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?
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s