The Biden Administration's Support for Israel and the Need for Change

The United Nations General Assembly voted last week on a resolution demanding a “humanitarian ceasefire” in Gaza. Out of the 193-member body, 153 votes were in favor, and excluding the 23 abstentions, there were only 10 votes against. Two of those ten countries that voted against it were, as expected, Israel and the US. There was, of course, nothing surprising about Israel voting against it. All eyes were on what the other countries would do. Especially the US…

For those critical of US foreign policy, such a move from the US is not really expected. Nevertheless, the Biden administration's statements, which have been increasing in intensity for some time with the aim of drawing boundaries for Israel, created an expectation that the US might take a clearer stance. Some statements and actions, such as Vice President Kamala Harris's remark that “too many Palestinians have been killed” and the fruitless visit by National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan—whose views we have frequently featured in this column—to Israel to suggest that it “make its operations against Hamas more specific,” were fueling this expectation. However, as previously discussed in this column, these stemmed from the internal contradictions of the Biden administration.

Indeed, just last week, Biden made one of his clearest statements appearing to draw a line for Israel, noting that “indiscriminate bombing is starting to cost Israel support around the world.” According to him, “Bibi”—he felt the need to emphasize his closeness to Benjamin Netanyahu by using his nickname—“has to make a tough decision”: “I think he has to change, and with this government, this government in Israel is making it very difficult for him to move.”

Biden used the verb “change” here, perhaps knowingly or perhaps unknowingly, in a way that could mean both that Netanyahu himself needs to change and that he needs to change his government. For this reason, there were those, especially in Republican circles, who interpreted this as interfering in Israel's internal affairs.

However, this statement by Biden was made on the very day the US representative raised their hand to vote “no” against the resolution demanding a ceasefire at the UN General Assembly. In fact, the opposite was hardly possible for the US. While the US was trying to project the image of a power drawing boundaries for Israel—even though Netanyahu constantly terrorizes this image—voting in favor of a resolution against Israel at the UN General Assembly would have made it look like a country that cannot get its way with Israel otherwise and is therefore trying to convey messages through other platforms.

In any case, its stance in the General Assembly vote had already been clear a few days earlier during the vote on the resolution brought to the UN Security Council by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, invoking Article 99 of the UN Charter. The ceasefire call, which Guterres placed on the Security Council's agenda within the framework of the authority granted to UN Secretaries-General by the aforementioned article to bring “threats to international peace and security” to the agenda, was vetoed only by the US.

US officials, including Sullivan, whose views I have frequently featured, complain that pressing issues like the Palestinian question are being “exploited” by powers the US labels as “adversaries,” based on claims that the US-led international order cannot ensure international peace. US observers, on the other hand, argue that while the US warns Israel that it faces the threat of increasing global isolation, its unwavering support for Israel is what is essentially leaving the US facing the threat of increasing isolation from the world.

Conversely, it is observed that US officials are comfortable. They express this comfort by noting that their cooperation with countries that complain on other issues or areas has not been affected. They even argue that the continued support for Israel shows how determined the US is to protect even its most unpopular friends. On the other hand, they think that the complaints or objections rising from the leaders of the Arab world stem more from the need to appease their own domestic public opinion, which they are not entirely wrong about.

Nevertheless, they are increasingly proving how right the complaints are, how unsuccessful the US-led international order is in ensuring or maintaining international peace, and, on the contrary, how it makes international problems deeper and more intractable for the sake of maintaining the international balance in favor of the US. In this state, they may be comfortable for today, but in the medium and long term, they will find it increasingly difficult to generate consent on an international scale for the US-led international order. Biden, like Barack Obama, whom he served as vice president, uses the word “change,” but it does not seem limited to Netanyahu or his government that needs to change. The need for change in the world has not felt this heavy for a long time. From the structure of the UN to the international order and the world capitalist system upon which it rests…