Political calculations in Washington and Tel Aviv are converging in an unprecedented way, as the US midterm congressional elections coincide with one of the most complex government-formation crises in Israeli history. At the center of this overlapping turmoil is a shared predicament facing US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, amid growing scrutiny of how the US election results could affect Netanyahu’s political survival and the continuing role of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC in shaping American policy.
Trading Aid for Political Support: The Trump-Netanyahu Predicament
The relationship between Trump and Netanyahu is no longer merely a conventional strategic alliance. It has evolved into a series of political and personal bargains aimed at protecting both leaders’ hold on power.
Avigdor Lieberman, founder and leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, captured this dynamic when he said that “Trump bought Netanyahu for $7.5 billion,” referring to what he described as a political exchange involving explicit electoral support and the use of US aid as leverage.
The implications of this approach have drawn sharp reactions within Israel’s security establishment. Gadi Eisenkot, a leading contender for the premiership, said that “it is disgraceful that the Israeli security establishment learned of the decision through the media, while Netanyahu already knew about it.”
Eisenkot argued that “relations with the United States and the aid Israel receives from it are the backbone of national security and cannot be put at risk in this manner.”
The predicament is rooted in Netanyahu’s personal interests and his determination to protect his political position. As one analysis put it, “Netanyahu has motives linked to his domestic situation in Israel, the criminal investigations against him, and the commission of inquiry into October 7. These factors have consistently driven him to escape forward through wars.”
This, in turn, aligns with Trump’s objectives, as he seeks “a man driven not only by strategic and rational considerations and the interests of the state, but also by his own personal interests.”
Shifting Dynamics in Washington and AIPAC’s Waning Influence
Despite the sweeping support Trump provides Netanyahu, based on overlapping interests and political calculations, structural changes in the United States are reshaping the future of their alliance. US aid is governed by laws and legislation passed by Congress, while Trump’s remarks about reducing assistance were intended to deprive his opponents of political ammunition, reflecting his awareness of a growing segment of Americans questioning the consequences of overseas spending.
AIPAC’s influence is also no longer as unchallenged as it once was. Analysts say the organization “has suffered major setbacks.” They also point to a generational shift within both the Republican and Democratic parties, arguing that younger Americans “did not grow up during the Cold War but during the genocide in Gaza and the wars in Lebanon and Iran and believe these conflicts fall outside the interests of both parties.”
Can the ‘Change Bloc’ Oust Netanyahu?
In the Israeli occupation entity, the government-formation impasse remains structurally entrenched and resistant to direct external intervention. Despite Trump’s overt involvement and alignment with Netanyahu, his support has not given the Zionist prime minister a significant boost, according to opinion polls.
Meanwhile, the so-called Change Bloc is seeking to consolidate its ranks to prevent Netanyahu from remaining in power. These efforts include moves by Yair Golan, described as “the only voice among opposition parties calling for a partnership with Arab parties.”
However, this approach faces outright opposition from other opposition figures. Lieberman has ruled out the possibility of forming a minority government dependent on Arab parties, effectively leaving Golan, in the eyes of observers, “beating a dead horse.”
The opposition also faces a range of constraints and competing pressures that distinguish its position from Netanyahu’s. Chief among them are contradictory commitments to voters: rejecting a partnership with Netanyahu on the one hand, while ruling out cooperation with Arab parties or the ultra-Orthodox Haredi parties on the other.
Further obstacles include the absence of unified leadership and a common political program, as well as divisions among opposition factions. Figures such as Eisenkot face limited options, including a possible partnership with parties such as United Torah Judaism or the formation of a national unity government.
Manufacturing New Fronts: Netanyahu’s War Option
Amid parliamentary deadlock and mounting political pressure, Netanyahu retains potentially consequential tools for shifting the political landscape, including mobilizing public opinion and the right wing through the prospect of internal confrontation and escalating rhetoric.
Analysts are now warning that Netanyahu could seek to manufacture new fronts, potentially by launching another strike on Iran in coordination with the United States. They argue that such a move would be driven not by the Israeli enemy’s national security or interests but by Netanyahu’s personal objectives and political needs, which Trump could exploit and use to his advantage.
The threat of war remains one of Netanyahu’s key political cards for disrupting the opposition’s calculations. Once a war is declared, existing political understandings could collapse, leaving all parties with two options: enter a national emergency government under Netanyahu’s terms or head to another election.
Trump and Netanyahu are waging what amounts to the same political battle through remarkably similar tactics. Both have spoken of election fraud and questioned electoral legitimacy; both face legal crises and corruption allegations; and both view military escalation as a possible way out of their political difficulties.
The results of the US elections may provide Netanyahu with temporary political cover, but they are unlikely to resolve the deep-seated political deadlock in Tel Aviv. Both leaders are navigating the same turbulent waters. And despite their efforts to export their crises and fuel conflicts, the growing holes in their shared boat could ultimately send them both under.
Source: Al-Manar Website