Democratic Boycott: A Seismic Shift in U.S.-Israel Relations

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before the U.S. Congress on July 24, 2024, was marked by an exceptionally enthusiastic reception from many lawmakers, which shocked humanity. Throughout the approximately 40-minute address, Netanyahu's statements on various contentious issues, including Gaza genocide, were shockingly interrupted by applause, and standing ovations.

This statistical analysis delves into the frequency and duration of these interruptions, highlighting the level of support Netanyahu received from Congressmen. With applause and standing ovations accounting for over one-fourth of the speech’s duration, the data provides a quantitative perspective on the dramatic reception of Netanyahu’s address and underscores the complexities of the Conservative-Zionist alliance against Palestinian rights.

Total Number of Applauses: 51

Total Number of Standing Ovations: 24

Total Duration of Speech: 40 minutes and 30 seconds

Total Duration of Applause and Standing Ovations: 13 minutes (or 32% of the speech)

On the other side, the widespread boycott of Netanyahu's address to Congress by Democratic lawmakers marks a watershed moment in U.S.-Israel relations. Approximately half of the Democratic members in both chambers chose to abstain from attending the speech, a significant increase from the 58 Democrats who boycotted Netanyahu's address in 2015. This marked shift in opposition signals a profound change in the political landscape, underscoring growing dissatisfaction with Netanyahu's policies and Israel's actions in Gaza.

The scale and scope of the boycott

1. Generational and ideological divide: The boycott underscored a generational and ideological schism within the Democratic Party, with younger and more progressive members more likely to openly criticize Israel's policies.
2. High Profile Absences: The boycott included prominent figures such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose absence sent a powerful message about the changing dynamics within the Democratic Party.
3. Progressive Jewish Lawmakers: Even among Jewish Democrats, who have traditionally been staunch supporters of Israel, there was visible disapproval. Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-Md) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) were seen reading a book critical of Netanyahu's rule during the speech, a subtle yet potent form of protest.
4. Shifting Public Opinion: The boycott reflects changing sentiments among the Democratic voter base, where support for Palestinian rights and criticism of Israeli military actions have gained traction, particularly among younger voters.
5. Symbolic Protests: Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan), the only Palestinian-American in Congress, attended wearing a keffiyeh and holding a sign that read “guilty of genocide” and “war criminal,” highlighting the growing vocal criticism of Israel's actions within the Democratic ranks.

Implications of the Boycott

1. Debates Over Funding: The boycott may intensify debates over U.S. military aid to Israel, with increasing numbers of lawmakers questioning the nature and extent of this support.
2. Diplomatic Ripple Effects: The clear division in Congress could weaken the U.S.'s negotiating position in the region and embolden critics of Israel internationally.
3. Erosion of Bipartisan Support: The boycott challenges the long-standing bipartisan consensus on unwavering support for Israel, potentially reshaping future U.S. policy in the Middle East.
4. Future of Democratic Party Foreign Policy: This moment could mark a turning point in how the Democratic Party approaches foreign policy, particularly regarding the Middle East, with potential long-term consequences for U.S. global engagement.
5. Pressure on the Biden Administration: The visible split within the Democratic Party puts pressure on President Biden to recalibrate his approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, balancing traditional alliance commitments with growing calls for a more balanced stance.

The Democratic boycott of Netanyahu's speech is more than a symbolic gesture; it represents a seismic shift in the political tectonics underpinning U.S.-Israel relations. As the aftershocks of this event continue to reverberate, they may well reshape the landscape of American foreign policy for years to come. The challenge now lies in navigating this new terrain while maintaining stability in a volatile region and addressing the humanitarian crisis at the heart of the conflict. The implications of this moment will likely reverberate through the corridors of power, shaping the discourse and decisions on U.S.-Middle East policy in the foreseeable future.

Finally, as a Lebanese scholar in American Studies, I urge the members of Congress to take a moment to view the distressing footage of the daily tragedies unfolding in Gaza and the West Bank. The overwhelming enthusiasm and applause during Netanyahu's address should be tempered with a deeper consideration of the human suffering and violence that continues to impact countless lives in this region.

From Beirut, Prof. Habib Al Badawi