​The reaction was both peremptory and predictable:  Critics of Israeli and U.S. policies firmly snapped back against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s declaration that the U.S. no longer views Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal.
 
“The European Union’s position on Israeli settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territory is clear and remains unchanged,” European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said.  “All settlement activity is illegal under international law and it erodes the viability of the two-state solution and the prospects for a lasting peace, as reaffirmed by U.N. Security Council resolution 2334.”
 
“Another blatantly ideological attempt by the Trump administration to distract from its failures in the region,” tweeted Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a leading Presidential candidate.  “Not only do these settlements violate international law — they make peace harder to achieve.”
 
“Egypt is committed to the resolutions of international legitimacy on the status of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, being illegal and inconsistent with the international law,” the Egyptian Foreign Ministry declared.
 
One hundred and seven House Democrats wrote a letter to Pompeo to express their “strong disagreement with the State Department’s decision to reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank by repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are ‘inconsistent with international law.’”
 
In many cases, critics of the shift in U.S. policy cited their support for a two-state solution as an alternative to the State Department’s new position.  “As President, I will reverse this policy and pursue a two-state solution,” Warren said, while the German Foreign Office intoned, “The construction of settlements is in the federal government’s opinion illegal, undermines the peace process, and complicates talks on a two-state solution.”
 
What is the basis for presuming that Israeli settlements in some parts of the West Bank are antithetical to the peace process?  It would seem that the stigmatization of the word “settlement” has much to do with this position, as “settlements” have come to be associated with dark notions of colonial occupation, perhaps even racism.
 
But Israeli communities in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem are not illegal, as Secretary Pompeo has affirmed.  According to Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, the U.N. cannot transfer any part of the former Mandate for Palestine, which was dedicated at the 1920 San Remo Peace Conference for the creation of a future Jewish state.  Furthermore, Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and the Oslo agreement’s Declaration of Principles established that a land for peace deal must be based on direct negotiation between the parties – one that would determine territorial boundaries that might not strictly adhere to the 1967 lines.
 
The Ottoman Empire, which governed Palestine, dissolved after World War I.  Since a Palestinian state has never existed and the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem ended with the Six Day War, the status of those territories is clearly disputed until negotiations have resolved outstanding questions about sovereignty.
 
But critics of the Pompeo announcement seemingly would prefer to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations.  By declaring Israeli settlements illegal, these voices are stigmatizing any Israeli presence in disputed territories as somehow acquired through evil or at least improper means, as opposed to through a defensive war.  This sinister characterization of Israel’s predicament, which would forever deem Israeli settlements illegitimate, underlies the suspect claim that the State Department’s new position is at odds with the two-state solution.
 
This argument does not hold up, though.  Serious negotiations must take place in the realm of fact, not ideological fantasy.  Israel has a credible legal and historical claim for inhabiting at least part of the territories.
 
Furthermore, the primary obstacle to Middle East peace is widespread rejection of Israel’s right to exist.  When Israel’s critics accept the obvious reality that some settlements will remain in place in the wake of a final peace agreement and that those communities are not the main roadblock to peace, a two-state solution will become more likely, not less.
 
The rhetorical war on Israeli settlements has fueled anti-Semitic incidents and anti-Israel boycotts for years.  Tragically, it has also become a major impediment to peace.

On Sunday, Mauricio Macri failed to win re-election in Argentina’s presidential elections. Opposition leader Alberto Fernández, who was joined by former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner as his running mate, won with 48 percent of the votes (against 40 percent for Macri).
 
The poor state of the economy was a decisive factor for Fernández's victory, but Macri obtained more votes than expected, which shows that, for an important sector of the population, the economy is not the most important factor (or the only one) when deciding how to vote. Institutional quality, the fight against corruption and drug trafficking, and a foreign policy that seeks to integrate Argentina into the world (and to distance it from the Latin American dictatorships of the extreme left) were some of the issues important to those who supported Macri.
 
While Macri lost the election, the large number of votes he obtained clearly maded him emerge from this election as the leader of a [strong] opposition. This will force the Fernández government to govern with caution, since it will not have the necessary majorities in Congress to approve its projects without negotiating with the opposition (unlike what happened during Cristina Kirchner's government).
 
Naturally, the election has implications with regard to Argentina's relationship with the rest of the world. Fernandez will surely have a softer stance than his predecessor with respect to Venezuela (in fact, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was one of the leaders who most fervently celebrated Fernández's triumph, as did Bolivia’s President Evo Morales).
 
On the contrary, relations with Brazil (Argentina's first trading partner) could considerably deteriorate, given the notorious ideological differences between President Jair Bolsonaro and Fernández. And the fate of the historic agreement recently signed between Mercosur (the economic bloc formed by Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay) and the European Union is a question mark, since Fernández expressed on several ocassions his opposition to it.
 
Argentina's relations with the United States could also suffer considerable deterioration, since “Kirchnerism” has traditionally been hostile to American policies and interests.
 
With regard to relations with the Jewish community and the State of Israel, these were very tense during the last years of Cristina Kirchner's government, particularly because of the pact that her government decided to sign in 2013 with the Iranian regime to “jointly investigate” the AMIA attack, and the “mysterious" murder of prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who was found dead in his apartment, a bullet to the head, a few days after denouncing the signing of that agreement. This is why an important part of the local Jewish community is concerned about this new political scenario.
 
It is still not clear how the new government will function, how much real power Cristina Kirchner will have in it, and what will be the profile that Alberto Fernández decides to have. We will have to wait until Dec. 10, when the new president takes office, to start answering these questions. ​

Sometimes it’s hard to believe that the first primary/caucus for the Democratic nomination for president is still five months away. Politicos around the country have watched the candidates at debates, state fairs and on cable news. It’s not even Halloween and it can feel like we are in the bottom of the ninth inning of the 2020 election cycle, when in reality it’s probably the first inning.  How many of us have heard the pundits give their opinion on the race, only to hear someone else give the exact opposite opinion! While it’s impossible to know who will win the Democratic primary, examining previous voting trends provides clues as to which type of candidates might fare better come next year.  

As I mentioned in my previous blog “Seniors and Voter Participation,” older Americans can always be counted on to vote! For example, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 66 percent of seniors voted in the 2018 midterm election, compared to 36 percent of young people.  However, voter participation amongst younger voters jumped 79 percent compared to the previous 2014 midterm election, (U.S. Census Bureau). In addition, in the previous two presidential elections voter participation hovered around 70 percent for seniors (U.S. Census Bureau) and 46 percent (U.S. Census Bureau) for young people. Clearly, older Americans are a more reliable voting block than younger voters. Still, young people have become more politically engaged.

Furthermore, what drives young and older voters to the polls to elect a Democrat presidential nominee? According to Yougov/HuffPost and Gallup polls, a person’s age can be an important factor in determining what traits they look for in a presidential nominee.  For example, older voters are more likely to care about electability, while young voters want their party’s nominee to more closely share their ideological views.   

State senator Dick Harpootlian from South Carolina told the Atlantic, “I think older voters would tend to be more pragmatic, and by that I mean simply the assessment going on is, What’s the goal of this election? The vast majority of Democrats, I think, are pragmatic about that. Who is our best choice to go toe to toe with Donald Trump in 2020?.”  Conversely, Lauren Camera in US News and World Report wrote about young people, “They aren't party-ticket voters, they aren't impressed by electability, and candidates can't win their support by crafting specific policies on issues that matter to them. They respond instead to candidates they think share their values and vision for how the country should work and who it should work for…”
​
Who is more likely to vote in the 2020 Democratic primaries? Based on previous elections, I think it’s fair to say seniors will make up a good percentage of the primary voting electorate.  How many young people vote remains to be seen. Young people are voting at higher rates, but will they vote in enough numbers to swing the race for one candidate?  Voter turnout is generally lower in primaries compared to general elections.  However, given how polarizing politics has become, it’s certainly possible that voter turnout throughout 2020 could hit record highs. At this point the only thing about the Democratic primaries I know for sure is that I am not sure who is going to be the party’s nominee. 

Capitol Hill has been relatively quiet recently because members of Congress are back home pounding the pavement stumping for votes. With election day only a few weeks away, now is a great time for me to blog about the important role older Americans will play in the upcoming election. With a rapidly expanding senior population, politicians across the country will have to court seniors if they hope to be victorious. Consequently, older adults are in a great position to make elected officials take notice of the issues important to them, whether that’s Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Social Security or affordable housing.

First, seniors are in an advantageous position to be heard because they are one of the biggest voting blocks in the country. According to the United States Census Bureau, 70 percent of seniors (65+) turned out to vote in the 2016 presidential election, and in a recently conducted poll, 74 percent of seniors say they plan to vote in the upcoming midterm elections. As statistics demonstrate, seniors keep showing up at the polls in large percentages, and the number of older Americans keeps rising. This translates to one important point; our leaders running for political office should be paying attention to the issues important to a good percentage of the electorate: A demographic group which continuously grows!

So why are the 2018 midterm elections so important for seniors? During the past two years our elected representatives in Washington D.C. have debated legislation with major implications for older adults. For example, in 2017 Congress and the administration put forth serious proposals that would have negatively impacted older Americans. These include repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, cutting affordable housing and the enactment of tax reform legislation. Fortunately, with the exception of the tax reform legislation, these bills never became law. On a positive note, the 2018 government funding bill included more than $100 million dollars for the creation of additional low-income seniors housing. These policies play a critical role in the daily lives of older Americans, and illustrate why seniors’ activism is so important.   

One state where seniors can definitely make their voices heard is in Florida, home to about 4 million seniors and the site of a hotly contested Senate race. A state whose population is 20 percent seniors is in a great position to demand that candidates running for public office protect the needs of older Americans. In the 2014 Florida midterm elections voters 50 and over accounted for a whopping 67 percent of ballots cast. Furthermore, a recently conducted poll of Florida residents ages 50 and over revealed that 82 percent of respondents reported Social Security as a very important issue, coupled with 74 percent for Medicare. Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer said, “Candidates who ignore the issues that matter to voters age 50 and up do so at their own peril,” and “Older voters were decisive in the last two elections, and they will likely be decisive this year as well.”

Older Americans should take the time to learn about the positions of candidates running for office.  Go to town hall meetings where candidates take questions from constituents. Ask the candidate if they are going to cut financial resources from important senior programs. Remind elected officials that your contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund were not intended to pay for other government programs.

When Congress returns from election day, lawmakers might feel more emboldened to make big policy changes to senior programs that impact healthcare, nutrition, housing and income security.  
​
Now is the time when every American should make their voice heard, especially seniors!

​Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School.  Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.