The opinions expressed on this webpage represent those of the individual authors and,
unless clearly labeled as such, do not represent the opinions or policies of TBS.
A New Realism: America & Israel in the Trump Era
Of all the surprises of the Trump era, none is more notable than the pronounced shift toward
Israel. Such a shift was not predictable from Donald Trump’s conduct on the campaign trail; as he
sought the Republican nomination, Trump distinguished himself by his refusal to express
unqualified support for Israel and his airy conviction that his business experience gave him unique
insight into how to strike “a real-estate deal” to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In addition,
his isolationist talk alarmed Israel’s friends in the United States and elsewhere if for no other
reason than that isolationism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism often go hand in hand in hand.
But shift he did. In the 14 months since his inauguration, the new president has announced that
the United States accepts Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and has declared his intention to build a new
U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, first mandated by U.S. law in 1996. He has installed one of his
Orthodox Jewish lawyers as the U.S. ambassador and another as his key envoy on Israeli–
Palestinian issues. America’s ambassador to the United Nations has not only spoken out on Israel’s
behalf forcefully and repeatedly; Nikki Haley has also led the way in cutting the U.S. stipend to the
refugee relief agency that is an effective front for the Palestinian terror state in Gaza. And, as Meir
Y. Soloveichik and Michael Medved both detail elsewhere in this issue, his vice president traveled to
Israel in January and delivered the most pro-Zionist speech any major American politician has ever
given.
Part of this shift can also be seen in what Trump has not done. He has not signaled, in interviews
or in policy formulations, that the United States views Israeli actions in and around Gaza and the
West Bank as injurious to a future peace. And his administration has not complained about Israeli
actions taken in self-defense in Lebanon and Syria but has, instead, supported Israel’s right to
defend itself.
This marks a breathtaking contrast with the tone and spirit of the relationship between the two
countries during the previous administration. The eight Obama years were characterized by what
can only be called a gut hostility rooted in the president’s own ideological distaste for the Jewish
state.
The intensity of that hostility ebbed and flowed depending on circumstances, but from early 2009,
it kept the relationship between the United States and Israel in a condition of low-grade fever
throughout Barack Obama’s tenure—never comfortable, never easy, always a bit off-kilter, always
with a bit of a headache that never went away, and always in danger of spiking into a dangerous
pyrexia. That fever spike happened no fewer than five times during the Obama presidency.
Although these spikes were usually portrayed as the consequences of the personal friction between
Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that friction was itself the result of the
ideas about the Middle East and the world in general Obama had brought with him to the White
House. In this case, the political became the personal, not the other way around.
Given the general leftish direction of his foreign-policy views from college onward, it would have
been a miracle had Obama felt kindly disposed toward the Jewish state’s own understanding of its
tactical and strategic condition. And Netanyahu spoke out openly and forcefully to kindly disposed
Americans—from evangelical Christians to congressional Republicans—about the threats to his
country from nearby terrorism and rockets, and a developing nuclear Iran 900 miles away. His
candor proved a perpetual irritant to a president whose opening desire was to see “daylight” (as he
said in February 2009) between the two countries. Obama caused one final fever spike as he left
office by refusing to veto a hostile United Nations resolution. This appeared churlish but was, in
fact, Obama allowing himself the full rein of his true and long-standing convictions on his way out
the door.
Israel. Such a shift was not predictable from Donald Trump’s conduct on the campaign trail; as he
sought the Republican nomination, Trump distinguished himself by his refusal to express
unqualified support for Israel and his airy conviction that his business experience gave him unique
insight into how to strike “a real-estate deal” to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. In addition,
his isolationist talk alarmed Israel’s friends in the United States and elsewhere if for no other
reason than that isolationism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism often go hand in hand in hand.
But shift he did. In the 14 months since his inauguration, the new president has announced that
the United States accepts Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and has declared his intention to build a new
U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, first mandated by U.S. law in 1996. He has installed one of his
Orthodox Jewish lawyers as the U.S. ambassador and another as his key envoy on Israeli–
Palestinian issues. America’s ambassador to the United Nations has not only spoken out on Israel’s
behalf forcefully and repeatedly; Nikki Haley has also led the way in cutting the U.S. stipend to the
refugee relief agency that is an effective front for the Palestinian terror state in Gaza. And, as Meir
Y. Soloveichik and Michael Medved both detail elsewhere in this issue, his vice president traveled to
Israel in January and delivered the most pro-Zionist speech any major American politician has ever
given.
Part of this shift can also be seen in what Trump has not done. He has not signaled, in interviews
or in policy formulations, that the United States views Israeli actions in and around Gaza and the
West Bank as injurious to a future peace. And his administration has not complained about Israeli
actions taken in self-defense in Lebanon and Syria but has, instead, supported Israel’s right to
defend itself.
This marks a breathtaking contrast with the tone and spirit of the relationship between the two
countries during the previous administration. The eight Obama years were characterized by what
can only be called a gut hostility rooted in the president’s own ideological distaste for the Jewish
state.
The intensity of that hostility ebbed and flowed depending on circumstances, but from early 2009,
it kept the relationship between the United States and Israel in a condition of low-grade fever
throughout Barack Obama’s tenure—never comfortable, never easy, always a bit off-kilter, always
with a bit of a headache that never went away, and always in danger of spiking into a dangerous
pyrexia. That fever spike happened no fewer than five times during the Obama presidency.
Although these spikes were usually portrayed as the consequences of the personal friction between
Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that friction was itself the result of the
ideas about the Middle East and the world in general Obama had brought with him to the White
House. In this case, the political became the personal, not the other way around.
Given the general leftish direction of his foreign-policy views from college onward, it would have
been a miracle had Obama felt kindly disposed toward the Jewish state’s own understanding of its
tactical and strategic condition. And Netanyahu spoke out openly and forcefully to kindly disposed
Americans—from evangelical Christians to congressional Republicans—about the threats to his
country from nearby terrorism and rockets, and a developing nuclear Iran 900 miles away. His
candor proved a perpetual irritant to a president whose opening desire was to see “daylight” (as he
said in February 2009) between the two countries. Obama caused one final fever spike as he left
office by refusing to veto a hostile United Nations resolution. This appeared churlish but was, in
fact, Obama allowing himself the full rein of his true and long-standing convictions on his way out
the door.
T
he things Trump both has and has not done should not seem startling. They constitute the baseline
of what we ought to expect one ally would say and not say about the behavior of another ally. But
as Obama’s disgraceful conduct demonstrated, Israel is not just another ally and never has been. It
is a unique experiment in statehood—a Western country on Mideast soil, born from an anticolonialist
movement that is now viewed by many former colonial powers as an unjust colonial
power, created by an international organization that is now largely organized as a means of
expressing rage against it.
Historically, American leaders have had to reckon with these unique realities—and the fact that the
hostile nations surrounding Israel and hungering for its destruction happen to sit atop the lifeblood
of the industrial economy. The so-called realists who claim to view the world and the pursuit of
America’s interests through cold and unsentimental eyes have experienced Israel mostly as a
burden
Through many twists and turns over the seven decades of Israel’s existence, they have felt that
America’s support fr Israel is mostly the result of short-sighted domestic political concerns for
which they have little patience—the wishes of Jewish voters, or the religious concerns of
evangelical voters, or post-Holocaust sympathy that has required (though they would never say it
aloud) an unnatural suspension of our pursuit of the American national interest.
Israel created problems with oil countries, and with the United Nations, and with those who see the
claims for the necessity of a Jewish state as a form of special pleading. As a result, the realists
have spent the past seven decades whispering in the ears of America’s leaders that they have the
right to expect Israel to do things we would not expect of another ally and to demand it behave in
ways we would not demand of any other friendly country.
The realists and others have spent nearly 50 years propounding a unified-field theory of Middle
East turmoil according to which many if not all of the region’s problems are the result of Israel’s
existence. Were it not for Israel, there would not have been regional wars in 1956, 1967, 1973,
and 1982—no matter who might have borne the greatest degree of responsibility for them. There
would have been other conflicts, but not this one. There would have been no world-recessioninducing
oil embargo in 1973 because there would have been no response to the Yom Kippur War.
Were it not for Israel, for example, there would be no Israeli–Palestinian problem; there would
have been some other version of the problem, but not this one.
Unhappiness about the condition of the Palestinians in a world with Israel was held to be the cause
of existential unhappiness on the Arab street and therefore of instability in friendly authoritarian
regimes throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile, Israel’s own pursuit of what it and its voting
populace took to be their national interests was usually treated with disdain at the very least and
outright fury at moments of crisis.
It was therefore axiomatic that the solution to many if not most of the region’s problems ran right
though the center of Jerusalem. It would take a complex process, a peace process, that would lead
to a deal—a deal no one who believed in this magical process could actually describe honestly and
forthrightly or give a sense as to what its final contours would be. If you could create a peace
process leading to a deal, though, that deal itself would work like a bone-marrow transplant—
through a mysterious process spreading new immunities to instability in the Middle East that would
heal the causes of conflict and bring about a new era.
Again, this was the view of the realists. With Israel’s 70th anniversary coming hard upon us, the
question one needs to ask is this: What if the realists were nothing but fantasists? What if their
he things Trump both has and has not done should not seem startling. They constitute the baseline
of what we ought to expect one ally would say and not say about the behavior of another ally. But
as Obama’s disgraceful conduct demonstrated, Israel is not just another ally and never has been. It
is a unique experiment in statehood—a Western country on Mideast soil, born from an anticolonialist
movement that is now viewed by many former colonial powers as an unjust colonial
power, created by an international organization that is now largely organized as a means of
expressing rage against it.
Historically, American leaders have had to reckon with these unique realities—and the fact that the
hostile nations surrounding Israel and hungering for its destruction happen to sit atop the lifeblood
of the industrial economy. The so-called realists who claim to view the world and the pursuit of
America’s interests through cold and unsentimental eyes have experienced Israel mostly as a
burden
Through many twists and turns over the seven decades of Israel’s existence, they have felt that
America’s support fr Israel is mostly the result of short-sighted domestic political concerns for
which they have little patience—the wishes of Jewish voters, or the religious concerns of
evangelical voters, or post-Holocaust sympathy that has required (though they would never say it
aloud) an unnatural suspension of our pursuit of the American national interest.
Israel created problems with oil countries, and with the United Nations, and with those who see the
claims for the necessity of a Jewish state as a form of special pleading. As a result, the realists
have spent the past seven decades whispering in the ears of America’s leaders that they have the
right to expect Israel to do things we would not expect of another ally and to demand it behave in
ways we would not demand of any other friendly country.
The realists and others have spent nearly 50 years propounding a unified-field theory of Middle
East turmoil according to which many if not all of the region’s problems are the result of Israel’s
existence. Were it not for Israel, there would not have been regional wars in 1956, 1967, 1973,
and 1982—no matter who might have borne the greatest degree of responsibility for them. There
would have been other conflicts, but not this one. There would have been no world-recessioninducing
oil embargo in 1973 because there would have been no response to the Yom Kippur War.
Were it not for Israel, for example, there would be no Israeli–Palestinian problem; there would
have been some other version of the problem, but not this one.
Unhappiness about the condition of the Palestinians in a world with Israel was held to be the cause
of existential unhappiness on the Arab street and therefore of instability in friendly authoritarian
regimes throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile, Israel’s own pursuit of what it and its voting
populace took to be their national interests was usually treated with disdain at the very least and
outright fury at moments of crisis.
It was therefore axiomatic that the solution to many if not most of the region’s problems ran right
though the center of Jerusalem. It would take a complex process, a peace process, that would lead
to a deal—a deal no one who believed in this magical process could actually describe honestly and
forthrightly or give a sense as to what its final contours would be. If you could create a peace
process leading to a deal, though, that deal itself would work like a bone-marrow transplant—
through a mysterious process spreading new immunities to instability in the Middle East that would
heal the causes of conflict and bring about a new era.
Again, this was the view of the realists. With Israel’s 70th anniversary coming hard upon us, the
question one needs to ask is this: What if the realists were nothing but fantasists? What if their
approach to the Middle East from the time of Israel’s founding was based in wildly unrealistic ideas
and emotions? Central to their gullibility was the wild and irrational idea that peace was or ever
could be the result of a process. No, peace is a condition of soul, an exhaustion from the impact of
conflict, born of a desire to end hostilities. Only after this state is achieved can there be a
workable process, because both parties would already have crossed the Rubicon dividing them and
would only then need to work out the details of coexistence.
There was no peace to be had. The Arab states didn’t want it. The Palestinians didn’t want it. The
Israelis did and do, but not at the expense of their existence. The Arabs demanded concessions,
and the Israelis have made many over the years, but they could not concede the security of the
millions of Israel’s citizens who had made this miracle of a country an enduring reality. The realists
fetishized “process” because it seemed the only way to compel change from the outside. And so
Israel has borne the brunt of the anger that follows whenever a fantasist is forced to confront a
reality he would rather close his eyes to.
That is why I think what Trump and his people have done over the past 14 months represents a
new and genuine realism. They are dealing with Israel and its relationships in the region as they
are, not as they would wish them to be. They are seeing how the government of Egypt under Abdel
Fattah el-Sisi is making common cause with Israel against the Hamas entity in Gaza and against
ISIS forces in the Suez. They are witness to the effort at radical reformation in Saudi Arabia under
Muhammad bin-Salman—and how that seems to be going hand in hand with an astonishing new
concord between Israel and the Desert Kingdom over the common threat from Iran. This is a
harmonizing of interests that would have seemed positively science-fictional in living memory.
Mostly, what they are seeing is that an ally is an ally. Israel’s intelligence agencies are providing
the kind of information America cannot get on its own about Syria and Iran and the threat from
ISIS. Israel is a technological powerhouse whose innovations are already helping to revolutionize
American military know-how. Israel’s army is the strongest in the world apart from the regional
superpowers—and the only one outside Western Europe and the United States firmly locked in
alliance with the West. Things are changing radically in the Middle East, and as the 21st century
progresses it is possible that Israel will play a constructive and influential role outside its borders in
helping to maintain and strengthen a Pax Americana.
Donald Trump is a flighty man. All of this could change. But for now, the replacement of the false
realism of the past with a new realism for the 21st century seems like a revolutionary development
that needs to be taken very, very seriously.
and emotions? Central to their gullibility was the wild and irrational idea that peace was or ever
could be the result of a process. No, peace is a condition of soul, an exhaustion from the impact of
conflict, born of a desire to end hostilities. Only after this state is achieved can there be a
workable process, because both parties would already have crossed the Rubicon dividing them and
would only then need to work out the details of coexistence.
There was no peace to be had. The Arab states didn’t want it. The Palestinians didn’t want it. The
Israelis did and do, but not at the expense of their existence. The Arabs demanded concessions,
and the Israelis have made many over the years, but they could not concede the security of the
millions of Israel’s citizens who had made this miracle of a country an enduring reality. The realists
fetishized “process” because it seemed the only way to compel change from the outside. And so
Israel has borne the brunt of the anger that follows whenever a fantasist is forced to confront a
reality he would rather close his eyes to.
That is why I think what Trump and his people have done over the past 14 months represents a
new and genuine realism. They are dealing with Israel and its relationships in the region as they
are, not as they would wish them to be. They are seeing how the government of Egypt under Abdel
Fattah el-Sisi is making common cause with Israel against the Hamas entity in Gaza and against
ISIS forces in the Suez. They are witness to the effort at radical reformation in Saudi Arabia under
Muhammad bin-Salman—and how that seems to be going hand in hand with an astonishing new
concord between Israel and the Desert Kingdom over the common threat from Iran. This is a
harmonizing of interests that would have seemed positively science-fictional in living memory.
Mostly, what they are seeing is that an ally is an ally. Israel’s intelligence agencies are providing
the kind of information America cannot get on its own about Syria and Iran and the threat from
ISIS. Israel is a technological powerhouse whose innovations are already helping to revolutionize
American military know-how. Israel’s army is the strongest in the world apart from the regional
superpowers—and the only one outside Western Europe and the United States firmly locked in
alliance with the West. Things are changing radically in the Middle East, and as the 21st century
progresses it is possible that Israel will play a constructive and influential role outside its borders in
helping to maintain and strengthen a Pax Americana.
Donald Trump is a flighty man. All of this could change. But for now, the replacement of the false
realism of the past with a new realism for the 21st century seems like a revolutionary development
that needs to be taken very, very seriously.