In the protracted conflict engulfing Gaza for the past seven months, a conspicuous aspect is the adeptness of Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu in shaping – and indirectly dictating – his priorities of the Biden administration.
Netanyahu has exhibited a remarkable knack for extracting concessions from the Americans, often leveraging minor disputes to his advantage. This was evident when the U.S. Congress greenlit an additional $17 billion in military aid to Israel on April 20, only to have the Biden administration promptly impose sanctions on Israeli military units accused of violating human rights. Netanyahu decried this as a "moral low," while one of his allies in parliament went so far as to allege American "anti-Semitism."
If history serves as a guide, Netanyahu will persist in his reproach of American actions, a calculated move aimed at galvanizing domestic support and bolstering his bargaining power in future diplomatic entanglements with Washington. The recent Israeli handling of the clash with Iran highlights this tendency. Following Iran's missile attack on Israel, U.S. President Joe Biden advised restraint, urging Netanyahu to "take the win." However, Netanyahu asserted Israel's autonomy in decision-making. Biden's subsequent caveat stipulates the United States' non-involvement in Israeli retaliation. This episode has revealed a nuanced interplay: while affirming Israel's sovereignty, it delineates boundaries within the U.S.-Israel relationship. Netanyahu's recognition of these limits signals a truly pragmatic understanding, oscillating between asserting Israeli autonomy and acknowledging the strategic partnership with the U.S.
The recent developments suggest a complex interplay between Israeli strategic maneuvering and American apprehensions regarding regional escalation. Reports indicate that Israel capitalized on U.S. concerns, leveraging them to secure tacit acceptance for a potential incursion into Rafah. Allegedly, this concession was obtained in exchange for a restrained response vis-à-vis Iran. While the White House remains reticent about any formal agreement, it is evident that back-door discussions are underway, signaling a recalibration of Israeli military tactics. Apparently, the Biden administration's stance on Rafah has not changed; however, skepticism persists regarding the feasibility of Israeli proposals. A fortnight ago, Netanyahu seemed compliant, withdrawing troops from Gaza and initiating limited operations in Rafah. Yet, for him, seizing Rafah and eliminating senior Hamas figures symbolize political survival, fueling his resolve. He is unyielding on this front. Reports suggest he's garnered tacit U.S. support for further discussions on the operation's specifics, indicating Israeli autonomy in decision-making. Netanyahu's calculus reflects the intertwining of domestic politics and regional strategy, with Rafah emerging as a pivotal battleground in his narrative of leadership and security. Instances of U.S. recalibration are not uncommon.
U.S. backpedaling
The recent instance of U.S. backpedaling is not an isolated incident. Israel's unilateral strike on an Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, sans prior notification to Washington, hints at a deeper strategic calculus. Some speculate it was a calculated move by Israel to drag the U.S. into a potential conflict with Iran, essential for neutralizing Tehran's nuclear and military assets. Israel's feigned surprise at Iran's retaliatory actions on April 14 strains credulity. Netanyahu's management of the crisis probably foresaw a reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment to Israel's defense.
Following the Damascus incident, American sentiments swiftly pivoted to a stance of solidarity with Israel. Despite initial frustrations over Israel's unilateral action, public indignation dissipated, overshadowed by concerns of Netanyahu's perceived maneuvers to embroil the U.S. in regional conflict. While reports suggest Biden's reservations, a coalition of Western allies rallied behind Israel, reinforcing Netanyahu's political footing. Similarly, Biden's appeals for restraint in Gaza met resistance.
Netanyahu's response belied any genuine commitment to minimize civilian casualties, leveraging discord with Washington to shore up domestic support. Despite pledges to facilitate humanitarian aid, Israel's actions contradict its promises, maintaining stringent restrictions on food imports into Gaza until recently. This pattern exhibits Netanyahu's adept exploitation of tensions for political gain, highlighting the intricate interplay between diplomacy, domestic politics and regional dynamics. The U.S. response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza epitomizes a glaring dissonance between rhetoric and action. Instead of pressuring Netanyahu to swiftly open Gaza's crossings for food aid, Washington proposed a protracted solution: constructing a temporary aid port for Gaza, a venture spanning weeks. This episode underscores a broader pattern wherein diplomatic posturing belies substantive engagement, allowing Israel latitude in interpreting and circumventing U.S. expectations, thus perpetuating the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
As the U.S. gears up for elections, Democratic sensitivities toward Israel loom large. Biden's strategy is clear: alienating pro-Israel factions risks backlash and jeopardizes electoral fortunes, especially in battleground states. Despite potential repercussions from Arab-American communities, Biden perceives little political gain in confronting Netanyahu head-on.
Yet, allegations of Biden's pro-Iran inclinations persist among some pro-Israel circles, amplifying pressure on the White House. While eager to reengage with Iran on nuclear diplomacy, Biden's tacit support for Israel's Gaza campaign underscores a delicate balancing act. In this high-stakes political landscape, Biden is treading cautiously, mindful of the electoral implications while navigating the complex dynamics of Middle Eastern geopolitics.