Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. to address a joint session of Congress gave us much to consider.

It marked his fourth such invitation—more than any other world leader in history, surpassing even the UK’s Winston Churchill, who addressed Congress three times.

As with his previous visits, Netanyahu and the Republican Speaker of the House, who extended the invitation, used each other to serve their own purposes. Speaker Michael Johnson sought to exploit Netanyahu’s address to embarrass President Biden and further the GOP’s effort to make support for Israel a “wedge issue” in the upcoming election.

Netanyahu was more than willing to play along with Johnson’s plan, having long viewed the Republican Party—especially its 40% who are right-wing, “born-again” Christians—as a more reliable partner for Israel than the liberal-leaning American Jewish community. For decades, Netanyahu has courted Republican leaders and accepted three GOP invitations to challenge Democratic presidents: Clinton (over the Oslo Process) in 1995, and Obama in 2011 (over the 1967 borders) and in 2015 (over the Iran nuclear deal). Netanyahu’s eagerness to speak to Congress this time was also intended to demonstrate his mastery of U.S. politics to an Israeli public that has turned against his rule.

Johnson may have made progress toward his goal, but it might be a Pyrrhic victory. Republicans turned out in force, giving the Israeli Prime Minister numerous standing ovations during his one-hour oration. However, more than one-third of the Democrats boycotted the speech, and many who attended sat silently, refusing to stand or applaud.

Netanyahu’s speech itself was a startling mix of Herzlian colonialism and neoconservative Manichaeism. Echoing the rhetoric of Political Zionism’s founder, Netanyahu described the conflict as “a clash between barbarism and civilization,” and “between those who glorify death and those who sanctify life.” He depicted Israel as the West’s agent, defending its Middle Eastern interests and transforming the region from a “backwater of oppression, poverty, and war into a thriving oasis of dignity, prosperity, and peace.”

The neoconservative thread in Netanyahu’s remarks was also striking. That political ideology, which took hold during the Reagan administration, is a secularized version of a peculiar strain of Christian Evangelical thought. Both share elements of Manichaeism: the world is divided into forces of absolute good and absolute evil, with no possibility of compromise; conflict is inevitable and necessary; and if fought with total commitment, good will triumph, and evil will ultimately be eradicated.

During the Reagan era, the evil was defined as the Soviet Union and its allies. For Netanyahu, the source of all evil is Iran and its allies. No compromise is possible, and diplomacy is seen as weakness. He called on Western and Arab allies to join this cosmic battle against evil, assuring them that with determination, evil can be eradicated.

Given that President Biden had been mentored by an architect of American neoconservatism during his early days in the Senate, Netanyahu felt he had an ally in the U.S. President. However, with Biden stepping aside as the Democratic presidential nominee in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris, Netanyahu’s visit to Washington ended on a sour note. Unlike the warm embrace he was accustomed to from Biden, Harris’ reception was more restrained.

After their meeting, instead of a joint appearance, Harris addressed the press alone. While affirming Israel’s right to defend itself, she added that how Israel defends itself matters. She spoke at length about the human suffering and loss of life resulting from the war in Gaza and emphasized that the conflict must end, with Palestinians needing a future that ensures their freedom and self-determination. She implicitly rejected Netanyahu’s call for “total victory,” and directly indicated she doesn’t fear the GOP’s challenge to make support for Netanyahu’s Israel an electoral “wedge issue.”

The visit exposed the deep division within the American electorate on this issue. It’s not Israel being rejected, but rather the notion of providing unquestioning support for Israel regardless of its actions. As Harris remarked, this conflict isn’t a “binary choice.” Needs on both sides must be met—and can be, through peace and diplomacy.

Following his time in Washington, Netanyahu made a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago to meet with the one presidential candidate who shares his belief in “total victory,” Donald Trump.