Ex-US Envoy Urges Israel to Replace Netanyahu Amid Aid Concerns
Translated & summarized from Vesty by baba
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro stated that Israel must prepare for the end of $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid. He described Prime Minister Netanyahu as "toxic" to Democrats and linked to an unpopular Iran war among Republicans. Shapiro believes a change in Israeli leadership is the most critical step for improving relations and securing future U.S. support, though he affirmed continued Democratic commitment to Israel's security.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Former U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro says Israel must prepare for the end of $3.8 billion in annual U.S. military aid.
- Shapiro described Prime Minister Netanyahu as "toxic" to Democrats and a liability for Republicans.
- He stated that a new Israeli government with fresh leadership is the most crucial step for improving relations.
- Democrats, now controlling Congress, largely want to end military aid to Israel, Shapiro explained.
- Shapiro affirmed continued Democratic support for Israel's security but anticipates future cooperation will differ.
- He advised Israel not to excessively worry about the influence of progressive anti-Israel voices in Congress.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro stated on November 6 that Israel must prepare for the cessation of $3.8 billion in annual American military aid. Speaking to Ynet, Shapiro, who served under President and later as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East under President Joe Biden, argued that Prime Minister Netanyahu is "toxic" in Washington. He explained that Democrats are unwilling to work with Netanyahu, while Republicans associate him with a war against Iran that they believe contributed to their election losses.
Shapiro believes that Democrats, now holding majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate following the midterm elections, have the "freedom to act" and largely desire to end the aid. He asserted that "everyone agrees that American aid to Israel is ending," with the only question being the timeline. Israel, he suggested, will adapt by using its own funds for necessary acquisitions, and U.S. arms sales will continue under U.S. legal restrictions.
The former ambassador identified Netanyahu's leadership as the primary obstacle to maintaining strong U.S.-Israel relations. "If the Israeli government remains under Netanyahu's leadership, no one in the Democratic Party will be ready to restore relations," Shapiro stated. He emphasized that Netanyahu's association with the unpopular Iran war also creates issues with Republicans. Shapiro suggested that Israel needs "new faces and a new voice" free from Netanyahu's "historical baggage" to prevent a worsening of its standing in the U.S.
Shapiro outlined several steps he deems necessary for improving bilateral ties, prioritizing a new government with fresh leadership as the most crucial. He also called for policy changes in Judea and Samaria, including combating settler violence and halting settlement expansion, and promoting the Trump plan for Gaza. Despite these concerns, Shapiro affirmed that significant Democratic support for Israel's security remains, viewing it as a U.S. interest. However, he anticipates future cooperation will differ, likely without direct military aid and with conditions on arms sales to ensure alignment with U.S. values and laws, particularly concerning civilian casualties.
Regarding the growing influence of progressive Democrats, Shapiro advised against excessive worry, stating that anti-Israel voices are a minority. He believes Israel's own leadership decisions and policies will determine the extent of their influence. Shapiro noted that while figures like Senator Abdul El-Sayed hold strong anti-Israel views, they do not represent the entire party, and House Minority Leader Hakim Jeffries will have the latitude to set policy without solely relying on the progressive wing.
Mentioned
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Centre 1Other 1
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.