Follow us on social

google cta
Burns-bennett

CIA chief Burns brings a more polite tone in Israel visit

But don't expect a lot of pushback on settlements or a renewed push for two state solution. Right now this is about management.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

In the coming weeks, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is expected to visit the White House for his first meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden. The new administrations in both countries have been working to reset the relationship between them in the wake of their personality-driven predecessors. The visit this week of Central Intelligence Agency Director Bill Burns was a key moment in that process. 

Burns brings an unusual perspective to intelligence. A career diplomat who reached the highest ranks of the State Department before taking this position, Burns comes to an allied country to discuss policy as much as intelligence and security, more so than many of his predecessors. His selection was part of Biden’s effort to reinvigorate U.S. diplomacy after it had been crippled during the four years of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Burns’ deep knowledge of policy and his expertise in diplomacy, earned over nearly four decades in the Foreign Service, means he has the president’s ear on policy decisions in a way most other CIA directors haven’t. And the policy questions Biden will grapple with regarding Israel are profound, in both the long and short term. 

Iran was at the top of the agenda, and the assessment there is grim. According to reports, both Israel and the United States doubt that the deal can be revived. But Israeli sources have stated that the Biden administration is balking at Israel’s desire for a heightened military threat against Iran if the talks fail. 

While Bennett’s predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, often tried to rally U.S. popular opinion in favor of more hawkish policies against Iran — essentially going around or over the heads of sitting presidents — Bennett has made clear he favors a more discreet and diplomatic approach. This will help Bennett and his coalition partner, Yair Lapid, in their efforts to repair the sundered relationship between Israel and Democrats and the U.S. Jewish community.

While Biden might not want to communicate to Iran that he is reluctant to take military action — and would therefore refrain from any such public threats, it’s likely that Burns reinforced this position during his meeting with Bennett. It’s also likely that Burns reassured Bennett that, if Washington re-enters the JCPOA, it will continue to safeguard Israel’s concerns and that, if the talks fail, it will consult fully with Israel in developing a “Plan B.” 

Columnist and former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas believes that Burns came to “…remind Israel what America’s interests and policies are, and to see whether Israel is fully aware and generally on board.” That ranges from working to re-establish Israel’s badly frayed relationship with Jordan and to reinforce, rather than undermine, the Hashemite Kingdom’s stability to ensuring that Israel understands the Biden administration’s position toward China.

Israel is eager to expand economic relations with China and has long had a policy of at least trying to maintain good diplomatic and, where possible, security relations with all the major world powers. Its relations with China have, on occasion, caused friction with Washington, particularly with respect to the transfer of military and intelligence technology. Israel has recently backed away from some trade deals with China, reportedly under U.S. pressure to cool that relationship. 

Burns will also be visiting Ramallah to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his top aides. While the PA is publicly celebrating the meeting and heaping praise on Biden, the fact is there is very little the United States can do for them at this point beyond restoring much of the aid that was cut by the Trump administration. But there is no prospect, at least at this point, for a resuming a negotiation to achieve a two-state solution like that which died during Biden’s term as Barack Obama’s vice president. 

The PA is hanging by a thread and probably couldn’t survive a return to a renewed “peace process.” Not only are many of the Palestinian factions, including some in the Palestine Liberation Organization itself, deeply opposed to it, but recent surveys have shown a growing militance on the part of Palestinians under occupation. When asked how to end Israel’s occupation, a June poll of Palestinians found that“49 (percent) chose armed struggle, 27 percent negotiations, and 18 percent popular resistance. Even before the latest destruction in Gaza, only 36 percent supported negotiations. 

So, for all the fanfare around Burns’ visit to Ramallah, little is going to change in practice. Both the U.S. and Israel are aware of this. Benny Gantz, Israel’s Minister of Defense, tweeted that he and Burns discussed “the need to strengthen the PA and additional moderate actors in the region.” 

Burns’ visit is also an opportunity for Bennett to show Biden that they can work together, which is difficult, given the need to mollify his right-wing base. On the very day that Burns was meeting with Bennett, Israel announced the construction of 2,000 new homes in the settlements, which should please his settler supporters. 

But Israel also announced that 800 new homes in Palestinian towns in Area C of the West Bank, which is the portion under full Israeli control, would also be built. This reflected what Bennett doubtless sees as a conciliatory nod toward Biden. The president and his top aides have repeatedly hammered on the theme of equality. This is how Bennett interprets that theme.

The Palestinians see it very differently. The PA responded to it Thursday by declaring that the addition of new settler homes “… contradicts the clear American position expressed by President Joe Biden during his call with President Mahmoud Abbas, in which he affirmed the American side’s rejection of settlements and unilateral measures.” If the PA so fully rejects this attempt to “balance” settlement building with Palestinian construction, the Palestinian public will likely take a much dimmer view of it. 

Knowing that the dual announcement is not going to sit well with Bennett’s right-wing base either, Bennett  must believe that the trade-off  he will gain more in good will from the White House than he will lose with his right-wing base. Time will tell if he’s right. 

In any case, the plan reflects Bennett’s desire to appear more reasonable than Netanyahu. The aim is to restore some normalcy to the U.S. relationship, undo as much as possible the damage to Israel’s relationship with the Democratic Party inflicted by Netanyahu, and restore the bipartisan partnership between the U.S. and Israel that Biden believes can reopen diplomacy with the Palestinians. 

But restoring anything resembling the defunct peace process is a pipe dream. Palestinians simply don’t support it, and Israelis are even more opposed to Palestinian independence than ever Neither group is likely to change its mind in the foreseeable future. 

And, while many Democrats are eager to restore bipartisan consensus that prevailed so long in Israel’s favor, it’s far from a sure thing that the gulf between many Democrats and the Jewish state can be easily bridged. The recent kerfuffle over Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream decision to stop selling in Israeli settlements demonstrated that. 

Still, as with last month’s visit to Israel and the West Bank by U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel and Palestinian Affairs Hady Amr, Burns’ meetings constituted one more step toward renewing a professional relationship, rather than a personal one, between Israel and the United States. The two sides will try to cement that progress in Washington in a few weeks. At least for the moment, it seems that, in the post-Netanyahu era, while some policy differences remain, the working relationship is settling back into its customary status, for better or worse. 


CIA Director William Burns (US Dept of State) and Israeli PM Neftali Bennett (US Embassy Israel)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
NATO Summit 2025
Top photo credit: NATO Summit, the Hague, June 25, 2025. (Republic of Slovenia/Daniel Novakovič/STA/flickr)

Will NATO survive Trump?

Europe

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump threatened to place new punitive tariffs on European allies until they acquiesce to his designs on Greenland, an escalation of his ongoing attempts to acquire the large Arctic island for the United States.

Critics loudly decried the move as devastating for the transatlantic relationship, echoing Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Fredericksen’s earlier warning that a coercive U.S. seizure of the semi-autonomous Danish territory would mean the end of NATO.

keep readingShow less
Tony Blair Gaza
Top photo credit: Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a U.S.-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett/Pool/File Photo

Phase farce: No way 'Board of Peace' replaces reality in Gaza

Middle East

The Trump administration’s announcements about the Gaza Strip would lead one to believe that implementation of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan, later largely incorporated into a United Nations Security Council resolution, is progressing quite smoothly.

As such, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced this month on social media the “launch of Phase Two” of the plan, “moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” But examination of even just a couple of Witkoff’s assertions in his announcement shows that "smooth" or even "implementation" are bitter overstatements.

keep readingShow less
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.