31
NT RELATIONS
Unfortunately, the media paid little
attention to the horrible group that was sponsoring
the trip, and instead, propelled a very
lively debate about how Israel had inflicted a
wound on itself by denying Tlaib and Omar
entry to the country. In an act of compassion,
the Israeli government actually moderated its
stance to allow Rep. Tlaib to visit her grandmother
without political fanfare. She accepted
at first, and then declined.
The conventional wisdom, even from
friends of Israel, was that Israel had stupidly
done damage to itself with this decision.
The decision purportedly damaged Israel’s
long-term relationship with the U.S. and
especially Congress, undermined bipartisan
support for Israel, and called into question
Israel’s commitment to freedom of speech and
even democratic norms.
AIPAC, AJC, ADL, and several other Jewish
organizations all agreed that Israel acted
within its sovereign rights to exclude these
congresswomen, but nevertheless concluded
that the decision was a mistake. Pre-existing
hatred of President Trump became a strong
factor in the discussions of Israel’s exclusion,
since the President correctly tweeted, “It
would show great weakness if Israel allowed
Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib to visit. They
hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is
nothing that can be said or done to change
their minds.” Many commentators joined the
chorus, insisting Israel had made a mistake.
As is so often the case, the conventional
wisdom is deeply flawed. No damage was
done to the U.S.-Israel relationship by this
episode. It is inconceivable that the defense
or intelligence cooperation will be affected,
but even the intangible relationship was not
diminished.
The argument that a future Democratic
president will look back at these events and
seek revenge against Israel is ludicrous on its
face. The Democratic leadership was embarrassed
by having to defend these haters while
reassuring their Jewish constituents that their
pro-Israel values are still intact. It was assumed
that some Democrats would take action
against a symbolic Israeli target. This supposition
relies on a misunderstanding of the
way politicians balance conflicting demands.
Since they criticized Israel and Prime Minister
Netanyahu for denying the visas, politicians
are actually more likely to support the next
symbolic vote
on anti-missile
defenses for Israel
or generic support
for the state.
The rumors of a
boycott or formal
condemnation of
Israel’s Ambassador
to the U.S., Ron
Dermer, proved to have no substance at all.
In fact, contrary to the claim that this visit
was a “lose-lose” proposition for Israel, in
the long run it will be a “win-win.” These
haters will not have the extended opportunity
to make the daily news cycle focus on
supposed injustices suffered by Palestinian
Arabs. Violence may well have accompanied
their trip had it proceeded, particularly when
they visited the Temple Mount, the holiest
site in Judaism. The controversy has enabled
the few honest media outlets to showcase the
extremism of the trip’s sponsoring organization,
Miftah. Furthermore, true friends of
Israel in Congress were given the opportunity
to emphasize the importance of standing up
for the principle of Israeli sovereignty. Unfortunately,
several politicians failed this test.
It is not correct to say this episode took us
closer to the end of bipartisan support for
Israel. Instead, it reflected the actual compromised
position of the Democratic Party
leadership.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib
(D-MI) and Rep. Ilhan
Omar (D-MN)