How Should Democrats Engage with Israel if Netanyahu Loses?

Recently, I attended a speech by Yair Lapid, the leader of Israel’s Knesset opposition and a key player in the upcoming elections and any effort to build an alternative government to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Lapid came to Washington with a clear message: If his party and coalition win, Israel will have a new government and a new way of doing things. That government will begin repairing Israel’s deteriorating standing with the American public – especially with Democrats, though increasingly with some Republicans as well.

We heard some genuinely positive things from Lapid. He spoke about reinvigorating Israeli democracy and restoring meaningful checks and balances to a system that Netanyahu has badly corrupted. He acknowledged the horrific death toll in Gaza. He said that if a government minister calls for Gaza to be nuked, that minister should be fired (A standard the previous government did not meet). He called for cracking down on settler violence.

All of that would be a meaningful step in the right direction.

But there was also a great deal we did not hear. There was no openness to a Palestinian state or an acknowledgement that settlement construction in the West Bank needs to be stopped and reversed. And Lapid continued to support regime change in Iran, including through attacks on Iranian oil infrastructure.

Later that evening, I attended a dinner with former US government officials, including people who had served in both the Obama and Biden administrations. What I heard there was fundamentally different.

Nobody believed the US-Israel relationship could simply return to what it was before. The recommendations ranged from the kind of approach J Street has advocated – pursuing freedom, security and equality for both Israelis and Palestinians, ending the blank check to Israel and using American leverage to change Israeli behavior to move towards the 23 state solution – to even harsher approaches.

What I heard very little of was what Lapid was describing and what many in the American Jewish community would still like to see: a return to the old relationship, where American support came with limited demands for changes in Israel’s behavior, but with a better Israeli government.

That is certainly what Lapid and much of the Israeli opposition want. But the contrast between where many in the Democratic Party stand and where Israel’s opposition remains points to a difficult question:

What should Democrats do if Israel’s opposition wins?

A new Israeli government would be genuinely better than the current one. Its leaders recognize that Israel’s standing in the United States has collapsed, especially among Democrats. They would try to do better, and the United States would have real leverage to encourage them.

But if they do better and the American response consists only of continued criticism, pressure and punishment, they will eventually have little incentive to keep trying. That approach would also do further damage to a US-Israel relationship that, with a constructive Israeli government, could provide real security, economic and technological benefits for America and can again reflect meaningful shared values.

But there is an opposite trap: declaring “Thank God Bibi is gone,” dropping all the pressure and returning to the old ways even though those old ways were not working and the plight of Palestinians only got worse.

We cannot allow a new Israeli government to do whatever it wants while telling ourselves that applying pressure might bring down the coalition and return Netanyahu and the far right to power.

The Biden administration tried a version of that approach during Israel’s previous “government of change” in 2021 and 2022. It did not work. There were some marginal improvements, but on major questions, most notably settlement expansion and settler violence in the West Bank, things did not get better.

The political environment in the United States is also very different today. There is far more attention to this issue and far more mobilization around it. For the first time, there is sufficient political support to apply real American leverage in pursuit of constructive change. Simply abandoning that leverage because Netanyahu is no longer Prime Minister would be a tremendous mistake.

The answer is a consistent policy that can apply to any Israeli government, whether led by Netanyahu, Bennet, Gadi Eisenkot or someone else.

Democrats should support a policy that pursues a 23-state solution and be willing to use real leverage – both negative pressure and positive incentives – to get there.

The difference between a Netanyahu government and a government led by someone such as Eisenkot is that, with the latter, there may be more opportunities for genuine cooperation and progress. Where progress occurs, the United States should respond positively. But where it does not, regardless of who is in charge, the US needs to apply pressure and impose real consequences.

In the West Bank, a new government may crack down on settler violence, but they aren’t going to reverse settlement expansion (even Rabin, Peres and Barak in the 1990s didn’t do that). It will likely take a US sanctions regime targeted not just on settler violence but at the broader settler movement to begin reversing the situation on the ground. Democrats should support that.

In Gaza, a new government may take a more constructive approach to the 20-point plan for Gaza and Nikolay Mladenov’s recent proposal for Hamas disarmament and Israeli withdrawal. If they do, the US should support them and encourage Arab states and the rest of the international community to work with Israel and invest in reconstruction and an international stabilization force. But until it is clear the Israeli government’s posture is changing, Democrats should continue to call for restrictions on arms sales for weapons used in Gaza.

The same approach should apply to Lebanon. If a new Israeli government takes a more constructive approach to working with the Lebanese government to replace Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon as Israel withdraws, Democrats should embrace and support the shift. But until it becomes clear that the Israeli policy of occupying large chunks of Lebanon, displacing hundreds of thousands, and destroying villages wholesale is being reversed, Democrats should continue to push for arms sales restrictions for weapons being used in Lebanon.

A new government may also be willing to engage more constructively with the Palestinian Authority and reverse the strategy Netanyahu pursued for years before October 7th of weakening the PA, propping up Hamas and claiming that with the Palestinians divided Israel has no partner for peace. Democrats should make this a central talking point over the next few months and make clear they expect changes from a new Israeli government. If the new government finally releases the billions of dollars in Palestinian tax revenue being withheld by Smotrich, allows shekels sitting in Palestinian banks to be moved back to Israel and facilitates the essential Israeli-Palestinian banking relationship, Democrats should welcome that and work with Israel and the PA to strengthen cooperation. If not, Democrats should support applying pressure on Israel by downgrading the US-Israel economic relationship until these steps are taken.

When it comes to Iran, Democrats should continue to oppose the war, object to a return to fighting and make clear to a new Israeli government that they oppose Israel restarting military operations against Iran even as we consult on strategy and share intelligence. There are not many good options for getting out of the mess that Trump and Netanyahu have created, but we shouldn’t give any Israeli government license to make things worse. Here there is a real difference inside the Israeli opposition where Lapid, Bennet and Lieberman continue to use hawkish language while Eisenkot has taken a more responsible stance.

Finally, when it comes to improving Israel’s relations with its Arab neighbors, a new government may pursue a charm offensive with its regional neighbors. If it does, the US should support warming ties. But regional economic and security initiatives must include a meaningful component that improves Palestinians’ lives. And full normalization with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region will only be possible in the context of a 23-state solution that includes the creation of a Palestinian state.

The bottom line is this: A new Israeli government would be a welcome change. There could be genuine opportunities for cooperation and meaningful progress. Where that government moves in the right direction, the United States should recognize and encourage it.

But that cannot mean returning to the policies of the past and forgoing a historic shift in American politics that can lead to new opportunities. Nor can it mean refusing to apply pressure to push a new government for fear that Netanyahu and the far right might return to power.

The task for Democrats is not to choose between welcoming a better Israeli government and demanding a fundamentally better policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is to do both.