United States President Donald Trump was invited to Israel to receive the Jewish state’s highest civilian honor, the Israel Prize, typically given on Yom HaAtzmaut – the day Israel won our freedom from British rule.
The visit isn’t likely to occur due to the current military actions in Iran, but the invitation is nonetheless worthy of analysis.
Trump would be the second non-Israeli to ever be awarded the prize, and is being recognized for a “Unique Contribution to the Jewish People.”
Israeli President Yitzḥak Herzog announced the invitation in the aftermath of Trump’s pressure on both Israel and Hamas to agree to a ceasefire.
While we should of course celebrate the return of our hostages, both living and dead, a celebration of the man who bullied Israel’s government to end a war is embarrassing – and doing so on the day commemorating our independence is truly ironic, as it reveals several misconceptions about what the day actually celebrates in light of Israel’s current relationship with the United States.
For starters, Herzog’s invitation reflects a misunderstanding of what Yom HaAtzmaut is actually celebrating – one that even shows up in some versions of al-HaNissim drafted for the day. The focus on attaining statehood, and then surviving a military campaign waged by neighboring Arab armies, was insisted upon by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his ruling Mapai party, which collaborated with the British regime against those fighting for freedin, and therefore sought to downplay the Jewish-British conflict.
The military campaign Yom HaAtzmaut commemorates is actually the anti-colonial insurgency against British rule led by Leḥi (the “Loḥamei Ḥerut Yisrael” – “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”) and, to a lesser extent, Etzel (“Irgun Zvai Leumi” – “National Military Organization”), which concluded on the 5th of Iyar when the British withdrew from the country.
According to the final British White Paper regarding Palestine, “Jewish terrorism” had forced the empire to withdraw. Appreciating this fact should be enough to highlight how inappropriate it is to award the Israel Prize to Trump on Yom HaAtzmaut.
Bestowing the current leader of the imperialist West our nation’s highest civilian honor on the day that Israel finally gained independence from Washington’s predecessor is reminiscent of pro-Roman attitudes amongst the Second Temple era Judeans who had resisted Seleucid-Greek rule. It reflects a revisionist historical account that completely abandons of Israel’s own unique historiographical lens.
Israel’s uncanny national rebirth in the modern age was tolerated by the United States and its allies under very specific conditions, foremost among them that Israel function as an extension of Western power. This client state identity is one that many Israelis have internalized, despite being completely at odds with our historic mission and the role Western civilization occupies in the Jewish meta-narrative.
Awarding Donald Trump this prize is also an embarrassing read of the contemporary political dynamics between the United States and Israel.
After decades of Washington using whatever leverage available (arms, political cover at the UN, etc.) to pressure Israel into policies that advance US interests in the region, Trump’s presidency isn’t an aberration but the fullest expression of this. Trump pursues a clear “America First” agenda, not with hostility like some of his predecessors, but with an imperial bearhug.
That style – direct, personal, and seemingly sympathetic – has led many within Israel’s nationalist camp to perceive Trump as uniquely friendly. But the outcomes tell a different story. Trump has extracted concessions, enforced ceasefires, and shaped Israeli decision-making to suit US interests no less than his predecessors. If anything, he has done so more effectively, precisely because he is perceived by Israelis as friendly.
And so the image of Israel awarding its highest civilian honor to a US president, on Independence Day no less, becomes difficult to ignore. It suggests not confidence, but dependency. Not sovereignty, but a slavish subordination to empire.
There was no truly “friendly voice” in London at the end of the Mandate for Palestine. And there is none in Washington today. There are interests, alignments, and moments of convergence, but not friendship in the sentimental sense that this gesture seems to imply.
Independence, if it is to mean anything, must include the ability to recognize such a distinction.
