Jill Stein on BDS, Terrorism, and the U.S. Role in the Middle East
Jill Stein of the Green Party has received considerable attention in an all but ordinary election cycle. Stein outlined aspects of her foreign policy platform and counterterrorism approaches in a recent CNN Town Hall.
ISIL and Counterterrorism
During audience questioning, Stein broke from mainstream opinion on ISIL and the Middle East, suggesting that there is no role for U.S. military engagement against the “so-called” Islamic State.
Questioner: “Do you consider ISIS to be a threat to the U.S. [and if so] what would you do to defeat ISIS that the Obama Administration is no currently doing?”
Stein: “There are rules of engagement, international rules, that if you are going to attack another country you need to be in immanent threat of being attacked by that country. Clearly, that threshold has not been met. ISIS is not about to launch a major attack against our country”
This response was slightly misleading, ISIL is a stateless actor, which operates across borders and without international recognition. However, Stein’s doubt over the domestic threats posed by ISIL separates her from the viewpoints of the mainstream campaigns.
Stein’s running mate Ajuma Baraka clarified that the campaign acknowledged the reality of security threats. However, it disparaged what Baraka phrased as a “knee jerk response in . . . military action,” or the idea that a military recourse is the only solution. Rather, he stated, this haste to resort to militarism was the root cause of the “enormous incompetency” of U.S. approaches to the Middle East.
Stein suggested that U.S. involvement in the Arab world had been a pervasive issue throughout most of the 20th century. It was the U.S. support of Afghani Mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation of the country in the late 1970s that led to the rise of Al-Qaeda, and the U.S. invasion of Iraq that had been the principle catalyst of ISIL.
All of these activities had, according to Stein, amplified negative consequences and extenuated our involvement in the region. Up to this date, U.S. policy had done more to “fan the flames” and increase “the misery and the poverty that drive terrorism” she said to applause.
The Stein Solution
With this in mind, Stein called for a “New kind of offensive, a peace offensive in the Middle East.” The first step of her plan being was a weapons embargo to limit U.S. arms sales to the region, the extent of which is staggering. The U.S. alone controls 33% of the world armsmarket and, over the past ten years, the Middle East contained seven out of the fifteen top recipients of arms exports according to data provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia placed at the top of the count.
Calling Out Saudi Arabia
Stein then criticized Saudi Arabia for its proselytization of extremist Islamic teachings, and opaque support for international terrorist enterprises.
“We can initiate that weapons embargo and also call for a freeze on the funding of those countries who continue to support jihadi terrorist enterprises. Hillary Clinton herself said in a leaked state department that in fact the Saudi’s are still the major funder of terrorist Sunni enterprises,” the presidential candidate said.
Stein on Israel and BDS
This willingness to discuss politically dangerous topics extended to Stein’s approach to Israel. At the Town Hall, Stein reiterated her long-standing policy towards Israel:
“The Jill Stein campaign calls for ending support for governments committing war crimes and massive human rights violations, including Israel and Saudi Arabia. It supports the BDS movement as a peaceful, nonviolent set of actions organized by civil society across the world aimed to end Israeli apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and systematic human rights abuses.”
When asked about her support for the BDS movement, and whether this practice of boycotting would apply to all who broke international laws, Stein responded: “I’ve been very careful to avoid that pitfall of targeting Israel. . . Our foreign policy would be based on international law and human rights.”
“I don’t think we are doing Israel a favor by condoning a policy that makes Israel very insecure. That makes Israel the target of hostility from its neighbors,” she said.
Stein then criticized funding and support for Israeli actions within the United States. She believed that “Funding and supporting a very aggressive and hostile policy” from abroad and not having to “live with the consequences” of its application was an irresponsible and damaging practice.
When pressed on the specific U.S.-Israel relationship, Stein indicated a that it was time to rethink ubiquitous support.
“By sponsoring a very hostile military policy that violates international law, that doesn’t do us any favors. . . . There are people in Israel who are really working for human rights, who are building community with the Palestinians. These are human rights groups that are building trust, that are building community and that are building confidence, these are the voices that we need to be lifting up to create a middle east that works for everyone.”
For the Voter
Stein’s approaches offer a refreshing viewpoint that directly deals with issues that have become strikingly absent from the campaign season. Whether or not a voter agrees with her approach on Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation, or the effectiveness of a potential arms embargo, the fact that she brings these important topics to the forefront of the foreign policy debate is important in itself.
Though the Green Party will not have a place on the main debate stage, the American public would do well to press the top candidates to treat these issues. The worst response now is silence.