Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to the White House may mark a significant moment, not just in US-Israel relations, but in US international relations.
Since January 20, the White House has boldly proclaimed, “America is back.” This sentiment seems to carry an underlying message to Israel’s adversaries as well: “America has Israel’s back.”
The visit was more than a diplomatic formality; it was a strategic declaration, reinforcing that the US-Israel alliance is not only beneficial but essential in substance and perception. The meeting of US President Donald Trump and Netanyahu, two leaders, sent a clear signal that America and Israel stand united because of their shared values as well as their mutual displeasure with certain international bodies – and they are unafraid to display this alliance to the world.
The spoken words were of mutual respect and friendship. Netanyahu praised America’s global strength, while Trump expressed a growing sentiment in Washington: Israel is not a burden but an asset.
This perspective positions Israel as a stabilizing force in the Middle East, promoting security that ultimately benefits both nations. Trump was blunt about this, highlighting past successes of this alliance, such as “defeating ISIS” and “cutting off Iran’s proxies from the resources they depended on.” This cooperation has not only strengthened Israel’s security but has also allowed the US to reduce its direct military engagements in the region – a welcome development for an American public increasingly wary of prolonged foreign interventions.
While behind-the-scenes disagreements persist – whether over China-Israel relations or Israel’s stance on the war in Ukraine – both leaders understand the importance of keeping such differences private. They may not see eye-to-eye on every issue, but public disagreements serve only to embolden shared enemies that thrive on division to fuel their own misguided narratives. Maintaining a united front is crucial for the United States and Israel to effectively address common threats.
Although Trump’s proposals regarding Gaza’s future remain speculative, one reality is clear: As long as Hamas controls the territory, ordinary Gazans will be hesitant to support new initiatives – whether by voice or action – for fear of retribution.
Trump’s announcement may be designed to weaken Hamas’s grip by encouraging internal dissent, thus further diminishing its legitimacy at the negotiating table.
Additionally, these ideas may also aim to encourage countries seeking international investment and development assistance to consider taking in elements of Gaza’s population – if they choose to emigrate. Undoubtedly, discussions of a potential agreement with Saudi Arabia suggest that, rather than hindering peace efforts, the current Israeli war may actually be accelerating broader regional diplomacy.
Both Netanyahu and Trump recognize that military means alone will not be enough to eliminate Hamas’s hold. Therefore, it may be that both believe that the most devastating blow to the terrorist group will not come from airstrikes or ground operations, but from the erosion of its public legitimacy – both among the people it claims to represent and within the broader Arab and Muslim world.
If the voluntary departure of Gaza’s civilian population is facilitated – thereby removing Hamas’ human shields, which complicate Israeli operations in Gaza, even, at times ,at the expense of the lives of IDF soldiers – and normalization efforts between Israel and key Muslim nations are advanced, Hamas could becomes increasingly isolated and be pushed to the brink.
A regime such as Hamas’s, that prioritizes its own survival over the well-being of the people it claims to fight for, will eventually lose its grip when those very people it rules are freely able to seek an alternative.
America sees Israel as inspiration for strengthening defense
Trump’s sentiments, both throughout his campaign and during meetings with the Israeli delegation, reflect a view of Israel as a model for strengthening America. This includes adopting elements of the Jewish state’s defensive technologies – such as the Iron Dome – and reinforcing border security through military means. Furthermore, Israel’s recent resilience-based efforts to prioritize domestic production in an increasingly unstable world may offer valuable lessons for the US economy.
This mindset of mutual learning and respect is evident in a story I heard while giving a talk to a group of Israeli firefighters who had recently returned from a professional tour of top US firefighting units. During their visit, one Israeli officer pointed out to his American counterpart that the fire hydrants used in Israel and Europe were superior to those in the United States, citing their higher capacity, greater durability, and fewer breakdowns.
To his surprise, the American firefighter agreed.
“So why does the US still use those red mushroom-looking hydrants?” the Israeli asked.
The American responded, “Because we’re Americans. The things we build, even when they differ from the rest of the world, have made us who we are and brought us success. It’s not just about how well a product works – it’s about how it fits into our nation’s unique system and way of life.”
This story encapsulates a crucial element of the US-Israel relationship: the understanding that strength is not just about adaptation but also about preserving national identity. While the two countries share values and strategic interests, they are also unique in their own ways – something both nations take pride in.
That same independent spirit is part of what binds Washington and Jerusalem, two nations that projected revolutionary values upon their founding in different corners of the world. It is not just about what these nations share – it is about how they stand apart. Both remain beacons of resilience, innovation, and leadership. We are both in this together.
The writer is an expert on international relations and the United States at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.