The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 223, February 9, 2024

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. This week, we examine the unsubstantiated allegations behind Israeli efforts to shut down the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), explore the troubling question of how would U.S. strikes in three countries contain the Gaza War from spreading into a potential regional war, and analyze the role that foreign policy considerations could play in swaying 2024 U.S. election voter preferences.

---

The Unsubstantiated Allegations Behind Israeli Efforts to Shut Down UNRWA

The Unsubstantiated Allegations Behind Israeli Efforts to Shut Down UNRWA

Following Israel’s allegations that several UNRWA workers were involved in the October 7th Hamas attacks, sixteen donor countries have cut their funding to the organization. However, even before these allegations arose, UNRWA has long been the target of many Israeli hardliners who wish to see the organization defunded and disbanded. It is no secret that Israeli officials have harbored ill will toward UNRWA and its mission. They have made inflammatory claims that UNRWA schools supported terrorism by teaching young Palestinians to hate Israel and support Hamas. Before the onset of Israel’s War on Gaza, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described UNRWA as “an organization that perpetuates the problem of Palestinian refugees [and] the narrative of the right of return, so to speak, with the aim of eliminating the state of Israel, and therefore UNRWA should be removed from the world.” Western countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and others have been complicit in this by cutting essential funding to the organization, effectively gutting UNRWA’s capability to continue aiding the besieged civilians of Gaza. Without the financial support, UNRWA reports that they will be unable to continue operations past the end of February. Those who have tried to derail the organization have not offered a possible alternative to the critical work that UNRWA does, which includes its facilitating of many basic services for Palestinians. This was already the case prior to the ongoing Gaza War, and has since become even more pivotal in the face of the worsening humanitarian crisis that has been brought on by the destructive conflict. Shutting down UNRWA would also be a huge blow to other humanitarian aid organizations operating in the region, who rely on it for the coordination and organization of delivering services to civilians in need. Earlier this week, UK broadcaster Channel 4 News debunked Israel’s allegations against UNRWA, finding that there was no evidence to back the harmful and controversial claims.

One of UNRWA’s missions is taking care of Palestinian refugees who have been forcibly displaced by Israel from their ancestral homes, and paving the way for their right of return under international human rights law. The mission seeks to return families who might have been displaced multiple generations beforehand. In this way, UNRWA is both a literal and symbolic obstacle to Israeli interests, serving as a constant reminder that the Palestinian people were forcefully removed from their homes. Thus, many Israeli hardliners seek to remove the refugee status of Palestinians, and in doing so, eliminate their right of return to areas that they were forcibly displaced from upon the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the years that followed.

By defunding UNRWA, Israel is ultimately hoping that the organization be disbanded, in essence sweeping the issue of refugee return under the rug. For UNRWA opponents, dismantling it would help to both diminish the issue of Palestinian refugee status and further acceptance of forcible Palestinian resettlement. The efforts to delegitimize UNRWA’s work also clearly have political motivations, evidenced by the fact that the allegations against some of its workers came in the immediate aftermath of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling against Israel for its abusive actions in Gaza, which ordered Israel to take provisional measures including humanitarian improvements. For many impartial analysts, the allegations towards UNRWA were a blatant attempt to deflect attention away from the ICJ ruling backlash and spurn responsibility for fulfilling the ICJ’s provisional measures.

Observers have also highlighted the belief that Israel is attempting to create conditions in which Palestinians will voluntarily migrate and find suitable living conditions elsewhere, essentially ridding Israel of potential returners to their generational homes. Israel’s targeting of humanitarian assistance to Gaza lends to the goal of pushing Palestinians out. Israeli officials from multiple parties have supported the idea of voluntary migration, encouraging an exodus of Palestinians to other countries. By trying to frame the migrations as “voluntary,” Israel is skirting around forcefully transferring the Palestinian population, which is considered a war crime. Bigoted Israeli ministers such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have argued for this, abhorrently claiming that removing Palestinians would make Israel safer and “ease Palestinian suffering.” Inflammatory statements like these make it clear that for many Israeli hardliners, the underlying aim is to continue illegally occupying land and displacing more Palestinians from their homes. By cutting funding to UNRWA, other governments are complicit in helping intolerant Israeli officials try to achieve these goals. Several years ago, back in 2018, then-U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration cut all U.S. funding for the vital humanitarian aid organization, drawing criticism from rights activists. Aid to UNRWA was eventually reinstated in 2021 under President Biden, but we now once again find governments withdrawing financial backing in the name of Israeli hardline interests, instead of seeing the allegations against UNRWA for their glaring and cynical nature.

How Would U.S. Strikes in Three Countries Contain the Gaza War from Spreading into a Potential Regional War?

How Would U.S. Strikes in Three Countries Contain the Gaza War from Spreading into a Potential Regional War?

In the aftermath of the recent January 28th drone strike on U.S. Base Tower 22 in Jordan, which left three U.S. service members killed and many more injured, the Biden administration vowed to retaliate against those who were responsible for the attack. The perpetrators of it, as well as other non-lethal strikes on U.S. bases, were Iranian-backed militia groups. The fact that Iran had links to these groups raised concerns that the U.S. may attack Iranian targets directly, potentially dragging the United States into a more troublesome and direct conflict. The anticipated U.S. response came late last week on February 2nd, with over 125 precision munitions fired against upwards of 85 targets. These included both the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its proxy militias in western Iraq and eastern Syria. Following the strikes, President Biden expressed that the U.S. did not want to get involved in a Middle East conflict, but that when Americans were harmed, the U.S. would respond. While the United States asserts that it has no desire to become entangled in a wider conflict, some U.S. lawmakers are calling for a more robust response that targets Iran directly, a move that would almost certainly escalate the situation in the Middle East. Some Republican lawmakers have been particularly hawkish, pressuring Biden to strike Iran directly and respond to attacks with a more forceful show of power. Thus far, the Biden administration has shown a reluctance to target Iran directly, but the U.S. strikes in the three countries of Iraq, Syria, and Yemen do not help in preventing the potential of the Gaza War from devolving into a regional war.

While the United States has not yet struck Iran directly for its role in supplying militias with munitions and other support, there have been some recent statements from U.S. officials that have elicited concern. John Kirby, a spokesman for the National Security Council, claimed that the initial strikes were likely just the start of a wider U.S. response. Kirby said that this could take the form of a “tiered approach” wherein the U.S. takes multiple actions against targets over time. This statement is rather foreboding, and signifies that the U.S. may be prepared to become further involved in the Middle East if attacks persist.

The U.S. actions have irked some countries in the region. Aside from Iran and the proxy groups that it has been linked to, the U.S. strikes have also drawn criticism from Iraqi officials who have stated that they are a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Commentators have pointed out that if the United States is going to be conducting airstrikes against militias in various territories, it would be wise to work more closely with the countries where these will be carried out to avoid fallouts over sovereignty and possible further escalations. U.S. counterstrikes in the region ultimately risk further tit-for-tat attacks between the United States and various actors in the Middle East. While to some observers, the death of U.S. soldiers necessitated a response, the consequences of the retaliation may eventually outweigh the benefits. President Biden is attempting to walk a tightrope between degrading Iran’s ability to attack American assets through proxies and becoming involved in a wider-scale regional conflict with Iran – a challenging balancing act that is only made even more difficult with all of the various actors at play. In this way, avoiding dangerous escalations requires the use of diplomacy, a reality that must not be overlooked.

The U.S. strikes in the Middle East have come amid the backdrop of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken making his fifth trip to the region since the onset of the Gaza War. Blinken met with officials from various countries throughout the region as he discusses a potential ceasefire deal and postwar planning for quelling escalated tensions and conflicts. As many analysts have rightly drawn attention to, most of the recent hostilities stem from outrage over Israel’s destructive War on Gaza, and thus far, Israel and Hamas have been unable to agree on ceasefire terms following the expiration of the one-week pause in fighting back in late November. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently dismissed Hamas’ proposed terms and hostage deal, claiming that Israel was seeking “total victory.” Despite this, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken expressed that there was still room for negotiation toward an agreement. Blinken’s trips to the Middle East signify an acknowledgement and desire to find diplomatic solutions that will prevent a wider-scale conflict, and once again emphasize the importance of achieving a lasting ceasefire in Gaza – undoubtedly the most important element needed in order to do so.

Role of Foreign Policy Considerations in 2024 U.S. Election Voter Preferences

Analysis on the Role That Foreign Policy Considerations Could Play in 2024 U.S. Election Voter Preferences

The latest insight into the matter suggests that foreign policy considerations could play a consequential role in influencing 2024 U.S. election voter preferences. Polls and surveys have shed light on the fact that an increasing number of Americans believe that foreign policy should be a top focus for the U.S. government this year, particularly amid a host of global concerns. According to a recent poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, nearly 4 in 10 U.S. adults referenced foreign policy topics in an open-ended question that asked people to share a handful of issues for the government to work on in 2024. This is almost twice as many people as ones who did so in the same survey last year. The new poll’s findings also outlined increased uneasiness regarding U.S. involvement overseas, with 20% expressing that sentiment compared to only 5% a year ago. The spike in perceived importance of foreign policy is evident among both Republicans and Democrats – around 46% of Republicans referred to it, up from 23% last year, and 34% of Democrats did so as well, up from 16% in 2023. Analysts point to voters’ worry over potential U.S. entanglement in overseas conflicts as a result of several longstanding crises, most notably and troublingly in Gaza, Ukraine, and the Red Sea, as a major source of the uptick in foreign policy significance.

The intertwining of domestic and foreign issues has also contributed to increasing focus on the latter. The United States Senate recently unveiled a $118 billion U.S. border security bill that would additionally provide foreign military aid to Ukraine and Israel. The proposed legislation would consist of around $20 billion for U.S. border security, $60 billion for the support of Ukraine, and approximately $14 billion in aid to Israel. For U.S. Congressmembers who are facing re-election bids this year in 2024, their decisions on whether or not to support the prospective bill could have consequences among their electorate come the November elections. A growing number of Americans have become disillusioned with high levels of foreign military aid, especially to Israel in the face of credible accusations of human rights violations being committed against the civilian population of Gaza. As one Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey respondent put it, “when you sit here and say, ‘I just sent $50 million over to Israel’ and then I go outside and I see half a neighborhood rundown…you’ve got to take care of home.” Longstanding U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders himself recently spearheaded an effort to try and condition aid to Israel, in light of the international criticism that it has drawn for its destructive military actions in Gaza. Despite its failure to ultimately pass the U.S. Senate, the mere introduction of the bill and the support that Sanders secured from 10 additional Senators highlighted an acknowledgement from some of his Congressional colleagues of the increasing concern with foreign aid to Israel not being used in accordance with human rights standards.

While foreign policy considerations have risen in relevance, they still lag behind domestic issues – particularly economic ones – in overall importance to U.S. election voter preferences. In the aforementioned Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll, over 75% of surveyed U.S. adults expressed that they wanted the government to work on issues related to the economy in 2024. In totality, approximately 85% of Republicans and 65% of Democrats listed the economy as a top issue. An Emerson College poll from a couple of months ago had a similar finding – as the economy was cited by the greatest number of respondents as the biggest issue that the country faces heading into the upcoming 2024 U.S. elections. In addition to economic issues such as the state of the economy in general, inflation, and the cost of living, some of the other major domestic considerations of importance in many recent surveys include immigration, healthcare, climate change, and crime. For the current 2024 election cycle, American voters appear to be especially focused on inflation, immigration, and healthcare costs, and it is likely that electoral candidates’ stances on these issues will be of utmost relevance to voters. A KFF poll regarding important topics on the 2024 campaign trail found that 86% of voters stated that it is “very important” for the 2024 presidential candidates to talk about inflation, 80% said so about affordability of healthcare, 65% about immigration, and even a notable 44% referenced aid to foreign countries as well. Inflation was by far the most common choice for top issue overall though, with the percentage saying this (41%) being three times higher than any other single topic.

As they tend to do regarding electoral preferences, domestic issues will certainly continue to hold the most salience for American voters in 2024. However, foreign policy considerations are likely to have a substantial impact also, aided by the fact that it is a presidential election year with an array of high-profile Congressional races at the federal level as well. The effect that several noteworthy contemporary global events could have on the voting determinations of constituents cannot be understated too, and are worth keeping an eye on in the weeks and months ahead.