Follow us on social


Netanyahu’s legacy: Allying with US hawks and fomenting division in Washington

Israel’s longest serving prime minister beat the Iran war drums for years and finally got the ear of an American president in Donald Trump.

Analysis | Middle East

On Sunday, a new Israeli government without Benjamin Netanyahu at its head was confirmed for the first time in over 12 years. Naftali Bennett, who is distinctly to Netanyahu’s right ideologically, will take over, but few expect significant policy change.

While Israel has shifted sharply to the nationalist right under Netanyahu, this was a process that was well underway before he took office. The same can be said for Israel’s policies toward the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the Palestinians in general, both inside and outside Israel’s internationally recognized borders.

The most distinctive mark of Netanyahu’s time in office is his handling of foreign affairs. From the Abraham Accords, which normalized Israel’s relationships with several Arab states, to Iran, to the polarization of Israel’s relationship with the United States, Netanyahu made a mark that was truly his own on Israel’s foreign policy, with profound repercussions for other countries.

The Republican prime minister

Netanyahu was largely educated in the United States, in the 1980s, when he began forging close relationships with contemporary and future leading Republicans. His impeccable English and well-spoken manner, combined with his intimate understanding of the United States made him a rising star both there and in Israel.

Elected to his first term as prime minister in 1996, Netanyahu was particularly close to the rising neoconservatives who would, in the George W. Bush administration, drive U.S. foreign policy. He had a difficult relationship with Bill Clinton, who was close to Netanyahu’s predecessor, Yitzhak Rabin, whose assassination many blamed on incitement which Netanyahu helped to foment.

That was but a precursor to his second, much longer period in office. When Netanyahu lost the 1999 election to Ehud Barak, many believed Clinton’s distaste for the Likud leader was a primary factor in his defeat. But by 2009, with Barack Obama — whom many Israelis saw as more sympathetic to the Palestinians than any president in history — in the White House, friction with Washington was more popular in Israel. This was due in no small measure to the increased strength of Israeli opponents of the Oslo peace process who were disappointed in Netanyahu’s acquiescing to Clinton during his first term.

Netanyahu’s rocky relationship with Obama only grew worse over the course of Obama’s eight years in the White House, hitting their nadir when Netanyahu conspired with Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner to arrange for the Israeli leader to address a joint session of Congress in an attempt to undermine Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.

But in Donald Trump, Netanyahu found what he could have only dreamed of before: an American president who would unabashedly give Israel everything it wanted, virtually free of charge. Progressive Democrats seized the opportunity to try to, at long last, open a serious debate about the efficacy and ethics of the U.S. support for Israeli policies, but centrists pushed back, causing a rift over Israel in the party while the Israeli leadership not-so-subtly embraced the Republicans.

With Netanyahu gone, it is certain that new Foreign Minister and Prime Minister-in-waiting Yair Lapid, who is closely connected to Democratic politics will try to re-establish the bipartisan consensus that, for decades, blocked any serious evaluation of U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine.

Netanyahu perfected the art of quiet annexation. While he publicly embraced the Trump administration’s plan for annexing large chunks of the West Bank, he promoted it with only a token effort, despite being pressed by his far-right constituents. He knew that settlement expansion was going to move inexorably forward, that the slow pace would deflect international attention, and that there was little the Palestinians could do about it. As a result, the settlers and ultra-orthodox parties remained loyal to him to the bitter end, despite frequently criticizing him.

But in most ways, Netanyahu fully embraced Trump’s agenda and was rewarded with great gifts. Chief among those were the move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the Abraham Accords, and, of course, the unilateral abrogation of the Iran nuclear deal.

Israel’s normalization deals

It is safe to say that no president from either party, other than Trump, would have brokered the Abraham Accords, which essentially bribed several Arab states with arms sales and political favors in exchange for normalization with Israel. But Netanyahu had been working for many years to achieve normal relations with Middle Eastern and other states without having to compromise with the Palestinians. He had made some progress, but never could have accomplished what he did without Trump’s help.

These were not fleeting victories. The recent attacks on Gaza were greeted largely with silence from the Gulf states, and the Biden administration has made it clear that it intends to support the agreements Trump helped secure. Politically, it would be difficult to oppose countries making peace with Israel, but the agreements further weakened the Palestinian position which was already short on leverage in its dealings with Israel.

Whether there will eventually be backlash against leaders in the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, or Morocco over these agreements is still an open question, but the fact that they all faced virtually no pressure to change their stance on Israel during the recent Gaza fighting is certainly telling. Still, if scrutiny on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians increases again, there may be challenges to these agreements in the future.


Netanyahu was beating war drums over Iran for decades, long before the JCPOA was even thought of. Indeed, Barack Obama’s decision to press the issue of an Iranian nuclear weapon, despite the fact that U.S. National Intelligence had determined that Iran was no longer pursuing one, came in part from concern that Israel under Netanyahu might attack Iran on its own if nothing was done.

But the JCPOA did not quell Netanyahu’s long-time obsession with Iran, which was a significant factor in the deep and bipartisan opposition to the deal in Washington, eventually culminating in Trump abrogating it. It is fair to say that, while regime change hawks in the United States have their own reasons for seeking that goal, Netanyahu has been a key ingredient fueling their push for U.S. action against the Islamic Republic.

Like Israeli policies on the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the new Israeli government is not likely to diverge from Netanyahu’s policies on Iran. This reinforces the need to increase the space for policy debate that Netanyahu opened with his partisanship in Washington.

Netanyahu leaves office as the longest serving prime minister in Israel’s history. In many ways his legacy is based on the length of his time in office and the self-interested strategies he used to stay there. But that legacy also includes opening a partisan debate on U.S. policy toward Israel, heightened tension in the Persian Gulf, and dividing Arab states on conditioning normal relations with Israel on an end to the Israeli occupation. Netanyahu was not responsible for Israel’s sharp rightward and nationalistic turn. This was well underway long before 2009, when he took office. But in terms of Israel’s relationship with the United States and the Arab world, and Israel’s role in stoking tension with Iran, his legacy will be long.

President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence participate in an expanded bilateral meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday, Jan. 27, 2020, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House Photo by D. Myles Cullen)
Analysis | Middle East
Dispatch from Munich: VP Harris warns against 'isolationism'

Vice President Kamala Harris at the Munich Security Conference, Feb. 16, 2024. (Lukas Barth-Tuttas/MSC)

Dispatch from Munich: VP Harris warns against 'isolationism'


MUNICH, GERMANY – The 60th year of the Munich Security Conference opened today with much of the early energy surrounding remarks by Vice President Kamala Harris.

The vice president noted that it was nearly two years since the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. She said that when Putin unleashed his troops along different fronts in February 2022, “many thought Kyiv would fall within a day.” It is also true, as she pointed out, that “Ukraine has regained more than half the territory Russia occupied at the start of the conflict.” (Russia held about 7% before the invasion, 27% right after, and about 18% today.)

keep readingShow less
New poll: Nearly 70% of Americans want talks to end war in Ukraine

Handout photo shows US President Joe Biden (C-R) and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky (C-L) take part in a bilateral meeting, on the final day of a three-day G-7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, on May 21, 2023. The final day of the three-day of the Group of Seven leaders' summit is under way in the western Japan city of Hiroshima, with focus on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his talks with international leaders. Photo by Ukrainian Presidency via ABACAPRESS.COM

New poll: Nearly 70% of Americans want talks to end war in Ukraine


Roughly 70% of Americans want the Biden administration to push Ukraine toward a negotiated peace with Russia as soon as possible, according to a new survey from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft.

Support for negotiations remained high when respondents were told such a move would include compromises by all parties, with two out of three respondents saying the U.S. should still pursue talks despite potential downsides. The survey shows a nine-point jump from a poll in late 2022 that surveyed likely voters. In that poll, 57% of respondents said they backed talks that would involve compromises.

keep readingShow less
Diplomacy Watch: Putin's ceasefire suggestion turned down?
Diplomacy Watch: Domestic politics continue to challenge Ukraine’s allies
Diplomacy Watch: Domestic politics continue to challenge Ukraine’s allies

Diplomacy Watch: Putin's ceasefire suggestion turned down?


As Russia’s war in Ukraine approaches its two-year anniversary, President Vladimir Putin has reportedly had his suggestions of ceasefire rejected by Washington.

On Tuesday, Reuters reported that Russia had approached the United States through intermediaries in late 2023 and early 2024 to propose freezing the conflict along the current lines. Washington reportedly turned down the suggestion, saying that they were not willing to engage in talks if Ukraine was not a participant.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis