One of democracy’s great strengths is the people’s power to change its government with every election cycle. One of democracy’s flaws is that such power currently produces acute discontinuity in a nation’s policies and statecraft that alternately causes stagnation and upheaval.
There was a time when foreign policy was largely a bipartisan concern, with disputes relegated to the margins. American policy towards Communism and the Soviet Union was remarkably consistent for almost four decades, at least until Ronald Reagan rejected containment and ushered in the downfall of Communism in Europe. There was no significant anti-war movement in the United States during the two World Wars and until Vietnam, and even the anti-Vietnam War movement did not reshape the political system until years later.
Recall that President Nixon in 1972 defeated the robustly anti-war George McGovern in a true, not Trumpian, landslide, winning 49 of 50 states, and almost 61% of the popular vote.
As the adage went, “politics stops at the waters’ edge," but Jimmy Carter in his post-presidential global perambulations repudiated that with his frequent criticisms overseas of both Democratic and Republican administrations. And the wars in the Middle East in the aftermath of the Arab terrorist attacks of 9/11, as well as the bitter polarization of American politics, ruptured the consistency of American foreign policy.
Thus, Obama reversed Bush policies in Iraq and Israel, Trump reversed Obama policies on Iran and Israel, Biden reversed Trump’s policies in every conceivable sphere, and Trump II has returned the favor to Biden - on Israel, Iran, NATO, Europe, the US border, and a host of other areas. The next president, Republican or Democrat, is liable to overturn fundamental Trump foreign policies. The sense that American foreign policy can shift dramatically every four or eight years has led many countries to try to game the system, adjusting its policies and priorities depending on who is or who might be in power.
For example, it is invariably true that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine on Trump’s watch but exploited a feckless Biden presidency. Iran manipulated that same administration to ramp up its nuclear program soon after Biden became president even while Iran benefited from the relaxation of sanctions. Iran knew that it could buy time through endless negotiations and that - whatever the provocation - Obama or Biden, unlike Trump, would never militarily attack Iranian facilities.
Similarly, Israel played a waiting game throughout 2024, waiting out a Biden presidency and its vacillations towards Israel (providing some needed weapons and much diplomatic support coupled with occasional threats as well as limitations on Israel’s freedom of action) and hoping for a Trump victory in the fall elections. A nation’s pursuit of even vital interests can progress or languish depending on who sits in the Oval Office.
Compounding the disjointedness of American foreign policy in recent decades is Trump’s trademark unpredictability. The world today is witness to a new and unprecedented phenomenon - thunderous declarations of peace, details to follow, and contraindications of peace ignored or wished away. While Trump’s hatred of war, love for peace, and detestation of American casualties anywhere seems genuine, it leaves countries threatened by real enemies who will not be mollified grasping for coherent strategies.
For example, Trump prefers that his “Board of Peace" designed to create a pacified, peaceful, and prosperous Gaza include such rogue anti-Israel countries as Turkey and Qatar. Such is not only risible and guaranteed to fail, like putting Mexico, Guatemala, and Venezuela in charge of security at the USA’s southern border. It also endangers Israel, empowers our enemies, and mocks the sacrifices of our soldiers who will have died not to conquer and transform Gaza but just to recreate the same old Gaza that inevitably will lead to the same old terror and violence.
There is something awry when a nation’s foreign policy must be evaluated in units of four years. That essentially means that Trump can focus his sights on the next three years without concern for what happens in three years and a day. It explains why Trump declares he made “peace in the Middle East" even though no one who lives here thinks that.
If relative peace is sustained until January 20, 2029, it does not matter what cataclysm befalls us the very next day. And some of his policies if enacted - for example, rehabilitating Gaza without rehabilitating the Gazans - will inevitably explode in an even greater rage of hatred and violence than October 7 when Trump leaves office. Israel is being asked to indulge Trump’s quixotic quest of a “Board of Peace" that has a shelf life of three years or less and thus can ignore longer term Israeli interests. We accommodate that at our peril.
A foreign policy for the short term helps explain why Trump loves strongmen, like Putin, Erdogan, Xi, Kim, and others who can serve for years and present consistent, unwavering policies (moral or not) while scorning leaders of democracies who, like him, will be gone soon enough and cannot guarantee stability. The autocrats can, and so only they win Trump’s highest accolade, as leaders who are “strong."
Where does that leave Israel? It is unlikely that a President Vance or a President Newsome (or any future Democratic president in the near term) will be as viscerally pro-Israel as is President Trump. The world today is so volatile - the Middle East, Iran, Russia and Ukraine, the decline of Europe, the aggressiveness of Turkey and Qatar, Central and South America, China and Taiwan, North and South Korea - that it is impossible to predict the state of the world three years from now and how the next president will deal with them.
Papering over crises with vacuous rhetoric looks good in daily headlines and sounds good in press conferences but plays poorly in the real world. And Trump has been known to yield when countries he has threatened push back and he realizes there is no risk-free method of achieving his goals.
As such, it behooves Israel to identify its national interests and pursue them now, and not just rhetorically for campaign purposes as has long been practiced. Sovereignty over Judea and Samaria is a forceful declaration that the creation of a Palestinian Arab state is inimical to Israel’s existence and a non-starter. Such would end the strategic vacuum in Israel’s heartland that has existed for almost six decades. Jerusalem must be expanded, its undeveloped areas designated for new housing, and its indivisibility reaffirmed. The presence of hostile foreign entities in Gaza, such as Turkey or Qatar, should be off the table and resettlement of Jews in Gaza advanced.
Moreover, Israel must firmly assert that the policy has officially ended of enduring attacks, conquering the bases from which those attacks were launched (such as Gaza or South Lebanon), abandoning them under pressure to the attackers only to have to fight there again in several years.
Presidencies come and go but Israel’s interests transcend any particular presidency and the vagaries and predilections of who holds the office during any particular four-year term. Such is democracy’s flaw. We cannot count on consistency from our allies - but we can demand it from our government.
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is Israel Region Vice President for the Coalition of Jewish Values, and the author of six books, including “The Jewish Ethic of Personal Responsibility" (Gefen Publishing).