ByHERB KEINON

JUNE 5, 2026 12:51

The presidential outburst echoed globally.

On Monday, Axios detailed how US President Donald Trump berated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a phone discussion, labeling him "f***ing crazy," claiming "you would be in prison without my help," and warning that Israeli moves in Lebanon endangered his Iran talks.

The Prime Minister's Office promptly rejected the account. Yet two days later, when pressed on a New York Post podcast about whether he had used those exact words, Trump replied plainly: "I did."

The confirmation triggered fresh speculation of a serious fracture between Trump and Netanyahu. Much of the reporting assumed an angry call from Trump signaled deep trouble in US-Israel ties, that Netanyahu had forfeited Trump's support, and that the close partnership had ended.

Past events tell a different story.

Disputes between Jerusalem and Washington occur regularly. So do clashes between Trump and Netanyahu. What stands out is how frequently these moments are cast as signs of an imminent collapse, only for ties to stabilize again within hours, days, or weeks.

Netanyahu touched on this pattern in a CNBC discussion after Trump verified the call.

Trump: Tactical differences are manageable

"At times we experience, like any close family, tactical differences," he noted. "We always manage to resolve them, and we do it as strong allies. We can differ in the morning and reach joint steps by afternoon."

Such remarks might normally seem like standard reassurance. Here, however, a clear record backs the claim.

Three trends stand out from the recent episode.

First, Trump occasionally expresses irritation with Netanyahu using direct and colorful language.

Second, these moments are often read as proof of a fundamental break.

Third, the partnership consistently shows greater strength than media accounts suggest.

Consider the first trend.

This is not the initial instance of Trump directing sharp words at Netanyahu. A close parallel occurred roughly one year earlier.

On June 24, 2025, the final day of the 12-Day War with Iran, after Trump declared a ceasefire, Tehran launched ballistic missiles at Israel. Netanyahu sought to respond forcefully to show Iran that violations would not be accepted and sent aircraft to strike Tehran.

Trump, who had arranged the ceasefire, reacted angrily and phoned Netanyahu to halt the operation. He then vented publicly before boarding Marine One.

"We essentially have two nations that have fought so long they no longer understand their actions," he stated, adding he was "not pleased with Israel."

The response was swift and familiar. Coverage highlighted Trump's irritation. Analysts predicted a major rift with Netanyahu.

Yet soon after, Trump spoke again with the prime minister, the ceasefire held, and cooperation resumed as if the exchange had not occurred.

Looking back, that moment appears less like the start of a break and more like a rehearsal for this week's events.

Nor was that the earliest case.

Trump's prior sharp comments on Netanyahu

In December 2021, the same reporter who covered Monday's call released excerpts from a Trump interview for a book on the Abraham Accords.

The former president remained upset over Netanyahu's quick congratulations to Joe Biden following the 2020 election.

"The first leader to congratulate him was Bibi Netanyahu," Trump remarked. "The individual I assisted more than any other."

Then came the widely quoted line: "He acted very quickly. Sooner than most. I have not spoken with him since. F*** him."

Those words were taken as clear evidence that the bond built in Trump's first term had dissolved. The logic seemed sound.

This was the president who relocated the US Embassy to Jerusalem, acknowledged Israeli control over the Golan Heights, exited the Iran nuclear deal, and facilitated the Abraham Accords. Strong criticism now surely meant a basic shift.

The view gained traction two years later when, just five days after October 7, Trump revisited the 2020 killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani and claimed Netanyahu had withdrawn support at the final hour.

"Israel planned to join us," Trump said at a rally. "The night before, I received word that Israel would not take part."

He added pointed remarks: "I will always recall that Bibi Netanyahu disappointed us. We felt let down. Very let down. Yet we completed the task with precision... and then Bibi sought to claim credit."

Again, reports declared a break. Commentators and Netanyahu's rivals suggested Trump had shifted against him, and that a return to the White House would alter US-Israel ties. Again, events proved otherwise.

Upon returning to office, Netanyahu became the first foreign leader invited to Washington. Since then, Netanyahu has met Trump more often than any other world leader.

This leads to the second trend.

Regardless of the occupant in the White House, there is a habit of amplifying disagreements and treating policy differences as full-blown crises.

More than a decade ago, during the strained Obama-Netanyahu period, similar alarms were routine.

One week brought concerns over settlements. Then Iran. Then the peace process, diplomatic slights, leaked remarks, and media criticism.

Each case prompted new claims of unprecedented strain in US-Israel relations.

Yet the partnership persisted.

The explanation is straightforward: observers frequently mix tensions between individual leaders with the deeper ties between nations. The first can fluctuate. The second tends to hold firm.

Even amid the sharpest Obama-Netanyahu disputes, security work continued, intelligence links stayed tight, military support grew, and congressional backing for Israel remained firm (a situation that has since shifted).

As one "crisis" followed another, the term itself lost much of its weight.

What was often called a rupture was usually routine: two allies with shared but distinct interests disagreeing on specifics while advancing cooperation on key strategic fronts.

The current Trump-Netanyahu episode fits this pattern well.

Interestingly, Trump's latest comments arrive when US-Israel coordination appears especially close. The nations recently operated together against a shared threat. Military and intelligence collaboration has reached new levels.

Yet precisely now, any sign of friction creates notable concern in Israel, for understandable reasons.

Israel's position with large parts of the American public has weakened sharply since October 7. Opinion trends are moving unfavorably. So if Netanyahu has also lost Trump, what options remain? Losing both the president and much of the public could leave Israel in a weaker diplomatic spot.

This concern explains why every report of friction receives extra attention. It will also feature in the coming election campaign against the prime minister.

This brings us to the third trend.

Trump's sharp words often surface when he feels Netanyahu risks a diplomatic success he sees as his own.

The shared element in the June 2025 ceasefire case and this week's Lebanon issue is that Trump viewed Israeli military steps as endangering an effort he had personally backed.

Last year it was the Iran ceasefire. This week the focus was on calming Lebanon while advancing wider goals tied to Iran.

None of this suggests the disagreements lack weight. Trump's irritation is genuine. The strains are real. The differences exist.

But equally real is the repeated ability of the Trump-Netanyahu bond to withstand public exchanges, pointed remarks, and stretches of apparent distance without collapsing.

In fact, in the same New York Post interview where Trump confirmed calling Netanyahu "crazy," he also stated: "I maintain a strong tie with him... I like Bibi a great deal. And I have collaborated effectively with him."

Trump's sharp comments toward Netanyahu do not mark a permanent divide but reflect a specific moment.

The president expresses frustration, at times bluntly, when he sees Israel complicating a diplomatic effort he values. Then, more often than not, he restates the partnership and proceeds to the next challenge.

The June 2025 ceasefire dispute, the prior time Trump used strong language regarding Israel, followed this course. The latest presidential comments will likely do the same.