Recognition by itself would put US back on record as pro-2SS but not much else. One more symbolic gesture while occupation, settlements, land confiscations, evictions (like Sumreen family in E Jer), demolitions, Gaza blockade, child detentions & other rights abuses continue. /1 https://twitter.com/ilangoldenberg/status/1278644360654053376

But even as symbolic gesture it is super-minimalistic. Would be more meaningful if also a) explicitly on 1967 lines, b) stipulated 1:1 swaps of equal size & value—for every dunum annexed Israel would give up equivalent territory, c) Pal capital will be E. Jerusalem (not in) /2

d) Security Council vote to admit Palestine as member state, e) instituting safeguards against US aid/trade being used in OTs, f) enforcement of Leahy & AECA. /3

That said, the argument against all of these is that they’re not politically feasible, which gets us right back to where we started in terms of the limits on a US-lead peace process. /4

If the goal is only to put a “bookmark” in a 2SS or to reverse official US policy, these will change nothing. But if the goal is to actually save a 2SS (prob. too late IMO but still theoretically possible), the focus has to be on decolonization and rolling back occupation. /5

This means making Israel pay a cost (economic, political, diplomatic, etc) for maintaining the status quo. Aid conditionality is just one tool. There are others as well. But that’s where the conversation needs to be right now—on how to change Israel’s political calculus. /6

Again, this entails a political cost for any US admin. But there’s no way around that. Obama called a 2SS “vital natl security interest” but wasn’t willing to invest or risk any political on achieving it. /7

We know what happens when we leave it “up to the parties”. The policy of “hugging” Israel into taking “risks for peace” has been an unmitigated disaster, and is simply not how mediation and peace processes work. If you want to change the status quo you gotta pay the price. /8 END