The juxtaposition of the American debacle in Afghanistan and the visit of a new Israeli prime minister might foreshadow more about the future of the US-Israel relationship than first meets the eye.
One must first appreciate just how significantly the American “war on terror” helped shape US-Israeli relations, especially by recalling Benjamin Netanyahu’s initial reaction to the attacks on September 11, 2001 to the NY Times:
Asked tonight what the attack meant for relations between the United States and Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister, replied, ”It’s very good.”
Then he edited himself: ”Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.”
He predicted that the attack would ”strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.”
September 11, 2001, which occurred during the second Palestinian intifada, ushered in the period of the American war on terror, one that significantly framed American foreign policy and, consequently, its relationship with Israel.
Understanding this dynamic, the Israelis fashioned much of their messaging to Washington in war-on-terror Manichean terms.
All of Israel’s adversaries—countries and leaders and movements alike, from Iran, Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and even to Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions activism—were painted with a broad brush of the evil of terrorism.
While this black-and-white approach might have been useful for speaking to an American engaged in a “crusade,” as then President George W. Bush put it, it often clashed with the complex and far more gray spectrum of American interests throughout the region.
The paradigm of the “war on terror,” much like that of the Cold War, put the United States and its allies on one side of a divide against its ideologically opposed enemies.
Everything flowed from this divide.
During the Cold War, Israel made the case that it was a like-minded ally to the United States, in a region of strategic importance during global competition with the Soviet Union.
Likewise, during the war on terror, Israel made the case that it was a like-minded ally to the United States in the battle against terrorism, in a region where its wars were centered.
But the period that followed the Cold War was more complicated, and as the United States began to view its interests in the region differently, its relationship with Israel began to evolve.
It is no coincidence that during this time of change, the United States pushed for a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
The meeting between Biden and Bennett came at yet another historic pivot point for US foreign policy.
The United States has been at war in Afghanistan for 20 years, an engagement that started in October 2001 as Washington’s response to the September 11 attacks.
Now this war has ended.
Like Iraq, the Afghanistan war has come to be seen as a mistake and a waste of lives and resources; indeed, Americans are now far less inclined to involve themselves in foreign wars.
Support for diplomatic approaches is greater than ever before, and about 35 percent of Americans perceive domestic extremism as a serious security threat today.
The United States is shifting away from a period of massive military presence in the Middle East—during which time Israel has continued to be a key security partner—and reorienting its posture in and toward the region, as it reviews the lessons of two decades of seemingly fruitless war.
The United States is shifting away from a period of massive military presence in the Middle East—during which time Israel has continued to be a key security partner—and reorienting its posture in and toward the region.
A Shift Back to Gray?
What does this moment of reckoning portend for the future of the US-Israel relationship?
The black and white era of the war on terror did not mean the United States and Israel did not have disagreements; rather, those disagreements were obscured precisely because of the security-related issues created by that war itself.
The extent to which the differences between Israel and the United States will give shape to the relationship will be a function of which of three different rough world views Washington follows in the future as it charts the new era of US foreign policy: human rights, realism, or white evangelical Christian identity politics
Human rights.Â
A foreign policy that indeed centers human rights, as both US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and President Biden have said they want to pursue, will put the United States and Israel on a more contentious course.
The latter’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank is increasingly seen as consolidating a system of apartheid against the Palestinians.
Realism. With this approach, the United States would weigh its bilateral relationships more directly through the prism of material interests.
If this is what guides the future of US foreign policy, Washington might occasionally disagree with Israel in some areas, particularly around its developing relationship with China or its role in the global arms market.
However, the United States is unlikely to implement major changes in the relationship.
White evangelical Christian identity politics. This is an approach that is closer to what took place during the Trump years.
The relationship with Israel is part of a framework that values ethnic nationalism, nativism, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment.
It is also underpinned by a domestic constituency that believes the relationship with Israel is part of a religious obligation.
The Biden Administration’s policy seems closest to the realist middle ground for now, even though it has paid lip service to the importance of human rights.
The Biden Administration’s policy seems closest to the realist middle ground for now, even though it has paid lip service to the importance of human rights.
It is not yet clear how much of that positioning is driven by principle and how much of it is a function of evolving circumstances outside the administration’s control.
The new Israeli government is still only a few months old and this most recent meeting, the first between Biden and the new Israeli prime minister, came amidst a moment of profound crisis for US foreign policy.
Despite this, Biden and Bennett seemed content to move forward with an understanding that little would change in Israel’s treatment of Palestinians; at the same time, Bennett would continue to conduct the US-Israel relationship differently than his predecessor who brought Democrats so much heartburn.
Prospects for Change
How long will things stay this way? While the precise answer may not be clear, there is a sense of which factors may influence US-Israel relations going forward.
First is the growing shift in public opinion, especially among a younger generation of Democrats, toward holding Israel to account for its denial of Palestinian rights.
Over time, that is likely to grow and continue to shape the Democratic Party’s position on the issue.
It may also be accelerated at unforeseen moments, like the escalation in May when Israel attacked Palestinians in Jerusalem and Gaza.
Second, and on the opposite side, is the possible return of a Trump—or Trump-like—administration that would usher in, once again, an American foreign policy guided by white evangelical Christian identity politics.
But such an approach, while paying short-term dividends for Israel, would likely galvanize and accelerate attitudes in the human rights camp.
The back-and-forth nature of American politics could mean several short-term shifts between one or more of these approaches in the years to come.
What is clear, however, is that moving on from the war-on-terror paradigm will reshape US-Israel relations and will make the seemingly middle-ground approach of the Biden Administration less tenable over time.
The United States will find it harder and harder to put off a fundamental choice: to side with Israel’s project of unending domination of the Palestinian people, or to hold Israel accountable for its continuing violations of Palestinian human rights.