‘We’re not an agent of Israel’: Unpacking the growing daylight between the Trump administration and Israel

Donald Trump is very difficult to predict. His mercurial, transactional, and self-centered approach to policy is often ill-defined and is subject to change on a whim as he fancies himself more king than president.

Most of the time, that disposition results in horrific attacks on human and civil rights. Sometimes those are plans that Trump goes public with, like his impossible nightmare of ethnically cleansing Gaza entirely of Palestinians. Other times, it is appallingly real, as Mahmoud Khalil, a fully legal, green card holding, permanent American resident, found out when ICE forces arrested him in front of his eight-month pregnant wife for the crime of protesting genocide.

But on occasion, Trump’s approach can yield some surprising results. This weekend, we saw one example, as Trump’s envoy for hostage negotiations made some startling comments. Their potential implications are even more eye-opening.

Adam Boehler is that envoy. He was Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner’s, college roommate, a connection doubtless instrumental in his landing this position. Last weekend, he told CNN’s Jake Tapper that, “…we’re the United States. We’re not an agent of Israel. We have specific interests at play.”

As Israeli columnist Chaim Levinson correctly stated, “If a representative of the Biden administration had said the same thing, the Israeli leadership would have lost its mind.”

Breaking precedents

Trump sent Boehler to hold direct negotiations with Hamas, breaking with years of precedent for both the U.S. and Israel, where no official talks with groups labeled as terrorists could be held. 

It’s a foolish practice, one that impedes resolutions of both immediate crises, like the genocide in Gaza, the status of hostages in Gaza, and overall issues, such as the occupation and denial of Palestinian rights as a whole. Jettisoning this self-defeating and silly practice was a very good idea. 

Boehler emerged from those talks with a lot to say. Indeed, given that nothing was agreed upon, he might have said too much, leading to Israel’s mad dash to short-circuit the ideas that Boehler said emerged in the talks.

Boehler said that Hamas was open to a five-to-ten-year truce. That’s a credible claim, as Hamas has often proposed such an agreement. Whatever one believes about its sincerity, though, it demonstrates the utility of direct talks. This point has not been mentioned over the past year because, of course, it is in direct contradiction to the Israeli and American position that Hamas have no voice in governing Gaza. They have no interest in a truce with Hamas but demand its elimination. 

In any case, Israel would simply say that such a truce just gives Hamas the chance to rearm and lull Israel into complacency, as it did before October 7. While that’s a vast oversimplification of what happened, and is a concern that could be entirely addressed by allowing Palestinians all of their rights, it’s also a concern that would have to be addressed, something Israel doesn’t want. They’d prefer it simply be a deal-breaker. 

Yet Hamas’ willingness to agree to such a truce, combined with its agreement to a technocratic Palestinian government that it would have no role in, is an important reality, one that needs to be part of the discussions, whether Israel trusts Hamas’ intentions or not. Rare indeed are the negotiations between antagonistic parties where one side trusts the other, and Palestinians have no reason, to say the least, to trust Israelis either. 

Daylight between the U.S. and Israel exists . . .

Trump’s spokespeople made it clear that Boehler was fully authorized to hold these talks, and this is where we see how correct Levinson was in his contrast between Trump and Biden on this point. 

Since Boehler’s comments got wide press coverage there has been remarkably little backlash in the United States, either from the government or the punditry. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday affirmed that Boehler was authorized to talk to Hamas but that “That was a one-off situation in which our special envoy for hostages, whose job it is to get people released, had an opportunity to talk directly to someone who has control over these people and was given permission and encouraged to do so. He did so…As of now, it hasn’t borne fruit.”

Even though it’s clear the substantive negotiations will be in Doha on the well-worn, indirect diplomatic track, there is a remarkable silence around Boehler’s statements. 

Boehler even posited a hypothetical describing the concern that Ron Dermer, the Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs and close confidant of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, might have that Boehler would see Hamas as “pretty nice guys.” Many Israel supporters tried to portray this as Boehler saying that Hamas are “nice guys,” something he didn’t say and clarified later. Yet even that didn’t cause a major firestorm. 

Trump has not rushed to reassure pro-Israel forces of his deep and abiding love for and devotion to Israel. In stark contrast to Biden, who never missed an opportunity to declare that there is no daylight between the U.S. and Israel, and who got extremely defensive any time his devotion to Israel was questioned, Trump is backing his own team when they say that Israel is a close ally but the United States will make its own policy decisions. 

The importance of this should not be misunderstood. American policy decisions in Trumpworld do not center at all on human rights, and far less do they center on Palestinian humanity.

But Trump is well aware of the key role Israel plays in the global shift to the populist right, a shift that in many ways Netanyahu and Israel have been at the forefront of since Netanyahu re-entered the Prime Minister’s Office in 2009. Trump and his accomplices are also very much aware of how to use the pro-Israel club under the guise of “fighting antisemitism” to stifle dissent and destroy civil rights, a practice he inherited from Joe Biden and has dramatically enhanced. 

But Trump doesn’t like Netanyahu, whom he believes failed and perhaps even betrayed him in his first term. That matters a great deal to Trump. 

Trump also backs Boehler’s words because it is important to him that there be no perception that he bends to Israel’s wishes. It is the same reasoning that motivated Trump’s threat last week to impose increased sanctions against Russia if its President Vladimir Putin didn’t work out a peace deal with him. Russia is more than happy with Trump’s actions so far, and it is that very happiness that motivated Trump to reinforce the idea that these decisions are his, not anyone else’s. 

In Israel’s case, Trump was able to force the ceasefire on Netanyahu. And Netanyahu knows that Trump will pursue what he perceives as his own agenda in the Mideast. Netanyahu cannot be seen to squabble with Trump as he did with Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Netanyahu’s value to the Israeli right is his ability to work hand in glove with the populist right and with Trump as its leader. Without that, he holds little worth to the Israeli right, which would quickly find an alternative.

What’s important here in the U.S. is that people recognize that this is a power American presidents have. The excuse of being constrained by domestic political pressures is only there because other politicians allow it to affect them. Levinson’s point that if a Biden administration official had said what Boehler did, “the Israeli leadership would have lost its mind,” is correct, but more than that, the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. would have lost their minds, as would most of the Democrats in Congress. But it’s not true because of the overwhelming power of those pressures, but because of the cowardice of Democrats who refuse to do something they are quite capable of doing: stand against it. 

The political pressures Israel and its American zealots can bring are real enough, but they are far from the indomitable force they would like us all to believe they are. 

Republicans recognize that, while words like Boehler’s might ruffle some feathers, the agenda is moving forward. The United States doesn’t want to see a resumption of the fighting in Gaza if it will lead to an increased risk of regional war. In this, they are not aligned with Israel, which very much does want to resume the genocide. 

But the Trump administration does want to see Hamas destroyed, and they want to see the Palestinian cause snuffed out, just as Israel does, just as pro-Israel Democrats do.

So putting America’s interests first does not mean acting when Israel cuts off all food, water, electricity, and humanitarian aid to Gaza once again. It doesn’t mean putting pressure on Israel to live up to its commitments under the ceasefire deal, beyond stopping short of resuming the large-scale slaughter. 

. . . but shouldn’t be overstated

Starving and depriving the people of Gaza until they are, at least in Trump’s mind, forced to agree to leave en masse suits that agenda very well. So if pro-Israel forces want to complain about the U.S. pursuing its own agenda, that’s OK with Trump. The main agenda continues apace, and the rest of the political fallout can be managed. The Israelis and the American lobbyists mostly understand this, hence their quiescence.  

If either party were to truly abandon Israel and actually favor the Palestinians in any substantive way there would be a huge political backlash. But that’s never come close to happening, and it’s not likely to because the two countries share the same overall goal, to oppose Palestinian rights. Democrats and old-time Israeli liberals liked to dress that up, but it’s a multi-partisan consensus across both governments.

Trump will continue to pursue his agenda, but this episode needs to be remembered whenever anyone portrays the United States as somehow manipulated by, or even helpless before, the almighty Israel lobby. Any president can pursue his own course, especially if his party will go along with him, as the Republicans are now doing with Trump. Obama did it with the Iran nuclear deal, against far greater opposition within his own party and the opposition unified with Israel and even Saudi Arabia against him. Trump is doing it now, in a much less beneficial way.

But we need to preserve the important precedent that Trump’s defiance of convention is setting. Talking to enemies is exactly what diplomacy is there for, and withholding those conversations leads to nothing but bloodshed. We should not tolerate it. 

And when a politician, especially a U.S. president, says that political forces, lobbying groups, or the wishes of its junior partner, Israel, tie their hands, it is simply untrue. That is political cowardice and a cheap excuse. Trump has proven that we must not allow politicians to hide behind it anymore. Democrats especially need to get that message loud and clear. Like all bullies, Israel and its lobby are as powerful as the unwillingness to stand up to them makes them.