Holding a Congressman at Gunpoint: Israeli Settlers Backed by the IDF

An old saying advises against “looking a gift-horse in the mouth.” Another says, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” As of mid-June, 2026, Israel had not received either memo, because the country’s military, the IDF backed up the position of Israeli settlers who had just illegally detained—technically “kidnapped”—Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) while he was on a trip in the West Bank. U.S. President Trump had recently told the media that without the United States, Israel would not exist. The lack of gratitude shown to the U.S. by making sure that a visiting Congressman was treated well during his visit was palpable.

“Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) said he was detained by Israeli settlers armed with U.S.-made rifles during a trop to the West Bank . . ., where residents [had been facing] frequent attacks.”[1] The Congressman was with a group that was “at a village that Israeli settlers had destroyed; they had destroyed the school, they had destroyed that village, and we were just looking at it,” he told reporters.[2] The destruction, being in the West Bank, violated international law, so the settlers and even the Israeli government had an interest in attempting to hide the atrocity from the group containing the Congressman. Irony inheres to the words used by Rep. Khanna to describe the settlers’ aggression: “An these hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road. And then they call the IDF and the IDF is on their side, not on the side of the Americans.”[3] The IDF, the Israeli military, even “continued our detention,” Khanna later said before adding, “They made a huge mistake.”[4] The lesson for the U.S. is perhaps:  be careful to whom you sell weapons; the possessors may use them against even members of your Congress.

At least the IDF was an official part of the Israeli government; the settlers were merely private individuals who were presumptuously taking matters into their own hands while being utterly unappreciative of everything that the U.S. had done for Israel even though it was decimating Gaza and its people. At least the Israelis were being consistent: wanton disrespect of Palestinians in the West Bank and an American elected representative. That the military sided with the settlers and thus against the Americans implicates the Israeli government as being an ungrateful recipient of American support. Perhaps all the money circulated to federal elected officials by AIPAC (the American Israeli Political Action Committee) was thought sufficient to allow for such a luxury; perhaps the indolence of the American people with respect to opposing Israel’s mass genocide in Gaza was thought sufficient to guard against any adverse reaction to a member of Congress being detained by means of American guns. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is said to have awakened a sleeping giant. By the time of Israel’s mass destruction and killing in Gaza, with additional sordid ventures into the West Bank and even Lebanon, the giant was back asleep and with it, its conscience, and, frankly, its self-respect.

---

1. Brianna Tucker, “Rep.Ro Khanna Detained by Israeli Settlers during West Bank Visit,” The Huffington Post, July 11, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

The U.S. Enabled Turkey to Invade Syria: Absent the U.N.

Turkey invaded Syria on October 9, 2019 “to flush Kurds allied with the US out of northeastern Syria.”[1] Strategically, Turkey wanted to distance the Kurds from Turkey so they could not aid Kurdish separatists in Turkey should the latter rise up in attempting to establish Kurdistan. U.S. President Don Trump, who had just cleared American troops from northeastern Syria, had advanced knowledge from Turkish President Recep Erdogan that he planned to invade the area once the American troops were out. A rare bipartisan unity in Congress criticized the removal of American troops and the president’s acquiescence on Turkey’s plan to attach the Kurds, an American ally—a plan that could possibly give ISIS a toehold in the region. Both the Congress and the president had their respective rationales, yet neither side looked past the apparent dichotomy to arrive at a solution consistent with the points made by both sides.

Backing up the arguments made by the bipartisan critics in Congress, “Pentagon and State Department officials had advised Trump against making the move, arguing a US presence is needed to counter ISIS and keep Iran and Russia, both influential inside Syria, in check.”[2] Rep. Ro Khanna asked why the president would not at least have asked for a concession from Turkey. That the U.S. was turning its back on “allies who [had] died fighting for a US cause” was also objectionable.[3] Certainly some erosion of trust could be expected. Help the Americans on one of their causes and the next administration may turn on you anyway. To put friends in harm’s way and disavow any responsibility that goes with having received help points to a deep character flaw. While less obvious than is the mentality in preemptively invading another state, the U.S. President’s treatment of the Kurds was also culpable (and the U.S. Government had also preemptively invaded another state—Iraq).

President Trump’s rationale stemmed from his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the long, senseless war that ensued. He pointed, moreover, to the eight trillion dollars spent by the U.S. and all the dead and wounded American soldiers “fighting and policing in the Middle East.”[4] He had campaigned on getting out of such long, senseless wars whose benefits to the U.S. do not justify the costs in lives and money. His solution in gradually pulling out American forces involved leaving a power-void that could be exploited or filled by adversaries. For example, ISIS could establish more of a presence in northeastern Syria under Turkish occupation. The Syrian Democratic Forces wrote that they were suspending military operations against ISIS in northern Syria following the “Turkish aggression.”[5]

I submit that both the concerns of the Congressional critics and President Trump could have been obviated had the U.S., a major financial contributor to the United Nations, sponsored a resolution in the Security Council for U.N. peacekeeping troops to replace the American forces in northeastern Syria. A contingent coalition could have been put together should Turkey have invaded anyway. American geopolitical interests would have favored a peace-keeping force over a force that could enable the spread of ISIS (like Turkey).

In general terms, the more the world organization of countries can step into troubled areas in peace-keeping roles, the less the world will have to rely on self-interested large countries, such as the U.S., to act as a global policeman. A conflict of interest exists in having one of the state-actors to be such a policeman because the temptation will be to put the state-actor’s own strategic interests above peace-keeping. I contend elsewhere that even if the state does not indulge such a temptation, the conflict-of-interest arrangement, which includes such temptation, is inherently unethical because of the existence of the temptation, given human nature.[6] In northeastern Syria, the U.S. was oriented to rooting out (and preventing) ISIS more than keeping the peace. Even if the official American objective had been peace-keeping, the U.S. would have been tempted to attack new ISIS outposts. Especially in political realism (but also in neorealism), to assume that a state would not act in its own strategic interests is naive. 

Had the U.S. pursued the U.N. option, the tension between the Congressional critics and the administration could have been avoided. This type of problem-resolution—a third way—is particularly beneficial in cases in which both sides to a dispute have good points. I suspect the human mind, whether from nature or nurture, goes to either-or dichotomies too readily. The back-and-forth in a debate is supposed to come to the better answer, but what if a third is even better?

---

[1] Nicole Gaouette, “Republican Anger at Trump Grows as Turkey Launches ‘Sickening’ Attack on US Allies,” CNN.com, October 9, 2019 (accessed same day).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Skip Worden, Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available at Amazon.