Associate Professor, Ono Academic College, Faculty of Law
Ruti Teitel’s important new book, Presidential Visions of Transitional Justice: An American Legacy of Responsibility and Reconciliation, explores the largely underexamined role played by American presidents with respect to transitional justice. Spanning multiple historical eras, the book examines how U.S. presidents, including, among others, Presidents Obama, Washington, Wilson, Roosevelt, and Truman, understood legacies of injustice, confronted post-war challenges, and exercised their presidential authority in moments of political and moral reckoning.
The complex, multilayered picture the book presents demonstrates the power of presidential leadership to shape not only the domestic sphere but also the global terrain. For example, the book highlights how Washington’s resort to arbitration after the revolutionary war laid the foundations for turning to claims committees as a means for addressing disputes further down the road (chapter 2), and how Wilson’s worldview on moving forward from conflict, while initially rejected, later inspired Roosevelt and then Truman to exercise their power and presidential authorities in a manner that transformed the international legal order. The book also recognizes that actions of American presidents may create counter reactions, as did, for example, Roosevelt’s interventionist policies in Latin America (Chapter 4), and that successive presidents may need to address not only successes but also the baggage left by their predecessors. The strategies chosen by U.S presidents over the years derive from their own ideologies and reflect their respective worldviews, but are also tied, of course, to the geopolitical status of the U.S. and its rise as a superpower.
The book offers a fascinating historical analysis that could not be more timely. In this short comment, I wish to draw on this analysis to reflect on what the historical examples may teach us about the future, in particular, about the role U.S. presidents have played during the war in Gaza, and on the role they may play in the management of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict going forward.
The central role the U.S. has played in brokering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is hardly new – one of the most iconic photos of the 90’s portrayed President Clinton, PM Rabin, and the head of the PLO Arafat at the signing of the Oslo Accords.
This is not surprising, considering the influence of the U.S. in the region and the military and political dependency of Israel on the U.S. However, the extent and direct nature of the involvement of U.S. Presidents, first Biden and then Trump, in the Gaza war and its aftermath are of a different type. To a large extent, the limits set by the U.S. presidents prescribed what Israel could or could not do.
Biden was harshly criticized in the U.S. for the support of his administration of Israel during the war, but in Israel, right-wing members of Netanyahu’s coalition actually criticized his attempts to constrain Israel’s actions and the imposition of sanctions on individuals involved in settler violence in the West Bank. They welcomed the election of Trump, assuming that Trump’s attack on international law and institutions and his sovereigntist rhetoric would allow Israel complete freedom to act, and would provide the extreme right opportunities to realize its fantasies of re-establishing settlements in Gaza and annexation of the West Bank.
However, it quickly became clear that Trump’s sovereigntist stance applies to the U.S., not necessarily to other states. I argued elsewhere that populist leaders are generally averse to international law, and Trump may be the epitome of this, in particular since the beginning of his second term. The belief of the right in Israel upon his election was that due to Trump’s attack on international law, Israel’s troubles in the international legal sphere would disappear. Thus, for example, Trump’s threats on the ICC were seen as decreasing the risk posed to Netanyahu and former minister of defense Galant by the ICC arrest warrants, and while the ICJ proceeding brought by South Africa is still taking place, the general perception among the Israeli public is that with the dismantling of international institutions, they are not of major concern. However, it quickly became clear that the erosion of international law would not necessarily result in the increase of freedom of action for Israel – in fact, the opposite may be correct.
At least in the moments these words are being written, the management of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been taken over by the United States. The U.S. administration has coerced Netanyahu into agreeing to a ceasefire deal and dictated its terms. In an unprecedented manner, Trump’s representatives, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, were sent to participate in the Israeli government’s meeting in which the ceasefire was approved, to ensure no last-minute dissent would cause issues. Much to the dismay of Netanyahu’s coalition members, who expected Trump to give Israel carte blanche, Israel has little say about the members and management of the Board of Peace currently being established. Ironically, the most right-wing government in Israel’s history has surrendered central aspects of the management of its foreign affairs and security to the hands of the United States. For better and for worse, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now a show run by the U.S. President. This is currently true predominantly with respect to Gaza, but could, in theory, also be expanded later to the West Bank.
It is far too early to predict how Trump’s initiative for the future of Gaza will unfold, given the level of uncertainty in the region (and the world). It is also too early to assess who exactly will benefit from the planned reconstruction of Gaza, should it be executed. What is clear, however, is that the future is currently being designed single-handedly by the US president. The Board of Peace was initially mandated by the United Nations, but the way it has since been set up and implemented has raised harsh critiques, for example, by the EU’s head of foreign policy, regarding its lack of accountability to both the Palestinians and the UN. The lessons offered by Teitel’s book provide a sobering warning regarding externally imposed solutions to conflict, their stability, and the problematic legacies they breed.
Suggested citation: Tamar Hostovsky Brandes, Symposium on Ruti Teitel’s Presidential Visions of Transitional Justice, Part VI: The role of American presidents in post-war eras – reflections from Israel Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Apr.2, 2026, at: https://www.iconnectblog.com/symposium-on-ruti-teitels-presidential-visions-of-transitional-justice-part-6-the-role-of-american-presidents-in-post-war-eras-reflections-from-israel/