Democrats eye power in Washington – and a crackdown on Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria

The battle over Israel could look dramatically different on Capitol Hill next year if Democrats win control of the House – and Judea and Samaria could become ground zero.

House Democratic leaders are signaling that if they take the majority in November, legislation targeting violence by some Israeli settlers in the area commonly referred to as the West Bank, but in fact the biblical homeland known as Judea and Samaria, could become a priority when the new Congress convenes in January.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who would be positioned to become speaker if Democrats capture the chamber, has publicly backed the West Bank Violence Prevention Act, legislation sponsored by Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York.

Nadler is a long-time progressive Jew. The bill would authorize sanctions and U.S. entry restrictions against foreign nationals found responsible for violent acts in the West Bank.

“The situation in the West Bank is out of control,” Jeffries told The Hill, adding that the problem “cannot continue.” More importantly from a legislative standpoint, Jeffries suggested the bill deserves action if Democrats take power, saying it has “broad support across the House Democratic Caucus family” and should be considered as a way to respond to settler violence.

None of this should come as any surprise, considering the Democrat Party has shifted away from support for Israel. Jeffries’ top deputies, Democratic Reps. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Pete Aguilar of California also support the legislation.

In fact, 174 House Democrats now back the measure, including longtime supporters of Israel such as Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer and Florida Rep. Lois Frankel.

The House proposal is primarily focused on violence and destabilizing activity in Judea and Samaria rather than settlement construction itself. But over in the Senate, Democrats are taking another step.

Senators Chris Coons of Delaware, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Ruben Gallego of Arizona have already introduced legislation aimed directly at Israel’s controversial E1 settlement project.

The bill would require sanctions against foreign individuals, companies and other entities involved in constructing or financing Israeli settlements in the E1 area, including companies that submit bids for construction projects. It would also target those who organize, finance or facilitate the movement of Israeli civilians into those settlements. Nineteen Democratic senators are now backing the legislation.

This isn’t simply coming from the progressive wing of the Democrat Party. Coons, for example, has long been viewed as a strong supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Not so much anymore. Times have changed.

“The United States must use all diplomatic and economic tools available to counter rapid settlement expansion and extremist settler violence in the West Bank,” Coons said in announcing the legislation.

The E1 project involves plans for 3,401 housing units on land east of Jerusalem near Ma’ale Adumim. Critics argue that construction there would divide the northern and southern portions of the West Bank and make a geographically contiguous Palestinian state much more difficult.

But Israeli officials supporting the project see things quite differently. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has openly argued that the development would help prevent the creation of a Palestinian state. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also reiterated his opposition to Palestinian statehood.

We should note that critics of Israel often portray settler violence as if it represents Israeli society or government policy as a whole. It doesn’t. The overwhelming majority of Israelis living in Judea and Samaria are not attacking Palestinians. Still, the limited violence is real.

So what happens if Democrats win the House?

If Republicans maintain control of the Senate, probably not much will change legislatively. A Speaker Jeffries could bring the Nadler bill and other measures involving Israel and the West Bank to the House floor. Democrats could hold hearings, conduct oversight and force Republicans to take politically sensitive votes. They could even pass some of those bills.

But those measures would then head across the Capitol to a Republican-controlled Senate, where GOP leaders could simply decline to bring them up. Republicans currently hold a 53-47 advantage when the two independents who caucus with Democrats are counted on the Democrats' side.

In other words, Democrat control of the House alone would create plenty of noise and potentially plenty of headaches for Netanyahu’s government and pro-Israel supporters but it would be extremely difficult to turn that agenda into U.S. law.

However, if Democrats win both the House and Senate, the equation changes. House Democrats could pass legislation targeting West Bank violence or settlements, while a Democratic Senate majority could give measures like the E1 sanctions bill committee hearings and potential floor votes.

There would still be a major obstacle: the Senate filibuster. Most legislation requires 60 votes to advance, meaning a narrow Democrat majority by itself would not guarantee passage. And even if a bill made it through both chambers, one very large obstacle would still sit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue: President Donald Trump.

A presidential veto would be highly likely. Overriding that veto would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers – an extremely, and most likely unattainable, bar.

But that doesn’t mean the congressional fight would be meaningless. Control of Congress determines what legislation gets hearings, what gets investigated, what reaches the floor and which issues receive days or weeks of national attention.

A Democrat-led Congress could repeatedly put Netanyahu’s West Bank policies under the Capitol Hill microscope, even when lawmakers knew a Trump veto awaited them. Politically, that may be the bigger story.

The last thing Israel and its supporters in America need is more bad press. It could and most likely will embolden the anti-Israel crowd and make antisemitism even more of a vexing problem.