President Joe Biden is not happy with Israel and in particular, he is unhappy with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
The disagreement between America and Israel is a highly important news item. Media outlets put it on the front pages. The issue may have even eclipsed the unfolding border disaster as the public’s most pressing concern, and perhaps not by accident.
Yet, one is hard-pressed not to notice the president is also unhappy with Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Before the displeasure with Israel came to the forefront, many of the same front pages were filled with similar pieces suggesting Ukraine’s military setbacks are due to misguided leadership and a refusal to listen to the generous and sound American advice.
Readers are hard-pressed to believe that judgment is an American forte. The blame game is undoubtedly related to the 2024 presidential election. American politics is local and in the election year, it becomes micro.
Yet, this is not the only explanation for the urge to criticize the allies. There is a much deeper structural problem with American foreign policy that nobody likes to discuss, but which at times is impossible to hide or ignore.
Regardless of who is in the White House, Democrat or Republican, a hawk or a dove, American foreign policy is strategic in its goals and tactical in its implementation. The goal is to outlast the foe or foes, not to defeat them on the battlefield unless directly attacked. Every administration believes the strength of the American economy, the durability of its institutions and the strength of the people make time work for America. Time and again that vision has been proven correct.
Every administration believes conflicts are expensive and unnecessary as they don’t contribute much to an eventual and inevitable defeat of the enemy by time and American stamina. One may argue history supports that view.
For a few exceptions like Korea, American direct involvement or even support of prolonged conflicts — Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan — has diminished U.S. resolve and contributed little to the strategic goal. America prefers to bring conflicts to a quick close. In its view, if the victory is not quick then the potential negatives, such as conflict escalation, the necessity of American involvement and increased financial support outweigh all other considerations.
That desire to quickly end conflicts makes the United States in the eyes of its allies an unreliable and capricious partner. American enemies, the dictatorships, Russia, Iran and China, build their credibility by standing by their allies at any cost, especially if that cost is in human lives. America always thinks of expanding its circle of allies. It uses the fear of conflicts to expand its circle of friends by trying to act even-handedly, even when friends are involved. And there have been a few instances when the approach produced the desired results. However, this tactic puts American friends in an untenable situation.
Israel and Ukraine have a very small margin of error. America does not think of both conflicts as detrimental to its own survival, though they may well be. America does not care, though it does not mind, if Israel defeats Hamas in Gaza or Ukraine forces Russia to withdraw. It cares about making conflicts manageable, which means stopping the hostilities and “freezing” the conflicts. If that unstable peace leads to a slow decline of the ally or even its eventual demise, then that is something regrettable, but not consequential for America to eventually prevail.
It’s been long argued that the wars Israel wages should be quick and decisive because of the country’s limited material and human resources. Actually, the more important reason for Israel’s wars to be rapid is American timidity. And the war in Gaza is showing the complete lack of American resolve.
The same American hesitancy clearly presents itself in Ukraine. There the administration explains its behaviors as trying to avoid a nuclear conflict with Russia. In reality, the nuclear argument is nothing more than a fig leaf to its real desires to quickly end the conflict. Had Iran come to possess nuclear weapons, the same reasoning would be used in the context of the Israel-Hamas war. Fortunately, Iran does not, but that provides Israel a window into the future.
The only conclusion Israel may draw from observing current American behavior in Gaza and Ukraine is that it must defeat Hamas now.
The conquest of Rafah must happen now regardless of American wishes, because it is detrimental to Israel’s existence. If it does not happen now because Joe Biden does not like it, it will not happen in the future because another president will be afraid of Iranian nukes.
America has many Israels to lose. That is a normal view of a superpower looking at the “big picture”. But Israel has only itself to lose. Moving forward with a complete destruction of Hamas is the only right decision if Israel wants to survive and persevere. And as history teaches us no correct decision is an easy one.
In the dangerous world of today, American friends will start acting more and more with a disregard to American wishes. Joe Biden may continue pretending to be Israel’s best friend, but Israel needs to stay alive.
Lev Stesin is a founding member of San Francisco Voices for Israel.