Understanding Trump’s Strategy with Israel: A Diplomatic Approach of Domestic Incentives
The relationship between Donald Trump and Israel’s leadership during his presidency represented a significant shift in U.S.-Israel relations. Trump’s approach differed markedly from his predecessors, focusing not on applying pressure regarding foreign policy issues, but instead offering domestic political advantages to Israeli leadership. This strategy proved remarkably effective in building a strong rapport with the Israeli prime minister and advancing certain U.S. objectives in the region. By understanding the internal political dynamics of Israel rather than solely focusing on international diplomacy, Trump created a relationship based on mutual political benefit rather than the traditional carrot-and-stick approach to foreign policy demands.
Trump recognized that Israeli leaders, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, operated within a complex domestic political environment where coalition politics and survival often trumped international considerations. Instead of threatening consequences for policies the U.S. disagreed with, Trump offered political gifts that strengthened Netanyahu’s position domestically – from moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem to recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. These moves cost the U.S. relatively little diplomatically but carried enormous political value within Israel, creating goodwill that Trump could leverage. This approach demonstrated an understanding that for Israeli leadership, domestic political capital was often more valuable than foreign policy concessions.
The effectiveness of this strategy became evident as the relationship flourished despite occasional policy disagreements. By focusing on areas where U.S. actions could bolster Netanyahu’s standing with his base and coalition partners, Trump created a reservoir of goodwill that sustained the relationship through more challenging discussions. This represented a departure from previous administrations that had often used the threat of public criticism or withheld diplomatic support to pressure Israeli leaders on issues like settlement expansion. Trump’s administration calculated, often correctly, that positive reinforcement through domestically popular moves would yield more cooperation than traditional diplomatic pressure.
This approach also reflected Trump’s transactional view of international relations and his background in business negotiations. Rather than emphasizing shared values or historical alliances in abstract terms, Trump identified specific actions that would directly benefit his counterpart politically. This created a more personalized relationship between the leaders and their administrations, where favor could be exchanged for favor. Critics noted this sometimes came at the expense of long-standing U.S. positions on issues like the two-state solution or settlement policy, but defenders pointed to concrete achievements like the Abraham Accords as evidence the strategy produced tangible results.
The relationship also benefited from significant personal chemistry between Trump and Netanyahu, two leaders who shared similar political styles and messaging strategies. Both understood the value of projecting strength to their bases and recognized in each other a fellow political survivor who prioritized domestic political considerations. This personal rapport strengthened the effectiveness of Trump’s approach, as Netanyahu could count on Trump understanding his political constraints in a way previous U.S. presidents had not. The Israeli leader, in turn, provided Trump with diplomatic wins and strong public support that reinforced Trump’s image as a breakthrough foreign policy president to his domestic audience.
The Trump-Israel relationship offers important lessons for understanding effective diplomacy in an era of personality-driven politics. By focusing on what actually motivated his counterpart – domestic political survival and advantage rather than abstract foreign policy principles – Trump achieved a level of cooperation that had eluded previous administrations. Whether this approach represents a sustainable model for future U.S.-Israel relations remains debatable, as it depended heavily on the specific personalities involved and sometimes diverged from long-term U.S. policy objectives. Nevertheless, it demonstrated that understanding and accommodating the domestic political needs of foreign leaders can sometimes be more effective than traditional diplomatic pressure in achieving foreign policy goals. This insight may prove valuable regardless of which party controls the White House in future administrations.
