If Netanyahu loses, who will Democrats blame next? - analysis

It’s coming.

For the last couple of years especially, an increasing number of Israel critics have couched their denunciations with the phrase “the Netanyahu government,” inferring their condemnations apply specifically to the current administration in Jerusalem, and not to the Jewish state as a whole.

We may be about to find out whether “the Netanyahu government” will join “anti-Zionism” as short-lived code words for antisemitism, as a potential change of government in Israel will bring about a masks-off moment back in the United States.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has long railed against “the Netanyahu government” in calling for weapons boycotts against Israel.

Wannabe heirs to the progressive throne, like Sens. Chris Murphy and Chris Van Hollen, have since joined in the refrain, making “the Netanyahu government” a key part of their vernacular.

But what happens if Gadi Eisenkot or another challenger emerges from this week’s election as the new prime minister?

Well, we are already starting to catch a glimpse.

Jon Finer, who served as principal deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration, believes his year as a reporter in Israel and his time John Kerry’s Iran-fanboy State Department gives him better insight into Israel’s security than Eisenkot, a former IDF chief of staff.

“Rather than offering a new Israeli government the benefit of the doubt, Democrats should learn from the past and make it choose between the abundant and irreplaceable benefits of the US relationship and the indefensible policies that are driving a wedge between our societies,” Finer wrote last week in the New York Times, noting Israelis largely agree with Eisenkot, Netanyahu and every conceivable near-term leader, that a Palestinian state would endanger Israel’s security.

There is little doubt that many old-school Democrats, looking to keep the base from swallowing them whole, have used “the Netanyahu government” refrain, together with recriminations of various Israeli government ministers, in order to give cover, which they feel they need, for votes in support of Israel.

The thinking, it goes, is that they can say to their constituencies that they aren’t going to throw the US-Israel relationship down the drain when governments come and go.

But the Murphys and Van Hollens of the world appear to want to do exactly that: throw away the relationship.

Murphy recently plugged his Middle East tour, ostensibly to challenge the Trump administration on the Iran war.

He curiously touted the notion that while he and Saudi Arabian leadership disagree on issues – some of which he’s vocal about – there are opportunities to work together.

Similarly, Qatar, that bastion of American values, does “so many things” to “protect US interests,” Murphy said.

“They were key to getting the hostages out of Gaza,” Murphy added, in a masterclass of gaslighting.

Of course, he challenged them on his “deep concerns about the transfer of the luxury plane” to the Trump administration.

This is key to understanding where we are heading: To the new-age Democrats who have succumbed to the progressive base, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and their ilk don’t need to be beaten over the head. They can be partners. They can even “protect US interests.”

But, Murphy said this summer that while “I support Israel. I cannot support this government’s actions. They are not aligned with US national security objectives.”

Van Hollen has made similar remarks.

Yes, you can talk with Saudi Arabia, and you can tout Qatar’s protection of America, but the Israelis? Not so much, if you’re Murphy, because apparently America’s primary national security interest in the Middle East is a post-Oct. 7 Palestinian state.

This is key to understanding what is coming. Some have made it starkly clear that Israel has no place in the Middle East for any reason. But those that are vying for leadership of the Democratic party, especially on matters of foreign affairs, are soon going to have to make a choice as to what to do if “the Netanyahu government” is no longer around the blame.

While the Eisenkots of the world may take a more conciliatory approach to bipartisanship, and may be able to deliver a different message on behalf of Israel, the bottom line is that most of the policies Israel detractors abhor will remain in place, because they are necessary for Israel’s security.

Ironically, the Bernie Sanders of the world may give a new government some space to breathe and potentially shape new or varying approaches to policy. But it’s already clear that others, like Murphy, Van Hollen, et. al, who have ridden Sanders’ coattails, have long had their minds made up.

It’s not about US security at all. It’s about the base, and their own desires to move up the party ladder. As a result, “the Eisenkot government” would simply become the new refrain.