Former US vice president Kamala Harris, in her campaign memoir 107 Days, writes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not repay former president Joe Biden for his loyalty to Israel.
“He wanted Trump in the seat opposite him. Not Joe, not me,” she wrote. Events of the past week explain why.
While US President Donald Trump was working to end the Israel-Hamas War, bring the hostages home, and expressing genuine passion for Israel in a freewheeling 65-minute speech to the Knesset, Harris was refusing to rule out that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza.
In a Sunday interview on MSNBC, Harris – who fell 2.3 million popular votes and 86 electoral votes short of becoming the 47th US president – was asked about the genocide accusation.
Her reply: “It is a term of law that a court will decide, but I will tell you that when you look at the number of children who have been killed, the innocent civilians that have been killed, the refusal to give aid and support – we should all step back and ask this question and be honest about it, yeah.”
In other words, maybe there’s something to the genocide charge.
Last year, Steven Pinker – a Harvard University cognitive psychologist, linguist, and popular science author – called that accusation a modern-day blood libel.
In a Free Press podcast interview that was widely circulated this week on social media, he said: “It is a blood libel in the sense that, as an accusation of deliberate murder, it is ill-founded. One could disagree with Israel’s campaign against Gaza and say it’s not justifiable, it’s not a just war, but that’s still different from deliberately murdering as many people as possible. We know what real genocides look like. No, I think it really is a terrible blood libel.”
Is it any wonder, then, that – as Harris writes with a tone of exasperation in her memoir – Netanyahu preferred Trump in the Oval Office rather than her? Especially since, just before the election, she refrained from shutting down a similar accusation hurled at one of her rallies.
When a keffiyeh-clad protester at the University of Wisconsin in October 2024 shouted at her, “What about the genocide?” Harris responded: “What he’s talking about – it’s real. It’s not the issue I came to discuss today, but it’s real, and I respect his voice.”
Contrast that with what Trump said in his Knesset address: “I love Israel. I’m with you all the way.”
Or this: “Thanks to the bravery and incredible skill of the Israeli Defense Forces and Operation Rising Lion, the forces of chaos, terror, and ruin now stand weakened, isolated, and totally defeated.”
And this: “The story of fierce Israeli resolve and triumph since October 7 should be proof to the entire world that those who seek to destroy this nation are doomed to bitter failure.”
It is sentiments like these – backed by a long list of pro-Israel actions over two terms, including moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, recognizing Jewish rights in Judea and Samaria, brokering the Abraham Accords, and striking Iran alongside Israel – that led Netanyahu to declare in the Knesset: “Donald Trump is the greatest friend that the State of Israel has ever had in the White House. No American president has ever done more for Israel, and, as I said in Washington, it ain’t even close. It’s really not a match.”
That, in essence, is why Netanyahu wanted Trump sitting opposite him – and not Harris. The difference could hardly be sharper. That contrast says much about where Israel now finds itself – at the height of American support, yet also more dependent on Washington than ever before.
What would have happened if Harris won?
Imagine, for a moment, what Israel’s situation would be had Harris won the election in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, thereby winning the presidency in 2024.
Would Israel have had a relatively free hand to wage the war in Gaza as it saw fit – not a completely free pass, given Trump’s demand in July that Israel increase humanitarian aid, but still considerable leeway? Doubtful.
Could Jerusalem have struck in Iran? Doubtful.
Would the US have joined in? Highly unlikely.
Would Washington have continued providing the arms needed to fight a seven-front war? Probably, but at a slower pace and with plenty of strings attached.
Would the US have shielded Israel diplomatically at the UN and elsewhere, as its isolation deepened? Not to the same degree.
For Israel, Trump’s election in November turned out to be exceptionally well timed.
Trump became only the fourth US president ever to address the Knesset – following Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. But Trump’s speech stood apart, not only for its tone but because it symbolized how this particular chapter in US-Israel relations differs from all that came before.
One can argue – and many, especially among American Jews, do – about whether Trump is good for America, or even for American Jews. A May poll among Jewish registered voters found that 52% described him as antisemitic, and that 74% of Jews disapprove of his job performance.
But it is hard to argue that he hasn’t been good – or, as Netanyahu said, great – for Israel.
A Gallup poll last month – before Trump’s popularity among Israelis surged even higher after brokering the current ceasefire deal – found that 76% of Israelis approve of the job performance of the US leadership. That’s one of the highest ratings of Washington by any OECD member ever recorded, reflecting the sharp divergence between Israeli and American Jewish attitudes toward Trump.
The level of Israeli support for Trump reflects the dynamic shaping this moment: Israel has never had such a pro-Israel president – and has never been so dependent on one.
That combination creates a paradox. Trump’s friendship is genuine, his record unmistakable, and his pro-Israel instincts clear. After all he’s done – and given the circle of advisers around him, from Steve Witkoff to Jared Kushner to Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth – few in Jerusalem still worry that he might suddenly turn on Israel. He now has a track record, and it’s as strong as it is consistent.
The concern lies elsewhere. First, it is that Trump’s intense embrace of Israel has made Israel a hyper-partisan issue in America. In today’s polarized climate, anything Trump loves, his detractors instinctively recoil from. And since he so visibly and vocally loves Israel, that dynamic has bled into public perception: for many Americans now, Israel has become a Trump cause.
The second concern is that this unprecedented support – at a time of wider Israeli isolation in the world – has also created unprecedented dependence.
WHEN TRUMP was asked recently whether Netanyahu had signed off on his Gaza ceasefire framework, he replied: “He was fine with it. He’s got to be fine with it. He has no choice. With me, you got to be fine.” That line captures the new reality perfectly. Netanyahu must be “fine” with Trump – because he has nowhere else to turn.
Following November’s election, Trump emerged not only as president but with a Republican sweep of both the House and Senate. Historically, this is not Israel’s preferred scenario.
Jerusalem has generally been more comfortable with a divided US government – the kind that allows an Israeli leader to balance between Congress and the White House, as Netanyahu did during the Obama years. When then-president Barack Obama pursued policies he opposed, Netanyahu could go around him, appealing directly to Congress – as he famously did in his 2015 address to Congress against the Iran deal.
That is not possible now. With Republicans united behind Trump, and Democrats distancing themselves, Israel has no alternate channels of influence. This dependence gives Trump unparalleled leverage – and he is well aware of it.
In a CNN interview on Wednesday, Trump was asked what would happen if Hamas refused to disarm, as it is obligated to do under the current agreement.
“I think about it,” Trump responded. “Israel will return to those streets as soon as I say the word. If Israel could go in and knock the crap out of them, they’d do that.”
In other words, Israel can’t if he says not to; it needs Trump’s permission.
“I had to hold them back,” Trump said. “I had it out with Bibi.”
THIS LEVEL of dependence significantly narrows Israel’s room for independent action. We’ve already seen that in real time.
During the war with Iran in June, when Trump called on Israel to halt its bombing after he declared a ceasefire, Israeli jets en route to Tehran turned back.
Earlier this month, after unveiling his Gaza plan, Trump said Israel needed to stop its strikes in Gaza City to allow for a hostage deal. Within three hours, the bombing stopped.
When Trump instructed Netanyahu to apologize to Qatar after the Doha attack on Hamas leaders, could he say no? Not really.
The new reality is that Trump’s warmth toward Israel carries weight far beyond words. His backing has translated into a level of influence in Jerusalem no American president has ever enjoyed.
After France, Canada, Australia, and several other Western nations recognized a Palestinian state last month, there was renewed talk in Israel of annexing parts of Judea and Samaria. Trump quickly took that off the table.
Most Israelis, across party lines, oppose a Palestinian state – the Second Intifada and October 7 disabused many of the notion that it is still a viable option. Yet the 19th point of Trump’s 20-point ceasefire plan explicitly states that once Gaza reconstruction advances and the Palestinian Authority reforms itself, “conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.”
The wording is careful – hypothetical, distant – but nonetheless plants a seed. Netanyahu agreed to include it. Why? Because, as Trump said, he has to be “fine” with the president.
And that is the bottom line: There has never been a president as pro-Israel as Trump. But there has also never been a time when Israel has been so dependent on one man, and so unable to say no to him.
Strong support from one president or one party is a valuable asset. However, Trump will not be in the White House forever, and Israel already needs to begin thinking about how it can once again recapture a steady, bipartisan relationship with the US that can endure beyond any one political moment.
It’s not going to be easy, especially given America’s generational and demographic shifts. Harris’s genocide remarks show just how difficult it will be. But still, the effort must be made – even now, even as Israel is basking in the warmth of a president unabashedly and unapologetically on its side.