“What does accountability mean to this administration?”

“It’s not an investigation, it’s whitewash”

On Monday the Israeli military finally released the results of its investigation into the killing of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. There were no real surprises here. Israel conceded that there’s a “high possibility” that an IDF soldier shot Abu Akleh in the head, but it was an accident and no one would be held responsible.

You’ll recall that Israel’s original position on Abu Akleh’s death was that she was probably killed amid dueling gunfire between the IDF and Palestinian militants. Eyewitnesses, video footage, and media multiple investigations disproved these assertions, but this didn’t stop an IDF official from pushing the narrative again while briefing reporters on the investigation findings. “It is our estimate that there were militants in the vicinity of Ms. Abu Akleh. Maybe not one meter beside her but they were in that area​,” he said. He provided no evidence to back this up of course.

In a statement Abu Akleh’s family said they “remain deeply hurt, frustrated, and disappointed.” The Jerusalem-based human rights group B’Tselem said, “It’s not an investigation, it’s whitewash; it was no mistake, it’s policy.”

The Biden administration has repeatedly said that they have no problem with Israel investigating itself on this matter. When pressed about the issue during State Department briefings the spokesperson often uses the word “accountability” over a dozen times, but they can never actually explain what this means. After Israel’s findings were released they reiterated the sentiment in a statement. “We welcome Israel’s review of this tragic incident, and again underscore the importance of accountability in this case, such as policies and procedures to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future,” it read.

Some U.S. lawmakers expressed disappointment with the findings and the reaction from Biden administration. “The State Department’s response to Israel’s statement refusing to prosecute the soldiers responsible for killing Palestinian American Shireen Abu Akleh is woefully inadequate,” tweeted Rep. Marie Newman (D-IL),” I expect nothing short of a US investigation that leads to accountability. It’s the least we can do.”

“The Israeli military is whitewashing the IDF’s murder of American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, and the U.S. State Department refuses to demand real accountability,” wrote Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN). “This sets a terrifying precedent. #JusticeForShireen.”

During September 6’s briefing the AP’s Matt Lee asked State Department spokesperson Vedant Patel about Israel’s findings and fortunately he wasn’t taking “accountability” for an answer.

Lee: Well, but do you think that accountability has been achieved?

Patel: So again, we’ve continued to underscore the importance of accountability in this case, and we’re continuing to press our Israeli partners on that.

Lee: Well, forgive me for not accepting – that doesn’t mean anything. I mean, I continue to underscore the fact that it’s important that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but – and which it does. But there is – do you consider that – do you believe that Israel has taken steps to hold whoever is responsible for her death accountable? And then if I could – and I’ve just – actually back up. What does accountability mean to this administration?

Patel: Look, Matt, so I’m not going to categorize that in one way or the other from here. That’s for our Israeli partners to determine. What for us to do – and what we’re – the role we’re continuing to play is pressing Israel to closely review its policies and practices to ensure that something like this doesn’t happen again.

So according to the Biden administration we can rely on Israel to determine what accountability looks like. The country responsible for Abu Akleh’s death that is still implying the Palestinians might be at fault.

And what about Patel’s suggestion that the U.S. is helping Israel new policies? No chance. Shortly after he uttered this sentence Axios‘s Barak Ravid was reporting on Israeli leaders staunchly rejecting the idea. “No one will dictate our rules of engagement to us, when we are the ones fighting for our lives,” said Prime Minister Yair Lapid. Here’s Defense Minister Benny Gantz: “The IDF’s chief of the general staff, and he alone, determines, and will continue to determine the rules of engagement in accordance with our operational needs and values of the IDF.”

“There is no ‘crisis’ between Israel and the Biden administration,” explained Ravid on Twitter. “The State Department call for reviewing IDF rules of engagement and the ‘angry’ response by Lapid and Gantz are 100% domestic politics on both sides.”

“In fact, everyone is getting what they want here,” tweeted the pro-Israel writer Yair Rosenberg. “Biden gets to say he pushed Israel on this, and the anti-Netanyahu contenders get to show they will stand up to US pressure, which Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed they can’t.”

You’ll notice that “everyone” doesn’t include Palestinians or anyone seeking justice for Shireen Abu Akleh. That’s not an oversight. It’s an insight into how defenders of Israel tend to view the world.

Ben & Jerry’s Files New Complaint

Last month a U.S. District Judge denied Ben & Jerry’s request for an injunction to block the sale of its Israeli business. The ice cream manufacturer had sued its parent company Unilever in July, arguing that the sale breached the legal agreement established between the two groups in 2000.

While it may have seemed that Ben & Jerry’s had lost its legal bid, its effort is very much ongoing. In fact, the company just revised its complaint against Unilever. To quickly recap here: after years of activist pressure Ben & Jerry’s announced that it would stop selling its ice cream in illegal settlements last July. The decision was immediately condemned by lawmakers in the U.S. and Israel. Unilever caved to the pressure and sold the Israeli portion of the business to American Quality Products owner Avi Zinger. This decision was hailed as a great victory against BDS, even though Ben & Jerry’s doesn’t support the movement and was still planning to maintain a business relationship with Israel.

I asked Wafic Faour, a member of Vermonters for Justice in Palestine (VTJP), what he thought about Ben & Jerry’s new push to stop the deal. “For them to go to court again and sue Unilever shows the seriousness of this case and the issue,” he told me. “Ben & Jerry’s board members see clearly that if they accepted Unilever sale decision, their Social Mission and brand will be harmed. This sale happened because of mounted pressure from an apartheid Israeli government and its lobby. We, members of VTJP stand with Ben & Jerry’s board and support the courage they are showing us.”

These sentiments were echoed by U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR) Executive Director Ahmad Abuznaid. “Committing to social justice means justice for all, including the Palestinian people,” he said in a statement. “Ben & Jerry’s made a principled decision not to profit from illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land, and now Unilever is attempting to subvert that. We firmly support the Ben & Jerry’s board and their decision to fight back.”

Odds & Ends

?? A college student and J Street U member named Eliana Blumberg wrote a very interesting op-ed on the Americans for Peace Now site on August 30. In the piece she says she supports the BDS movement and critiques J Street’s messaging, as many young people are critical of Zionism. I’ll quote her directly here: “In my experience, liberal Zionist groups like J Street desperately want their students to identify as Zionist and even as ‘Pro-Israel,’ and as a result, many student leaders have questioned their involvement, wondering if they should leave the movement. Not only does this exclusion hurt the future of movements like J Street, it also hurts students who feel alienated, prevents effective political solidarity with other groups, and distracts from the desperate need for political action.”

This development is obviously in the Mondoweiss wheelhouse so Phil Weiss covered it at the site. “What a clear-eyed young leader for the American Jewish community!,” he wrote. “I look forward to many more eloquent articles and comments from Blumberg in years to come.”

You can’t actually read the piece anymore because the Americans for Peace Now website has taken it down for some reason. J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami wrote a whole post defending Zionism in response and Blumberg posted a response to the Mondoweiss article where she says her comments were taken out of context. “I want to be clear: I believe in Israel’s right to exist,” she writes. “I believe in the Jewish people’s right to collective self determination, just as I believe in the Palestinian people’s right to the same. Like every J Street U student and leader, I know and understand the unshakable bonds that Jews around the world have to the State of Israel. Like every J Street U student and leader, I genuinely believe that every single Israeli and Palestinian has a right to self-determination, freedom, security and peace.”

?? More bipartisan efforts to keep the Iran Deal from being resurrected. This time its er of 34 Democrats and 16 Republicans expressing “deep concerns.”

? Today Google and Amazon workers will lead actions in front of their offices in New York, San Francisco, and Seattle to protest Project Nimbus.

?️ Yuh-Line Niou, who came close to winning in New York’s 10th district Democratic primary despite attacks from pro-Israel groups, has essentially conceded the primary to Dan Goldman and has decided to not run against him on the Working Families Party line. Here’s The American Prospect‘s Alex Sammon on Twitter: “Without Yuh-Line Niou challenging him in November, Dan Goldman will hold this seat until he dies or tires of it. The very best case scenario is another screwball redistricting in 2030. Progressives are waving the white flag here for 10 years minimum.”

Stay safe out there,

Michael