Despite not moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, President Trump's evident affection for Israel during his recent visit understandably cheered Israelis after eight years of cool relations with President Obama. Alas, nothing is simple in the Arab-Israeli conflict: A look at historic patterns suggests that, paradoxically, Israel does best with an Obama-style level of tension with Washington.
The explanation of this paradox starts with the fact that all American administrations since 1973, regardless of which party holds the presidency, are convinced the Arabs are ready for peace with Israel. This problem has been especially acute since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1994. American presidents consistently ignore the authority's revolutionary nature. In this spirit, after a meeting with PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, Mr. Trump deemed him a "strategic partner" for Israel and "ready for peace."
American leaders often insist that if only Jerusalem handed over yet more money, land, and recognition, then the Palestinian Authority would be inspired to make peace. In the face of near-infinite deceit, hostility, bellicosity, and violence, this touching faith in Palestinian good neighborliness can only be explained by psychology. Former deputy national security advisor Elliott Abrams helpfully compares it to Tinker Bell in Peter Pan: "If you believe, clap your hands."
When Israeli governments concur with this fanciful thinking, as has happened under Labor and Kadima prime ministers, U.S.-Israel relations soar: Think of Bill Clinton's famously warm ties with Yitzhak Rabin.
Trump and Netanyahu in an informal tête-à-tête at a museum in Jerusalem.
But when Israelis resist such wishful assumptions, as does Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, tensions arise: Washington pushes for more concessions and Jerusalem resists. American presidents then face a choice: moan and criticize or embrace and encourage. Mr. Obama chose the petulant route, as symbolized by his choice to eat dinner with his family in 2010 while Mr. Netanyahu cooled his heels in the Roosevelt Room.
As longtime American diplomat Dennis Ross has said for decades, Israel's cooperation increases when the White House focuses on building its confidence. Without doubting the sincerity of Mr. Trump's warmth for Israel, the deal maker in him intuitively seems to understand that wooing Israelis provides the basis for later pressure. During his recent trip to Israel, Mr. Trump took every opportunity to lavish affection on Jerusalem, Jews, Zionism, and Israel:
"Jerusalem is a sacred city. Its beauty, splendor, and heritage are like no other place on Earth," he noted. "The ties of the Jewish people to this Holy Land are ancient and eternal," a point he illustrated with his own experience: "Yesterday, I visited the Western Wall, and marveled at the monument to God's presence and man's perseverance."
"Israel is a testament to the unbreakable spirit of the Jewish people," he went on. "I stand in awe of the accomplishments of the Jewish people, and I make this promise to you: My administration will always stand with Israel. . . . God bless the State of Israel."
Israelis fully reciprocated this warmth. David Horovitz, editor of The Times of Israel, spoke for many, "Simply by saying he loves it and stands with it, Trump wins over endlessly criticized Israel. ... He and Netanyahu disagree on the Palestinians' peacemaking bona fides. He didn't move the embassy. But the president showered Israel with praise, and made history by visiting the Western Wall. For now, that was more than enough."
This sentimental response provides an opening for Mr. Trump to demand that the Israeli government trust Mr. Abbas and make yet more unilateral concessions to the PA, a process that has apparently already begun with pressure to hand over territory on the West Bank. Given their bromance, how can Mr. Netanyahu deny Mr. Trump's requests?
This harks back to a long-standing pattern: Israelis and their supporters tend to pay more attention to mood and symbolism than to policies. "Unlike other diplomatic bonds, which pivot on such national interests as trade and security interests, the U.S.-Israeli relationship has an emotional base," I wrote in 1992. "Feelings, not a cool assessment of interests, drive its every aspect. Tone, style, mood, and perception often matter more than hard facts."
Sadly, warm relations cause Jerusalem to accede to Washington's consistently poor judgment. That's the peril of warm U.S.-Israel relations and the solace of poor ones. Better for Israel to be chastised by a lousy U.N. Security Council resolution than to relinquish more territory to genocidal thugs.
Whereas U.S.-Israel relations blow hot or cold depending on the political winds, Israeli concessions to the Palestinians are unalterable mistakes that encourage irredentism, cost lives, prolong the conflict, and impede U.S. interests. Thus, my counterintuitive conclusion: Cool relations are better for Israeli – and by implication, American – security.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2017 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
