editorials
The Squad Unveiled
I t is not unusual for bystanders to
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to
make pronouncements that are more
focused on “scoring points” than on
bringing Israelis and Palestinians
together. A recent example of such agen-
da-driven sophistry occurred last
week, on the 74th anniversary of
what Palestinians call the “Nakba” —
their very real losses during Israel’s
War of Independence — when Rep.

Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced
what is believed to be the first con-
gressional resolution seeking to
advance “the Palestinian narrative.”
The resolution — in which Tlaib
was joined by fellow congressional
Squad members Reps. Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Jamaal
Bowman, Cori Bush, Betty McCollum
and Marie Newman — recognizes
the Palestinians as Israel’s indige-
nous people and, among other
things, calls for the right of 7 million
“refugees” to return to that land, in
contrast to the 750,000 refugees
who left in 1949.

The resolution has absolutely no
chance of success. But that wasn’t
the point. Instead, proponents are
seeking to advance the Palestinian
narrative that portrays Israel as the
aggressor, the Palestinians as pas-
sive victims and the United States
as a silent partner to Israel’s eth-
nic cleansing and, in later decades,
apartheid. it points to Palestinian opposition to
the 1947 Partition plan but ignores
the U.N.’s recognition of the new
state of Israel.

And there is much more. But facts
and actual history are not allowed to
interfere with the Squad’s preferred
narrative to delegitimize the Jewish
state. No longer do Squad members seek to
hide behind the veneer of reform or
reasoned debate.

What’s missing, of course, is any
recognition of the legitimacy of the
Zionist objective of returning Jews
to Eretz Yisrael based on Jewish
descent from the ancient Israelites.

Rather, the resolution presents Jews
as U.S.-backed aggressors and does
not recognize the Jewish presence
in the land before the Zionist set-
tlement. Similarly, when the resolu-
tion speaks of the United Nations,
The resolution signals a turning
point. Until now, the Squad has been
tinkering around the edges: support-
ing BDS, questioning military aid to
Israel, criticizing Israel’s settlement
regime and otherwise searching for
ways to challenge the rock-solid
U.S.-Israel relationship. Even as we
disagreed with the Squad’s anti-Is-
rael rants, we understood that rea-
sonable minds could disagree on
some of the issues they raised.

But the new resolution changes
everything. No longer do Squad
members seek to hide behind
the veneer of reform or reasoned
debate. Now, they have made clear
their intent to reject Israel and its
right to exist, and to erase Jews from
their connection to the land and
history. We reject the lie. And we invite
others to do so. But we urge caution
in the framing of that opposition.

The Tlaib resolution is dishonest,
biased and offensive. Its failure to
recognize the state of Israel even
as it argues for a more sympathetic
approach toward the Palestinian
population exposes its fundamental
flaw. And while there may be ele-
ments of antisemitism baked into the
anti-Israel narrative, there is more to
it than that.

As such, there is little to gain by
attacking the resolution as antise-
mitic. Instead, focus on the facts, on
verifiable history and on the legiti-
macy of the Zionist enterprise. The
Squad can’t deal with that. JE
New Partners in NATO
F or decades, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization seemed like
a relic of the Cold War era. Created
in 1949 by the United States, Canada
and several Western European
nations, NATO was designed to
provide collective security to member
countries against the perceived threat
of the Soviet Union.

Over the years, NATO member-
ship has grown from an initial 12
countries to a current list of 30.

Until a couple of weeks ago, many
assumed that Finland and Sweden
were part of NATO. But they aren’t.

At least not yet.

Historically, Finland and Sweden
have pursued neutral policies
toward the West and Russia. Finland
shares a long border with Russia,
and the two countries have a his-
tory of conflict. Russia conquered
Finland in a war against Sweden
12 MAY 26, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
in 1808, and it wasn’t until 1917
that Finland won its independence.

Most Finns did not want to join
NATO for fear it would provoke
Russia. Meanwhile, Sweden has a
long history of not joining any mil-
itary alliance, and hasn’t fought a
war since 1814 – even managing
to remain neutral in World Wars I
and II.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
changed all that. As a result of
the insecurity and instability cre-
ated by Russia’s unprovoked attack
on Ukraine, and the frightening
unpredictability of the Putin regime,
a majority in both Finland and
Sweden now want to join NATO.

Both countries have applied to join
the alliance, and both appear to
be a good fit for NATO. They each
have strong, modern militaries, and
Finland already meets NATO’s 2%
military spending target.

But there is a problem. Turkey —
which became a member of NATO
three years after it was founded
— has expressed opposition to the
two countries joining. And since
NATO members must unanimously
agree on new members, Turkey’s
opposition is a concern. According
to reports, Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdoğan opposes the new
members because he says they are
harboring members of the Kurdistan
Worker’s Party, a militant Kurdish
group recognized by the State
Department as a terrorist organiza-
tion. PKK has been involved in an
armed struggle against Turkey.

Sweden has a large Kurdish
minority, and Turkey believes
Sweden doesn’t do enough about
PKK and other Kurdish groups
with ties to PKK. Turkey has also
demanded that Sweden and Finland
lift arms embargoes they placed on
Turkey in 2019, following Turkey’s
military actions in Syria.

Most observers agree that Turkey’s
opposition to Finland and Sweden is
largely political, and that the concerns
can be worked out. That is good
news, since the expansion of NATO
will be good for the alliance and each
of its members, including Turkey.

We look forward to welcoming
Finland and Sweden to NATO, even
as we wonder what took them so
long to recognize the threat of Putin’s
Russia. And, in that regard, since
member countries can resign from
NATO at any time, we can’t help but
wonder whether whatever it is that
kept Finland and Sweden from join-
ing NATO until now will cause them
to resign once the current Russian
threat subsides. JE