Just days ago, U.S. President Joe Biden announced publicly that a cease-fire agreement in Gaza seemed likely, possibly as soon as this coming Monday. However, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant asserted that even if there is a temporary cease-fire, Israel’s military operations in Gaza would continue until all hostages are free.
Beyond indicating that the U.S. and Israel are working at cross purposes, this is a further illustration of Washington’s seeming inability to restrain a key ally. Time and again since Israel began its military operations in Gaza, the Biden administration has pointedly criticized the approach taken by Israel’s government. Most notably, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin remarked that Israel’s heavy-handed tactics in countering Hamas in Gaza risk resulting in “strategic defeat,” given that it is sowing discontent among the Palestinian population, including in the West Bank, as well as among Israel’s Arab neighbors. Austin added that he had “personally pushed Israeli leaders to avoid civilian casualties, and to shun irresponsible rhetoric, and to prevent violence by settlers in the West Bank.” But those requests went unheard or unheeded.
And just last Friday, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken went so far as to label Israel’s construction of new settlements in the West Bank as “inconsistent with international law,” emphasizing that it has been “longstanding US policy, under Republican and Democratic administrations alike, that new settlements are counterproductive to reaching an enduring peace.” But Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has done nothing to rein in the extremist members of his Cabinet who are pursuing the expansion of settlements in the West Bank and who have even proposed reestablishing settlements in Gaza after the war ends.
More broadly, Netanyahu has indicated no interest in pursuing constructive steps toward a two-state solution after the war despite that too being official U.S. policy. And this is on top of concerns raised about the Netanyahu government’s adherence to democratic norms even before Oct. 7.
Despite all of this, the Biden administration has appeared to go out of its way to give Israel diplomatic cover for the war. Just last week, the U.S. once again vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, with Washington casting the lone vote against. When issuing the veto, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield maintained that the resolution would undermine the above-mentioned efforts to reach a negotiated cease-fire. But as the third time the U.S. has vetoed a cease-fire resolution, it represents the continuation of a broader pattern in both the Security Council and the U.N. General Assembly of the U.S. repeatedly standing nearly alone with Israel.
Similarly, during hearings last week at the International Court of Justice on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, only the U.S. and Fiji were willing to defend Israel during the proceedings. And when the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling in January on South Africa’s accusation that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza, ordering Israel to report back with a plan for protecting civilians, White House spokesperson John Kirby said the Biden administration saw the ruling as “consistent with many of [its own] positions,” but denied that Israel’s actions actually amounted to genocide.
Overall, this is an odd situation. On the one hand, scholars who study the relations between allies have long pointed to a dynamic they call “entrapment,” whereby the minor power, or client state, in an asymmetric alliance takes actions that compel the major power, or patron state, to enter a conflict the major power didn’t want. In some ways, this is indeed happening. In addition to offering diplomatic cover for Israel, the Biden administration is continuing to supply Israel with munitions needed to conduct its operations in Gaza, even at the expense of support to Ukraine and Taiwan. And the wider regional instability generated by the war, namely the attacks by Iran-backed militias in Iraq and the Houthis in the Red Sea, are not in the U.S. interest.
Israel’s defiance of the Biden administration in its conduct of the war in Gaza is not only hurting Washington’s direct interests in the region. It is also resulting in the U.S. being isolated internationally.
On the other hand, true entrapment is rare, particularly for the United States. As the international relations scholar Michael Beckley found several years ago, when the U.S. has become involved in an ally’s conflict—such as backing Taipei during the 1954-1955 Taiwan Strait crisis and supporting allies in then-Indochina in the 1950s and 1960s—it was because that conflict still served U.S. interests. In the case of Israel, the U.S. does have an interest in its overall security, and Israel is justified in responding to the horrendous attacks carried out by Hamas on Oct. 7.
However, the manner in which Israel is conducting its military operations has involved the U.S. in a conflict Washington does not want, at perhaps the worst possible time, both internationally, given the number of conflicts unfolding in the world that need attention, and domestically, given that the administration needs to focus on preparing for the upcoming presidential election in November. In that sense, the U.S. does seem entrapped.
And in this case, it is not only hurting Washington’s direct interests in the region. It is also resulting in the U.S. being isolated internationally. That is especially problematic, given the U.S. campaign since the start of Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine two years ago to isolate Moscow—a campaign that was already facing difficulty.
One could argue that the current state of U.S. relations with Israel actually serves to illustrate Washington’s strength within the international system. It is willing and able to stand with an ally regardless of the consequences. After all, vetoing Security Council resolutions and standing alone against General Assembly declarations condemning Israel is nothing new for the United States. Sometimes it’s lonely being a hegemon. Moreover, a core benefit of being a hegemon is that they set the terms of international engagement and shape the international order. They are not beholden to the whims and desires of “global public opinion.” Indeed, the ability of the U.S. to do what it wants when it wants is a key reason it has historically been portrayed as a bully or even worse.
But even if that is the case, it is of minor consolation here. Israel’s behavior is running counter to both the Biden administration’s stated preferences and the United States’ interests. The U.S. looks like a lonely hegemon, due to the actions of an ally that it is unable to reel in but unwilling to cut off. The U.S. is trying and failing to strike a balance between Israel’s right to geopolitical security and the Palestinians’ right to human security. There are times when the U.S. pays a real cost to be Israel’s friend. This is one of those times.
Paul Poast is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and a nonresident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.