The crisis surrounding Israel's decision to ban entry to two American congresswomen sparked a public debate over US-Israel relations, leading many pundits to voice concern over the future of bipartisan support for Israel on Capitol Hill. To be sure, on matters of military aid and anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations, we have received US support for years. But looking at the positions of various administrations on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we'll see that disagreements have always existed and have often been complicated.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
During President Barack Obama's tenure, Israel was incessantly pressured in the diplomatic sphere. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's first invitation to the White House, in May 2009, came with an unprecedented diplomatic demand: the immediate freeze of all settlement construction, including for the purpose of accommodating "natural growth." A month later, Obama embarked on a shuttle diplomacy campaign in the Middle East, skipped over Israel and delivered his "new beginning" speech in Cairo. When he was finally so kind as to visit Israel, four years later, he refused to address the Knesset, preferring instead to speak "directly to the people" from the International Convention Center in Jerusalem – where he explained that "neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer."
Obama's secretary of state at the time, Hillary Clinton, who had her eyes on the presidency, said during Operation Protective Edge in 2014 that Hamas was firing rockets at Israel from within civilian population centers because Gaza is small and crowded – not because it was intentionally using them as human shields. Her successor, John Kerry, tried forcing Israel to agree to evacuate the Jordan Valley in exchange for an American military presence there. Obama, at the tail end of his presidency and for the first time ever, eschewed US support for Israel in the UN, giving us Security Council Resolution 2334 designating all settlements as illegal.
There were significant disagreements with other Democratic presidents as well. In 1977, then-President Jimmy Carter said that the Palestinian problem was the heart of the conflict, called on Israel to withdraw to 1949 armistice lines and cooperate with the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It must be said that similar disagreements arose with Republican presidents. Particularly of note was President George H.W. Bush's refusal to give Israel guarantees as long as Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir continued allotting funds for the settlements.
Conversely, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin consented to the Oslo concessions, he found a willing friend in the White House. Then-President Bill Clinton even intervened in the 1996 Israeli election on behalf of Shimon Peres, just to prevent Benjamin Netanyahu and the Right from gaining power. Prime Minister Ehud Barak's broad acceptance of the Clinton peace outline in 2000 – which included a return to the 1949 lines, division of Jerusalem and evacuation of the Jordan Valley – was hailed and roundly supported by the US administration. Certainly, therefore, Democratic presidents have supported Israeli governments, as long as they espoused left-wing policies.
If there's a dramatic historic turning point worthy of excitement, it is the current administration's unprecedented willingness to accept Israel's positions, even when they are determined by a right-wing government. This is true "support without reservation," as opposed to the "love with strings attached" approach that had been practiced up till now.
But instead of being happy and encouraging this new approach, many on the Left are mired in yearning for the days when others tried forcing us to jeopardize our security and hand over swaths of the homeland while calling it support for Israel.
