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’s intense confrontation with the Arabs at that time. Israel faced multiple wars with the Arabs and ongoing internal struggles with the Palestinians, severely threatening 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.
Overall, Washington has provided $300 billion in aid to Israel over this period, the most significant aid the United States has offered to any foreign ally. This aid gave Israel a qualitative military advantage and compelled Washington to maintain Tel Aviv’s ability to defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual country or potential coalition of states or non-state actors.
Despite the vast extent of this aid, Israeli leaders have often defied the demands of U.S. presidents and policies, creating issues in balancing relations between Tel Aviv and Washington. For instance, former U.S. President Bill Clinton once implicitly questioned, after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who the ‘damn superpower’ in the Middle East was. Recently, Netanyahu’s cabinet repeatedly rejected U.S. President Joe Biden’s requests to agree to ceasefire terms in Gaza.
Netanyahu boasts about his ability to resist or manipulate Washington to advance his goals, once saying, ‘I know America well. America is such that you can go your own way and bring America along with you. America doesn’t stop us.’ A full year after 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 the possibility of a real change in the quality of U.S.-Israel relations. In other words, has the past year’s war changed the U.S.-Israel relationship forever? If so, how? If not, why?
Jeff Aronson of the Middle East Institute states that U.S.-Israel relations are based on the fundamental understandings achieved after the June 1967 war. According to this agreement, the United States committed to maintaining Israel’s conventional military superiority against a combination of regional enemies. In return, Israel committed to maintaining a policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear arsenal.
Particularly in the past year, the Biden administration has remained faithful to its commitment to preserving Israel’s qualitative military superiority, 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.’
However, 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. It leads the United States to declare that Israel, given the weapons it possesses, is capable of defending itself. But from now on, the consequences of Israel’s vital dependence on directly involving Washington militarily in the Middle East should be given more consideration.
Andy Bacevich, co-founder of the Quincy Institute and professor at Boston University, notes 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 raises, cannot provide sufficient moral justification for the brutal punishment inflicted on the Palestinian people. Many Americans had become accustomed to viewing the Arab-Israeli conflict as a competition between an innocent party and a guilty one. The events in Gaza and Lebanon have shattered this formula once and for all.
Daniel Bessner, professor at the University of Washington, states that it is still too early to say whether Israel’s attack on Gaza has changed U.S.-Israel relations. On the one hand, there is unprecedented criticism from young Americans toward Israel, and the campaign to cancel the commitment to aid Israel in several key U.S. states may severely question America’s unconditional support for Israel.
On the other hand, the United States is a society where its most important leaders became highly politicized during a period when Israel’s existence was considered a gift to the world’s Jews 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 consider 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, states that it is quite clear that the past year’s war has not changed anything in U.S.-Israel relations. American officials may speak more openly about their objections to Israeli policies and be more willing to verbally protest to their Israeli counterparts, but the real U.S. policy does not match America’s verbal positions regarding 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 sell ammunition and offensive weapons to Israel unconditionally, while simultaneously pleading with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to sign a ceasefire agreement in Gaza and establish peace in Lebanon. Washington remains practically indifferent, even when Israel, as a smaller partner, pursues highly risky strategies that could ultimately harm American forces in the Middle East. The United States is not incapable of reforming relations; it simply lacks the will 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 U.S. political culture. Additionally, Israel’s view of the Middle East continues to dominate the prevailing narratives in American society, most think tanks, and mainstream media. This is why Israel succeeded in undermining the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran and thwarting U.S. efforts to reduce tensions with Tehran without facing serious obstacles in Washington.
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 raised questions about the conditions of U.S. support for Israel’s actions. The initial solidarity with Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attack has slightly waned. Parts of the American youth community today no longer agree with giving Israel a blank check. U.S. domestic politics will follow its own path, 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, the transformation of minor clashes between Israel and Hezbollah into a larger conflict due to Israel’s recent attacks and the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah increases the risk of direct Iranian military involvement.
Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the foundations of U.S.-Israel relations will change, at least not soon. The reason is that no country, especially no major Arab country, has been willing to risk enmity with the United States by helping the Palestinians. In short, the United States has paid no political or other costs for its unwavering support of Israel concerning its relations with Arab and other countries.
Daniel Levy, a Middle East analyst, states 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 its change. This relationship is based on solid foundations such as arms supplies, political and diplomatic support, and alignment and repetition of Israeli narratives. For Washington, it does not matter whether Israel’s 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 normalizing relations between Arabs and Israel, sidelining Palestinian rights, and accepting the apartheid and displacement project pursued by Biden as well has encountered serious problems today. Even Arab countries can no longer easily proceed within this framework, as Israel insists on angering and infuriating global public opinion more every day. Nevertheless, it should be expected that America’s willingness to advance this plan will decrease.
More interesting is Israel’s dependency on the United States, especially when this dependency leads to America’s geopolitical weakening more than ever before. As the Biden administration frantically covers up Israel’s criminal actions, the costs imposed on the United States in political, legal, and other arenas increase exponentially.
Rajan Menon, professor at New York University and Columbia, states that has the U.S.-Israel relationship 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 an axiom in U.S. policy that Israel must be unconditionally supported, not only during crises and wars but even when the Israeli government has continued to significantly 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 punishment. The current U.S. administration has turned a blind eye to all this, but the reality is that the previous U.S. administration did the same. It doesn’t matter who the U.S. president is; 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—that Israel should be supported forever and unequivocally—remains unchanged.
Paul Pillar, former CIA officer and 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 the U.S. remain strong, neutralizing the impact of Israel’s past behaviors that have been contrary to U.S. strategic interests, and they will counter the anger over Israel’s behavior last year as well. However, U.S. domestic policy regarding Israel is evolving.
In an increasing partisan split, the Republican Party’s automatic support for Israel has aligned with Israel’s shift to the far right. Increasing opposition to Israel within the Democratic Party could lead Kamala Harris, if she wins the U.S. elections, to adjust U.S.-Israel relations because she no longer considers herself a Zionist like Biden. But a second Trump presidency, like the first, would give almost anything the Israeli government wants.
Anel Shlein, analyst at the Quincy Institute, states that it seems the highest-ranking members of Joe Biden’s foreign policy team remain committed to full U.S. support for the Israeli government, despite Israel repeatedly humiliating Biden. This support remains intact. The United States continues to support Israel by ignoring 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 ruins the Democrats’ chances in the election, the broader relationship between the two sides has significantly changed. 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 from being able to run in the primaries from entering Congress. 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 for 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 face famine and displacement.
Steve Simon, analyst at the Quincy Institute and professor at Dartmouth College, states that last year may have accelerated a trend that was already underway, limiting Israel’s support base in America. Israel will maintain strong Republican support while Democratic support will decline but not disappear, especially when Israel is under attack. 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 the card of supporting Israel and use it to defeat the Democrats. The Republicans’ use of 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 the Republicans. Perhaps the Israeli right is willing to trade the security of American Jews for full control of the West Bank. Netanyahu thinks American liberal 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 last year’s war 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 because we are on the brink of a broader tension that will involve 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, states that the special relationship between the United States and Israel has not disappeared, but let me say it will not be the same as before. The way debates and discussions in Congress about Israel and Palestine have 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 cuts or an end to aid to Israel.
When Netanyahu spoke in Congress, half of the Democratic Party members refused to attend the session. While Biden has largely retained 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 shall see what happens.
Sarah Leah Whitson, analyst at the Democracy for the Arab World Institute, states that a year of Israeli crimes in Gaza has permanently changed the American public’s perception. They not only see Israel as an abusive and apartheid state but also view Palestinians as a victimized and subjugated population, with the majority of Americans now opposing military aid to Israel.
However, the U.S. government’s support for Israel, despite the enormous costs to America’s global standing, remains unconditional. The U.S. has provided Israel with unprecedented military and political support for the Gaza war and now continues to dangerously support Israel’s military actions in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. This has led to a glaring mismatch between U.S. policies toward Israel and public sentiment, and the negative role of pro-Israel organizations, including their influence over government officials to promote dangerous policies, has become evident.
James Zogby, analyst at the Arab American Institute, states that Israel’s attack on Gaza a year ago 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 tried to silence these objections and prevent the growth of pro-Palestinian sentiments.
State laws have been enacted to penalize individuals or groups that endorse boycotts of 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 repressive and McCarthyist actions against Palestinian supporters, deeper polarized debates about U.S.-Israel relations will likely emerge in the future.