Recently, there has been talk of a rift between Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump claims that Netanyahu is manipulative and takes advantage of his goodwill. We are also seeing the Americans unexpectedly signing a peace agreement with the Yemeni rebels (the Houthis), who have blocked access to the Red Sea and threatened Israel with missile attacks. There also seems to be a de-escalation in relations with Iran – at least, war no longer appears imminent, contrary to the hopes of many American and Israeli hawks.
The U.S.–Israel relationship is long standing, but it’s important to note that the bombings in Gaza have triggered global backlash and brought very negative publicity to Israel. The military action is increasingly being described as outright genocide.
Naturally, this reflects on the United States as well, being Israel’s primary sponsor and ally. Perhaps some within the highest levels of the U.S. leadership have had enough. There is, of course, a powerful Jewish lobby in the U.S., mostly supportive of Israel, but even there tensions are emerging. The Gaza bombings have indirectly contributed to a negative perception of Jews more broadly – not just Israelis. The Jewish identity as victims has, quite abruptly, been replaced by the perception of them as perpetrators.
Could it also be that Israel’s role as a Western outpost in the Middle East is beginning to unravel? The British, through the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and with support from wealthy patrons like Lord Rothschild, laid the groundwork for what would become the state of Israel – a homeland for the Jewish diaspora, particularly the poorer segments. The British likely had ulterior motives – not solely to help the Jews, but to establish a strategic foothold in the oil-rich Middle East. After the war, the U.S. assumed the role of regional superpower, including the role of Israel’s protector. Many argue that Israel could not exist without continuous American military support.
So what does the future hold for Israel without Western backing?
First and foremost, Israel must seek peace with its neighbours. A small country cannot afford to be surrounded by enemies – the situation must stabilize. This would naturally require concessions, including implementing a two-state solution and withdrawing from occupied territories such as the Golan Heights. Many claim the two-state solution is dead, but I believe it could be revived relatively quickly, especially in a climate where Palestinian refugees are neither accepted by other Arab countries nor by an increasingly migration-sceptical Europe. Where else are they supposed to go, if not to build their own state?
Peaceful relations with neighbouring countries could also open the door to labour immigration into Israel, which remains one of the few productive economies in the region, aside from the oil-based Gulf states. However, this might challenge Israel’s desire to maintain ethnic homogeneity – something the country is rarely criticized for, whereas the same idea would be viewed with deep scepticism in places like Sweden or Germany. It’s possible that many Jews with international ties would leave the country, and political power could shift toward the oriental Jewish population (Mizrahi). Israel might slowly evolve into a more traditionally Middle Eastern country, where religion – rather than economics or military power – becomes the main distinguishing factor.
If the U.S. were to withdraw from the Middle East, other players would surely step in. The region would likely be divided into Turkish and Iranian spheres of influence – the two true regional powers, both with formidable armies. Israel’s relationship with either of these powers would become crucial for its survival. Most likely, Israel would end up aligned with Turkey. Although current relations are far from perfect, they are still better than Israel’s ties to Iran.
Regime changes in Turkey and Iran would, of course, affect the political landscape. But without the U.S. acting as a driver of regime change and color revolutions, such transitions would likely take a different course. Erdogan could be replaced by someone even more conservative, and a similar trend could unfold in Iran. Still, in the West there remains a belief in the potential for softer leadership in both countries – and that hope may not be entirely unfounded. Israel will continue to exist in this new world order, but as a more “normal” country, adopting a more cautious stance toward its neighbours.
