Observations on the Netanyahu Visit

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 three addresses).

As with his 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 to embarrass President Biden and further the GOP’s effort to make support for Israel a “wedge issue” in the upcoming election.

Netanyahu was very willing to play along with Johnson’s game having long viewed the Republican Party (especially its 40 per cent who are right-wing “born-again” Christians) as a more reliable partner for Israel than the liberal-leaning American Jewish community. It’s why for decades he courted Republican leaders and accepted three 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). Netanyahu’s eagerness to speak to Congress was also to demonstrate his mastery over US politics to an Israeli public that’s turned against his rule.

Johnson may have made progress towards his goal, but it may be a Pyrrhic victory. 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-third of the Democrats, with many who attended 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 civilisation”, and “between those who glorify death and those who sanctify life”. Like Herzl, he described Israel as the West’s agent defending its Middle East interests and the civilising agent transforming the region from a “backwater of oppression, poverty, and war into a thriving oasis of dignity, prosperity and peace”.

Netanyahu’s remarks’ neoconservative thread was also striking. That political ideology which took hold during the Reagan administration is a secularised version of a peculiar version of Christian Evangelical thought. Both share characteristics of Manichaeism: The world has forces of absolute good and absolute evil, with no possibility of compromise; conflict is inevitable and necessary; and if fought with total commitment, good will always triumph, with evil ultimately eradicated.

During the Reagan era, the evil was defined as the Soviet Union and its allies. For Netanyahu, the source of all evil is Iran and its allies. No compromise is possible, and diplomacy is weakness. His appeal to Western and Arab allies is to join this cosmic battle against evil — assuring them that with determination, evil will be eradicated.

Because from his earliest days in the Senate Biden had been mentored by an architect of American neo-conservativism, Netanyahu felt he had an ally in the US president. But with Biden stepping aside as the Democratic presidential nominee in favour of Vice President Kamala Harris, Netanyahu’s visit to Washington ended on a sour note. Unlike the warm embrace he was used to 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 how Israel defended itself mattered. She went to great lengths describing the horrible costs to human life and suffering from the war in Gaza. She made clear that the conflict had to end, and Palestinians needed a future ensuring them freedom and self-determination. She implicitly rejected Netanyahu’s call for “total victory”, while directly indicating she doesn’t fear the GOP’s challenge to make support for Netanyahu’s Israel an electoral “wedge issue”.

The visit exposed the reality of the American electorate’s deep division over this issue. It’s not Israel being rejected, but a rejection of unquestioning support for Israel no matter its behaviour. As Harris remarked, this conflict isn’t a “binary choice”. Needs on both sides must be met — and can be through peace and diplomacy.

With that, Netanyahu left Washington on a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to meet with the one presidential candidate who shares his belief in “total victory”, Donald Trump.