Duss on Trump’s Gaza Redevelopment Proposal, Netanyahu Visit

Matt Duss joined Al Jazeera Inside Story to discuss President Donald Trump’s proposal that the U.S. “take over” Gaza, redevelop it and resettle Palestinians at a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“We absolutely should not downplay or dismiss the gravity of what Trump proposed yesterday, he has made the policy of the United States a crime against humanity,” said Duss.

“There’s a great amount of continuity in an American president and an Israeli prime minister standing together and determining the future of the Palestinian people. Unfortunately, that reflects what American policy has largely been for decades, and it’s part of why that policy has continually failed.”


Watch the full video here.

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.

###

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.

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.

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 Gaza ceasefire is huge news. But the costs of its delay are devastating

By 

TEL AVIV – On Wednesday, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani announced that a framework for an exchange of prisoners and hostages, leading to a ceasefire in the war in the Gaza Strip, has been agreed to by both Israel and Hamas. The announcement comes after months of intensive, on-again, off-again negotiations by multiple countries. The end of Israel’s devastating military onslaught, the release of prisoners and hostages, and the increase in humanitarian aid into Gaza which it will enable are most welcome. But the challenges ahead are tremendous. And it should have, and could have, come much sooner.

Last May, Biden outlined the contours of a three-stage deal. In the first, there would be a six-week ceasefire, Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners would be released, Israeli forces would withdraw from populated areas of Gaza, and humanitarian aid would be vastly increased into Gaza. Israel and Hamas would use this time to negotiate the terms of a permanent ceasefire.

Based on early reports, this deal looks very similar to that one. But as I wrote shortly after Biden’s announcement last year, it lacked the essential component of necessary pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept, which Biden has steadfastly refused to apply. Incoming Trump envoy Steve Witkoff’s apparent willingness to apply that pressure seemingly forced this breakthrough. “The pressure Trump is exerting right now is not the kind that Israel expected from him,” Israeli commentator Jacob Bardugo, a Netanyahu supporter, said Monday. “The pressure is the essence of the matter.”

Here in Israel and Palestine, where I arrived last weekend, there is great anticipation among people on both sides for this deal. Yet, there is also bafflement and anger that it took so long — much of it directed at Hamas and Netanyahu, but a lot of it also directed at the U.S.

“Why is Blinken so feckless?” asked an Israeli friend who lives in one of the kibbutzim attacked Oct. 7, referring to Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s constant trips to the region that have ended with him leaving empty-handed and usually humiliated by Netanyahu. Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada, who is from Gaza, recently published a piece based on conversations with numerous Israeli, Palestinian and Arab officials involved in the talks. They expressed incredulity at how the Biden administration has continued to publicly blame Hamas as the obstacle to a ceasefire, when it was clear to all involved that Netanyahu was the problem. Worse still, the White House’s dissembling gave Netanyahu additional cover to continue his obstruction.

The costs of the administration’s approach have been devastating. The reconstruction alone is estimated to take decades. A United Nations assessment last May reported that the level of destruction of housing in Gaza was unprecedented in the post-World War II era, and that it would take at least until 2040 to restore the homes destroyed. The damage to critical infrastructure has been similarly severe, with damages estimated at more than $18.5 billion by the World Bank as of last April. It will be considerably more now.

The human costs are even more staggering. According to Palestinian health officials, the war has killed more than 46,000 people; many times that number have been maimed and wounded. A recent study in the Lancet medical journal estimated that the actual death count could be much higher, between 55,298 and 78,525 deaths from traumatic injuries in Gaza up to June 30 2024. More than 80% of the population has been displaced, often repeatedly, as the Israeli military has forcibly expelled populations into new “safe areas” which it then bombed. U.N. experts, along with many others, have repeatedly warned of famine in Gaza.

The toll will continue to climb long after any cease-fire. Another Lancet analysis, issued last summer, noted that “even if the conflict ends immediately, there will continue to be many indirect deaths in the coming months and years from causes such as reproductive, communicable, and non-communicable diseases.” The authors concluded that “it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict.”

Biden has repeatedly — and correctly — declared that Israel, like any country, had a right and responsibility to respond to the horrific attacks of Oct. 7 and prevent such an attack from happening again. But public statements from Israeli officials, cited in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, are a series of confessions of intent that go far beyond any remotely plausible definition of a “just war.” Deputy Knesset Speaker Nissim Vaturi from the ruling Likud party wrote that Israel’s goal was “erasing the Gaza Strip from the face of the earth.” Israeli Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu, from the far-right Jewish Power party, suggested that Israel drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza and said there were “no uninvolved civilians” there. Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon recently referred to Israel’s actions in northern Gaza as “ethnic cleansing.”

“This is in no way a lawful response, a targeted operation of ‘self-defence’ to dismantle armed groups, or warfare consistent with humanitarian law,” Norwegian Refugee Council Secretary General Jan Egeland said in November. “What Israel is doing here, with Western-supplied arms, is rendering a densely populated area uninhabitable for almost two million civilians.”

There are many ways this multiphase deal could still collapse. Netanyahu has reportedly assured his right-wing ministers that he will resume the war after phase I “until Hamas’ defeat.” Preventing that outcome will require the consistent application of the kind of pressure that Witkoff reportedly has applied. But in the longer term, if this ceasefire is to be anything more than yet another interregnum between rounds of catastrophic violence, the United States will have to get serious about supporting Palestinian liberation and self-determination. Its ability to serve as a credible broker between Palestinians and Israelis, already on life support after decades of failure, is another casualty of the U.S.-backed Gaza war. As one Palestinian activist put it to me, “You now have a whole generation of Palestinians who believe we’re not just fighting against Israel, we’re fighting the U.S.”

If, as another Israeli report claims, Trump has secretly offered support for more settlements in the West Bank in exchange for Netanyahu backing the Gaza ceasefire, a return to large-scale violence against West Bank Palestinians (as opposed to the smaller- scale violence that they endure every day) is simply a question of when, not if. So long as the Palestinian people live under occupation, and the Israeli government steadily consolidates that occupation as a single undemocratic state, neither Israelis nor Palestinians will ever know the security and peace that both peoples desire and deserve. The path toward both will require a level of vision and courage that is currently in very short supply.

New Foreign Affairs Essay Offers Bold Blueprint for U.S. Foreign Policy Reform

In a provocative new essay published by Foreign Affairs, Nancy Okail, President and CEO of the Center for International Policy, and Matt Duss, the organization’s Executive Vice President, present a sweeping critique of the entrenched U.S. foreign policy orthodoxy and lay out a bold blueprint for reform. The essay, “America Is Cursed by a Foreign Policy of Nostalgia,” challenges decades of militarism and neoliberal economic policies that have prioritized corporate and elite interests over the well-being of most Americans and people worldwide.

With the 2024 election confirming the collapse of Washington’s traditional foreign policy consensus, Okail and Duss argue that neither “America First” unilateralism nor liberal internationalism can address the urgent needs of a world grappling with climate change, economic inequality, and political instability. Instead, they call for a transformative foreign policy rooted in shared global challenges, equitable economic reform, and principled international cooperation.

“The United States must choose between advancing a genuinely equitable global order or clinging to an undemocratic and unsustainable quest for global primacy,” said Okail. “Our current trajectory not only fails to meet the needs of working Americans but also alienates nations and peoples worldwide that are calling for a more just and inclusive international system.”

Key recommendations in the essay include:

  • Ending Failed Militarism: Shifting from prioritizing global military hegemony at any cost to a foreign policy that prioritizes human security, accountability, conflict prevention, and consistent application of international laws and norms.
  • Breaking from Neoliberal Economics: Ensuring prosperity is more widely shared among US communities, while reducing global inequality and economic precarity through equitable trade, labor, and investment rules, including by reforming global institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to support low- and middle-income countries, enabling sustainable development and debt relief.
  • Redefining Relations with China: Moving beyond Great Power Competition and zero-sum strategic thinking to focus on collaborative solutions for climate change, public health, technological innovation, and a more inclusive global economic and political system.

“Decades of militarized foreign policy and economic systems designed to benefit corporations and the wealthy have left working-class Americans—and communities around the world—paying the price,” added Duss. “The 2024 election put a decisive stamp on what has long been clear: the Washington foreign policy consensus is not only intellectually bankrupt but also increasingly alienating to the American people. It’s time for a new approach that breaks from the false choice between ‘America First’ unilateralism and ‘America is Back’ nostalgia, focusing instead on the needs of everyday people and a future built on common good, human rights, and shared prosperity.”

This essay is a call to action for policymakers, thought leaders, and citizens who recognize that the challenges of the 21st century require a fundamentally new approach to U.S. leadership.

The full essay is available in Foreign Affairs and can be read here.

###

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.

Democracy Journal – Donald Trump Re-Meets the World

The upcoming second Trump term will not be a mere retread of his first, post-Obama and pre-pandemic administration. Instead, Trump will return to power in a changed landscape, with new billionaire backers like Elon Musk and new conflicts that will shape his terms and choices. As Nancy Okail explains in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, this second Trump era will defined by new depths of corruption, Trump’s personal self-interest, a backdrop of “Great Power Competition” with Russia and China, and a global justice system on life support.

Writes Okail:

By eroding domestic institutions and bankrupting international ones—such as the World Health Organization and the World Food Program—Trump will undermine the very mechanisms that are vital for addressing global crises. Climate change, geopolitical instability, and pandemics do not—and will never—respect borders. It is impossible to safeguard Americans, not to mention people around the world, from these and other threats without international collaboration. While there are rightful critiques of our domestic and international institutions, destroying them without well-thought-out replacements will make life worse, not better, including for Trump’s own constituencies.

As international progressives, we must not be deterred, and there are four key areas on which we must focus to go beyond resistance and build a better world.

Read the full piece “Donald Trump Re-Meets the World” in Democracy Journal.

Foreign Policy: It’s Time for Ukraine to Make the Best Peace It Can

Trump’s victory in the presidential election means that, rather than the general continuity Ukraine could have expected from a Biden to Harris administrations, the United States will soon be governed by an executive less invested in Ukrainian freedom from Russian domination. In Foreign Policy, Matt Duss and Robert Farley argue that, “despite his ideological affinity for Putin, Trump has an interest in a genuinely durable settlement that does not simply result in Russian troops overrunning Ukraine,” if only for the simple reason that image-conscious Trump will want to avoid the appearance of unmanaged chaos that would come with the fall of Kyiv.

Write Duss and Farley:

On our visit to Ukraine in September 2023, we witnessed a vibrant democratic society rallying to prevent Russian domination of their country. Drawn out of Russia’s shadow since the 2014 war, Ukraine has undergone a cultural awakening, with art, music, literature, and history emphasizing a distinct national character. This awakening is hardly unconnected to the war. The normal avenues of Russian domination, including organized crime and state-sponsored religious activity, have been cut off by the war. Corruption still exists in Ukraine, but the impact of Russian dirty money has been substantially curtailed.

These outcomes are worth preserving, and any negotiated peace should seek to preserve them. The most important outcome of a cease-fire for Ukraine’s future must be an affirmation of Ukraine’s ability to protect itself, either by investing in its own defense or through relying upon its friends and neighbors. The threat posed by Russia to Ukraine is larger and more complex than simply a reprise of this invasion after a pause of months or years to recover strength.

Read the full piece “It’s Time for Ukraine to Make the Best Peace It Can” in Foreign Policy.

Politico – 10 Democratic Thinkers on What the Party Needs Right Now

After Tuesday’s sweeping electoral victory by former President Donald Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris, Politico asked 10 thinkers about what the defeated Democratic party needs right now.

Matt Duss, CIP’s executive vice president, says to listen to voters when they say that they’re hurting. Writes Duss:

It’s clear that, whatever experts might tell them about how great the economy is doing, a huge number of Americans are not feeling it in their own lives and communities. Joe Biden successfully adopted a unifying economic populist message from the party’s left in 2020, and as president took important steps to start building a more worker-centered American economy. Democrats really need to lean into that work with a vision that meets Americans from across the political spectrum where they are, and helps them see how policies often labeled “progressive” actually address the needs of workers and communities, including from purple and deep-red areas that have been passed over by globalization and corporatization of our entire economy. In the absence of that vision of shared American prosperity and security, many voters will continue to respond to demagogues who claim to feel their pain and pin the blame for it on immigrants, minorities and foreign enemies while doing nothing to actually make their lives better.

You can read the full piece, “10 Democratic Thinkers on What the Party Needs Right Now”, in Politico, including more of Duss’s comment.