The Americans have never excelled in creating the conditions for realizing their foreign policy. This is all the more true when it comes to the American attempt to influence the Israeli internal political ecosystem. The American failure to understand Israel’s political movements and the Israeli public opinion, results in a misguided, self-defeating policy.
Just recently the most senior of Democratic senators, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is renowned as a long-time friend of Israel, gave a speech. In his speech he created a distinction between the people in Israel and his commitment towards these people – on the one hand – and the Prime Minister of Israel – Benjamin Netanyahu – and his “radical government”, which is leading a policy harmful to Israel. Schumer and other pro-Israel Democrats like President Biden present themselves as being the real protectors of Israel, which means that there are occasions when Israel has to be protected against itself. This tone is clearly evident in speeches given by President Biden and his Vice President, Camala Harris. They make a distinction between Netanyahu and the Israelis themselves in order to be able to direct their anger at Netanyahu and his government.
An unequivocal expression of this lack of understanding of Israeli public opinion came in the form of Schumer’s call for Netanyahu to resign in order for elections to take place and for the Israeli leadership to be replaced. Schumer fails to understand that attempts at interfering in local Israeli politics from the outside is not something the Israelis take lightly. It is thus that we saw even Netanyahu’s most bitter opponents condemning this attempt by Schumer to interfere in Israeli politics. Not only does this not weaken Netanyahu, this is exactly what strengthens him and his political narrative. Netanya presents himself as the defender of Israel, guardian of its interests by deflecting international pressure to impose on Israel decisions contrary to its security interests. Schumer of course fails to understand this, He does not realize that these actions only strengthen Netanyahu.
American liberals equate Israeli public opinion with Netanyahu, and this is a gross misunderstanding of this public opinion. In the first place, there is no love lost between supporters of Israel and Netanyahu, to put it mildly. Within the broader American left, Netanyahu is synonymous with everything the American left despises – a leader that resembles a Republican, who is preventing peace, is a war monger, is corrupt, who violates human rights, an authoritarian in the image of other authoritarians like Orban and Putin. In these circles, Netanyahu is not just a politician, he is a metaphysical object embodying everything that is wrong with the world. He thereby has become a concept in his own right.
In such circles, Netanyahu is portrayed as a kind of omnipotent politician, a magnet for everything that is wrong with Israel, and he becomes the target for demonization, which is usually within the domain of Israel’s haters. Instead of saying “Israel”, they say “Netanyahu”. In more severe cases of toxic anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitic demonology is assigned directly to Netanyahu, rather than to the Jews in general in a more outright manner, like the cartoon in the Canadian newspaper depicting Netanyahu as a blood-thirsty vampire. Netanyahu is also radioactive within the Jewish American left and in the pro-Israeli left, in the spirit of the liberal Jewish columnist Thomas Friedman – who sometimes provides the most blatant reflection of this stream of thought. Over the years, Netanyahu has also become the object of anger and criticism from liberal Israel supporters who separate between their love for Israel itself and their distain for Israeli policy, which is a consequence of Netanyahu himself.
Whether or not it is through his actions, Netanyahu has in those circles become a barrier to regional peace and stability. Therefore, as far as they are concerned, only by removing him, will more pragmatic voices, more palatable to the Washington stomach (like Ehud Barak, Yair Lapid, Benny Gantz etc.) be able to ascent to power and lead to the changes the Administration is after, in the form of strengthening the Palestinian Authority in order to present a semblance of improvement in the situation.
Biden, Schumer, and other Democrats do not understand that the policies being pursued by Israeli government, under Netanyahu’s leadership, is not his own private whim or the whim of his “radical right-wing government”. Rather, it is a policy of fighting, which would be more or less identical for any other person that might be elected to be Israel’s Prime Minister. The desire to wipe out the Hamas battalions in Rafah and to topple the military and civilian regime in Gaza is an absolute consensus in Israel. Therefore, any attempt to create a distinction between the Israeli interests and those being led by the government with Netanyahu as its Prime Minister is doomed to failure and any policy which bases itself on this misunderstanding, is going to fail.
The distinction between Netanyahu and Israel is made not merely due to a fundamental misunderstanding of Israeli public opinion. It is also intended to strike a fine balance between criticizing Israel and defending Israel for the American domestic political arena. Biden and Schumer portray themselves as the beloved uncles from America who see in themselves the saviors of Israel from Netanyahu, who is leading it to oblivion with a misguided policy. This is a message that also addresses those parts of the left that would like to see Biden taking a tougher stance toward Israel, but not in such a way as to alienate the Israel lovers to the extent that they would abandon Biden.
This misunderstanding on the part of the Administration does not stop within the Israeli arena. It filters into the interpretations being given to their words by Israel’s enemies and other regional leaders. For weeks now Hezbollah and Hamas leaders have been following statements coming out of American Administration personnel, examining how the support for Israel is weakening. This is part of their long-term strategy. Any signal from a member of the Administration like Schumer, who in a speech claims American support for Israel is weakening serves to strengthen Israel’s enemies’ resolve not to compromise with Israel and to wait for the American pressure to do the work for them. Beliefs about the future are no less important than the reality on the ground. If Israel’s enemies will become convinced that in future their position will be better, they will be less amenable to compromise and more aggressive. If Israel’s enemies would know that Israel would always enjoy America’s backing, they would make the long-term calculation as to whether it is worth embarking on a prolonged conflict with Israel in the near future.
To maintain an effective policy, capable of changing reality in favor of a certain interest, the policy-makers must first of all gain an unbiased understanding of the current reality, whether or not it is consistent with the political narrative with which they feel comfortable. A hope-based policy and the imposition of beliefs as to the reality will not only defeat its own purpose, it is bound to cause virtually irreversible damage.
The article was originally published on ynetnews
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the movement
