Follow us on social

Vice_president_joe_biden_visit_to_israel_march_2016_25554709411

Biden won’t let Netanyahu affect US policy toward Israel

The hubbub about how long it took Biden to call Bibi is overblown as Biden is still clearly very pro-Israel.

Analysis | Middle East

President Joe Biden spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, the first time the two leaders had spoken since Biden’s inauguration. The delay in communication was unusual and raised questions about Biden’s attitude toward Netanyahu and Israel.

We should not read too much into Biden putting off this call for so long. After all, he inherited perhaps the most dysfunctional federal government in living memory from a Trump administration that left the federal bureaucracy in disarray. The Trump team also refused or dragged its feet about the transition to Biden, and left its successors a wide array of destructive and unpopular policies, foreign and domestic, to try to reverse, including repairing relationships with European allies badly damaged by four years of Trump. With the COVID-19 pandemic still a major crisis and an economy still struggling to recover, Biden has a full agenda, even compared to most incoming presidents.

Still, this was a one-hour phone call with the leader of a country that remains a close ally and a political priority for both parties. It’s hard to imagine that, if Biden really wanted to make this call earlier, he couldn’t have found the time. So what was behind this?

Examining the circumstances around the delayed call and the actions of the Biden administration in its first few weeks in office yields some answers.

First, we shouldn’t ignore the tit-for-tat element here. Netanyahu was slow to acknowledge Biden’s victory in November and didn’t call to congratulate him for two weeks. He made no secret of his attachment to Donald Trump during the election, and the contrast between his effusive praise for Trump and his frequent attacks on and efforts to undermine Biden’s former boss, Barack Obama is stark indeed.

So there’s little doubt that Biden was personally disinclined to prioritize his conversation with Netanyahu. Although the two men have known each other for decades and have always had a good working relationship, it is likely that Netanyahu’s treatment of Obama and his open embrace of Trump and the Republican Party have changed Biden’s view of his Israeli counterpart. 

There’s also a policy element here, particularly on Iran, where Biden has said he wishes to re-enter the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA, and Netanyahu is still bitterly opposed.

Back in 2014, Biden famously stated that, “There’s absolutely no daylight — none — between us and the Israelis on the question of Israel’s security. But as friends, we have an obligation to speak honestly with one another; to talk about -– not avoid -— the tactical disagreements we have, and we have tactical disagreements; to lay out for one another each of our perspectives.”

But today, those disagreements have driven a wedge between the Netanyahu government and the Democratic Party. It begins with the Iran deal. Netanyahu collaborated with then-Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner to arrange an address to a joint session of Congress without Obama’s knowledge and with the express purpose of attacking the president’s highest foreign policy priority.

But the disagreements are not limited to Iran. On the campaign trail last May, Biden told a group of American Jewish leaders that “I do not support annexation” of the West Bank and that “Israel needs to stop the threats of annexation and stop settlement activity because it will choke off any hope of peace.” It was clearly a warning to Netanyahu that if he won the election, he would demand the reversal of such actions. Netanyahu backed off annexation, and this was surely a key part of what brought him to that decision.

Still, in his early days in office, Biden’s team has made it clear that it will pivot completely back to support for a two-state solution, which both Netanyahu and Trump abandoned. But while Biden has announced efforts to re-engage with the Palestinians, he has offered no details about his plans for pursuing a solution. This would seem to indicate that Biden does not see the Israeli-Palestinian issue as an immediate priority, particularly as Israel and the Palestinians have elections coming up in the near future.

Israel heads to its fourth election in the past two years, and this time Netanyahu has a more uphill battle than ever before. While his ability to snatch victory from the jaws of electoral defeat has become legendary, polls currently show Netanyahu far from the number of seats he and his allies would need for a majority in the Knesset.

Biden certainly wants to avoid being a factor in the Israeli election, another stark contrast to Trump who was proud to feature himself in support of Netanyahu. He will need to work closely with the victor, and, while the alternatives to Netanyahu are unlikely to break radically with his policies regarding the Palestinians, they might be more amenable to working with Biden, rather than against him, with respect to Iran, even if they are wary of the nuclear deal.

Palestinian elections are likely to be more complicated for Biden, and as they are to be held in the late spring and over the summer, it is much too soon to even guess at what they might produce. Biden’s team is certainly hoping that the votes shake up Palestinian politics in a way they can capitalize on to revive the peace process. But no matter what the eventual outcome, for now, Biden simply wants to rebuild a working relationship with the Palestinian leadership. Building some goodwill, if he can do that, will be helpful no matter what happens in the Palestinian elections.

Given the other priorities the Biden administration is juggling, they are clearly content to walk the tightrope of trying to revive a process geared toward a two-state solution that more and more observers deem impossible while not allowing the issue to occupy more space on the administration’s agenda, as it is prone to do.

Biden’s lukewarm attitude toward Netanyahu should not be interpreted as anything more than irritation with the prime minister himself. It is clear that it has not changed Biden’s fundamentally pro-Israel orientation.

Contrast Biden’s actions toward Israel with those toward Saudi Arabia. Biden has cut support for the Saudi war in Yemen. His disapproval of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is clear, but White House spokesperson Jen Psaki also noted this week that "We've made clear from the beginning that we're going to recalibrate our relationship with Saudi Arabia."

While this is directed primarily at MBS personally, and the mud he has splashed on the U.S.-Saudi relationship with his handling of the war in Yemen and his murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the shift in U.S. support for the Yemen war represents a fundamental change in policy. And it is a policy that started not with Trump, but with Obama. This is a much stronger rebuke than a delayed call with Netanyahu represents.

Still, Biden has made it clear that Saudi security concerns are still a priority and that he will meet directly with King Salman in the future. Like Netanyahu, MBS is paying the price for his cozy relationship with Trump. But it is clear that the damage to the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia has suffered much more damage than that with Israel.


Vice President Joe Biden visit to Israel March 2016 Meet with PM Benjamin Netanyahu (Photo US Embassy Tel Aviv)
Analysis | Middle East
Nato Summit Trump
Top photo credit: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, President Donald Trump, at the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague (NATO/Flickr)

Did Trump just dump the Ukraine War into the Europeans' lap?

Europe

The aerial war between Israel and Iran over the past two weeks sucked most of the world’s attention away from the war in Ukraine.

The Hague NATO Summit confirms that President Donald Trump now sees paying for the war as Europe’s problem. It’s less clear that he will have the patience to keep pushing for peace.

keep readingShow less
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less
IRGC
Top image credit: Tehran Iran - November 4, 2022, a line of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops crossing the street (saeediex / Shutterstock.com)

If Iranian regime collapses or is toppled, 'what's next?'

Middle East

In a startling turn of events in the Israel-Iran war, six hours after Iran attacked the Al Udeid Air Base— the largest U.S. combat airfield outside of the U.S., and home of the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters — President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the 12-day war, quickly taking effect over the subsequent 18 hours. Defying predictions that the Iranian response to the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities could start an escalatory cycle, the ceasefire appears to be holding. For now.

While the bombing may have ceased, calls for regime change have not. President Trump has backtracked on his comments, but other influential voices have not. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said Tuesday that regime change must still happen, “…because this is about the regime itself… Until the regime itself is gone, there is no foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.” These sentiments are echoed by many others to include, as expected, Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the deposed shah.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.