America and Israel in the Post-War Era
America and Israel in the post-war era: The relations between the United States and Israel have largely been defined by Washington’s ongoing commitment to Israel’s security. This commitment began with President Harry Truman’s official recognition of the Jewish state in 1948. The United States did not become Israel’s main arms supplier until after the 1967 war.
At least until the Kennedy presidency, it was clear to everyone in the region that Washington did not pay much attention to Israel, despite Israel being in intense confrontation with the Arabs at that time, facing multiple wars with the Arabs and ongoing struggles with the Palestinians internally, which severely endangered its security. Regardless of regional conditions, from the start of Tel Aviv’s secret nuclear weapons program in the early 1960s to the construction of illegal settlements in the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, Washington began sending more weapons and money to Israel.
In total, Washington has provided $300 billion in aid to Israel over this period, the most assistance the United States has offered to any foreign ally. This aid has given Israel a qualitative military advantage and compelled Washington to maintain Tel Aviv’s capability to counter any credible conventional military threat from any individual country or potential coalition of states or non-state actors.
Despite the vast scope of this aid, Israeli leaders often defy the demands of U.S. presidents and policies, creating issues in the balance of relations between Tel Aviv and Washington. For instance, former U.S. President Bill Clinton once implicitly asked after a meeting with former and current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ‘Who is the damn superpower in the Middle East?’ Recently, Netanyahu’s cabinet has repeatedly rejected U.S. President Joe Biden’s requests to agree to ceasefire terms in Gaza.
Netanyahu prides himself on his ability to resist or deceive Washington in a way that advances his goals, once stating, ‘I know America well. America is such that you can go your own way and bring America along with you. America won’t stop us.’ After a full year since the war in Gaza, Israel has used the continuous flow of American weapons to retaliate against the October 7 attack by Hamas. To date, over 41,000 Palestinians in Gaza, mostly civilians, have been killed.
At least 90% of Gaza’s 2.2 million population has been displaced, and the vast majority of Gaza’s buildings and infrastructure have been destroyed. With Israel’s attack on southern Lebanon and the nightmarish scenario of a potential regional war with Iran, it seems that U.S.-Israel relations have reached a critical juncture. The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft has asked a group of researchers, journalists, and former diplomats whether, for the first time in decades, there is a possibility of a real change in the quality of U.S.-Israel relations. In other words, has the past year’s war permanently changed the U.S.-Israel relationship? If so, how? If not, why?
Jeff Aronson of the Middle East Institute states that U.S.-Israel relations are based on fundamental understandings established after the June 1967 war, whereby the United States committed to maintaining Israel’s conventional military superiority against a combination of regional adversaries. In return, Israel committed to a policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear arsenal.
Especially in the past year, the Biden administration has remained committed to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge, a commitment enshrined in U.S. law. However, Washington has unprecedented concerns about Israel’s misuse of U.S.-provided weapons. The United States insists that its support for Israel remains ironclad, with Joe Biden explicitly stating, ‘Make no mistake, the United States fully supports Israel.’
Nevertheless, the unprecedented deployment of U.S. forces to defend against Iranian missile attacks on Israel undermines the longstanding understanding of strategic cooperation between the United States and Israel, prompting the United States to declare that Israel, given its armaments, is capable of defending itself. However, from now on, the consequences of Israel’s critical dependency on direct U.S. military involvement in the Middle East need to be more carefully considered.
Andy Bacevich, co-founder of the Quincy Institute and professor at Boston University, asserts that as long as Joe Biden is in the White House, no real change in U.S.-Israel relations will occur. What has changed over the past year is the American public’s attitude toward Israel. The right to self-defense, which Israel constantly invokes, cannot provide sufficient moral justification for the brutal punishment inflicted on the Palestinian people. Many Americans have become accustomed to viewing the Arab-Israeli conflict as a contest between an innocent party and a guilty one. The events in Gaza and Lebanon have destroyed this formula once and for all.
Daniel Bessner, a professor at the University of Washington, notes that it is still too early to say whether Israel’s attack on Gaza has changed U.S.-Israel relations. On one hand, there is unprecedented criticism from young Americans toward Israel, and the campaign to end the commitment to aid Israel in several key U.S. states may seriously question America’s unconditional support for Israel.
On the other hand, the United States is a society whose most important leaders became highly politicized during a period when Israel’s existence was considered a gift to the Jews of the world after the Holocaust. Therefore, criticism of Israel’s existence and behavior is perceived as anti-Semitism. As long as the current generation of American political leaders continues to view the idea of anti-Semitism as a justification for supporting Israel, nothing in U.S.-Israel relations will truly change, and this change is not something that can be observed in the near future.
Dan Petris, a defense analyst, asserts that it is clear that the past year’s war has not changed anything in U.S.-Israel relations. American officials may speak more openly about their opposition to Israeli policies and be more willing to voice objections to their Israeli counterparts, but U.S. policy does not align with its verbal positions on Israel. The United States continues to effectively empower Israel to escalate tensions, even when Washington calls for de-escalation in the region.
The United States continues to unconditionally sell munitions and offensive weapons to Israel while pleading with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to sign a ceasefire agreement in Gaza and establish peace in Lebanon. Even when Israel, as the smaller partner, pursues highly risky strategies that could ultimately harm American forces in the Middle East, Washington remains practically indifferent. The United States is not incapable of reforming relations but rather unwilling to do so.
Robert Hunter, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, states that America will continue to strongly support Israel’s security, as this is deeply embedded in the U.S. political culture. Furthermore, Israel’s view of the Middle East continues to dominate prevailing narratives in American society, the policies of most think tanks, and mainstream media. This is why Israel succeeded in undermining the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran without facing significant obstacles in Washington and thwarted America’s efforts to de-escalate tensions with Tehran.
Joe Biden will continue to fully support Israel and, in practice, support Israel’s military actions in Gaza and Lebanon. However, the human toll of today’s multifaceted conflict has created issues regarding the conditions of U.S. support for Israel’s actions. Initial support for Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack has slightly diminished. Parts of the American youth community today no longer agree with giving Israel a blank check. U.S. domestic policy will follow its course, and this transformation will shape America’s regional policies.
Shireen Hunter, former diplomat and professor at Georgetown University, states that after Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, the Gaza war has caused serious tension in Israel’s relations with the United States. Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of Palestinians, the high number of civilian casualties, massive destruction, and Washington’s inability to end the war are the main reasons for these tensions. With Israel’s recent attacks, turning minor conflicts between Israel and Hezbollah into a larger conflict due to Israel’s recent attacks and the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has increased the risk of direct Iranian military involvement.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the foundations of U.S.-Israel relations will change, at least not anytime soon. The reason is that no country, especially no major Arab country, has been willing to risk hostility with the United States by helping the Palestinians. In summary, the United States has not paid any political or other costs for its unwavering support of Israel in its relations with Arab countries and other nations.
Daniel Levy, a Middle East analyst, notes that U.S. support for Israel over the past year, regardless of Israel’s illegal actions in Gaza and elsewhere, is more indicative of the continuity of this relationship than a change in it. This relationship is based on firm foundations such as arms supplies, political and diplomatic support, and alignment and repetition of Israeli narratives. For Washington, it does not matter whether Israeli narratives are believable or extreme. However, with the reconfiguration of the surrounding environment in U.S.-Israel relations, the consequences of this type of relationship have taken on different forms.
Trump’s plan to advance Israel’s regional hegemony through the normalization of relations between Arabs and Israel, marginalizing Palestinian rights, and accepting the apartheid and displacement project pursued by Biden has faced serious problems today. Even Arab countries can no longer easily move forward within this framework because Israel insists on angering world public opinion more each day. Nevertheless, it should be expected that America’s willingness to advance this plan will decrease.
More interesting is Israel’s dependence on the United States, especially when this dependence leads to the geopolitical weakening of America more than ever. As the Biden administration frantically covers up Israel’s criminal actions, the costs imposed on the United States in political, legal credibility, and other arenas increase exponentially.
Rajan Menon, professor at New York and Columbia University, states that have U.S.-Israel relations permanently changed after Hamas’s attack on October 7? No. The reality is that the Biden administration has provided unparalleled diplomatic, economic, and military support for Israel’s extreme reaction. It has long been a given in U.S. policy that Israel should be unconditionally supported, not only during crises and wars but even when the Israeli government has continued to expand settlements in the West Bank in recent years.
In recent years, Israel has increased checkpoints in the West Bank, evicted Palestinians from their lands, and allowed Jewish settlers to attack Palestinians and even steal their livestock without being punished. The current U.S. administration has turned a blind eye to all of this, but the reality is that the previous U.S. administration did the same. It does not matter who is president in America; nothing has changed, and nothing will change. Even in the current toxic U.S. politics, bipartisan agreement in the corridors of power on one issue remains dominant: Israel must be supported clearly and forever.
Paul Pillar, former CIA officer and professor at Georgetown University, states that the main motivations for the special U.S.-Israel relationship are embedded in U.S. domestic politics and culture. If we are to look for signs of change in the relationship, we must pay attention to U.S. domestic politics and culture. Pro-Israel lobbies in America remain strong, neutralizing the influence of Israel’s past behaviors that contradicted U.S. strategic interests and will counter the anger towards Israel’s behavior last year. However, U.S. domestic politics regarding Israel is evolving.
In a growing partisan split, the Republican Party’s automatic support for Israel has been accompanied by Israel’s shift toward the far right. Increasing opposition to Israel within the Democratic Party could lead Kamala Harris, if she wins the U.S. election, to adjust U.S.-Israel relations since she no longer considers herself a Zionist like Biden. However, a second term for Trump would likely give the Israeli government almost anything it wants, just like the first term.
Anel Shlein, analyst at the Quincy Institute, states that it appears that the highest-ranking members of Joe Biden’s foreign policy team remain committed to the full support of the Israeli government, just as on October 7. Despite Israel repeatedly humiliating Biden, this support remains intact. The United States continues to support Israel by overlooking any red lines the president tried to establish. Whenever Israel crossed a red line, Biden’s response was only to send more weapons and support. It seems that no matter what Israel does, the U.S. government will continue to support Israel’s war machine.
Even if Israel drags America into a widespread war and eliminates the Democrats’ chances of winning the elections, the broader relationship between the two sides has changed significantly. U.S. support for Israel is no longer a bipartisan issue. The Israel lobby has been forced to spend millions of dollars on two primary House races to prevent black candidates who criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza and were able to participate in the primaries from entering the House. This has led many Americans to question the role of the Israel lobby in U.S. domestic politics and ask whether such influence is beneficial to America. The new generation of American voters has shown that they do not support sending billions of dollars of American taxpayers’ money to Israel, which has caused a population to suffer from famine and displacement.
Steve Simon, analyst at the Quincy Institute and professor at Dartmouth College, states that the past year may have accelerated an ongoing trend and limited Israel’s support base in America. Israel will maintain strong Republican support while Democratic support will decrease but not disappear, especially when Israel is attacked. Bipartisan support for U.S.-Israel relations has been damaged by the actions of the Likud and Republican parties.
From the Likud party’s perspective, the Republican Party is better, and Republicans can gain political benefits from using the Israel support card to defeat Democrats. Using this card is risky for Israel, but the right-wing in Israel, despite Trump’s inclination toward anti-Semites, remains eager to strengthen ties with Republicans. The Israeli right might be willing to trade the security of American Jews for full control of the West Bank. Netanyahu thinks that liberal American Jews will soon disappear, so he may consider this risky deal acceptable.
Barbara Slavin, analyst at the Stimson Center and professor at George Washington University, states that she wishes she could say that the past year’s war has changed U.S.-Israel relations, but she fears that the United States is now even more involved in defending Israel. Without U.S. arms shipments and intelligence, Israel could not pursue its retaliatory war against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran with such impunity, killing tens of thousands of civilians and turning Gaza into rubble. There have been times when Washington could have stopped regional escalation.
Like the days after the exchange of fire between Iran and Israel in April, but it seems that this ability has diminished as we are on the brink of broader tension involving American forces, Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Yemenis, and Iranians, with no prospect of a ceasefire or the return of Israeli hostages in sight.
Hadar Susskind, analyst at Americans for Peace Now, states that the special relationship between the United States and Israel has not disappeared, but let me say that it will not be the same as before. The way debate and discussion about Israel and Palestine in Congress has changed over the past year compared to 25 years ago. For the first time, several members of Congress from both the House and Senate have called for conditional or ending aid to Israel.
When Netanyahu spoke in Congress, half of the Democratic Party members refused to attend the session, and while Biden largely maintains his historical views on Israel, the next generations of American leaders, as Biden often mentions, do not know Golda Meir. They know Benjamin Netanyahu and do not like him. If Israel wants to maintain the special relationship with the United States, it must do so based on merit, and we will have to see what happens.
Sarah Leah Whitson, analyst at the Democracy in the Arab World Institute, states that a year of Israeli crimes in Gaza has permanently changed the American public’s perception. They not only view Israel as an abusive and apartheid state but also see Palestinians as a victimized and subjugated population, to the point where the majority of Americans now oppose military aid to Israel.
However, the U.S. government’s support for Israel remains unconditional despite the enormous costs to America’s global standing. The U.S. government has provided unprecedented military and political support for the Gaza war to Israel and is now dangerously continuing to support Israel’s military actions in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. This has resulted in a glaring mismatch between U.S. policies toward Israel and public sentiment, as well as the negative role of pro-Israel organizations, including their influence on government officials to promote dangerous policies.
James Zogby, analyst at the Arab American Institute, states that Israel’s year-long attack on Gaza has not yet permanently changed U.S.-Israel relations. However, the political outlook on these relations has changed, and a large portion of young and non-white voters are moving toward supporting Palestine. As a result, pro-Israel groups and their supporters in Congress have attempted to silence this opposition and prevent the growth of pro-Palestinian sentiments.
State laws have been enacted to punish individuals or groups that endorse sanctions against Israel, and they have expanded the definition of anti-Semitism to include legitimate criticism of Israel. Pressure has been applied by Republicans and financial donors to impose restrictions on critical speech on university campuses, and over $100 million has been spent targeting congressional campaigns in support of Palestinians. Given the reactions to Israel’s appalling behavior and the new McCarthy-like repressive actions against Palestinian supporters, deeper polarized debates about U.S.-Israel relations are likely to emerge in the future.
