US Impotence, Netanyahu’s Arrogance

Joe Biden has repeatedly called for a ceasefire in Gaza. He drew a red line in the ground operation at Rafah, which should not be large-scale. He regularly deplored the suffering inflicted on the civilian population of Gaza. He believes Netanyahu has not done enough to free the hostages. He regretted that his desire to continue to control the Philadelphi corridor was preventing an agreement with Hamas. His disagreement with Netanyahu is widely known. Moreover, it only continues the chilly relationship that existed between Netanyahu and Obama.

In late August 2024, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recalled the virtues of a ceasefire, which he believed would be the best way to bring home Israeli hostages held by Hamas and end Palestinian suffering, avoiding regional conflict. Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Yemen’s Houthis have effectively declared that they will not attack Israel in the event of a ceasefire in Gaza. However, while this request was made by Anthony Blinken, Joe Biden, and the UN Security Council, it was not granted: Israel continues to bomb Gaza, and Washington continues to supply weapons there. If the USA were really serious about demanding a ceasefire, stopping arms shipments would be enough to accomplish that. In fact, we cannot demand a ceasefire on the one hand, deplore the suffering of the Palestinians on the other, while at the same time supplying weapons that fuel the conflict.

Thus, we are faced with a curious scenario of very strong diplomatic activity on the part of the United States – Anthony Blinken has not stopped shuttling between different interlocutors, Joe Biden has called everyone – which does not lead to any results on Israel policy. When did Netanyahu meet the demands of the United States? Never. The strategic credibility of the USA is thus in question, as the superpower is unable to exert influence over an ally to which it nonetheless provides $3.8 billion per year in military aid, as well as additional aid since October 7.

One might think that while they didn’t publicly condemn him – but they couldn’t do that – the assassination of former Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh in Tehran wasn’t considered wise in Washington, whose administration seeks above all to avoid a regional conflagration. The Americans themselves asked Netanyahu not to strike Beirut, but he ignored the suggestion.

The United States, however, is somewhat stuck on the threat of an Iranian response. They had no choice but to show solidarity with Israel. Netanyahu’s calculation of raising tensions to strengthen ties between Tel Aviv and Washington has paid off.

Something similar had already happened in April, when Israel struck the Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus and killed senior Pasdaran officers.

Some hoped for a change in US policy toward the conflict after the possible election of Kamala Harris. While she spoke about Palestinian suffering during the Democratic Party National Convention in Chicago in August 2024, she did not say how she intends to end it. On the contrary, she has assured that arms supply to Israel will continue.

Thus, this American activism, more akin to passivity, creates a problem of both moral and strategic credibility and will continue until the Gaza theater of events brings convincing results.

Because in addition to strategic trust in the United States, there is also the issue of moral trust. It was recently revealed that various Western countries have tried to slow down the proceedings at the International Criminal Court against Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We therefore face opposition to international justice from powers that should respect international law. This implicit support for Israel’s actions undermines the moral authority of Western countries, as we see how the people of Gaza are being harmed. Moreover, when all this is over, new images and information are likely to emerge that will make the humanitarian and infrastructural consequences of the Gaza conflict even more shocking.

Since 1967, Israel has acted as a Middle Eastern ally of the USA and, more broadly, the Western world in confrontation with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

At the time, the political interests and moral convictions of the United States converged in favor of this alliance with Israel. The existence of the Jewish state was threatened by Arab countries that denied it the right to exist. And Israel faced the Soviet Union’s allies in the Middle East. Israel’s military superiority means that its existence has not been threatened for a long time. The Lebanon War of 1982, the Sabra and Shatila massacre, and the Intifada uprising after 1987 also changed the perception of Israel in the West.

Israel was no longer a country surrounded by hostile Arab masses, but an occupying power that suppressed young stone throwers by force. The end of the East-West split has also made a difference: Washington no longer needs an ally to counter Moscow in the region. This was very well understood by Yitzhak Rabin, who embarked on the Oslo process not out of love for the Palestinians, but realizing that Israel needed to extend the terms of its alliance with the USA to ensure its long-term security. His assassination derailed the Oslo process. Upon coming to power in February 2001, Ariel Sharon used the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to announce that Israel had its own Bin Laden named Arafat and that Israel was once again a strategic ally of the United States in the war on terrorism.

There is a price to pay for this smart communication policy. Even if Barack Obama realized the discredit that unconditional support for Israel brings to the United States in the world in general and in the Arab world in particular, especially after the Iraq war, he would still not be in a position to change America’s policies blocked by Congress. Congress, which Netanyahu addressed before the two chambers for the fourth time this summer. Churchill only received this honor three times.

Thus, we have a rare case in geopolitical terms, when the country receiving aid remains outside any influence of the country that provides it. Ultimately, this strategic American alliance with Israel should cost the United States dearly in relation to the Global South and much more harshly in relation to the Jewish state’s policies toward the Palestinians, as Chinese officials have noted, not without displeasure.