The success of the American Revolution in bringing about liberty and prosperity is largely rooted in the Founding Fathers' view of human nature. They believed that the heart of man is inclined to evil from his youth, but it can be improved through education. Nevertheless, they did not think that the system of government should be built for an educated and good person, but for a person in his natural state. Not for angels, but for humans who can sometimes be devils.
The separation of powers in the American government was not intended to make it more efficient but to complicate it: the goal is for each branch to monitor and restrain the others. The presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court were established to ensure the citizen's liberty through constant friction among the powers. Just as American authorities clash with each other domestically, so do disagreements and struggles emerge in foreign affairs, mainly between Congress and the President. Of the two branches, the President is more active in shaping foreign policy and can more easily initiate actions on the international stage. When there is a dispute between the President and Congress, the President defines the subject of the debate; sometimes, he even initiates it. However, Congress is not entirely powerless. It holds the purse - It approves and defines the federal government's budget. The President can plan as many programs as he wishes, but without money, they will not come to fruition. Congress can also draft legislation that impacts foreign relations; for example, the CHIPS Act, one of Biden administration's significant successes, supports the American chip industry, attracts investments to America, and harms the chip industry in China.
The Senate also confirms the President's senior appointments, ratifies treaties the President signs, and declares war. The entire Congress oversees government actions through committees. The White House cannot act at will but must account for other elected officials. A President who ignores Congress will quickly find it challenging to implement foreign policy against a hostile legislature.
This split between the President and Congress necessitates that Israelis view the U.S. not as a single, unified actor but as a collection of players who collectively formulate and implement American foreign policy. Of course, Congress itself is not a uniform body but a collection of groups and players. Even the two represented parties - Democrats and Republicans - are merely umbrella organizations for different, sometimes rival, groups: for example, progressives and conservative liberals within the Democratic Party or the religious right versus the security right in the Republican Party.
Israel has often used these splits in the American government to its advantage. This is a necessity: the White House is often more hostile to us than Congress. Senators' and Representatives' attitudes are influenced by principles like love for Israel, shared democratic values, and the Jewish vote; the White House, on the other hand, is influenced by practical considerations of power and strategy.
In the 1950s, for instance, the Eisenhower administration saw Israel as a disruptive factor in U.S.-Arab relations. The Reagan administration punished Israel after the attack on the Iraqi reactor by suspending military aid. The Bush Sr. administration threatened us that if we did not freeze construction in Judea and Samaria, Israel would not receive American loan guarantees needed to absorb the immigration from the collapsing Soviet Union.
In dealing with a hostile administration, or even with one with which we have deep disagreements, turning to Congress is a way to remind the White House that it is not alone in the U.S. and that the elected officials are unhappy with its conduct. This can also be a way to restrain the administration unless it is willing to suffer damage in its relations with Congress just to advance a policy toward Israel. Finally, addressing Congress is important in itself because of its influence on American foreign policy.
Netanyahu's 2015 speech to Congress against the emerging nuclear agreement with Iran and the planned speech next week reflect the immense importance of the institution in shaping American policy. There are significant differences between the two events - the upcoming speech is made at the invitation of both parties, likely with the White House's support; the 2015 speech was at the Republicans' invitation and despite objections from the Obama administration.
Netanyahu will likely want to explain to American legislators Israeli policy in Gaza and alert them to the growing threat from Iran. He might even come with an announcement regarding future relations with the Saudis. In any case, the speech will mark another milestone in the special relationship between Israel and Congress.
