Netanyahu, Loose Cannon

With a serious delay, explainable only by the traditional trend of American foreign policy in the region, Washington finally raised its voice against Netanyahu. At the UN and in the secret rooms of bilateral relations with Tel Aviv. Nearly six months after the deadly October 7 Hamas attacks and the brutal military campaign that followed, the White House has realized that the main threat to Biden’s re-election is the conflict that is troubling the Democratic electorate, and not just them.

Even for Trump, retaliation for Hamas’ terrorist actions with shocking images of the suffering and death of thousands of Palestinian children is a dish that Americans find difficult to digest. The tycoon, eager to return to the summit of power, noticed this and in his own way sent a strong signal: “Put an end to your war,” he urged in an exclusive interview with the conservative Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom. The distancing was explained crudely, Trump-style, addressing the Jewish state directly: “Israel, you have to be very careful because you’re losing a lot of the world, you’re losing a lot of support.” The call is to end the military operation quickly and achieve “peace” that will lead to “a normal life for Israel and for everyone else.”

Trump, the author of the Abraham Accords that put the Palestinian cause at a dead end, is not saying what his plan for the region would be if he wins the presidential election. But one thing is for sure at this point: Washington, in all its most important political and electoral aspects, considers Netanyahu a loose cannon. The prime minister who was difficult for Obama, embraced so far by Biden and tolerated by Trump, now presents a challenge to any roadmap that will take the Middle East out of the dangerously inflammatory dynamic, accelerated by Bibi’s iron-fist policies, his government’s fundamentalist drift, and the arrogance of the colonists. The West Bank, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Iran, the Houthis, commercial shipping, oil prices… the pieces that Netanyahu has triggered risk composing a puzzle that is highly inconvenient for United States’ interests.

The signal this week was unmistakable. For the first time, the US did not veto in the UN Security Council, allowing approval of the resolution establishing a “long-term and sustainable” ceasefire (Russia demanded it be “permanent”), a prelude to the release of all hostages and a green light for humanitarian aid in Gaza.

The resolution, which previously had always been against Washington’s veto, has now resulted in changes that have provoked a furious reaction from Netanyahu. The Israeli “commander-in-chief” criticized the United States for its abstention in the Security Council, which was called a “retreat” from previous US positions. This move, according to the Israeli prime minister, “harms military efforts” and “efforts to free hostages.” Netanyahu went even further, deciding to block meetings that the Israeli delegation was holding in Washington.

The White House move followed a flurry of missions by top US officials – Blinken, Austin, CIA chief Burns – that were left without further action because of Netanyahu’s intransigence, who believes that continuing the war or ending it victoriously is the only chance to avoid a brutal exit.

Biden called for alternative plans to the planned offensive on Rafah, where more than a million people have taken refuge, an offensive that US military experts say would lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Netanyahu opposed this and had to suffer the distancing of his historically. Just when the US media found testimonies that reduce the number of cases of violence committed by Hamas terrorists against Israeli women during the October 7 attacks. And simultaneously with the report of the UN special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, who accused Israel of actions that seem to contain a will for “ethnic cleansing.”