Washington insider’s wake-up call to the Israeli public

The tectonic plates of US-Israeli relations are shifting, and far more quickly than anyone could have anticipated. Much of this change has been driven by events over the past few years, which have accelerated the realization that the trajectory Israel has taken under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has transformed the Jewish state from a strategic asset into a strategic burden for the US.

The undercurrents of this shift have existed for some time. However, the current government’s singular reliance on military force to resolve conflicts, its intransigent approach to the Palestinian issue, and its willingness to risk dragging the US into a broader war with Iran, with what have become painful consequences for Washington and its allies, have made a crisis in the relationship between the two countries almost inevitable.

Vice President J.D. Vance recently warned Israel that it has “almost no friends left in the world” and asserted that the US is its only remaining powerful ally when he blamed Israel for obstructing a ceasefire in Lebanon. Within the MAGA movement, which opposes foreign military intervention, many blame Israel for the war with Iran.

On the other side of the political spectrum, progressive Democrats are appalled by what they see as the unbearable immorality of Israel’s excessive use of force in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people; as well as the oppressive occupation of the West Bank, with Palestinians there facing settlers’ violence without anyone stopping them or bringing them to justice.

It can be argued that some of these criticisms lack nuance or are excessively partisan. Nevertheless, they do not detract from the central point: Israel’s conduct is undermining both the values-based foundations of the special relationship between the two countries and important American strategic interests around the world.

It was, however, former President Barack Obama’s chief of staff and potential Democrat presidential candidate Rahm Emanuel who delivered perhaps the clearest and most frank of warnings. Earlier this month, in a courageous and clear-eyed speech at Tel Aviv University, he painted a sobering picture of where the relationship between the US and Israel is heading. Israeli politicians, and voters who will soon return to the polls, would do themselves a favor by listening carefully.

With surgical precision, Emanuel dissected why relations between the two countries have reached a crossroads. The first reason, he argued, is that Netanyahu and his ultra-nationalist government “have led Israel into a dead end.” But the other side of the equation is equally important: “For too long,” said Emanuel, “American policy toward Israel operated under the assumption that the best thing Washington could do for Jerusalem was to blindly and silently stand behind your government, without conditions, without demands, and without consequences when we disagreed. That has been our mistake.”

It has been a mistake not only because it has failed to serve American interests, but also because it has done Israel no favors. Israel increasingly finds itself treated as a pariah state, embroiled in multiple wars while moving steadily toward the annexation of the West Bank. Dangerous discussions about further mass displacement of Palestinians only deepen the country’s international isolation and risk leaving Israel a democracy in name only.

The Israeli right, and even some in the political center, may not have liked what they heard from Emanuel, although the audience at Tel Aviv University greeted his remarks with enthusiastic applause. Yet they cannot dismiss him, or his arguments, as easily as they might dismiss New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whom many Israelis view as ideologically partisan because of his pro-Palestinian positions, or MAGA commentator Tucker Carlson, whom many there regard as antisemitic.

Emanuel occupies a very different position. Not only is he Jewish, but he reminded his audience that his uncle was killed fighting the British Mandate in the underground and that his father served in the Israeli military during the 1948 war. He also served in two of the most pro-Israel American administrations, that of Bill Clinton, during which the Oslo Accords were signed, and Barack Obama, while remaining consistently critical of the Palestinian leadership.

Americans are questioning the wisdom of providing unconditional political, military, and financial support to Israel. 

Yossi Mekelberg

Yet Emanuel stated in the clearest possible terms that America’s policy of providing unconditional support to Israel, particularly during Netanyahu’s tenure, “has produced a prime minister who has presumed that his strategic interests would incur no cost if he ignored America’s concerns about settlements and sparked a regional war.”

Emanuel’s condemnation of settler violence perpetrated with near-total impunity, and his willingness to voice those criticisms on Israeli soil were remarkable, especially for someone who may harbor ambitions for the highest office in American politics.

To be sure, Emanuel did not come to Israel as a sage at the gates, although there was something of that quality in his speech. Nor did he appear to be sacrificing his presidential ambitions in order to rescue US-Israeli relations or save Israel from what he views as its self-destructive leadership. He is an astute politician and a consummate Washington insider who clearly senses the changing political mood in the US. In growing numbers, Americans are questioning the wisdom of providing unconditional political, military, and financial support to Israel while spending billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars in aid to Israel.

It was, therefore unsurprising, that one of Emanuel’s boldest proposals was to phase out direct American military aid. Israel, now far wealthier than when this assistance first began, should instead purchase American weapons outright. Such an approach, he suggested, might encourage Israel to use military force more judiciously, while preserving the economic benefits for the US defense industry.

This was not the speech of a cynical politician merely testing the waters before launching a presidential campaign. Rather, it came across as the thoughtful reflections of someone with decades of experience in US-Israeli relations who genuinely cares about preserving the alliance and ensuring Israel’s long-term well-being, but not at the expense of America’s core interests or democratic values.

Emanuel also advocated what he called a “23-state solution.” Under this proposal, Israel would abandon its expansionist vision of a Greater Israel, including the West Bank, and perhaps parts of Gaza, and embrace a two-state solution. In return, all members of the Arab League would recognize Israel. The idea itself is not new. It is rooted in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, first proposed by then Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah.

But that does not make it any less relevant. Indeed, current regional dynamics may make it more viable than at any point in recent years. Were such an approach to become official American policy, the prospects for turning it into reality would increase significantly.

Rahm Emanuel left Israel with much to reflect upon. History may ultimately judge his speech not only as a seminal moment in the relationship between two close allies and their peoples, but also as an important step toward resolving a conflict that, for far too long, has seemed beyond resolution.

• Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg