The appointments
It is like the dream team of the Israeli Right. A group of people who are not just pro-Israel in the basic sense but are vocal supporters of the more controversial aspects of the right-wing’s agenda.
Consider Mike Huckabee, the nominee for US ambassador to Israel. Huckabee doesn’t just support Israel in a vague sense; he’s on record saying he believes Israel has the right to annex significant parts of the West Bank.
Back in 2019, he boldly stated that there was no such thing as a “settlement” or even a “Palestinian” people, a view that starkly contrasts with traditional American policy. Such a stance indicates that, as ambassador, he won’t just advocate for Israel in the diplomatic sense; he’ll press for a strategic shift.
Then there’s Pete Hegseth, the nominee for secretary of defense.
Hegseth has visited Israel multiple times over the years, but these weren’t typical diplomatic visits.
On one occasion, he was guided by settler leaders to Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus, an area of the West Bank off limits to the United States government.
In a 2016 interview with The Jewish Press, Hegseth recounted his experience visiting the Muslim Quarter and a home there, that had been renovated by Jews.
“There were about 15 young boys, aged around 10-16, singing and dancing. They were hopeful, optimistic, unafraid, despite the challenges they faced in a difficult place. To me, this was a powerful thing to see,” he recalled.
Michael Waltz, the Florida congressman nominated for national security adviser, is another choice that signals a shift. Waltz has a hardline stance on Iran.
Just last month, following Iran’s latest attack on Israel, he called for the Israeli Air Force to target Iran’s oil and nuclear sites.
Waltz’s views on military intervention reveal a willingness to support Israel in a way not seen before on an issue that could redefine the Middle East.
The list goes on: Sen. Marco Rubio, the nominee for secretary of state, has publicly advocated for the “complete eradication” of Hamas, while Elise Stefanik is slated to represent the US at the United Nations.
These are not the kind of ambassadors and leaders who will issue statements of concern over Israeli actions. Instead, they are likely to be cheering from the sidelines, allowing Israel greater flexibility on the ground.
And perhaps most importantly for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, many of these appointees align ideologically with his cabinet’s policies.
They support not just giving Israel the weapons it needs to defend itself, but some advocate for Israel’s continued presence in Judea and Samaria.
Under this administration, Israel will face almost zero criticism over settlement expansion and is more likely to receive support for military action against Iranian targets.
BUT THIS doesn’t mean Israel will have complete freedom of action. While the atmosphere in Washington may be more accommodating, Israel will still need to tread carefully.
The administration’s support does not guarantee a carte blanche, nor does it mean Israel can do as it pleases.
If, for instance, the administration introduces a peace plan that recognizes Palestinian statehood without requiring settlement evacuation, the Israeli Right might find it more difficult to criticize this as being anti-Israel than it could have done under the Democrats.
In essence, while the environment may shift in Israel’s favor, this is not a free pass.
While the atmosphere will be more positive and the relationship closer, it does not mean that Israel will automatically get whatever it wants.
Will it have an easier time reaching understandings? Yes.
But will the pushback be less if Israel does not adhere to the administration’s requests? Not necessarily.
US to blame?
On Tuesday, former IDF general Giora Eiland made a controversial statement, accusing US President Joe Biden of effectively condemning the hostages in Gaza to death.
“The person who has prevented the return of the hostages is President Biden and his administration.
He forced Israel, after the first hostage deal, to allow 200 trucks a day [into Gaza] and sentenced the hostages to death. You can’t define it any other way, and you should say it to the Americans,” Eiland asserted.
The blunt accusation illustrates a narrative that has gained traction on the Israeli right – namely, that American pressure has hampered Israel’s ability to act against Hamas and has compromised its efforts to secure the release of the hostages.
When Israel paused its incursion into Rafah earlier this year, critics argued that it was due to American pressure. Likewise, when talk of a ceasefire came up at the beginning of the war, many people contended that it was Biden who would decide how long the war could last.
But this narrative distorts the reality of the US-Israel relationship.
WHILE WASHINGTON certainly influences Israeli decision-making, it doesn’t dictate it.
Does the US make its views known? Yes. Does it sometimes pressure Israel by hinting at consequences if those views aren’t taken seriously?
Also yes. Nevertheless, the ultimate decision is up to Israel. Biden can urge Israel to permit humanitarian aid into Gaza and even say that failure to comply could affect arms supplies. But the final call is Israel’s, based on its priorities.
What’s surprising is how figures like Eiland, seasoned veterans of the IDF and the government, seem to treat the US-Israel alliance as a one-sided relationship where Israel merely takes and makes demands.
What relationship is like that in life? None that I can think of.
Criticizing American policy is fair, but Israel is an independent nation.
What Eiland said makes it seem as if Israel is not and if it wants to be, it needs to act like one which means making decisions and standing behind them.
The reason Israel doesn’t do this is because it is convenient to have someone else to blame.
When Eiland blames Biden, he is essentially giving the government a pass. This is a mistake and Israelis should stop falling for it.
Bad decision
On Wednesday, the Jerusalem District Court dismissed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request to delay his testimony in his ongoing criminal trial, rejecting his plea for a 10-week extension.
Netanyahu’s lawyers argued that the demands of the war hindered his ability to prepare for court.
Nevertheless, the court maintained that he had ample time, having already set the December date back in July.
There’s no doubt that Netanyahu needs to stand trial.
Indeed, there’s even room to question whether his decisions might be influenced by the charges he is facing.
However, insisting on a rigid adherence to the trial schedule, given the war, is irresponsible.
Israel is not just in the midst of a conflict; it’s fighting one of the most consequential wars in its history. Daily casualties mount, critical post-conflict plans for Gaza and Lebanon must be finalized, and the new US administration requires strategic alignment.
Netanyahu was indicted back in November 2019, nearly five years ago. His trial has proceeded for four-and-a-half years, and suddenly, there’s an urgency to conclude it?
The insistence on keeping his testimony now, while Israel’s military and political landscape is in a state of flux, seems oblivious to what is happening on the ground.
The court’s decision fails to recognize the extraordinary circumstances Israel currently faces.
The judges should correct their stance. It is a matter not only of practicality but also of respect for the country at a time when Israel’s future is very much on the line.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute and a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post.