Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States shifted its foreign policy toward a global 'war on terror.' Analysts argue that this geopolitical shift provided a new framework for Israel to describe its own military and security operations against Palestinians. By framing these actions as part of a broader, shared struggle against international terrorism, proponents of this view suggest that Israel successfully integrated its security narrative into the American political consciousness.

The core of this analysis focuses on the linguistic and strategic alignment between the two nations. By adopting the vocabulary of counter-terrorism, Israeli officials were able to present domestic security measures—such as border restrictions, military checkpoints, and targeted operations—not as localized territorial disputes, but as essential components of a global defense against extremism. This alignment reportedly helped maintain strong diplomatic and military support from Washington, even as international criticism of Israeli policies grew.

Critics of this framing argue that it obscures the specific historical and political complexities of the Palestinian struggle for statehood by reducing it to a security issue. Conversely, supporters of the security-alignment perspective maintain that the threats faced by Israel are fundamentally similar to those faced by Western nations, justifying the use of similar counter-terrorism strategies. While the geopolitical impact of this narrative shift is widely acknowledged, the extent to which it was a deliberate 'selling' of policy versus a natural alignment of security interests remains a subject of debate among historians and political scientists.