It's Time to Revisit the United States' "Special Relationship" with Israel
The U.S. should condition its support for Israel on Israel's willingness to embrace a two-state solution.
“There’s only one solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict: Two states for two indigenous people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. And if you’re not for that, if you’re not for ending the violence and for hostage release, if you’re only condemning one side and not the other, you’re not morally serious.”
That’s what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman told Michael Smerconish on CNN last weekend. Friedman was paraphrasing a section from a May 8 op-ep he wrote about why he found the recent campus protests so troubling. “[W]hen [protesters] chant slogans like ‘liberate Palestine’ and ‘from the river to the sea,’” Friedman wrote, “they are essentially calling for the erasure of the state of Israel, not a two-state solution.” Friedman isn’t dismissing the concerns of the pro-Palestinian movement here. He is instead asking the protesters to consider the implications of their demands. Friedman believes once they do that, the protesters will realize any peaceful and humane resolution to this conflict will ultimately need to accommodate the interests and dignity of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. That means a two-state solution—not the triumph of one side over the other—is the only way forward and what protesters should be rallying around.
If you doubt that conclusion, just consider what a one-state solution would look like. If an exclusively Palestinian state existed “from the river to the sea,” it would likely result in turning the 7.1 million Jews currently living in Israel into second-class citizens, refugees, detainees, or worse. Something similar could happen to the 5.2 million Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank—the territories currently occupied by Israel that would become the homeland of a future Palestinian State—if an Israeli state existed “from the river to the sea.”
And that’s why Friedman declared himself both “intensely…anti-Hamas and anti-Netanyahu” in the same breath in that op-ed. Unlike the Palestinian Authority that exercises partial control over the West Bank, Hamas (based in Gaza) does not support a two-state solution. It seeks to establish an Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It is easy to despise Hamas after the massacre they perpetrated in Israel last October, but even if they had not carried out that attack, they would still be recognized as an impediment to peace in the Middle East.
But in Friedman’s view, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is as much of an obstacle to a two-state solution as Hamas. Netanyahu has almost always opposed a two-state solution, as he regards a Palestinian state as an existential threat to Israel. His views certainly hardened following Hamas’s assault, but his tenuous political position also complicates matters. Netanyahu was already a diminished political figure in Israel prior to Hamas’s attack due to allegations of corruption and his flirtation with authoritarianism. To regain power and avoid prosecution, Netanyahu formed a coalition government in 2022 with far-right Jewish extremists who hold bigoted views of Palestinians. (For example, Netanyahu’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich once said there is “no such thing” as a Palestinian people and called for segregating Arab and Jewish women in maternity wards.) The extremists in Netanyahu’s coalition oppose a two-state solution, seek to expand Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and have even expressed a desire to annex the Palestinian territories using the language of ethnic cleansing. Netanyahu’s self-interested determination to hold on to political power means he cannot break with these extremists, which in turn means so long as he remains prime minister, there is absolutely no chance the Israeli government will support a two-state solution.
(For more on the rise of Israeli extremism, see “The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel” by Ronen Bergman and Mark Mazzetti for the New York Times Magazine.)
Therefore, to use Friedman’s formulation, because Netanyahu does not favor a two-state solution, he cannot be considered a “morally serious” political figure. Netanyahu’s defenders would certainly disagree by echoing Netanyahu’s claim that a Palestinian state is an existential threat to Israel. According to them, it would be more immoral for Israel to let its guard down and endanger its citizens. I’ll concede that’s understandable, particularly if one believes the Palestinian people will always seek to reclaim Israeli territory by force and that an organized internationally-recognized Palestinian state would possess a greater capacity to do just that. Hamas’s attack on Israel only reinforced the belief that Israel must defend itself against untrustworthy Palestinians.
But Netanyahu’s thinking is short-sighted. The only way out of this mess is a two-state solution that provides security guarantees to Israel and promises the Palestinian people decent and dignified lives. Every other solution results in displacement, oppression, or death. Netanyahu’s way forward—whether via the continued occupation of Palestinian territories or, if the extremists in his cabinet get their way, the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza—would do just that. Palestinians would live under the thumb of the Israeli military state, which would only foster greater resentment and resistance to Israeli rule, which in turn could lead to more bloodshed. Many Palestinians would become refugees, which could strain and destabilize other nations. Israel would need to turn itself into a fortress and likely backslide from a democracy into a security state. Its Arab neighbors, many of whom have normalized relations with Israel, may feel the need to adopt a more antagonistic posture toward Israel to remain in good standing with an outraged Arab street, increasing the likelihood of an interstate armed conflict.
So Netanyahu’s way forward is a dead end. That puts the United States in a tough spot.
Since the early 1960s, the United States has maintained what President John Kennedy branded a “special relationship” with Israel. Our closest strategic ally in the Middle East, Israel is the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign aid. Since 2007, all that aid—about $3.8 billion annually—has come in the form of military assistance. It is U.S. policy to provide Israel with a “qualitative military edge” that would allow Israel “to defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damage and casualties.” On the global stage, the United States is Israel’s most prominent defender, with the U.S. often using its status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to veto resolutions condemning Israel. People around the world see the United States and Israel as closely connected nations and unwavering allies, with the United States serving as Israel’s chief benefactor and the power reinforcing Israel’s military might.
At the same time, the United States is a major advocate for a two-state solution. This has struck many as odd, since it would not seem that Israel’s main ally could function as a fair and neutral arbiter. It is also jarring to see a nation advocate for peace while supplying one party to the conflict with weapons that can be used to subdue the other side. But a two-state solution is in the United States’ national interest, as it would provide significant security guarantees to a major ally (Israel), allow the United States to align itself with the cause of human rights by securing a better future for the Palestinians, and eliminate a wedge issue opponents of the United States in the Middle East have used to turn people in the Muslim world against the U.S.
Now it is possible for the United States to justify sending military aid to Israel while simultaneously seeking a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Israel, after all, has other threats beyond its borders—namely Iran—it must account for. But it is hard to reconcile the United States’ support for a two-state solution with Israel’s ongoing operation in Gaza, which, despite its aim of eliminating a barrier to the peace in Hamas, is turning into an open-ended occupation. The Israeli government has yet to provide a plan for what it intends to do after it has eliminated Hamas and secured the release of the hostages. What signs we have received are troubling: For instance, the Washington Post this past week ran a story about Israel’s construction of an east-west corridor in Gaza that would allow Israel to maintain a military presence there and control the flow of aid and civilians through the enclave. That development is not consistent with a two-state solution.
The cognitive dissonance is hard to ignore. Consider: The United States this week completed the construction of a floating pier off the Gaza coast that can be used to circumvent an Israeli blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian relief to Palestinians whose homes and livelihoods have been destroyed by a military subsidized by the United States. Again, it is difficult to reconcile how the U.S. can support a two-state solution while supplying Israel with the military hardware it is using to prevent that outcome from becoming a reality. The longer this war goes on, the more it seems the idea of a two-state solution is nothing more than lip service and that the United States actually stands behind the full extent of Israel’s operation.
Some would argue that’s not true, as reports indicate President Biden has expressed his frustrations with Israel’s actions to Netanyahu. Biden even halted the delivery of bombs to Israel to signal his displeasure. Perhaps that’s having something of an effect; so far, Israel seems hesitant to launch a large-scale operation in the city of Rafah, where 1.5 million Palestinian refugees have sought shelter. But Israel does not seem interested in winding down the war, either. Reports indicate Biden has played both good cop and bad cop with Netanyahu in an effort to influence Israel’s actions. Netanyahu, however, apprehends that Israel retains the United States’ almost total and unconditional support, meaning many of the red lines the U.S. has drawn regarding Israel’s actions can be crossed without consequence.
Perhaps, then, the United States should call Netanyahu’s bluff and reconsider its “special relationship” with Israel. This wouldn’t mean the U.S. would no longer consider Israel an ally. Nor would it necessarily mean the United States would need to suspend its support for critical Israeli defense systems like the anti-missile Iron Dome system. Instead, effectively “normalizing” relations with Israel—that is, placing conditions on material, financial, and diplomatic support—could give the United States the leverage it needs to influence Israeli policymakers and steer them toward a two-state solution that is the best hope for defusing tension in the region and establishing a durable peace.
Normalizing relations with Israel would also allow the United States to act in a way that is more aligned with its own self-interest. That isn’t to say that a safe, strong, and secure Israel isn’t in the United States’ self-interest, but that it is not in the United States’ self-interest for a close ally—particularly one that benefits significantly from American military aid—to become an international pariah by turning a retaliatory military action aimed at destroying the perpetrators of a massacre into a full-on occupation of Palestinian land that results in widespread destruction, famine, the displacement of over one million people, and the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. The United States’ moral credibility is on the line, and it needs to be able to signal to other governments and their citizens that it can back up its disapproval of Israel’s behavior with substantive action and that its support for Israel does not come in the form of a blank check.
Some will argue that pursuing a two-state solution following Hamas’s attack on Israel only rewards Hamas’s bad behavior. I would argue, however, that by now, the conflict is as much about Hamas’s actions as it is Israel’s reaction. At a deeper level, it is yet another round in the cycle of violence that has plagued the region for decades. The war only proves why peace talks are necessary and should be viewed as an opportunity to restart them. Right now, though, Netanyahu appears more interested in hanging on to power than in pursuing a two-state solution. To change his thinking—or perhaps that of the Israeli people—it may be time for the United States to show Israel some tough love. That may be the only morally serious option available.
MORE: “The Israeli Defense Establishment Revolts Against Netanyahu” by Yair Rosenberg of The Atlantic (“To appease his far-right flank, the prime minister has refused to commit to Palestinian governance of Gaza. Israel’s security figures are calling his bluff.”)
“A Member of Israel’s War Cabinet Says He’ll Quit If There is No Plan to Replace Hamas” by Daniel Estrin of NPR (“The ultimatum by Benny Gantz, a former army chief and current minister in Israel's three-member war cabinet, reflects growing discontent among Israel's leadership about the protracted war in Gaza and Netanyahu's far-right political partners. The move could pose a significant challenge to the stability of Netanyahu's government.”)
“Israel Resists Grand Bargain as U.S. and Saudis Work on Security Pact” by Edward Wong and Vivian Nereim of the New York Times (“American and Saudi officials have tried to revive prospects for a deal by demanding more from Israel — a cease-fire in Gaza and irreversible steps toward the founding of a Palestinian nation. Now those officials say they are close to a final agreement on the main elements of what the Saudis want from the deal: a U.S.-Saudi mutual defense pact and cooperation on a civilian nuclear program in the kingdom….But there are no signs that Israeli leaders are moving to join them, despite the symbolic importance for Israel of establishing ties with Saudi Arabia, the most powerful Arab nation.”)
Signals and Noise
2024 Presidential Election
Perhaps the most interesting finding in that New York Times poll of battleground states showing Biden faring poorly against Trump (and continuing to perform poorly among young and non-white voters) is that the Democrats running for Senate in those states are ahead in their races as expected and outpolling Biden. That suggests to me a.) The polls are accurate; and b.) There’s room for Biden to improve his numbers there. But maybe the Democrats are ahead due to better name recognition? Keep an eye on those Senate races: If the Republicans improve their standing, Democrats are in trouble.
Another key finding in that New York Times poll: Seventy percent of voters want major political and economic change, and few voters view Biden as a change candidate.
Gavin Bade of Politico looks at how Biden and Trump keep trying to one-up one another on trade and tariffs. A major issue are imports of cheap Chinese EVs made in Mexico. Yet with his eye on the environmental aspects of the issue, Dylan Matthews of Vox wonders why the Biden administration is so hellbent on banning the cheapest, most popular EVs in production. MORE: “China Has Gotten the Trade War It Deserves” by Michael Schuman of The Atlantic and “Biden’s China Tariffs Are the End of an Era for Cheap Chinese Goods” by Jim Tankersley of the New York Times (“Mr. Biden’s decision on Tuesday to codify and escalate tariffs imposed by Mr. Trump made clear that the United States has closed out a decades-long era that embraced trade with China and prized the gains of lower-cost products over the loss of geographically concentrated manufacturing jobs….It is [un]clear whether the American public, still reeling from the country’s most rapid burst of inflation in 40 years, will tolerate the pains that could accompany the transition.”)
Joseph Zeballos-Roig and Jordan Weissmann of Semafor write about a major issue looming over this year’s congressional and presidential elections: The winners will get to rewrite the US tax code in 2025.
Biden proposed and Trump quickly accepted two debates scheduled for June and September (although many are wondering if they’ll really take place.) The debates bypass the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates that has organized the debates since 1988. Bill Scher of the Washington Monthly writes Biden agreed to the debates after voicing skepticism about participating in them a few months ago because he’s worried about his standing in the polls.
Trump again could only net around 80% of the Republican vote in last Tuesday’s primary, all of which were closed to Republican voters. The most interesting result, though, came in Douglas County, Nebraska, the home of Omaha, where Nikki Haley won 23% of the vote. The Omaha area constitutes one congressional district in Nebraska, which awards its electoral votes by congressional district. In some scenarios, that electoral vote could prove decisive. Biden won that electoral vote in 2020.
Kellen Browning and Nicholas Nehamas of the New York Times look at the challenges the Biden campaign is facing in Nevada.
“Has anyone ever seen The Silence of the Lambs? The late, great Hannibal Lecter. He’s a wonderful man. He often times would have a friend for dinner. Remember the last scene? ‘Excuse me, I’m about to have a friend for dinner,’ as this poor doctor walked by. ‘I’m about to have a friend for dinner.’ But Hannibal Lecter. Congratulations. The late, great Hannibal Lecter.”—Don Trump, expressing admiration for the cannibalistic Hannibal Lecter (who can’t be “late” since he’s a fictional character) before comparing him to undocumented immigrants.
Don Trump’s Legal Cases
Ankush Khardori of Politico argues Trump’s lawyers are making terrible mistakes in his hush money trial, but blames Trump himself for directing their strategy.
Reuters looks at the threats directed at the judges in Trump’s trials on social media.
Like other prominent Republicans, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson joined Trump outside the Manhattan courthouse where Trump is on trial Tuesday to decry the court system as “corrupt.” Liz Cheney reacted on X by stating, “Have to admit I’m surprised that @SpeakerJohnson wants to be in the ‘I cheated on my wife with a porn star’ club. I guess he’s not that concerned with teaching morality to our young people after all.” Mitt Romney also tore into the parade of Republicans who have travelled to New York to stand with Trump. Matt Bai captured the scene well in the Washington Post: “I can’t say from experience how you’re supposed to know when you’ve officially become part of an organized crime family, but if you feel it necessary for your professional advancement to show up at a courthouse and pay respect to a patriarch charged with fraudulent payments to a porn star, chances are you check all the boxes.”
Congress
The Supreme Court ordered Louisiana to conduct this fall’s election using the congressional maps drawn to add a second majority-Black district (and likely Democratic seat) to its delegation. (Interesting split on the Court, too, with conservatives voting to add the seat while liberals voted to keep the lower court’s ruling in place.)
House Democrats joined two dozen Republicans on a discharge petition that will now bring a bill supporting disaster tax relief to the House floor. This is the first time a discharge petition has succeeded since 2015, as members typically do not want to cross party leadership by working around them.
For the second time in seven years, Democratic New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez is on trial for corruption.
Republican Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene decided to mock Democratic Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s eyelashes during a congressional committee hearing and then it all went to hell.
Ohio Republican Senate candidate Bernie Moreno portrays himself as an immigrant who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. The reality, according to the New York Times, is that he was born into a wealthy, politically-connected family in Colombia.
Maryland Republican Senate candidate Larry Hogan described himself as “pro-choice.” He has always kept his position on the issue ambiguous.
Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz dropped a Proud Boys reference while talking the press outside Don Trump’s trial in New York.
State and Local Politics
Andrew Van Dam of the Washington Post set out to identify the state that, based on demographic data, most resembles the United States as a whole. His answer? Florida (wait, what?) but actually Illinois if you weigh the criteria somewhat (but even then Florida still comes in second.)
Louisiana legislators have moved to designate abortion pills as “controlled dangerous substances” like other addictive drugs. Doctors have said such a designation is not based in scientific fact. Louisiana currently bans medication and surgical abortions and recently rejected adding exceptions to that law for girls under the age of 17 who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest.
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wasted no time pardoning a man convicted of murdering a police brutality protester in 2020.
Marin Cogan of Vox writes about efforts to lower speed limits in cities, where high speeds are a major cause of pedestrian deaths.
The Judiciary
The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
Lawrence Hurley of NBC News notes Samuel Alito, the conservative Supreme Court justice who has a reputation for being the justice most hostile to criminal defendants, has recently expressed sympathy during oral arguments for an interesting collection of defendants: Gun owners, January 6 defendants, and Donald Trump.
In more Samuel Alito news, Jodi Kantor of the New York Times reports the Alito household displayed a “Stop the Steal” symbol in the days after 1/6.
By Ian Millhiser of Vox: “The 9 Worst Court Decisions Since Trump Remade the Federal Judiciary”
Education
With pandemic aid coming to an end, schools around the country are announcing major teacher and staff layoffs.
Seventy years after Brown v. Board of Education, Fabiola Cineas of Vox notes school segregation is getting worse.
The Economy
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said he was not as confident in the prospects of slowing inflation, signaling he is likely to keep interest rates where they’re at over the short term. Inflation is currently in the 3% range, which is higher than the Fed’s goal of 2%.
Rob Copeland of the New York Times writes Wall Street is starting to warm to Trump.
Trump Media stock is rising again, although nothing has happened that could explain why its valuation is now similar to that of American Airlines.
Federal regulators approved changes to how the nation’s electrical grids are planned and funded, which could make it easier to add wind and solar sources to the grids.
International News
The New York Times reports fighting is flaring again in northern Gaza, which the Israeli military claimed to have cleared of Hamas.
David Luhnow and Anat Peled of the Wall Street Journal write that Israelis see a very different version of the war in Gaza—one that does not show the suffering on Palestinians—on their TVs than the rest of the world.
The United Nations has cut the number of women and children killed in Gaza in half, although that still means close to 5,000 women and 8,000 children have died since the war started. (The UN estimates 35,000 Gazans have been killed.)
The Biden administration announced it is moving forward with a $1 billion arms sale to Israel. The sale includes millions for tank munitions, tactical vehicles, and mortar rounds, and would likely take years to complete. Politico reports Hill Democrats are confused by Biden’s weapons policy.
The Wall Street Journal reports Ukraine is intercepting fewer Russian missiles (which have become harder to hit) resulting in more lethal attacks. David L. Stern of the Washington Post writes about how Ukraine’s energy network has been almost completely destroyed over the past few months.
Having watched Russia build up its forces to attack the Kharkiv region, Ukraine is pushing the Biden administration to let it use US weapons to attack Russian territory.
Eric Lipton of the New York Times writes about the Pentagon’s rush to expand its ability to wage war in space, as China and Russia have built up assets in space that could target soldiers on the ground as well as satellites in orbit.