Former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) revealed at a Likud faction meeting last Monday that Israel’s new “change government” has essentially granted the United States control over Jerusalem’s efforts to prevent Iran’s attainment of nuclear capabilities.
He charged that Prime Minister Naftali Bennett (Yamina) is merely a puppet for Foreign Minister Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) and that Lapid had agreed on the previous Thursday to a request from US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that Israel not surprise Washington with any moves against Iran.
“This is an incredible Israeli commitment that harms the heart of our national security,” Netanyahu said.
“If [former Prime Minister Menaḥem] Begin would have agreed to a policy of no surprises, we would not have destroyed the nuclear reactor in Iraq.”
Netanyahu divulged that both US President Joe Biden and his predecessor Donald Trump had repeatedly made the same requests to him when he was in office but that he had consistently rejected them, insisting that on matters connected to Israel’s existence, Jerusalem must maintain complete freedom of action.
“For 15 years as the prime minister of Israel, I was asked by our American friends to make this commitment many times and I always refused. Sometimes I updated them ahead of the operations we intended to carry out, and many times I did not update them. But I never, ever, agreed to tell them about all our operations, because it would invite pressure not to carry them out or leaks to the press that would prevent the operation and take away our freedom to act against Iran on existential matters.”
“I cannot think of a weaker and more emasculated message to our enemies in Iran,” Netanyahu added, stating that Lapid government is “unfit to lead for even a day.”
If Netanyahu’s claims are true, there is much cause for concern. But it’s not the only area in which Lapid’s new government is irresponsibly subordinating Israel’s foreign policy to American interests.
It was also reported last week that Lapid’s government has agreed to sign onto a condemnation of the People’s Republic of China over allegations of human rights violations against China’s Uyghur minority. The decision to sign onto the statement issued at the United Nations Human Rights Council’s 47th session reportedly came at Washington’s behest and marks a dramatic shift in Israel’s foreign policy.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, the United States has enjoyed unipolar dominance on the global stage as the world’s sole imperial power. But in recent years, the Americans have grown increasingly concerned over Beijing’s rise and increasing strength in markets where Washington had previously enjoyed dominance.
Under Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel had successfully resisted US efforts to drag Jerusalem into Sino-American tensions. But Lapid is clearly eager to ingratiate himself with the Biden administration – even if that means deepening Israel’s dependence and subservience to the United States.
Since officially establishing diplomatic relations in 1992, Israel and China have developed close strategic partnerships on economic, military and technological matters. It could be argued that Netanyahu had strategically strengthened the relationship in an effort to help Israel eventually free itself from US control.
Whether or not Israel should condemn the People’s Republic over the Uyghur issue is an internal matter for Israelis to decide but such a decision should not be taken based on a desire to better serve US interests – especially when those interests involve souring relations between Jerusalem and Beijing in order to maintain US dominance over Israel.
Likewise, to allow Washington oversight over Jerusalem’s Iran policy not only robs Israeli leaders of the ability to act independently on a crucial security matter but also further entrenches our dependency on the United States at a time when we should be moving towards decreasing that dependency.
While the conventional wisdom in many pro-Israel spaces might be that Israel needs US support to survive, it should be noted that all of Israel’s major dramatic achievements on the battlefield came before Israel’s became locked into Washington’s imperialist orbit. Despite the military technology we receive, a strong argument can be made that the US-Israel relationship actually ties Jerusalem’s hands where it counts most.
We also need to keep in mind the current state and uncertain future of the US empire. Assuming that the United States still exists in its current form 20 years from now, the likelihood of an administration more openly hostile to Israel than any in the past seems increasingly likely given America’s current political trajectory. Given that reality, our leaders would be well advised to wean Israel off of US dependency as soon as possible.
