Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrived in Washington on Monday after his government made limited concessions in Gaza and southern Lebanon, moves that Israeli media described as an attempt to ease weeks of friction with President Donald Trump’s administration.
Yet while Israel signaled a measure of flexibility on those fronts, it took the opposite approach in the occupied West Bank, where the government expanded military operations and granted settlers greater freedom of action.
The contrast underscores the broader stakes of Netanyahu’s visit. Beyond discussions on Iran and regional diplomacy, it comes at a moment of mounting concern in Israel that the broad bipartisan political support it has long enjoyed in Washington is no longer assured.
Netanyahu is expected to attend the funeral Tuesday of late Republican Senator Lindsey Graham alongside Trump and several other foreign leaders. The death of Graham, who was one of Israel’s staunchest advocates in Congress, underscores the political import of Netanyahu’s trip at a time when Israeli officials are increasingly worried about eroding support in political circles long viewed as reliably pro-Israel.
Before leaving Israel for Washington, Netanyahu said his talks with Trump would center on Iran, as well as on Israel’s security and efforts to expand regional peace agreements. The prime minister described his frequent meetings with the U.S. president as evidence of the depth of the bilateral relationship, adding that the current moment demands both “resolve and wisdom.”
But the steps his government took before his departure suggest that Jerusalem is not relying solely on the strength of its alliance with Washington.
According to the influential Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Netanyahu undertook several measures aimed at improving the atmosphere ahead of his visit after what it described as an unprecedented deterioration in relations between Israel and the U.S.
In southern Lebanon, Israel agreed last week to withdraw from one of the areas included in pilot security arrangements currently under discussion with Lebanon. In Gaza, Israel’s security cabinet approved the deployment of a limited number of Palestinian security personnel to a pilot zone in Rafah.
Neither move represented a fundamental shift in Israeli policy. But according to Haaretz they reflected Netanyahu’s recognition that he could not arrive in Washington after weeks of disputes without offering the administration tangible evidence of Israeli flexibility.
In the West Bank, in contrast, his government took a harder line.
Shortly after Netanyahu left for Washington, Defense Minister Israel Katz said he had instructed the military to expand operations against what he described as “Palestinian terrorism” and to prepare to take control of another refugee camp, following operations previously carried out in Jenin, Tulkarm and Nur Shams.
Katz said the policy was being implemented with Netanyahu’s backing.
The announcement came amid reports that Israeli settlers had carried out attacks against Palestinians and criticism from human rights organizations and Western governments, which have accused Israeli authorities of failing to do enough to stop the violence.
Katz also decided not to renew an administrative detention order against settler Tal Yinon Dardik, who is suspected of participating in a brutal attack on a Palestinian village in the West Bank in March, despite a recommendation from Israel’s domestic security agency, Shin Bet, that it be extended.
The decisions show the limits of Netanyahu’s flexibility at a time when Israel’s standing in the United States is no longer insulated from political debate.
Nahman Shai, who served as Israel’s minister for diaspora affairs under a Labor-led government, told MBN that the crisis now extends beyond the relationship between Netanyahu and Trump and reflects broader shifts in American politics and society.
Shai said he holds Netanyahu responsible for much of the deterioration, pointing to growing opposition in Congress to military aid for Israel and changing attitudes among segments of the American public and the U.S. Jewish community.
The vote by roughly 100 members of Congress in mid-July against military assistance to Israel, he said, should be viewed as a warning rather than a temporary disagreement within the legislature.
Any future Israeli government, Shai added, would need to undertake a broad effort to rebuild ties with the United States—not only with the White House, but also with both political parties, American society and the American Jewish community.
“The relationship with the United States is the lifeline of the State of Israel,” Shai said.
His concerns extend beyond American public opinion to the Trump administration’s broader regional policies.
He said he was troubled by reports that the administration is poised to approve the sale of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, as well as discussions over support for a Saudi civilian nuclear program that could allow uranium enrichment inside the kingdom.
Such steps, he argued, could undermine the principle of Israel’s “qualitative military edge,” which U.S. law requires Washington to preserve.
Other analysts say talk of a structural crisis in the U.S.-Israel relationship is overstated.
Liat Collins, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, said that U.S.-Israeli ties run far deeper than the personal relationship between Trump and Netanyahu and that the visit could provide both sides with an opportunity to reaffirm the alliance’s strength.
She added that Trump’s negotiating style makes the outcome of his meetings difficult to predict and that the success of the visit should not be measured by the length of the meetings or the number of photographs released afterward, but by the understandings and policies that emerge from them.
Collins said Iran would remain Israel’s top priority in light of Tehran’s intentions and future military and nuclear capabilities. No understandings with Lebanon, Syria or Saudi Arabia, she added, would eliminate those concerns as long as Iran’s political system remains unchanged.
Trump, she said, “is not hostile to Israel,” and Netanyahu’s visit should ultimately be judged by its impact on regional initiatives rather than by immediate impressions.
The United States remains Israel’s most important military and diplomatic ally, and there is little indication that the core relationship is on the verge of unraveling. What is changing, however, is the political environment in which that relationship operates.
Criticism of the Israeli government is no longer confined to the political margins in the United States. Nor can Netanyahu assume that his support in Washington will remain insulated from the war in Gaza, his government’s policies in the West Bank and his relationship with Israel’s political right.
For that reason, his visit may prove less significant for determining the future of the U.S.-Israel alliance than for revealing the new political constraints that increasingly shape it.
Adapted and translated from the original Arabic.
