Herzog heads to Washington during delicate time for US-Israel relations

Outgoing US Ambassador Thomas Nides, who often has a folksy way of expressing himself, has an apparent weakness for transportation metaphors.

This was true back in February when the judicial overhaul storm was escalating, and he said during a CNN podcast that he told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “pump the brakes, slow down, try to get a consensus, bring the parties together.”

And it was evident this week when he said in a Wall Street Journal interview that the Biden Administration is trying to stop Israel from “going off the rails.”

While some may object to such overt involvement by an ambassador in Israel’s domestic affairs, Nides’ “pumping the brakes” and “going off the rails” metaphors surely resonated with millions of Israelis watching in disbelief this week as the country they cherish seemed hell-bent on harming itself.

As chaotic scenes unfolded in the Knesset and on the streets, many Israelis surely wondered what it would take for both sides to exercise restraint to keep the situation from spiraling out of control.

Regrettably, no viable solution emerged. By week’s end, no one person or creative solution had emerged to prevent these two speeding cars from colliding. The government was determined to push forward with some element of the judicial reform without reaching a consensus, even at the cost of leading the country to the cusp of chaos; and the opposition/protest leaders equally resolved to prevent this, even at the cost of leading the country to the cusp of chaos.

After the bill to change the reasonableness standard clause passed its first reading in the Knesset on Monday, and after the chaotic and often ugly scenes that accompanied the “Day of Disruption” on Tuesday, the Knesset on Wednesday voted in the coalition’s representative to the judicial selections committee.

The failure to do so a month ago prompted the opposition to call off negotiations at the President’s Residence that had succeeded in buying the country some time and quiet. Wednesday’s election afforded both sides an off-ramp back into negotiations, but neither took it, and both sides continued to hurtle toward a crash.

IN THE MIDDLE of this collision course, President Isaac Herzog is scheduled to travel to Washington this week for what was originally expected – when preliminary invitations were discussed last October during Herzog’s last visit to Washington – to be a celebratory lap to mark Israel’s 75th birthday.

Herzog is to address Congress

Herzog is to meet US President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken and address a joint session of Congress. Back in October, a week before the Israeli elections that returned Netanyahu to power, then-speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer extended the invitation to Herzog with the idea that this would showcase the warmth of the US-Israel relationship. Now, however, the visit is expected to be anything but celebratory.

While there will be some public basking in the warmth of friendship, Herzog is also expected to come up against a very chill wind.

If New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is correct, Herzog will find a US president interested in reassessing the US-Israel relationship based on American interests and values. Friedman wrote in a column this week that he had “no doubt” such a reassessment is inevitable, especially considering Biden’s recent interview in which he said that this government is the most extreme in Israel he has seen in 50 years, and Nides’ “off the rails” comments.

“Such a reassessment based on US interests and values would be some tough love for Israel but a real necessity before it truly does go off the rails,” Friedman wrote.

Then he added what is most problematic: “That Biden is prepared to get in Netanyahu’s face before America’s 2024 election suggests that our president believes he has the support not only of most Americans for this but of most American Jews and even most Israeli Jews.” 

THERE WERE three primary factors back in March that compelled Netanyahu to hit the pause button on the judicial overhaul after his firing of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant – later rescinded – led the Histadrut to declare a general strike and brought tens of thousands of people spontaneously out into the streets.

The main concern was the possibility of reservists in key positions – such as pilots in the Air Force, intelligence analysts, and cyber specialists – not showing up for reserve duty.

This spooked officials at the time and was apparent in the speech Gallant gave that prompted Netanyahu to fire him, in which he said there was a need to pause the judicial reform plan and reach a consensus.

“The growing rift in our society is penetrating the IDF and security agencies,” he said. “This poses a clear, immediate, and tangible threat to the security of the state.”

The second factor was concern about the economic fallout from these measures – including an exodus of hi-tech companies, a drying up of investment, and a lowering of Israel’s credit rating.

And the third factor was a concern coming from the US.

As the situation repeats, the fear of reservist mutiny, damage to the economy, and the potential strain on US-Israel relations could prompt Netanyahu to reconsider the reform overhaul.

However, the current situation differs from that in March. The focus is no longer the entire judicial overhaul plan but one subsidiary aspect – changing the use of the reasonableness clause. According to numerous reports, the two sides were, in any event, close to reaching an agreement on this issue during their talks.Why is this important? Because it is unclear whether the change of this clause will trigger reservists to actually not show up for duty or will compel the international credit-rating agencies to lower Israel’s credit rating.

First, because changing this clause is not equivalent to a complete judicial overhaul, and second – and this is relative more to the reservists – because of a recognition of the current precarious security situation facing the country. 

Remember, Israel is just a week and a half beyond its largest military operation in the West Bank in 20 years and is engaged in brinkmanship with Hezbollah in the north that could lead to a much wider conflagration.

Despite media amplification of every letter by reservists or former reservists threatening not to show up for duty, according to the IDF, there has been no significant phenomenon of refusal to serve so far. At this point, it remains in the realm of rhetoric, often inflated by some media outlets driven by their own agenda. 

This leaves the US as a potential pressure point. 

While some Israelis and American Jews may wish – as Friedman wrote – for the US to exert forceful pressure on Israel, they should be careful about what they wish for.

Do they really want to see Washington reassess ties with Israel? Friedman said this would not include a reassessment of military or security cooperation, but there is obviously no such guarantee.

During the most famous reassessment of US-Israel ties in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War when Gerald Ford was president, Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister, and Henry Kissinger was the secretary of state, this reassessment was announced because Israel – against US wishes – demanded that its withdrawal from strategic Sinai pass and oil fields be tied to various Egyptian commitments. 

Kissinger believed Israel was being unreasonable and intransigent and declared a “reassessment” that lasted from March 1975 to the late summer. This created enormous tension and led to the freezing of arms deliveries to Israel, including F15s, and Kissinger recommended that every government department put Israeli activities “at the bottom of the list.”

A reassessment of ties with Israel by Washington, today, could involve ignoring Israeli concerns about Iran, relinquishing support against lopsided UN resolutions, refraining from helping Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, and potentially imposing conditions on arms sales to Israel, something some members are already advocating.

Those actions would not only hurt Netanyahu politically but could negatively impact the lives of everyone in the country – those against the judicial reform as much as those who are in favor.

Those advocating for immediate US intervention – for a “reassessment” to wake Israel up – risk opening the door for future calls to save Israel from itself. It’s a slippery slope that is not easily navigated once embarked upon: one knows how to get on this slide, but not how – or if – one can get off. 

Early evidence of a slippery slope came Wednesday when Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar said there was “no way in hell” that she would be attending Herzog’s address, and it was clear from her comments that this was not because of the judicial reform plan or Netanyahu, but rather because of the State he represents. 

In his column, Friedman called Herzog a “very decent, moderate president,” but in Omar’s view, there is not much difference between Herzog and Netanyahu. Her boycott shows that hostility toward Israel among some in Congress goes far beyond the dislike of one specific government.

Applauding a reassessment purely to weaken Netanyahu is shortsighted since Israel’s adversaries will seize it as an opportunity to call into question the Israeli-US relationship permanently. It will make reassessing these strategic ties acceptable, something very inimical to Israel’s long-term interests. JPost