Thomas Friedman’s recent declaration that “this Israeli government is not America’s ally” may feel jarring to some—but for anyone watching the shifting tectonics of Middle Eastern geopolitics, it’s long overdue.
Thomas L. Friedman is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The New York Times, widely recognized for his expertise in foreign affairs, global trade, and the Middle East. Over a distinguished career, Friedman has reported from conflict zones, served as bureau chief in Beirut and Jerusalem, and authored several best-selling books that have shaped debates on globalization and international relations. His writing is known for its clarity and influence, making him a leading voice in interpreting complex global issues for a broad audience.
Let us be clear: Friedman is not arguing against Israel. He is arguing for strategic sanity. For decades, America’s support for Israel has been built on shared democratic values, mutual security, and regional order. But under Benjamin Netanyahu’s current ultra-nationalist coalition, those foundations are being eroded in full view of the world—and to the detriment of U.S. interests.
Friedman’s central claim is surgical: the Netanyahu government, dominated by far-right, messianic factions like those led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, no longer behaves like a strategic ally. Their policy north star is not peace, stability, or even deterrence—it’s permanent control over the West Bank and political survival at home.
Netanyahu, entangled in ongoing corruption charges, has become increasingly beholden to extremists within his coalition. As Friedman puts it, “He wakes up every morning and thinks about his interests and he thinks about the national interest—and some days the former wins.” In practice, the former wins more often than not.
This isn’t just bad for Palestinians. It’s catastrophic for regional diplomacy. The government’s intransigence on any credible path toward a Palestinian state has cost Israel a potential grand bargain: normalization with Saudi Arabia.
The Saudis were willing to extend a historic hand—provided there was even a gesture toward Palestinian statehood. But Netanyahu, chained to a coalition that rejects any such outcome, opted for domestic appeasement over regional breakthrough. As Friedman writes, “Netanyahu basically traded his political interests—peace with Smotrich—for peace with Saudi Arabia.”
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-61-of-israelis-back-saudi-normalization-69-support-hostage-deal-ending-war/]
This failure is more than symbolic. It actively weakens America’s ability to form a united front against Iran. The Biden and Trump administrations—despite their vast differences—both recognized that an Israeli-Saudi normalization, anchored by progress on Palestinian rights, would have isolated Tehran, reinforced Arab moderates, and solidified U.S. leadership.
Instead, Netanyahu’s obduracy has forced the U.S. to proceed with a Saudi deal without Israel. The message to Riyadh and Abu Dhabi is stark: if Israel won’t play ball, America will move ahead anyway. That weakens Israel’s strategic leverage and opens the door for alternative alignments—with China and Russia waiting in the wings.
Friedman also highlights the Gaza war—a war launched, as he bluntly says, “with absolutely no plan for the morning after.” That’s not just poor military planning; it’s strategic malpractice. The Israeli government’s refusal to empower a credible Palestinian alternative to Hamas, such as the Palestinian Authority, perpetuates the cycle of violence. Without a political horizon, military action becomes self-defeating.
And once again, the culprit is domestic political paralysis. Netanyahu knows that supporting the Palestinian Authority—or even acknowledging its legitimacy—would fracture his coalition. So the war rages, but the endgame remains elusive.
Perhaps the most ironic development in Friedman’s analysis is the emerging role of Donald Trump. Once hailed as Israel’s staunchest ally, even Trump appears to have recalibrated. His decision to bypass Israel in recent diplomatic overtures to the Middle East wasn’t an oversight—it was a signal. Trump, for all his unpredictability, understands that Netanyahu’s coalition is a liability, not an asset, to America’s regional aims.
When even Donald Trump starts acting like the pragmatist, you know the status quo is untenable.
This reassessment isn’t limited to foreign policy circles. Within the U.S., particularly among younger American Jews and progressives, support for the Israeli government’s current direction is fraying. The unconditional backing that once defined U.S.-Israel relations is giving way to a more conditional, values-based realism.
Increasingly, American Jews are asking: is our support enabling a liberal democracy, or subsidizing permanent occupation?
To say the U.S. should reassess its relationship with the Israeli government is not to abandon Israel. It is to preserve what’s still worth preserving: a true alliance built on shared interests, not shared illusions.
If an ally acts against your interests, inflames your adversaries, and ignores your advice, it is no longer an ally in practice—whatever the rhetoric. Strategic friendship requires honesty. As Friedman has done, so must we.
The Netanyahu government may wear the badge of an ally, but its actions speak otherwise. It’s time Washington listens to what those actions are saying—and recalibrates accordingly
Religion: Church of England. [This is not an organized religion but rather quite disorganized]. Professor of Finance at SP Jain School of Global Management and Area Head. Views and Opinions expressed here are STRICTLY his own PERSONAL!