United States–Israel: Relations and Their Discontents

Many analysts have taken note of the unusually critical remarks made by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance toward Israel, viewing them as an unprecedented stance, despite the massive political, military, and economic support that Washington continues to provide to Tel Aviv.

Indeed, Vance reminded Israeli critics of the diplomatic agreement with Tehran that two-thirds of the weapons that have "protected their homeland" are American-made and fully funded by U.S. taxpayers.

He stressed that Israel relies too heavily on military force to resolve its crises, and that it should show greater deference to Washington as its one and only remaining strategic ally in the world. In an interview with the New York Times, Vance noted that Donald Trump is the only world leader currently showing sympathy toward Israel, before addressing Israelis directly:

"You’re a country of nine million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have."

An unprecedented shift in tone

There is no doubt that a shift has occurred in the tone and manner of addressing Israel. It is rare to hear serious criticism from official American voices toward a country often regarded as the "spoiled child" of successive U.S. administrations.

Those administrations typically competed in their political favoritism toward Israel — a prerequisite for pursuing a smooth political career, given the considerable influence of American lobbying groups in the corridors of Washington.

That said, this sudden change in tone does not in any way mean that the current U.S. administration has "broken free" from the Zionist influence wielded by these lobbies. Nor does it mean that it is now prepared to openly debate the fact that a distinction exists between American national interest and Israeli interest — and that assuming they are permanently aligned is a political, even strategic, error that has cost, and continues to cost, the United States dearly in moral, political, and material terms.

The consequences of America's historical bias

America's absolute and longstanding bias in favor of Israel — along with the protective umbrella extended to it at every level, from the repeated use of the veto in the United Nations Security Council over decades to shield it from accountability for the occupation and suppression of the Palestinian people, down to the lowest levels — has, over the course of past decades, fueled deep-seated hatred toward the United States, particularly across the Arab world, creating a vast gulf between the peoples of the region and Washington.

Yet these feelings of hatred have never translated into any concrete opposition movement. This is due to several factors, including:

The absence of democracy in Arab countries and the suppression of their peoples, which prevents them from expressing their true sentiments.

Arab fragmentation and official divisions over how to handle the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The signing of unilateral peace agreements with Israel — most notably by Egypt and Jordan — which broke ranks and weakened the Arab position. This process continued years later with the Abraham Accords, which sought an almost cost-free normalization.

It is worth recalling that Donald Trump's first administration moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognized the city as Israel's capital, and acknowledged Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. These steps, which previous administrations had dangled without ever following through, were carried out by Trump without any expectation of significant Arab backlash — and indeed, none materialized.

Today, a prevailing sentiment within part of Trump's team is that Israel has "bogged down" America in a war against Iran, even though the real threat posed by Tehran — whether directly or through its armed proxies, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon — was aimed far more at Israel than at the United States, despite Iran's politically hostile rhetoric toward Washington (branding it the "Great Satan," among other things).

Trump himself appears to share this view, which explains his persistent push to reach a deal with Tehran — even as he wrapped that desire in threatening language, going so far as to invoke the "obliteration of Persian civilization."

This also explains why the agreement is fundamentally American-Iranian in nature, even though the war involved the United States, Israel, and Iran.

Trump and his team are well aware that Israel will not easily accept a deal and that it prefers the continuation of a war sponsored and bankrolled by Washington — one that serves Israel's interests first and foremost. This is what gives meaning to the U.S. Vice President's remark to the Israelis: "You can't solve all your national security problems through killing alone."

An opportunity for the Gulf states?

It is certainly premature to bet on a rupture between America and Israel, or to count on a full divorce between the two countries. Nevertheless, the Arab Gulf states can leverage this shift to open a political dialogue with Washington. The key pillars of that conversation should be:

A refusal to drag the region into new wars on Israel's behalf.

A refusal to allow American bases to become targets rather than a source of stability.

An assertion that continuing to sidestep the Palestinian cause leads only to more death and destruction, with no way out.

Recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people as an essential prerequisite for stability in the Middle East and the broader Arab region.

The U.S. president understands the strategic importance of his relationship with the Arab Gulf states, given their oil wealth — a cornerstone of Trump's foreign policy (Venezuela being a striking example).

As a result, Washington can no longer afford to keep dismissing Arab demands for a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian cause — one that begins with the establishment of an independent and viable Palestinian state, and with halting Israel's policy of killing and colonial expansion in the West Bank, as well as its encroachment into Lebanon and southern Syria.

Only the United States has the power to rein in and hold Israel accountable — provided the political will exists, and provided the conviction takes hold that American national interest is not necessarily served by blind alignment with Tel Aviv, its expansionist ambitions, and its endless wars.