WASHINGTON WATCH
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the US to address a joint session of Congress provided us with a lot to digest. It was his fourth such invitation— more than any other world leader in history (surpassing the UK’s Winston Churchill who made the trans-Atlantic trek to address Congress on three occasions).
As was the case on the three earlier visits, Netanyahu and the Republican Speaker of the House who had extended the invitation, each used the other to serve their own purposes. Speaker Michael Johnson sought to exploit Netanyahu’s address both to embarrass President Biden and to further the GOP’s effort to make support for Israel a “wedge issue” in the upcoming election.
Netanyahu was only too willing to play along with Johnson’s game as he has long viewed the Republican Party (especially the 40 percent of the party who are right-wing “born-again” Christians) as a more reliable partner for Israel than the more liberal-leaning American Jewish community. This is why for the past several decades he has courted Republican leaders and accepted three other GOP invitations to challenge Democratic presidents— Clinton (over the Oslo Process) in 1995, and Obama in 2011 (over the 1967 borders) and in 2015 (over the Iran nuclear deal). Another factor in Netanyahu’s eagerness to speak to Congress was to demonstrate his mastery over US politics to an Israeli public that has turned against his rule.
Johnson may have scored a point toward his goal, but it may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. The Republicans turned out in force and gave the Israeli PM scores of standing ovations during his one-hour oration. But the speech was boycotted by more than one-quarter of the Democrats, with many of those who were in attendance sitting silently, refusing to stand or applaud.
Netanyahu’s speech itself was a startling mix of Herzlian colonialism and neoconservative Manichaeism. Echoing the racist rhetoric of Political Zionism’s founder, Netanyahu opened his remarks calling the conflict “a clash between barbarism and civilization,” and “between those who glorify death and those who sanctify life.” And, like Herzl, he described Israel as both the West’s agent defending its interests in the Middle East and the civilizing agent that would transform the region from being a “backwater of oppression, poverty, and war into a thriving oasis of dignity, prosperity, and peace.”
The neoconservative thread in Netanyahu’s remarks were also striking. That political ideology which came to power during the Reagan administration is a secularized version of a peculiar version of Christian Evangelical thought. Both share characteristics of Manichaeism: there are forces of absolute good and absolute evil in the world; not only is there no possibility of compromise between them, in fact, conflict is inevitable and necessary; and if fought with total commitment, good will always triumph, with evil ultimately eradicated.
What the visit exposed was the reality that the American electorate is deeply divided over this issue. It’s not a matter of Israel being rejected; rather it’s the idea of unquestioning support for Israel no matter what it does, that’s been rejected. As Harris put it in her post-meeting remarks, it’s no longer correct to see this conflict as a “binary choice.” There are needs on both sides that must be met and they can best be met through peace and diploma.
During the Reagan era, the evil was defined as the Soviet Union and its allies. In Netanyahu’s view the source of all evil is Iran and its allies. No compromise is possible, and diplomacy is seen as weakness. And so his appeal to his allies in the West and the Arab World is to join him in this cosmic battle against evil—with the assurance that with determination, victory can be won and evil eradicated.
Because from his earliest days in the Senate Joe Biden had been mentored by one of the architects of American neoconservativism, Netanyahu felt he had an ally in the US President. But with Biden stepping aside as the Democrat’s nominee for president in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris, Netanyahu’s visit to Washington was to end on a sour note. Instead of the warm embrace he was used to receiving from Biden, Harris’ reception was more restrained.
After their meeting, instead of a joint appearance, Harris addressed the press alone. While affirming Israel’s right to defend itself, she added that it was how Israel went about defending itself that mattered. She then went to great lengths to describe the horrible costs to human life and suffering resulting from the war in Gaza. And made it clear that the conflict had to end, and Palestinians needed a future that ensured them freedom and self-determination. With this she implicitly rejected Netanyahu’s call for “total victory,” while also directly indicating that she was not afraid of the GOP’s challenge to make support for Netanyahu’s Israel a “wedge issue” in this election.
What the visit exposed was the reality that the American electorate is deeply divided over this issue. It’s not a matter of Israel being rejected; rather it’s the idea of unquestioning support for Israel no matter what they do that’s been rejected. As Harris put it in her post-meeting remarks, it’s no longer correct to see this conflict as a “binary choice.” There are needs on both sides that must be met and they can best be met through peace and diplomacy.
With that, Netanyahu left Washington and made a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to meet with the one presidential candidate who shares his belief in “total victory,” Donald Trump.
