Biden and Netanyahu: United in goal, divided by strategy

US President Joe Biden's goals in Gaza align with Tel Aviv's. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's execution of these objectives is heavily clashing with US interests, undermining its soft power elsewhere in the region.

Mohamad Hasan Sweidan

APR 5, 2024

https://thecradle.co/articles/biden-and-netanyahu-united-in-goal-divided-by-strategy

In an interview with MSNBC last month, US President Joe Biden took a rare firm stance against his staunch Israeli ally, insisting that an invasion of Rafah by the occupation army – devoid of a civilian-focused plan – would cross a “red line.” He then countered his warning by affirming Washington’s unwavering support of Tel Aviv and promising that he would never “leave Israel.”
The Israeli Broadcasting Corporation, citing unnamed political sources, said that the phone call between Biden and Netanyahu on 4 April was “more difficult than expected.” The White House said that Biden's tough tone during the call reflected “growing frustration” over Tel Aviv’s lack of cooperation in protecting civilians.

This contradiction in words and behavior highlights the dilemma the White House faces in its interactions with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. You can’t have it both ways. While the US aims to temper Netanyahu’s aggressive policies – at least for public consumption – it seeks to do so without undermining the stability of his extremist coalition government. 

In short, every word is weighed in public US announcements to balance that fine line. Following a virtual meeting between National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Israeli officials on 1 April, which included talks on the proposed Israeli incursion in Rafah, a statement from the White House merely noted: “The two sides, over the course of two hours, had a constructive engagement on Rafah. They agreed that they share the objective to see Hamas defeated in Rafah.”

On 26 March, an Israeli Defense Ministry briefing revealed that US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “expressed the view that Hamas’ remaining battalions in Rafah must be dismantled, that that’s a legitimate goal that we share.” He added that “Rafah should not be a safe haven for Hamas. Nowhere in Gaza should be.”

It is safe to conclude from these bland statements that there is a meeting of the minds between the Biden administration and the Netanyahu government over the war’s objectives. From the onset of hostilities, the US has actively collaborated with Israeli decision-making processes, ensuring alignment with strategic goals. High-ranking US officials, including Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Secretary Austin, have participated in Israeli War Cabinet meetings.

Three days after the launch of Al-Aqsa Flood, Biden made it “crystal clear” that “We stand with Israel. We stand with Israel. And we will make sure Israel has what it needs to take care of its citizens, defend itself, and respond to this attack.”

Tensions grow with Tel Aviv 

Despite this shared strategic vision, recent developments have highlighted emerging disagreements between Netanyahu and Biden. The differences revolve around the methodologies used to safeguard Israel’s security and future. The core of the dispute can be summarized as follows:

The Biden administration views the path to normalization, as set out in the Trump-era Abraham Accords of 2020, as a historic opportunity to strengthen regional peace, with the jewel in the crown being a Saudi–Israeli normalization deal. 

Blinken, during a visit to Saudi Arabia, warned that ongoing military operations in Gaza might jeopardize the Saudi–Israeli normalization prospects, which is a major strategic interest for Tel Aviv at the regional level:

“Almost every country in the region wants to integrate Israel, to normalize relations with it, and to “The reality is to help Israel provide protection for it. But this requires the establishment of a Palestinian state, and it also naturally requires ending military operations in Gaza.” 

A Palestinian state is, of course, anathema to Netanyahu’s coalition, the most extremist government in Israel’s short history. But US concerns are also growing over the possibility of the war in Gaza leading to a broader regional war, one which the US will be forced into to protect its settler-colonial ally. 

From Washington’s perspective, Israel’s identity as a “functional entity” is significant because it fulfills US geopolitical objectives in the region. Conversely, Netanyahu and the Israeli right prioritize Israel’s identity as a Jewish nation-state. This divergence becomes pronounced in the face of existential threats when national identity overshadows functional roles, posing greater risks to Israel than to the United States.

Regional interests and domestic politics 

But the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza is now limiting the US’s ability to provide international support for Israel’s continued warfare, with Netanyahu’s actions exacerbating the situation and destroying the US’ human rights ’advocacy’ reputation across the globe. 

In recent months, Washington has been forced to adopt rhetoric stressing the need for Israel to abide by international laws and protect civilians. At the same time, however, it continues to support the occupation state with all the tools necessary to kill the population of Gaza. 

It has become abundantly clear that despite Israel’s persistent violations of international laws, norms, and conventions, the US is continuing to provide, and even increase, significant military support for Israel – all while other allies of Tel Aviv are contemplating halting the transfer of weapons to the occupation army. 

Actions, after all, speak louder than words.

US public opinion reflects growing opposition to Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, with recent polls showing a majority of Americans against the occupation army’s brutalities. A Gallup poll conducted between 1 and 20 March shows that 55 percent of US respondents oppose Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip, a 10 percent rise from November polls.

Crucially, this public sentiment suggests a growing dissonance between US government actions and voter preferences, with Biden’s popularity plummeting in domestic polls. 

Concurrently, the US-dominated global “rules-based” order is coming under sharp fire from peer adversaries like Russia and China, which advocate for a return to international law. Israel’s brutal Gaza assault contradicts everything Washington has preached for decades about its ‘rules.’

Tel Aviv has blanketly ignored the binding UN Security Council Resolution 2728, which stipulates a ceasefire during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan and stands accused of violating all respects of international humanitarian law. 

Netanyahu’s government is responsible for the mass murder of tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza – two-thirds of them women and children – which saw Israel dragged for the first time to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of genocide. He then proceeded to violate the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations by targeting the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, on 1 April.

Netanyahu’s fight for survival 

Several fundamental reasons drive Netanyahu to support, confront, and even ignore Biden’s stances. At the core is the Israeli premier’s uncertain political future: He is acutely aware that halting the war without securing strategic victories that translate into political capital will devastate his political legacy, making him bear the brunt of all outcomes since 7 October. 

Faced with limited alternatives, Netanyahu opts for confrontation, banking on enduring until the upcoming US elections in November.

For Israel, the stakes in the ongoing war are significantly higher than for the US because Tel Aviv’s top brass widely views it as an existential threat. This perspective galvanizes even those within Israeli society and its hawkish military who might not necessarily align with Netanyahu’s policies.

Central to Netanyahu’s resistance is his rejection of a two-state solution. He perceives the invasion of Rafah as a tactic to either circumvent negotiations with Hamas or to weaken the movement’s bargaining position. Importantly, Netanyahu aims to prevent the war’s conclusion from being interpreted as a step towards Palestinian statehood, rightly framing the conflict as a Palestinian liberation struggle.

Meanwhile, the White House continues its impossible trajectory to balance pressure on Netanyahu with a clear commitment to Israeli security interests, including defeating Hamas. Netanyahu does not miss a beat in manipulating this situation to his advantage, twisting the narrative to ensure Israel’s interests are met, with a keen eye on how this plays out for him politically at home.

Re-evaluating relations 

Commentary from both Israeli and US corners is starting to shine a light on the potentially thorny path ahead. 

As Doron Matza recently wrote in the Israeli newspaper Maariv: 

In the near future, the aid directed to Israel will decrease and be limited, and with it international legitimacy, not to mention the erosion of the Abraham Accords and the challenges represented by additional enemies waiting for the zero hour to turn the 7 October flood into a broader and greater catastrophe.

John Hoffman in Foreign Policy adds a scathing critique, questioning the very fabric of the US–Israel relationship: “The special relationship does not benefit Washington and is endangering US interests across the globe.”

It is time for the US to recalibrate its relationship with Israel. This isn’t about turning Israel into an adversary but about interacting with it as Washington does with any other state – with a measured distance and pragmatism.