Senator Coons Says US Should Reexamine Ties With Israel

I want to begin with your latest comments on the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, after you told Politico in an interview that's been resonating across the Capitol today that you are, quote, open to sanctioning Israel. If the Netanyahu government continues calling it a, quote, indication of a fairly sharp break from where you were three years ago. I posed your quote to Israeli Ambassador Danny Dinan, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, when he joined us a bit earlier today. Senator. This is what he had to say. Two points. First of all, I believe in the bond and the alliance between Israel and the United States. It's much stronger than any senator, congressmen always, rarely. If prime minister, it's based on values and our enemies fighting us because we share the same values. Why do we not change the policy? If you were going to have Democrats or Republicans, or even if they knew I would be the Prime minister or not, that would come against us both. But I am willing, because I do see a trend worldwide of politicians attacking Israel to score points. We saw it in the past only in Muslim countries. Unfortunately, today we see in Europe. The UK, for example, the Labour government. You know that that is well. They speak about sanctions to score points politically. And we've seen some some of that behaviour also in the US, both in the Democrats and the Republican Party. So yes, we are worried about those radical voices. Senator Coons, thank you for sitting through that and listening to what the ambassador had to say. He suggests you're trying to score political points should he prepare for sanctions? Look, I in no way think that what I have written about the upcoming move by the Netanyahu government to build a critical settlement block the so-called E1 settlement block, that's in no way radical to suggest that I strongly oppose that. That's been the position of the United States for decades under presidents, both Republican and Democrat. So to give the full context of what I said, um, the Netanyahu government has recently announced an intention to start letting contracts and to begin the construction of a block of settlements that is designed to prevent any hope of a future Palestinian state because of exactly where it sits in the connection between East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Um, to me, any move to try and fully annex the West Bank or to end the hope of a Palestinian self-governing territory, a state at any point in the future, that's a red line. And so when I say in the conversation, you reported in Politico that it's a sharp break. That's because the Netanyahu government, which includes extreme cabinet members Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, has been pushing forward and forward in terms of supporting settler violence, encouraging settlements and refusing, frankly, to be transparent about their plans for the future, both accountability. Looking back at October 7th and looking forward in terms of the Gaza peace plan. I also want to say as strongly as I can, I agree with the core point the ambassador was making there, that the United States and Israel have a deeply rooted partnership and alliance rooted in values. I treasure Israel's history as a democracy, as a Jewish homeland, as a core American ally in the Middle East. But the developments of the last three years under the Netanyahu government have troubled me more and more. And it's time to say, depending on the outcome of the elections, we should be having a thorough re-examination of our relationship as with regards to settlement activity, humanitarian aid and the region. I continue to stand by Israel, its right to exist, and put out a statement today about the tragedy of October 7th, on which more Jews were slaughtered than at any point since the Shoah. Uh, since the Holocaust. Uh, and I understand why it catapulted Israel, uh, into three years of crisis where, uh, Iran and its proxies in the region, not just Hamas, but also Hezbollah and the Hutus, uh, and the militias in Iraq have relentlessly attacked Israel. So we're in a very challenging moment for the US's relationship. But today is the third anniversary of October 7th. It's important for us to remember that it was Hamas who started this latest round of violence and instability, and that our support for Israel remains the foundation of finding some path forward for regional peace. Well, and if you potentially become the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in the new Senate, as you talk about a re-examination of this relationship, could that also mean re-examining the arms that are provided to Israel if there is no, uh, peace solution by that time and they're continuing to prosecute not just what is happening in the Gaza Strip, but elsewhere as well, including, uh, Lebanon, because you see yourself deciding that there should be restrictions around what is provided. Look, Prime Minister Netanyahu himself has suggested, um, that as we negotiate the next MoU between the United States and Israel, uh, we should seriously consider ending, um, the direct donation to Israel of American military aid. We sell weapons, sophisticated, advanced weapons to dozens and dozens of countries. Israel is and will remain our ally. Um. And I think I'll stand by what I said. We should have a re-examination of our relationship. For me, it is rooted in our shared values as democracies, uh, as multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multilingual democracies. Um, and I think we need to examine what is the path forward, what is that relationship that has the best chance of achieving regional peace? There's also a real obligation here on the Arab leaders of the region to find and bring to the fore Palestinian leaders who can actually sit across the table from Israeli leaders and negotiate peace in a meaningful way. There's not currently a legitimate leader of the Palestinian Authority who's been elected, who has the support of the Palestinian people, who can negotiate for the future of Palestine and the Palestinian people. And that's something that is a regional obligation that I also look forward to are engaging in actively, regardless of whether I'm the ranking member or the chairman of the committee. Senator, the Trump administration has just cleared. Over the past couple of weeks, almost $3 billion in arms sales to Israel that include tens of thousands of £2,000 bombs, something that the Biden administration resisted sending at one point. Is that the right move right now? Uh, look, I think a part of our reexamination needs to be looking at what weapons systems we're developing jointly, what technology we're developing jointly. Some of the missile defense systems that have largely defended Israel from Iran were jointly developed between the United States and Israel, and there is real benefit, sure, to the American people in that. Um, the £2,000 bombs made to level building has been these £2,000 bombs, um, have overwhelmingly been used on civilian targets, uh, in the war against Hamas in Gaza. And I think that was partly the cause for the, um, pause by the Biden administration on their transfer. I thought that what was notified by the Trump administration was broader than just that transfer. Uh, and we have hotly debated in the Senate over the last year, things from purely civilian items, but with military applications like bulldozers and things with purely military applications like the bombs you're referencing, I think all of that has to be reconsidered and debated. And frankly, we have elections in both of our societies. These conversations will begin in earnest on the other side of our elections. Well, on the subject of elections, Senator, I also would love your reaction to the reporting in The New York Times today that James Blair and Chris Civita were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to advise on an election, uh, an A for a Bosnian group that is pro-Russian. President Trump has reacted to that story today, saying that these two are outside consultants. They don't work for him directly, though he would be willing to fire them if there were conflicts here. But do you see conflict? I do see conflicts. Uh, look, frankly, emissaries of the MAGA movement and the Trump administration have been actively engaging in Europe over the last, well over the last decade, but actively the last 18 months, um, and encouraging and supporting more extreme elements and parties. Uh, when JD Vance, for example, came and spoke to the Munich Security Conference. He made a point of dining with the leader of the AfD, a far right political party in Germany that has its roots in some of the most objectionable parts of the fascist past of Germany. In the Romanian elections, there were leaders from the Trump administration dispatched to try and help prop up a government in the Hungarian elections. Frankly, more importantly, there was active support expressed for Orban, someone who had repressed the opposition free speech of the media, the independent judiciary for years. So this latest episode of a Trump affiliated pair are going to consult with a pro-Russian faction is just the latest in quite a few engagements in Europe. I recently received an award from the National Endowment for democracy. Um, that was an evening of celebrating those who are standing up for and fighting for democracy throughout Europe, including, of course, the Ukrainians. One of the most alarming developments of this second Trump administration has been the way that President Trump has literally rolled out the red carpet for authoritarians like Putin, who he welcome to Alaska or Xi Jinping, who he just welcome to Washington while creating distance and challenges with our closest allies that are democracies. Through his baseless tariff war with countries from Australia to the UK to Canada, there's reporting in the Atlantic that the white House has asked the Pentagon to develop strike options against Iranian targets that could be used before the midterm elections. It's clear the president wants this done before people go to vote, at least in person, realizing a lot of states are already in the process of early voting. I'm wondering if you're hearing anything on the committee or beyond that. You can tell our audience what they should prepare for. Nothing that I can share here. And bluntly, it's been exceptionally difficult to get briefings about the plans to conduct the costs of the war. We did just have last week a classified bipartisan briefing from Centcom commander Admiral Cooper, which I greatly appreciated. But it was the first time in months that we'd gotten timely updates. The secretary of defense, Pete Haig, said, has frankly, slow walked a lot of answers to questions from senators of both parties. If the president thinks that somehow by escalating attacks on Iran in the next few weeks is going to resolve this war, then he hasn't been paying attention to what's happened since he launched it back in February, with a series of conflicting justifications. The Iranians are an ideological regime, a radical regime. Their goal is simply to survive, and they continue to launch drones and ballistic missiles at civilian targets throughout the Middle East, at ships in the Strait of Hormuz, at our partners and allies in the region. The volume has come down. They're launching, you know, a dozen or so at a time, but they continue to be a capable fighting force, um, of harassing and interdicting civilian shipping. I don't think that's going to end in a few weeks of bombing. Um, and I would urge President Trump to take the one path that could possibly reduce some of our challenges by embracing our allies in the region and our allies in Western Europe, our NATO allies, most of whom were in no way consulted about or informed before this war was launched back in February. Senator, as you talk about the difficulty in getting accurate briefings, I do want to end by asking you whether or not you believe we could get accurate information or briefings from the Russian government as to this pneumonic plague scare in Siberia. President Trump has suggested he's going to talk to Vladimir Putin about it, but that the Russians aren't really saying much. Does that concern you? How could we possibly be surprised that Vladimir Putin might not be forthcoming and tell us the truth? I mean, come on. This man is a war criminal. He has massacred civilians throughout Ukraine. Um, the idea that he would be a trustworthy partner who might reveal to Donald Trump what's actually going on in a potential, uh, lab driven outbreak of a pathogen from their military bioweapons research program, I think is tragically laughable. Um, that Donald Trump continues to believe that he has some relationship of openness and trust with Putin. It just shows you clearly how little he understands about who he's dealing with. Trump is. Excuse me? Putin is a thug and a gangster, and we should be using other means than direct conversation to figure out what's happened in Russia.