Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to address a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress today. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who denied that Joe Biden won the U.S. election in 2020 and voted against certifying that victory, extended the invitation back in March. It’s Netanyahu’s record fourth time addressing joint sessions on Congress. That makes him the first foreign leader to address the U.S. Congress four times, one more than former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.1 Giving Netanyahu this extraordinary platform in 2024 is terrible for many reasons, but here are a few.
David Rothkopf wrote that Netanyahu’s no ally and he’s a liar. “While it is easy to understand why Republicans would want Netanyahu to speak to Congress—they love anti-democracy liars who are in trouble with the law and who play footsie with Putin—it is hard to fathom why any Democrat would support this.”2
Five notable Israelis wrote that the invitation “will reward his contempt for U.S. efforts to establish a peace plan, allow more aid to the beleaguered people of Gaza and do a better job of sparing civilians. Time and again, he has rejected President Biden’s plan to remove Hamas from power in Gaza through the establishment of a peacekeeping force.”3
According to the Israel Democracy Institute, in a July 10th poll, 56% of Israelis support a deal to release those taken hostages on Oct. 7th.
The latest Channel 12 poll shows that 72% of Israelis think that Netanyahu needs to resign over the failures of Oct. 7. 44% say he should leave immediately, while 28% say he should leave after the war ends.4
Numerous Democrats, mostly progressive, say they’re going to boycott Netanyahu’s Congressional address. That will confirm an obvious point: Israel’s war on Gaza has become part of the U.S. culture war. Democrats are less likely to support Israel, while Republicans are more likely to support it. The March 27, 2024 Gallup poll confirms the cultural war trend.
The poll’s author, Jeffrey M. Jones, wrote:
Like many issues, U.S. partisans find themselves on opposing sides. Most Republicans, though fewer than in the fall, support Israel's actions, while the vast majority of Democrats are opposed. Independents’ opinions are now much closer to those of Democrats.5
Here’s what we know: Israel has received the greatest amount of U.S. aid since its founding: about $310 billion U.S. (adjusted for inflation).6
There’s a temptation to view Israel as a U.S. client state. In international relations, a client state is a country “that is economically, politically, or militarily dependent on another country.”7 And it’s somewhat true: Israel gets lots of money for military aid, especially U.S. weaponry, and depends on the U.S. for protection at the U.N. Security Council. But it’s not the whole story, based on the evidence provided above. For starters, Israel isn’t particularly compliant with U.S. demands about limiting Palestinian casualties in Gaza. Nor has Biden’s decision to bear hug Israel succeeded. If anything, support for Israel is costing Biden some votes from Democrats, including younger voters. See the poll above, from Gallup.
Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer argued in 2008 that “often justified as reflecting shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, the U.S. commitment to Israel is due primarily to the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby.’”8 The idea of how a lobby (or special interest group) has pushed U.S. policy in a pro-Israel direction is certainly interesting. Back in 2006, the theory was labelled antisemitic by the Anti-Defamation League. However, two things can be true at the same time. In this case, Walt and Mearsheimer’s theory may not be antisemitic, but it also may not be the most comprehensive explanation of U.S-Israel ties.
Then there’s the ally or friend thesis and how it has changed over time. Vox.com wrote about it in 2018; The Guardian did the same in Nov. 2023. In fact, the U.S. did not begin to use its veto at the U.N. Security Council on behalf of Israel until 1970. If anything, using Walt and Mearsheimer’s analysis, Israel is no longer an asset to the U.S. Consider Bilal Y. Saab’s commentary from May 15, 2024 on the need for the U.S. to condition aid to Israel.
Unconditional US military assistance to Israel has undermined America’s own laws governing the use of such assistance by partner nations…
By endorsing Israel’s military operations in Gaza and failing to exercise effective oversight of US military assistance, Washington is essentially undercutting the Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Export Act, and the Leahy Laws, all of which obligate the recipients of US military assistance to meet human rights standards.
Any country violating these standards is liable to be sanctioned and ineligible for US funding.9
Perhaps the best way to understand the relationship for the U.S. is that of a highly truculent ally, strongly boosted by an unrelenting lobby, that has a become a definite wedge issue in U.S. politics. When taken together, that helps explain the Congressional invitation, the Democratic dissatisfaction and the legions of uncommitted voters. It also shows why opposing Israel in the U.S. is an increasingly Sisyphean task with 38 states having passed laws, executive orders or resolutions to prevent boycotting or divesting from Israel.
However, Netanyahu’s address won’t return to the hostages to Israel from Gaza, contribute to the fight against antisemitism in the U.S. or make Israelis and Palestinians safer in Israel-Palestine, and it won’t help Israel escape its continuing trajectory as a pariah state.
Time in 2015 noted that Netanyahu had tied Churchill here: https://time.com/3727163/netanyahu-churchill-history/
Here’s Rothkopf: https://www.thedailybeast.com/benjamin-netanyahu-is-no-ally-hes-a-liar-and-shouldnt-be-allowed-to-address-congress
Here’s the op-ed from the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/opinion/congress-netanyahu-gaza-war.html
The Times of Israel reports on the Channel 12 poll results here: https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-finds-72-of-israelis-think-netanyahu-should-quit-over-oct-7-failures/
See the Gallup poll and summary: https://news.gallup.com/poll/642695/majority-disapprove-israeli-action-gaza.aspx
This figure comes from the Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts
That’s the Merriam-Webster definition.
Here’s a working paper on the idea from Walt and Mearsheimer: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/israel-lobby-and-us-foreign-policy
Here’s the Chatham House commentary from Bilal Y. Saab: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/05/washington-should-condition-us-aid-israel-regardless-what-happens-rafah