The new round of Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which lasted for half a year, has torn a rift in the close relations between the United States and Israel. What happened when the United States went from favoring Israel to "giving the green light" to the Security Council's resolution calling for a cease-fire, and from Israel's "obstinate obstinacy" to its sudden withdrawal of troops?
1. From favoritism to abstention
At the end of March, the United States abstained from voting, prompting the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire for the first time. What exactly happened to make the United States begin to shift its attitude towards Israel?
The Biden administration has been called the most pro-Israel administration in history by the American media. Biden has said more than once that because of his own political experience, he has a very deep Israel complex, and even regards supporting Israel as a requirement of moral principles. It is precisely for this reason that after the outbreak of the latest round of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on October 8 last year, Biden immediately stood up and said that the United States has a rock-solid and unshakable security commitment to Israel, and the United States will stand firmly on Israel's side. Anything, as long as Israel needs it, the United States will give it to it. Biden said and did so, providing Israel with all kinds of weapons and ammunition during the six-month-long conflict, and vetoing various resolutions from other countries calling for an immediate ceasefire in the UN Security Council.
However, Biden's "I am bent on the bright moon" did not exchange for Netanyahu's reciprocal "understanding". Due to Israel's all-encompassing role in the conflict, Biden is also under increasing internal and external pressure. If the White House can turn a deaf ear in the face of international pressure, it cannot ignore domestic pressure in an election year.
In an effort to ease the pressure, senior Biden administration officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have repeatedly publicly demanded that Israel change its "indiscriminate strike" tactics in the Gaza Strip, allow more humanitarian aid to enter, and refrain from attacking the southern city of Rafah, a city of 1.4 million people, "without a proper aftermath plan."
However, Netanyahu's government seems to have turned a deaf ear to this, not only being indifferent to the issue of tactics and humanitarian aid, but even openly claiming that it has approved a plan for a large-scale attack on Rafah in order to eliminate Hamas once and for all. Israel's intransigence has not only caused the Biden administration to "lose face", but also caused more and more people in Washington to question the White House's policy toward Israel, believing that it is precisely because of Biden's own connivance that the current situation in US-Israel relations has emerged.
Second, bilateral relations have been temporarily turned around
In the face of a "desperate" Israel, what is the influence of the United States?
Since March, in order to prevent Netanyahu from "making a desperate bet", the Biden administration has continued to increase pressure on Israel. First of all, Washington has continued to make some small moves that threaten Netanyahu's "political life", including letting Schumer, the leader of the Democratic Senate who is accustomed to pro-Israel, speak out, calling for an early re-election in Israel, and inviting Gantz, a member of the Israeli wartime cabinet and a leader of the Israel National Unity Party who may replace Netanyahu as prime minister in the future, to visit the United States. Seeing that the political threat did not immediately "soften" Netanyahu, in the Security Council vote on 25 March, the US representative went against the normal pattern of constant "vetoes" and abstained from voting to approve a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire between Palestine and Israel. Although the US side later said that "there has been no change in the US policy toward Israel" and claimed that the resolution has no legal effect in order to control the impact of the abstention on US-Israeli relations, no one really thinks that there has been no change in the US policy toward Israel.
Netanyahu's first reaction to Biden's tough pressure was also a tough response, publicly announcing the cancellation of sending a high-level delegation to the United States to discuss the Rafah issue, and then "downgrading" it to a video meeting. On April 1, Israel brazenly attacked the Iranian consulate in Syria, killing seven Iranian citizens, including the senior commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, in an attempt to further destabilize the situation and drag the United States into the water.
Faced with this unbearable situation, Biden finally issued an "ultimatum" to Netanyahu on April 4, saying that Israel only has "days or even hours" to change its Gaza policy, and if it does not change substantially, then "we have to make changes." The so-called "change" is to "link" US military aid to Israel with Israel's policy toward Gaza, that is, to threaten Israel that if it does not meet US demands on Gaza's tactics, humanitarian aid, and Rafah, the United States will reduce, slow down, or even suspend military aid. After Netanyahu personally promised Biden that "he will do so", Biden further demanded that Israel not just promise privately, but must publicly announce it on the same day.
That evening, with the formal approval of the wartime Cabinet, the Erez crossing in northern Gaza, which had been closed since the outbreak of the conflict, was reopened, allowing humanitarian aid to enter the Gaza Strip through the port of Ashdod for the time being, while easing import restrictions at the Kerem Shalom border crossing to allow more supplies to enter from Jordan. Subsequently, Israel further withdrew its ground forces from the Gaza Strip and announced the continuation of consultations with Hamas representatives in Cairo on a long-term ceasefire. Eventually, after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict brought US-Israel relations to a turning point on the verge of collapse, it was Israel's Netanyahu government that backed down in the face of US security threats and allowed the relationship to survive the crisis for the time being. It also proves the previous view of international relations theorist Stephen Walt that the United States was capable of influencing Israel in the past, and it is no less so.
Thirdly, the sources of tension have not been eliminated
Against the backdrop of an election year, what will happen next for the delicate relationship between the United States and Israel?
The relieved Biden administration welcomed Israel's policy adjustment at the first time, but at the same time, the latter could hardly be reassured. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who has repeatedly intervened with the Israeli government on Gaza, said that "the real test is whether it can get results, and we will keep an eye on that in the coming days and weeks." The reason for this is naturally the fear of another repetition of the Netanyahu government. Last November, Israel reached a temporary ceasefire agreement with Hamas for a week, and the latter released half of the hostages. At that time, many parties in the international community, including the United States, hoped to seize this opportunity to turn a temporary ceasefire into a permanent ceasefire and end this round of crisis. However, under strong domestic political pressure, Netanyahu began to implement a "scorched-earth policy" in northern Gaza and a complete siege in southern Gaza, citing Hamas's military strikes to break the ceasefire, in an attempt to create a so-called "de-conflict zone" with extremely brutal repression. Since then, the number of Palestinian civilian casualties has risen rapidly from 13,000 at the end of November to 32,000 at the end of March.
The rising numbers have left Biden facing increasingly serious domestic political troubles, with Arab and Muslim Americans, young people who are generally sympathetic to Palestine, and progressives and other Democratic "voters" increasingly dissatisfied with the White House, and Democratic voters' support for Biden's policies has fallen from 60% in November to 47% at present, and the support of independent voters is even only 21%. Biden's campaign campaigns across the United States will also be met with "daily" protests. If the Netanyahu government replicates the "one step back, two steps forward" approach in the future and attacks Rafah in a big way, then with the US election approaching, the Biden team may face big trouble. At that time, even if Biden chooses to "break the wrist of a strong man" and categorically cut off Israel, he will be criticized for his continued connivance and shielding of the Netanyahu government. Not to mention, if it comes to the point where a large-scale humanitarian catastrophe breaks out and US-Israeli relations are still broken, the image of an "experienced international leader" carefully created by the White House team for Biden is likely to be shattered.
The difficulty is that Biden is fighting for his political life, and so is Netanyahu. In order to avoid accountability for the outbreak of conflict as much as possible and prolong his time in power, Netanyahu needs to pander to the country's ultra-conservatives and achieve more so-called "security results" every day. Therefore, although the United States and Israel have discussed a plan for attacking Rafah, they have not reached much consensus. In this regard, if Biden wants to avoid the disastrous impact of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the election, it is likely that he will have to wield more of the big stick in his policy toward Israel and make Israel feel more serious losses. The US-Israel game is likely to continue.
Source: Xinmin Evening News, April 11, 2024
Author: Xiao He
Editor: Hu Liang
[Statement: This number is an official public welfare account to serve the decision-making of governments at all levels, enterprises and institutions, and this article is reprinted for the purpose of conveying more information. If there is a source labeling error or other inaccuracies, please contact us. We will correct it in a timely manner. Thank you]