“Abstention” is a deceptively diplomatic word, implying some sort of bureaucratic omission. And yet this week’s decision by the US to abstain from casting its veto in the UN Security Council turned a page in history. For the first time since the terrorist attack by Hamas against Israel on Oct. 7 last year — and after nixing three previous draft resolutions to this effect — Washington has allowed the council to call for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.
And so the US-Israeli relationship, long among the world’s tightest bilateral bonds, keeps fraying beyond recognition.
In December last year, I predicted that US President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu would break first gradually, then suddenly. Well, suddenly just came a lot closer.
The Biden administration tried to talk the abstention down, saying that there had been no “shift in policy” and pointing out that the resolution also calls for the release of all hostages. However, Bibi was still irate enough to cancel a trip by an Israeli delegation to Washington that was meant to patch things.
And yet his own war tactics and missing peace strategy forced the US and UN to reach this point (the other 14 members of the Security Council all voted in favor).
The Netanyahu government’s bombing of the Gaza Strip has, as Biden put it, been “indiscriminate” at times, its facilitation of humanitarian aid has been inadequate and its plans to invade the city of Rafah seem reckless. More than 1 million Gazan civilians, having fled their homes, are huddling there, alongside the remaining Hamas fighters who Israel wants (and ought) to eliminate.
However, a full-bore assault on Rafah would cause another humanitarian catastrophe, which is why US Vice President Kamala Harris was the latest Cabinet member to warn off Netanyahu.
She is “ruling out nothing” if Bibi still goes ahead, she added.
With the death toll in Gaza above 32,000 and rising, and famine imminent, the US seems finally to have drawn a red line.
If there was a psychological tipping point stateside, it came this month, when the US’ highest-ranking elected official of Jewish faith, US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, found controversial but moving words for this historical moment.
Israel “cannot survive if it becomes a pariah,” he said, adding that Netanyahu increasingly conflates his personal interests with Israel’s.
So Israel should hold new elections, Schumer suggested.
The senator left no doubt that he hopes a new Israeli government will exclude far-right extremists such as those in Netanyahu’s coalition and will instead join the US in working toward Palestinian statehood as the means to achieving peace one day.
Netanyahu and his US allies on the Republican right howled at what they called interference in the democratic politics of an ally. That is rich coming from Bibi, who has spent much of the past three decades trying to manipulate US politics. He has long cultivated links to the evangelical and nationalist American right. In 2015, he took up a Republican invitation to address a joint session of the US Congress in a snub to Barack Obama, the Democratic president at the time, who demonstratively failed to invite Bibi to the White House on the occasion.
Now there is talk again of Netanyahu addressing Congress.
Many Democrats this time say they would boycott the speech.
The reality is that US and Israeli politics have been intertwined for a long time and if one side wants to address the electorate of the other, the privilege must extend in the opposite direction as well. So let Bibi talk directly to Americans and Schumer or Biden to Israelis.
Even such back-and-forth, though, cannot distract from the fundamental asymmetry in the relationship. It is Israel that needs the US, not the other way around. The Jewish state relies on US diplomatic protection at the UN, the International Court of Justice and other institutions, and it needs US money, shells and bombs.
The US, for its part, cannot indefinitely supply those weapons if it then sees them dropped on Gazan combatants and civilians alike, in what might, according to non-governmental organizations, be violations of international humanitarian as well as US law.
And so the two governments appear to have boxed themselves in. Netanyahu last week told US Secretary of State Antony Blinken that Israel would invade Rafah and that “if necessary, we will do it alone,” even without US support.
Such a campaign would contravene repeated messages from the White House and now also the Security Council’s call for a ceasefire.
If that act went uncensured, it would make international law and the UN, which the US once helped build and which has already lost credibility, irrelevant. The US might as well walk away from its entire post-World War II legacy.
This is the tragedy of the moment. By the looks of it, Netanyahu will soon give the order to attack Rafah, killing more terrorists, but also causing even worse suffering for the 2 million civilians in the Gaza Strip, and even more isolation of Israel in the world.
The US will then have to answer, by restricting arms shipments and letting the UN condemn Israel. When that time comes, the US might not even abstain.
Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for The Economist.
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’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS