Last week, two bullets tore across the presidential campaign. The first, Russia and the accounts of bounties being paid to the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, hit and staggered Trump. The second, the question of whether Israel's Prime Minister would take formal action to annex lands in the West Bank, misfired but pierced the decades-long bipartisan support in Washington for Israel.

The White House has angrily rejected the story first broken by The New York Times that Russia provided funds to the Taliban to kill Americans; that President Trump was briefed about this in February; and that no action was taken to reprimand Russia and demand such murderous conduct be ended.

Trump now faces a firestorm over how he deals with Russia. It has been reported he never wants to hear any bad news about Russia and Putin, which may have led to him failing to protect the troops from Russian-financed Taliban attacks. Some parents of American forces killed in Afghanistan fear their sons were victims of this failure. And Trump still wants to invite Russia to join the G7.

As Senator Howard Baker asked of President Nixon in the 1973 Watergate hearings: "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" In this case, what did National Security Advisors Bolton and Robert O'Brien know, and how did they act on it?

In his White House memoir, John Bolton recounts a November 2018 meeting that reflected Trump's insistence to exit Afghanistan at almost any cost: "'ISIS is still in Afghanistan,' said [Defence Secretary] Mattis. Trump said, 'Let Russia take care of them. We're 7000 miles away but we're still a target ... It's a horror show. At some point, we've got to get out.' And days later, Trump to Mattis: 'I gave you what you asked for. Unlimited authority, no holds barred. You're losing. You're getting your ass kicked. You failed.'"

Mattis would resign days later, setting in motion an agonising process of concluding a "peace deal" with the Taliban that was ultimately signed last February - right at the time intelligence reports of Russian payments to the Taliban to kill American troops surfaced in the White House.

Bolton's voluminous notes in his book are utterly silent on the Russia-Taliban intelligence. It may be that whatever he recorded was deleted from the manuscript at the insistence of the White House scrubbing of the book for classified information.

If there is American blood on that piece of paper due to a wilful failure to confront Russia, there will be hell to pay in November for what Joe Biden, who will face Trump in November, has called Trump's "dereliction of duty".

"Donald Trump has continued his embarrassing campaign of deference and debasing himself before Vladimir Putin," Biden said. "It's a betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation, to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm's way."

The foreign policy bullet coming out of the Middle East was to have been fired last week by Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been seeking to annex lands in the West Bank. But White House pressure has put a hold on that - for now.

In raw political terms, annexation would lead to an unprecedented break in bipartisan support in Washington for Israel. This would far exceed previous moments of great tension between Washington and Jerusalem, such as when Secretary of State James Baker, during an impasse on peace talks, famously told the Israelis: ''I have to tell you that everybody over there should know that the telephone number is 1-202-456-1414. When you're serious about peace, call us.''

The Republicans are all in with Trump, his Middle East peace plan, and whatever green light Trump ultimately gives to Bibi to annex land. But congressional Democrats are opposed, with some deeply antagonistic. Over 185 House Democrats have signed a letter that states: "As committed partners in supporting and protecting the special US-Israel relationship, we express our deep concern with the stated intention to move ahead with any unilateral annexation of West Bank territory, and we urge your government to reconsider plans to do so."

More hardline views among other Democrats are also erupting. A letter initiated by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was more blunt: "Should the Israeli government continue down this path, we will work to ensure non-recognition of annexed territories as well as pursue legislation that conditions the $3.8 billion in US military funding to Israel to ensure that US taxpayers are not supporting annexation in any way."

READ MORE:

And Joe Biden is clear: he does not support annexation and will reverse Trump's policies.

Trump has, through his unstinting support for Netanyahu, tried to wedge Jewish Americans from the Democratic Party. That effort will continue to fail no matter what Bibi does. Biden will still get 70 per cent of the Jewish vote in November - because there are larger issues of importance to the community.

This partisan schism over Israel will likely not occur here. Both Foreign Minister Marise Payne and Labor's spokeswoman Penny Wong have strongly cautioned against annexation. Labor's stance on the need to keep faith with the two-state solution tempers for the time being the same rifts inside the party that have become increasingly evident among the Democrats in Congress.

In the UK as well, Prime Minister Boris Johnson penned an op-ed in Hebrew in an Israeli newspaper against annexation.

But a new president in office next January 20 who is hostile - together with other Western democracies - to a bedrock policy of the Israeli government? That is new territory indeed.