Follow us on social

2020-11-03t000000z_2085229364_mt1abcpr000xthcj0_rtrmadp_3_abaca-press-scaled

The cynical use of Israel creeps into the Georgia Senate race

Sen. Kelly Loeffler’s bad faith attacks are standard fare, and unfortunately so was the response from her challenger, Rev. Raphael Warnock.

Analysis | Middle East

With the 2020 election going into overtime, it was inevitable that the issue of Israel-Palestine would not stay out of the spotlight. In the state of Georgia, a runoff election for its Senate seats is the site of renewed controversy.

Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler is trying to defend her seat against Democratic candidate, Rev. Raphael Warnock, the minister of the Historic Ebenezer Baptist Church where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was co-pastor from 1960-68. Loeffler, a Trump ally who has been outspoken in her opposition to the Black Lives Matter movement, accused Warnock of antisemitism because he has opposed Israel’s occupation and its concomitant denial of basic Palestinian rights.

This isn’t just an epilogue to the presidential election. Despite Joe Biden’s victory, the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives narrowed, and their chances of taking control of the Senate, which once looked promising, have been reduced to the slim hope of winning both contested seats in the Georgia runoff, on January 5, 2021.

If Democrats win both Senate seats at stake in Georgia, they will have achieved a 50-50 split in the Senate, with the new Vice President, Kamala Harris, holding the tiebreaking vote when necessary.

Perhaps more importantly, winning 50 Senate seats would mean that the Senate Majority Leader — currently Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican who has blocked most Democratic initiatives since assuming the role in 2015 — would be a Democrat. That job carries a great deal of power, so the battle between Loeffler and Warnock takes on extra gravity.

Loeffler vs. Warnock

Kelly Loeffler was appointed to the seat when Sen. Johnny Isakson stepped down at the end of 2019. As a result, last week’s vote in Georgia was a special election for that seat, and twenty candidates — Democrats, Republicans, Independents — were on the ballot.  

Warnock garnered around one-third of the vote, claiming a clear plurality, but Loeffler was not far behind, with 26 percent. Another prominent Republican, Rep. Doug Collins, garnered 20 percent, splitting the right-wing vote between two prominent, very conservative Republicans. But with so many other candidates in the race, it’s anyone’s guess how things will go in a runoff, which, according to Georgia’s election laws, is mandated by the fact that no candidate won at least 50 percent of the vote.

It will be a heated race, and when the issue of Israel-Palestine arises, it inevitably heats things up even more.

Loeffler’s attack on Warnock stems from a letter he signed in March 2019, after a delegation of Black Christian faith leaders from the United States and South Africa visited Israel and the West Bank. The letter, published on the web site of the National Council of Churches, expressed a profound concern over the denial of Palestinian human rights, but also remarkable sympathy for the Jewish experience both of antisemitism in the world at large and of long-term conflict in Palestine-Israel.

But Loeffler called Warnock “anti-Israel” because of his criticism and, most importantly, because of “endorsing the [Black Lives Matter] political organization, which strongly supports the anti-Zionist Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) Movement.” The implication that BLM is antisemitic is barely concealed, as Warnock noted in his response to the attack.

Jewish Insider reported on the letter Warnock signed but also talked about a completely different letter, issued by the Progressive National Baptist Convention, which called for the United States to end military aid to Israel, a politically explosive call in any congressional race.

The report also disingenuously stated that the letter had likened “Israeli control of the West Bank to ‘previous oppressive regimes’ such as ‘apartheid South Africa.’” In fact, the letter had likened Israel’s occupation of the West Bank to South Africa’s occupation of Namibia, which ended in 1990, and only compared the two in terms of the militarization of the two areas.

On Monday, Jewish Insider posted a video of Warnock in 2018, drawing a connection between the Black Lives Matter movement and the Palestinian struggle for freedom, a comparison that is commonly invoked and, despite the discomfort it may cause in some pro-Israel circles, one that is clearly defensible.

In that same video, Warnock called explicitly for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. It was a sermon recorded in response to Donald Trump moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and Warnock, like many others, was commenting on the juxtaposition of Israel using live ammunition to brutally suppress unarmed Palestinian protesters — injuring 2,700 and killing 60 — while the United States and Israel celebrated not far away.

A disappointing response

In response to these accusations, Warnock wrote an op-ed detailing his devotion to the Jewish people and to Israel. In a familiar refrain, he invoked the long, brutal history of antisemitism as a reason to support Israel and, by implication, to ignore or at least downplay its crimes. 

In his 2018 sermon, Warnock said, “We saw the government of Israel shoot down unarmed Palestinian sisters and brothers like birds of prey. And I don’t care who does it, it is wrong. It is wrong to shoot down God’s children like they don’t matter at all. And it’s no more antisemitic for me to say that than it is anti-white for me to say that Black lives matter. Palestinian lives matter.”

That would seem, to most Democrats, to most American liberals, a perfectly commendable position. But in the wake of the attacks on him, instead of pointing out that he only spoke the truth, Warnock wrote, “I support President Obama’s security assistance memorandum of understanding that protects Israel, and I agree with President-Elect Biden that placing conditions on our assistance would be a mistake.”

Warnock went on to voice the obligatory vow of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, and to denounce the BDS movement, writing, “I strongly oppose the BDS movement and its anti-Semitic underpinnings, including its supporters’ refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.”

Although Warnock did concede that BDS activists have the right to pursue their work under the First Amendment, his dash to the right of the Democratic Party in this statement speaks volumes about the continuing influence of right leaning pro-Israel groups in Democratic politics and the blurring of reality that this brings.

Warnock is worried because he is being called anti-Israel due to his objections to the killing of dozens of unarmed Palestinians in Gaza and injuring of thousands during legitimate protests within the Strip where Israel claims to have no jurisdiction. He is worried because he has likened the struggle of Black people for civil rights in the United States to the struggle of Palestinians to attain their basic rights that Israel denies them. These should be points of pride for any American leader, not concern.

Warnock is being wrongly accused of calling for the end of U.S. military aid to Israel. But his reaction defending Israel is particularly troubling in the wake of Israel destroying an entire Palestinian village on Election Day. As Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser to Bernie Sanders put it, “The U.S. should withhold military aid from client states that commit war crimes. This isn't complicated.”

If Loeffler’s attack on Warnock was disingenuous and in bad faith, Warnock’s response shows how far removed even America’s “liberal” wing is from their own principles when it comes to Palestinian rights.


Republican supporters watch returns for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Raphael Warnock and Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler come in at the Georgia Republican Party Election Night Celebration Party at the Intercontinental Buckhead Atlanta hotel on Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020, in Atlanta. (Curtis Compton/Atlanta Journal-Constitution/TNS/ABACAPRESS.COM - NO FILM, NO VIDEO, NO TV, NO DOCUMENTARY
Analysis | Middle East
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Air sickness symptoms: Old nukes and the F-35

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa
Top image credit: 3rd SFG Soldiers on the range with Republic of Mali Armed Forces during a training exercise. Fort Bragg, NC. 8/4/2009 US Army Special Operations Command

Trump returns to a failed playbook in Africa

Africa

The Trump administration is reportedly increasing its intelligence sharing and military support to military-ruled Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger — all as part of a transactional framework aimed at boosting American access to critical minerals while also contesting Russian and Chinese influence in Africa. The administration’s approach may well find a receptive audience in Bamako, Ouagadougou, and Niamey, as well as within hawkish elements of the national security bureaucracy back in Washington. Yet the enhanced support is unlikely to make a meaningful difference in combating insurgencies in the troubled Sahel region.

The central Sahelian countries have been troubled by jihadist activity since the 2000s, and a rebellion in northern Mali in 2012 provided jihadists an even greater role in the region. Intensive French counterterrorism operations from 2013 to 2022 initially knocked jihadists back. Yet from 2015 onwards, insurgency spread from northern Mali into central zones of that country and into Burkina Faso and Niger, eventually spilling over into Benin, Togo, and Cote d’Ivoire as well (although Cote d’Ivoire has achieved some tenuous success in blunting jihadists’ momentum there).

keep readingShow less
Ursula von der Leyen Benjamin Netanyahu
Top image credit: miss.cabul and noamgalai via shutterstock.com

Europe finally stands up to Israel — but only halfway

Europe

In a significant and long-overdue shift, the European Commission has finally moved to recalibrate its relationship with Israel. Its proposed package of measures — sanctioning extremist Israeli ministers and violent settlers and suspending valuable trade concessions — marks the most substantive attempt by the EU to impose consequences for the Netanyahu government’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank.

Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who once stood accused of a pronounced pro-Israeli bias, now states unequivocally that “the horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop.” Her declaration that the EU remains an “unwavering champion of the two-state solution” being “undermined by the Israeli government’s recent settlement actions” is a stark admission that Brussels can no longer ignore the chasm between its stated principles and its enabling actions.

These steps are important. They signal a breaking point with an Israeli government that has dismissed, with increasing contempt, the concerns of its European partners. The proposed tariffs, reinstating Most Favored Nation rates on €5.8 billion of Israeli exports, are not merely symbolic; they are a tangible economic pressure designed to get Jerusalem’s attention. The targeted sanctions against ministers responsible for inflammatory rhetoric and policies add a necessary layer of personal accountability.

Yet, for all its heft, this package suffers from critical flaws: it is horribly late, it remains dangerously incomplete, and it is a crisis, to a large degree, of Europe’s own making.

First, the delay. For almost two years since Hamas’ attack on Israel and Israel’s military campaign in Gaza leading to the killing of more than 60,000 people the world has watched the devastating conflict unfold. The EU, “the biggest donor of humanitarian aid,” has been forced to react to a catastrophe its own trade and political support helped underwrite. This response, only now materializing after immense public and diplomatic pressure, feels less like proactive statecraft and more like a belated attempt to catch up to reality — and to the moral courage already shown by several of its own member states.

Second, and most glaringly, the package omits the most logical and legally sound measure: a full ban on trade with Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. This is a profound failure of principle and policy. The settlements are universally recognized under international law as illegal. They are the very engine of the occupation that von der Leyen now claims is undermining the two-state solution.

While the Commission hesitates, what the Brussels-based head of the European Middle East Project Martin Konecny calls “a domino effect” is taking hold at the national level. The Dutch government has just announced it will ban imports from Israeli settlements, becoming the fifth EU member state to do so, following recent and decisive moves by Ireland, Slovenia, Belgium, and Spain. This growing coalition underscores both the moral imperative and the political feasibility of such a measure that the Commission continues to avoid.

Furthermore, this is not merely a political choice; it is a legal obligation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its landmark opinion last year, made clear that all states are required to cease trade and support that facilitates Israel’s illegal settlement regime. As a matter of EU law, a union-wide ban could — and should — be implemented by a qualified majority vote as a necessary trade measure to uphold fundamental legal principles. The continued failure to do so renders the EU complicit in perpetuating the very system it now claims to oppose.

Third, the Commission’s entire approach suffers from a crippling legal and moral loophole: its proposed measures are framed purely through a humanitarian lens, deliberately sidestepping the EU’s explicit legal obligations to prevent genocide. By focusing solely on suspending parts of the Association Agreement, the proposal ignores the most direct form of complicity — the continued flow of arms from member states to Israel.

These lethal transfers, which fall outside the Agreement’s scope, are the subject of Nicaragua’s landmark case against Germany at the ICJ, which argues that providing weapons to a state plausibly committing genocide is a violation of the Genocide Convention. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Germany alone accounted for 30% of Israel’s major arms imports in 2019-2023. Berlin continued licensing the arms exports after the outbreak of war in 2023. The Commission’s failure to even address, let alone propose to halt, this pipeline of weapons from the member states while invoking “horrific events” reveals a strategic timidity that undermines the very rule of law it claims to defend.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.