Through the lens of Israel’s standing in the United States, the balance of the campaign is expected to be mixed. On the one hand, Israel demonstrated its ability to carry out military cooperation with the United States on a scale that few countries are capable of, and showcased exceptional operational performance in this context. The breaking of the taboo on the overt use of American force in the Middle Eastern arena in cooperation with Israel and from its territory may also strengthen Israel’s position regarding the future of security relations between the countries.
On the other hand, in the domestic arena, the war and the way it currently appears to be ending have accelerated the erosion of Israel’s public standing. Reports about the role of Israel’s political leadership in encouraging the United States to embark on a campaign whose outcomes now appear to many as unsatisfactory feed into the image—at times antisemitic—of Israel and the Jews as controlling what transpires in the international arena. Even among those who have not adopted the more antisemitic versions of this argument, there are doubts regarding the extent to which the war served the American interest as opposed to the Israeli interest.
Against this background, the sharp decline in Israel’s standing as reported in polls in the United States should also be viewed. For example, in a Pew survey conducted during the war, about 60% responded that they view Israel negatively. This figure is particularly noteworthy because even among a majority of Republicans under the age of 50, a majority was recorded among those who view Israel negatively.
To the extent that Israel is perceived as having undermined the end of the war through its actions—whether direct actions in Iran or in Lebanon—criticism of it in the American domestic arena is likely to intensify further.
Through the lens of Israel’s standing in the United States, the balance of the campaign is expected to be mixed. On the one hand, Israel demonstrated its ability to carry out military cooperation with the United States on a scale that few countries are capable of, and showcased exceptional operational performance in this context. The breaking of the taboo on the overt use of American force in the Middle Eastern arena in cooperation with Israel and from its territory may also strengthen Israel’s position regarding the future of security relations between the countries.
On the other hand, in the domestic arena, the war and the way it currently appears to be ending have accelerated the erosion of Israel’s public standing. Reports about the role of Israel’s political leadership in encouraging the United States to embark on a campaign whose outcomes now appear to many as unsatisfactory feed into the image—at times antisemitic—of Israel and the Jews as controlling what transpires in the international arena. Even among those who have not adopted the more antisemitic versions of this argument, there are doubts regarding the extent to which the war served the American interest as opposed to the Israeli interest.
Against this background, the sharp decline in Israel’s standing as reported in polls in the United States should also be viewed. For example, in a Pew survey conducted during the war, about 60% responded that they view Israel negatively. This figure is particularly noteworthy because even among a majority of Republicans under the age of 50, a majority was recorded among those who view Israel negatively.
To the extent that Israel is perceived as having undermined the end of the war through its actions—whether direct actions in Iran or in Lebanon—criticism of it in the American domestic arena is likely to intensify further.