Cut Israel Off—for Its Own Sake
The Gaza war is terrible for Israelis as well as
Gazans.
May 20, 2025
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/cut-israel-off-for-its-own-sake/
All eyes were on President Donald Trump last Tuesday
when he touched down in Riyadh for a four-day, three-country tour of the Middle
East. But by the end of Trump’s big trip, a more momentous Mideast event was
unfolding about 1,000 miles northwest, in the Gaza strip.
There, the Israeli military was laying the groundwork
for Operation Gideon’s Chariots, a campaign to flatten Gaza, conquer the strip,
and concentrate all civilians in small areas of the enclave. As Trump toured
opulent Gulf states, Israel escalated strikes on the beleaguered Gazans,
killing hundreds on Thursday and Friday alone. On Saturday, one day after Trump
departed the region, Israel announced it had launched its planned operation.
Just before the president’s trip, many analysts,
detecting a rift between Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
had expected (and hoped) that the U.S. president would push Israel to halt its
war rather than escalate it. Rumors arose that he might even formally recognize
a Palestinian state. While Trump did make some noises about the hunger crisis in Gaza, he
did not implore Netanyahu to cease fire, and, indeed, he renewed his call for the U.S. to participate in the Gaza
takeover.
This was a serious error by the president, the only
person outside Israel with the power to stop the carnage in Gaza. While Trump
has signaled a desire to put some policy daylight between the two nations, he
hasn’t suspended military aid to Israel, nor even threatened to do so (though
some in his inner circle may have conveyed such a threat in private). Unless that
changes, the Gaza war likely will rage on toward a grim finale, namely, ethnic
cleansing. That would be a catastrophe for the Gazans themselves, obviously,
and would further destabilize the Middle East. But it could also, in the long
run, put the people of Israel in grave danger, leaving their nation isolated
and despised on the world stage.
A small country with under 10 million people—around
one-tenth the population of Iran, its chief adversary—Israel is weaker than it
seems and dependent on the U.S. for its security needs. Washington not only
sends Israel billions of dollars in military aid each year, but positions U.S.
forces to deter Israel’s enemies, scrambles to thwart attacks on Israel when
deterrence fails, and runs diplomatic cover for Israel at the United
Nations.
There are signs, however, that Israel’s superpower
shield won’t be around indefinitely.
Like much of the world, Americans are turning against
Israel—with a majority of U.S. adults, especially younger ones, now disfavoring the country—and increasingly don’t want their
tax dollars to fund the war in Gaza and Israel’s related antagonisms in the
West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. Other Western
nations—including Italy, normally a vocal supporter of Jerusalem—have soured
on Israel and are calling for an end to hostilities in Gaza. Meanwhile, Antonio
Guterres, the UN chief, has been doubling down on harsh condemnations of Israeli
actions.
As Israel’s expansionist militarism alienates Western
allies and the international community, it’s also inflaming the antipathy of
neighbors and rivals in the Middle East, which is why Saudi Arabia has put on
hold plans to normalize bilateral relations. This is a perilous dynamic. If 10
years from now a new generation of Western leaders withdraw assistance, Israel
could experience pronounced military vulnerability, deep unpopularity globally,
and near-total diplomatic isolation. Trump should cut Israel off now before it
finds itself in that unenviable circumstance.
An ancient text sheds light on the ethics of America’s
continued military aid to Israel. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates
imagines a scenario in which a man has borrowed weapons from a friend who
subsequently goes mad. Should the man give back the weapons, as pledged?
Socrates believed that he should weigh the debt obligation against the
potential harms of returning what was owed. In this case, as Socrates sought to
show his interlocutors, justice requires withholding weapons from a friend who
poses a danger to himself and others.
The same logic applies to America’s military aid to
its ally Israel, which has acted with a degree of violent recklessness in Gaza
lacking any precedent in modern times. Indeed, this real-world case is clearer
cut than the one imagined by Socrates, since the U.S. does not “owe” Israel any
weapons at all. The munitions that Washington sends abroad are funded by
American taxpayers and delivered to foreign nations at the discretion of the
White House and Congress, however entitled to them some recipients, including
Israel, have come to feel.
Many American politicos, including in the Trump
administration, have lost sight of this basic asymmetry at the heart of the
U.S.-Israel relationship. Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, during a recent
meeting with Israeli families, explained why the U.S. wouldn’t force Israel to
end its war. “We’re not the Israeli government,” Witkoff said. “The Israeli government is a sovereign government.
They can’t tell us what to do, we can’t tell them what to do.”
Witkoff’s insistence that Israel “can’t tell us what
to do” is encouraging, but his comments also reflect a misconception of the
U.S.-Israel relationship. The White House, in fact, has every right to demand
an immediate end to the Gaza war, since it is being fought with American
weapons. Israel, of course, would then have every right to refuse—in which case
American assistance should cease. And honestly, when has the U.S. ever
declined, on principle, to tell other countries what to do?
The actual reason the Trump administration isn’t
pushing Israel to end the Gaza war pertains not to the principle of
non-interference in the politics of other nations, but to the fraught politics
of America, where the Israel lobby remains a powerful force. While a split seems to
have developed between Trump and Netanyahu—the former declined to visit Israel
during his Middle East trip, has struck bilateral deals with Israel’s enemies
Hamas and the Yemeni Houthis, is pursuing a nuclear deal with its arch-nemesis
Iran, and lifted sanctions on Syria over Israel’s objections, among other moves—the president has been reluctant to challenge Israel
publicly.
Indeed, Trump has dismissed the claim that private
tensions exist. During a Saturday interview on Fox News, Trump denied that he
was “frustrated” with Netanyahu. “No, look, he’s got a tough situation,”
Trump said. “You have to remember, there was October 7 that
everyone forgets.” Until Trump takes a harder line, Netanyahu will continue to
brush aside White House concerns.
To be sure, criticisms from Trump and other officials
secured Israel’s decision Sunday night to permit a small amount of food
aid into Gaza. But the U.S., despite its enormous leverage, is failing to halt
the military campaign that makes such aid depressingly necessary. Because of
this lack of progress, some commentators have questioned whether an actual rift between Trump and
Netanyahu has even emerged.
My own view is that the rift is real, but narrower
than many believe and with more limited consequences. Amid the deterioration in
bilateral relations, White House officials have cancelled trips to Israel and
exhibited real frustration with Netanyahu, notwithstanding the president’s
denial. But they’ve also taken pains not to highlight or even acknowledge the
discord in public.
After Vice President J.D. Vance called off a Tuesday
visit to Israel, he cited “logistics” as the reason, though the decision was
reportedly motivated by Netanyahu’s escalation in Gaza. Like the
Biden administration, which routinely grumbled about Netanyahu behind closed
doors, Trump officials haven’t given the Israeli leader much reason to think
that U.S. assistance is conditional on good behavior.
Time is running out for the White House to change
tack. While most Israelis favor striking a ceasefire agreement that brings the
hostages home and enables normalization with Arab nations, Operation Gideon’s
Chariots represents a different, darker path forward. If Israel carries the
operation through, its reputation on the world stage will suffer irreparable
damage, and Western leaders will grow increasingly reluctant to sustain
assistance to the Jewish state. In that possible future, Israel’s geopolitical
position will be precarious.
Trump, in his inaugural address, vowed to govern as a “peacemaker and unifier.” Ahead
of the election in November, he presented himself as Israel’s “big protector.” The White
House regularly says that the president will continue to be the greatest
“friend” Israel has ever known. But as Socrates knew, sometimes giving weapons
to a friend who is expecting them isn’t the right thing to do. The president
should suspend military aid to Israel now—for its own sake.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario