Rahm Emanuel’s Proposal Deserves a Serious Hearing

When I first watched Rahm Emanuel’s speech in Israel, I was struck by the boldness of his proposal. My immediate reaction was that I liked the overall concept. I let it sit for several days. The more I considered it, the more convinced I became that my initial instinct was right.

Rahm did not stand in Washington and lecture Israel for the benefit of an American political audience. He went to Israel and spoke directly to Israelis. He knew the speech would be controversial, particularly for someone widely believed to be preparing for a presidential campaign.

That took political courage.

Rahm Emanuel is a Jewish American Democrat, Zionist, and longtime national leader.

He is placing his reputation behind an actual proposal for a more peaceful and prosperous Israel, not merely repeating the words “two-state solution” without explaining how Gaza would be governed, who would restrain terrorism, who would finance reconstruction, or who would prevent another Palestinian territory from becoming an Iranian military base.

His regional proposal would bring Israel, a future Palestinian governing entity, and the other members of the Arab League into one comprehensive agreement. Five Arab League countries already have peace treaties or normalized relations with Israel: Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco. Sudan announced normalization, although the process was never completed.

Imagine what could follow if the remaining Arab governments acted together. A 23-state solution. That would be enormous in more ways than one.

The Arab world would recognize Israel, participate in creating responsible Palestinian governance, help finance reconstruction, assume a role in security, and stop leaving Israel alone to manage Gaza and the West Bank indefinitely.

Israel, meanwhile, would become fully integrated into the region through trade, transportation, technology, tourism, energy, and diplomacy.

Israel possesses exactly the expertise much of the Arab world needs: desalination, water conservation, desert agriculture, medical technology, cybersecurity, renewable energy, and defense.

Rahm’s proposal is not the only path, but it is a serious alternative. It shifts responsibility toward the Arab governments that have spent generations speaking about the Palestinians while largely leaving Israel to carry the military, economic, and human burden of the conflict.

Rahm also challenged the future of American military assistance to Israel. That issue deserves a far more honest discussion than it usually receives.

Israel’s critics, particularly within the DSA, frequently speak as though American taxpayers finance Israel’s entire military budget, allowing Israel to spend its own money on universal healthcare while Americans go without it.

That is profoundly misleading.

Netanyahu has said Israel’s defense budget is about $80 billion and that Israel spends at least $20 billion annually in the United States on weapons, ammunition, and other military equipment. If we use his figures, the $3.8 billion in American assistance represents less than 5% of Israel’s defense spending, while Israel’s purchases support American manufacturers, engineers, suppliers, and workers.

The assistance is not deposited into Israel’s treasury. The $3.3 billion is purchasing credit for American weapons and military equipment.

The additional $500 million supports joint missile-defense research and development, including systems such as Arrow, David’s Sling, Iron Dome, and the emerging Iron Beam laser defense.

That battlefield experience has enormous value. Many military experts believe the value returned to America exceeds the $3.8 billion investment.

Israel uses, modifies, and improves American systems while confronting rockets, drones, tunnels, electronic warfare, and ballistic missiles. The United States gains operational feedback that would be extraordinarily expensive and sometimes impossible to reproduce through ordinary testing.

The alliance also produces intelligence, cybersecurity expertise, missile-defense knowledge, counterterrorism experience, and emerging defense technology.

The right questions are:

“What does America give Israel?”

“What does America receive in return?”

The answer includes American jobs, weapons sales, research partnerships, intelligence, military innovation, regional deterrence, and a capable democratic ally that confronts many of the same enemies threatening the United States and its partners.

Netanyahu has said Israel should gradually eliminate the financial component of American military assistance over approximately a decade. The appeal is that aid can be turned into a political weapon against Israel and limits some of Israel’s freedom to purchase weapons elsewhere.

I am not advocating ending the assistance. From the American perspective, we receive more strategic value than the $3.8 billion. Rahm is entitled to raise the issue, and Israel is entitled to consider whether greater independence would ultimately strengthen it.

I believe Rahm should defend the aid as a win-win. Ending a mutually beneficial arrangement would be a lose-lose, and that makes little sense.

There is another benefit Americans often overlook.

Israel protects holy places sacred to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Israeli law requires the protection of holy sites from desecration and safeguards access by members of different religions. Christian holy places remain under Christian stewardship and are open to pilgrims worldwide.

The larger reality remains: Christian churches, monasteries, archaeological treasures, and pilgrimage sites are protected within a Jewish state.

Christians who advocate Israel’s destruction should understand that if movements such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, or ISIS gained control, Christian holy places and archaeological treasures will be destroyed.

Jihadist movements have repeatedly demonstrated that this is what they do. Israel’s survival protects far more than Israeli Jews. It protects the physical history of Judaism and Christianity and preserves access to places sacred to billions of people.

That is another unspoken value Americans receive from Israel.

Another win for both countries.

Rahm Emanuel is not a traitor to Israel.

I see a Jewish American political leader with the courage to go to Israel, address Israelis directly, challenge Netanyahu’s course, and present a vision of a peaceful, prosperous, regionally integrated Israel.

Rahm is not demanding that Israel surrender territory. He is asking the Arab world to recognize Israel and assume real responsibility for creating, financing, governing, and securing a peaceful Palestinian future.

That could undermine Netanyahu politically. It may increasingly appeal to Israel’s center and left. It should be debated vigorously by the Israeli and American public.

But it should not be dismissed as betrayal.

If the Arab world ultimately accepts such a bargain, history may judge Rahm Emanuel’s proposal as visionary. Future generations of Israelis and Arabs will be trading, collaborating, sharing technology, and wondering why it took so long.

The more I consider his proposal, the more I believe it deserves a serious hearing.