Panel Report – Jerusalem Fund Event on Recent Israeli Election

The Jerusalem Fund hosted a panel discussion on the recent election in Israel, and the impact that it would have on US-Israeli relations moving forward. The speakers were Phyllis Bennis and Mark Perry, each of whom has done extensive work on Israel and Palestine. Bennis is a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and the Transnational Institute, where she writes and speaks about topics across the Middle East. Perry is a writer who has authored ten critically-acclaimed books, and has had articles published in a plethora of publications, including Foreign Affairs, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and more. The event was moderated by Dr. Edmund Ghareeb, who has been a member of the Palestine Center Committee at the Jerusalem Fund for the past nineteen years.

Ms. Bennis spoke first and told of how the relationships Prime Minister-hopeful Benny Gantz had cultivated in Washington could help improve the Palestinian situation. Bennis also highlighted the changing landscape of Israeli society. In the last twenty years, Israel has become highly militarized, which has led to general political thought shifting to the right. This is particularly the case among young people, who have grown up in a society where the military is deeply entrenched in daily life, which has resulted in more Israelis than ever before identifying with the political right-wing.

In Bennis’ opinion, this has led to the deterioration of Palestinian rights in Israel, and the election has the potential to rectify this. The reason for this, is because of the relationship that Benny Gantz – challenger to current Prime Minister Netanyahu – has with the American military. Gantz previously held the position of Chief of General Staff for the Israeli Defense Forces and has a strong relationship with American military personnel as a result. This is in stark contrast to Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has a durable relationship with many political organizations and leaders in Washington. Many of Netanyahu’s policy decisions in the occupied territories of Palestine have been signed off on by Washington’s political leaders, but subtly opposed by military leaders in the Pentagon. If Gantz were to defeat Netanyahu and form a coalition government, this would flip, and American military leaders would have a greater say than political leaders in shaping Israeli policy toward Palestine, due to their relationship with Gantz.

According to Bennis, this could be vital as the militarization of Israel has meant that the Israeli discourse toward Palestine and Palestinians will not change, and it is up to the United States to advocate for Palestinian rights. Bennis also highlighted the changing public perception in the United States regarding Israel – specifically among the Democratic Party and its supporters, where there has been a push for Palestinian rights and an aversion to the continued financial support of Israel’s military in its current capacity of over $3 billion annually. To conclude, Bennis spoke on the importance of changing the discourse toward Palestine at the policy, media, and social levels of American society, in order to improve Palestinian rights.

Mark Perry reiterated some of Bennis’ sentiment, namely with the militarization of Israeli society and the importance of the relationship between Gantz and American military leaders. He also echoed Bennis’ statements in the changing discourse on Palestinian rights, and the importance of the United States leading the effort to improve conditions for Palestinians. From there, he gave a warning to Israel, saying that the country was no longer strategically vital for American interests. Perry argued that Israel was a crucial ally in curbing the influence of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but there was no longer an existential threat that mandated an extremely strong American-Israeli relationship. If Israel did not begin to meet the standard of social protections for minorities that the United States demands from its allies, then the United States could terminate the relationship. Perry believes that Israel’s leaders understand this, which is why they seek common adversaries, such as Iran. The likelihood of Iran attacking Israel is low, but Perry argued that Netanyahu exacerbates the conflict to maintain the support of the United States. Perry concluded with a prediction that the Israel-Palestine conflict would eventually lead to a one-state solution, and emphasized his hope for a brighter future for Palestine.

Enter the text or HTML code here

NIF USA