Ever since the events of October 7th there have been clear differences between the US and Israel despite US official statements declaring their support for Israel to defend itself. Even before the events of October 7th, relations between the US and Israel were strained. Rather than singing from the same hymn sheet, the US and Israel were using the same book but were on decidedly different pages.
Exacerbated by the re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu, Zionism was left somewhat leaning, sharing secular liberal and democratic values, although in practical terms for jews in Israel only, with the US. It has now morphed into an ideology more akin to that which the liberal world order of the second world war sought to prevent. As Israeli society and its subsequent politics move further to the right, differences between the US and Israel gradually accumulate.
The US inherited Israel from a rapidly declining British empire, under whose mandate the indigenous Palestinian population was steadily being divested of its land and rights in preparation for the establishment of a Zionist state. The US was the first nation to recognise Israel just 11 minutes after its founding.
Differences between the Israelis and the US arise mainly due to the fundamentally dissimilar positions that each occupy on the world stage
Collective western guilt over the holocaust, Christian Zionism, and shared security concerns guarantee US support for Israel, nevertheless the relationship is by no means the Jewish conspiracy portrayed by the Alt-right. Despite considerable influence of organisations like AIPAC, core to the Israel-US relation is the safeguarding of strategic US interests in the Middle East and beyond. An affair in which the US and Israel have often differed.
Initially under President Truman, the US adopted a position of impartiality, refusing to send weapons to either side during the 1948 war. The possibility of significant instability in the Middle East and potential roads that it would give the USSR to penetrate the region, mitigated US support for Israel. During the Suez Crisis, Eisenhower even threatened to cut off all official and unofficial aid to Israel if it didn’t withdraw from the Sinai, which it had invaded in conjunction with the French and British following the nationalisation of the Suez Canal by president Nasser. The protection of the CIA’s greatest asset in the Middle East took precedence over its relationship with Israel.[1] In both cases US strategic interests’ dictated that unconditional support was not extended to Israel as doing so jeopardised US interests.
Successive US administrations, with the notable exception of Donald Trump, both Democratic and Republican, have sought to implement or at the very least agree on a credible pathway for a Palestinian state to evolve. To this end Biden has reiterated his support for the Two State solution.[2]
Differences between the Israelis and the US arise mainly due to the fundamentally dissimilar positions that each occupy on the world stage. Whilst Israel constitutes a regional player barely able to exist without the support and intervention of larger powers, its vision is limited to its immediate existence and direct neighbours.
The US on the other hand is a global power, with diverse interests that transcend both time and borders. With emerging threats competing for its attention and resources, a swift and decisive resolution to the Middle East’s most intractable conflict and a source of great instability is evermore desirable as more crucial theatres of operation demand attention.
For the US, Israel within its 1967 borders, providing a permanent foothold in a region of significance, for rapid and secure deployment when required, and Palestinian-administered demilitarised zone in the West bank and Gaza adequately maintains its security posture in the region and would suffice. Zionist aspirations of a ‘Greater Israel’ do not serve US interests, furthermore it destabilises US client regimes in the region and beyond.
For the zealots who are in fact in their ascendancy, Israel has no borders rather it has frontiers
From what is left of the rational voices in Israeli politics the calculus is wholly different, many understand, yet in no way acknowledge its precarious position. They realise it only exists at the behest of global powers, formerly the UK and now the US. Its existence is not established nor guaranteed by its own endeavours or its nuclear weapons; a mere rapidly diminishing western centric world power structure secures its temporary existence. Thus they aim to normalise their existence in the Middle East and become an integral part of the myriad of ethnicities populating the near east – peace in exchange for peace. For the Israeli right, inebriated by their own form of fascism, any compromise with the Palestinians or in fact any Arab regime is simply out of the question. For the zealots who are in fact in their ascendancy, Israel has no borders rather it has frontiers. They personify the US in its infancy which had the west to colonise. Israel’s right wing believes it has the right to its own Lebensraum as expansion into the Sinai and across the East Bank of the Jordan river is the birth right of the jewish nation.
To the casual observer the US approach to the current escalation may seem schizophrenic and haphazard but the apparent confusion in policy reflects the complexity of US-Israeli relations. When one examines this relationship, there is a distinct difference between the influence of elected and the non-elected on policy. Elected officials whilst formulating policy will give precedence to the opinions of the electorate and the undue influence of lobbyists and campaign contributors. Policy is often formulated for the next election with little thought beyond that. Unelected officials who inhabit the corridors of power in the Pentagon, State Department, CIA and various other state institutions, although not immune from the influence of external bodies, will give precedence to the interests of the state as a whole when formulating and implementing policy. Policy produced by such individuals and institutions is often more long-term and more accurately reflects the long-term strategic interests of the US.
Post 9/11 implicit criticism let alone any affirmative action against Israel is considered by most elected officials as a certain means divesting oneself of one’s position. Such was the public opinion in support of Israel, so Netanyahu receives a standing ovation in congress, even though privately, the majority of the US officials view the actions of Israel as detrimental to the interests of the US.[3] Unelected officials are however unhampered by such considerations and champion the private rather than public thoughts of officials.
So we find a dichotomy between the public and the private actions of the US. Whilst publicly expressing unstinted support for Israel, sending arm shipments and aircraft carriers to bolster its security, privately, state officials express their exasperation at the state of Israeli society and politics, especially its current Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu who has a history of confronting US presidents both republican and democratic.[4]
Without seeming conspiratorial, one cannot understate the immense influence that the US as its majority donor exerts of the UN. It would be fair to say that the US exercises almost complete control over the UN and its various institutions. When UN secretary General Antonio Gutterres assumed his position in opposition to Israel, he went as far as to state that the attack of October the 7th did not happen in a vacuum, so the US has chosen to allow him to do so.
Whilst publicly expressing unstinted support for Israel, sending arm shipments and aircraft carriers to bolster its security, privately, state officials express their exasperation at the state of Israeli society and politics
The influence that the US enjoys over the ICC and the South African state should have prevented any ICC case or judgement detrimental to Israel, but the US fails to exert the required influence to prevent a judgement that paints Israel as a criminal regime.
The Houthis do not pose a significant threat to the US and two task forces stationed in the Red Sea, but the fact that the Houthis continue to fire missiles at ships traversing the red sea and the Suez canal, means that the US choses to allow it.
The presence of US aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean is not a warning to Arab regimes. These regimes are subservient clients to the US and will under no circumstances move against the Zionist state. Rather the carrier groups are there to remind Israel that security in the Middle East is guaranteed by the US, Israel is simply a beachhead.
This public private dichotomy is no mistake, nor is it a symptom of a dysfunctional US policy towards Israel, rather the US extends to Netanyahu the rope to hang Israel’s undue influence over US policy.
The public pronouncements of support, the replenishment of depleted stocks of arms and the presence of naval task forces have encouraged Israel to do its worst. Blinded by ideology, Netanyahu and acolytes assume the perpetuity of US public support, but as each day passes with further Israeli atrocities eroding support for Israel, it is increasingly seen as a liability rather than an asset.[5]
Netanyahu gauges that the death and destruction visited upon the innocents of Gaza will not elicit a response strong enough from US voters to change their voting habits. This may be the case but Netanyahu fails to understand the actual issues at play. Demographic change, the decline of Christianity and the realisation among younger voters that the current iteration of Israel does not share their values and norms and erodes support for Israel are all not in his favour.
It is not the case that voters need to adopt a position of belligerence to Israel. Rather, ambivalence alone suffices to change the equilibrium between the elected and unelected officials. In the absence of sufficient reasons to champion Israel the strategic interests of the US holds sway. The strength of public opinion in favour of Israel and the influence that US Zionists can bring to bear has long frustrated subsequent US administrations. If the situation continues on its current trajectory, with diminishing US public support, Israel and in fact Israelis increasingly find themselves compared to fascists and Nazi’s. The US deep state will, in the not so distant future, have to decide if its spoilt child is a strategic asset or a liability.
Part 4 – Iran and the Axis of Resistance: A Year After October 7
[1] Three Pawns in the “Great Game” – MERIP
[2] What Is U.S. Policy on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)
[3] Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza (gallup.com)
[4] Netanyahu’s Long History of Angering U.S. Presidents | TIME
[5] For America, Israel Is a Liability, Not an Asset (foreignpolicy.com)
