Two months after the outbreak of the Iron Sword War, it seems that Israel and the United States do not see eye to eye on the goals of the war in Gaza, even though at first everything looks promising. "We stand with Israel," President Biden stressed in his speech, three days after the Oct. 7 massacre, adding, "We will make sure that Israel has what it needs to take care of its citizens, to defend itself and to respond to an attack."
Biden's statement was repeated after his visit to Israel, and senior US administration officials made similar statements. The people of Israel felt the security and backing that "Uncle Sam" gave them, and went to fight Hamas, but knew that credit was limited and that the sand on the clock was running out.
First came the American demand to continue supplying water and electricity to the Gaza Strip. This is followed by the need to deliver humanitarian aid, and then the demand to provide fuel to Gaza. From 80 trucks, we reached 200, and a total refusal turned into Hamas' enjoyment of a regular supply of 120,<> liters of fuel a day, and the hand is still tilted, because the Americans connect Gaza to the West Bank, and also demand the entry of Palestinian workers from it into Israel.
One cannot doubt the sincerity of the U.S. desire to help Israel's war effort, but, as noted, something creaks in the relationship between the two. The person who clarified the US administration's position about a week ago was Kamala Harris. In a speech at the Dubai climate summit, the vice president outlined the five U.S. guidelines for the day after the Gaza war. Four of them concerned Palestinian rights, and only the last vague rule – "Gaza will no longer serve as a base for terror" – dealt with Israeli interests. So yes, last Friday the US vetoed a resolution that prevented the UN Security Council from implementing a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. But it came at a price: Israel had to compromise, and a lot, in order to get American support.
This is not the first time that rounds of war have led to serious disputes between Jerusalem and Washington. During the Sinai War, the US forced Israel to withdraw completely from Sinai, with strong condemnations and threats of sanctions. At the end of the War of Attrition, due to American demands, Israel was forced to accept the missile wall that Egypt had built in the Canal, in violation of the ceasefire. Three years later, these missiles exploded on the Israeli Air Force during the Yom Kippur War. Incidentally, at the end of that war, Washington prevented a complete Egyptian defeat by threatening that if the IDF did not stop the fighting, President Nixon would "consider disengaging from Israel."
On the other hand, twice Israel knew how to stand its ground, took its fate in its own hands and set aside the American response: during the Six Days and the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq. And it is precisely at these times, faced with the possibility of heavy punishment, that Israel has fully achieved its goals.
Rochelle should make it clear that the American desire to increase humanitarian aid, which goes almost entirely to the terrorist organization, leads to a further extension of the war beyond the desired time frame
Does every insistence on principles require a confrontation between Washington and Jerusalem? Absolutely not. On the contrary, solidarity from the White House provides room for Israeli advocacy regarding the importance of occupying the Gaza Strip and undermining Hamas' capabilities – two goals that require time and patience. Jerusalem should also make it clear that it is precisely the American desire to increase humanitarian aid, which goes almost entirely to the terrorist organization, that leads to a further extension of the war beyond the desired time frame.
At the same time, together with the ground operation, Israel must once again link the provision of humanitarian aid to the release of the hostages, or at least the receipt of information about their situation. Finally, with all the goodwill of the Americans to avoid harming innocent people, Israel should not realize this interest at the expense of its soldiers. Hamas is the one fighting from within the civilian population, and if it wants to be saved, it must evacuate the combat zones.
"What we discovered in 1973 has not changed," said Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel. The dependence is known, but there are moments when Israel needs to draw red lines, even vis-à-vis its ally.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us