American writer: This is the story of the Democrats’ historic failure in the Gaza file policy

The New York Times published an article by writer Ben Rhodes in which he strongly criticized the US Democratic Party’s policy towards Israel and the Gaza Strip during the era of former President Joe Biden.

He described this policy as a “historic failure” to understand the transformations in the Middle East and the changing mood of public opinion in the United States, and a failure to take principled positions consistent with their declared values ​​about human rights and democracy.

The writer started his article from the scene of Joe Biden embracing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court, days after the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, considering it an embodiment of an extended approach within the party based on providing Israel with unconditional support out of a desire to influence its behavior, which has proven morally and politically futile.

Rhodes – who served as Deputy National Security Advisor in the administration of former President Barack Obama – described Biden’s strategy known as “Embracing Bibi” (referring to Netanyahu’s nickname) as having produced disastrous results.

He went on to say that one of the results of that strategy was that the United States provided Israel with huge quantities of weapons to bomb the Gaza Strip, used its veto against the ceasefire, defended Netanyahu before the International Criminal Court, and ignored its own policies regarding units accused of committing war crimes.

The writer believes that this policy revealed the “hypocrisy” of the Democrats and their contradictions with their discourse about the rules-based system, and the principles of equality and justice, and weakened their position before young voters, and allowed Netanyahu to invest American support in favor of his alliance with President Donald Trump, which was in the interest of the rising global right.

The article pointed out that the Democrats’ attempt to “obliterate” what happened in Gaza from memory will exacerbate the mistake, because the reality cannot be ignored, as the Gaza Strip has turned into rubble, and the Hamas movement is still present, while Israel continues its annexation policies in the West Bank and with it settler attacks on the Palestinians are escalating.

The Democrats’ attempt to “erase” what happened in Gaza from memory will exacerbate the error, because reality cannot be ignored; The Gaza Strip has turned into rubble, and the Hamas movement is still present, while Israel continues its annexation policies in the West Bank, and with it settler attacks on the Palestinians escalate.

On the other hand, the political reality inside Israel is strongly tilted towards the extreme right, such that Netanyahu’s fall from power no longer seems sufficient to achieve a radical transformation.

In the face of these developments, Rhodes believes that the time has come for Democrats to break a legacy of their support for right-wing Israeli governments, and to restore a vision that is consistent with the party’s principles and its internal and external priorities.

The article reviewed the roots of the historical relationship between Democrats and Israel, from the vision of Zionist leader Louis Brandeis, who supported the efforts of settlers during World War I, to US President Harry Truman’s recognition of the State of Israel after the massacre of the Jews (the Holocaust), all the way to the alliance of American Jews with the civil rights movement, and the role that the occupying state played as a democratic ally during the Cold War.

But that narrative – as the writer says – is no longer consistent with the reality of occupation and annexation, the expansion of settlements, and the collapse of the idea of ​​a two-state solution, an occupation that is reinforced by the power of the Israeli right.

The article focuses on the experience of the Obama administration, where the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) pressured the president to ensure that there was no separation between him and Netanyahu, even though the latter was constantly attacking Obama, especially regarding the borders of the Palestinian state and the nuclear agreement with Iran.

In Rhodes’ opinion, the Democrats’ speeches during that stage turned into an “empty formula” used in Washington that had no relation to the reality on the ground.

With Trump’s arrival to the White House, Netanyahu was attracted to him, and pro-Israel pressure groups, such as AIPAC, welcomed him, the writer says, adding that Democrats celebrated the Abraham Accords, even though they ignored the Palestinians and did not end any conflict.

He added that the Democratic Party used phrases such as that “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East” and “has the right to defend itself,” and that the Palestinian Authority must “reform” itself and “be a reliable partner for peace” to achieve the principle of “two states living side by side in peace and security.”

Although the writer believes that such expressions are beyond doubt, he describes them as appearing to be “mummified” language since after the Oslo Accords in 1993.

As for the attempt to include language criticizing the occupation in the Democratic Party’s platform in 2020, it was rejected, according to the writer, which confirmed that resistance to Israeli policies is not an acceptable option within the corridors of the party.

Rhodes criticized the Israeli behavior after the attack on October 7, 2023, and said that it was expected, noting that this was manifested in racist statements describing the residents of Gaza as “human animals,” cutting off water and food, heavy bombing, and using the war for internal political interests.

He explained that the majority of Israelis supported a deal to end the war in exchange for the release of prisoners, but Netanyahu preferred to continue the fighting to protect his coalition. At the same time, AIPAC pumped money into the Republican Party to bring down Democratic lawmakers in Congress who were critical of Israel’s behavior.

The article considered that the excuse of “Palestinian terrorism” to justify all Israeli policies has become unacceptable, as the occupying state cannot use the attacks of Hamas as a justification for the violent bombing of refugee camps, nor for the continued displacement in the West Bank.

Rhodes holds the Israeli government responsible for preventing the entry of aid, violating the laws of war, and destroying most of the Gaza Strip. These are facts that prompted human rights organizations, academics, and UN bodies to accuse Israel of committing genocide using American weapons.

The article confirms that American voters – including Jews – have become more critical of Israel, as only a third of Democrats have a positive view of it, compared to 73% in 2014, and 77% of Democrats believe that genocide occurred in Gaza. Opposition also began to form within the party against military support, and dozens of representatives called for recognition of a Palestinian state.

The writer presents a road map for the Democratic Party that includes halting military aid to a government that committed war crimes, supporting the International Criminal Court, confronting any attempt at annexation or ethnic cleansing, investing in an alternative Palestinian leadership, and defending democracy without distinction between Israel and the United States itself.

The writer proposed a road map for the Democratic Party that includes halting military aid to a government that committed war crimes, supporting the International Criminal Court, confronting any attempt at annexation or ethnic cleansing, investing in an alternative Palestinian leadership, and defending democracy without distinction between Israel and the United States itself.

In his estimation, fears of losing donor support are exaggerated, as most American Jews continued to vote for Democrats despite Republican attempts to exploit Israel as an electoral card.

Rhodes concludes his article by calling for courageous Democratic leadership, and gave an example of New York Mayor-elect Zahran Mamdani, who gained the trust of voters because he demonstrated principled convictions, unlike his opponent Andrew Cuomo, who appeared fawning while supporting Netanyahu.

In his view, the “Embrace Bibi” strategy revealed that the path that seemed safe could be the most dangerous, and that Democrats must acknowledge the era of tyranny and the rise of the extreme right, and show a willingness to sacrifice in defense of the moral principles they claim to represent.