The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 241, June 21, 2024

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we delve into the valid criticism of Netanyahu’s upcoming address to Congress, analyze the United States and Ukraine agreeing to a bilateral security deal in an attempt to combat Russia, and examine the concern that Israel could be on the brink of a two-front war as tensions with Hezbollah rise.

---

Valid Criticism of Netanyahu’s Upcoming Address to Congress

Valid Criticism of Netanyahu’s Upcoming Address to Congress

Almost exactly 200 years after the first guest address to U.S. Congress by General Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette of France in December of 1824, Congress is now seeking to bestow the honor on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next month in July despite significant disapproval of the Gaza War. Signed and backed by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), the invitation came as a shock to many Congressmembers, especially due to the substantial evidence of Israeli war crimes and human rights violations being committed in Gaza. Additionally, while previously the House and Senate received guests individually, the practice has fallen out of popularity. This means that when a member of Congress invites a foreign leader (or other non-member of Congress) to address the body, it is typically agreed upon by both the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. Furthermore, the privilege of addressing both chambers is typically only gifted to an ally or distinguished guest that Congress would like to honor.

This is where the problems start to arise with the most recent invitation. Back in March, Senate Majority Leader Schumer referred to Netanyahu as a “major obstacle to peace” during an almost hour-long speech that largely criticized Netanyahu’s actions since October. Thus, many view Schumer’s signing off on the invitation as backtracking on his previous comments, and are unhappy with the seemingly sudden change of heart in the midst of continued Israeli human rights abuses in Gaza and the dire nature of the humanitarian crisis. There is also the belief that allowing Netanyahu to speak before both chambers is only going to give him the platform to criticize recent diplomatic efforts to halt the conflict and allow him to again interfere in U.S. politics, as he has done before in the past. A staunch critic of the idea of inviting Netanyahu entirely, Democratic Representative Delia Ramirez (D-IL) said that “A war criminal addressing a joint session of Congress on Thursday the 13th sounds like the twisted plotline of a bad horror movie” in response to initial reports back at the beginning of June that Netanyahu could address Congress on Thursday, June 13th. Since then, the date that has been set for the speech to take place is July 24th. Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) was also critical of the scheduled Congressional address, expressing that “It’s not going to help move us forward — it’s a detriment” and adding that “Should he (Netanyahu) come for any reason, in any venue, I am not going to be there.”

It appears that there are some principled members of Congress who understand that their attendance to the address will be viewed as support or disregard of Netanyahu’s war crimes, and have thus decided to boycott the speech. Recently, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) expressed that she would not be attending Netanyahu’s address saying that “Netanyahu has created a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and has also made clear that he does not support U.S. policy for a two-state solution that will let the people of Israel and Palestinians develop their own nation self-determination (and) live with dignity.” U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) shared similar sentiments on the social media platform X, remarking that “This man should not be addressing Congress. He is a war criminal. And he certainly has no regard for U.S. law, which is explicitly designed to prevent U.S. weapons from facilitating human rights abuses. His invitation should be revoked. It should’ve never been sent in the first place.” U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) added further context to why the invitation has caused such a stir, pointing out that Netanyahu has consistently not complied with U.S. demands to protect civilian life in Gaza and stated that the invitation to Netanyahu is a mistake because it risks signaling that the U.S. is endorsing his widely-criticized war efforts in Gaza. To the media outlet Bloomberg, Van Hollen commented that “I’m not sure why the United States would want to reward a prime minister who has repeatedly flaunted the requests of the President of the United States.” These voices are just a few of the many Congressmembers that have at the very least voiced their concern over the decision and at the most have even vowed not to show up to the planned joint address. U.S. Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and U.S. Representative Jim Clyburn (D-SC) are among some of the others that have stated in recent days that they will not be attending Netanyahu’s address to Congress. The Congressmembers that have been critical of the move have rightly highlighted how it rewards the actions of someone who has blatantly violated international law standards and disregarded American warnings and concerns regarding the manner in which the Gaza War has been carried out.

This whole debacle and controversy regarding the impending Netanyahu address to Congress comes as the U.S. gears up for its 47th presidential election in November, a predicted face-off between Incumbent President Joe Biden and Former President Donald Trump. During the preceding months, President Biden has elicited criticism for his handling of the Gaza War. Widespread anti-war demonstrations have emerged on college campuses across the country as a result of the overwhelming evidence of Israeli war crimes and human rights violations in Gaza, and Biden’s actions have been called out, leading to an overall unsteadiness in his popularity – particularly among younger voters. In recent months, these protests have sought to draw attention to Israeli human rights abuses and increasingly-criticized U.S. funding and arms support, with the aim of spurring divestment from entities that take part in these violations and war crimes. Schools such as Columbia University, Harvard University, the University of Southern California (USC), and the University of Texas at Austin (UT) have seen large-scale pro-human rights demonstrations and solidarity movements centered around Israeli war crimes and abuses under the Netanyahu government.

The invitation extended to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress has sparked significant controversy and debate among lawmakers and the public alike. While some see the invitation as a reaffirmation of U.S.-Israeli ties, others view it as a politically-charged maneuver that could deepen divisions both domestically and internationally. The timing of the invitation also adds a layer of complexity to the situation. Netanyahu’s recent dissolution of his war cabinet and the news of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) seeking of arrest warrants against him certainly further intensify the scrutiny surrounding his visit. This leaves lawmakers to evaluate the potential consequences of their attendance or absence, both for their political careers and for the broader state of the U.S.-Israel relationship. As the scheduled date of July 24th approaches, the decision of whether or not to attend Netanyahu’s speech weighs heavily on members of Congress, having the potential to reshape the landscape of U.S. foreign policy and domestic political dynamics.

United States and Ukraine Agree to a Bilateral Security Deal in an Attempt to Combat Russia

United States and Ukraine Agree to a Bilateral Security Deal in an Attempt to Combat Russia

United States President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a bilateral security agreement amidst the G7 Summit in Italy this past week. With this, the U.S. joins 15 other nations including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy who have also signed bilateral agreements with Ukraine. Zelenskyy claims the deal is the “strongest agreement” in Ukraine’s history since it achieved independence in 1991. The deal is an “executive agreement” allowing future U.S. presidents to disband the deal, unless Biden can gain approval from a divided Congress. The longevity of the deal is questioned as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Former President Donald Trump, has been skeptical of Biden’s decision to continue aid to Ukraine. The potential return of the GOP leader makes the upcoming election potentially consequential for Zelenskyy.

The deal includes an additional loan of $50 billion in aid to Ukraine from G7 nations, funded by frozen Russian state assets. The money will be supplied in increments, as U.S. officials worry about Ukraine’s ability to properly intake such a large amount of funds. The deal commits the U.S. to 10 years of continued training of Ukraine’s military and increased assistance in overall military production. Five patriot missile defense systems will be provided, but any U.S. weapons that would allow Ukraine to launch strikes further into Russia beyond the weapon models being used by Russia to attack the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv, have been “ruled out” by President Biden. The U.S. will assist in developing squadrons of advanced aircraft fighters, such as F-16s. Biden has made it clear that countries expecting similar air defense from the U.S. will need to wait as the support will continue to be concentrated on Ukraine. Any future attacks on Ukraine will be followed by in-depth consultations by the U.S. within 24 hours of the attack.

Non-military reforms are being supported by the U.S. to further strengthen Ukraine. The U.S. will advise the country in improving its energy security through a decentralized energy system interspersed with Europe. Democratic principles will be strengthened through a series of anti-corruption initiatives and judicial reforms. Policy initiatives in security, tax, customs institutions, and law enforcement are aimed to reinforce the rule of law. According to the U.S. Department of Treasury, additional sanctions will be implemented against Russia including measures against over 300 individuals and financial institutions supporting Russian efforts in the war. Biden will also attempt to further restrict Russia’s ability to obtain U.S. software and information technology services. These sanctions have caused disruptions in the Russian financial markets, as the Central Bank of Russia and the Moscow Exchange (MOEX) stopped trading in U.S. Dollars and Euros. This underscores the strength of the United States in economic relations between Russia and the West. It is evident that Russia needs American investment substantially more than the United States needs Russian investment. The sanctions can be consequential for China as well, since the two nations have become economically dependent on each other.

In the week following the G7 summit, Russian President Putin visited the North Korea city of Pyongyang where a mutual defense pact was signed between the two countries. The agreement consists of increased transfers of military technology and a pledge of mutual defense. It is suspected that the deal was triggered by both Russia and North Korea facing confrontation from the West and isolation through global sanctions, especially following the signing of the recent U.S.-Ukraine security agreement. American officials believe that the deal could potentially enhance North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, heightening tensions in the Asia-Pacific region. The agreement is a possible step in developing an anti-U.S. coalition aiming to combat American support of Ukraine. The deal may question the effectiveness of future U.S. sanctions on North Korea, as a typical incentive for North Korea to cooperate with the U.S. was the hope of diminishing sanctions. Now, with Russia potentially providing a long-term plan to propel North Korea’s economy, Kim Jong Un may be less inclined to improve relations with the United States.

Zelenskyy has made Ukraine’s desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) quite clear. There are a few barriers and dilemmas impeding Zelensky’s goal. NATO has criteria that nations must fulfill in order to be considered. Possessing a functioning democratic political system is a key requirement, and Ukraine does not have a stable and sound democracy as its institutions battle corruption and elections have been postponed since the war with Russia started. The country has been classified as a “hybrid regime” by the Economist Democracy Index. An additional worry of NATO is the honoring of its Article V commitments. Article V of the treaty commits members to fight if another member is attacked. The U.S. and other NATO members have made it a point to not deploy troops to the war in Ukraine, but if Ukraine is a NATO member, the deployment of U.S. troops to an active combat zone may be required.

The likelihood of the U.S. Senate approving Ukraine’s membership with a two-thirds majority vote is minimal. This is especially true if Former President Trump is elected in November, and he would likely deter Republican Senators from voting in favor of Ukraine’s membership. The effectiveness of initiating Ukraine to NATO in combatting Russia and taming the war is difficult to predict, but it is anticipated that the U.S. and Ukraine will work to improve the latter’s political system to try and meet the standards of NATO and the European Union. Zelenskyy hopes the agreement with the U.S. will create a pathway to NATO membership. Biden recently stated that he is not currently ready to back the “NATOization of Ukraine,” but agrees the bilateral agreement could possibly act “as supporting a bridge to Ukraine’s eventual membership into NATO.” President Biden hopes this deal will tame Putin and solidify the American president’s standing on the global stage before the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November.

Concern That Israel Could Be on the Brink of a Two-Front War as Tensions with Hezbollah Rise

Concern That Israel Could Be on the Brink of a Two-Front War as Tensions with Hezbollah Rise

This past weekend saw a dramatic turn in the already tense situation on Israel’s northern border, as Hezbollah launched its largest rocket barrage to date following a strategic Israel Defense Forces (IDF) strike against a senior Hezbollah leader. This exchange follows over several thousand others that the two have had since the October 7th Hamas attacks. The ongoing tit-for-tat strikes were initiated shortly after October 7th and are believed to have nearly led to a preemptive Israeli strike, after an intelligence assessment revealed that Hezbollah had taken up positions on Israel’s northern border and was on the verge of crossing over. The escalation comes at the same time that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has disbanded his war cabinet following the exit of two of the six members. While Israel has insisted that this has not changed the chain of command, this shakeup will likely have longer-term effects, especially as Israel faces what could quickly turn into a two-front war with a very well-supplied northern combatant.

Israel now claims that it has taken control of 60% of Rafah in Gaza, destroyed two of the four remaining Hamas battalions, and laid siege to the center of the city. These military operations are ongoing, as Israel has conducted overnight assaults that have seen dozens of civilians killed and hundreds wounded. With these developments and international pressure for a cessation of hostilities rising, logically, negotiations for an end to the violence should be well underway. However, despite efforts by the United States and others, no ceasefire deal has been reached, and the alarming number of civilian deaths have continued. The combination of an inability to find mutually-agreed upon conditions in negotiations and the IDF’s willingness to carry out attacks regardless of the presence of innocent civilians means that, as of now, the conflict perpetuates and risks devolvement into a wider-scale regional war.

With Hamas’ ability to counterstrike and resupply greatly diminished by the longstanding nature of the now nearly nine-month conflict, the question is what this means for Hezbollah. The group has contended that it will not stop until a ceasefire has been reached in Gaza, but with Hamas depleted, Hezbollah and Israel are in precarious positions. This standoff is made all the more perilous by the recent exchanges by both sides. Israel and Hezbollah have taken dangerous postures, spurring concern over the potential destruction from a wider conflict in the Middle East. Should this occur, it is highly likely that this would draw in other regional actors as well. Cyprus specifically has been a talking point in Hezbollah’s threats, as the group has determined that their munitions will fall on the island nation should it play host to the IDF in its bases and airports. Hezbollah is an altogether different entity than the one that Israel faced back in 2006, and the buildup of munitions, supply lines, tunnel networks, and the strong relationship that it has with Iran mean that a conflict with Hezbollah will likely cost the IDF much more in terms of lives and supplies. An escalation of this nature will also bring the U.S. ever closer to conflict with Iran. This would certainly strain U.S. resources, as supplying Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel has already divided U.S. attention, and a possible additional increase in arms and supplies that could come with a two-front war for Israel would be detrimental to U.S. interests globally.

U.S. Envoy Amos Hochstein has been in talks with both the Lebanese and Israeli governments since the violent exchanges began on October 7th, but has seen little progress. This comes even after the offer of U.S. economic aid to Lebanon, and the recognition that de-escalation and an agreement on a defined border between Israel and Hezbollah is the most attainable and realistic goal. The historical agreement provided by UNSCR 1701, which outlined the existing Lebanon-Israel border and relied on the Lebanese government to control its own territory, seems to have been thrown out the window. Attempt at continuous de-escalation can be considered a failure as of now, but yet and still the framework provided by the previous resolution may provide the building blocks for an eventual agreement.

All told, the daily attacks in the preceding months have displaced nearly 100,000 people, and should an all-out conflict break out, that number is expected to rise to well over 200,000. The risk of this happening is significant, especially with Hezbollah’s target strike capabilities. The group has demonstrated an ability to hit precise targets such as military installations, runways, and areas of sensitive importance around Israel’s northern border. The threat of this continuing is one that the group seems to be primarily relying on, as evidenced by the release of a drone video identifying more sensitive secure sites deeper within Israel.