Israel’s new finance minister, Betzalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism), published a surprising op-ed last week in the Wall Street Journal, entreating American conservatives to keep an open mind in regards to him and his partners in Israel’s new coalition.
In the op-ed, Smotrich requested that readers ignore the media’s vilification of Israel’s “traditionalist bloc” and judge the government put together by Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) on its merits.
But his characterization of the new government’s agenda is unfortunately neither accurate nor a compelling enough case to assuage American concerns.
Experts who regularly monitor the US-Israel relationship have pointed out that the op-ed had a clear purpose – to quell the fears of American conservatives whom Prime Minister Netanyahu has long cultivated as allies and who may be concerned by some of his new coalition partners.
“The conservative right was with [Netanyahu] and now he seems to be riding the tiger of the radical right,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“I think that is bound to alienate the very people who counted on him being risk-averse and to focus on the economy.”
Jonathan Schanzer, a vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said that Smotrich’s WSJ op-ed was “designed to appeal to traditional conservatives” – likely written at Netanyahu’s behest with American conservatives in mind.
Netanyahu has spent years fostering a relationship with the American right through close ties with the Republican party and evangelical Christians. This was largely achieved through his vocal support for values that conservatives hold dear, including free markets and a strong Western stance against Islamic extremism. But from a Western conservative perspective, Smotrich, Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit) and Avi Maoz (Noam) may appear no less frightening than the Muslim Brotherhood or Iranian Ayatollahs.
An alliance with Israeli political figures perceived as theocratic extremists could be a bridge too far for Netanyahu’s conservative friends who champion Western values overseas, said Dov Zakheim, who served as a defense official in multiple Republican administrations.
“Traditional conservatives are much closer to the Bushes, and Jim Baker and those sorts of folks,” he said, referring to the two former Republican presidents and the secretary of state who interfered in Israel’s political system to remove Prime Minister Yitzḥak Shamir from office in 1992.
Smotrich’s op-ed, published two days before Israel’s new government was sworn in, was clearly an attempt to persuade the American right that Netanyahu’s coalition isn’t the hotbed of ultra-nationalist and religious extremists it’s been portrayed as in the American press. But the chances of it succeeding are low.
First and foremost, Smotrich is unlikely to have even written the op-ed.
While Schanzer suggested that the piece was written at Netanyahu’s behest, what’s more likely is that it was actually written by someone in Netanyahu’s office. It’s doubtful that Smotrich even had the op-ed explained to him (he doesn’t speak English) and it doesn’t appear to reflect any of his actual plans for the finance ministry.
Channel 12 News correspondent Keren Marciano reported earlier this week that Smotrich has begun to formulate a plan to deal with the rising the costs of living, which would include food stamps, government subsidies for after school programs, freezing electricity price increases, and a negative income tax to supplement the salaries of minimum wage and low income workers. Not exactly Republican positions.
What WSJ readers in America may not appreciate is that unlike the plutocracy that was Israel’s previous government, Netanyahu’s new coalition is comprised of parties whose voters come from the nation’s poorest sectors. Liberal economic policies favoring the rich would primarily benefit those who voted for Benny Gantz (National Unity) and Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid). So regardless of what was written in the piece with Smotrich’s name on it, the new finance minister is unlikely to pursue policies amiable to the American right.
The statements attributed to Smotrich in the op-ed about economic liberalism and laissez faire reforms actually read a lot more like Naftali Bennett’s Singapore Plan than anything rooted in the Gush Emunim ideological tradition our new finance minister represents. Trying to frame his policy agenda as making Israel more like the United States just comes across as recycled “shared values” hasbara and causes Smotrich look like a poseur. He’s be better off owning his true agenda for the finance ministry and crafting talking points around our collective responsibility to Israel’s weakest sectors.
Second, the WSJ op-ed seems to completely misunderstand Washington’s opposition to figures like Smotrich gaining power and influence.
For every US administration since World War II, the central issue on the table has been the “two-state solution.” This has been Washington’s guiding policy on Israel since the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and the Morrison Grady Plan that it proposed.
Smotrich is arguably one of the Israeli lawmakers most dedicated to defending and expanding Jewish life in the West Bank. He and several of his coalition partners are fully committed to resisting any efforts to divide this land into two separate states.
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken made it clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu after the new government’s swearing-in last week that Washington’s continued support for Israel will be based on continued work towards partitioning the country into two states, and undermined by any policies that prevent such an outcome.
Being that partition has been a consistent centerpiece of US foreign policy in our region for close to a century, anyone responsible for crafting or implementing US policy in regards to Israel can’t help but perceive Israel’s new finance minister as a threat. Regardless of how he tries to spin things (and public relations is certainly not his strength), Smotrich can’t avoid the contradictions between US imperial interests and his conception of the Jewish people’s connection to this land. So long as he maintains a principled opposition to the division of our country, he can’t avoid being an obstacle to US interests in the region.
By skirting around this issue of Jewish life in the Judea and Samaria regions, Smotrich’s op-ed isn’t fooling anyone in Washington, and only adds to the sense that his understanding of international politics is inadequately short-sighted. If he’s already threatening US empirical interests in our region, he should own that and make it part of his political identity. He should adopt a more honest approach like Shimon ben Matityahu (brother of Yehuda Maccabi) and speak boldly about the will of the Israeli people and of our rights to be free of American dictates. While this could potentially escalate tensions with the Biden administration, it would also help the people of the world, especially the Arab states that Smotrich and Netanyahu hope to build relations with, to take notice of Israeli leaders standing up against the dictates of US imperialism in the region.
Unlike Smotrich, Netanyahu unabashedly stated the guiding principles of his new government on Twitter last week, opening with the line, “The Jewish nation has an exclusive and unimpeachable right to all of the land of Israel. The government will advance and develop settlement in all parts of the land of Israel – the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea, and Samaria.”
If the new coalition intends to establish formal relations with Saudi Arabia, and deepen its existing relationships with Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states, it is necessary to shift these initiatives from American-led economic and military arrangements, to genuine expressions of shared regional interests, independent of US interference.
And more importantly, such a shift in Smotrich’s rhetoric could mark a shift in Israel-Diaspora relations. Israel’s new government, and especially the government minister responsible for Israel’s administration of the West Bank (he’s not just our finance minister), has an opportunity to speak honestly to the world about our connection to our land, and about our principled resistance to US efforts to tear parts of her away from us. Rather than brand himself as a Western conservative or attempt to distract from issues that intensify the contradictions between Jerusalem and Washington, Smotrich should fully own his true positions and learn to communicate them in a way that challenges the forces of empire.
Smotrich’s WSJ op-ed should ultimately be seen as one more example of Netanyahu promising the Americans one thing while acting on the ground to do the opposite according to Israel’s actual national interest. Assuming he’s paying close attention, this may be Smotrich’s first lesson in playing the game of international politics. And if he can continue to learn from Netanyahu with an open mind and an eye towards the future, this may be a key step in developing the national-religious camp’s credentials for greater leadership.
