Netanyahu Is Insulting, Not Engaging, the Biden Administration. It's Time for Israel to Listen to America
Israel's
severe response to the US abstaining from the UN Security Council vote
for a Gaza cease-fire is yet another baffling move, intensifying its
confounding behavior at a critical moment of the war to a White House
that has demonstrated unprecedented support in its most dire time of
need
By Daniel Kurtzer - March 25, 2024
Observing
the evolving U.S.-Israel policy differences from Washington has become
quite confusing and even confounding to outsiders.
On the one hand, the Biden administration has demonstrated unprecedented support for Israel --
in the form of non-stop provision of weaponry and constant political
support – even in the face of growing opposition from within the
Democratic Party, on university campuses, and within the Arab-American
community.
On
the other hand, Israel's responses to American entreaties to moderate
its military assault and ensure humanitarian provisions have become more strident. "We are not a banana republic," read one statement -- and ill-advised -- for example, preventing the Israeli delegation to travel to Washington for discussions on Rafah because
of the U.S. abstention on a UN Security Council resolution, despite the
prime minister's promise to the president to send the delegation.
The proximate reason for the decision not to send the delegation makes
no sense at all. In his statement announcing the decision, the prime
minister called the U.S. decision to abstain a "retreat" from previous
U.S. positions. First, it is unseemly and insulting for any foreign
leader to characterize American policy this way. The United States makes
its own policy, taking into account the views of friends and allies.
The constancy of U.S. support for Israel at the United Nations Security
Council should have given the prime minister pause before attacking the
American abstention on this particular resolution.
Second,
the resolution itself contained enough of what the United States had
sought in the resolution it crafted last week that was vetoed by Russia
and China as to persuade the administration to allow it to go forward.
Specifically, the resolution calls for a ceasefire through Ramadan --
thus it is of limited duration -- and it demands the unconditional
release of all the hostages. It is thus confounding to try to explain
why the Israeli reaction has been so severe.
The
postponement, perhaps cancellation, of the visit of the high-level
Israeli delegation makes no sense at all. The administration has made
crystal clear its strong opposition to a full-scale assault on Rafah without a plan for the safety of the million-plus Palestinians who
are huddled there. The administration has also made clear that it does
not oppose in principle a plan to move against Hamas fighters in Rafah,
provided a plan for the civilians is in place. This was the rationale
for the visit that has now been shelved. So, why does the prime minister
not want to talk with the Americans at this critical moment?
It
defies reason to believe that Israel will proceed with a full-scale
onslaught against Rafah without first consulting with Washington. First,
the timing could not be more challenging. The administration is
weighing whether Israel is in compliance with National Security Memorandum-20 which, inter alia,
requires recipients of U.S. arms to provide assurances that U.S. arms
will be used in accordance with international law and that they will not
impede or restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance. Should
those assurances be considered inadequate, the president will consider
such measures as suspending additional arms transfers. Given Vice
President Kamala Harris' warning that an onslaught against Rafah would
have "consequences," Israel should not test the United States at this
time on this issue.
Second,
Israel has claimed some success thus far in the war against Hamas, but
the cost has been much too high in terms of Palestinian civilian
casualties and humanitarian crisis throughout Gaza.
These
seeming successes have been mitigated by the return of Hamas fighters
to the north and the seeming impossible task of forcing remaining Hamas
fighters and leaders from the tunnel network beneath Gaza. To be sure,
more Hamas fighters can be killed and captured in a major Rafah
operation, but at what cost and to what end, as long as Hamas' key
leaders remain alive and functioning?
It is time for Israel to start listening as much as it is talking. Careful
consideration of what the administration is seeking should be
convincing that the United States shares the objective of debilitating
Hamas sufficiently so that it cannot govern Gaza again or threaten
Israel; that the hostages should be released unconditionally or in
conjunction with conditions acceptable to Israel; that humanitarian aid
needs to get to Palestinian civilians without any impediments; that
conditions be restored both within Gaza and in the Israeli communities
outside Gaza that were destroyed by Hamas' barbaric attack on October 7
that will permit residents to rebuild and return to their homes; and
that a process of diplomatic engagement be renewed that starts to deal
seriously with the fundamental, underlying issues in this conflict,
including Israel's 57-year occupation and the persistence of Palestinian
terrorism.
A
timely reminder from history: Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State under
John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, once said that the most important tool
in diplomacy is the ability and willingness to listen. This is good
advice for the current Israeli government.