US, Israel, and the Middle East: An existential question - opinion

America's posture in the region is of existential significance for Israel.

 YITZHAK RABIN and Yasser Arafat shake hands, as Bill Clinton looks on, after the signing of an Israel-PLO accord in 1993 at the White House. From the 1990s, Israel consistently demonstrated conciliatory instincts and restraint, but its neighbors interpreted this as weakness, says the writer. (photo credit: GARY HERSHORN/REUTERS)
YITZHAK RABIN and Yasser Arafat shake hands, as Bill Clinton looks on, after the signing of an Israel-PLO accord in 1993 at the White House. From the 1990s, Israel consistently demonstrated conciliatory instincts and restraint, but its neighbors interpreted this as weakness, says the writer.
(photo credit: GARY HERSHORN/REUTERS)

As US President Donald Trump was hosted and feted by Gulf states this week, and in light of the apparent recalibration of the relationship between the US and many Gulf countries, as well as Syria and Turkey, it is worth recalling Israel’s experience in the region over the past few decades.

Israel embarked on a more restrained approach which succeeded in preventing its adversaries’ expansion in the region. At the same time, Israel’s more compliant approach vis-à-vis the Arab world came with costs – a cautionary tale for the approach that the US appears to be undertaking.

Israeli foreign and defense policies in the region

Since the 1990s, the State of Israel has consistently demonstrated conciliatory instincts in all of its foreign and defense policies. This is highlighted by the Oslo Accords, which offered the Palestinians an opportunity for long-term peace and permanent agreements, including a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Israel demonstrated a pattern of restraint throughout the region. In Lebanon, Israel withdrew to the border in accordance with UN Resolution 425, while on the Golan Heights Israel adhered to the 1974 “separation of forces agreement” that came into effect at the end of the Yom Kippur War. And the crown jewel of them all was the historic peace treaty with Egypt.

If Israel had benevolent neighbors on the other side of its borders, these would not be seen as concessions. But in the Middle East, Israel’s neighbors interpreted this passivity as weakness.

Since the 1990s, Israel has demonstrated a policy that projected goodwill toward its neighbors, but also naivete and acute vulnerability. By signing agreements that endangered its national security, by removing its territorial depth, Israel placed the last lines of its defense on the doorsteps of Israeli residential communities.

 US President Donald Trump reacts as he visits the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 16, 2025 (credit: REUTERS/BRIAN SNYDER)
US President Donald Trump reacts as he visits the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, May 16, 2025 (credit: REUTERS/BRIAN SNYDER)

Responses to Israeli concessions 

However, the Arabs did not respond in kind to Israel’s concessions with peace and reconciliation. In Lebanon, a Shi’ite militia, inspired and financed by Iran, motivated by the apparently achievable goal of the destruction of the Jewish state, grew more emboldened. The Palestinians and all their factions sowed murderous terror in the streets of Israel and along its borders. In the newly autonomous Gaza Strip, “Hamastan” was established, while the Sinai became a completely unregulated region, ideal for human trafficking and smuggling drugs and weapons into Gaza in order to strengthen the jihad against Israel.

Israel internalized the conciliatory approach, when adjusting its own security doctrine and the nature of its use of force. Most of its military forces were converted into routine security units, some of which were recategorized as “peace borders.” Ground forces were reduced and most of their capabilities were demoted to providing warnings and diplomatic management. Even when military confrontations broke out in the aftermath of murderous Palestinian terrorist attacks, Israel would merely reply with operations meant to deter the terrorists, but nothing more emphatic than that.

Israel’s acquiescence to limited permanent borders was met by growing jihadist threats on its borders. Israel’s compromises and passivity exposed it and, frankly, encouraged the emergence of an immediate existential threat on its borders.

These efforts were not hidden from the eyes of the international community – the world saw time and time again how Jewish blood was spilled in direct response to Israeli gestures of compromise and compliance, a naive attempt to recalibrate the Middle East toward peace.

For many Israelis, October 7, 2023, demonstrated the foolishness of this approach and signaled the moment that many Israelis lost complete faith in its Arab neighbors. The immediate enlistment of hundreds of thousands of civilian soldiers committing to a sustained war for survival demonstrated that Israel would no longer tolerate merely being reactionary. Israel was now committed to an unwavering, defined, and calibrated direction – the road to Jerusalem, the eternal and holy capital of the Jewish people for thousands of years.

These are days of existential significance for us Israelis. While Israel has demonstrated its autonomy, it cannot be denied that the pace is set by the United States, led by a president who has demonstrated his commitment and alliance with Israel.

As we look at America’s posture in our region, our neighborhood, we have reason to fear that our enemies will view a conciliatory America as an Israeli vulnerability.

We are hopeful that the US will project power and strength in our region and not pressure Israel into an unwise compromise, a position that would return us to incessant bloodshed in the face of emboldened terrorist armies.

The writer, an IDF colonel (ret.), is a national security, military, and society expert at the Israel Defense and Security Forum.