Is 'Progressive' Just Code for Anti-Israel? | Opinion

Upon taking to the floor of Israel's Knesset on May 1, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) touted the Abraham Accords, a series of peace treaties brokered by the Trump Administration between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. He also referred to House Resolution 311, passed last week in a bipartisan vote in honor of Israel's 75th Independence Day, which celebrated the robust U.S.-Israel relationship and called for the accords to be expanded even further. As it turns out, the answer is 19 members of Congress, 16 of whom hailed from the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

While that number may seem negligible, the lawmakers who voted "no" is more than double the number of those who opposed the last notable bill focused on Israel—one that allocated additional funds to Israel's lifesaving Iron Dome missile defense system. In light of the apparent inroads these left-leaning members of Congress are making, it's worth delving into why precisely they oppose such a boon to Middle East peace.

Some onlookers may be confused by the progressives' opposition to the newly passed bill. After all, affirming Israel's alliance with the U.S. and advocating for Middle East stability seems like a constructive position, doesn't it? Especially since the accords are the first genuine sign of progress toward peace in the region since Israel's treaty with Jordan in 1994.

Well, the bulk of the 16 naysayers are members of the Squad and their allies, who have made it their raison d'etre to turn Israel into an international pariah due to its incorrect perception of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. By opposing HR 311, these representatives demonstrated the limits of their progressive worldview, which doesn't extend to the Middle East. And make no mistake, their opposition to Israel in general, and the Abraham Accords, in particular, are deeply interconnected.

Put simply, the Squad-aligned contingent of the Progressive Caucus has a fundamentally different understanding of Israel than their colleagues, one in which various misdeeds are superimposed onto it, no matter how preposterous. This renders them unable to truly move forward, blinded by their uncompromising narratives. That's why we often see this contingent demonizing Israel as an "apartheid state" despite ample evidence to the contrary. And that's also why instead of voting for the bill while simultaneously voicing support for the Palestinians, as many of their Democratic colleagues did, they rejected it altogether.

Progress is defined as "the process of gradually improving or getting nearer to achieving or completing something," not stopping it in its tracks by failing to acknowledge when something truly transformative occurs in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, that's precisely what these members of the Progressive Caucus have done by opposing the Abraham Accords. They cannot fathom that their preconceived notion of Israel no longer jives with how other countries in the region are beginning to perceive it. But rather than stop for a moment and contemplate why that is, they revert to the same counterproductive positions.

This backward thinking is also exemplified by progressive organizations who routinely malign the accords. For example, in 2022, 50 of them released a statement that read, "While masquerading as 'peace' and 'diplomacy,' the Abraham Accords and this legislation are in fact an endorsement of arms sales and political favors between the U.S. and authoritarian regimes." These groups include CODEPINK, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and, bizarrely, the Climate-focused Sunrise Movement.

One can't help but scoff at the hypocrisy of these progressives. While they decry Israel's peace with these states, progressives still stump for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, who are led by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group. This, despite their rampant and brutal human rights abuses, which were even criticized by anti-Israel groups like Human Rights Watch.

Unlike these anti-peace members of Congress, the Abraham Accords states recognized that they shouldn't be forced to participate in the century-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has less and less impact on them as time goes on. This proposition was considered fantasy as recently as the Obama administration. Suppose Israel could provide the Gulf with ground-breaking technologies, economic opportunities, and heightened security systems against Iranian aggression. Why shouldn't these Arab states forego years of hostility and usher in a new era?

Thankfully, there are progressives in Congress who understand the nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the importance of the Abraham Accords. One such congressman is Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), who stated during the vote for HR 311 that "one need not be Jewish to be inspired by a Jewish state and its rebirth and resilience and resourcefulness. It is one of the greatest success stories the world has ever seen."

What Rep. Torres grasps so clearly, and some colleagues in his caucus do not, is that constructive progressivism means doing away with failed dogmas of the past and forging a path forward with innovative and hopeful solutions, exactly like the Abraham Accords.

If nothing else, HR 311 crystalizes that for some misguided progressives, isolating one of America's closest allies is more important than regional peace. If some of Israel's staunchest adversaries on the international stage managed to normalize relations with Israel and embrace a new chapter, so can America's lawmakers, even those most critical of it. Progress like that would be an even greater achievement than the Abraham Accords.

Eitan Fischberger is an international relations and Middle East analyst based in Israel. His work has been published in National Review, NBC News THINK, and more. Tweet him @EFischberger.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.