of which there would be a permanent end to the Gaza war after all hostages have been released. The same sources, as well as Israeli media, and the Egyptian mediators have consistently blamed Netanyahu for obstructing the talks and refusing to end the war.

Even in the latest ongoing round of negotiations, senior Israeli security officials are sounding the alarm that their Prime Minister is still sabotaging the talks. Yet, the White House keeps insisting that Hamas is “the obstacle.”

The reality is that since July, US president Joe Biden has completely stopped pressuring Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire-hostage deal. Rather than tell the truth about Netanyahu repeatedly foiling the talks, the outgoing president and his administration are choosing instead to try and rewrite the history of what has really unfolded over 15 months of negotiations.

The Full Story

For the first four months of the Gaza war, the Biden administration opposed a full ceasefire, instead opting at best for a temporary “pause” to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian aid, which was briefly achieved in late November 2023. Biden said earlier that month: “a cease-fire is not peace… every cease-fire is time [Hamas members] exploit to rebuild their stockpile of rockets, reposition fighters and restart the killing.”

However, growing US domestic pressure, as well as Israel’s failure to locate and rescue the hostages combined with the sense that Israel had accomplished what it could militarily in Gaza eventually lifted Biden’s ban on using the word “ceasefire” by March 2024.

Talks began to mature with Qatari and Egyptian mediation throughout the spring, as the US exerted significant yet clearly inadequate pressure on Netanyahu, who had foiled two summits in Paris in January and February by procrastinating, severely limiting the mandate of Israeli negotiators, instructing ministers to attack any deal taking shape and publicly vowing to continue the war.

In early April, a concrete proposal was put on the table by the Qatari and Egyptian mediators and the US envisaging a ceasefire of three phases, six weeks each, in which hostages (including those deceased) would be gradually released in return for incremental withdrawal of Israeli forces from all of Gaza, an end to the war, and increased humanitarian and reconstruction aid. The first phase would have seen the release of 33 Israeli hostages.

Serious negotiations then took place in Cairo and Doha, with American officials making a genuine effort to narrow the gaps between the two sides. One senior Arab government source told me CIA director Bill Burns was at some point sitting literally in the room next door to where the Hamas delegation was negotiating in Cairo, and repeatedly amended the proposal with his own handwriting to get a deal done.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu sought to undermine those negotiations throughout April by consistently insisting on an imminent full invasion of Rafah and a continuation of the war after a pause. He also leaked sensitive classified information to extremist ministers in his government to derail the talks and restricted the mandate of Israeli negotiators.

A senior member of Israel’s negotiating team said in April that “Since January, it’s clear to everyone that we’re not conducting negotiations. It happens again and again: You get a mandate during the day, then the prime minister makes phone calls at night, instructs ‘don’t say that’ and ‘I’m not approving this,’ thus bypassing both the team leaders and the war cabinet.”

Throughout this period, Biden refrained completely from publicly calling out Netanyahu for explicitly sabotaging the talks.

On May 5, Hamas accepted the April proposal with reservations and amendments, but before the Israeli negotiating team got to formulate a response, Israel’s prime minister rushed to denounce Hamas’ position as “delusional” and ordered the immediate invasion of Rafah on May 7.

Biden, who had promised to halt arm supplies to Israel if it violated his “red line” of invading Rafah, decided to instead suspend one shipment of MK-84 2,000-pound bombs to Israel and nothing more.

The Only Realistic Deal

On May 31, Biden gave a televised speech presenting what he described as the outline of an Israeli ceasefire proposal submitted four days before. A senior Arab official confirmed to me in August that Biden’s proposal was in fact articulated by the Israeli team who turned to the White House after Netanyahu’s immediate answer was negative. That proposal had incorporated significant principles from Hamas’ May 5 response that Netanyahu had described as “delusional.”

Biden’s speech was designed to give Israel a victory narrative, stating that “At this point, Hamas no longer is capable of carrying out another October 7th.” He warned “Indefinite war in pursuit of an unidentified notion of ‘total victory’… will only bog down Israel in Gaza, draining the economic, military, and human resources, and furthering Israel’s isolation in the world.”

11 days later, the proposal was formally endorsed by the UN Security Council Resolution 2735. However, Netanyahu rejected Biden’s speech as “not [an] accurate” reflection of Israeli positions, and repeatedly asserted his insistence on the continuation of the war. The White House chose again to blame Hamas for the deadlock instead of pressing Netanyahu.

After lengthy negotiations, on July 2 Hamas accepted an updated Biden proposal with minor amendments, particularly relating to assurances that the ceasefire would lead to ending the war instead of a mere pause, according to multiple senior Arab and Palestinian officials involved in the talks.Hamas were informed that the US and Israeli negotiating team were both on board. However, a few days later, Netanyahu issued four new “non-negotiable” conditions that mediators and even Israeli security officials saw as intentionally sabotaging the deal. The conditions were: resuming the war after a pause “until [Israel’s] war aims are achieved”; no IDF withdrawal from the Philadelphia corridor between Rafah and Egypt; Israel would restrict the return of over one million displaced Gazans to the Northern half of the enclave; maximizing the number of living hostages to be released in the first phase.

Israel then quickly escalated its attacks in Gaza. On July 13 it killed Hamas’ chief military commander Mohammed al-Deif in a strike that killed over 100 civilians. On July 31, Netanyahu ordered the assassination of Hamas’ top negotiator, Ismael Haniya in Tehran. The day before, he ordered the assassination of Hezbollah’s top commander Fuad Shukur.

Multiple sources told me Hamas informed mediators that it still endorsed the July 2 ceasefire formula and UNSC resolution 2735. Biden called the Haniya assassination “not helpful” but that was it. Senior White House officials would then leak to Israeli media that Biden “realized Netanyahu lied to him” about the ceasefire-hostage deal, but the president himself never publicly called out Netanyahu.

Buying Time and Gaslighting

In August, ahead of the Democratic National Convention, the US opened a renewed round of negotiations, having received Iranian and Hezbollah promises of refraining from retaliation if a deal was reached.

Instead of building upon Biden’s proposal and pressing Israel to compromise, the Americans simply incorporated Netanyahu’s four impossible conditions as “a bridging proposal.” They attempted to entice Hamas to the table by getting Israel to reduce its veto on which Palestinian detainees it would release in a deal (Hamas presented a list of 300 heavily sentenced individuals, “the VIPs.” Netanyahu vetoed 100 names, including Marwan Barghouti, and insisted on only releasing prisoners with less than 22 years left in their sentence. The Americans lowered this veto to 75 names then 65 in August, per a senior Arab mediator).

Since then, the White House has attempted to re-write history and promote an official narrative blaming Hamas for Netanyahu’s systematic foiling of the talks.

A Palestinian source directly involved in the negotiations told me then that Hamas’ leader Yahia Sinwar sent them clear instructions to stick to the July 2 Biden proposal instead of getting stuck in a limbo of endless negotiations. Hamas refused to show up for the August round of talks as long as Israel rejected the most important two stipulations of Biden’s proposal: gradual IDF withdrawal from Gaza and ending the war.

Remarkably, the Americans pressed Egypt and Qatar to issue a false statement on August 16 that emphasized “talks were serious and constructive and were conducted in a positive atmosphere,” although there were no talks to begin with.

A senior Arab official involved in the negotiations told me both Israel, Qatar and Egypt objected to the idea of issuing this statement, but the Americans argued it was necessary to create domestic pressure on Netanyahu to narrow the gaps. The actual goal, according to this official, was likely to make it harder for Iran and Hezbollah to retaliate and to allow Kamala’s Democratic National Convention to pass peacefully without disruptions. 

The official added that Netanyahu had been sending his advisor, Ophir Falk, to the talks to undermine Israel’s negotiating team, and that the US asked mediators on multiple occasions to prevent him from attending the meetings.

As soon as the DNC ended, Biden blamed Hamas again for the failure of the talks, and effectively stopped trying to get a deal, with US officials declaring in September that a ceasefire deal has become unlikely during Biden’s term. Since then, the White House has attempted to re-write history and promote an official narrative blaming Hamas for Netanyahu’s systematic foiling of the talks.

Amid the deadlock, Qatar declared in early November that it was suspending its mediation role, which a senior Arab official told me was intended to create domestic pressure on Netanyahu. The Qataris also suspended Hamas’ office in Doha and Hamas leaders left the country by mid-November.

A New Round, Little Hope

In early December, Hamas’ entire leadership were suddenly invited to Cairo then Doha for renewed negotiations. Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz quickly expressed unusual hope and optimism about a “real chance” for a deal this time.

However, multiple sources directly involved in these talks told me by then there was no real possibility of a breakthrough. The Hamas delegation kept waiting in Cairo until the last minute, with senior Hamas negotiator Bassem Naim being the last official departing from Egypt to Doha late at night on December 5, hoping for a positive change of position from the Israeli team, who still only offered a temporary pause.

A senior Arab official told me president-elect Donald Trump had asked the Qataris and Egyptians to get a deal done before he takes office. The official, however, added that Israel’s Prime Minister is not budging while at the same time issuing false positive statements of a breakthrough and progress to buy time and pretend to seek a deal until Trump is in office, where Netanyahu can trade the Gaza war for something big in the West Bank.

Between Doha and Cairo, a senior Palestinian official directly involved in the negotiations told me in December that “there are serious talks, there’s progress and discussions of details, but until today no one presented a final proposal to sign.” He added “Unless Netanyahu does something that takes us back to square one, there is great optimism that we can reach something within a short period.”

Israeli officials asserted the same night that a deal could be reached within two weeks, but warned that Netanyahu is still not “granting a sufficient mandate to the negotiating team,” adding “It will not be possible to return everyone without an end to the war.”

More than a month later, no deal is yet in sight, as Israeli security officials say Netanyahu still insists on delaying the withdrawal from the Philadelphia and Netzarim corridors, restricting the return of displaced Gazans to the north, continuing the war after a partial deal, and demanding a higher number of hostages in the first phase. This led the mother of Israeli hostage Matan Zangauker to lead a demonstration in front of Israel’s Knesset on Monday to protest “a partial deal with a return to fighting,” which she said would be “a death sentence for Matan and everyone left behind”.

Israel’s opposition leader, Yair Lapid, said the same day “Our presence in Gaza today, which means that we are not making a comprehensive hostage deal, is contrary to the political and security interests of the State of Israel.”

The real history of these negotiations reveals a troubling truth: while President Biden has consistently blamed Hamas for the failure of ceasefire talks, his own failure to hold Netanyahu accountable has allowed the conflict to drag on. Biden is now trying to hide this failure by absolving Netanyahu of any blame, despite a mountain of evidence showing how he repeatedly sabotaged peace efforts. Recognizing this distortion is crucial, to inform the public in order to mount greater pressure where it’s needed the most to return all hostages and end Gaza’s apocalyptic suffering, and to prevent further manipulation from future administrations.


Biden-Harris’s Gaza policy abandoned American workers

Abdelhalim Abdelrahman is a Palestinian-American political analyst and writer advocating for a restrained U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East centered around American laws and respect for Palestinian human rights.

When Vice President Kamala Harris lost to President-elect Donald Trump on November 5th, she did so without carrying any of the seven battleground states. Armchair post-mortems of her defeat by pundits across the nation have identified many issues as possible culprits for Harris’ defeat, from the disillusionment of working-class Americans after a period of inflation to lack of enthusiasm for both candidates, and of course ongoing support from the Biden-Harris administration for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Pundits have been quick to label Gaza, and especially the U.S. role in allowing Israel to facilitate likely war crimes with U.S.-made weapons, as a phenomenon that only impacted Michigan’s Arab American community. While Gaza was a significant factor in why Kamala Harris lost the state, labeling Gaza as a problem unique only to Michigan’s Arab American is disingenuous. 

U.S. labor unions in swing states, working class Americans and younger voters all played a significant role in protesting the onslaught in Gaza, and they represent an overlooked demographic within the anti-war bloc over the last year. Gaza hit home with America’s labor unions and youth, marking foreign policy not as a separate issue from domestic issues but one intimately bound up in them. The inability of Democrats to enforce U.S. law, adopt a restrained foreign policy, and focus on working class issues at home contributed in overlapping ways to Kamala Harris’ defeat. 

U.S. Labor Unions Spearheaded Anti-Genocide Protest Efforts 

Early signs of this split could be seen in the organs of workplace democracy. Major labor unions across the United States threatened to withhold endorsing Kamala Harris unless she broke with President Biden and his unwavering commitment to Israeli security. Such a sentiment was widespread amongst local labor unions in key swing states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin–the proverbial “blue wall” that Democrats have heavily relied upon in past elections. However, this time around, the “blue wall,” containing nearly 1.5 million labor union workers (530,000 in Michigan, 730,000 in Pennsylvania, and 205,000 in Wisconsin), crumbled.

The National Labor Network for a Ceasefire spearheaded a campaign for a ceasefire in Gaza and an arms embargo on Israel. The seven unions in the network represent 9 million workers, and on July 23 they made public a letter  to the Biden administration in which the labor network called for a ceasefire and a halt on military aid to Israel. While most major labor unions went on to endorse Kamala Harris, not all of them were quick to do so. Shawn Fein, president of the United Auto Workers Union (UAW), held out on endorsing Ms. Harris initially. While Fein and the UAW did endorse Harris, he and the UAW remained relentless in calling for a ceasefire. 

Throughout the last year, labor union workers across the United States told reporters how they saw themselves in Gaza, indicating that the issue impacted more Americans than pundits may have realized.“Workers are always being attacked by companies or being exploited,” said labor union worker Marcie Pedraza in an interview with The Nation back in December. Pedraza continued, “Why wouldn’t this same concept apply to people being targeted in a lethal military campaign in another part of the world, who are suffering unimaginable levels of persecution and loss?” 

UAW Region 9A Director Brandon Mancilla similarly told In These Times, “The amount of political backing, arms resources we supply to the State of Israel is astronomical… we spend so much on defense, military spending in lieu of actually trying to solve deep social crisis in this country, of inequality of healthcare, of food access, education, the things you need to survive in this country.” UAW’s Region 9A encompasses 34 local unions across eastern all six New England states plus eastern New York and Puerto Rico. While Trump did not win any of these states, he improved on his 2020 performance in New York State, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Pedraza and Mancilla’s comments highlight how as workers they’ve connected the struggle of working class Americans to the harms of spending money on the military of other nations, especially when that spending is accepted as an unquestioned part of bipartisan consensus politics.

It is clear to American workers that a foreign policy that runs counter to American interests has a detrimental impact on their living conditions. And while Gaza was not the sole reason for Kamala Harris’ failure earlier this month, it at least serves as a contributing factor as to Democrats’ loss of credibility amongst America’s working class. 

Embargoing Arms To Israel Is A Popular Position Democrats Refused to Embrace 

An arms embargo on Israel is not just a specific focus of the working class and labor unions, it was and remains a popular position for most Americans, again demonstrating that Gaza was not an issue relegated solely to Arab-Americans. According to the Institute for Middle Eastern Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project, pledging to impose an arms embargo would have given Kamala Harris an edge in Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, states Harris lost. The IMEU study found that 35% of Democrats and Independents polled in Arizona said they would be more likely to vote for Harris had she embraced an arms embargo, versus 5% who said they would be less likely.  The figures were similar in Georgia (39% versus 5%) and Pennsylvania (34% versus 7%). 

Polling in other groups paints a similar picture. A poll conducted by CBS in June 2024 showed that 61% of Americans (including 77% of Democrats) were against sending aid to Israel. Additionally, studies conducted by CIRCLE at Tufts University in January 2024 showed that 38% of youth ages 18-34, including 56% of those who identify as Democratic or lean Democratic, thought Israel’s military operation was going “too far.” CIRCLE also noted that that 49% of youth voters believed there was a genocide happening in Gaza.

Had Harris embraced this popular position with American voters, she would have been in a much better position to win the election. However, by ignoring calls for an arms embargo on Israel and a ceasefire in Gaza, Harris and the Democrats at large undermined the notion that American foreign policy is for the middle class. Instead, it signaled that the U.S. is perfectly willing to bend its own rules against arming human rights violaters, and will do it over the objections and needs of young voters and working class Americans.

Internationale Laws

Going forward, progressives must communicate effectively how recalibrating America’s foreign policy is beneficial to Americans, especially young people and union workers. For example, despite credible evidence from human rights observers indicating that Israel has U.S. weapons to facilitate war crimes in Gaza and block aid from coming into the enclave –both blatant violations of the United States’s Leahy Law and Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act–, Biden and Harris continued to provide Israel with unconditional arm shipments. 

To re-engage the youth, working class and labor union workers, the United States must demonstrate a commitment to enforcing U.S. laws against human rights violators. That starts with enforcing the Leahy Law and Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act. Another crucial step is showing hard-working Americans that the United States is committed to a foreign policy rooted in restraint and rule of law. 

In 2024, unions and workers showed politicians how they understand solidarity with workers across the world. Bringing them back into the “big tent” means treating their analysis as honest, their qualms as real, and their goals as legitimate aims. If the U.S. can carve out special rules for favored allies, what’s to stop presidents from playing favorites with bosses over workers? Either we have a system of international laws that applies to everybody, or we don’t. Workers saw that. Maybe by 2028, presidential candidates will too. 

CIP Logo Wordless Transparent

CIP Welcomes ICC’s Arrest Warrants; Urges Countries to Assist

In response to the International Criminal Court issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and senior Hamas official Mohammed Deif, the Center for International Policy’s executive vice president Matt Duss issued the following statement:

“We welcome the ICC’s issuance of these arrest warrants as a substantial step toward justice and accountability for the war crimes perpetrated against civilians in Israel and Palestine.

“As we said when the ICC prosecutor applied for these warrants in May, international law protecting civilians in conflict must be applied consistently and impartially. Enforcement of these rules is even more necessary today as we face the certainty that the growing assault on international norms and the rule of law will intensify upon Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency.

“We call upon all countries, including the United States, to appropriately assist the ICC in this matter – and in no case to hinder or obstruct it, including by helping those subject to arrest evade justice. We reiterate that while countries are free to argue any disagreements they may have with this move on the merits through appropriate channels, attempts to defame, delegitimize or penalize the ICC or its staff would be utterly inappropriate and must be condemned.

“We also reiterate our warning and call on the United States government to ensure it adheres to its own obligations under international law by halting the supply of offensive arms to Netanyahu’s government which have enabled the grave violations of human rights and the law of war alleged by the ICC.”