Palestinians and Iran Have Greater Influence on Israeli Elections Than US Presidents

Former U.S. President Donald Trump's endorsement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's reelection bid marks an unprecedented level of explicit American presidential intervention in Israeli elections. While this declaration has stirred controversy among Netanyahu's political rivals and within the U.S. Democratic Party, it is not the first time a U.S. president has attempted to influence Israeli politics.

Past U.S. presidents, including Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, have openly desired Netanyahu's defeat in previous elections. Even earlier, President George H.W. Bush actively worked to unseat Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1992, a move that paved the way for Yitzhak Rabin and the Labor party's ascent, leading to the Oslo Accords. While Trump's endorsement's impact remains to be seen, another foreign entity has historically exerted a far greater influence: the Palestinians and their leaders, alongside Iran.

The article argues that Palestinian actions, particularly their pursuit of terror and rejection of statehood alongside Israel, have shaped Israeli politics more profoundly than any U.S. administration. Had Palestinians embraced the Oslo process as an opportunity for state-building rather than an avenue to undermine Israel, the political landscape, and Netanyahu's long tenure, might have been different. Netanyahu's success is attributed not only to his economic reforms, transforming Israel into a "start-up nation," but crucially to the Palestinians' consistent impact on Israeli elections, especially since Oslo.

Netanyahu's historical significance, according to the piece, lies in his consistent opposition to failed "land for peace" initiatives, differentiating him from rivals and even former Likud leaders like Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, whose Gaza withdrawal in 2005 led to Hamas's rise. Unlike them, or Rabin, Peres, Barak, Livni, and Lapid, Netanyahu has resisted what the article terms "wishful thinking" regarding peace with Palestinians and Iran.

The article contends that if Palestinians had accepted a state alongside Israel, Israel's political history over the past three decades would likely be vastly different. While U.S. presidents often view Israeli politics through their own desires, Israelis vote based on their perceived interests. The article criticizes external actors for ignoring Palestinian actions since Oslo when blaming Netanyahu for the lack of peace.

Past U.S. interventions are detailed: Bush Sr.'s efforts against Shamir over settlements, Clinton's attempts to elect Shimon Peres after Rabin's assassination, and his support for Ehud Barak in 1999. However, Palestinian terrorism and Yasser Arafat's rejection of the Camp David offer in 2000, leading to the Second Intifada, ultimately proved more decisive than American preferences. This period saw Sharon's rise and the decline of the Labor party, followed by Netanyahu's return to power in 2009, driven by security concerns and opposition to a Palestinian state.

Despite Obama's and his advisors' animosity towards Netanyahu and their attempts to influence elections, these efforts failed. The article posits that the Palestinians' and Iran's continued hostility towards Israel, exemplified by the October 7th massacre, solidifies the dominance of the Israeli right, forcing even left-wing parties to align on core security issues. This broad consensus against a Palestinian state, the article concludes, will not change unless Palestinians abandon their anti-Zionist agenda.

While acknowledging that American preferences do influence Israeli voters, the article stresses that Israelis resist being treated as a protectorate. Netanyahu has leveraged this sentiment, particularly when U.S. presidents like Obama and Biden have pushed for concessions or limited Israel's ability to defend itself. Maintaining the crucial relationship with the U.S. is vital, but Netanyahu's ability to rally domestic support against American pressure stems from the Palestinians' and Iran's persistent war aims. Trump's perceived understanding of this reality, the article suggests, may convince some Israeli voters that Netanyahu's continued leadership is essential for securing U.S. aid to conclude the war against Hamas and Iran.