By Jeremiah Rozman

In a presupposition-laden Washington Post article entitled Biden Should Respond Boldly to a Radical Netanyahu Government, former State Department negotiator Aaron David Miller and former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer espoused numerous falsehoods and provided unsubstantiated and logically flawed policy advice at a level that should be beneath the standards of publication in a serious outlet. Every paragraph is filled with blatantly false statements and shoddy logic. This article demonstrates exactly why the U.S. Middle East policy establishment has failed so abysmally in recent decades.

The authors advise the Biden administration to cut offensive arms sales to Israel, cut diplomatic ties with Israeli ministers, pressure Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, pressure the Abraham Accords countries to rethink their positions that led them to make peace with Israel, and support measures against Israel in biased international institutions. They make no attempt to explain how or why their desired “bold” response to Netanyahu’s future government would serve U.S. interests.

The authors begin by claiming that Netanyahu’s future government possesses “antidemocratic values inimical to U.S. interests.” They do not define what interests these values are “inimical to.” Some argue that a strong relationship with a secure and technologically advanced democracy at peace with its neighbors and collaborating with them and the U.S. on security, research and development and intelligence sharing precisely serves U.S. interests. While there certainly may be valid counterarguments, the authors fail to provide any.

The title presupposes that Netanyahu’s future government is “radical” while the authors fail throughout the article to mention that relative to the governments of its neighbors with which the U.S. has solid diplomatic and security relations, Israel’s government is among the most moderate by any metric. Indeed, it is the only democracy with liberal protections and free elections in the entire region.

Perhaps the authors are confused about the democratic process. They state that “Benjamin Netanyahu has midwifed the most extreme government in the history of the state.” In fact, Israel’s democratic parliamentary government was not “midwifed” whatever that means. Rather, it was elected by voters. Had they voted differently, this government would not exist. Perhaps the authors should be asking why Israel’s population chose a right-wing government?

The authors go on to attack Minister Avi Maoz, whom they claim, “espouses a fierce anti-LGBTQ agenda.” They might note that Israel is the only country in the entire region where it is legal to be LGBTQ. Its neighbors, many of whom have strong diplomatic and military relationships with the U.S., have punishments for homosexuality ranging from public beatings to imprisonment to death.

Miller and Kurtzer then warn that under this future government “Palestinian terrorist groups are likely to intensify their attacks against Israelis.” Israelis are painfully aware that Palestinian violence preceded this government and indeed any Israeli government. If outcome Y predates treatment X, clearly treatment X did not cause it. Perhaps the authors should dig deeper?

Netanyahu’s new government, the authors also argue, may “trigger another serious round of fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.” They fail to note that for nearly two decades there have been continuous attacks from Gaza and intense episodes of fighting every couple of years. Hamas’s charter calls to kill all Jews and fight until Israel is replaced with an Islamic theocracy. I am unfamiliar with the Article in its charter that states that it will continue violence until Israel elects a left-wing LGBTQ-friendly government.

The authors go on to warn that the new government might “change the status quo by legitimizing Jewish prayer on the Noble Sanctuary/Temple Mount.” They do not explain why allowing Jewish prayer in a Jewish holy site alongside Muslim prayer in a Muslim holy site is something the Biden administration should oppose. They also do not explain why they are calling to single out the only country with religious freedom in the region.

The authors ask Biden to “make it clear to Israel that his administration will have no dealings with Ben Gvir, Smotrich or their ministries if they continue to espouse racist policies and actions.” They also think that “Israel should know that the Biden administration will be on the alert for Israeli actions that deserve to be called out and condemned.” This follows on the heels of the Biden administration proposing full immunity to Saudi leader Mohammed Bin Salman over the Khashoggi killings and continuing to deal with many of its Arab partners with deeply entrenched racism, and homophobic and misogynistic laws.

Shockingly, the authors want the Biden administration “to inform the Abraham Accord countries that their evident lack of interest in the plight of the Palestinians will undermine their relationship with Israel and damage their credibility in advancing other regional objectives with the United States.” This makes very little sense—why would lack of interest in the Palestinians undermine their relationship with Israel? The authors give no explanation. Nor do they explain what regional objectives with the U.S. would be harmed or how.

Perhaps the most blatant falsehood in this entire article is the authors’ assertion that “for a U.S. president to put pressure on a democratically elected Israeli government would be unprecedented and controversial.” Every U.S. administration, since Israel’s independence, including even the Trump administration, has put significant and well-documented pressure on democratically elected Israeli governments.

The authors do offer a single sentence regarding the Palestinians. They argue that “the Palestinian leadership, for its part, should be plainly told that U.S. support depends on its willingness to hold elections, build a responsible democratic government and curb violence and terrorism.” The authors surely know that this has never been the case and is unlikely to come about anytime soon.

This article is so inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and flawed that it likely would not have been published absent the outlet’s agreement with its tone and absent the authors’ credentials. It reads more like a temper tantrum that Israel elected a government that the Beltway foreign policy establishment does not like, than a thoughtful analysis or sound policy advice.

The views expressed do not reflect the position of the U.S. government or military and are the author's own.

Jeremiah Rozman currently works as the National Security Analyst at a DC-based think tank. From 2006-2009 he served as an infantryman in the IDF. His regional expertise is in the Middle East and Russia. He designed and taught an undergraduate course on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Read full bio here.