Hadar Susskind
Okay, hello everybody, and welcome. To those of you who are veterans of our programs, you know what comes
now, we'll do a little introduction and then partake in the time-honored Washington tradition, which hopefully
isn't going anywhere anytime soon, of filibustering! Hello, welcome again. I'm Hadar Suskind. I'm the president and
CEO of Americans for Peace Now. In just a moment, I will introduce our guest for the day. But as you know, it takes
a moment for folks to make their way through the Zoom process. So we will just hold on and keep talking slowly for
one more minute. Looks like we're getting there. Folks are getting in. That's great. So here we go again. Welcome.
Thank you all for being with us. It is nice to see your names, if not your faces. I am Hadar Susskind, the
President and CEO of Americans for Peace Now, and I thank you for joining us during this tumultuous time. Before we
launch right into it, I want to introduce my friend our guest today, Allison McManus. Allison is, for those of you
who might not be familiar with her and her work, the managing director for national security and international
policy at the Center for American Progress. She is a really key partner and ally for us and brings a great deal of
experience working in and around issues of the Middle East and North Africa, and also US politics. So we find
ourselves often in conversation. Alison, I am grateful to you for joining us today. We are going to, in just one
moment, take a deep breath, and then look at where are we. This is our, one of many, moment, our opportunity to
look at, not so much what happened last week. We're not going to look back at elections and polling and results,
and everybody's done that probably more than was helpful. What we want to do is talk about where we are now, what
can happen possibly still in the lame duck period, in the remainder of the Biden administration and the remainder
of this Congress. We'll talk about some efforts around that. We'll talk about what we have seen so far from the
incoming administration. I'm going to have to get used to saying President Trump again, in terms of, the
announcements of the many appointments or nominations we should say for so many of the key positions and things
that we care about. And really dig into what does this look like, and what is it going to mean for our work, for
peacemaking efforts around Israel and Palestine, and for the range of issues that we address and the way we do so.
So, with that, I will say hello again. Thank you, Allison. You're still muted, so you should unmute. We'll get to
get into details. But what I would just start with, what's your first impression of this week on these
issues,
Allison McManus
Yeah, well, first just Hadar, thank you so much for having me. It's really a pleasure. You know, as I was
saying just before we opened up the call, to speak with you, it's always, it's always a pleasure, but really a
pleasure to address, you know, a group of APN supporters, audience. I'll say a little bit more, you know, as we
continue the conversation about why I think your work is so important, but I do think it's really important. I also
think it's really important that folks continue to stay engaged...continue to have conversations, even if they're
not, you know, always going to be the most optimistic. Let's get real about, you know, the situation that we're in,
and let's think through together what we can what we can do about it. That's going to take, you know, a lot more
than just you and I. So welcome to everybody who's here. It's, it's, it's, yeah, maybe a pleasure is not the right
word, but I am really grateful for this space.
Hadar Susskind
We are pleased to have you here.
Allison McManus
You know, in terms of what, what have we seen the past week? Well, it's, it's come hot and heavy. So first,
it's just been an onslaught. We may remember what it was like in a Trump 1.0 but we are already seeing that Trump
2.0 is going to be much more aggressive, both in terms of the speed and scale of of the Trump agenda. You know, in
in the first administration, it took, I think, five days to start making some of these announcements of
nominations. It's been a week, and we've thought that it was crazy to think about, you know, the Susie Miles. Then
we thought, okay, it's crazy. Who's this Pete Hegseth guy? And then, oh my god, Matt Gates. I mean, it's just been,
the pace has been overwhelming. Taking that deep breath, where can we draw some, some kind of analysis? I
think the biggest thread that's connecting all of these recent nomination announcements is loyalty, first and
foremost. What we saw in the first Trump administration was certainly bringing people in who you know might be
loyal to the Trump agenda, but that wasn't their sole feature of why they may be qualified, or we could say
unqualified, for a particular post. You know, he brought in people who may be ideologically aligned, but who
actually had some kind of confidence and credential for the positions, for the most part. We have not seen this
this time. I mean, we are seeing the some of these nomination announcements of people who are wildly unqualified
for their positions, but who are wildly and fiercely loyal to President Trump. What will this mean in terms of what
the second term agenda looks like? It means that we won't see, unfortunately, even any of the types of dissent or
pushback, where, in the first term, maybe this didn't mean that we saw total change in sort of what Trump saw as
his direction, but slowing down, you know, of maybe some of his worst policy inclinations. I think now we will see
full steam ahead, not even just from day one, but day, you know, negative 67 or wherever we're at right now. Aside
from that, looking at what are maybe the ideological bents of the people that we're seeing. You know, there's been
sort of this isolationist bend to where Trump was as a candidate and as a person, and talking about, you know,
wanting to end the wars in Ukraine and the wars in Gaza, but also increase tariffs, build up the border wall,
retreat from multilateral spaces. So all of this looks vaguely isolationist. When we look at who he's appointing in
the cabinet, we actually see a little bit of folks who are more ideologically aligned with, say, interventionism,
more China hawks, Iran hawks, particularly .These are folks like Brian Hook, who's been named...he's leading the
transition team for the State Department, a real Iran Hawk, you know, was sort of the architect of the maximum
pressure campaign. Folks like Marco Rubio, Waltz, the National Security Advisor pick...
Hadar Susskind
Marco Rubio, who, by the way, like, at least on the surface. I mean, those of you who know me know that I
have nothing nice to say about Marco Rubio, but he's, like, seemingly the least insane and most competent of all of
these selections so far, which just shows you where the bar is.
Allison McManus
It's, yeah, I agree with you. He is, I would say, particularly when it comes to the competence portfolio. He
has actually served in committees that have, you know, had to deal with foreign policy issues.
Hadar Susskind
We disagree with him deeply, right? He has relevant experience on this, as opposed to, like, you know, the
guy who's about to be Secretary of Defense... Who, you know, has great tattoos, but other than that...
Allison McManus
Seth... Good salesman for ammunition, I guess, which is, does not, you know, qualify you necessarily to
be the secretary of defense. And I think when we're when we're thinking, then also had our about these camps,
right? And even thinking about kind of, what was Marco Rubio like as a senator? What defines what we should think
about, in terms of defining some of this cabinet is less like where they might be ideologically and again, sort of
goes back to this sense of loyalty. You're going to have folks who are genuinely ideologically aligned with Trump.
There I put in the Stephen Miller camp. You know, the new borders czar...These are folks who are, have been, you
know, on board with Trump from day one, and are now in place to accelerate his plans. Or you have the folks whose
defining characteristic at this point is spinelessness. So who may not be ideologically....
Hadar Susskind
We already talked about Marco Rubio,
Allison McManus
Yeah...who have already completely self effaced to pray at the altar of Donald Trump so that they were even
able to get these positions. That's JD Vance. You know, who's sort of spineless in chief, and then, the Marco
Rubios. So again, even if we're looking at, okay, well, let's try to game out kind of where some of these folks are
in terms of their foreign policy doctrine. I don't think that that's going to be as influential as...how can they
get done what Trump wants to do, and what's Trump's north star? That's making a deal. And that's making a deal
that's better than whatever deals were made by the administration before. And so, I know that this group is here
because, you know, we're particularly interested in thinking about what this means in Israel and Palestine, he has
been very clear that this is top of his agenda. He appointed Mike Huckabee...well, he hasn't appointed yet, but he
has announced, you know, Mike Huckabee as ambassador to Israel, before any other country. This is what he's going
to prioritize. I think the question is, you know, what does that mean to Donald Trump? What might this kind of deal
look like? We know he's going to want to do... to be able to say, I brought an end to this conflict, which Biden
couldn't do, you know, despite saying that he was going to for a year. Maybe we could, we could talk a little bit
more about, sort of what that that means.
Hadar Susskind
Yeah, I think I want to make sure we don't...I want to make sure we go back to the lame duck and we don't
skip that. But let's get ahead into this. You know, you were talking about the nomination of Hook and others as
Iran hawks, the announcement of Huckabee--I refer to him not as a as an Israel Hawk, but as you know, an Israel
vulture--he's there to pick up the, you know, to cause destruction and pick up the remains. But it will be really
interesting. You know, one of the major questions out there is this issue of making the deal, and Trump's driving
desire to be the one. I agree with you that that's very powerful for him. You could look at that and try to pull
out, you know, the little thread of hope that so many people are looking for and saying, "Okay, maybe he's going to
be the, you know, the bigger bully on the block. "He'll force Netanyahu to do this" maybe, of course, the other
option in that is that he forces a deal that is a horrible deal that that we oppose that, you know, subjugates
Palestinians. Even to step back from the big picture deal to just the issue of ending the war. You know, there were
people saying, "Oh, well, look, Trump has said to Netanyahu, he has to end the war, " but he hasn't said how. It's
entirely unclear, at least to me, whether that implies, like, "Okay, you need to wrap it up, you're done," or that
implies, "you know, you have three more weeks, or whatever the time period is, to do the most horrible things you
can possibly imagine and then go ahead and build new settlements." You know, I think that's kind of the question
that we're going to be facing going forward. I do want to add, before I turn it back to you, also on questions,
because, as always, I forgot the housekeeping at the beginning that I do want all of you who have joined us today
to be able to ask questions. Most of you probably know how this works, but please use the Q and A button at the
bottom of the screen. Don't raise your hand, not the chat, the Q and A button, and we will be checking that and
getting to as many questions as we can. So yeah, I mean, we're going to look, we've got Huckabee, we've got...
again... assuming this all plays out this way, you've got Rubio at state, you've got winkoff? Whitcough? now I'm
blanking on his name. Witkoff?
Allison McManus
Yeah, have you not? Do you not know Witkoff?
Hadar Susskind
like, is he the "my pillow guy"? Who is that?
Allison McManus
He's Trump's golf buddy!
Hadar Susskind
I know he's Trump's golf buddy. Who's, who is a real estate guy, and there have been, you know, plenty of
dark, dark humor comments already about how, you know he's in this role to build new settlements. I mean, you do
have a team coming together. One of the questions a lot of people have been asking me, and I don't know the answer,
so I'm going to ask you is, who do we think is in charge of Israel/Palestine policy?
Allison McManus
I think it's going to be Trump again for now. I mean, he, and this was also something that we saw in his
first term. He wants a deal. He wanted the deal of the century, and now he's going to want again, 1. to be able to
say that he's the guy who ended the wars. This has been his whole thing on the campaign trail. Then I think we may
have a return to deal of the century, or maybe it'll be like the deal of the millennium now, I don't know how we
get we get bigger than that, right? But I do think you know, and let's be clear about what that means. That means
Saudi normalization. It doesn't necessarily mean about Palestinian statehood. It means being able to say that he's
the guy who normalized relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Does that completely foreclose? You know, whether
there's what that looks like, I think could still be an open question. But these, I think, are going to be two
defining foreign policy objectives for Trump. You know what those look like will also fall to those around him. I
mean, he doesn't necessarily have the chops to be able to outline kind of what, what the contours of that will be,
and you know to be able to manage necessarily, like what Netanyahu will want, etc. So, so I do think there, that's
where we will see... I do not necessarily foresee the State Department playing a huge role in this. I mean,
Trump's...the whole project on government efficiency that he seems, you know, to really buy into that now is Vivek
Ramaswami and Elon Musk will be leading, you know, we saw a light version of that with Rex Tillerson's, you know,
Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. It was really about kind of gutting the State Department. So a lot of the
bureaus were operating, you know, by the end of the first four years, at half capacity. Trump is not somebody who
gives a really a good god damn for diplomacy, unless it's like him making the deal so...
Hadar Susskind
The crystal ball. But yeah...
Allison McManus
Exactly. So there and I think we should be prepared for who are going to be, those who are around him that
may not be in official positions. I mean, I do think that we can sort of look to the cabinet. We can look to, you
know, the Witkoff , we could look to, to a Mike Huckabee, who will have roles. But also, Jared Kushner is not going
anywhere, even if he doesn't have a formal appointment. In terms of, like, what that deal could look like. And I
think it's, it's hard to separate again....this is why I'm like thinking about right now is day negative 65 or
66... it's hard to separate this period from the lame duck, because when we can talk a little bit more about what
might be possible, but you know, we're in a context in which anything that a Biden administration does, you know,
we have to think about what the Trump administration is going to do right after and so we're thinking about, you
know, what could or couldn't be rolled back. But also that, like Trump is speaking with Netanyahu already. He is
already, I mean, he has been already putting wheels in motion, right? So he, in some sense, is already governing,
you know, even though his official mandate hasn't started. So I think it's, you know, that's, there's some way that
we can start seeing what he might be lining up. I mean, to me, what's the big questions one, he's not said very
much about the hostages. He has said he wants to push to get an end to the war, and he's gonna, he's gonna end the
war, but hasn't talked much about bringing hostages home. And so I think there's a question about, you know, where
will Trump land on, sort of, what priority that is because, you know, unfortunately, we've also seen for the
Netanyahu government, you know, they've made pretty clear that their intention is their priority, the Netanyahu and
his, you know, right wing coalition, their priority is no longer really to bring the hostages home. Even despite
any rhetorical commitment to that, it's, you know, pretty clear at this point that that is not, you know, what
their main interest is. And so is that something that Trump will see as you know, part and parcel of what this deal
looks like and what it means for him to win and do the things Biden couldn't, or is he going to just roll over and
give Netanyahu what he wants, and that's the same with annexation. I mean, is there, there may be a world in which,
and this is, you know, certainly something we can, we can kind of game out, or think about how to affect, where
Trump thinks that annexation now is actually...could be an impediment to, like, a bigger deal later on, or is he
just going to say, You know what, Netanyahu? Wrap it up however. You think. I don't really care. I just want to be
able to say that the war is over. So these are sort of the like, in my mind, two unanswered questions that we're
going to have to kind of assess over the next months.
Hadar Susskind
Two things out of that. First of all, you were extremely diplomatic talking about the Netanyahu government
and their positions vis a vis the hostages. I will just say they have clearly demonstrated, much less articulated,
that the hostages are not their priorities and that they're frankly, you know, they've written them off already as
a loss. So I think that that's the clear policy from them. There are a lot of questions coming in, which is great.
Thank you. Keep them coming. We will weave some of them in here, but I, actually, I do want to back up a little
bit, and the hostage piece is a good launching point. Some of you probably saw Trump met with Biden in the White
House yesterday. Lots of really unpleasant pictures. Etc. But reports indicate that Biden did raise the issue of
the hostages with Trump and the priority particularly around the American hostages, which is fair and
understandable for them, but the issue of the hostages overall. And so that question also leads into what you
started to talk about, of like, how is Trump going to impact or try to impact Netanyahu, whether that's hostages,
whether that's ending the war, whether that's annexation, and also, one of the spots where actually the Biden
administration and Democrats have spoken up a lot is around Israel's own democracy and some of the sort of
domestic, let's call it issues there that that you know Democrats broadly have spoken out against. And you know it,
we don't know the answer whether Trump is literally just kind of writing the blank check and saying to Netanyahu,
do whatever you want. So I think that's a piece we want to get into. But let's bring it back for a minute or two to
today and to the lame duck. So I'll start off with and again, everyone, I beg your apologies. We're all you know,
things we're calling positives are extremely small things right now, but we got to look for those too. So one of
the things that I would say has been a positive of the Biden administration vis a vis Israel and Palestine have
been the sanctions that have been implemented. You know, over this past year or so, there was a letter that
actually was organized and done pre election, but was released publicly today, that 88 House and Senate Democrats
together on it to the Biden administration, urging them to sanction Ben Gvir, to sanction Smotrich and to sanction
Regovim and Ahmada, two of the big settler movement organizations. It's actually pretty amazing, going from a year
ago, when I was talking to Democratic members of Congress and administration officials, trying to get them to do
this, to sanction and to support and people saying, well, we couldn't possibly do it. We can't start sanctioning,
you know, Israeli organizations, their allies. We can't start doing this. And now there are 90 of them calling for
the sanctioning of two ministers. Personally, I'll say, I don't think it's likely that the Biden administration is
going to sanction Ben Gvir and Smotrich. I do, however, think that they probably are going to put out some more
sanctions in this next lame duck period. Allison, what do you think? What do you want to add around sanctions or
then take that into other things that could or should happen in the lame duck?
Allison McManus
The sanctions are, are important, and let's not forget Biden did you know, issue this executive order that
really brought in the sanctions authority. And I think, to your point, Hadar about like, what feel like really
pathetic wins, frankly, given the scale of suffering and security you know, that we see on the ground. Excuse me,
that's suffering and insecurity that we see on the ground. You know, again, they feel insufficient, but are like
monumental compared to what we could have hoped for you know, in the years that you know you and I, and I'm sure
many of this call have been engaged in activism or advocacy on this issue. So, you know, I do want to say that...
we have seen progress there. I hope that we'll see more progress. I mean, we know that there are certain cases, not
only with this new sanctions authority, but also with some of the Leahy Law violations and some of the Israeli
units that have committed human rights abuses that receive US funding. You know, there's some of these cases are
still open, and so in many of these instances, we know that the administration and the folks at the Department of
State have been doing investigations, collecting evidence, and so some of these cases may just simply need to have
a decision made. I'm with you. I don't know that we'll see that rise to the level of Smotrich and Ben Gvir, but I
think the more... what's important to keep in mind here with the sanctions, because they can be rolled back. A
Trump administration can come in and decide to take these off, but that will need to be an affirmative decision
that they make to do that, and they may say, "Oh, actually, again, this sort of works to our advantage in terms of
trying to bring an end to the conflict, or whatever a future deal might look like. "That's one, two: It takes time.
It will take time for them to go through, you know, the paperwork there may be, yeah... they'll stick for a bit
longer. And the other thing too, to keep in mind is this sends a signal to many other European allies, who then
can, you know, how can follow on and apply these sanctions in ways that may not be rolled back. So I think you know
while the effect may not be to the scale that we we would want to see, these are worthwhile actions during the lame
duck. These are absolutely within the realm of the possible, you know, and so these, these, this is a set, I think,
that we'd hope to see. I know that somebody asked in the Q and A about the, you know, about weapons withholding. I
would say that maybe as of a week or two ago, I was hopeful that there was a case that could be made what we're on
the other side of the election, to appeal to a Biden administration to say, like, this is your last shot if you
want to get this deal done, or to just, you know, leave like this is, these are legacy moments for Joe
Biden.
Hadar Susskind
That's all I have right now.
Allison McManus
This is all I have, right? I mean, you know to do the right thing, you know, for whatever you know, from the
most perverse to the most noble motivations, to just say, like, you know, we're in this, in this moment of absolute
crisis, when there is no political cost to Joe Biden, he's done his career is over. There's no political cost to
him do the right thing and hold and hold some of these weapons. Don't need to do it in a way that's going to
jeopardize Israel's security. But don't make things any easier for a Trump administration to come in and do all of
the horrible stuff that we know that they're going to do. We saw that door open with this letter that that Defense
Secretary Austin and State Secretary Blinken sent to their counterpart, saying, "we're really concerned about the
fact that you're not letting any aid in into into Gaza, and we have laws on the books that say we can't send you
weapons." They gave a month deadline to say, you know, you have to improve the humanitarian situation or...
Hadar Susskind
Also, that month deadline is not in the law, right? Not in the law. They just kind of make it up. They're
like, Okay, you guys get 30 more days...
Allison McManus
Generosity upon generosity of just trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I mean, you know, all they would
have needed to...They had every opportunity, and this was kind of the last best opportunity to just do the right
thing. And they totally rolled over on it and said never mind, never mind, that there's a dozen humanitarian
organizations working on the ground that have said there is not an improvement. People are dying, people are
suffering. So I think at this point we have to be unfortunately, we have to be realistic about the fact that Biden
does want his legacy to be that he provided unconditional support to Israel, regardless of the well documented
violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law and US law and policy. This is not a
bug. This is a feature of the Biden administration. I hate to say it, because I think again... I don't know if I'm
naive or just hopeful, having been in this space for so long, and still wanting to believe that we'll see those
those leaders that maybe we voted for or believe and do the right thing, but, but unfortunately here, I just don't
see much opportunity, if any at all, for for a different decision on on weapons delivery in the lame duck
period.
Hadar Susskind
Let's talk about one other opportunity that relates to that, which is Senator Sanders and his action that I
think is going to be coming up next week. If I understand correctly, for those of you who don't know what I'm
talking about yet, because I haven't said it, Senator Bernie Sanders, Uncle Bernie, as he's often referred to, has
introduced a series of what are called Joint Resolutions of Disapproval; it is basically him using the mechanisms
of the Senate, and the fact that he can introduce this as a privileged resolution where he can require a vote on
this. This came up, actually, pre election, where Senator Sanders was urging for the kind of actions that that we
at APN, and we right now have been talking about: holding some weapons, halting the transfer of offensive weapons,
very varying things in that space, and arguing back and forth with the administration. What he did was introduce
these resolutions, which through the process of the Senate, unlike in the house or other kinds of resolutions in
the Senate, where leadership can just bury them, he can get a vote on these. He and his team made the
decision to wait until after the election to do so, but now we are looking at votes on this next week, just to be
clear what our playing field is. There is no expectation that it is going to pass and happen and that this action
will stop the flow of weapons, because it would need to pass the Senate, the crazy house would have to deal with
it. Then obviously President Biden, who has not been willing to take this action, would have to sign it. So it's
not something that is going to be signed into law and happen, but it is still, when you do what I think Allison was
just talking about a minute ago, sort of step back and look at the longer frame of our work. It's a very big deal.
It is going to be, you know, the first time you've ever really seen a vote like this in the Senate demanding the
halting of arms to Israel. And, you know, specifically and these breaking down in different ways, they're each
about specific weapon systems and arm sets and relate to specific human rights violations, etc, and the fact that
that is happening in the US Senate, and the fact that that has moved into the mainstream of our political
discourse, even if it's not going to pass now, is reflective of, I mean, what's very bad changes in a lot of ways,
right? Because the situation on the ground is so bad, but it's reflective of the change in our politics. And I want
us, Allison, to talk about that a little bit too, that, you know, I've been doing this a fair amount of time now,
and I think it's again for largely, very horrible reasons. But if you look at the last year, the politics at the
national level, politics around Israel and Palestine have changed more in this year than they have in, you know,
the last decades. The Sanders vote that's coming up, other members of Congress talking about, I mean, I'll give
just a very sort of specific, quick example from the APN perspective. You know, it's almost four years ago, it's
three years ago and change now, that we came out with a policy position supporting conditioning aid, saying, you
know, we support aid but it's got to align with our policies. It's got to align with our values. We should
condition it. That's how you do it. At the time, no members of Congress had ever kind of said that on the floor or
taken that position. Frankly, really, none of our Jewish organizational colleagues had that position, and there
weren't many other organizations out there that did either. And again, I'm not not happy about this, because we've
gotten to this point for horrible reasons, but we now see that as well. President Biden is unwilling to do it. It's
pretty much like the mainstream Democratic Party position right now. So that's a lot of me rambling on to talk
about, What else might we see? Do you want to add on, on Bernie and what we might see in Congress a little
bit?
Allison McManus
I first, I mean, just thank you for being, you know, out front on this, before this became a mainstream
issue. I mean, this has been a real third rail when it comes not only to sort of Israel-Palestine, but even just
foreign policy in general has been US security assistance to Israel. I mean, this isn't something that that anybody
has really wanted to touch. It's horrible that it has taken repeated well documented instances of US manufactured
in US, provided weapons killing the innocent people in mass civilian casualty incidents, for this to become an
issue of concern. Thank God that there are those who are in Congress who are saying like, no, this is not this is
not okay. This is not how US taxpayers want their hard earned tax dollars to be spent, and that there is actually
an opportunity that Congress needs to exercise its its oversight role. Does that mean that this is going to stop
the weapons from from being delivered? Unfortunately, it does not. But we have to be thinking about what's the long
game here and right now, particularly for Democrats in Congress elections aren't going to happen for at least
another two years. For those in the Senate, the political costs are very low and the moral imperative is, is very
high. The moral imperative, I mean, one, there's kind of how these weapons have been used. I think here it's
important to clarify these joint resolutions of disapproval will come forward specifically for types of weapons
that have been used in civilian harm incidents. There were a bunch of different weapon sales that were announced in
late August and early September. You know, some of which could be characterized as defensive or certainly non
lethal in nature, but some of which, like these, 120 millimeter mortar shells--what are called J-dams--which are
sort of precision kits that you could could put on missiles. We know that these have actually been used
specifically to harm or to kill civilians, and so it is really important that we see senators, you know, because
senators go on the record and say this, we are not okay with this. This doesn't advance our foreign policy. This
doesn't make Israel anymore safe. This doesn't advance the cause of Palestinians. And it's certainly not where
Americans are at in terms of how our taxpayer dollars are used. So that's important. The other thing that's going
to be important is, again, we know Donald Trump is, is coming in, into office, and while there may be a question
about does he how he might use security assistance in trying to secure a deal? We saw how President Trump behaved
when the Saudis were carrying out their campaign in Yemen, the scale of civilian suffering at that time was even
greater than what we see in Gaza, also humanitarian conditions that led to famine. Hundreds of 1000s of people
died, and Trump just kept the weapons flowing to the Saudis. He continued to bypass Congress. He used these
emergency authorities. And so there is certainly a world in which, you know, we will need to see some some
continued opposition to those kind of policies, and if we don't see those in Congress willing to do that, now how
could they be taken credibly when it comes time to do this in the next few years? So again, the more that we can
get some of these elected officials to go on record with their positions to say, this isn't okay. It's not okay.
Morally, strategically, the more that this allows us to continue to build that momentum, to continue to build a
movement for when we are in a position actually to have a bit more governing power and actually make tangible
changes in the policy
Hadar Susskind
Just building off that... I mean, the reason we're talking about this longer frame and this longer window, I
want to be clear, like no one is ignoring the urgency of this moment, right? I mean, part of, part of the horror of
what is happening is that there is incredible urgency. There are people in largest numbers in Gaza, but also in
Israel, and also in Lebanon, you know, dying, and who are losing life every day, whose situation is getting worse
and worse and worse every day. Something that I just personally am challenged with, right, is I can sit here and
talk about, "okay, well, let's look at the long picture," but we know, for a lot of people, there is not going to
be a long picture, but there's just the reality that you know, in terms of interaction with the US government,
whether we're talking about the Biden administration right now or the incoming administration, they they are not
stopping that. They are not doing, and shouldn't even say stopping it, actually, because I often engage with people
who say, why didn't Biden just stop the war, which I actually don't believe is up to Biden. It's up to Netanyahu,
but Biden has not done the things he could do to move us in that direction. There was another thing that I was
going to say, building off of what you just said, but now I don't remember what it is, so we'll see if we come back
to that. The other piece, one of the other pieces I just want to I want to, I want to think about is, you know,
people talk about, okay, there's an ending, the war deal, that will come not soon enough. And we, and we don't know
what it will look like. But then also the West Bank, and you already mentioned, the possibility of annexation. You
know, one of the big questions out there is, you know, Netanyahu has not himself said we are moving forward to full
annexation right now recently, but some of his senior ministers, including Smotrich, the Minister of Occupation,
have said so. There's a feeling that they believe that, you know, Trump is just going to say, okay, great, Rock on.
Do what you guys want, and that we may be faced with full official annexation soon. And I guess, you know, first of
all, I'm just curious if you have thoughts like whether, whether you think Trump will go along with that or not, or
when you mentioned before, you know, in that will, of course, undermine, well, I was going to say, of course, maybe
not, of course. I believe that undermines a picture of a of a bigger plan and Saudi normalization, not that I want
to be in the position of having to count on the goodwill of the Saudis. But previously, it was the Saudis
unwillingness to normalize without taking into account the Palestinians, that I think put a stop to that. What do
you think, you know? What do you think we're likely looking at on that front?
Allison McManus
Lets think of a few different pieces of this. So one, you know, the first, is like, let's be honest, like,
Trump has no ideological opposition to full annexation. I mean, he got no... I don't think he has any problem with
this. If we look at, you know, what actions he took in his first administration. If we look at the way that this
deal of the century was presented, I mean, there's nothing in there that is really kind of durable commitments.
He's one of the only presidents in modern times who has, you know, not said, and we could critique, kind of the two
state solution, but, I mean, he's not. Somebody for whom Palestinian statehood is even necessary. I don't think he
necessarily even thinks that this is, you know, something that's important.
Hadar Susskind
I'm not sure he believes that Palestinians are, you know, real people.
Allison McManus
I don't know how much he even thinks about any of but either way, I mean, he is not even rhetorically
committed to a two state solution, not even rhetorically committed, you know, and looking at the appointment of, or
again, the announcement of, Mike Huckabee. I mean, if you felt like, if you were not on board with full annexation,
then you would never appoint...You would never put somebody like Mike Huckabee in a position to be making policy or
representing the United States, you know, as ambassador to Israel. So, you know, I certainly don't think that there
will be much, there will be ideological or kind of doctrinal opposition to that. What I could potentially see is if
there's a sense that, you know, further annexation now and further expansion of settlements, or making this
official policy now could prevent a deal, or would be, you know, something that forecloses a point of leverage that
could be used for a deal. Again, Trump prays at the altar of of deal making. That is his ideology. That is his,
doctrine, and so, you know, in all of his infinite deal making wisdom, if he thinks that this is something that
could be manipulated, it's possible that, we see a slower pace. Now, I think the other question is, would Netanyahu
test him on this? I don't think just because Trump thinks that this works in Trump's favor, that means necessarily
that Israeli counterparts will agree, and so you could actually see that there could be a point of of contention
there where Netanyahu may want to call Trump's bluff or sort of push the boundaries of what he could get in a deal
as well. So I could see this, you know, potentially coming to a head. The Saudi piece is interesting, Hadar,
because when we think about where the Biden administration was on Saudi normalization prior to October 7, Mohammed
bin Salman was not saying, I will never do this unless, you know, I get X, Y or Z for the Palestinian people.
Certainly wasn't saying I'll never do this unless we have the establishment of a Palestinian state. He was saying,
I want a defense guarantee in a security guarantee. I want to have the green light on a nuclear energy program.
These were the things that he was interested in. It was like, well, maybe they have to sort of iron out the details
of what this means for the Palestinians. Maybe the rubber would have hit the road at some point when they're
actually getting closer. But certainly this was not like a priority. It's become a priority. And I don't think that
we can deny that this is something that now the Saudis have said that they do need to see. You know, there is a
domestic, even in a dictatorship, there is a domestic constituency that believes very strongly that the
Palestinians should have something to show for normalization. I think there's a question of if the hot war comes to
an end, and we see a scenario in which there is de facto kind of occupation, where there's still maybe troops in
Gaza. But things seem like they are kind of at a bit of a stalemate, you know, and this goes for a year where,
where are the Saudis then? Might they be more willing to to consider what normalization looks like for some kind of
smaller concessions that don't actually add up to statehood? You know? I think then the question is, what could
Trump throw in for the Saudis? You know, that would make them feel like the steal is actually in our best
interest.
Hadar Susskind
I think you're right, that that's the question, and it just leaves me shaking my head, that, you know, that's
how we're talking about it. But I think that's true. We didn't talk much about Lebanon. I saw an article earlier
this week which said something to the effect that you know, "Netanyahu was planning on wrapping up in Lebanon as a
present to Trump" was kind of the the conclusion of that article. I don't know if I personally haven't seen Trump
say anything about Lebanon, but I'm sure there are people around him who know where that is. What do you think
about you know what we're seeing on the on the border there, both in terms of US intervention, that is a spot also,
taking it back to our lame duck conversation, where I think the Biden administration is very much still
pushing.
Allison McManus
It's hard to know. I also saw some of these rumors in reporting. I haven't heard anything, you know, more
more tangible than that, and we have seen so many leaks over this past year. And in some ways, I think leaks that
are very strategic and which often don't amount to anything. And what I mean by that is, it may be in somebody's
best interest to say that this is, you know, that the Lebanese are, excuse me, that the Israelis are considering
this. So this could be something that is, you know, intended to place a bit more pressure on Netanyahu to say, you
know, we saw this, you know, at a few times with sort of leaks about how the relationship between Biden and
Netanyahu was. How close are we to a ceasefire? I mean, we've heard, I don't have no idea how many times that we're
a ceasefire is just around the corner and that it's, you know, widely reported on, and people you know get into a
whole frenzy, only for nothing to actually materialize, because neither side has actually any interest in reaching
a ceasefire. And so I think we need to ask like, what would the interest of not only Netanyahu be, but of Hezbollah
be to reaching a ceasefire? Does that mean that that's totally off the table? I don't think so. You know, I do
think that there's a world in which for for Natanyahu, it makes sense to, you know, pause, you know, or actually
cease hostilities in Lebanon, you know, more so even in Gaza, I don't think that there is any realistic expectation
of completely eliminating Hezbollah, but certainly they've been made to look incredibly weak. I mean, not just in
terms of the the latest sort of hot war, but the you know, pager episode before that, the targeting and elimination
of, you know, Commander after commander after commander, so you could see a world in which for for Netanyahu, he
could sort of claim victory there, and for Hezbollah, they could see that it's actually in their best interest to
pause. But I wouldn't necessarily take that leaked report as an indication of where they are.
Hadar Susskind
Certainly the domestic political consideration for Netanyahu in terms of Lebanon versus Gaza, is very
different. There was a much more broad support for action in Lebanon, because Israelis felt that, you know, the
whole North has been under bombardment. People, obviously are internally displaced from the north, and they felt
for a very long time that Netanyahu government was remiss in not dealing with that. I think similarly, though,
people see it as something that will be easier to wrap up that there is unlike Gaza, where there has been no
articulated day after plan, or, I say no plan articulated, I mean, actually, by the government, there have been
plenty of hideous plans articulated. You know, Lebanon, they have a very specific ask of having Hezbollah move
north and having that enforced, which is nothing is easy, but that is conceivable, right? That is conceivably
achievable, and which point people agree that we're done there. Let's turn it back here, kind of to our politics
and our work a little bit more, you know, as we look at the next administration. I mean, one thing that...this is
100% pet peeve, so apologies everyone, but...I find the defining of like Huckabee, for example, as a pro Israel
choice, or any of these other people as the pro Israel choice, to be personally infuriating, because I think they
and their their view world views and their proposed actions are terrible for Israel. They are probably far worse
for Palestinians. There's no question for that about that. But I think that we are in a moment, and that's was my
clumsy lead into of, you know, some realignment in our domestic politics writ large, certainly, we're in a moment
of realignment in terms of American Jewish politics and some of our, you know, organizations that work on these
issues. How do you how do you see, you know, the war this past year, of these things impacting that US domestic
political situation going forward?
Allison McManus
Yeah. I mean, I think we see, you know, there's always been this kind of assumption which, you know, I think
is a false assumption, but there's always been this assumption that, like, foreign policy doesn't matter to
America. And, you know, or that is that it is a, you know, it's not a priority compared to other priorities. People
don't vote based on foreign policy. And, you know, I think this year, more than ever, we see that that's a more
complicated picture. And certainly concerns around inflation and cost of living and cost of housing all that weigh
on on many Americans, but also, you know, what we've seen way on Americans is the failure of institutions to, you
know, do the things that they purport to do. that's been the case in our foreign policy. I mean, we have laws on
the books. We have good policies in place, and we have politicians who say that they are interested in the security
of our allies like Israel, advancing rule of law nationwide, and then their actions don't match up to that. I
think there is a sense of hypocrisy, that many Americans feel about those who are in power and I think that that is
something that, you know, in some ways, it's concerning, because when we lose faith in institutions that can lead
to nihilism, that can lead to chaos, and that's probably a lot of what led to the rise of Donald Trump. But it also
means that we expect more of our elected officials, and it puts them, you know, in a position of needing to show
consistency in word and action. And I think that's, that's where we are now. And so this is where I think that
frustration that people feel, how do we channel that, you know, into change, right? that's kind of what I
think about again, when I think about sort of the two in four year timeline, as you said, Gazans don't have two
years, hostages don't have two years. We can't wait that long to see change, but we certainly want to see that
history is progressing, even if it's not fully linear, in a direction that we feel like is making us more safe,
prosperous, free, and also those that we care about abroad, and that, the United States is behaving in a way that
makes, people around the world more safe, prosperous and free. I know we don't have a ton of time left. So just as
we're kind of thinking about that, I think for the folks who are have taken, the last hour to listen to us kind of
talk through what this means. I think it's also worth considering, what are the things that you know we can do as
US citizens, as a community? And even those who may not be US citizens. There's kind of two, two tracks that come
to mind. One is really pushing on electeds. I mean, I know people in this call who may be in different places
around the country. Some may have Democratic or Republican Representative senators, regardless, reach out to them
and let them know how you feel. They have to listen to your concerns. Maybe they're not up for re election for a
couple of years, but they've got folks that are in their offices who, will take your calls, will take your emails.
we've got two opportunities coming up. One's going to be the JRD vote. You know, again, I don't have much hope that
we'll see action from Republicans, but certainly to the extent that you live in a state with, democratic
representation in the Senate. Let them know you think that they should go on record and say that it's not in
Israel's best interests, and it's not in the best interest of Israelis or Palestinians to continue to send weapons
that are being used to devastate Gaza. let them know that that position is something that is where you are at. the
other opportunity will be these, these confirmation hearings. Let's get Huckabee on record and ask him you are
viewed as somebody who's very pro Israel. What is your interest in seeing, you know, full Israeli control over the
West Bank, for instance. Let's get him on record. Because, we may have some concerns about, the sort of religious
doctrine in which that's rooted in his pension to see, precipitation of the rapture. But let's get him on record
for saying that. So to the extent that there are things that you want you know, does this mean that that all of
these you know confirmations don't go through? Maybe not. But let your elected officials hear what your concerns
are about the people who are going to be making policy on your behalf. So that's one. Don't Stop engaging, even if
it feels like a like an uphill battle. And then number two is the preservation, the stewardship, really, of our
communities, because now we're in a place where, the folks that think like us, that that really believe that the
universal respect for human rights, the pursuit of peace is in the best security interest of Israelis, of
Palestinians. we may not be the ones who are in the governing moment. And you know our allies in Israel, you know,
who are also reform minded, who are also peace minded, they are fighting that same struggle as well. Same with
those who are, who may be in the Palestinian territories. How do we come together and share that struggle, as
opposed to being to feeling atomized and defeated? some of that may just be to take a defensive posture right now
and push back against what we can. But let's also be ready, Hadar to your point, for the next moment in which we
have some power, that we don't go back just to status quo of what we saw, four or five years ago, but actually that
we are in a place where we are ready to push and make more progress. they said at the very beginning, that's why I
just, I think the work that you do at Americans for peace now and with your sister organization, in Israel is so
important, just reminding folks that this is a shared struggle. Just like Donald Trump isn't going to be, you know,
represent a monolith of the American people. Netanyahu doesn't represent a monolith of the Israeli people. we need
to be able to hold and support each other so that we can keep fighting.
Hadar Susskind
Amen. Thank you, Allison, specifically. Off that again. Everybody who is on our list, which I'm going to
assume you are, if you're with us here today, will be getting an action alert from us soon to help you in reaching
out to your senators on the JRD votes. So you'll be seeing that in the coming days. And I want to say also, if
there are other things, if you want again, some of you, I know, have these relationships and have experience in
engaging with them. But if we can help you, if you want to start reaching out to your members of Congress, whether
they are Democrats or Republicans or they're going to vote the way you want or not building those relationships,
and like Allison said, having them hear from you is really important. So if that's something that you would like
some support on, please reach out to us. We are happy to help. We're happy to give you the names and the emails and
connect you and help you think through what it is you might want to say. You know, we've got a lot of work ahead of
us, and we're going to have to buckle down and keep doing it and look for those opportunities. You know, all of us
have have been, let's call it in opposition before. You know, we know there are things that we there are things
we're not going to be able to stop, but there are things we're going to be able to stop, and things we're going to
be able to moderate, and hopefully some gains to be made. Allison, We will take your advice and do what you said,
and you know, continue to work with our Israeli colleagues and with Palestinian colleagues, and anybody else around
the US and around the globe that you know wants to stand together, wants to work for peace and justice and human
rights, and we'll keep doing it. So thank you for being a partner.
Allison McManus
Thanks so much Hadar, and thanks so much to everybody. Yeah, thank you
Hadar Susskind
everyone for joining us, and we'll talk to you later.
