The success of PM Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress is multi-faceted - opinion

Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu addressed the US Congress to shore up support among American lawmakers for Israel’s ongoing war against Hamas in Gaza. This was Netanyahu’s fourth address before Congress (unique among world leaders) and his second time addressing lawmakers at the invitation of Republicans and behind the back of a standing Democratic president. It was also his first visit to Washington during the Biden presidency.

The Washington Netanyahu arrived in was a very different place than the one he has addressed in the past. First, there was the assassination attempt against former president Trump. Then, the announcement by President Joe Biden, probably the most pro-Israel president in history, that he would not seek reelection and instead endorse his vice president, Kamala Harris, for the presidency. 

Netanyahu’s visit had two overarching objectives. First, to use the prestigious platform of the US Congress in the attempt to restore his public standing in Israel, where his popularity continues to wane amid his catastrophic failure on October 7 and unwillingness, or inability, to secure a hostage and ceasefire deal with Hamas. And second, as a Republican ploy to promote divisions between Democrats and Israel in an election year. 

Unlike previous visits, Netanyahu had much to lose on this trip, including the risk of further turning the Gaza conflict and Israel generally into a partisan issue. Going from Biden to Harris could mark a turning point in the US-Israel relationship, and some have described Harris as seeking a clean slate for the US relationship with Israel. After all, her worldview has been described as decidedly more “pro-Palestinian” than Biden and she was one of the earliest and loudest voices in the White House to speak out against the death toll of Palestinian civilians. 

Harris did not attend Netanyahu’s address to Congress, as expected of the vice president who typically presides over the Senate, but did hold a short meeting with him the following day. Some believe her absence was a  “snub” and Harris went out of her way, following the meeting, to stake out a clearly more critical position than Biden. While saying all the expected platitudes about her commitment to Israel’s security and right to defend itself against a “brutal terrorist organization,” Harris’s primary emphasis was on the need for an early end to the war and Palestinian suffering in Gaza, in the face of which she vowed “not to be silent.” Rather than setting the basis for a good relationship between the prime minister and a possible future president, the meeting merely served to accentuate the differences.

Netanyahu faced different difficulties with Trump, as well as with his vice presidential candidate, JD Vance. Much like Biden and Harris, both called for an early end to the war, not out of any policy differences with Israel, but as Trump said, because it had “decimated” Israel’s public standing. Netanyahu was forced to make a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump, in an attempt to get back into his good graces. While many in Israel would welcome Trump’s reelection, there is also concern about his mercurial nature and the potential for differences with a president unconstrained by strong normative convictions.

Bibi’s visit and address to Congress were particularly sensitive because of the timing, at the height of the US election season, making it more likely to be perceived very differently by Democrats and Republicans and even as an attempt to intervene directly in American politics. Whereas Republicans in the chamber received the speech with great enthusiasm, reactions among Democrats were decidedly more restrained. Some even viewed it as an “ABC” speech: arrogant, blustering, and condescending. 

Even before his visit, Netanyahu drew headlines for the wrong reasons, with leading Jewish Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler calling him “the worst leader in Jewish history... in over 2,100 years.”

Netanyahu's speech was received more favorably in Israel

IN ISRAEL, the speech was received more favorably, as a further manifestation of Netanyahu’s unusual flair for rhetoric, but also as being short on substance. It is uncertain whether the visit will achieve more than a fleeting bump in the polls, as Netanyahu desperately hopes. 

Unlike Netanyahu’s previous address to Congress, he was at least careful this time to adopt a generally bipartisan approach, balancing accolades for both Biden and Trump. He was, however, also unabashedly hardline in nature. 

Netanyahu indicated no concessions on Israel’s part that might hasten a ceasefire and hostage deal, or on the Palestinian issue generally. His vision for the “day after” continued to be based on “total victory” over Hamas, deradicalization and demilitarization of Gaza, and the establishment of a “new Gaza” with a “civil administration” whose nature he did not elaborate on. 

Appropriately, Iran was a primary focus of the speech. However, his call for a new “Abraham Alliance” between Arab States and Israel to counter Iran was meaningless in the absence of any willingness to proceed on the Palestinian issue - the Arab precondition for joining such an alliance.

More than just the optics involved with Netanyahu’s address, Biden and Netanyahu had myriad tangible issues to discuss, including the current state of the war in Gaza and the potential for a ceasefire deal and hostage release; the risk of a major escalation with Hezbollah along Israel’s northern border; the Houthis in Yemen, who recently launched a drone attack targeting Tel Aviv; Iran’s advancing nuclear program; and US weapons sales amid the changing contours of the broader relationship. Little is known yet of any new understanding of these issues.

For Netanyahu, the visit was a missed opportunity for a reset with the Democrats. With the Republicans, it further cemented the increasingly close relationship. With 100 days until the US election, whether or not his visit pays dividends remains to be seen. 

Chuck Freilich, a former deputy national security adviser in Israel, is an adjunct professor at Columbia University and senior fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv (INSS). Colin P. Clarke is the director of research at The Soufan Group and a senior research fellow at The Soufan Center.