Betting on changing Washington's policy is a losing bet

The history of US-Israeli relations is full of Washington's criticism of Tel Aviv for its use of excessive force during its military operations and its continued expansion of settlements within the occupied Palestinian territories, but these criticisms have never been translated into punitive steps or serious pressures that force Israel to amend its policies.

On the contrary, Washington's "steadfast and unwavering" military and political support continued and developed throughout the previous decades, up to the Gaza War, when Washington declared its absolute support for Israel.

Eisenhower the first and the last

The opposition of the late US President Eisenhower to the tripartite aggression on the Suez Canal in 1956 was the last time that American opposition to a military operation in which Israel participated led to stopping the aggression and changing the reality on the ground. This was due to considerations related to the United States’ competition with Britain and France after World War II. Since then, the American-Israeli rapprochement began to strengthen until it reached the maximum limits of security and military coordination.

Every time it faced US opposition to its actions, Israel succeeded in containing the results of the dispute and moving forward in improving and strengthening relations.

Every time it encountered US opposition to its actions, Israel succeeded in containing the results of the dispute and moving forward in improving and strengthening relations. The continued expansion of settlements, the excessive use of force that sometimes led to the killing of American citizens and journalists, and the insistence on building the security wall, are all steps that Washington has publicly criticized, but it has not coupled them with punitive steps or serious pressure to dissuade Israel from stopping them. Linking American aid to Israel is considered taboo in Washington. The last person to try to do this by freezing loans to Israel was former Secretary of State James Baker during the era of the late President George H.W. Bush, who later lost the extension elections despite his success in the war to liberate Kuwait.

Bilateral relations between Israel and the United States are exceptional. There is a domestic political cost to the clash with Israel in Washington as a result of the support by political elites and the House and Senate that Israel enjoys in Washington. But the situation in Israel is somewhat different: the Israeli Prime Minister is keen on a good and close relationship with the White House, but the ability to confront the US President and Washington’s pressures has become subject to electoral consumption, as Netanyahu did when he tried to undermine the Iranian-American nuclear agreement during the era of former President Barack Obama.

Biden is advising Netanyahu, not opposing him

Today, Netanyahu repeats the same position in his response to American criticism of how he managed the Gaza war and what he is preparing for the aftermath of the war with regard to managing the Strip. Biden's criticism of the Israeli government as a result of the high number of civilian casualties has not yet gone beyond the framework of "correct," "concerned," and "sorry" for the civilian casualties, and it is not likely to turn into a serious clash between the White House and Netanyahu in the presidential election season.

The Gaza war and the amount of civilian casualties moved the American people and led to a rise in the number of critics of American policy at home and from individuals in government institutions. However, this did not lead to any change in policy. Rather, the change was limited to tone only, as official spokesmen began to express their regret over the fall of innocent victims, while Washington was known for sending weapons and using its veto power in the Security Council against any project calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

On the other hand, the anger of the Arab street and the timid criticism by Arab governments of Washington’s policy did not have any serious impact on the positions of the American administration in support of Israel, at least in support of a ceasefire and the introduction of humanitarian aid.

The pro-Palestinian movements that the United States witnessed recently were unprecedented, but it is too early to know the extent of their impact on policy makers in the United States. We are waiting for the results of the upcoming presidential and local elections to find out whether support for the Gaza war and absolute support for Israel have a political cost compared to the political cost for those who criticize Israel. 

Source: Assas Media