Outgoing US ambassador leaves parting concerns over Israel’s democracy
The United States’ ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides, who will shortly be leaving Israel, claimed that the Biden administration was attempting to prevent Israel from “going off the rails,” according to an article published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on July 10.
Nides’ comments came amid growing tensions, and protests in response to the government’s judicial reform proposal.
The Biden administration and Nides have made numerous attempts to express their concerns regarding the impending reform and have urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to seek a consensus with the opposition.
Nides claimed the reform brought into question Israel’s democratic status and Israel’s relationship with the US.
“I think most Israelis want the United States to be in their business,” Nides said in an interview with US media, according to WSJ. “With that sometimes comes a modicum of a price, which is articulating when we think things are going off the rails.
“One of the messages I sent to the prime minister was to tap the brakes, slow down,” Nides said. “Try to get consensus.”
Netanyahu, at the behest of US involvement, conceded some components of the reform, telling the WSJ that some controversial aspects had been revised. However, shortly after he told members of the coalition that nothing had been fully removed.
Nides later said that Washington had concerns that the coalition was “rushing things through that ultimately could have huge implications, at least perception-wise, about what makes Israel great.”
Breaking down of US-Israel relations
The administration’s vocal concerns regarding the reform and the health of Israeli democracy led to Israeli officials publicly criticizing US involvement.
Diaspora Affairs and Combatting Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli famously told Nides to “mind your own business” in February in response to his concerns over the reform.
Similarly, in June Foreign Minister Eli Cohen claimed that US Vice President Kamala Harris likely didn’t read the judicial reform bill and could not specify why she disagreed with the reform.
Comments are closed.