The Coming “Epic Change” in US-Israel and US-Middle East Relations

Really? I think it's a big part of my story.

“A story? How do you feel about the story?”

Yeah, I've been watching you for a long time. Do you have your own connections? No, just like that story. Wow! And that's just a story? Of course, everything is automatic.

Finally, I feel like it's so exciting. Hold your money, take a deep breath with Viso Stoia.

"Fertrauen" is always the basis.

First, if you have a healthy diet, this is the choice of a shop-opotheca. And that's why they are always for you. With a famous grocery store, a grocery store and a chatbot, the 24/7 store is for you.

For a shop-opotheca, there are all advantages of online stores, with the very advantage of a real apotheca.

“Plus, the most important thing is to find a solution.”

If you have a shop-opotheca, you can go to the shop-opotheca.com. This is Deep State Radio. Coming to you direct from our super secret studio in the third sub-basement of the Ministry of Snark in Washington, DC. And from other, undisclosed locations across America

and around the world. Hello, welcome to DSR Special episode. I'm David Rothkoff, your host, and we are joined today by two special guests who are going to give us perspectives on

not just breaking news, but some of the most important issues we know you are interested in.

We have with us Senator Chris Van Hollen, who is the Senior Senator from the State of Maryland, and therefore my Senator, welcome Senator. It's great to be with you, David. Thank you.

And another Maryland resident, Jeremy Ben Amie, who is the founder and president of J Street, which is rapidly becoming the mainstream leading Jewish organization of its kind in the country. How are you, Jeremy? All good.

Thanks, David. Great.

Senator, before we get into a sort of more forward looking stuff about the relationships in the region.

Today, like every day, we've got conflicting stories about what's going on with the war in Iran. The president of the United States has said in the course of the past few hours. You know, there is a settlement around the corner, and we are going to inflict huge damage on them, and he doesn't care about inflation. In fact, he likes inflation.

Today's twist was that he actually likes inflation. And I've just wondering from your perspective, you have been one of the most active voices on, you know, calling this out as an illegal war and actually trying to rain in the president. So he follows the law, so I'd be interested in your perspective. David, one thing is indisputable, which is the candidate Donald Trump,

had the right instincts when he said he wanted to keep us out of war, and he wanted to focus on the economy and prices and living conditions here at home. And of course, he's broken both those promises. He started a war against Iran along with Prime Minister Netanyahu. And as you said today, he said he loved inflation.

We've seen the highest rate of price increases in years, and it's costing the American people. And all of this was very predictable for folks who have been paying attention to Iran for a very long time, which is that the United States would get bogged down. You'd have a closure of the straight of war moves.

And of course, this is the president who ripped up the JCPOA years ago, which was the agreement in place to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear war. So this has been a disaster from the start. We've now had multiple votes on war powers resolutions here in the United States Senate. We still have not gotten a complete majority.

We want a majority recently because of a Republican absence. But for the most part, Republicans continue to be complete rubber stamps for the Trump administration, and are completely neglecting their obligations under the Constitution. So all this means we all need to keep pushing because the American people are against this war. And without getting you too far into the prognosticating business,

it doesn't look like there's a solution around the corner.

“This could fester for a number of months, couldn't it?”

It could well fester. You know, this is a president who declared well over 100 days ago that we won.

And of course, you also, in addition to the war in Iran, you have the war in Lebanon and the whole region is on fire.

The Gaza remains a hellish place. We of course see violent settlers on the West Bank trying to push Palestinians off their land. So this is getting to be a larger and larger fire throughout the Middle East.

“And again, the best way to end it, you know, when you're digging a hole, you should stop digging.”

Unfortunately, Donald Trump, every time he suggests he's going to stop digging and, you know, a solution is around the corner.

He gets pushed into sticking with this war, this war that's making us less safe and less well off.

So that leads exactly to where I wanted to take this. And if Jeremy will bear with me for two more minutes, I think the right transition there is a senator, you had a piece in the New York Times. On May 26, and the title of the piece was the hard truth my party needs to face. And the piece laid out very well, some things that Jeremy is also laid out extremely well in recent pieces.

It is saying that the stance that we have long had in terms of the U.S.-Israel relationship and by extension number of our other relationships in the region isn't working.

It's not working for our national interests, it's not working for the interests of Israel, it's not working for the interests of Palestinians, it's not working for regional stability. And that we need to go someplace new. You lay out some of the points that we might want to embrace and going someplace new. And I was just wondering if you might go to those and say, where do we, where do you think we need to go from here?

“Well, thank you for mentioning that piece of mine in the New York Times where I really laid out what I think are the key components of a new plan.”

And we should all recognize that the current approach, when I say current, I mean the approach the United States has taken now for decades is completely broken. Because for decades, we have said, and certainly the Democratic Party has said that we support a two-state solution. We support self-determination for Israel, and we support self-determination for Palestinians. And that remains the case. I support self-determination for both peoples, but we've not delivered on it, not even close. And during this period of time, you have seen government after government and Israel extend the occupation and illegal settlements deeper and deeper into the West Bank.

And of course, we had the awful Hamas attack of October 7, and then the huge disproportionate response from the Netanyahu government, imposing collective punishment on Palestinians in Gaza. So I do think this is sort of the last gas effort to try to both stop the expansion of settlements, begin to roll the back. This will only happen. And this is what we need to recognize. This will only happen if the United States decides to use its leverage. And so I do think we should end all American taxpayer support to the government of Israel.

“And I think we should be conditioning, conditioning our arm sales to the government of Israel on U.S. law and U.S. policy and international law, which means no supporting the continuing of the occupation.”

And I also think we should just once and for all declare and recognize a Palestinian state. Some of our European partners have done that. And then engage in what we call differentiation, differentiate in our policies through how we treat Palestinian state. And of course, how we continue to treat and support the state of Israel. But thank you. Now Jeremy, when you founded J Street, almost to everything that the senator has just described would be considered not mainstream.

And yet here we are, post an extended period of BB Netanyahu in the Israeli rights influence in Israel, post Gaza, post what's going on in the West Bank, post this latest incursion in Lebanon. And it appears that the very substantial majority of Democrats in the United States and a majority of Americans are moving in the direction of of these views.

I think I think it's epic sea change. I think that the rules of fundamentally changed everything that the senator just said is precisely on point American policy rather than being part of the solution to the problems has actually been part of the problem. And the way that we have gone about our business in the Middle East has only made the situation worse, this idea of providing a blank check to Israel, providing Israel with diplomatic immunity from accountability for its actions under international law.

And saying that the reason we're doing that is because this will give them the strength to make the hard sacrifices for peace. Well, in reality, what they did was they just pocketed the money pocketed the get out of jail free card and kept undoing whatever it was that they wanted. And then at the same time putting ourselves forward as the United States as an honest broker and saying, well, we have to be the broker of this piece, but we're actually one side's lawyer, right, you don't, you know, this is not the way to conduct a mediation, you don't hire the, you know, one party's lawyer to be the neutral arbiter.

“The United States has just been a huge part of the problem and the senator is exactly right, we need a fundamental reassessment of the way the United States operates in this theater.”

And that's when we were calling for 20 years ago when we launched a stream, I think we've gotten to the point today, where that is a mainstream view in, I would say, centered, I don't know if you would agree with this, but I think it's emerging in both parties.

Definitely, the questioning of the way we've gone about this is happening in the Democratic Party for sure, but I see it also in the Republican party.

Well, Senator, let's turn that to you as a question, because, you know, many of us who, I served in a Democratic administration, many of us who've been involved in these issues for all of our lives.

“We've come a long way because of what we've seen, but the Biden administration didn't come a long way, the Biden administration didn't recognize this change.”

Do you feel when you talk to your colleagues on the hill that the center of gravity has moved to where you are, do you expect if there's a Democratic Congress, there's a Democratic administration in 2028. That we are going to see something very different, or are the oldest establishment views, do they have their, you know, claws into this so deep that it's going to be hard to move away from them, even though they're no longer, you know, in, in step with the times.

So David, that is the question of the hour, the question of the next couple years, I would say this and you and Jeremy just mentioned that we have seen a dramatic change among American public opinion.

That's certainly true among Democrats, and I would argue the public opinion among Republicans has also changed, but I want to distinguish between where public opinion is and where we are right now on Capitol Hill. On Capitol Hill things are moving, but they're moving slowly. I mentioned in my New York Times op-ed piece that little more than a year ago, there were 15 Democratic senators who said we're not going to send bombs to Netanyahu, while he's, you know, devastating Gaza.

And more recently, we had a vote with 40 Democratic senators that said we won't send certain kinds of military equipment to the government of Israel.

That clearly was progress, but, you know, the forces resisting change are significant and APAC has this position of unconditional U.S. support to the government of Israel, regardless of what the government of Israel does. What is their position? In contrast to Jay Street's position, which doesn't have a support of a position of automatic support regardless of the conduct of the government of Israel, but has the goal of self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians through a two-state solution and a broader regional approach.

“I think we're making progress, no doubt among the electorate, we just need to translate that progress into votes and change here on Capitol Hill.”

And the answer to that question is really up to everybody who's watching this and everybody who cares about human rights, who cares about peace, who cares about stability in the Middle East.

I mean, streams out the right word, but it was allied with very closely with the Netiago government has gone hard against candidates that have expressed views like those that the senator and you have expressed. Do you expect that this, you know, we're going to see trench warfare between now and November, between APAC and other groups trying to, you know, achieve some kind of

“victory and the balance of where we come out and this stuff and with the new Congress?”

Well, just in terms of raw politics, when APAC has engaged electorally over the 22 and 24 cycle and now so far in 26 it has always been in democratic primaries.

Small little investment here and there in a Republican primary, but what they haven't done is taking their tens of millions of dollars and actually trying to affect the outcome of a general election. And that remains to be seen in the 26 cycle, you know, is APAC so far gone at this point that they will take their war chest and invest it in trying to beat democratic senators who represent the mainstream of American public opinion on these issues.

“And, and thereby endanger American democracy because they don't seem to care whether they are endorsing candidates who vote to overturn a free and fair election year.”

They don't seem to care whether or not the candidates they're supporting have any interest in the quality of life here in the United States.

But if they start to engage in that way and try to beat candidates pro-democracy anti-Trump candidates who are critical of what Israel is doing, if they try to beat those candidates in the lack maga far right anti-democratic candidates from the Republican party, that will fundamentally change the equation for them forever. And they haven't made that decision now, when I make that clear, they play in the democratic primaries and they have so far done it very ineffectively in this cycle because they are so toxic.

The idea that you're going to have millions of dollars spent by an organization that raises its money from Republican billionaires and then spend it in democratic primaries doesn't go over very well with democratic primary voters.

And now, apex involvement and its engagement are an albatross around the neck of democratic candidates who can't get away from them fast enough.

“So that's a, again, a fundamental change, but will they affect the makeup of the Senate and the House in terms of partisan breakdown?”

That remains to be seen if they're going to make that move into general election politics and Senator, I don't know if you've been hearing anything along those lines from your colleagues, but I haven't seen that yet. I've not seen that yet either, and as Jeremy was just saying, most of the monies that apex funnel into these races have been in democratic primaries, both Senate democratic primaries and House Republican primaries. And we're all Marylanders on this call, I would point out that in Maryland's fifth congressional district, this is the congressional seat being vacated by a standing hoyer.

Apax, super PAC has made a significant investment along with, I would say, a big investment from the crypto industries, about four and a half million dollars combined from these outside super tax again trying to pick the candidate in the democratic primary that they think will essentially adopt their position. Which is unconditional support for the actions of the Netanyahu government or the government of Israel. And as Jeremy said, that is a fundamentally unpopular position. We don't do that with any other countries say that U.S. taxpayers that essentially be on the hook.

For whatever actions a foreign government takes, in this case, the government of Israel, which is why when Apac runs these ads, they never, they never talk about the fundamental issue that brings them into the election. They talk about any other issue except for that, because they know that their position on these issues is not popular, and as Jeremy said, is becoming more and more toxic. Well, as your column pointed out, as you pointed out many times, Jeremy and I have talked about it, their position is actually, in conflict with U.S. law.

I mean, one of the things that we saw and it was so troubling in the Biden administration, there are laws to say who we can give it weapons to and who we cannot give weapons to. And you know, you've been, you've been very pointed and saying, you know, let's just start out by following the law as it's written.

Well, that's exactly right, and as you said, I was extremely critical of the Biden administration's foreign policy when it came to the, the Middle East and especially Israel alstein issues, because you had the Netanyahu government. At certain points, absolutely blockading all humanitarian aid in the Gaza, and we have a law on the books called the humanitarian quarters act that says any country that's receiving U.S. military assistance. If those weapons are being used in a particular area, in this case, Gaza, that country has to open up access to humanitarian assistance. And yet, you had the Netanyahu government, it sometimes absolutely cutting off all assistance. You had people starving in Gaza, you have a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, you had collective punishment, visit on the Palestinian people in Gaza.

And so yes, the Biden administration completely failed, and I should say, David, it actually started before the war in Gaza began, because on the campaign trail, Joe Biden had said that he was going to try to reverse some of the policies that the Trump administration Trump won put in place as they went out the door.

“Having simple but important measures like, you know, reopening the consulate in East Jerusalem, allowing the PLO office here in Washington, and yet they didn't do any of that.”

Some of the actions they took were much later, in fact, after the war started. So right from the get go, unfortunately, the Biden administration did not follow through on the commitments that had made in the campaign when it came to these matters. Jeremy, among the many head spinning developments of our time, and virtually all developments these days are head spinning, when you look at the 2028 Democratic field, whether you think it's 12 people or 15 people or 20 people. Shraddinarily enough in the middle of this, they're potentially four Jewish Democratic candidates, depending on how things play out with with with Britain, with Shapiro and with Roman manual, and maybe with John Osso, and yet you would think that there would be some tension in that group, they represent different views, but on these issues, there seems to be an emerging consensus.

I think that's an overstatement.

“If it's going to be for Jewish candidates, you're going to have at least five opinions, right, because you can't possibly have that many Jews without a multiplicity of opinions.”

So, you know, I don't know whether you'd get to consensus, but I will say that I think what the senator is outlining in terms of the rapid ramp down of financial assistance, the enforcement of our laws, the pursuit of our interest, the centering of the need to respect international law.

I really do believe that those are consensus items that can form a democratic unifying position that 70 to 80 percent of Democrats will be able to get behind in this process.

The thing that I think would be most harmful for Israel and I'll say for the American Jewish community is if the one issue that becomes the divisive and explosive issue within the Democratic Party for the course of a full year of a primary for president. If that one issue is Israel, that is not good for the state of Israel, it's not good for US Israel relations, it's not good for the American Jewish community.

“You know, there's one of the things that I want to say, you know, with the senator on the screen here is the things that Senator Van Halen is outlining are pro Israel, right?”

They are good for the state of Israel and so many times when people lay out the things that he is for and the jester is for this elbow, your anti-Israel, no, this is the only way for Israel to be secure for it to ensure that it remains democratic for to find a way to normalize its relations with its neighbors. This is a pro Israel, pro Palestinian, pro peace, set of positions and it can become a point of consensus in the Democratic Party and I think we have a way to get there and I think it's important that we get there or else it's going to be very bad for the party for the Jewish community in for Israel.

Yeah, no doubt that that's true, now as we head towards the fall we also have another election which is in Israel, it doesn't seem super likely that you're going to get a big change from it, yeah, who whether he wins or loses. And that does raise a question Senator, that is overall where does the U.S. policy go from here. If we move to a policy with Israel, that's, I don't know, I sometimes describe it in conversation as a little bit like, you know, our stance with France, it's good ally, we don't agree on everything, when we do agree with them, we work with them, when we have a dispute, we talk about it in a constructive way as we might put between friends.

And Israel has been kind of the go-to partner throughout the Cold War because it was, you know, on our side in that, because it was democratic, more democratic than it is now, because it was.

Yeah, and aid in the fight against extremism, since since the global war in terror began. But things have changed and, you know, can you envision a U.S. Middle East policy that isn't as Israel's centric as it has been?

“Well, David, I think if we center the idea that our policy has to be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, that is the only way to secure a peaceful future for both peoples and also to secure American interests in the region.”

And, you know, I remember well over a year ago saying, you know, you can be pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian at the same time and, you know, some people would say that's not possible.

It is the only way forward because you've got to address the equities on all sides here. You need security for both peoples. You need self-determination for both peoples. You need human rights for both peoples. And, without that, you're going to have continued turbulence. I mean, no people will be willing to live and should not want to ever live or be willing to live under permanent occupation. And, so the United States needs to weigh in here, as I said in my piece, the next -- if the next Israeli government is not willing to support self-determination for Palestinians, while we also have and support a state of Israel, that's going to put the United States and Israel, at least a democratic administration on a collision course, because we can't just keep doing what we've been doing.

“Because it's made the situation worse, not better. And, look, I know I know Netanyahu and others like to dismiss the idea that, you know, the plight of the Palestinians is one of the root causes of conflict in the region.”

But it is one of the root causes of conflict in the region. It leads to all sorts of stability. Many of these other conflicts, many of them, are directly related to the fact that we've not resolved the Israeli policy in conflict. And so, unless we're finally willing, when I say we the United States government, to, as Jeremy said, not become the lawyer for the government of Israel, but really pursue our interests and our values, then we're going to see perpetual conflict.

And the American people are not willing, and should not be willing, to be dragged into more and more conflicts in the Middle East, when we have a way forward if we're willing to use our leverage.

Café in its best form, with Cuba, with every café on the street, which is the new Cuba-Wan Capsule Machine from Chibu, which is known for its special researches. Full-monitor Aromans, thanks to innovative press-brut technology and over 17-year-old café for every smuck.

“Aléba Premium Café is already in its best form, and that is now the Cuba-Capsule Machine in their Chibu-Fiale and in Chibu-Dee.”

Again, it's not a partisan point, because you essentially say that the process of normalization, which began, under Trump, also needs to continue, and that the Palestinian issue is related to that process of normalization. I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, but that's correct, right? No, let me comment on that, because Donald Trump, within the last couple of weeks, said, "To end the war at War in Iran, we need all the Arab-country Saudi Arabian others to recognize the state of Israel."

Well, anybody who's looked at this issue for even a short period of time would recognize that if you want that to happen, I would like to see normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and the Arab countries and other Muslim countries in the region in Israel. But the only road in path to doing that is to address the Palestinian issue, the rights of self-determination and human rights of Palestinians. The UAE is, you know, entered in the Abraham Accords with a commitment from Israel that they went annexed the West Bank for a certain period of time. I think most observers think, here we are, and Israel has effectively de facto annexed the West Bank.

So without resolving this issue, rights for Palestinians, self-determination for Palestinians, as we also provide security for Israel, there's no other way forward than addressing these fundamental questions.

And this week Trump is like, I talked to BB, we talked to a friend of this podcast at least the Financial Times in Sunday afternoon and said, I got him, he's not doing any more in three hours later, they were attacking and run. And I'm just wondering, you know, how do you see the decay of that relationship, which, by the way, has been pretty lousy with every American president since BB became prime minister as affecting all of this?

Well, the good news is that we're hopefully within months of BB Netanyahu leaving office, right? The election is in September, October, take a month or two to form a government.

“He's not in any position right now to put together a coalition and the best thing that can happen for any of us who care about peace and a future for the Middle East is that, you know, BB Netanyahu's era be over.”

Nearly 30 years of an absolute nightmare and watching what Israel has done and much of it rests at the feet of BB Netanyahu. So I, you know, I hope that the future will be a different leadership, but maybe a center right leadership. We're not going to get the second coming of Ben Gurion or ravine or Paris. We're going to get, you know, a center right leader, but I hope one who sees the national interest of the state of Israel in resolving this conflict because it opens the door. The door to the regional comprehensive approach, J. Street calls this a 23 state solution. We don't like to talk about a two state solution anymore because this isn't really just about Israelis and Palestinians. It's about Israel's relation with the whole region.

“And as the senator said, this Israeli Palestinian conflict is at the root of so much conflict in the region. You can't solve those conflicts without solving this and there shouldn't be normalization without resolving this.”

And so a next leader of Israel can say to their people, we are going to normalize relations with all of our Arab neighbors and end the Arab Israeli conflict after 80 years of Israel's existence.

But we do have to facilitate the creation of a viable secure and prosperous neighbor of ours called the state of Palestine. And that's, that's the deal. And I totally agree with the senator that unless the next leader of Israel is willing to make that commitment. It's going to be very hard for a democratic next administration to have any kind of a normal relationship with that government. It's got to make that commitment to a Palestinian state. But I would say that the United States, I mean, Jeremy mentions 30 years of Netanyahu, like governments, most of them over that period of time headed by Netanyahu. But as we both said, and it's also the result of American complicity. In other words, saying one thing, you know, two state solution, two state solution. I mean people, this is why people don't take seriously the Democrats when they simply mouth those words.

“And that's why I thought it was important to write the New York Times op-ed to say that unless we finally use our considerable leverage and influence to really make that happen, we're not going to be successful.”

And for those of us who believe that everybody, every human being is entitled to justice and human rights. And those of us who believe in a foreign policy based on values and believe that our interests are also advanced by advancing those values. Then this really is the last gas, and you know, we'll have to look at other alternatives, but I want to I want to focus all of our efforts in trying to seriously address this last gas, but that does mean using American influence and leverage. Not to say, we live in difficult times, and there are not a lot of stories that are encouraging, but one of the most encouraging is that well, you guys have been saying these things smart things, why things for a long time.

I've always been had the broad support of the American people, we are now moving to a point where they do, that's very encouraging. Jeremy and his organization, my organization are working on trying to help deal with the next generation, it should help shape views on this with leaders in the democratic foreign policy community and this kind of conversation is very helpful. We do live events as well, hopefully you'll participate in those as well, Senator, and you know, over time we will move to something new, and it can be something better, and the parameters are well described in the senators column, and what the senator is said here, and what Jeremy is written and what Jeremy is said here.

For those reasons, I'm extremely grateful both of you could join us, and I very much look forward to continuing this conversation in the future for now. Thanks.