Reeling Israel In: A Conversation with Seth Ackerman

[00:00:02]Hello and welcome to Occupied Thoughts, a podcast brought to you by the Foundation for Middle East peace. My name is Ahmed Moore and I'm a fellow at the foundation to today is July 20th, 2026 and I'm delighted to be here with Seth Arian, editor Jacabin magazine.

[00:00:16]Welcome, Seth.

[00:00:17]>> Thank you, >> Seth. We're we're talking because of a published uh because of a piece that you published in Jacabin um commenting use the Rahm Emanuel speech I think it was last week as foil to make the argument that we have a chance is the title we have the chance to reel in Israel right now. I want to get into that but first um what is Jacobin magazine? I mean I know what Jacobin magazine is but a lot of our listeners live abroad as well.

[00:00:42]Um, how would you describe the the the political context for a magazine like Jackman today in the United States?

[00:00:51]>> Well, I mean, we're a socialist magazine. We're a magazine of the left, the socialist left. And um, you know, we'd like to we like to think that we played a role in sort of reviving the the the position of the the socialist left in the dialogue on politics, uh, sort of the more mainstream part of the dialogue of of of politics in America.

[00:01:11]And uh so yeah, you know, especially on this issue, this is a an issue where, you know, the left has been galvanized um by the by the the horror in Palestine and we're on the verge of having this debate that's going to take place sort of on the especially on the maybe on the left wing of the like progressive coalition if you want to put it that way. And so, you know, I think that this is exactly the kind of subject that we would like to intervene in. Um and that's what I was trying to do with this piece. And it is an intervention. You go directly to sanctions. That's at the heart of the piece here.

[00:01:46]>> But the the context for Rahm Emanuel because let's stay on context for a little bit. Rahm Emanuel, his father was um a member of the Aun, the pre-state militia that engaged in lots of terrorist activity in Palestine in the mandate period. Um was raised um here in the born and raised here in the United States. Became a political operative here in the United States. Very successful. formerly mayor of Chicago, but notably in 2026 as he's launching this presidential campaign. I think that's how many people interpreted his speech in in Jerusalem. Um notably, he volunteered for the Israeli army in 1991 when when US troops were um fighting in Iraq, Desert Storm. Um that hasn't come up much and I haven't seen that come up in any of the reporting. Do you think the salience of that biographical fact about Rahm Emanuel will grow over time or will the salience of that fact grow over time as as uh we approach 2028?

[00:02:42]>> It might. I mean, on the other hand, you know, the fact is if you look at like the prediction markets right now, you know, he's [clears throat] generally seen as such a longshot candidate that it might not even be all that important in and of itself these kinds of biographical details with him. I think he's rated at like 3%. Uh but what I am concerned about is I think that there's a this is leading a lot of people to sort of underestimate the significance of the the speech and the policy orientation that he's presenting in the speech. Um you know and seeing it basically just as little more than sort of a sort of a sign of the times that you know he's taking a kind of an admonishing attitude towards Israel even though he clearly has such a strong staunch pro-Israel background. seeing this as sort of like an indication of how far the politics have shifted on this issue. I think that's a big mistake. Um and uh because I think that even if Rahm Emanuel is not the nominee, the Democratic nominee in this race, which is most likely, um what I think you're going to end up seeing in the de in the 2028 Democratic primaries, [clears throat] is that pretty much all the candidates are going to end up sorting themselves into two lanes. And there's going to be the Rahm Emanuel lane basically. And I think that that is going to be a very crowded lane. I think that you're going to see a lot of the candidates, including a lot of the sort of top tier candidates, um, joining him in this lane. And basically, they're going to end up sounding a lot like Rahm Emanuel in this speech.

[00:04:06]>> And so what are the attributes of that lane? [gasps] >> So the attributes of that lane, and I I would imagine if I had to guess, people are like, you know, Gavin Newsome and Pete Buddhajed, right? you're going to I think that you're going to hear them sounding basically ba you know their attitude is going to be like I'll have what he's having on this issue both in terms of the policy specifics and in terms of the sort of framing that Emanuel is putting forward and it's a pretty clever and I think wellought out I mean and I say this obviously as somebody who uh is not a fan of this approach but it is it's a coherent approach that can work both politically and as a policy-wise unless there's some kind of an alternative presented to it. So if you and I'm surprised that there's been so little attention paid to what he really actually said in the speech as opposed to a few bullet points that were sort of taken out and I think are the bullet points that he that he most preferred people to focus on. But you know this in this so in this speech he he delivered it by the way in Tel Aviv. He went to Israel to deliver it. Clearly he saw it as a major intervention. you know, he leaked copies of the draft of the of the text of the speech to reporters beforehand and then he gave a lot of interviews to Israeli media right afterwards.

[00:05:17]And so Emmanuel is in the speech, even though clearly like the intended audience is mainly an American audience given that he's about to run for president most likely. That's what most people think. Um, in the speech textually, Emanuel is addressing an isra the Israelis and his his attitude is, you know, you Israel, you need to wake up and get your head out of the sand and realize that Israel is increasingly isolated. Um, it's heading towards pariah status. If it doesn't change, then, you know, at at some point, even friends of Israel like myself, there's nothing we'll be able to do to help you.

[00:05:53]and if I have anything to do with it, uh, you know, if he's elected president implicitly is what he's saying. Uh, if Israel won't change on its own, he'll force it to change. So that was the sort of headline that people took from the speech after it was delivered. But if you look closely at what he's actually proposing, okay, so here's here's the policy that he's proposing. What he's saying is in the speech, and he's quite honest about this, job number one, the the sort of the number one objective for Emanuel is ending Israel's isolation, is taking all the pressure off Israel that has piled up on it over the last few years as the world has watched the horror in Gaza and watched Israel's lawlessness in the region. And the way that he proposes to take the pressure off of Israel is quite audaciously to put all the pressure on the Palestinians.

[00:06:42]And so what he's proposing is to go to the Arab states. And he makes this a major centerpiece of his policy agenda.

[00:06:51]And what he's what he's saying in the speech is that basically the US will go to the Arab states. Remember, of course, as you know, I'm sure the Arab League has had a formal position on the Israeli Palestinian conflict for a long time now. So, going all the way back >> 2002, >> 2002, the Arab Peace Initiative. So, this was originally a Saudi initiative, but it's been unanimously endorsed by all 22 Arab states again and again and again. So, it's by now a very wellestablished Arab consensus position.

[00:07:18]And the Arab the the essence of that position is the Arabs are telling Israel, we are willing to make peace with you. We're willing to recognize Israel. We're willing to normalize relations with Israel, all of us, unanimously. And all Israel has to do is comply with its obligations under international law. So that means withdraw from the the occupied territories, dismantle the settlements, allow the the creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and negotiate some resolution to the refugee issue with the Palestinian leadership. Right? So this is just what Israel is required to do under international law. And if Israel does those things, then the Arabs are promising full peace and recognition, which supposedly is what Israel has been has been saying since 1948 is all it wants. It wants to be accepted by its neighbors in the region, you know, recognized and have normal relations.

[00:08:08]Israel has consistently refused to even talk about the Arab peace initiative again and again and again for the last almost 25 years. What Emanuel is saying is that this the new approach that he's proposing is and again he's this is something he's proposing what what he would actually be able to do is a different question but he's proposing that the US basically go to the Arabs and try to tell them change your position instead of the position that you have now which is not going to work the way he puts it in the speeches he's he's going to the US will expect the Arab states to be the quote unquote the adults in the room with the Palestinian leadership Right. So essentially he's telling the Arab states, change the position of the of the Arab peace initiative, offer Israel full peace and recognition and normalization, but don't demand that Israel comply with international law.

[00:08:59]Withdraw from, you know, create a withdraw from the territories, dismantle settlements. Instead, all you would be demanding is that Israel commit not to expand settlements beyond the boundaries of what they already are. Mhm.

[00:09:12]>> And if the Arabs change their position to that and if Israel accepts that commitment, this part he doesn't say explicitly. I think that it's sort of the logic of it is clear that implicitly he's saying then the US would recognize a quote unquote Palestinian state. Israel probably wouldn't at that point, but the US is would recognize the Palestinian state. It would go to the UN. The UN would admit give full membership of the Palest the state of Palestine uh to the UN. countries around the world presumably would recognize Palestine and then the conflict is over from from Rahm Emanuel's point of view. So you have all the Arab states are recognizing Israel uh and with normal relations. You have quote, you know, in theory you have two states. You have Israel and this quote unquote Palestinian state. Now somebody listening to this might say, "Well, wait a minute. What isn't there a step missing here? Like what where is Israel's like withdrawal from the occupied territories and settlements?"

[00:10:06]None of that changes. Instead, what what what essentially is happening here is that is that Rahm Emanuel is expecting the Arab states to and the way he puts it is to stand up uh a a Palestinian governing authority in the territories that would I'm this is my way I'm putting it. It would essentially be a kind of like a Palestinian South Vietnam, >> right? So you know South Vietnam it was like in the Vietnam war was basically a kind of diplomatic fiction of it was an independent sovereign state but the really the purpose of South Vietnam which had almost no domestic legitimacy had very narrow base of support within South Vietnam could not have survived on its own. Its only purpose really was to have this sort of fig leaf uh pretense of being a sovereign state that would invite the Americans in so that they could fight the communists. Right.

[00:10:58]>> Yeah. And there's that and if you like >> sorry you have the Arabs I just want the Arab states in this analogy are like the United States and they would be tasked with doing the sort of nation building in cooperation with Israel of propping up this sort of artificial fake Palestinian state and then the two sides the Arabs and the Israelis would collaborate on a sort of counterinsurgency against whatever Palestinian opposition would exist in the territories.

[00:11:26]>> Right. and and I appreciate that articulation and I think it's it's um correct in its analysis and but what what's um surprising to me or maybe not surprising what's notable to me is the desperation that seems to underpin the entire vision um this this hopeful idea hope against hope you get the sense that somebody like Emanuel by articulating this vision can can revert turn time back to October 6 2023 um where Israel was not a pariah uh where um Israel's bad behavior was accepted as a matter of course um and and the regional integration would occur and those of us who are running for for federal office in the United States, the office of the presidency, whatever it may be, could really operate um operate in in the way that we have for the past 50 or 60 years. Um, and so is that when I asked earlier about the attributes and I want to go back to that part of the conversation. Is that basically the Pete Budajage, Rahm Emanuel, Josh Shapiro, um, whomever else, hope here that we can put this issue to the side and run on all of the kinds of things that, um, mainstream Democrats, however that may be uh, defined today, uh, typically run on.

[00:12:41]>> Yes, I think that's exactly right. I think that when and, you know, he almost says it quite explicitly. He says that uh you know he sees the central problem right now as Israel's isolation and its unpopularity and public opinion all over the world and in the United States. And you know you often see lately that sort of a meme that you've seen from you know on Twitter from people sort of in that in Rahm Emanuel's space in on this issue. People like U Dan Shapiro who was Obama's ambassador to Israel. You've seen a lot of them say basically like the job number one is to get back to a situation where if if the Israeli prime minister is vis is having a state visit to the United States, it's not even it's not even on the front pages. Like it's it might as well be Finland that's, you know, having this meeting. Uh in other words, just sort of to anesthetize or euthanize the whole Palestine issue in American politics so that they can get back to business as usual. That's exactly right.

[00:13:34]>> So then what's the other lane?

[00:13:36]>> The Well, that's the thing. So there the other lane is all of the any of the candidates who will want to and I'm sure there will be some clearly there will be some who will want to try to demarcate themselves from the Rahm Emanuel lane um by being you know in a more progressive direction but so far and this is the reason why I wrote the piece I have not seen I haven't seen much evidence that there's been a lot of coherent sort of strategic thinking about you know the connection between the politics and the policy that can really present an alternative to the Rahm Emanuel line. I've seen sort of attempts by people by by some of these likely candidates and people around them um to sort of try to appeal to the progressive base that has been, you know, seeking uh change on this issue. um and with sort of maybe you could call it slogans, you know, policy slogans or or sort of items that often these are things that play well on social media, you know, but don't necessarily kind of advance the ball of of getting of of building an alternative viable policy framework. So, and these are all most usually things that are very valuable in and of themselves.

[00:14:48]People demand that politicians recognize that the genocide in Gaza was a genocide, will recognize that aparttheid in the West Bank is a parttheid. That's great. Or or refuse to take promise not to take money from Apac. Uh I listened to the your show the other day with uh the the duo from track APAC and they've done incredible work. They've really transformed the landscape of this issue.

[00:15:09]But I think that they would be the first to acknowledge that just having candidates agree not to take money from Apac is not in itself changing the [clears throat] reality on the ground in the region for the Palestinians or anybody else. So this is why I wrote the piece is because I think that this, you know, the time is now to start thinking about this.

[00:15:25]>> So I'll read to you uh read at you from your own piece. Uh but um but I appreciate that going from a kind of concave policy lens to to convex where we're proposing a positive um vision and a platform. Um and positive here really means active, not exactly positive in the typical sense. Uh so here's how you start. First, let's get one thing straight. Rahm Emanuel's much heralded speech on USIsrael relations portends no shift at all in the Democratic party policy toward Israel and that's what we were describing this effort to go back to October 6th. Um and then you continue on accountability. However, Emanuel's speech does register a bonafide political shift and that shift represents a genuine opportunity. But right now, that opportunity is going to waste because critics of Israel have failed to advance a policy agenda commensurate with the scale of the problem. Thus far, advocates of accountability for Israel have floated policy proposals that suffer from two major flaws. First, they fail to spell out the extent of Israel's international obligations, and second, they lack real teeth. Before we get to the policy prescriptions here, the idea that that we can change things by taking an active approach to managing the conflict, you use the words the scale of the problem.

[00:16:39]What is the problem here from your perspective when we talk about Israel?

[00:16:44]I mean, if you had to put it into one word, it would be impunity. you know, uh, Israel has not been has has not just, you know, systematically violated international law, but in a way that's been recognized in in many case most cases in most aspects of it by the international institutions, whether it's the United Nations Security Council or various international courts as what it is, but without any action by those who have the power to take action to do anything about it. So, it's not really so it's not such a, you know, complicated, you don't have to start from square one. you know, a lot of the the sort of blueprint of what needs to be done has already been laid out by international institutions who are simply noting what Israel actually would be required to do to be to to to be in line with its legal with its obligations in international law. It's just nobody's done anything about them. And so then great. So so we're talking about impunity and then you propose some concrete measures to contend with that impunity. Um and so here they are.

[00:17:40]First, the United Nations Security Council must finally vote to enshrine and enforce the 2024 decision of the International Court of Justice, a court to which Israel is a party by treaty.

[00:17:50]That's the basis for the enforcement, which ruled Inter Aliad that number one, the continued presence of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory is illegal. Two, the illegality relates to the entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967.

[00:18:06]And three, the Gaza Strip is an integral part of the territory that was occupied by Israel in 1967. And so here you've seen the the elaborate effort first um um first concretized I guess by Ariel Chiron with the disengagement plan to to put Gaza in its own box and the West Bank in its own box. And you see that that theory of the world propounded by people uh who work for instance at J Street who talk about protective presence in the West Bank and often um try to avoid the conversation about the genocide in Gaza. And so that's kind of a radical uh um reframing of the issue.

[00:18:41]Palestine is is Gaza in the West Bank.

[00:18:43]But then why international law? I mean, why what is the mechanism through which you pull international law into the conversation when we're talking about American politicians and domestic policy in this country?

[00:18:55]>> Well, I I don't bring up international law [clears throat] because I think that, you know, the the focus needs to be on people being a stickler for international law in a legalistic way. Um, in a presidential [clears throat] election, people are going to be talking about what kind of foreign policy the United States should have. And ultimately, you know, most people would agree that America will have a foreign policy based on our understanding of American interests, right? So, um, America's interests, and this is not, you know, this is not new or very particularly original. Um it for for many years America has American administrations administration after administration have said uh have articulated that the the the violence and uh and instability generated by Israel's occupation and the violence that emerges from that and often it spirals outward in many directions. You know Lebanon has obviously been sort of a a spin-off of the violence uh originating in Palestine. many other cases. Um, these are all sources of instability and even administrations, you know, as as non-radical as, you know, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, they've all said, it was always the position of all administrations since 1967, that the the settlements are a quote unquote obstacle to peace. That was the phrase that was always used, right? And if peace is considered peace in the Middle East is considered to be an important American interest in the region, then you have, you know, an obvious case for why um enforcing international law as the sort of arbiter of how you resolve a conflict like this is a core American interest in the region. And that's the reason why if you're running for president, you're making the case that this is something we need to do. And so international law is not so much it's again it's not to be legalistic and to say you know our mission in life is to enforce every provision of international law but to say this conflict and the the impunity and the lawlessness that has spiraled out from this conflict is a problem for American interests resolving the conflict in terms of how you resolve it on what terms you resolve it the obvious arbiter the obvious source of a sort of the terms of settlement are the terms of law I mean that's those that's how we arbitrate disputes supposedly in a you know a rules-based world order that's like supposedly how how you do it. So that's the reason why I talk about international law not because you have to be not because it's it's the end all be all and then so so then you transition and that makes sense to me.

[00:21:25]Um so because I I I can't imagine an American president saying that we're going to subordinate and this is this is a shame and I think it's an affliction of our political culture. Our political culture is afflicted by this tendency to say that um our sovereignty uh is insuperable and in any attempt to think about global rules is a is is going to subordinate our sovereignty to that of others. I I don't think that's true first of all. Um but uh I can see somebody who's running for president reaching for international law to say that this is a core American interest and here's here are a set of rules that other people can help enforce. other people see the legitimacy of and therefore we're going to have have a conversation with that those rules basically informing the framework. Um and so then what do you propose? You want to bring Israel into this into into conformity with international law. What do you propose here? And this is fairly radical.

[00:22:23]So [clears throat] there are um so that that first point about the international court of justice about the bringing setting out what Israel's obligations are. I I frame that as you know u I'm I would say I'm saying that the US should support a UN security council resolution. I would say ideally under what is it chapter 7 of the UN charter that deals with threats to international peace and security. those are that that's how those resolutions are framed to make it clear that this is something that needs to be enforced and um but I I do that not I mean I think that that's important but ultim in in a sense what is really what is even more important than that it would be a statement of an international you know the highest body of international uh governance of the security council in a way even more important than that is that it would be a declaratory policy of the United States I would almost say that you know the the security council resolution in a sense is is dispensable. You could get rid of that. It would still be important because the United States would be it would be the United States saying this is our policy now. These are Israel's obligations. And it would be a way of reframing and sort of resetting the the framework of USIsrael relations to say Israel is not in compliance with its obligations. And as long as it remains not in compliance with its obligations, that is going to affect the entirety of the USIsrael relationship. It doesn't doesn't mean that Israel is America's enemy. doesn't mean that we're going to start a war with Israel, right? But and there may be areas of cooperation where we have overlapping interests and we can cooperate on those things. But Israel, as long as it flouts its obligations under international law in ways that undermine American interests, it cannot have the kind of partnership with the United States that it wants and that it has had so far in the last decades. Um, and that will remain the case as long as it's not in compliance. So, in some ways, that's even more important that declaratory policy is as important as the Security Council resolution. Um, by the way, I before I get to the the point the point about enforcement that I think you're you're leading towards, if I were to write the article today, I was looking back at it and I think that there's one e one other point that I would add to those two. Um, and that is uh a de and I think there should be a very low bar for pres candidates for president in the Democratic primary is a demand for Israel to permit free and fair elections. uh for the Palestinians if the Palestinians want to hold them.

[00:24:45]And that of course includes uh allowing elections to take place in East Jerusalem. I'm sure you know this has been a charade that's gone on for many years between the Mahmud Abbas and and the Israelis. Um, and it probably would require international monitors because clearly Israel uh has shown that it's not able and willing to provide the kind of security that would be necessary in Palestinian areas for uh free elections to really be able to take place if the Palestinians again if they choose to hold them. Um and finally associated with that, you know, if the Palestinians hold presidential elections and if uh Marwan Baruti chooses to submit his candidacy then uh for these candidates to call on Israel to release Bargoti who's currently being apparently tortured to death in a in one of Bengavir's prisons. Um so that that and that is an important element because sort of as in contrast to Rahm Emanuel's vision where you know the territories are like a Palestinian South Vietnam with no real sovereignty, no legitimacy and the wishes of the population is sort of irrelevant. This is a clear alternative that bases itself on the the democrat democratic will and democratic rights of Palestinians. So to say that, you know, if they want to have free elections, Israel must permit it and we must do what's necessary to facilitate it. But so on the question of enforcement, which I think is is what we're getting to, this in some ways, you know, this is the teeth. This is the the question of leverage, and it's very important. And I have to say just to preface this that I find I am a little bit I've always been a little bit mystified by the way that people on on all sides of this issue talk about um the settlements as you know Israeli like these irreversible facts on the ground.

[00:26:31]People say well you know at this point things are so far gone that there may not be a solution or maybe there's you know maybe we need to stop thinking about a two-state solution as a one-state sol multi-state solution. And what I'm saying here is irrespective of what one's opinion is on what is the ideal solution. I just want to make the point that I don't I think that this is sort of a myth that the settlements are somehow irreversible facts on the ground. They're reversible. And what I'm what I wrote in the in the article is that what I'm proposing is that the president and this should be something that the candidates in this primary uh pledge to do in my opinion. Um, the president can issue an executive order that announces that anybody who takes possession of property, whether it's by purchasing title to property or entering into a lease or a rental agreement for property on illegally confiscated, illegally occupied land in the Palestinian territories is subject to sanctions, Treasury Department sanctions that are administered by OFAC, the arm of the Treasury Department that does this. So they would be put on the specially designated national list and they would be either whether they're individuals or whether they're companies. Uh they would be cut off from the international financial system. Now I can promise you I can promise you that the minute that happens, you're you're not going to see practically anybody moving into those settlements.

[00:27:54]People will be moving out. People are always moving into and out of towns.

[00:27:57]Whatever town you're talking about, people will still be moving out, but nobody will be moving in. If a supermarket in one of these towns closes, it's not going to be replaced by another supermarket. So, you can do the math. I mean, these these settlements, they they don't have to they don't have to remain there. They're illegal. They they're illegal. And the United States has been warning Israel for decades that it considers them at least an obstacle to peace. They're clearly illegal under international law. Um, the United States, if you look at the list of entities and individuals that the Treasury Department already sanctions, go on their website, it's a long list and like 80% of them are like enemies of Israel. So, >> let me ask a hard question. Um, why stop at the settlements? We know that the settlements are an extension of the state. Um, we know that the armed settlers are functionally paramilitaries.

[00:28:48]Uh, they're armed by the police, the border police, whomever. I I don't know.

[00:28:52]But I don't really care to know. It's all the state, you know. Um why why not say we're going to saddle, you know, sanction the the the banks whose uh which were doiciled in Israel whose headquarters in Tel Aviv at the outset? Why play this gradualist game in and in and trying to arrive at a more just outcome?

[00:29:14]Well, first of all, what the question that I'm trying to address here is what do I what do I think is the best thing for people who might have some influence on the on the course of this presidential contest? What should they be demanding from the candidates? Um, I have no I mean I have no problem with the idea of demanding sanctions on um you know Israeli banks and institutions and those have to be on the table also by the way because if a if if a relatively aggressive agenda like the one that I'm proposing were actually to be implemented. The Israelis all history shows that when they find themselves in these situations they will often escalate. So they will often sort of say oh you want to you want to take us on?

[00:29:55]Well, we can create a lot of havoc and a lot of messes in the region. And do you really want you, the United States, you, the administration, that would probably benefit rather from sort of peace and quiet. Do you really want to deal with all of this mess that we can create? And at that point, then escalation would be necessary and sanctions on entities like the biggest insurance companies and banks and and the is the Tel Aviv stock exchange. Those are all things that would be very um uh I think powerful uh deterrent dissuasion for Israel not to engage in that kind of behavior. Um I think that from the point of view of of you know what is the best thing to demand from the candidates uh that seems to me the most likely that they could adopt given its very clear grounding in the the rules and laws and pre-existing policies even of the United States. uh that sanctioning illegal settlements because they're illegal. Sanctioning people, you know, I think that that makes a lot of sense. I I'm open to alternative uh ideas. I do think that there is probably from a sort of state craft perspective some if you actually really think about how a policy like this would be could be and should you know how how it would be implemented by an administration in the real world. you know, an administration that that would presumably have a lot of other interests and a lot of other things it would care about once it enters the White House.

[00:31:15]Number one being, you know, a domestic policy. You know, president wants to have a successful presidency. And uh obviously the Israeli Palestinian issue is only one issue on their plate. And so they want they would want you know whatever um initiatives they take to be number one success as successful as possible and number two uh to to present as little of a problem as a of a mess for them to clean up as possible. And I think that there's an advantage in having leaving sort of room for escalation so that you can escalate in both directions as a as a as a means of sort of coercive leverage on the Israelis to get them to do what you want to dissuade them to do what you don't want them to do. I I think that's a that's a smart argument and I think the idea of targeted sanctions because once you begin to pull on the sanctions thread which of course I'm very much in favor of um personally and again what the the the frame for this conversation is what should candidates in 2028 be thinking about and talking about but personally I I'd like to see sanctions until full equality between the river and the sea. Um but once you begin to pull on the sanctions thread, you end up in a situation where Roana may be asked on the stage, do you propose that um synagogues and other places of of Jewish life in America shouldn't be um auctioning land in in the West Bank to their congregants, which is something that people tried to get Zeroni uh in trouble over in New York. Um, and that's that's a a painful uh question uh to have to answer on on the campaign trail.

[00:32:46]Um, and then you go beyond that. Uh, Anthony Blinken um, infamously uh, chose not to sanction a unit of the Israeli army which is noted for its um, sadism and and criminality. Um, and then you do you end up in a world in which you're calling for sanctions on the Israeli army when, as I, as I asked at the start of this conversation, um, when at least two potential presidential contenders have volunteered for the Israeli army. Um, and so you end up in a world where the conversation may quickly get out of hand for you as a candidate Roana, as a candidate AOC. And so is it better to avoid the conversation altogether?

[00:33:25]>> I mean, I think that those are good problems to have. You know, I think that that's a better problem to be dealing with than the problem of not having heard really any kind of affirmative alternative agenda for on this policy file uh from those candidates at all. I think I think that's a pretty good problem to have that you've sort of injected this these issues into the conversation to the point where now you have to you know deal with the possible ramifications of them. um you know [clears throat] so I mean on those questions I actually don't think that you know enforcing the law uh in in a way that applies to selling essentially stolen land stolen property uh whether it involves synagogues or whether it involves other houses of worship or whether it involves just you know multi-level marketing companies I mean it does it shouldn't really matter very much I I don't know if that should be you know such a such a big issue I think that you know the if in a political campaign you want to draw attention to the and you want to frame the issues in a way that puts the other side on the defensive that makes puts you in a comfortable position and puts the other side on the defensive that's as hard for them to defend their position and as easy as for you to defend your position. Those are the issues that you want to inject into the campaign. Those that's the way you want to frame the issue. So to me I think that you know an approach that's so clearly based on the existing precedents of American foreign policy on international law on common sense uh that is a sort of a moderated and calibrated approach um that allows for the possation upward but also downward that can uh compel Israel uh in an effective way. I think that that makes sense to me, but I mean I'm I'm certainly open to, you know, alternative possibilities.

[00:35:13]>> So, some of the the Jewish left has gotten in trouble, I'd say, lately, uh, because of the inclusion of people like Kurt Mills. I read the American Conservative. Um, I I think the emerging um areas of interest between, call it principled, right? even though I may not agree with a lot of those u a lot of the policy prescriptions that that emerge from from the principles that they care about. Um and and the left has created an area where people can kind of work together if you're in a political environment. So this is what Ben Lorber I think said to me a few weeks ago um politics the political sphere is a little bit different. The activist sphere is a little bit different. How do you regard as somebody who's on the left um who is an editor of Jacabin the emergence of people like Kurt Mills and others on the right who may say yes America first but America first means um prescriptive um prescriptive view on American law um on justice is a value uh and there's an opportunity for us to work here. So, so is Kurt Mills somebody who's within the camp within the coalition? How do you think about working with people on for instance sanctions? I mean, speaking for myself, uh I think that it's not only uh is it acceptable, but I think that it's very smart. I want to be clear. I'm not speaking on behalf of anybody other than myself here. I mean, I'm an editor at Jacabin, but this is what other people at Jacobin might think about this is might is it might be a different story.

[00:36:42]And certainly, you know, these days on the left more broadly, especially sort of the more activist left, there's a lot of um sensitivity about in, you know, associating with people on any part of the right uh who might have like problematic ideas on other issues.

[00:36:58]Personally, I know the person you're talking about, Kurt Mills, and I I follow him on Twitter, and I think that he's very smart and and and is I think, you know, also seems relatively principled, at least on these issues that I that I follow him and read him writing about. So I mean speaking for myself I think that it makes a lot of sense to to I mean I guess then that the question is to to what exactly? I mean you know certainly what I would if I would put it this way um I think it's a big mistake to start having sort of like cancellations you know to cancel people for having associations with people like that guy or other people who may be on the right who may have ideas that we disagree with in other areas. um uh and and fail to to take the opportunity to sort of gain from the fact that they have their own audience. They have their own constituency. They're they have people that they're sort of messaging and telling you know a more accurate picture about the Middle East to who maybe who may be somebody people that I as a editor at Jacaban wouldn't be able to to convince or wouldn't be able to reach those people. I think it's a good thing that Kurt Mills is telling his audience uh about this stuff. um exactly what that means like what what kind of cooperation does that involve I I don't know but I I do think that it's a real mistake uh this general tendency on the left to sort of constantly be looking for you know heretics to sort of b you know to shrink the the the circle of people that we can associate with so that's my personal you know view on that issue >> and so then I guess my last question to you is what do you make of of the emerging political coalition Thomas Massie Roana recently went on a show together. They've been doing a lot of work on on accountability together. What do you make of that coalition? Is it a hopeful uh uh coalition for you or is it one that you you watch I mean I have a sense of this from your from your answer just now that you watch a little bit wearily? Are you identifying guard rails? Are you identifying points um where you may need to to be um thoughtful about engagement around?

[00:39:04]No, I think it's great that Roana has been uh has been working with Massie on this stuff. You know, I um like I said, just because you work with somebody on on on a particular issue doesn't mean that you're endorsing the whole slate of things that they support. You know, we had this Massie amendment uh this vote on the Massie amendment recently and it was largely in practice a symbolic vote because it had no chance of passage. So, it gave an opportunity for Democrats.

[00:39:30]you ended up seeing more than 100 Democrats in theory vote for ending US military aid. Um, and incidentally that that vote only happened because because Massie, a Republican, introduced it and the Republican leadership allowed the vote to take place because they thought this is like a clever way of dividing the Democrats, of embarrassing the Democratic leadership u by showing how many rank and file Democrats oppose the position of, you know, Hakeim Jeff and Chuck Schumer. I think that's great. You know, I I think it's it's great that that there was a coincidence of interests that made it possible for this vote to happen, but what I want to warn people about is that, you know, I think there's a lot of complacency as a result of votes like that where people are looking at and saying, "Wow, the landscape on this issue has been so totally transformed uh that you have more 100 Democrats voting this way."

[00:40:21]What I'm what I'm here to say I I regret to inform people that the right now the the by default if only by default the emerging policy of the Democratic party on this issue is Rahm Emanuel's policy and he's probably not going to be the nominee the Democratic nominee is not going to be president very likely to be if there's a Democrat in the White House secretary of state I think that that's the job that he wants or national security adviser somewhere at the top of the national security team you know his last job he was ambassador to Japan has a very strong interest in foreign policy. You know, running for president, the first big issue that he takes on is this issue. I think that he's running not just for president, but for sort of the leader of developing a new foreign policy for the Democratic Party. So, by default, this policy that he's outlining, which is really a policy for teaming up with Israel to sort of bring about a final historic defeat of the Palestinian cause, that's really what he's proposing here. that at right now is by default the policy of the Democratic party because there is no real elaborated alternative that's been proposed. And meanwhile, a lot of people are just looking at this and saying, "Wow, look how much the ground has shifted." You know, it's sort of like we're coasting now. You know, we're on a glide path towards real change in in US policy on this issue. I'm warning people that that's not the case and that you know that speech that Emanuel gave where he's outlining this sort of audaciously pro-Israel policy um was received by the commentators and everybody else as like as like this amazing sort of shift of of admonishing Israel and reframing the relationship with Israel. And that's how I think most the sort of the average Democratic primary voter would hear it because the tone that Emanuel [clears throat] is taking in the speech sounds like he's really taking Israel to task. he's getting tough with Israel and people need to realize that they're hearing one thing but the reality is something else. And so right now we're sort of actually going in the wrong direction as much as going, you know, going in the right direction of a redirection of policy. So that's a really sobering note because I listened I I saw the chorus of appribation after that. So first of all, I think that the point that you made that Emanuel is running for a big job in the next administration is a serious one and and an insightful one. Um, and I think you're correct. Um, but I looked at the course of appribation on Twitter and in the op-eds and so forth. This this come to Jesus moment or whatever you describe it. Um, as as kind of a manufactured reaction uh by by people who'd like to see the status quo persist, people in media, people in in policy, uh people who have been the establishment who are heavily implicated and guilty of supporting the genocide policy. And so they have an incentive in in pushing this. Um I didn't I it didn't occur to me that that may be how the lay Democrat, the primary voter may also react. Uh but you're saying that it is possibly how people react. Oh, absolutely. I mean, this is the thing is that if you think about the policy that he's that he's putting forward and you think about this as sort of what imagine like Secretary of State Rahm Emanuel is formulating this policy, um it doesn't necessarily have to you don't have to necessarily think of this as like dishonesty or or subturfuge because when he says, you know, we need to get tough with Israel more or less is how he put is how he's what he's saying in the speech, it's not so much that that's that that's just a madeup or like he's just presenting that as a facade in order to get people to to like what he's There is a sense in which it works very well for both sides, for both the Israelis and the Americans. If you have a situation where, you know, right now, you know, Israel is going to have an election in October. Um, right now the the front runner technically is Gadi Eisenot who represents a sort of centrist kind of politics in Israel, national the security establishment mainstream. He was a g top general in the IDF for many years, his whole career in the IDF. A pragmatic >> Yeah. Exactly. Um a a pragmatic centrist on the Dah doctrine, but that's sort of within the main line of Israeli policy.

[00:44:22]I think that if you look at what what Emanuel is really proposing in the speech and you imagine that he is the secretary of state or whatever, um I think somebody like Gotti Eisenote, this is not the case for Netanyahu with his current government where what Emanuel is proposing just couldn't work because the government couldn't survive. Uh the current government couldn't couldn't stand while cooperating with it. But an alternative government led by somebody like Gaddy Eisenote, I think that Eisenote reading the speech from Emanuel would read it and think that is an amazing deal for Israel. That would be fantastic. But the problem is even though Emanuel is offering Israel this incredible deal basically like historic knockout victory in exchange for very little, it would still be extremely controversial in Israeli domestic opinion because it would mean that the Israelis would have to negotiate with the Palestinians. That's the last thing that they want to do. which means that there would be people would be talking about the idea of Palestinian sovereignty at some point. That's obviously a no no within Israeli politics. So from somebody like Eisenkot, he's he would be thinking, well, this would be a fantastic opportunity for Israel. It would be very difficult though or at least be a challenge to get this through a government given the opposition that would arise in Israeli public opinion.

[00:45:31]What better way to do this than to have an American administration with Rahm Emanuel as whatever secretary of state coming along and saying Israel, you know, we've had it with you. Uh, if you don't change, we're going to force you to change and then, you know, we're going to apply pressure. Emanuel talked about, you know, I'd be prepared to impose sanctions on quote unquote violent settlers or impose sanctions on um on construction companies that are involved in illegal settlements, which he made it clear that he's referring only to the settlements that are unauthorized under Israeli law. Uh with that kind of a situation, you could see how it would be very advantageous for let's say a prime minister Gadi Eisenote to be able to go to his own public [clears throat] and say, you know, my hands were tied. I had no choice. We can't fight the American superpower. You know, I had no choice, but I had to accept this that, you know, to cooperate with this program that Emanuel is proposing. And then it works very well for both sides. You have the Democratic a Democratic administration in Washington that gets to pose as taking a tough line on Israel, which is what it's their constituents, Democratic voters, want to see. And then you have an Israeli government that gets to adopt that gets to sort of push forward a policy that in reality they recognize is a fantastic policy, fantastic deal for Israel, but would be have domestic political challenges. And Emanuel helps them deal with the domestic political challenges by coming along and saying, "I'm the American superpower. I'm forcing you to do it." And they go, "Oh, no. Yeah, you're forcing us. Oh, we have no choice."

[00:47:02]>> So, to be clear, it's not a just outcome and and it's a fundamentally destabilizing outcome. So even if you don't like the Palestinians, um this is not going to resolve anything.

[00:47:13]>> Exactly. I mean, look, the the Israelis had an in, you know, they had the first inifat, but they had the second inifat 20, you know, they they crushed the inifat, the second inifat by, you know, the middle of the 2000s. So that was >> 2005, I think, is when when people think it ended.

[00:47:28]>> Yeah. So like 20 years ago, right? So they then had almost 20 years of relative peace and quiet. not much trouble from the Palestinians, right?

[00:47:38]And during those years, they were very triumphant. They, you know, their attitude was, "Yeah, I mean, this is fine, you know, we we don't really have to worry about the Palestinians." And the US was going along with that. You know, famously, infamously, uh, just days before October 7th, the Biden admin, Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser for Biden, published an article in foreign affairs about the administration's Middle East policy where he was like bragging that, you know, oh, the Palestinian issue has hasn't been so quiet for for years. You know, what a great triumph, what a great achievement for us.

[00:48:09]>> But, you know, at what they what they managed to do was buy themselves 20 years of peace and quiet. And you know, you had people like Napali Bennett who was the prime minister not long before October 7th a few years before. He famously says a famous quote in Israeli politics. He said, "You know, the Palestinian issue is like shrapnel in your ass." He said, "You know, I had an old army buddy who had shrapnel and it kind of was hurt a little bit. He went to the doctor. The doctor said, "You know what? It's probably more trouble than it's worth to take it out. So just, you know, it's better just to sort of live with it." That's what the Palestinian issue is. We don't have to solve it. We don't have to deal with it.

[00:48:41]If I think from Rahm Emanuel's point of view, I surely he knows that what the the policy agenda that he's proposing, you know, it is a long shot for it to actually work in practice. I mean, I don't know how exactly he would get the Arab states to agree to what would seem like a really unpleasant uh uh uh prospect of them being like the Americans in South Vietnam and having to nation build this state with no legitimacy and basically be involved in a permanent counterinsurgency campaign in the in the Palestinian territories.

[00:49:10]doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. But if he can sort of set up, you know, go back to something that would be akin to like the Oslo negotiations treadmill where it's just you have negotiations for the sake of having negotiations and the main subject of negotiations is when is the next negotiation going to happen that you're just going to schedule and and you just keep that going. Um that could that could very well give buy the Israelis another 20 years which I think Emanuel would see as a big victory, a big success. U maybe you can get some more Arab states to normalize relations with Israel during that time. And I I would warn people that, you know, if if you had a democratic administration um convincing Israel perhaps even by using some pressure uh to go back onto that sort of Oslo style negotiations treadmill, no, you know, meaningless negotiations, but just so that you can show some Palestinian with a pulse who people, you know, uh has been labeled the leader of the Palestinian people is shaking hands with some Israeli, you know, at a meeting every few months for a photo op. Um, if you had that and you had, you know, lots of activity by the Secretary of State shuttling between Ramalia and Jerusalem and I promise you that that you would see a lot of those progressive members of Congress, you know, who've been in the last few years really frustrated with the Biden administration's policy, the Congressional Democratic leadership's policies, and feeling like they are sort of like they've got their head in the sand. They've got tunnel vision. They're not seeing that there's a a demand for change. I think you would see all those progressives turning around and starting to tell their constituents, you know what, the administration is working tirelessly for peace in the Middle East. Um, and so, you know, and you could almost not blame them. Like, who am I as a member of Congress from Seattle or St. Lewis or Chicago to say if if the leader of the Palestinian people so-called is, you know, engaged in these negotiations, who am I to come along and say, you know, a Democrat in the White House, uh, who's who's sort of committed and engaged on this issue is wrong to to pursue these negotiations? The White House would be saying, don't don't let's not, you know, upset the apple cart. These are promising negotiations that are happening. You know, we so let just let this go forward. I think that something like that could could certainly buy Israel another 20 years. Um, so >> so defang, deenergize, and you also use the word tirelessly, which I think is going to dog AOC for a long time >> when she described Kla Harris as working tirelessly for for a ceasefire.

[00:51:39]>> Um, Seth, I'm so grateful to you for your time. Thank you for presenting these ideas. I I think um it's a very sharp analysis and you identify the points of risk for people who are working for justice and ultimately stability because I think you get peace and stability through justice and not by any other means. Um thanks everyone for listening to this episode of occupied thoughts. Please make sure to check out the FMAP website fme.org and subscribe.

[00:52:06]You can find us on iTunes, Soundcloud or Spotify or watch on YouTube. Thank you Seth. Thank you.