Fifty-seven years ago this May, Israel was in grave danger. The charismatic Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser announced that the Straits of Tiran would be closed to Israeli shipping. Nasser was preparing for war and assembling a coalition that would eventually include Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon. “Our goal is clear,” Iraqi President Abdel Rahman Aref said, “to wipe Israel off the face of the map.”

The United States, bogged down in Vietnam, was loath to come to Israel’s aid — despite previous promises to do so. President Lyndon B. Johnson was sympathetic to the Jewish state, but he faced severe constraints. Johnson did not want Israel to strike preemptively and instructed Ambassador Arthur Goldberg to deliver a message: “I must emphasize the necessity for Israel not to make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities.” The note added: “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone. We cannot imagine that it will make this decision.”

Ultimately, however, Israel did launch a preemptive strike, destroying the Egyptian air force in a fateful first blow. In a mere six days, Israel decisively defeated Nasser’s coalition and seized Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the Old City of Jerusalem in the process. The Jewish state was now hailed as a regional superpower. Israel had demonstrated its military value to the U.S. during peak Cold War tensions by defeating the far more numerous Soviet-backed Arab armies.

Israel’s victory was a watershed moment, both for the tiny nation and for the wider Middle East. It was also key to forging a U.S.-Israel alliance that would, despite moments of tension, steadily expand over ensuing decades. 

Nearly 60 years later, Israel is once again imperiled. The Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, has surrounded the Jewish state with its army of proxies. One such group, Hamas, launched a devastating invasion on Oct. 7, 2023, massacring more than 1,200 and sparking an Israeli ground incursion into Gaza. Iran’s other proxies have wrapped themselves, snakelike, around Israel, hoping to engulf the country in a “ring of fire.”

On Oct. 18, 2023, President Joe Biden arrived in Israel. “I have come to Israel with a single message,” he declared. “You are not alone.” The sentiment was nice, but it didn’t last. Nearly six months after Biden’s visit, the administration declined to veto a United Nations resolution that called for a ceasefire, effectively saving Hamas from its battlefield defeats. Worse was to come.

Expressing concern over civilian casualties in Gaza, top administration officials, including Biden and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, quoted casualty statistics supplied by the Hamas-run Health Ministry, which has both a history of lying about such figures and a clear incentive to do so. This marked a clear pivot from the beginning of the conflict when Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters at an Oct. 20, 2023 news conference: “I would not take anything that Hamas says at face value. I’m not sure anyone in this room would take at face value or report something that ISIS had said, [and] the same applies to Hamas.”

Such moves have only whetted Iran’s appetite. On April 13, Iran launched a barrage of hundreds of drones, missiles, and rockets from Iranian soil toward the Jewish state. Fortunately, Israel’s missile defense systems intercepted most of the barrage. But the bombardment was a turning point, the first time an attack of that size had been launched from Iran and the first instance of a U.N. member firing missiles at Israel since Iraq’s Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles in 1991. 

Yet the White House discouraged Israel from retaliating. Biden reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “take the win” and focus on Israel’s success at blocking the missiles. This, of course, overlooks an ominous fact: Iran felt emboldened enough to launch a massive attack at a nuclear-armed state. Tehran clearly believed that the Biden administration would intervene to prevent Israel from responding, thereby guaranteeing it a strategic victory and further eroding Israeli deterrence. The chief commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, warned: “We have decided to create a new equation [with Israel].” 

Indeed, the April 13 attack was itself the byproduct of the Biden administration’s October 2023 decision to let missile restrictions on Iran expire without action. This is troubling enough, reflective of the administration’s decision to continue to fete Iran as it attacks U.S. forces in the region, as well as key allies. But it doesn’t fully explain the administration’s decision to pivot from its earlier rhetorical support of Israel, abandoning Jerusalem at the U.N. and “joining the jackals,” to use a memorable phrase from the late U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Jeane Kirkpatrick.

That abandonment is born from pure, cynical political calculus. And it signals the need to redefine the U.S.-Israel relationship. Israel is not alone, but the ground is shifting. Those who support Israel would be wise to recognize what are tectonic changes, both in the U.S. and in international politics.

Few things better encapsulate these changes than Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) turning on Israel. In his decadeslong political career, Schumer has repeatedly emphasized his support for the Jewish state, often referring to himself as a shomer (guardian) for Israel. Yet in a March 14 speech on the Senate floor, Schumer attacked America’s longtime ally while it was at war. Schumer inaccurately portrayed Israeli premier Netanyahu as being equally as responsible as Hamas for the lack of peace with Palestinians. He called for elections in Israel, hoping they’d lead to Netanyahu’s ouster.

Schumer’s remarks were significant. The senator isn’t a member of the “Squad” — the shorthand phrase used to describe anti-Israel, progressive lawmakers such as Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Cori Bush (D-MO), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). He is not on the party’s fringe. Indeed, Schumer is the Senate majority leader. Nor was he alone.

In April, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) signed a letter calling for the administration to halt arms sales to Israel while it was at war. Pelosi and 36 other Democratic members of the House called for a “ceasefire” — a move that would save Hamas, enabling the terrorist group to live and murder another day.

Biden, the titular head of the party, has completed the pivot. In his State of the Union address, Biden again regurgitated casualty stats supplied by Hamas. The president spent more sentences on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza than he did on the threat posed by Hamas. Indeed, the terrorist group’s benefactor, Iran, wasn’t even mentioned. Biden implicitly blamed Israel for the lack of a Palestinian state, overlooking the numerous occasions in which Palestinian leaders rejected offers for a “two-state solution” if it meant living in peace with the Jewish state. Israel, Biden warned, “must do its part.” 

Biden also praised Schumer’s speech calling for elections in Israel. The president was caught on a hot mic saying he would have a “come to Jesus meeting” with Netanyahu, later affirming that he “meant what he said.” Soon, various unnamed officials began leaking derogatory comments about Israel and Israeli leaders to friendly press outlets, a reversion to Obama-era tactics.

In some respects, the pivot is unsurprising. Israel, long subject to double standards, has always had to contend with shortened timelines to fight its wars. Nonetheless, the sheer horrors of Oct. 7 — children and families tortured and murdered, the elderly set on fire in their own homes, concertgoers raped and slaughtered en masse — augured for something more. Hamas, by any fair account, must be destroyed.

Domestic political concerns undoubtedly contributed to the change. The president’s chances for reelection have dimmed. There are concerns about his progressive base turning out to vote, particularly in battleground states such as Michigan. But on the other hand, the administration has feted Iran since it took office. Ultimately, there is an inherent contradiction between appeasing Tehran, which seeks Israel’s destruction, and supporting Jerusalem. 

College campuses have erupted in large-scale protests, including clashes with police. Columbia University has been a focal point of these activities, with Jewish students reporting that they feel unsafe. Anti-Israel slogans are being chanted day and night.

These campuses are hotbeds of progressivism. The tensions are symbolic of the wider split inside the Democratic Party, which would sorely like to see younger voters turn out for Biden and the rest of the ticket in November.

The Biden administration has insisted that its support for Israel is “ironclad,” but cracks are both readily apparent and spreading. This is a noteworthy change in the history of the U.S.-Israel alliance. Initially, it was arguably the Democratic Party that was more supportive of the Jewish state. Harry Truman, bucking top advisers such as George Marshall, pushed for U.S. recognition of Israel. In 1962, John F. Kennedy approved the sale of HAWK missiles to Israel, the first major sale of U.S. arms to be delivered to the country. Relations only grew warmer under Lyndon Johnson. 

By contrast, the Eisenhower administration entered office believing that closeness with Israel hindered relations with possible Arab allies. Accordingly, Dwight D. Eisenhower reduced the small amount of aid provided to Israel via the Export-Import Bank and, in October 1953, even briefly suspended assistance. The administration also increased support for an organization called American Friends of the Middle East, a “CIA front that sought to weaken support for the Jewish state in the U.S.,” according to historian Michael Doran. Eisenhower’s desire to attract Arab leaders by putting distance between the U.S. and Israel culminated with the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which Washington forced Israel to return lands won in a conflict with Egypt — even threatening Israel with sanctions and expulsion from the U.N. should it not comply. Tensions would also emerge with other Republican presidents, perhaps most notably with Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush.

Things really began to change during the Obama administration, which sought to create “daylight” between the two nations, as then-U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg put it. Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes even reportedly earned the White House nickname of “Hamas” for his constant criticism of Israel. Rhodes boasted of a “mind meld” with Obama and was a prominent backer of rapprochement with the Iranian regime.

Supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship must not only contend with changing partisan attitudes but also must account for changing generational attitudes. 

Polls clearly show that an overwhelming majority of voters support Israel. They also show that such support is both broad and bipartisan. Indeed, a clear majority of Democratic voters still support Israel. Yet there is cause for concern. Support is dropping among younger generations. In part, this is the result of the relentless demonization of the Jewish state in the classroom. It is also reflective of extreme and often antisemitic ideologies that depict Israel as evil. Such thinking is as pervasive as it is pernicious. Antisemitism is rising. Hating Jews is still broadly unacceptable, but defaming the Jewish state now serves as a convenient stand-in. 

For years, some boosters of the U.S.-Israel relationship have tried to ignore these growing trends, either via denying their existence or minimizing their importance. Yet this is tantamount to whistling past the graveyard. Post-Oct. 7, such concerns can no longer be dismissed.

But it’s not only Americans who are changing. The U.S. itself is different. The U.S.-Israel relationship was formed and cultivated during the Cold War and arguably reached its apogee during the so-called unipolar moment that followed America’s victory in that decadeslong conflict. Yet that moment is over. The U.S. today is in a vastly different position, culturally, militarily, and economically, than it was three decades ago. The Great Recession and the global war on terrorism have shaken American confidence. 

The national debt has exploded, defense spending as a percentage of GDP has cratered, and policymakers must contend with a public vastly more skeptical of military action abroad. Constraints abound. And it is this aspect, as much as changing partisan and generational divides, that will affect the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

As Walter Russell Mead argued in his terrific 2022 book, The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People, Americans have long had a unique relationship with Zionism, the belief in Jewish self-determination. They have tended to be far more sympathetic to Zionism than other Western counterparts. 

In many respects, the U.S.-Israel relationship is one that is built on shared values. Both nations are democracies that view themselves as unique in the world. Both have served as safe havens for dissidents and the dispossessed. Both have a long tradition of welcoming immigrants and pioneering. Both thrive off innovation and openness. These commonalities, as well as an innate sympathy on the part of many Americans, have been at the center of the relationship, and they will, no doubt, continue to be important and influential.

But there is another aspect of the U.S.-Israel alliance, one that is often overlooked but is likely to grow in importance as America confronts a new global environment. The rest of the 21st century is likely to be defined by a growing competition with China, a peer adversary that seeks to supplant the U.S. and become the preponderant power in the Indo-Pacific, the region that will account for the majority of the world’s GDP. 

Beijing is a far more dangerous foe than previous adversaries. Both economically and militarily, China dwarfs previous enemies such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan. Washington will have to muster all its strength to deter China from invading Taiwan and becoming the dominant force in the Pacific, capable of bending others to its will. The U.S., constrained by popular will and resources, will have to do its utmost to counter China. This will entail Washington relying more on key allies to protect American interests in other regions. And it is here that Israel can play a growing role.

In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon confronted a somewhat similar scenario to policymakers today. The U.S. was dealing with growing domestic woes, including rising inflation and crime, urban blight, a slowing economy, skyrocketing energy costs, and an America morally and politically battered from Vietnam. To marshal the nation’s resources and focus on the Soviet Union, America’s foremost opponent, Nixon relied on regional guardians to protect American interests. In the Middle East, Nixon developed the “twin pillars” strategy, relying on Iran and Saudi Arabia. A similar strategy could be employed today, with Israel serving as a pillar to counteract Beijing’s chief regional ally, Iran. 

Israel would be well suited to such a role. Indeed, Jerusalem did so, albeit in a more limited fashion, for much of the Cold War. Critics of the Jewish state have often portrayed the U.S.-Israel relationship as consisting largely of charity — the U.S. gives aid and supposedly gets little in return. 

But during the Cold War, Israel was the only U.S. ally to fight two generations of Soviet allies and equipment successfully on the battlefield. Israel furnished the U.S. with key intelligence, including Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s 1956 secret speech denouncing Stalin — the existence of which “changed history,” as some commentators later noted. In a daring 1966 operation, Israel also secretly captured a Soviet-built Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21, the most advanced Soviet fighter plane at the time, sharing it with America.

More recently, Israel prevented both Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Syria’s Bashar Assad from having nuclear weapons. The U.S. was ultimately grateful that it didn’t have to contend with a nuclear Saddam during Operation Desert Storm, and Assad’s nuclear arsenal could have conceivably fallen into the hands of the Islamic State during Syria’s civil war.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Israel also punches above its weight in emerging domains of warfare, including space, cyber, and artificial intelligence. Other regional powers covet its capabilities and admire its military prowess. Indeed, Israel’s ability to counter Iran was integral to the formation of the Abraham Accords, a testament to “peace through strength” deal-making.

Emphasizing, and expanding upon, the security components of the U.S.-Israel relationship won’t satisfy many of Israel’s critics. For some, nothing short of the destruction of the Jewish state will do that. But it will benefit both countries. And it could lead to a more prosperous and more peaceful Middle East while enabling Washington to deter Beijing better. 

Sean Durns is a senior research analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis.