Photo: The White House

The Deepening Differences with the U.S. Could be Harmful to Israel

March, 2024

Israel is on a collision course with the U.S. due to the conflict between the strategy outlined by President Biden and the policy paper published by Prime Minister Netanyahu. The U.S. President is offering Israel a political, military, and economic steel dome that includes the establishment of a strategic axis to counter the aggravating threat posed by Iran. At its core is a historical opportunity for normalization with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Arab and Muslim world – an alliance against Iran, as it becomes a nuclear threshold state, and the firewall it has built, at the center of which is a varied ballistic threat and proxies across the Middle East, such as Hizballah and the Houthis. In contrast, Netanyahu’s document lacks an exit strategy, proposes perpetuating Israeli military control of Gaza, and formulates no acceptable plan for governing it, while ignoring the threats posed by Iran and its allies.

The absence of a strategy and its implications

The damage caused by the cracks forming in the relations between the Biden administration and Netanyahu’s government is already palpable. In the absence of an exit strategy from Gaza, the IDF’s accomplishments could gradually erode, dragging Israel to direct control of Gaza in such a way as to hold it accountable for the humanitarian crisis evolving there. Such a development would be detrimental to Israel’s strategic relationships with its allies in the international arena and Arab world. An exacerbation in the humanitarian state of affairs in Gaza would also intensify the risks posed by the legal proceedings in the international courts in the Hague. In fact, Israel could, as per Biden’s warning, end up losing international support, and becoming isolated at a time when it is in dire need of continued international and Arab support in view of the difficulties encountered while attempting to formulate an agreement for the release of the hostages, growing security volatility in the West Bank during the month of Ramadhan, increasing concern over full-scale war in the north, and Iran having positioned itself as a nuclear threshold state.

The postwar Gaza plan presented by Prime Minister Netanyahu demonstrates just how deep the gap is between him and President Biden. The paper lacks political vision and broad strategy, focuses solely on the Gaza Strip, and fails to address the aggravating threat posed by Iran or the state of affairs in Northern Israel and the West Bank. The document only contains general principles and objectives, offering ambiguous solutions, and ignoring the positions held by Israel’s global and regional allies. It distinguishes between security control and governance, while attempting to give local parties responsibility over civic matters, despite the fact that the international community and regional countries have made it clear that they view Israel alone as accountable for preventing a humanitarian crisis, as demonstrated by their response to the aid truck incident. The plan also avoids naming any entity that could be acceptable to the international community and Arab world responsible.

Thus, Netanyahu’s paper is in striking contrast to President Biden’s strategic perception. At the heart of the American plan lies the establishment of a regional alliance between Israel and the Arab countries, as well as the normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia as means of countering the radical axis led by Iran. It emphasizes that Hamas will no longer rule Gaza, while supporting a gradual transfer of responsibility to the revitalized Palestinian Authority, and the outlining of a path leading to the two-state solution. The U.S. administration views the formulation of an agreement for the hostages’ release as the key to a door opening onto a new regional reality – a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, that will likely lead to a ceasefire in the north too. Under such circumstances, the U.S. administration will be able to present its grand plan, while promoting understandings that would push Hizballah forces back north of the Litani River.

It is concerned, however, that if such a deal will not be reached, the likelihood of multifrontal escalation in Gaza, the West Bank, and northern Israel will increase. In this context, Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant has warned that Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas seek to advance the second stage of the plan begun on October 7 during Ramadhan, igniting a full-fledged religion-based conflict.

In view of the concern over broad and rapid deterioration, the U.S. administration has increased the political, military, and economic pressure exerted on Prime Minister Netanyahu in recent days. President Biden declared that, should Netanyahu’s conservative government continue in its present conduct, it could lose the broad international support it had garnered to date. He also said that Netanyahu is "hurting Israel more than helping Israel". In addition, Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader in the U.S. Senate, said that "Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost his way by allowing his political survival to take precedence over the best interests of Israel.”

The U.S. administration also demanded that Israel provide a guarantee that the use of American weapons in Gaza will comply with U.S. standards and the international law, and that it would enable humanitarian aid to be brought into Gaza. Following this demand, the Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, signed a letter of commitment to the American government. Furthermore, there were few reports claimimg that the United States was considering forbidding Israel from using American weapons in its operation in Rafah.

Moreover, President Biden announced a plan to build a temporary pier in Gaza to allow a huge increase in supplying humanitarian aid to the Palestinian civilians. The U.S. administration has also begun to airdrop humanitarian aid in the northern Gaza Strip . These steps reflect the administration's apprehension with Israel’s conduct, and its distrust that the latter would be willing to promote a fundamental and sustainable solution for the growing humanitarian distress in Gaza.

Implications

Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing a decision that harbors fateful implications for Israel – prosperity and strategic strengths or multidimensional weakness. Integrating into the broad regional processes led by the U.S. administration, including within the Palestinian system, would enable the establishment of a strategic U.S.-Israeli-Arab axis to counter the Iranian one. Such a development would give Israel the latitude it requires to continue with the military actions designed to destroy Hamas rule, while altering the security reality on its northern border.

However, time is not on Israel’s side, and could certainly be crucial for the hostages. Continuing with this war without presenting a clear strategic plan could erode the remarkable military feats achieved in Gaza, and crack the American steel dome, while destabilizing relations with the Arab peace camp states.

Under such circumstances, the Arab countries’ involvement and investment of resources required to reconstruct the Gaza Strip are likely to be denied. This could mean that Israel would be forced to gain direct control of Gaza – a disaster-stricken zone, the rehabilitation of which would require investing enormous resources. In fact, direct control of Gaza would become a military, economic, and political burden. Such a development would cause severe detriment to Israel’s relationships with the United States and Arab countries, require its security forces to attend to the local population’s everyday needs, and compromise the IDF’s ability to prepare for challenges in other arenas. Direct Israeli control of Gaza could further weaken the Palestinian Authority, the status and governing ability of which is already feeble, while also harming the crucial collaborations with the Palestinian security apparatuses that help thwart terrorism in the West Bank.

Recommendations

The Israeli government is required to avoid taking steps in Jerusalem’s holy sites, especially during the explosive month of Ramadhan, that could lead to religious conflict. From a practical perspective, it should ensure that any sanctions employed are based strictly on security considerations. At the same time, any detriment to Israel’s strategic relationships with Egypt and Jordan must be avoided, and the collaborations with the Arab peace camp states enhanced. These ties form a crucial component in Israel’s security architecture, as well as its ability to contend with the threat posed by Iran, and shape the reality in Gaza in the aftermath of this war.

Ultimately, as a lesson learned from the long-lasting containment policy fostered vis-à-vis Iran, Hizballah, and Hamas, Israel must embrace a strategic view that would curb their force buildup processes by formulating an exit strategy that would provide an appropriate response to the multifrontal and multidimensional risks and opportunities that Israel is currently facing. It seems to be the only way that would enable Israel to get back on the track of overall strategic power, achieve the objectives it set out for this war against Hamas, create a new security regime up north, and prepare to curb Iran’s empowerment via combined political-military actions. Furthermore, contrary to former delusions, the issue of the Palestinians can no longer be ignored. Israel must fit into the efforts led by the United States and Arab countries to integrate the revitalized Palestinian Authority into the “day after” processes. Otherwise, the absence of an exit strategy alongside increasing humanitarian distress in the Gaza Strip could turn into a bleak strategic reality, and erode the remarkable military feats already achieved.

This document was written by the team of the Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS)

Executive Director: Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilead

Editted by Dr. Shay Har-Zvi, Senior Fellow, Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS), Reichman University.

By the Institute for Policy and Strategy Team, IPS,

Authored by the Institute for Policy and Strategy Team, IPS, Executive Director Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilead

If you wish to receive the weekly brief regularly, please follow the link to register.

Back to the newsletter >>