Connect with us

Economics

Binyamin Netanyahu is alienating Israel’s best friends

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

One day more than 30 years ago, during the administration of President George H.W. Bush, the secretary of state, James Baker, flung a newspaper article at an aide, Daniel Kurtzer, and declared he was going to eject the Israeli ambassador. He was furious about a quotation he had just read from the deputy foreign minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu.

Mr Kurtzer pleaded for 24 hours to check that the quotation was accurate. He learned that Mr Netanyahu’s wording was slightly different from what had been reported, but still shocking: America, Mr Netanyahu had said, “is building its policy on a foundation of distortions and lies”. The ambassador got a reprieve, but Mr Baker declared Mr Netanyahu persona non grata and banned him from the State Department.

A few years later, in 1996, Mr Netanyahu became prime minister, and it was President Bill Clinton’s turn to be insulted. “Who the fuck does he think he is?” Mr Clinton vented to aides, after receiving a lecture on how to deal with Arabs during his first meeting with Mr Netanyahu. “Who’s the fucking superpower here?”

Even Donald Trump, who as president delivered item after item on Mr Netanyahu’s wish-list, found himself blindsided by a classic Netanyahu manoeuvre to box America in. When the two men appeared in the East Room of the White House to announce a peace plan they had arrived at without Palestinian participation—the plan went nowhere—Mr Netanyahu declared it meant Israel could now annex parts of the occupied West Bank. “This was not what we had negotiated,” a flabbergasted Jared Kushner, Mr Trump’s son-in-law and lead negotiator, would later write in his memoir, “Breaking History”. “I grabbed my chair so intensely that my knuckles turned white, as if my grip could make Bibi stop.”

Far more than the unpractised Mr Kushner, President Joe Biden had reason to hope that his grip would be enough to restrain the prime minister, whom he had alternately jousted and joked with for decades, since back before Mr Baker imposed his ban. But since Hamas’s rampage into Israel on October 7th, Mr Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected Mr Biden’s counsel about the war and scorned his vision for its aftermath. That is what provoked Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, to give an extraordinary, anguished speech on March 14th naming Mr Netanyahu along with Hamas as an obstacle to peace and calling for an Israeli election to oust him. Mr Netanyahu, he said, “has lost his way”.

Mr Netanyahu and other Israelis would be making a mistake to interpret the speech as just another bump in the often rocky road the allies have travelled since the founding of Israel. “This is very different,” says Mr Kurtzer, who went on to serve as the American ambassador in Cairo and then Tel Aviv. “The Israelis will need to understand that this is a wake-up call, if nothing else has persuaded them that they’re running into a problem with us.”

Mr Schumer, the highest-ranking elected Jewish official in American history, is no fair-weather friend of Israel. Back when Mr Netanyahu outraged Barack Obama’s White House by attacking Mr Obama’s proposed nuclear deal with Iran in a speech to a joint session of Congress, Mr Schumer was one of only four Senate Democrats to vote against the deal. Mr Schumer is also no progressive. Now aged 73, he was at pains in his speech to point out that “unlike some younger Americans” he was of a generation “within living memory of the Holocaust”. He described pressing a transistor radio to his ear at high school as he fearfully tracked news of the Six Day War.

Mr Schumer is a political animal, as alert to danger in his surroundings as they come, but it is doubtful that he was worrying about Mr Biden’s chances of winning Michigan. Mr Netanyahu should worry instead that, given Mr Schumer’s political sophistication, he was correct in saying he spoke for “a silent majority” of Jewish Americans, people, he said, “who love Israel to our bones” yet take a nuanced view of the war in Gaza. Mr Schumer repeatedly condemned Hamas and a double standard in the news media that put all the blame for Palestinian suffering on Israel. But, he said, both Israel and the United States had a “moral obligation” to do more to protect Palestinian civilians: “We must be better than our enemies, lest we become them.”

Mr Netanyahu responded on March 17th by saying that calling for elections in Israel now would be like having called for elections in America in the wake of the attacks of September 11th 2001. “You don’t do that to a sister democracy, to an ally,” he told cNN. But Mr Biden has made clear that he approved of Mr Schumer’s message. “He made a good speech,” he told reporters.

Moving America

Mr Netanyahu was partly brought up and educated in America, and he prides himself on understanding how to manage its politics. “I know what America is,” he remarked once, apparently unaware he was being recorded. “America is a thing you can move very easily.” Maybe not this time. Given the polarisation of foreign policy, he can count on Republican backing, but bipartisan support of Israel has always been a bulwark of its security and, having lost Mr Schumer, Mr Netanyahu has all but lost the Democrats.

Even before Mr Schumer spoke, Mr Biden had boxed himself in, saying if Israeli forces conducted a major operation in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip they would be crossing “a red line”. He has required “credible and reliable” assurances from Israel that it is using military aid in compliance with international humanitarian law. The Americans will soon decide whether they are satisfied with those assurances. Mr Schumer has dramatically strengthened Mr Biden’s hand, should he choose to find Israel is misusing American weapons. The anger of America’s leaders is directed at Mr Netanyahu, but Israel may wind up paying the price.

Read more from Lexington, our columnist on American politics:
“Dune” is a warning about political heroes and their tribes (Mar 14th)
Has Ron DeSantis gone too far in Florida? (Mar 7th)
Vladimir Putin hardly needs to interfere in American democracy (Feb 29th)

Also: How the Lexington column got its name

Economics

Andrew Bailey on why UK-U.S. trade deal won’t end uncertainty

Published

on

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey attends the central bank’s Monetary Policy Report press conference at the Bank of England, in the City of London, on May 8, 2025.

Carlos Jasso | Afp | Getty Images

Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey told CNBC on Thursday that the U.K. was heading for more economic uncertainty, despite the country being the first to strike a trade agreement with the U.S. under President Donald Trump’s controversial tariff regime.

“The tariff and trade situation has injected more uncertainty into the situation… There’s more uncertainty now than there was in the past,” Bailey told CNBC in an interview.

“A U.K.-U.S. trade agreement is very welcome in that sense, very welcome. But the U.K. is a very open economy,” he continued.

That means that the impact from tariffs on the U.K. economy comes not just from its own trade relationship with Washington, but also from those of the U.S. and the rest of the world, he said.

“I hope that what we’re seeing on the U.K.-U.S. trade side will be the first of many, and it will be repeated by a whole series of trade agreements, but we have to see that happen of course, and where it actually ends up.”

“Because, of course, we are looking at tariff levels that are probably higher than they were beforehand.”

Trump unveils United Kingdom trade deal, first since ‘reciprocal’ tariff pause

In Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Report released Thursday, the word “uncertainty” was used 41 times across its 97 pages, up from 36 times in February, according to a CNBC tally.

The U.K. central bank cut interest rates by a quarter percentage point on Thursday, taking its key rate to 4.25%. The decision was highly divided among the seven members of its Monetary Policy Committee, with five voting for the 25 basis point cut, two voting to hold rates and two voting to reduce by a larger 50 basis points.

Bailey said that while some analysts had perceived the rate decision as more hawkish than expected — in other words, leaning toward holding rates elevated than slashing them rapidly — he was not surprised by the close vote.

“What it reflects is that there are two sides, there are risks on both sides here,” he told CNBC.

“We could get a much more severe weakness of demand than we were expecting, that could then pass through to a weaker outlook for inflation than we were expecting.”

“There’s a risk on the other side that we could get some combination of more persistence in the inflation effects that are gradually working their way through the system,” such as in wages and energy, while “supply capacity in the economy is weaker,” he said.

Continue Reading

Economics

Trump knocks down a controversial pillar of civil-rights law

Published

on

IN THE DELUGE of 145 executive orders issued by President Donald Trump (on subjects as disparate as “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness” and “Maintaining Acceptable Water Pressure in Showerheads”) it can be difficult to discern which are truly consequential. But one of them, signed on April 23rd under the bland headline “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy”, aims to remake civil-rights law. Those primed to distrust Mr Trump on such matters may be surprised to learn that the president’s target is not just important but also well-chosen.

Continue Reading

Economics

Harvard has more problems than Donald Trump

Published

on

A Programme at Harvard Divinity School aspired to “deZionize Jewish consciousness”. During “privilege trainings”, working-class Harvard students were instructed that, by being Jewish, they were oppressing wealthier, better prepared classmates. A course in Harvard’s graduate school of public health, “The Settler Colonial Determinants of Health”, sought to “interrogate the relationships between settler colonialism, Zionism, antisemitism, and other forms of racism”: Will these findings by Harvard’s task-force on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias, released on April 29th, shock anyone? Maybe not. Americans may be numb by now to bulletins about the excesses, not to say inanities, of some leftist academics.

Continue Reading

Trending