Showing posts with label Abraham Accords. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abraham Accords. Show all posts

Friday, July 4, 2025

Israel Update July 4, 2025 - Close to a Deal with Hamas?

I arrived back in Israel last Friday, shortly after President Trump had declared a cease fire between Iran and Israel.  I had to scramble to find a ticket to Israel and wound up flying on Arkia Airlines from Athens.

Getting to and From Israel

In case you are thinking of flying Arkia - my suggestion would be to try to find something else if you can. 

I arrived in Athens via Air Canada and was supposed to have about four hours until my Arkia flight.  Of course there is no baggage transfer agreement so I had to go through Greek immigration (which had a long line-up but moved quickly), pick up my suitcase (which wasn't too bad) and then go check in for the Arkia flight.  Surprisingly, when I got to the Arkia counter, I was offered the chance to get on an earlier flight (almost 3 hours earlier than scheduled).  I asked if I would have enough time (only 45 minutes left according to the flight schedule).  I was assured I would be fine so I took the earlier flight - no extra charge.

From the check-in counter, I had to go through the Greek exit security (Immigration).  The line-up  was unbelievably long and very slow.  Pylons everywhere directing people to walk up and down temporary aisles.  Every few minutes, the authorities would call out an airline and destination and take people out of the line-up into an expedited process.  "Anyone on the Air Canada flight to Toronto? Come with me..."  As I was waiting in line, I noticed that we were only about 30 minutes before departure time, but nobody was calling out Arkia passengers to Tel-Aviv.

I finally got through this line up at 12:55, which was exactly the boarding time for the flight.  But still no call for Arkia passengers.  I still had to go through personal security (the x-ray machines etc.,).  By the time I left the whole area and headed towards the gate - it was about 1:15.  I got to the gate - and no worries - there was a whole line-up of Arkia passengers waiting in line.  Boarding was delayed.  We would still need to take a bus to the plane and then board.

Ultimately, the "earlier" flight that I was able to get on - left 1.5 hours after its revised scheduled time - which was about 4.5 hours after its original scheduled time.  So I actually wound up leaving about half an hour before my originally scheduled time even though I was put on an earlier flight.  Meanwhile the flight that I had been scheduled for originally wound up about two and a half hours late.

For this privilege, I had to spend about $600 - the only way available to get to Israel - during that period of time. (That was just the cost of a one way Arkia ticket from Athens to Tel-Aviv).

Since last week, several airlines have resumed flights to Israel but so far it is mainly the Israeli carriers and a handful of others - Arkia, Israir, Tus Airlines and of course El Al.  Several other airlines have announced that they will be resuming service but at all different dates. From my quick look at the Ben Gurion Arrivals board today - there are flights showing for Air France, Fly Dubai, Delta and some other airlines - though some of these may be code shares with El Al or other airlines.

Over the coming months, it certainly appears that more and more airlines will resume service as long as the security situation continues to improve.  I understand that British Airways, Wizz Air, Air Canada, American Airlines and several others have cancelled their service to Israel until well after September 2025.  If you are planning to come to Israel (let's say for a wedding and a Hina or something like that....), the only airline you are really going to be able to count on for the coming months is El Al, which has demonstrated that it will continue to fly to Israel even in the most difficult conditions - albeit at very exorbitant prices.

It is likely that Arkia, Israir, Tus Airways and Blue Bird airways will also continue to fly - especially from Cyprus or Athens - and maybe  from Rome. These may all be fine as long as you don't mind lengthy delays and sky high baggage charges. After that, some of the airlines that have been willing to bring back their service more quickly than others have been Aegean Airlines (Greece), Fly Dubai, Emirates, Ethiopian Air and Lufthansa.  Several other airlines have scheduled dates for return in August 2025 including United Airlines - but I think it is going to be questionable for now to rely on United.  For Canadians, we may well not see Air Canada resuming its Tel-Aviv service until deep into the fall or even sometime until 2026 but hopefully, with a pending cease fire, Air Canada will resume sooner rather than later.

Gaza War

As of the time I am writing this article, indications are that Hamas is prepared to accept or mostly accept - a cease fire deal for 60 days proposed by President Trump and his negotiators.  I am not going to get into all of the specifics here other than to say that the deal apparently calls for the immediate release of 8 live Israeli hostages by Hamas, followed by the release of 15 bodies.  2 more live Israeli hostages would be released 60 days later, with information provided about the remaining hostages at some point along the way. Estimates are that between 20 and 23 Israeli hostages are still alive and that Hamas is holding a total of approximately 50 hostages in total - including those who are no longer living.

Israel would release hundreds of Hamas prisoners, many of whom are facing lengthy prison sentences for violent terrorist attacks.  Negotiations would continue over the coming 60 days for a settlement of all outstanding issues.  If negotiations fail, hostilities could resume though President Trump is apparently providing "personal assurances" that the war will not restart.  Of course there is nothing more reliable than the word of President Trump - so the Hamas terrorists will certainly take comfort knowing that they have the President's promise.  (You can read this any way you like, depending on your politics).

The war with Hamas will not go down in Israeli history as one of Israel's great victories.  Israel suffered tremendous losses initially - civilian and military losses - and whole villages were wiped out by Hamas even though they will now be rebuilt. While Israel was able to assassinate many Hamas leaders and destroy a significant part of Gaza, Israel was not able to recover the hostages militarily, defeat Hamas or end, definitively, its rule in Gaza.

881 Israeli soldiers have been killed since October 7, 2023 and close to 6,000 have been injured.

The war has also caused a high rate of casualties for Palestinians in Gaza, although the breakdown between military and civilian casualties is difficult to ascertain.  While the Hamas "Gaza Health Ministry" claims that more than 59,600 Palestinians have been killed, there is a great deal of uncertainty when examining any claims made by Hamas.  We do not know how many of these Palestinian casualties were Hamas fighters, though it is likely to be a fairly high number.

It does appear that as the war has progressed, the proportion of Palestinian civilians being killed relative to the total numbers of casualties has been growing -  even though the numbers are likely not as as high as those reported by Hamas.  We also know of several cases where Hamas claimed that Israeli troops opened fire on groups of civilians - and it turned out that the reports were completely false (even after they were reported as true by the BBC, for example).(The BBC later recanted and apologized).

Unquestionably this war has been a disaster for Hamas and for the Palestinians living in Gaza.  But it was also the culmination of several smaller wars started by Hamas over the past several years since Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005 and Hamas took over the Gaza strip.

Ultimately the only long term solution for the Palestinians in Gaza is going to be having a government committed to resolving issues peacefully with Israel rather than militarily.  Hopefully that train has not left the station.  Continued Hamas rule will only lead to more violent confrontations with Israel.  President Trump's plan of "voluntary relocation" coupled with building a riviera in Gaza might be dismissed as a pipedream (or a war crime) but the geography, topography and location of Gaza does create endless economic possibilities if Gaza were to be run in a collaborative way with Israel.

Other Regional Developments

Israelis were hoping (and continue to hope) for a regime change in Iran and the emergence of a new Iranian government willing to make peace with Israel.  One of Israeli's leading Iranian experts, Benny Sabati, who was born in Iran and lived there for several years before emigrating to Israel, predicts that within 3 to 5 years, Iran will have diplomatic relations with Israel.  He believes that the current Iranian regime will fall during this period of time.  Let's hope that he is correct. A  change of regime in Iran could lead to very significant developments in the Middle East and a future with much more  stability.

President Trump and  Israeli officials are openly talking about trying to add Lebanon and  Syria to the Abraham Accords.  I think the talk about Syria is likely somewhat premature since it will be difficult to resolve the dispute over the Golan Heights.  During President Trump's first term, he recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan  Heights (which Israel first captured in the 1967 Six Day War).  Syria is not about to enter into a peace arrangement with Israel that sees Israel continuing to hold the Golan Heights - and Israel is  not about to give up the Golan  Heights to a Jihadi-led, ISIS inspired neighbour.  If Syria gives up its dream of taking back the Golan Heights - at least for now - perhaps a peace deal can be signed but I am not holding my breath on that one.

Now that Assad is out of the picture in Syria and Hezbollah has been weakened, there may be no impediment to Lebanon coming to a deal with Israel.  A stable Lebanon, with the restoration of Beirut as the "Paris of the Middle East" would be a very exciting development - not just for Lebanon and its people but for the whole of the Middle East.  It this were to happen, it would be a direct result of one of the clear victories in Israel's current war - the tremendous weakening of Hezbollah as a regional force, one which controlled and terrorized the people  of Lebanon for many years.

Meanwhile, if Iran sets out to rebuild its nuclear program as quickly as possible, there may be a second round of this war between Iran and Israel, though it may be a year or two down the road.  The alternative for Iran will be a negotiated solution with the United States and Israel - and perhaps the Iranian leadership will start to falter afterwards. In the short term, it  is hard to predict which way this will go.  In the long term, we have to be optimistic that the people of Iran will be able to shed themselves of this horrible dictatorship.

Bibi's Trial

One cannot overestimate the impact of Prime Minister Netanyahu's current criminal trial on all of  these matters. Bibi is currently in the midst of his cross examination, even though last week he asked the court for a two week hiatus to deal with "security affairs."  The court agreed so the cross-examinations will not resume until the week of July 14th, I believe.

We are clearly at the "meat" of the trial - the cross-examination, and Bibi has no interest in having this continue.  It is embarrassing, excruciating and by most analysts' accounts that I have read - unwinnable.  Accordingly, Bibi had his lawyers contact the state prosecutors last week to feel out the prosecution for a plea bargain deal. (His lawyers later issued a denial that they initiated the contacts).

It appears that all of the lawyers, on both sides of this trial, recognize that Netanyahu is highly likely to be  convicted on at least some counts if this ever gets to a verdict. As  I have said previously, I do not believe we will ever see a verdict in this case.

If a conviction,  as part of a verdict or a plea bargain deal, carries with it the designation of "Kahlon" or "moral turpitude," Netanyahu, under Israeli law, would be barred from running for office for several years.  He is not prepared to agree to that.

On the other hand, the state is not prepared to agree to a guilty plea to only more minor offences, especially since the prosecution feels very confident that it can get a conviction with "Kahlon."

One way of trying to change this reality for Bibi has been a campaign to oust the current Attorney General, replace her with someone more "Bibi-friendly" and then negotiate a deal that is more palatable.  Bibi and his Likud party  have been trying to do this - but they face several legal hurdles and conflict of  interest allegations that are making it difficult to replace the AG.

A second alternative, floated by some of Bibi's Likud party members just last week, would be to legislate an end to the trial.  This would be shocking.  Even some Likud members have indicated that they would not support it  And the Israeli Supreme Court would surely strike it down.  I am hopeful that this idea is a non-starter. Netanyahu would need an even more right-wing government to have a chance at pulling this off.

A third idea, and I think one that is most likely at this point, is a negotiated plea-bargain deal combined with a pardon from President Herzog.  This type of  deal might allow Bibi to plead guilty to more serious offences (which would save face for the prosecution) but with a pardon, he would still be able to run again.  The issue is that this could cause somewhat of a crisis for the justice system.  The State would have to demonstrate that it obtained some concessions from Bibi in exchange for the pardon, even though the pardon would be coming from the President rather  than the State.  So Bibi will have to give something to get this type of deal - and I am not really sure what that could be.

There is another alternative.  The current Israeli government might fall, even without a plea bargain deal in place  for Bibi and he may hope that an election will give him a government more willing to help him deal with his criminal challenges. In my view, that is probably a risky strategy.  I think we are more likely to see  a deal in place before an election is called.

I am not going to spend much time dealing with President Trump's tweets calling for Israel to "free Bibi from his trial" as if this were a purely political trial. Fortunately, Israel is not a banana republic (not yet anyways) and none of the actors involved in Bibi's trial (the judges, the prosecutors etc.,) are going to be moved by Trump's calls.  It is more likely that Trump's tweets show a certain desperation on Bibi's part as he tries to enlist the help of Trump to get him out of his legal predicament.  In fact, a number of Israeli commentators speculated that the tweets were written by Bibi himself based on the language used. I am not in a position to comment one way or other but it is an extraordinary level of interference by President Trump into Israel's domestic affairs.  Then again, Bibi himself did everything he could to help the Republicans defeat Obama, Biden and Harris - so interference in domestic political affairs for Bibi and for Trump are par for the course.

Mood in Israel

Israelis are a resilient lot - they have to be to survive in this area of the world.  The 12 day war with Iran was quite frightening.  Many buildings were destroyed. 29 people were killed and more than 3,200 were injured.  But the war was perceived as a major military victory for Israel - perhaps one  of  historic proportions.

The war with Hamas has been going on since October 7, 2023  and over the past few weeks, Israelis have been receiving reports of soldiers dying in battle almost daily.  I believe that the majority of Israelis are hoping that this war with Hamas will end as soon as possible and that things will start to improve.  In other words, I think there is a combination of despair over how things have gone in Gaza but cautious optimism about the future.

Concerts and events have reopened. The airport is gradually increasing its capacity.  I am hopeful that by the end of August (big event time for us...), things will be even better than they are now.

Sports News

I do not have too much to write about sports as the moment.  But I thought I would mention a couple of things quickly.

The Israeli men's national football (soccer) team is trying to qualify for the 2026 world cup.  Israel is in a group with Norway, Estonia, Italy and  Moldova.  On June 6, 2025, Israel beat Estonia for the second time.  Israel will play Moldova on September 5th in Moldova and it will play Italy on September 8, 2025 in Hungary.  It will also play Norway  on October 11, 2025 in Oslo.  Israel lost its first game to Norway but as of now, still has a chance to make it into the 2026 World Cup.  It looks like the road will go through Rome - (Israel will have to beat Italy) but stay tuned.

Israeli TV does not broadcast very many baseball games - but I couldn't resist streaming last night's Blue Jay game.  The Blue Jays swept the New York Yankees in a four game series, featuring a gazillion runs, which moved the Blue Jays into first place in their division.  Even if that is only temporary and even though it is only July, it was still pretty exciting. There may be some very meaningful baseball games for Toronto fans to watch in October.

I think that is about it for now - but I wanted to share these thoughts and wish everyone  a Shabbat Shalom, a happy Fourth of July, a belated Happy Canada Day - and a celebration of all the great events that our family has in July - birthdays, an anniversary etc., Hoping for some good news in the coming days including the return of our  hostages, the cessation of hostilities and maybe even an Israeli election call.



Wednesday, September 16, 2020

The "Abraham Accords" - Are We Any Closer to Middle East Peace?"


We watched the signing of the "Abraham Accords" yesterday with interest.  It was a big deal for Israel.  After all, any time that Israel can sign peace treaties (okay, normalization treaties) with other Arab countries, that is bound to be a big deal.  The deal and the process have elicited some very polarized reactions so I thought it would be worthwhile to provide a  few comments about this  process.

First of all, I think it is fair to acknowledge that, however we got here, this type  of deal is a favourable and beneficial deal for most players in the region.  Although it may be characterized primarily  as an "arms deal" between the U.S. and the UAE wherein the U.S. will now sell F-35s and other weaponry to the UAE, there is more to it than that.  The UAE and Israel have begun to negotiate deals and arrangements in a wide range of areas including technology, medicine, energy, tourism and, yes, defence.  This type of relationship, if it proceeds, will lead to a much warmer peace than Israel has with Egypt or  Jordan.  If it takes root and develops, it may well lead to a very different Middle East.  Other countries may come along and the peace between Israel and Egypt may develop further.   Israelis may soon find  themselves  visiting more Arab  countries regularly and vice-versa and that is exciting.

At the signing ceremony yesterday, including the accompanying press conferences, President Trump stated that he expected "5 or 6 other countries" to come along very soon.  Apparently, after the press conference he upped this to "7 to 9."   Now, I don't really think, given the track record, that anyone has any great reason to believe very much of what this president promises.  Who knows what these other countries are demanding in the negotiations?   Or how far apart they really are?  Or whether any of these deals can really be closed?  But I will say this - if Israel were to be able to enter deals with 5 or 6 other countries - including some large and significant ones - that would have to be considered a huge step towards Middle East  peace and a brighter future for the whole region.  So far, the names I have heard mentioned include Oman, Sudan, Morocco, Lebanon, and, ultimately, Saudi Arabia.  It would certainly be a huge credit to Trump and Kushner if they were able to close most or all of these deals.

If the other countries do not fall into line as expected, yesterday's  deal may not amount to very much and  may not change much in the region.  Some indications from yesterday's proceedings support a pessimistic view about the  whole ordeal.   Neither Bahrain nor the UAE brought their heads of state.  Instead, each side brought their foreign ministers (secretaries of state, if you will).  For Israel, the Foreign Minister, Gabi Ashkenazi (part of the Blue and White wing of the governing coalition) was left at home and did not attend with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  In fact, press reports here indicate that he wasn't even aware of the contents of the deal.  Neither the Israeli cabinet nor the Israeli Knesset have yet voted to approve the deal and it is unclear that anyone, other than Netanyahu, is aware of its full contents.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and the representatives from the UAE and Bahrain all spoke glowingly about President Trump.  That seems to have been one of the  key terms of the deal.  In fact, Netanyahu did not even acknowledge the foreign representatives from the UAE and Bahrain until later in his speech.  He did  not speak about plans for Israel and the UAE.  One might have thought he could  have publicly invited the UAE and Bahrain leaders to visit Israel during this speech or he could have reviewed some of the hopes and aspirations that citizens of each country might have.  But instead, the focus was on Netanyahu himself as well as Trump.  It is a shame that Netanyahu seems so willing to go  along with turning Israel into a partisan issue in United States politics.  I am not convinced that this is a policy that is in Israel's interests  long term, especially if Trump should lose the  November election.

For their part, the representatives of the UAE and Bahrain also went along with the cue to lavish praise upon President Trump,  repeatedly.  All that was missing was  an official ring-kissing procession.   They both said little about Israel but called for peace across the Middle East.  The Bahraini representative called for a "just  resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian" conflict but really did not discuss what was so great about this particular deal for Bahrain and Israel respectively.  The ceremony, overall, had the feel of a campaign rally for Trump and Netanyahu rather than a key diplomatic event.

Critics of the deal and of the Trump-Kushner approach to the Middle East  have argued that Trump has titled U.S. policy towards Israel and has effectively taken positions that Bibi himself would have put forward.  In some cases, this  is fair comment.  the Trump administration has cut aid to the Palestinians, has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and has recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.  The Trump administration has also put together a "Deal of the Century" proposal for peace between Israel and the Palestinians without Palestinian involvement.  And  yes, it is a fairly one-sided document.

That being said, the Trump-Kushner proposal, does call for an independent Palestinian State, something rejected  by Netanyahu,  his Likud party and the various parties to the right of Likud in the  Knesset.  It does not include all of the territory that the Palestinians would like and  it does  not include a right of return to Israel for the many Palestinian refugees.  But it does include territorial compromise by Israel and  it is a negotiable plan rather than the a bottom line.  It is unclear whether there would be any negotiations regarding Jerusalem.

It is true that  this approach tilts towards Israel.  But it has also true that previous plans including  the Arab League Plan and the Clinton plan tilted, almost  completely, to the  Palestinian side, especially the Arab League Plan which called for a Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders including  the Old City.  Even where Israeli leaders were willing to go along with a plan that included most of these terms (i.e. the Clinton plan in 2000) that was not acceptable to the Palestinians.  I  do think that a Clinton-type plan left the station shortly after Arafat rejected it.  Especially after political changes in Israel that were probably linked, to some extent, to the rejectionist approach of the Palestinians at the time.

For years the surrounding Arab countries have  been willing to support Palestinian intransigence by characterizing Israel as the main enemy and  threat in the  region and refusing to enter into peace and  normalization deals with Israel - for fear of having been viewed as  betraying the Palestinian cause.  But over the course of the past 53 years since the 1967 war and 72 years since the establishment of the State of Israel, this has been a failing policy.  It has led to  a great deal of war and violence, terrorism, perennial refugee camps and has helped bolster dictatorial regimes in the region who have  used the Palestinian cause to suppress their own populations and  downplay  other criticism about how their countries are run.  And it really hasn't brought the Palestinians any closer to their own state.

The current approach led by Trump and  Kushner marks a  significant departure from this failed policy.  On the  one hand, the U.S. has tilted towards Israel in some areas, much to the chagrin of the EU, the "progressive wing" of the Democratic Party, Turkey, Iran and some other countries.  On the other hand, the goal of the policy seems to be to  bring in other Arab nations, to become friends and allies of Israel - but also to help work towards a resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in a way that is more realistic. 

It is noteworthy that Netanyahu has called the deals with the UAE and Bahrain "deals from strength" that trade "peace for peace" rather than "land for peace."  But Netanyahu is being disingenuous.  As  part of these deals, Israel has agreed to refrain from unilaterally annexing any of the disputed territories and has also agreed not to oppose a U.S. decision to sell the UAE F-35s.   

The Crown Prince of the UAE states that he believed that the UAE could be in a much better position to assist with the Israeli -Palestinian conflict if it were viewed with some measure of trust and  friendship by Israel.  The UAE and Israel have taken steps  to build that relationship since as early as 2010.  But this does mark  a new  phase - and concurrently, a potentially new level of influence for the UAE in its dealings with Israel.  By including a requirement that  Israel abandon any proposal  to unilaterally annex land, some of which is earmarked for a future Palestinian state, the UAE has signified that it will take an active role in trying to bring about a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

That brings us to the current situation.  There are really a few very different routes that  this process may now take.

If Trump and Kushner are correct that this process has the potential to bring about a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians - I believe that Saudi Arabia would be the key turning point.  Saudi Arabia may well have the clout to insist that it will only sign a full peace deal with Israel if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved.  

In this scenario, a proposal or  plan may be developed that is somewhere between the Trump-Kushner plan and the Clinton Plan.  It would result in the formation of a Palestinian State and a full resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian  conflict.  The problem is that it may not be acceptable, initially, to the Palestinians or even the Israelis.  But here the hope would be that the combination of the support  of a large number of other Arab countries, financial, economic and other  assistance for the Palestinians would leave the Palestinians with no other real alternatives.

On the other side of the equation, Netanyahu has actively campaigned against the creation of a Palestinian state and has suggested that he opposes this part of the Trump-Kushner plan.  He stated this repeatedly during the last Israeli election campaign.  But at some  point, if pushed by Trump and  Kushner - and with the possibility of having  diplomatic relations, even  warm ones, with a large number of countries in the Middle East, Israel may also have no other real alternative but to accept the deal.

On the other hand, no matter what Trump, Kushner or Netanyahu do, there will continue to be rejectionists in the Middle East.   Iran, Turkey, Qatar, Hezbollah and Hamas have all registered their strong opposition to this approach and the Palestinian Authority has called the UAE and Bahrain "back stabbers."  If the other Middle Eastern countries will not go along with the  Trump-Kushner approach and if the PA decides to  turn to violence as its response (as it has many times in the past), an Israeli-Palestinian deal may be as far off as it has ever been.

If, in November, Trump is re-elected, he may decide to pressure Israel to accept a plan that he can sell to the other Arab countries - and ultimately try to use those countries to get the Palestinians to agree  as well.  There are a lot of "ifs"  here and Trump is very unpredictable.  And, of course, there is a still a good chance that he will not be re-elected.

If Biden is elected, he will have a difficult decision to make.  If he takes the Obama approach to the Middle East, that would mean trying to open up negotiations with Iran immediately, restoring funding to the Palestinians unconditionally and cooling the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia, the UAE and  others.  This may effectively end the current track of pushing for peace deals between Israel and neighbouring countries as a first step  towards peace.

But if  Biden is elected and  he can be convinced that some genuine progress has been made  - and the U.S. is close to brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and  Israel (that also involves an Israel-Palestinian deal), Biden might even continue a version of this path.  He  will almost certainly restore funding to the Palestinians either way and try to re-open dialogue with the PA.  But he might not tilt U.S. policy back to where it was under Obama.

Overall, I think this is all a great opportunity for Israel.  The Palestinians rejected the Clinton plan in 2000 and lost what was probably the best proposal they might ever get from Israel.  They probably regret having done so even if they will not publicly admit it.  At this juncture, if Israel could reach a deal with the Palestinians, along the  lines of what has been proposed by Trump and  Kushner, it would probably be about the best deal Israel could hope to get even if the final deal involves additional Israeli concessions.  If it is a deal that would also involve full peace deals with most of the  surrounding Arab countries, it would be an opportunity that Israel would probably not want to pass up.  

While President Obama and Netanyahu had a great deal of public  quarrels, the U.S.-Israel relationship remained very strong throughout  Obama's presidency.  This was the case despite some of the steps taken by Obama over the course of his presidency, especially his support for anti-Israel UN resolutions at the very end of his second term and the dispute with Israel over the wisdom of the Iranian nuclear deal.  But at the same time, throughout the  Obama presidency, the U.S. continued to cooperate with Israel fully in  a wide range of technological, military, economic and  other areas despite the often successful efforts of Netanyahu to portray the situation otherwise.  President Obama did not take any significant steps to try and impose a deal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If Biden is elected, he may well look at all aspects of the Obama-Netanyahu relationship and find a way to do things a bit differently.  He  may want to restore the public perception of the U.S.-Israel relationship as one that is non-partisan even while repairing the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians.  He will have a challenging  time with Netanyahu in this regard but if the ultimate result is comprehensive peace between Israel and the Palestinians with most other Arab countries in agreement - it may make sense to continue a version of the Trump-Kushner approach even if a Biden vision is viewed as being a bit more balanced.