Heroes of Progressivism: Entry #5
Senator Chris Van Hollen: Lebanon’izing U.S. Foreign Policy
Chris Van Hollen has provided the latest example of how to slowly undermine an American ally and damage U.S. relations and interests. His willingness to wade into Israeli domestic politics demonstrates reckless behavior. His rhetoric and action create distrust between allies, is detrimental to the dynamics of Israeli politics, and establishes a willingness to disrupt democracies.
The Maryland senator employs an approach and thinking commonly associated with the fractured state and society of Lebanon. The U.S. does not engage Lebanon as a monolithic actor—preferring to avoid or stigmatize certain elements of the government. Considering the approach and thinking has done little to advance U.S. interests in Lebanon or Lebanese interests, it is perplexing that Van Hollen believes his is a viable way to engage Israel and possibly elsewhere.
During a July 28 interview, CBS’s Face the Nation asked the senator to comment on his outspokenness about Israeli conduct in the Gaza war and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s July 24 address to Congress.
“So look, the message that I got from my trip to Israel nine days ago, where I met with hostage families, was don’t be used as a political prop by Bibi Netanyahu in an address to Congress that will help boost his very low popularity ratings in Israel. At a time when he and his extremist colleagues Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are not prioritizing the return of the hostages, they’re not prioritizing a ceasefire and return to the hostages.
“Well, my view is that we need to really stand up and confront the extremist policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu and Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. And again, that’s the message we’re getting from many in Israel.”
It is not the only time the senator has decided to critique domestic Israeli politics. He mentioned Ben-Gvir and Smotrich on at least one other public occasion. During a July 24 address to the Senate, he stated:
“It is the coalition he personally assembled in a desperate bid to regain power and to prevent a possible prison sentence. To do that, he formed a government with certain individuals who had previously been on the dangerous, most extreme fringes of Israeli politics and considered totally unfit to govern. They include the likes of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, both unabashed racists and religious bigots.
“Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak referred to them, and I quote, as “the racist, messianic fanatics with whom Netanyahu has cast his lot”, unquote. That’s former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.”
These views further manifested on November 14. Van Hollen and other colleagues in Congress wrote a letter to President Biden requesting the sanctioning of certain members (Ben-Gvir and Smotrich) of the Netanyahu government. The senator and others blame the government members for increased instability in the West Bank that threatens “the security of Israel and the broader region, and U.S. national security as well.”
What is Van Hollen thinking? What does he hope to accomplish with these comments and actions?
Dissolve a democratically elected government, no less a critical U.S. ally in the Middle East? Help trigger new elections? Recalibrate U.S.-Israeli relations? Create a precedent that democratically elected governments are scrutinized and picked apart by administrations and members of Congress? Where does this end? With whom? Does the senator believe members of a friendly government can be sanctioned and US-Israeli relations will go on like business as usual?
His words are clear.
Senator Van Hollen passed judgement and intervened in an issue that polarizes Israeli politics and society—the Israeli settlement and presence in the West Bank. He openly took a side on an issue that needs to be addressed by Israelis. The senator reserves the right to criticize a government but Van Hollen takes it to a whole other level: labelling specific members of a foreign government as unacceptable.
His words exude entitlement.
As a foreign official, he believes he can step into Israeli domestic affairs and determine what is best. In a subtle way, it is an attempt to engineer Israeli society, politics, and policy. He insinuates that he is acting on behalf of Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians in the name of peace, justice, and equality. In reality, he is mostly appealing to a limited domestic American audience.
His words and thinking create a dangerous precedent.
Will future members of Israeli governments be deemed inappropriate? Will Van Hollen relegate his criticisms only to Palestinian issues in the West Bank? What about Arab citizens of Israel? Could cabinet members who oppose LGBTQ issues or rights warrant criticism and possible sanctions? Does the United States apply the thinking to other democratic allies? Or allies in general? Just imagine the challenges and the investment of time and money going forward if this approach and thinking becomes normalized. It creates a slippery slope for politicians and administrations.
His methods are clear.
Senator Van Hollen seeks to delegitimize the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Note how he describes the formation of the government as serving Netanyahu’s personal interests (“desperate bid to regain power”) and as a way for the prime minister to stay out of prison. He notes Netanyahu’s “low popularity.” He also blames Netanyahu and his government, not Hamas’s absolutism, for the failure to resolve the hostage crisis and conflict. Van Hollen is muddying the waters about the Netanyahu government and its democratic credentials. His portrayal attempts to put the Prime Minister on the precipice of being an authoritarian bloodthirsty leader—not the product of the voters and legitimate processes.
His objectives are several.
Senator Van Hollen is not a fan of the war in Gaza and Netanyahu. He seeks to discredit and undermine the Netanyahu government and possibly dissolve it to change the status quo—all to end the fighting in Gaza. The senator believes that shedding light on Israeli figures associated with the West Bank and threatening them can have repercussions on Gaza. Van Hollen also gains credibility among progressives as a voice for a more “balanced” U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. His reflects the approach of a mediator as opposed to any ally.
It is remarkable that the senator believes this will produce constructive results.
Has Van Hollen noticed the unproductive U.S. engagement with the Lebanese state? The U.S. government openly refuses to engage with certain parties/members (i.e., Hezbollah and its allies) of the Lebanese government. This has occurred since 2005. At a minimum, this tack has reenforced divisions within Lebanese politics and society, created distrust among large swathes of the population, and complicated any U.S. assistance to Lebanon.
His statements are corrosive, particularly given that they are directed at an ally who is a significant and central ally to U.S. security and interests. They foment suspicion. Working with the best of allies is never an entirely smooth process. Why complicate collaboration efforts further?
His statements amount to hyperbole and wishful thinking.
Does Van Hollen expect Netanyahu (who was elected to lead the Likud party) to sacrifice his opportunity to form a government and maintain it for select members of the U.S. Democratic Party? If Netanyahu is such an unpopular figure, why hasn’t his government already collapsed? Do Israelis really need an American politician’s help to change their government? He also seems to forget that, even if the government collapsed, it would then require the Likud (Netanyahu’s party) to select new leadership, which is not a forgone conclusion.
Furthermore, two Israeli ministers do not pose a threat to U.S. national security as claimed by Van Hollen. Violence between settlers and the Palestinian population of the West Bank has occurred for years, and does not now suddenly constitute a threat to America.
Van Hollen exhibits a feature exhibited by many other self-proclaimed progressives. They have no qualms about intervening or taking sides in the domestic politics of allies, even democratic allies. For all their ballyhoo about democracy, they only care about outcomes, not processes. It demonstrates a general disregard for boundaries, sovereignty, and the voice of citizens. Their narrow U.S. interests are paramount regardless of the fallout.
Van Hollen is not alone in Congress in critiquing Israeli governments. California Representative Ro Khanna made a similar comment while on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” The representative from the state’s 17th district stated on April 21:
“I’m for the Labor tradition, from Ben-Gurion to Golda Meir to Rabin to Peres to Barak. I’m not for Begin to Sharon to Netanyahu. And what you’ve done is given a far-right Israeli government a carte blanche right now.”
Khanna’s statement takes a side in Israeli politics. And by doing so demonstrates an ignorance of Israeli history. The representative suggests that the party of Labor pursues more rational, moderate, diplomatic, peaceful outcomes. Khanna’s memory may be selective—choosing to remember the now largely defunct Oslo Accords as proof of the Israeli Labor Party’s endeavors. Khanna fails to acknowledge that Likud leadership produced the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt and the unilateral withdrawal from Palestinian territory, the Gaza Strip, in 2005.
Van Hollen and Khanna are not fans of the Netanyahu government and reserve every right to the criticize. But imagine the outrage if the shoe was on the other foot. A foreign country seeking to sanction elements of the Biden administration like Lloyd Austin or Mayorkas to leverage policy. It would be considered an unreasonable intrusion into domestic American politics and create suspicion. Many would say that it is none of their business and be portrayed as helping pit certain political elements against others.
Senator Van Hollen’s targeting of figures in Netanyahu’s government places American politicians in the midst of Israeli domestic politics. It is a myopic, hubristic act. His words produce distrust with an ally and can contribute to incapacitating Israeli governments, let alone U.S. interests. The foolish, intrusive act makes Chris Van Hollen a hero of progressivism.