Should the US Condition Aid to Israel?

Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove

Guest

Senator Chris Murphy

Senator Chris Murphy is a Democratic senator who sits on the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has called for a conversation on American aid to Israel and what conditions should be a part of it.

Episode Summary

Senator Chris Murphy, who sits on the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called for a conversation on American aid to Israel—and what kind of conditions should be a part of it. He, along with other Democratic colleagues, has spoken out against the high death toll in Gaza, which Murphy now calls “unsustainable.” A mammoth aid package is working its way through Congress for both Israel and Ukraine—but Republicans have demanded that border security restrictions and funding be tacked on to the final bill. The race is now on for Congress to work out the details to move forward on a vote before the holidays. Senator Murphy discusses this and the latest on the war in Ukraine with One Decision’s Julia Macfarlane and Sir Richard Dearlove.

Listen & Subscribe

• Watch on YouTube
• Listen on Apple Podcasts
• Listen on Spotify

Transcript

INTRODUCTION

Mcfarlane: You're listening to One Decision, the podcast that looks at the choices made that shape our world. I'm your host, Julia McFarlane.

Dearlove: And I'm Richard Dearlove, former chief of British intelligence, otherwise known as MI6.

Mcfarlane: And this week, Richard, we had a really, really fascinating and really timely conversation with a US official who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a really powerful committee in Washington, Senator Chris Murphy, he is the junior Democratic senator for Connecticut. It's a really good time to be talking to Senator Murphy because what is happening at the moment in Washington is Congress is working out the details of this huge package that Biden has been pushing through. Around $105,000,000,000 made up of aid for Ukraine, Israel, humanitarian assistance for both of those countries, as well as border security measures and funding for Taiwan. Now there is a bit of a tit for tat going on between the Republicans and the Democrats, but what's interesting is that there is an internal row among the Democrats over whether that aid to Israel should have conditions on it. We have seen a growing number of officials calling for that aid to have conditions. Senator Bernie Sanders writing in an op-ed in the New York Times recently that the blank check approach must end. He said the US must make clear that while we are friends with Israel, there are conditions to that friendship, and we cannot be complicit in actions that violate international law and our own sense of decency. Now it was really interesting to talk to Senator Murphy this week because he is one of those Democrats who has called for a conversation to be had over whether that aid should have conditions and what lines should be drawn in order for Israel to be eligible for that aid. And he was on CNN recently where he was asked about Senator Bernie Sanders' calls, and he said that the civilian death toll in Gaza was unacceptable and unsustainable.

Murphy: Well, I stand by what I said. I do believe that the level of civilian harm inside Gaza has been unacceptable and is unsustainable. We regularly condition our aid to allies based upon compliance with US law and international law. And so I think it's very consistent with the ways in which we have dispensed aid, especially during wartime.

Dearlove: Yeah. Well, I think he's skating on pretty thin ice. And I mean, bear in mind that the Bernie Sanders, New York Times view is, at least in American politics, maybe not so much if you judge it by European standards, a pretty left wing position. And I think he's probably under pressure from his own, the left wing of his own party, by being a key member of the committee you mentioned, you know, to take this stance. But it's really contrary to the stream, let's say, of American consciousness and its reaction to the issue in Gaza, which is much more open and libertarian. I mean, I'm sure that you've seen that a number of law firms and financial firms in New York put out a notice, I think informally to Ivy League schools, saying, you know, anybody who was applying for jobs, who was taking a publicly supportive position of Hamas in the crisis could forget about applying for a career in these organizations, which shows the extent within, let's say, the US business world, as some senior is taking a very, very tough line on this whole issue.

Mcfarlane: The other thing I wanted to ask you, Richard, what is happening in the US right now? Because we are seeing a debate that we haven't for a while, which is growing criticism of the Israeli government and its policies and criticism over efforts to stifle that debate. And I think when you mentioned how the senator was very careful in what he was saying, he is clearly trying to toe a line between the different constituent parts in his own party and the delicate balance that he is trying to toe the line on. Let's take a listen to that fascinating interview.

INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY

Mcfarlane: Senator Chris Murphy, thank you so much for joining us on One Decision. It is great to have you on the podcast. It is a really good time to be speaking to you today. Something that is very timely that I want to start off by asking you is about this huge aid package that is making its way through Congress. Now, Speaker Johnson has said that it's going to be brought to the floor for a vote before the holidays, but there's only a limited number of working days in which that can happen. Your colleague Bernie Sanders, Senator Sanders, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times this month saying the blank check approach to Israel must end. He's arguing for conditions on aid to Israel, and particularly aid that's part of this bill that's working its way through Congress. Now you have publicly backed those calls to condition US aid to Israel. You've called the death toll in Gaza unacceptable and unsustainable. You're now back to work after Thanksgiving. What can you tell us about the efforts to install conditions on that aid?

Murphy: Well, I haven't read Senator Sanders' op-ed and I didn't back Senator Sanders' call for conditions. I don't actually know what conditions he's proposing. All I have said is that this is a discussion I'm open to. I think we will be talking this week about conditions for aid to Ukraine, conditions for the humanitarian aid that goes into Gaza, and potentially conditions for the aid that we give Israel. I don't know how controversial a topic it is. We pretty regularly put conditions on aid to allies to make sure that that money is spent in accordance with US laws and international law. It's a conversation I think is important and I think one that will be the topic of a lot of discussion in the Senate. So I haven't endorsed any specific conditions. I don't know what Senator Sanders is discussing in terms of the conditions he wants. I just am very candid about the fact that I think it's an important conversation to have. And I think that's what the president has said as well. The president has said that he's open to that too. You say you're open to conditions. What kind of conditions? Well, as I've said, we have regularly placed conditions upon aid to make sure that the usage of our dollars is conducted in accordance with US law. There have been times where we have required it to be used in accordance with international law. This is a conversation that I think is a pretty normal one in the course of US foreign aid.

Mcfarlane: Right. You were on CNN over the weekend saying that. I think you're trying to sort of walk down the idea that it is a big sort of change in policy to condition that aid to Israel, that this is something that you do with your allies. But I think there is a bit of an elephant in the room regarding this because it appears to be very, very difficult for the US government to talk about this, at least publicly when it comes to Israel, when it comes to compliance with international law. I mean, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the committee that you're a part of, Ben Cardin, he recently in an interview with The New Yorker, dodged questions about whether Israel was acting in accordance with international law. Jake Sullivan also dodged a question about whether Israel was operating according to the rules of war and abiding by international humanitarian law. What is the point in putting conditions on aid to Israel if the US government is so reticent to even criticize Israel, let alone call out when or if it might be in danger of potentially violating international law?

Murphy: Well, listen, I've been pretty clear that I think the level of civilian death and harm inside Gaza is both unacceptable and unsustainable. And I think that is both from a moral perspective and a strategic perspective. I don't think it actually serves Israel's war aims for this many civilians to die, which ultimately I think provides recruitment fodder for Hamas. If the United States is going to be in business with Israel supplying billions of dollars in aid, then I think we should have an interest in making sure that their war plan actually is a winning war plan in the end. So I certainly think that it's not terribly controversial for US aid to go only towards countries that are complying with international law, and that includes the law of proportionality. But I also just think there's a strategic imperative for the United States to say to Israel, if you want us to be helpful here, then we want to make sure that you have a plan that wins. And right now, I just do worry that this plan may end up with the same thing happening in Gaza as happened in Afghanistan. Like the Taliban, Hamas may ultimately take a body blow in the first few months of this conflict, but ultimately come out stronger.

Mcfarlane: I mean, the US obviously does not want to fight this war for Israel. It is trying to play a supportive role. But what leverage does the US have over Israel when we see reports in the press that the Biden administration has tried to convince the Israelis not to do things like carry out a ground invasion of Gaza. We then saw that. Obviously, there's a lot that is happening behind the scenes. But given, as you say, you don't want Israel to go down the road like Afghanistan, you want Israel to carry out this operation in a way that is conducive to its security, which huge humanitarian death tolls is not a part of that. How can the US influence Israel in how it carries out this war?

Murphy: Well, we kind of skipped over this part in our conversation, but let's talk about what we want Israel to do. We want Israel to defeat Hamas. We want Israel to destroy Hamas' ability to attack Israel like they did on October 7. I don't believe in a ceasefire. I believe it is imperative for Israel to knock out Hamas's military capabilities. I think that is the right thing for Israel, but I also think it is the right thing for the United States. There are non-state terrorist groups that are still planning or thinking about attacking the United States, and we cannot live with a sense of impunity, which would be the result of Hamas's military capabilities remaining. So I'm, as I said, open and interested in this conversation of conditionality. I think the level of civilian harm has been too high, but I also think it's important to start by acknowledging that the moral order of the universe cannot be squared if Hamas is not held accountable. So it is important for us to help Israel defeat Hamas and it is important for us to help them do that in a way that is effective. Obviously, you know, we have all sorts of different kinds of leverage. It's no different than the leverage we have in any relationship with an ally. There is a level of financial support from the United States that is critical. There is also a level of moral authority that comes from being aligned with the United States in a conflict. And just like we would use that leverage to try to make sure any ally is engaged in a war plan that is effective and works, we would use that leverage with Israel.

Dearlove: I mean, if you take the pause in the fighting and the extension now of the pause on the humanitarian grounds, isn't part of the problem for Israel that by extending this negotiation, every day has extended it, it as it were to an extent legitimizes Hamas. Because Hamas can now be regarded by the Palestinian people as the agency, a, that, you know, delivered the release of Palestinians from detention, and b, you know, the successful pressure in getting aid through into Gaza. So in a way, the Israelis are sort of caught in a trap, okay, partly of their own making because the issue of the hostages is so potent politically in Israel. But I'm worried about that process of legitimization.

Murphy: Well, I don't know that it's of their own making. I mean, Hamas murdered 1,400 Israelis. Hamas abducted hundreds of Israelis and American citizens.

Dearlove: No. I mean taking the decision to negotiate.

Murphy: Yes. I acknowledge that it is incredibly unsavory to negotiate with Hamas, but it is completely understandable that any society and civilization would want its people back and would prioritize getting those people back above and beyond the moral clarity that might come through a refusal to negotiate with an entity like Hamas that has carried out these atrocious acts.

Mcfarlane: Senator, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Times of Israel, this month told a group of backbenchers in his Likud party that he is, and I quote, the only one who will prevent a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank after the war. Going back to that interview you did on CNN over the weekend, you said that your hope was that when the Israeli people go to the polls, that they choose leadership that is going to make good on the only future that guarantees the survival of a Jewish state in the Middle East, and that is a Palestinian state. I mean, when Netanyahu is openly saying he will do everything to prevent that from happening, what is the appropriate response by the US if it is to play a part in working towards peace for both sides?

Murphy: Well, I mean, this is ultimately a question for the Israeli people. The United States cannot force the Israeli people to make a decision they don't want to make. And so I am expressing my opinion as a non-Israeli. I'm an American policymaker. I believe that it is in the best interests of the Middle East, of a Jewish state, and of the Palestinian people.

Mcfarlane: But can you work with Netanyahu? Of course, it's a question for the Israeli people, but can you work with a partner in Benjamin Netanyahu when he says things like this?

Murphy: Well, I think Netanyahu has made it pretty clear over the long course of his leadership that he does not have an interest in helping to midwife into existence a Palestinian state. But I don't have a vote as to whether Benjamin Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel. That's the decision for the Israeli people.

Mcfarlane: Can you tell us what you've heard, if your committee has been briefed, anything that you can tell us about the American hostages who are still being held in Gaza? Do you know anything about their welfare or anything about if they may be out soon?

Murphy: You know, we have been briefed on the hostages, but it's not anything that I can share publicly.

Dearlove: Do you think there's a linkage between what's happening in Ukraine, what happened in Gaza with Iran sitting in the middle? Do you think that there's an element of Russia wanting to distract the international community by setting up an alternative crisis, or do you think this is coincidental?

Murphy: Well, I think Russia would love nothing more than for the United States to be dragged into a conflict in the Middle East. I think China would love nothing more than for the United States to be dragged into a conflict in the Middle East, which is why the Biden administration is spending so much time and capital on trying to make sure that this conflict doesn't spread beyond the existing conflict between Israel and Gaza. And so far, I think the administration has done a pretty credible job at keeping Iran out of this conflict, keeping Hezbollah at bay, pressuring both Israel and the PA to try to keep violence from spiraling out of control in the West Bank. The violence there is still far too high. And that work will continue.

Mcfarlane: Senator, I wanted to ask because the US and Germany are now in a position of trying to persuade Ukraine and President Zelenskyy to sit down and enter into peace talks with Russia broadly along the lines of the current battlefront. There is talk now about the West deliberately limiting arms supplies to Kyiv to try and make it clear to Zelenskyy that the conflict is now frozen because of the fact that the summer offensive failed to make any significant territorial gains. Can you talk to us about what the latest you know about the situation in Ukraine, whether you think now is the right time for both sides to sit down? What does it mean that if there is a settlement on the current lines, that Russia has been able to invade another country and increase its territory through force and what kind of precedent that might send?

Murphy: To be honest, I don't know that the state of affairs you just described is true. The United States' position right now is to get Ukraine enough weapons and economic and humanitarian support to be able to win this conflict. And that remains our position. I don't think Vladimir Putin is ready to talk right now. I'm not sure he'll be ready to talk until after the 2024 election. And so I think we have to be prepared to stand with Ukraine for the long run until Putin is actually ready to sit down and talk about a settlement. I don't personally, I don't think he's ready at this point, and I'm certainly not preparing to condition aid to Ukraine upon their premature entrance into negotiations with a partner in the Kremlin that I don't think is prepared for those serious talks today.

Mcfarlane: From where you stand, do you think the summer offensive has failed? Do you think they are likely to take back the occupied territory? And do you think there is any hope that they will be able to push forward back on the lines that they've lost?

Murphy: There's no doubt that the summer offensive has been slow, but it has made progress and it has continued to keep the pressure on Putin. So I'm sure that Ukraine and its allies would have loved to have seen more progress, but I think the progress they have made has been important. And I don't think this is a moment in which you have a willing partner on the Russian side for meaningful negotiations.

Dearlove: How determined in the Senate now is the Republican caucus in its sort of attitude, which seems much more equivocal to the position you're stating, which I personally find very reassuring. And I think Biden has done a pretty good job in supporting the Ukrainians and confirming that support since the crisis in Gaza exploded. But, I mean, I think we're all worried in the longer term by the implications of the political divide in Washington and the fact that the Republicans do not necessarily, at least in the majority, share the view you've just expressed.

Murphy: Yeah. The real tragedy is that in American politics today, everything becomes shirts and skins. And so for many Republicans, all that matters is that Joe Biden is leading this war effort. And there are lots of Republicans that thought this war was really important and thought that beating Putin was really important until Joe Biden became the face of the American effort. And that's really sad. That's not how American foreign policy used to work. We still have a majority of the House and the Senate that supports aid to Ukraine. If that vote was put on the floor of both bodies today, an aid package to Ukraine would pass. Unfortunately, in the Senate right now, Republicans have said they will not support Ukraine aid until we solve a different political challenge, which is the challenge at the border. And so a few of us are deep at work right now trying to come to some resolution on changes to US border policy as a means of getting Republicans to support aid to Ukraine. Aid that they support, but are saying that they will vote against despite their support unless a different and incredibly challenging and vexing political issue and immigration gets solved at the same time. I wish that they weren't putting that condition on their support for Ukraine aid, but that's where we are today and we're trying to solve it. And how receptive are they to your talks on that and your efforts? Do you think this could be passed before Christmas? I can't tell. It has to pass before Christmas. Ukraine is running out of money. We don't have any time to waste. We've been negotiating hard every single day. And my hope is that we will have a vote in the Senate on Ukraine aid and Israel aid that will pass, and that will happen in the next few weeks.

ANALYSIS WITH SIR RICHARD DEARLOVE

Mcfarlane: So Richard, I thought that was really, really interesting. And we talked about how careful the senator was in his response to questions about criticizing the Israeli government. How can the US government really sort of use its leverage against the Israelis when it comes to abiding by international humanitarian law? Richard, why is the US so careful when it comes to Israel, so hesitant to criticize the government? I mean, we compare this with the German government who obviously bear a special responsibility to the state of Israel, and it is one that the government and the public are fully invested in. They obviously have that special responsibility because of their history, the history of the Nazis and what the Nazis did to the Jewish people. And yet in Germany, we have seen protests against the bombardment of Gaza. We have seen a rising number of the German public criticizing what is happening in Gaza. And yet, you have this sort of terror in the US government that they really have to handle Israel so carefully. Why is that? It can't all just be because there are powerful lobbies like AIPAC operating in Washington.

Dearlove: Well, I think if one drew a distinction between Germany and the United States, I would say that in Germany, it's seen as a moral issue, which is understandable. And it doesn't really, in my view, in Germany play into the day to day politics of Germany. It might in a small way from time to time, but it isn't, let's say, influential in the way that the various political parties in Germany are financed and led. I think the situation in the States is totally different. And there is support for Israel, and as it were, the role of America's Jewish community in business and in politics, has been a crucial element in the political formations and maneuverings and elections, both nationally and locally. I mean, locally, particularly in New York and particularly in Washington DC. And, you know, my experience of living in the States and spending time there is, you know, this is a formidable and ever present influence. But you put your finger on something important, which is it may suddenly, as a result of this crisis, be shifting. It may be changing slightly. And I think that the interview is fascinating because of the caution. And I think you put your finger on the fact that here's Senator Murphy trying to pick his way through different constituencies to take a position which is a little bit surprising in my view and not cause offense to anybody.

Mcfarlane: Yeah, I mean, I think it's not just happening in the United States. We have seen recently countries have either cut ties or withdrawing their diplomats from Israel over the bombardment of Gaza. We've seen that with South Africa, with Turkey, with Jordan, with Chad. Several Latin American countries like Colombia, Belize, Bolivia, Chile, and Bahrain. Bahrain was one of the first countries to sign up to the Abraham Accords, that landmark Trump policy of normalization with Israel. It is not just an argument that is increasingly happening in the US. It's having global ramifications. Do you think the Israelis are waking up to this, and do you think the Americans are waking up to Israel as alienating itself on the international stage?

Dearlove: Well, I think the one thing that I know about Israel, and having been there several times on visits, it's a formidably rumbustious democracy. That may not be reflected in the way that the current Netanyahu government projects itself, but under the surface in Israel, there is a furious debate going on the whole time. Two Jews, three opinions, as one of my best friends regularly tells me. Five opinions. And I can't, I mean, this Gaza crisis, okay, it will have had two rather extraordinary results, or is having. The country will come together in unity, you know, to avenge their dead and, you know, use their powerful military to make Hamas pay the ultimate price, at least in terms of its military existence. But on the other hand it will have unleashed a lot of debate about the future of the Palestinian problem. I mean I don't use Palestine in the sense of a state, I use it in the sense of a non-existent nation at the moment. And I think my experience of Israel is that the surprising number of very reasonable and open minded people that there are in Israel who are absolutely conscious and aware of the fact that this problem has to find a solution. And it will have given them enormous purchase. And that debate will be incredibly lively and strong. I think it's probably one of the reasons why, I mean when Netanyahu has to face the electorate, or maybe sooner than that, his future must be in the balance, because he's made the whole issue of not defeating Hamas but finding a solution to the problem of the Palestinians much, much more difficult.

Mcfarlane: I think it's a really important point to make that there are so many Israelis who are not happy with what's going on. Many people who have long worked for dialogue with the Palestinians, for aid to the Palestinians, for a Palestinian state. And it has to be said, a lot of those people were victims of the October 7 terrorist attack. Because a lot of left wing communities down in Southern Israel are close to the border with Gaza. And that's an unfortunate horrendous fact of the situation at the moment.

Dearlove: Efraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad, came to stay with me and I organized for him to give a presentation. We had to have a closed meeting for security reasons, I couldn't let everybody in. But we had a big turnout of undergraduates, and a lot of them came, I think in a rather aggressive fashion, thinking, wow, this is the head of Mossad, we're going to attack him. He totally disarmed his audience by his reasonableness, his understanding of the problem, his passion for Israel to find a solution. So even people that have been in such responsible and, in a way, hiddenly but powerful positions. There's a whole group of Israelis out there who are determined that over time a solution should be found. Well, of course, not much progress has been made. That doesn't mean that they aren't there.

Mcfarlane: Well, we now also know that the heads of intelligence and the military chiefs in Israel wrote letters to Netanyahu warning him of the possibility of an attack before October 7 happened, and he did nothing. The other thing I want to ask you is, why haven't we had your Mossad pal on the podcast yet, and did you sweep for bugs before you had him to stay?

Dearlove: No, I mean, well, he's been retired a long time. I will send him a message and see. I've seen him interviewed once on Western television at the start of the crisis, and he was talking very critically about an intelligence failure. And I think it would be very interesting now to have his reflections and views as the situation evolves. I think the key question now is how long this pause in the fighting, this humanitarian window for exchange of hostages and supply of aid is going to last. I mean, is Hamas going to go on releasing 10 people a day in order to push it further and give themselves more time. In a way, I've been surprised it's been extended by two days. Is it going to be extended by another two, another three, another two?

Mcfarlane: Well, the other thing that was, I think, really interesting in our discussion with Senator Murphy was what's been happening in Ukraine and the fact that the summer offensive has not made the territorial gains that the West had hoped that it would. I mean, Richard, have we taken our eye off the ball when it comes to Ukraine? And are you pessimistic that the Ukrainians will be able to get back the territory that was seized since the full scale invasion last year?

Dearlove: Well, they won't get it back unless they are seriously rearmed, and that will include the deployment of F-16 aircraft on which they're currently being trained. So in a way, we're in a waiting pattern whilst we wait for these supplies to reach the Ukrainian Armed Forces. However, I would say two things. One is, despite massive Russian pressure, they haven't really lost any ground, and I think that's crucially important. There have been successes on the southern end of the battlefront, and there are significant Ukrainian forces on the Eastern side of the Dnieper River now in the general area of Kherson, and that is an important bridgehead. And the other thing is that Russian losses have been absolutely massive, and we're tending to sort of turn a blind eye to that now and just say, oh, well, it's a frozen front line and it's not going anywhere. Well, I think we're still in the territory where there still might be some military surprises coming down the track. Whether they would happen now that winter is setting in, and of course, there's been this bout of appallingly severe weather in the last week, including floods and snowstorms and very low temperatures. It's been absolutely a huge storm, and that will slow things down further. So we may be now waiting until March, April before we see any significant change, but it will give the Ukrainians time to build their strength. And, of course, the deployment of F-16s may make a significant difference on the battlefield.

Mcfarlane: That's it for this week's episode of One Decision. We drop new episodes every Thursday. Like and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Drop us a line. Tell us your thoughts. What decisions have impacted you and where you live? You can write to us. Our email is 1decision@1decisionpodcast.com. From me and the team, thank you for listening, and see you next time.