"It doesn't serve an American interest. It really doesn't really serve Israeli interests - it serves the interests of the political party that's getting the votes of the settlers on the West Bank"
About this Quote
Matthews is doing a classic cable-news pivot: take a policy dispute that’s usually framed as morality or security and recast it as retail politics. The blunt repetition - “It really doesn’t really” - sounds less like a polished thesis than a broadcaster thinking out loud, which is precisely the point. The verbal stumble performs authenticity. He’s not offering a white paper; he’s signaling a suspicion viewers already carry about Washington and Jerusalem alike: that lofty rhetoric often masks vote-counting.
The intent is triangulation. By saying it serves neither “an American interest” nor “Israeli interests,” he positions himself above the binary of pro- or anti-Israel and instead targets a third actor: the party machinery that benefits from a specific constituency. Naming “the settlers on the West Bank” does two things at once. It grounds the argument in a concrete political bloc, and it implies that settlement policy isn’t merely strategic but electorally engineered. The subtext is that what gets sold as national destiny may be a coalition-management problem.
Contextually, this line fits a post-Oslo, post-Second Intifada media landscape where settlement expansion became a shorthand for the conflict’s intractability and for U.S. diplomatic frustration. Matthews isn’t litigating history; he’s indicting incentives. It’s a journalist’s way of saying: follow the votes, not the slogans. The cynicism lands because it flatters the audience’s savvy while also making a moral claim without sounding moralistic: policies that harden occupation can be sustained by domestic political rewards even when they erode broader national goals.
The intent is triangulation. By saying it serves neither “an American interest” nor “Israeli interests,” he positions himself above the binary of pro- or anti-Israel and instead targets a third actor: the party machinery that benefits from a specific constituency. Naming “the settlers on the West Bank” does two things at once. It grounds the argument in a concrete political bloc, and it implies that settlement policy isn’t merely strategic but electorally engineered. The subtext is that what gets sold as national destiny may be a coalition-management problem.
Contextually, this line fits a post-Oslo, post-Second Intifada media landscape where settlement expansion became a shorthand for the conflict’s intractability and for U.S. diplomatic frustration. Matthews isn’t litigating history; he’s indicting incentives. It’s a journalist’s way of saying: follow the votes, not the slogans. The cynicism lands because it flatters the audience’s savvy while also making a moral claim without sounding moralistic: policies that harden occupation can be sustained by domestic political rewards even when they erode broader national goals.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by Chris
Add to List
