by Boaz Lieberman, Strategic Crisis Management Advisor, translated by Hillel Fendel.
Over the past years we have grown accustomed to analyze American politics via "sides:" Trump or Biden? Republicans or Democrats? Israel supporters or opponents?
But behind the daily
headlines hides a much more complex reality than that, and whoever doesn't
understand this is liable to wake up in a few years and find that
Israeli-American relations stand upon weaker foundations than they thought – and
dangerously so.
The
biggest mistake that Israel can make today is to believe that our strategic
relationship with the U.S. is guaranteed forever, simply because of inertia.
This is not at all certain; the relationship requires maintenance, investment,
and deep understanding of the changes that American politics is undergoing.
For
years, the Democratic party has been in a clear process of distancing itself
from some of its traditional policies towards Israel. A new generation of
activists, Congressmen, and media personalities is now adopting positions that
view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the glasses of balance of power,
colonialism, and ethnic identities. For them, Israel is no longer a small
country fighting for its survival, but a strong state that they see as part of
the network of Western powers.
On the
other hand, there is certainly no need to eulogize Democratic support for
Israel. Many parts of the Democratic establishment still see Israel as a vital
American ally. They may be using different terminology and even tones, but they
are not all enemies of Israel.
At the
same time, within the Republican Party too, a deep change is taking place. The
conservative right of Ronald Reagan was an international, activist right that
was very willing to activate American force around the world when necessary. The
movement that Donald Trump is leading is not the same thing; though not
necessarily isolationist, it does make sure to constantly ask before every
decision: Does this directly serve American interests?
This is
where two names come into the picture – the two most significant figures in the
post-Trump era: Marco Rubio and JD Vance.
Secretary
of State Rubio represents the more traditional conservative viewpoint. He sees
Israel as a strategic asset of the first degree in the struggle against Iran,
China, Islamic terrorism, and anti-Western axes.
Vice
President Vance, on the other hand – 13 years younger than Rubio – is a man of
the new generation of Republicans. He is not anti-Israel, but views the world
from the vantage point of the typical middle-class American, and primarily
wants to know what he or she would like.
Israel
cannot afford to take sides in this succession struggle.
With
Rubio, we must speak the language of national security, technology,
intelligence, and the struggle against Iran. With Vance, we must speak an
entirely different language, and present the position that Israel is not a
burden on the United States, but rather an asset that saves it from fighting wars,
losing soldiers, and spending money. Israel does not ask for American troops,
but rather fights on its own against forces that threaten, inter alia, American
interests.
Yet
alongside the political challenge, Israel also faces an even greater trial: the
loss of influence in the arena of public opinion. And this brings us to the
part that Israel still refuses to understand: The old-style Israeli Hasbara (PR
and image-building) is dead.
For
years, we thought the way to convince the world was to send a spokesperson to a
studio, present a map, show a video, and explain why we are right. This method
worked in the era of institutionalized media, when the public received
information through a limited number of television channels and newspapers. The
world of 2026 looks completely different. America's Gen Z does not learn about Israel
via CNN or Fox news, but rather through TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and
podcasts. They don't listen to official spokesmen, but rather to people they
trust from social media.
Israel
must therefore shift away from traditional Hasbara, to "diplomacy of
influence."
Instead
of sending Israelis with perfect English to talk on TV, we must invest in
forming a broad coalition of Americans who will speak for Israel, in American. No
longer must there be Israeli hasbarah; there must be American hasbarah for
Israel!
The
voices that should lead this campaign need not necessarily be Israeli
ambassadors or politicians. They must rather be former American combat soldiers
or officers, influential conservatives, Evangelical leaders, hi-tech
personalities, parents who are concerned about campus anti-Semitism,
professors, conservative Hispanics, and moderate Democrats.
When an
American explains to another American why Israel is important for U.S.
security, the message is heard ten times louder than when an Israeli explains
this.
And our second
mistake is this: focusing on Washington, D.C. exclusively.
The real
battle for the future of Israeli-U.S. relations is taking place today on
university campuses: at Harvard, Columbia, Berkeley, the University of
Pennsylvania, and the like. It is there, and not in "traditional American
support for Israel," that the consciousness of the coming decade's
journalists, judges, members of Congress, and governors is being shaped.
If Israel
does not invest its efforts there now, this year, it will discover in ten years
that the problem is not who sits in the White House, but what the American
public itself thinks.
For this
reason, a new pro-Israel strategy is required, based on three principles:
strengthening bipartisan support for Israel, among both Democrats and
Republicans; building a deep "network of influence" within American
society in its entirety and not just in the political system; and replacing
traditional Hasbara sources with authentic American voices.
Israel
need not choose between Vance and Rubio, or between Republicans and Democrats.
It must simply choose America – all of it. Maintaining that broad alliance with
America in general was historically one of Israel’s greatest strategic
successes ever since its establishment. In the current polarized, raucous, and
rapidly changing world, our strategy for the decades to come must be the return
to that comprehensive approach.