Front Burner - The US and Israel’s ‘special relationship’ — Part 2

Episode Date: July 29, 2024

This is the second episode in our two-part series on the past, present and future of the US-Israel ‘special relationship.’ In Part 2, we’re going to look at how that relationship affects Americans living in the US — sometimes in surprising ways. In this episode, we refer to a few previous episodes of Front Burner, which you can find here:The US and Israel’s ‘special relationship’ — Part 1 Apple / SpotifyAt the McGill encampment: Calls to divest from Israel Apple / SpotifyThe growing wave of campus protests Apple / SpotifyTwo Jewish parents on recent school attacks Apple / SpotifyFor transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem, brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Ali Janes. This is the second in a two-part series about the past, present, and future of the U.S.-Israel relationship, which we're talking about because of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's controversial visit to U.S. Congress last week, and of course, because of America's support for the war in Gaza. Last week in part one, we talked about the history of that relationship and how it

developed into what it is today. You can find that episode in our feed. Today, we're going to take a deeper look at how it affects Americans in the U.S., sometimes in surprising ways. So let's start in Little Rock, Arkansas, with a man named Alan Leverett. He's the publisher of an independent weekly newspaper and website called the Arkansas Times. When I started the Arkansas Times 50 years ago, it was because we loved Arkansas. Arkansas has a fabulous history. Arkansas is a beautiful state.

Arkansas has all kinds of wonderful things to do here. That's what we wanted to write about. We wanted to talk about corrupt state government, which we also have. In 2018, Leverett received an email from a longtime advertiser in the paper, the University of Arkansas's Pulaski Technical College. They had been advertising with us for about 30 years.

The email said that if the Arkansas Times wanted to continue receiving the college's ad dollars, they had to pledge not to boycott Israel, which was a little puzzling to Leverett, given what his paper covers. We cover barbecue. We cover state government. We cover Medicaid expansion. We don't write about the Middle East. We don't write about Israel. We don't write about Ukraine. We write about Arkansas. So this is totally irrelevant to anything that we're doing. In 2017, Arkansas had passed a law that requires government contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel or Israel-controlled territories, such as its settlements in the West Bank. So in this case, the paper would be considered a government contractor for taking ad dollars from a public university.

Arkansas is one of more than 30 U.S. states that have passed similar legislation. These are collectively known as anti-BDS laws, referring to the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Critics of the BDS movement argue that it's anti-Semitic and discriminatory for singling out Israel. The prominent Jewish advocacy group the Anti-Def League, has called BDS a hateful campaign and said that, quote, the global BDS movement doesn't seek to create a Palestinian state, but rather aims to dismantle the Jewish state and end the right to Jewish national self-determination on any portion of this contested land. BDS advocates reject this. BDS advocates reject this.

Proponents of these anti-BDS laws argue that they're necessary to fight anti-Semitism and to protect an important ally from economic harm. Leverett says he had no intention of boycotting anything. But he still refused to sign the pledge, even after the college canceled its advertising contract with the paper. Basically, the state's proposition was, here's a political position we want you to take, and if you do, we'll give you money, or we'll let you make money. And if you don't, we'll keep you from making money. And so that's not a proposition that I signed up for. And we don't take money in return for political positions, particularly from state government. Why are you going to keep me from doing business with my government unless I adhere to the foreign policy of a foreign government?

It's just crazy. Leverett also had concerns about this law as a kind of church and state thing. The state senator who introduced the bill, Bart Hester, is an evangelical Christian who has said that he believes that Jews need to return to the entire biblical land of Israel for Jesus to return to earth. He has also said that, quote, anybody Jewish or not Jewish that doesn't accept Christ, in my opinion, will end up going to hell. Similar laws in other states have also been backed by evangelical lawmakers and groups. You know, to me, this is just, you know, a religious fantasy.

But yet, we're basing very important policy, we're making policy based on a religious fantasy. important policy. We're making policy based on a religious fantasy. Leverett decided to sue the state of Arkansas with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. Yeah, I'm just prickly, I guess. They argued that the law violated the First Amendment. The state is penalizing me for speech. I'm not willing to say what they want me to say. So they're going to try to harm our people here financially if we don't say what they want us to say. And that's un-American. That's just un-American. I remember the ACLU lawyer was making the point that boycotts and the support of boycotts goes way back in American history. I mean, we're founded on the myth of the Boston Tea Party,

which was a boycott of tea. It worked its way up the courts until a federal appeals circuit court ruled against the Arkansas Times. They wrote that the law doesn't affect free speech because the Arkansas Times would still be free to publicly criticize Israel and that, quote, it only prohibits economic decisions that discriminate against Israel. The ACLU asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the law, but they declined to hear the case.

Laura Friedman disagrees with the circuit court's ruling, and she thinks the Arkansas case could have far-reaching consequences for free speech. It's a very conservative circuit court, and they basically ruled that calling for a boycott, actually expressive, words coming out of your mouth, written on a piece of paper, that is free speech. But actual shopping decisions, that which is the essence of a boycott, is not free speech. And therefore they undid decades of what had been seen as settled law in the U.S., which saw boycotts as protected free speech. Friedman is the president of the Washington-based Foundation for Middle East Peace,

and she's a longtime critic of these state anti-BDS laws. She also argues that these laws are now being used as a template that could threaten free speech on a much broader range of issues. Starting in 2021, 2022, we started to see these laws, you know, that were being introduced and passed in some states targeting protests of the fossil fuel industry, targeting protests of the guns and ammunition industry. In the past couple of years, we've seen more of these targeting LGBTQ, trans, DEI, ESG. Anything that falls under the category of woke is now being targeted with laws

that at least in the first instance, are literally, you know, based on the anti-BDS laws. She gave me an example of a Texas law that banned state agencies from investing in financial companies that boycott or divest from fossil fuels. So here's a quote from Phil King of Texas in June 2021. The sponsor of that bill, Republican State Senator Phil King, has explicitly stated that it was modeled after Texas's anti-BDS law. Texas would it be Texas without energy. Our economy, prosperity, quality of life would be at risk without the fuels made right in our state. In 2017, I championed similar legislation

regarding Israel. Thanks to Governor Greg Abbott and the Texas legislature's decisive action, the state of Texas no longer contracts with companies that boycott Israel. We're proud to stand firmly with our greatest allies and to show the same support to the energy workers who power our state and our entire nation. For the sake of preventing activism

targeting Israel and settlements, the movement to defend Israel has actually underlined the right to boycott anything in the U.S. Look, I'm fond of saying you may not care about Israel-Palestine, but Israel-Palestine cares about you, and it's coming for your rights as an American. The anti-BDS laws are one element of this relationship that's gotten more scrutiny in the wake of October 7th, particularly as U.S. campuses have been rocked by student protests, demanding that their universities divest from companies connected to Israel and to the war. In some cases,

universities have said that their hands are tied by these laws, that they're legally prohibited from divesting. We've done some previous episodes looking at BDS, campus protests, and antisemitism, so we'll link to those in our show notes. Okay, we're going to take a short break now. And when we come back, we'll talk about an enormous, well-funded political group whose mission is to make sure that Israel and America's special relationship continues. The American-Israel Political Action Committee, or APAC. Simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization,

empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Cups.

The Associated Press just called a big upset in that Democratic primary from a few weeks ago that we've been following. Jamal Bowman, the progressive Democrat from New York, defeated the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In 2020, when Jamal Bowman ousted a centrist Democrat who had held New York's 16th congressional district for 32 years. It was heralded by progressives as a sign of the left's rising power. I dream of the rebirth of America. And I dream of a country that we are going to rebuild together, that is representative of all of us and all of the people of this country, not just white men at the top.

Bowman, a member of the progressive squad in the House, has championed Medicare for All, immigration reform, and housing justice. He has also been openly critical of Israeli policy and of the current war in Gaza. End the genocide in Gaza. End the genocide in Gaza. End the forever war. The criticism of Israel is the criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu, who's been engaged in what the ICJ has called a plausible genocide of the civilians in Gaza. That is what I'm criticizing. We want peace.

We want a two-state solution. That put him in the crosshairs of a relatively new super PAC called the United Democracy Project, which spent $14.5 million in efforts to unseat him, more than three times what Bowman and his allies raised during the campaign. The United Democracy Project was launched by AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest and most influential pro-Israel lobby group in the United States. So AIPAC has been lobbying lawmakers and White House presidents for decades about pursuing policies that further solidify and strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship

to a fair amount of controversy. Ben Samuels is a U.S. correspondent for Israel's Haaretz newspaper. Over the past several decades, while AIPAC has identified itself as a bipartisan organization and tries maintaining strong ties with both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and Republican and Democratic presidents, you know, it has been increasingly identified with the Israeli right and accordingly with the Republican Party. And in recent years, it has made a very notable shift from strictly being involved in lobbying and policymaking toward actually getting involved in elections and fundraising for candidates and endorsing candidates and creating a super pack that puts in millions and millions of dollars of ads trying to influence local voters.

In a lot of the ads run by that super pack, the United Democracy Project, you wouldn't guess there was any connection to Israel at all. Take this one about Bowman. Bowman called President Biden a liar. He voted against the President's Infrastructure Act, against rebuilding roads and bridges in New York, against replacing dangerous lead pipes. Samuels says that another common criticism about AIPAC's turn into electoral politics is AIPAC's endorsement of Republican candidates who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.

They endorsed Republicans who refused to say that Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump. The criticism with that is that AIPAC is prioritizing, quote unquote, support for Israel over the preservation of American democracy. And AIPAC is basically being accused of turning a blind eye to things that don't actually improve the state of the U.S.-Israel relationship or better secure the state of affairs for American Jews by just sort of blindly saying, okay, what is pro-Israel as AIPAC defines it and putting the rest... I spoke to Samuels in the run-up to Bowman's race about why unseating him was such a priority for the group. You know, he is sort of patient X in terms of the pro-Israel community really getting involved in Democratic primaries.

He came to power after unseating one of the most pro-Israel stalwarts in the history of the Democratic Party in Eliot Engel. So, you know, four years into his congressional career, he has really been a thorn in the side of AIPAC and other similar organizations like the Democratic Majority for Israel. And this primary is what they deem the best opportunity to sort of take care of this problem in real time before this sort of growing progressive wing that's very critical of Israel further grows. Last month, Bowman lost his primary. Tonight, the fallout from an historic Democratic primary in New York. Westchester County Executive George Latimer knocking progressive firebrand Jamal Bowman out of the House.

Whether he lost because of APAC's campaign or for any other potential reason is impossible to know. But it has put a whole new level of scrutiny on APAC. Although, of course, criticism of this organization is nothing new. OK, well, my name is M.J. Rosenberg. Yeah, well, my name is M.J. Rosenberg. I spent most of my career on Capitol Hill, working in the House and the Senate as an assistant to senators and congressmen. I also worked at AIPAC, the Israel lobby, a long time ago for my first job. Rosenberg is now a commentator and a very outspoken critic of AIPAC. I'm very much proud that I changed my views.

He says that when he worked on Capitol Hill, he often watched AIPAC set the parameters of what were acceptable stances on Israel. They'll be busy writing a resolution. Then they immediately get their people back in the districts to call the congressman and say, you've got to go on this legislation. You've got to co-sponsor it. If you don't co-sponsor it, they don't say it. They don't have to say it.

You will be in trouble. You know, everything's a litmus test. In fact, when I worked up there, I remember asking when there'd be certain things that I would just wonder about, oh, really, do I have to tell my boss that it could be dangerous not to be on this? I'd call and I'd say, is this going to be scored? What do you mean scored?

Scored against you when you're running for re-election. Like, in other words, if you didn't support whatever it was in the resolution, that score wouldn't be used against you. But if it's something that's a little bit out there, so you could say, I want to go on that, some crazy Republican thing. So let's say it's not going to be scored, doesn't count, doesn't matter. So they literally define what the parameters are. Right now, it's basically you can't be for a permanent ceasefire. You can be for a ceasefire, but you can't be for a permanent ceasefire. You can be for dealing with Hamas, do intermediaries in Qatar and things like that, but you can't be for negotiations with, you know, Israel can't talk to Hamas or Hezbollah or anything like that.

So in other words, they define the special relationship. I asked Ben Samuels about this, about how significant he thinks AIPAC is in shaping the course of the U.S.-Israel relationship. It's very important because, you know, not only does it encourage lawmakers to support, you know, these full throated, unqualified resolutions and bills and aid packages that fully support Israel. But it also does, in ways, create a chilling effect where it encourages people to not speak out against it. And if you are sort of, if you have a very heavily pro-Israel constituency, you know, you do have to make the political calculus on whether or not you want to get on the wrong side of AIPAC.

I emailed AIPAC to ask them about all this criticism. Allegations that they score lawmakers and that their work is having a chilling effect on Capitol Hill. And allegations that in some of their candidate endorsements, they're prioritizing support for Israel over American democracy or over Jewish safety. Here's what they wrote back. democracy or over Jewish safety. Here's what they wrote back. We are proud to participate in the democratic process to support candidates who stand with America's critical strategic ally, Israel. Our sole criterion in supporting candidates from both parties is their position on the U.S.-Israel relationship. In fact, we support scores of progressive, democratic, pro-Israel candidates who understand that it is entirely consistent with progressive values to stand with Israel.

Our support for pro-Israel candidates reflects the overwhelming American majority support for the Jewish state as it battles Iranian terrorist proxies. I also asked Samuels how AIPAC has responded to criticism more broadly, since he reports on their work frequently. You know, AIPAC says that, you know, the criticism of it often veers into dangerous anti-Semitic territory. You know, when you talk about the quote unquote Israel lobby, and there's sort of this nefarious undertone of, you know, this conspiratorial element to how they go about their business. You know, to what extent is that, you know, a founded concern? I think it's a very founded concern. You know, I think it is very possible to engage in fair, accurate criticism of AIPAC and how it goes about its business and the policy it tries to pursue and advocate for

without sort of touching upon these centuries-old tropes of Jewish money and Jewish power and connecting AIPAC to things that AIPAC didn't even lobby for. It's also important to note that many U.S. supporters of Israel see AIPAC as doing extremely valuable work. with Israel as either a spiritual homeland or as an important ally or as an important safe haven for the Jewish people should anti-Semitism arise. You know, AIPAC's role is crucial. You know, when you think of AIPAC, you think of someone that will be in your corner 100% of the time and use its very real power and influence to fully advocate for your safety. So that can't be understated. You know, AIPAC has become as powerful as it's become for a reason.

You know, it very much fills in a need that many people in the American Jewish community have. At the same time, AIPAC is sometimes accused of shutting down legitimate criticism of its work and of Israel by calling it anti-Semitic. One of AIPAC's jobs is really to be sort of the offensive lineman for Israel in American politics. So when there is criticism toward the Israeli government, even if that is coming from liberal American Jews, if that is coming from people who identify as pro-Israel by however you want to define it, if it is not in lockstep with how AIPAC deems it necessary to support the U.S.-Israel relationship, it is often just sort of generalized as being anti-Israel. And there is a big push to sort of redefine anti-Zionism and being anti-Israel

and conflating criticism of Israel with criticizing the Jewish people and being anti-Semitic. And, you know, there are varying degrees of nuance within the American Jewish community in terms of, okay, what does it mean to criticize Israel? And is criticism of Israel always classified as anti-Semitic? AIPAC tends to be toward one of the more intense ends of the spectrum of that debate. Laura Friedman argues that we're in a moment where that debate has reached a fever pitch. The period of my life when there has been the most openness to criticism of Israel was the Oslo period, right? Because you could say, listen, Israel is not perfect. It's a

flawed democracy just like ours. They've got their opposition. They've got a Supreme Court that hears Palestinian cases. You are comfortable hearing criticism because you could defend Israel against it. With the onset of what is now the infinitely long era of Netanyahu, that pretense is gone. I mean, people can try to use those talking points, but they simply don't convince anybody. The problem for defenders of Israel is that what's happening in Gaza is being live streamed. And you can't just say, oh, it's being live streamed by anti-Israel propaganda forces. It's being live streamed by anti-Israel propaganda forces, it's being live streamed by IDF soldiers. You cannot deny these visuals, you cannot deny the

horror, you can debate the numbers, but the numbers are indefensible no matter how you debate them. So if you look at the US, what we see happening, the doubling and tripling down about the new definition of antisemitism that redefines antisemitism to focus on defensive Israel, going after the NGOs, going after the activists claiming that they are being supported by terrorists or they're supporting terrorism. I mean, right now, since October 7th, we are seeing a full assault on the right to protest in the streets, on campus, wherever. This was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration. At the University of Arizona, police clashed with pro-Palestinian protesters

and deployed so-called chemical irritants to break up demonstrations on campus. Hundreds of New York City police officers in riot gear moving into Columbia University. SWAT teams rolling in. No! All right, police in Riot Gear right now. You hear the flashbangs there, but the police, they are reaching the barrier, trying to make their way into the encampment. The only option is just suppress, suppress, suppress. Jonathan Shanzer is the senior vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of

Democracies. He disagrees with the idea that pro-Israel groups are chilling criticism, pointing to the widespread pro-Palestinian protest movements we've seen in the United States since October. I guess I have to admit, I'm not sure I see where the criticism is being chilled. The criticism's out there right now, and it's fierce, and it's brutal, and no one is actually arguing with anyone's right to say what they wish about the Israelis. I think really there are questions that are being raised as to whether the unbelievably large avalanche of criticism is justified in light of facts on the ground. If you ask me right now, this looks like an organized campaign to force Israel to stop defending itself in a war that it neither wanted

nor started. This is not a war only against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. This is an Iran-backed proxy in Gaza, but there are other Iran-backed proxies, namely Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, and Iran itself, as we know, has fired hundreds of rockets at Israel. The Israelis feel like they're fighting a war on seven fronts. And it is really remarkable that even as Israel finds itself on its back foot in this overall battle for hearts and minds, even as it's losing, it is being accused of chilling criticism. It feels like I'm living in bizarro world here. If anything, it looks like that criticism is growing louder every day. And I think in many cases, not all, but in many cases, it's not justifiable.

So let's come back to the present moment and to the big picture of this relationship. As we've talked about, we're at a moment where many Americans, especially young Americans, are becoming more and more critical of Israel. And where Israel is increasingly running afoul of both international public opinion and legal opinion. Earlier this month, the U.N.'s top court, the International Court of Justice, issued an advisory opinion that found that Israel's occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is illegal and that it should withdraw from those territories. The court considers that these policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the occupied Palestinian territory. Israel has rejected the findings and maintains, as it has for years, that it has a legal and historical right to those territories. There's also another ongoing case at the ICJ alleging that Israel is committing

genocide in Gaza, a charge that Israel also strongly denies. And the other court in The Hague, the International Criminal Court, may soon issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his defense minister, Yoav Galant. The crimes include starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, willful killing or murder, and intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population, as well as crimes against humanity of extermination and or murder, persecution. So some might ask, what's in it for the U.S. at this point? Why should the U.S. continue to put itself on the line diplomatically for Israel? And why continue to send billions in military aid?

Carmel Arbit, a senior non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council in Middle East programs, says that if this relationship were to erode, the U.S. would have a lot to lose. I think there's a huge amount at stake. The U.S. has benefited from Israel as a security guarantor in the region. Now, many would argue that it has also provoked significant security risks for the U.S. and the Middle East. But if there's anything that we've seen from this conflict, it's that one conflict in the Middle East is never localized and rarely continable. So what happened in the context of the aftermath of this war now in Gaza? We saw Iranian strikes, which the U.S. sees as a threat not only to Israel, but also to American interests in the region. We've seen Futsis undermining access to ports and trade, all of which affects American interests. And so the partnership between the U.S. and Israel isn't just for fun. It's not just because it's nice. It's because it's also has a regional necessity to it.

where the U.S. has tried to pivot away from the Middle East towards Asia or towards elsewhere, the Middle East always drives us back in. And so because of that, I think there is a huge amount at stake. And there is a reason that there are so many advocates in the United States looking to ensure that this relationship remains strong, but also that Israel and its democracy remains strong so that partnership can have fewer tensions and challenges in it. Jonathan Shanzer argues that Americans who think the special relationship isn't benefiting them should imagine a world without it. Imagine a Middle East that doesn't have Israel fighting against Iran and fighting against some of these other terrible forces that we have seen rear their head, whether it be ISIS or Saddam Hussein or

the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. I mean, you need Israel there as well as other countries to serve as a bulwark against these aggressors. But then there's the bigger question, which is the US-led world order runs on alliances. It runs on countries that can promote and support and defend American interests abroad. And we don't just jettison alliances because of the ups and downs of the political system. We are certainly seeing people right now in Israel that I don't agree with. And there are policies, by the way, of the prime minister himself that I would say that I disagree with, certainly in the months leading up to the 10-7 attacks and his attempts to overhaul the Israeli judiciary in ways that appeared undemocratic. But that does not mean that Israel is a lost cause. And when you start to dismantle those alliance structures,

those alliance structures, you begin to run the risk of losing the kind of influence that we have had around the world. And that actually is probably the scariest thing for me. And Israel is not the only country, but it's one of a handful of important ones that have ensured that the US-led world order continues. And that has led to unbelievable advances in technology, in medicine, in food security. Having that alliance structure is what has enabled the United States to spread its influence. For those who say we don't need it, those are the isolationists. Those are the people that are saying, let Russia, let China, let Iran take over the world. I would challenge you to tell me how that would work out for humanity. Now, as far as the questions about regional security and stability go, it's important to also mention that there are those who say that that stability will only come through the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Here's Fayez Hamad. He's a lecturer in political science at the University of a two-state solution or adopting a two-state solution allowing the establishment of a Palestinian state is the fundamental pillar of security in the region. This is not to say that it's going to become a nice and dandy if there is peace treaty and there wouldn't be no problems in the region. Of course, there will always be problems, but the non-resolution is the contributor of many of these issues. And hence, if it's resolved, many of these issues will disappear. And again, not to say that that will be the end of all problems. At any rate, I asked Carmel Arbit whether she thought that the U.S.'s relationship with Israel

was in some kind of uncharted waters right now. Given the massive protest movements that we've seen in the U.S., given the criticism we've seen from some progressive Democrats, and from some on the right, like media personality Tucker Carlson, or given the fact that Israel is being run by the most far-right government in its history, with many positions that veer very far from U.S. policy. Yeah, I think everything that you just said is coming together to create a situation of uncharted waters. So what does that mean? The political landscape in the United States has changed significantly in a way that we have never seen before. And as a natural extension of that, we're also seeing a change and really kind of a cross, we're at a crossroads moment in the U.S.-Israel relationship as a result. And we're seeing that across parties. So on the one hand, you see huge divisions within the Democratic Party. And while domestic politics on the Republican side has continued to allow it to support Israel, what that support looks like could also change.

So we're certainly at a change moment. I think that October 7th changed Israel's relationships with the world in a lot of ways. On the one hand, it was a reminder to Israelis of its own vulnerability that they had often come to overlook. Part of what made October 7th possible was that Israel believed that they had secured the complacency of Hamas and a relatively stable border of Gaza. That proved to not be true. And in that moment, Israel realized that its security calculations needed to fundamentally shift. So too has its relationships changed with the U.S. in its response. I think what was really remarkable

in the aftermath of October 7 was enormous support from the United States and other allies, frankly, in Europe right in those early days. But that support, unsurprisingly, has eroded. And with the increased number of casualties and suffering in Gaza, that support continues to erode. I think the real question for the U.S.'s relationship is what happens in the day after, not in the day of. At this moment, you have Americans, particularly young Americans, who are deeply affected by what is happening. It has overtaken their social media feeds, televisions, and so forth. It's what they're consuming on a daily basis. But at some point, this war will end and that will change. And the question is, what if the U.S.'s relationship will rise from those ashes?

from those ashes. All right, we're going to leave it there. This two-part series was produced by me, Allie Janes, and executive produced by Nick McCabe-Locos. Sound design was by Mackenzie Cameron. Special thanks to Imogen Burchard, Rafferty Baker, and Zoe Pearson. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.