Israel’s far-right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, announced on Thursday that he told the White House he would not accept a Palestinian state after the war, nor cede security control of any territory west of the Jordan River. “The prime minister needs to be capable of saying ‘no’ to our friends,” Netanyahu added, pointedly.
Yet that sentiment cuts both ways. The US, Israel’s staunchest and most important ally, has repeatedly attempted to discuss “day-after” scenarios with Israel and potential paths toward a two-state solution that include both a future Palestinian state and considerations for Israel’s security, only to be rebuffed.
When US Secretary of State Antony Blinken returned to Israel in the middle of this month for the fifth time since the Oct. 7 attacks, he brought a definitive message from Saudi Arabia to Netanyahu: The Saudis are ready to recognize Israel — only if Israel finally recognizes a Palestinian state by its side and starts implementing a plan to make it so.
However, Israel’s rightwing-led government opposes such a path. Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas’ weakened regime also lacks the power to deliver this vision in the parts of the West Bank that the Palestinian Authority controls, let alone in Hamas-controlled and war-ravaged Gaza. Nor, of course, is Hamas willing to lay down its arms.
A path toward long-term peace would be a monumentally historic achievement for US President Joe Biden’s administration. The question is how to get there.
The first challenge is moving Israel past Netanyahu’s toxic reign. That is the only way to reach the second step, which is to bring all of the Arab states — including Qatar, which sponsors Hamas, and the Saudis, who are key to the Palestinian future — together with the US and the EU to bolster a plan for Palestinian self-rule along with Israeli security.
Just as Blinken left Israel, a weekly poll there showed that public support for Netanyahu has continued to erode. Asked whom they support, Israelis responded as they have since the outbreak of the war: If an election were held, Benjamin Gantz’s National Unity Party would swamp Netanyahu’s far-right Likud party.
Trends continue to point toward Gantz beating Netanyahu and being able to gather a government without Likud or the hard-right parties. That government would at the very least take the idea of regional peace agreements seriously, along with the word of the Biden administration.
A more forceful US approach, importantly, would give inspiration to the abundance of Israelis seeking new elections. Biden could get elected as the prime minister of Israel in a minute. To Israelis, he is one of the most popular US presidents since Israeli statehood was declared.
The compassion he has shown toward Israelis since the Oct. 7 attacks, along with the delivery of arms and other financial support, might have hurt his standing among some US progressives, but have made him more popular in Israel than any global leader — and more popular than many Israeli leaders, including Netanyahu.
Biden must leverage his popularity for US geopolitical interests.
First, he must continue to achieve necessary US policy goals: a cessation of the war, with agreement between Hamas and Israel to release all of the hostages, dead and alive, back to Israel as soon as possible, along with a credible day-after scenario. This means making clear to the Israeli government that an end-game for the war needs to be established. The US needs to tell Netanyahu that Israel does not have a green light for indefinite war without resolution, as Netanyahu has hinted that he might pursue. Blinken has been in Davos, Switzerland, last week at the World Economic Forum, once again promoting a day-after scenario that Netanyahu refuses to entertain.
Accordingly, Biden must state clearly and publicly what the US’ red lines are. That includes the US publicly criticizing statements by Israeli ministers who continue to call for reoccupation of Gaza, or vague plans promoted by the Netanyahu government to ask local family clans in Gaza to take over civil administration there, while Israel controls everything else.
That also includes demanding that Israel actually transfer the tax revenue it collects for the Palestinian Authority to the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli finance minister is refusing this transfer even as he is using his office to funnel aid to Jewish settlements in the West Bank. As Biden administration officials seek to reform the Palestinian Authority — to rid it of corruption, promote internal elections and revamp its institutions for better governance — it should also encourage other donors to do the same, openly and publicly.
It is time for Biden to speak directly to the Israelis through Israeli media, not just through indirect and closed diplomatic doors or press leaks, to clarify that there must be a political pathway opened between Israel and Palestinians. He could offer Israelis the Biden vision for their future, go on Israeli television and speak truth to a public exhausted with Netanyahu’s distortions.
He must also stand firm about getting urgent and large-scale emergency humanitarian aid into Gaza. The Israeli public, hardened and fearful after the Oct. 7 attacks, is being shielded by self-censoring Israeli media — especially televised press — from the full realities of civilian deaths in Gaza and the grave humanitarian disaster there.
In speaking directly to Israelis, Biden could say: We are with the Israelis — but as a global leader, we are also with Palestinians. This is about children on both sides of this war, the US president must say. It is in the US and global interest to ratchet back moves by actors and nations such as Iran to turn this into a wider regional war. This means necessary engagement with and support for a future for Palestinians, in addition to security for Israel.
As long as Netanyahu and his allies hold power, they must be held fully accountable for their actions counter to US interests. None of this is easy. Biden confronts an Israeli leader holding onto his seat for dear life, as Netanyahu, in addition to the war, tries to ride out domestic criminal corruption charges. Biden must also deal with a sharply divided US Congress in an election year — not to mention an election opponent, former US president Donald Trump — all of which he would face if he more forcefully challenges Netanyahu.
However, Biden enjoys wide support among Jewish Americans; Netanyahu is as unpopular among this population as he is among Israelis. Listen to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who in November last year told NBC News that Netanyahu is “a terrible leader” who “has driven Israel to an extreme that has been bad for Israel and bad for the stability in the Middle East.”
Shapiro added that he considers Hamas “pure evil,” but also that “‘How do we create a two-state solution?’ is a conversation that needs to be had right now, led by the US.”
By virtue of the US’ longstanding relationship with Israel, as well as Biden’s own heavy political and security investments, he has a significant stake in this conflict. He has both the responsibility to assert US interests more forcefully and the incentive to see an outcome that could finally lead the two peoples on a path to peace.
A second-term Biden administration could forge a foreign policy legacy — a durable path toward two states — that has eluded numerous US administrations.
However, first, there must be a credible end to this war that is negotiated toward providing security to Israel, along with a hopeful future for Palestinians.
Jo-Ann Mort writes frequently about Israel/Palestine for a range of publications. She is the co-author of Our Hearts Invented a Place: Can Kibbutzim Survive in Today’s Israel?
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS