Heroes of Progressivism: Entry #6

Senator Jeff Merkley: The Reckless Resolver

The September 12 non-binding resolution authored by the junior senator from Oregon is disconcerting. Senator Merkley’s call for President Trump to recognize a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside a secure Israeli state epitomizes the impulsive, misguided and broken thinking of progressives and their foreign policy ideas.

The first problem with the Senator’s resolution is the emphasis on precedence.

The resolution highlights a series of chronological events about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It begins with the 1947 UN Resolution to partition the British Mandate of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state. The Senator proceeds to include other examples of diplomatic support for a Palestinian state over the next 78 years.

The purpose of Merkley’s history lesson is to demonstrate that his call to recognize a Palestinian state is not novel. The idea of a Palestinian state has been discussed and supported by states and international entities for decades. In other words, his resolution is not a provocative or dangerous act.

However, a decision derived from precedence does not necessarily entail wise or constructive U.S. foreign policy. The arena of international politics is not the U.S. legal system. Rather, Merkley’s emphasis on precedence in this context suggests the absence of resolve or capitulation. The thinking here goes something like this: “If we just promise a state which people, countries and institutions have been supporting for years; then we move closer to a resolution.”

The path of least resistance and unilateral concession are not the ways to a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are pathways to compounding or complicating the conflict. Reasons existed as to why these previous manifestations of support for a Palestinian state never came to fruition. Reasons continue to exist. Most notably, Hamas, its Palestinian supporters, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Iran and others will not be satisfied with a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside a secure Israeli state. They seek Israel’s destruction.

The second problem with the Merkley resolution is a reliance on popularity.

The senator notes the current climate of international support for a Palestinian state as another reason to justify his call for recognition. He cites the New York Declaration led by France and other European nations on July 29, 2025 (barely a month prior to the release of the resolution). The declaration inevitably contributed to Berkley’s drafting of the resolution. If not, why did the Senator not make this announcement earlier?

Similar to the issue of precedence, a decision dictated by international popularity is not necessarily smart or responsible. The United States should not be shamed or guilted into policy changes.  The thinking here resembles the “right side of history” argument—somehow being on the right side of history means being on the right side of an issue. Are policy decisions meant to just make Americans feel good about themselves while advancing suspect U.S. policy?

Decisions based on popularity are a form of bandwagoning—following the actions of other states. Senator Merkley seems to forget that the United States operates from a position of international leadership. Who will be called upon if this “popular policy” goes sideways? —the United States. It certainly will not be the French. The U.S. responsibility is much greater than that of any of those advocating for the recognition. Also, of all the states in the world, the United States maintains the closest relations with Israel. The resolution would have negative repercussions on Israeli-U.S. relations.

The third problem with Merkley’s resolution is the presumptiveness.

The senator expects certain behaviors and outcomes to occur or coincide with the recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state. If a state is recognized, it will be followed by or correspond with Hamas disarmament, the emergence of a reliable Palestinian Authority, Arab and Israeli cooperation and other elements. Is Senator Merkley oblivious to what groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Popular Mobilization Forces and Iran say and how they behave? Does he know that the Palestinian Authority has been incredibly incompetent and corrupt for years? Will this magically change their minds and behavior? It is incredibly naïve.

Some of these presumptions have plagued diplomacy in the Middle East for decades. The issue of Palestine has been portrayed as the linchpin for a peaceful Middle East. If the Palestinians get their state, then they will be happy and it make it easier to address other outstanding regional issues. But will it?

There is little evidence that suggests a Palestinian state will be the difference maker for a troubled region. Let alone the region, who is deciding the contours of the Palestinian state? Will the ineffective Palestinian Authority be able to maintain it? Will they be able to keep Hamas sympathizers at bay? Is Hamas just going to disarm itself? Will they stay disarmed? Who will ensure that a future Palestinian state will remain demilitarized? These questions are challenging especially while the Iranian regime remains in power and antisemitism is prevalent in the Arab-Muslim world.

Presumptiveness helps to highlight a fourth problem with the resolution—the premature acknowledgement of a Palestinian state.

Why should the Americans make this a requisite prior to further negotiations? What does the United States owe the Palestinians? What does the United States gain? Recognition of this nature should be the product of some concession on the part of Palestinian leadership. The Palestinian state should be the product of negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, not the demand of the international community.

This reckless diplomatic advocacy is not the sole domain of Senator Merkley or the seven other senators who supported his non-binding resolution. It extends to the House of Representatives. Eight days after Merkley released his resolution, his progressive colleague in the House, Representative Ro Khanna of California’s 17^th district, sent a letter to President Trump making a similar request about a Palestinian state.

Khanna and 47 members of the House claimed: “Just as the lives of Palestinians must be immediately protected, so too must their rights as a people and nation urgently be acknowledged and upheld.” Could not a similar statement be made about the Kurds? The Baloch? The Tebu? Why are the Palestinians only entitled to it?

Khanna did not provide a historical lesson like Merkley. His argument focused on the current popularity of recognizing a Palestinian state. He cited French President Emmanuel Macron’s announcement on two occasions in the brief letter as proof that the United States is the odd man out.

Senator Merkley’s call for a demilitarized Palestinian state is rooted in fallacies and impatience. The fact that these ideas and thinking have the potential to motivate and drive American foreign policy is reckless. The resolution’s emphasis and reliance on precedence, popularity, presumptiveness and its prematurity makes Jeff Merkley a hero of progressivism.