The Shifting Sands of the “Special Relationship”: Is U.S. Policy Toward Israel Reaching a Turning Point?
A staggering $22 billion – that’s the estimated cost to American taxpayers of bankrolling the recent Israel-Hamas war. As the temporary ceasefire holds, and the world grapples with the aftermath, a far more fundamental question looms than whether this particular truce will last: is the decades-long, largely unquestioned “special relationship” between the United States and Israel beginning to fray? The answer, increasingly, appears to be yes, and the implications for the region – and for U.S. foreign policy – are profound.
The Illusion of Peace Plans and the Reality of West Bank Expansion
The current agreement, hailed by some as a breakthrough, feels eerily familiar. Like past iterations, it’s a patchwork solution deferring the core issues – the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and, crucially, the ongoing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. As critics rightly point out, the framework was largely dictated by pro-Israel mediators, offering Palestinians an ultimatum rather than a genuine path to negotiation. The Lucy and Charlie Brown analogy – the football perpetually snatched away – remains painfully apt. Sustained peace requires more than temporary pauses in violence; it demands a commitment to addressing the root causes of the conflict, something consistently lacking.
A Dramatic Shift in Public Opinion – Both at Home and Abroad
What’s different this time isn’t necessarily the details of the ceasefire, but the broader geopolitical context. The October 7th attacks and Israel’s subsequent response have triggered a significant shift in global perception. Several nations – including Great Britain, France, and Canada – have formally recognized the state of Palestine, a symbolic but important gesture. More dramatically, U.S. public opinion is undergoing a seismic change. Recent polls reveal that Americans are now more sympathetic to Palestinians than to Israel, with a substantial 41% believing Israel’s actions amount to genocide. This isn’t simply a matter of liberal outrage; prominent conservative voices, like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, have also voiced sharp criticisms of unconditional U.S. support.
The Cracks in the Conservative Coalition
This fracturing of conservative support is particularly noteworthy. For decades, unwavering backing for Israel was a cornerstone of the American right. Now, a strain of “America First” populism views unchecked aid to Israel as a drain on U.S. resources and a distraction from domestic priorities. This divergence highlights a growing recognition that the costs of the “special relationship” are no longer easily ignored.
The Tangible Costs of Unconditional Support
The financial burden is just the beginning. Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. military aid, receiving approximately $4 billion annually – a figure that ballooned during the recent conflict. The U.S. maintains a commitment to Israel’s “qualitative military edge,” even as Israel boasts a thriving economy and a nuclear arsenal. This unconditional support fuels resentment in the Middle East, undermining U.S. soft power and providing ammunition to rivals like Russia and China who readily point to American hypocrisy on human rights. Furthermore, the disproportionate attention given to Israel in U.S. foreign policy – eclipsing issues in far more strategically important nations like India or Indonesia – is increasingly seen as a misallocation of resources.
Is a “Normal” Relationship Possible?
The question, then, is whether the U.S. is moving towards a more “normal” relationship with Israel – one based on mutual interests rather than automatic support. This wouldn’t mean abandoning Israel, but rather treating it like any other nation: offering assistance when aligned with U.S. interests, and applying pressure when its actions diverge. Some argue Israel’s unique historical context and security concerns preclude such a shift. However, as Ian Lustick recently observed, Israel’s increasingly aggressive policies and disregard for international norms are leading some to characterize it as a “crazy state” – a nation pursuing harmful goals with a disturbing sense of moral superiority. Read more about this analysis in the London Review of Books.
The Path Forward: Benevolent Normality and a Rebalanced Approach
A policy of “benevolent normality” – as some have termed it – wouldn’t be anti-Israel. It would be pro-America, and, ultimately, pro-peace. It would require the U.S. to leverage its influence to hold Israel accountable for its actions, particularly regarding settlement expansion and the treatment of Palestinians. This won’t be easy, given the powerful lobbying groups that have long championed unconditional support. But the current trajectory is unsustainable, both for the U.S. and for Israel itself. A more balanced approach, prioritizing U.S. interests and a just resolution to the conflict, is not only possible but increasingly necessary. The future of the region, and America’s role within it, depends on it.
What steps do you think the U.S. should take to rebalance its relationship with Israel and foster a more lasting peace? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
