Restoring the Patron-Customer Relationship

In Israel, analyses continue to emerge that attempt to interpret everything new or recent in the context of relations with the United States, particularly in light of the agreement in Sharm El Sheikh, which U.S. President Donald Trump played a prominent role in reaching.

These relations are described as special, having begun during the administration of U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower in the late 1950s. They were strengthened after the June (1967) and October (1973) wars, as well as the peace treaty with Egypt in 1979, making Israel the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. In this regard, the following points should be noted:

Firstly, these relations lack proportionality; they are unequal. In practice, Israel often realizes that it must adhere to U.S. policy, or otherwise it will turn into a strategic burden for Washington and cease to be an asset.

It is worth recalling what one of Israel's consuls in the United States wrote many years ago, that the scope of any Israeli maneuver, whether political or military, remains within the boundaries of U.S. interests. That is to say, when there is friction with these interests, a crisis arises, the size and intensity of which are proportional to the extent of the friction and the issue in dispute. This consul literally wrote that the relationship between the two countries is fundamentally "a protective relationship for Israel from the U.S. side, and a client relationship for the U.S. from Israel’s side."

Secondly, accumulated facts from two years of wars waged by Israel on multiple fronts in the Middle East have demonstrated that the most characteristic feature of the special relationship with the United States is dependency, which some emphasize is absolute.

A new aspect has recently emerged; if this dependency in the past was on the United States regardless of the identity of its administration, it has recently taken the form of dependency on one particular direction within the American political landscape, which is the Republican Party.

This explains the behavior of President Trump and the stance of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. According to numerous analysts in Israel, this aspect has serious long-term implications, as it will deepen internal American divisions concerning Israel, casting shadows on the disagreements between the Republican and Democratic parties, and also some disagreements within the Republican Party and among Trump's voter base.

Thirdly, Israeli comments focused on the acknowledgment by both U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Green, and President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, during an interview with Leslie Stahl of CBS News, about having a direct meeting with Hamas during negotiations in Gaza. According to what one national security expert wrote, the American approach that prohibits engaging in negotiations with "terrorist organizations" has collapsed in plain sight and is no longer valid, noting that the U.S. State Department previously considered Hamas a "terrorist organization!"

Fourthly, most comments referred to Green's statement in the same interview that he and Kushner felt "some betrayal" following the aggression that Israel launched against Qatar to assassinate the negotiating delegation of Hamas on the 9th of last month (September).

There was also mention of Green emphasizing that the aggression against Qatar had a compounding effect, as the Qataris were a decisive party in the negotiations, alongside the Egyptians and Turks. Then Kushner revealed some details about Trump's reaction to the aggression against Qatar, stating: "I think he felt that the Israelis had become a bit out of control in what they were doing, and that it was time for us to be stricter and prevent them from doing things that (Trump) felt were not serving their long-term interests." In these remarks lies confirmation of the nature of the client-patron relationship, underscoring that no Israeli maneuver should exceed the scope of U.S. interests.