Since its establishment as a state, no Israeli prime minister has had the strategic capacity to truly defy any American administration, whether Republican or Democratic. This should not be understood through the lens of minor disagreements that emerge from one phase to another, or through occasional verbal disputes over certain positions. It should be understood through Israel’s actual inability to reject major American decisions.
For example, during the presidency of George W Bush, Israel adjusted its calculations to fit the broader American strategy in the Middle East following the invasion of Iraq. Before that, under President Jimmy Carter, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin accepted the peace treaty with Egypt despite enormous domestic controversy.
Most recently, Netanyahu’s hand was cut off from the Iranian file after he had been treated during the war as an indispensable strategic partner. He was not treated the same way when the file shifted from war to political negotiation. Successive Israeli governments repeatedly had to recalibrate their positions whenever American priorities shifted, regardless of public rhetoric suggesting otherwise.
Israel’s relationship with America has margins within which it can maneuver, according to the logic of loosening and tightening the rope. But the end of the rope always remains in American hands. Washington loosens it when it wants and tightens it when it wants, but it has never allowed the rope to reach the point of rupture.
After being expelled from the Iranian file, Netanyahu continued to criticize President Trump’s position and spoke repeatedly about Israeli independence from America, including the possibility of dispensing with American military support. American support is the very foundation of Israel’s military capabilities, its superiority, and its ability to sustain wars, regardless of their duration or the number of fronts involved.
Netanyahu raised the slogan of ending dependence on American support not because he intended to implement it, but as a response to his competitors, who accused him of damaging the relationship with Israel’s wet nurse. More than that, they accused him of exposing Israel as a dependent state with no independent decision-making power, even on matters concerning its security and existence.
Netanyahu exceeded his linguistic limits in criticizing Trump. Trump’s excessive narcissism did not allow him to ignore this or avoid responding. In his own way, he joined the insults, as did his more verbally disciplined deputy, J D Vance, who reprimanded Netanyahu to the point of humiliation, reminding him of the theory of the baby who has no right to bite the hand that feeds him.
Netanyahu then took advantage of American Independence Day celebrations, though he did not need the occasion, to call Trump. The call was not only to offer congratulations, but also to request a visit to the White House. He received a promise that his request would soon be fulfilled.
Back to the title: Has Netanyahu returned to obedience? Netanyahu did not truly leave the American house of obedience for it to be said that he has returned to it. He is not able to leave, and similarly, Trump is not able to move toward a serious rupture with Netanyahu, as it would mean permanently alienating the Middle East's closest American ally. This is the nature of the relationship between the child and his guardian.
The latest reports of Netanyahu’s confirmed visit to Washington suggest that Trump has already delivered the message before Netanyahu even arrives: That the authority, leadership, and the final decision do not lie in Tel Aviv, but in Washington, regardless of how many tantrums are thrown.
Netanyahu received the alert. He knows how he will be addressed in Washington, and he knows that absolute compliance is what will be expected of him.
Yousef Ramadan is Ambassador of Palestine to Bangladesh.