Hug Bibi' strategy: Ben Rhodes shows how Democrats lost the plot on Gaza
11 December 2025
From blatant double standards to a growing disconnect
with voters, the party's unflinching support for Israel has become a massive
liability
In a recent New York Times column, one of former
President Barack Obama’s closest advisers, Ben Rhodes, offered a long-overdue and merciless analysis of how
badly the US Democratic Party has mismanaged the Gaza tragedy
- and more broadly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past decade.
He summarised the Biden administration’s policy after
7 October 2023 as the “hug Bibi” strategy, referencing Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu. The assumption was that “smothering Mr. Netanyahu with
unconditional support would give the U.S. leverage to influence his
actions”.
Never has an assumption been more wrong.
Netanyahu, a true master in deceiving the Washington
establishment, bamboozled the US administration once again. He took everything
from President Joe Biden without conceding anything; the notorious US leverage
was thus absent in Gaza.
During the last 15 months of the Biden presidency,
Israel received billions of dollars in weapons from the US and used them
indiscriminately against Palestinian civilians. The US veto shielded Tel Aviv
from UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire, and both nations
attacked the International Criminal Court for pursuing charges against
Netanyahu and his former defence minister.
American double standards were systematically applied,
standing in stark contrast to Washington’s position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
This policy was highly damaging for both the US
Democratic administration and the party as a whole. Both were called
hypocrites: on one hand, they incessantly advocated for a rules-based world
order, while on the other, they stayed shamefully silent and idle as Israel
openly violated it.
This choice cost the party - not only its moral
standing, but also a lot of votes, especially among youths.
Dubious talking points
Even as civilian casualties in Gaza soared, the
Democratic narrative stuck to the same worn-out Aipac talking points, focusing
on Israel as the “only democracy in the Middle East” and on its right to
self-defence - while simultaneously insisting that the Palestinian Authority
(PA) must reform and become a “credible partner for peace”.
These talking points sound less and less convincing.
The fact that Israel is a democracy cannot be invoked as a mitigating
circumstance for its war crimes, but as an aggravating one. Real democracies
should not act in such a criminal manner.
The topic under discussion is not Israel’s right to
self-defence, but its disproportionate use of force, as evidenced by the
overwhelming number of civilian casualties in Gaza. In addition, an occupying
power - as Israel still is in Gaza, according to international law - cannot easily invoke its right to self-defence
over threats originating from the same territory and people it is keeping under
occupation.
For those still unaware, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza
in 2005 did not end its occupation, as the Israeli army continues to control
the territory’s land, air and sea borders. Even along the southern border
with Egypt, Cairo dares not do anything without Israel’s prior
consent.
As for PA “reform”, we must clarify what this word
means. To be sure, there is a need for better governance and a curb on
corruption in Ramallah - but real reforms can come only when the Palestinian
leadership stops collaborating with Israel and enabling its occupation of the
West Bank. Only then can the PA become - for the whole Palestinian people - a
credible partner for peace.
But if “reform” instead means that Palestinian
authorities must become more zealous in enabling Israel’s occupation, and
better at tipping off the Israeli army during its lethal security operations in
the West Bank - well, that would be a non-starter.
To avoid any misunderstanding, the last thing that
Netanyahu and his right-wing government desire is a reformed PA. Their refusal
to release from prison the only credible leader capable of unifying
Palestinians, Marwan
Barghouti, is compelling
evidence in this regard.
Sidelining Palestinian rights
Rhodes correctly defines such worn-out talking points
as a “smoke screen - a stale formula to be used in Washington rather than a
description of reality in the Middle East”.
The same talking points have been parroted over the
past two years by most top European Union leaders, apparently unaware of the
moral abyss into which they were plunging themselves - and the values they so
proudly claim to defend - by failing to lift a finger to sanction Israel or to
stop its crimes across the occupied Palestinian territories.
Rhodes brilliantly summarised the situation as
follows: “Many Democrats [were put] in the awkward position of seeking support
from organizations including AIPAC donors and affiliated PACs, which spent tens
of millions of dollars to attack a Democratic president’s policies and
consistently undermined efforts to achieve a two-state solution.”
The fact that in a 2009 speech, Netanyahu paid lip
service to the
potential for a Palestinian state, but by 2015 was promising no Palestinian
state on his watch,
seemed to elude both the US Democratic Party and the future Biden
administration.
Rhodes also recalls how US Democrats were mesmerised
by the 2020 Abraham Accords, and tried to enable them after the first Trump
administration - when it was evident, even to the more distracted observer,
that they sidelined Palestinian rights to self-determination and
statehood.
Rhodes further describes an unsuccessful attempt to
insert into Biden’s 2020 campaign platform a reference to the Israeli
occupation, and a pledge to restrict assistance to Israel if it annexed
Palestinian territories. Sadly, he notes, “Democrats were unwilling to oppose
Israeli policies even if they ran directly counter to long-held Democratic
Party positions”.
This situation did not change after 7 October 2023.
The trauma of that day, and the ensuing events, prompted the US to once again
cave to Israeli logic - after having feebly and unsuccessfully advised
Netanyahu to restrain from brutal vengeance, like the US pursued after 9/11.
Democrats nurturing doubts about where Israel and the
peace process were headed found themselves “trapped in a no man’s land sticking
to talking points detached from the reality of the Middle East”, Rhodes notes.
Cognitive dissonance
Ultimately, the problem is not with Democratic voters,
but with the party leadership, which seems to increasingly find itself in a
state of cognitive dissonance. Polls show that only a third of Democrats have a favourable view of Israel,
down from 73 percent in 2014, while 77 percent now believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Rhodes bravely outlines the correct approach: “The
simplest thing to do would be the right thing: refuse to provide military
assistance to a government that has committed war crimes; support the
International Criminal Court in its work, whether it is focused on [Russian
President] Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu; oppose any effort by Israel to
annex the West Bank or ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip; invest in an
alternative Palestinian leadership from Hamas that can ultimately govern a
Palestinian state; stand up for democracy in Israel as in the United States.”
With all due respect to Obama’s former adviser, had
such words been uttered by his boss, another noble figure in the Democratic
Party, it would have made a big difference.
Nevertheless, some Democratic politicians are
beginning to react. A resolution introduced by Representative Rashida Tlaib
to recognise the
Gaza genocide was
co-sponsored by 21 of her colleagues, amounting to 10 percent of House
Democrats.
One of them, Representative Ro Khanna, declared on X (formerly Twitter): “I agree with the UN
commission’s heartbreaking finding that there is a genocide in Gaza. What
matters is what we do about it - stop military sales that are being used to
kill civilians and recognize a Palestinian state.”
At the same time, Aipac’s intimidating power and wrath
seem to be waning - a reality that has begun to dawn among
Democratic Party officials. Indeed, this once-powerful lobby is becoming an increasingly toxic brand for Democrats on
Capitol Hill, some of whom are refusing its donations.
It remains to be seen whether, and how, this increased
awareness among Democratic members of Congress, alongside the gap between
voters and party leadership, will affect midterm elections and the 2028
presidential nomination process.
As Rhodes correctly remarks: “Sometimes, to win, you
must show that there are principles for which you are prepared to lose.”
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario