Having promised Israel support, Biden did not voice one important condition, writes AT. As in the case with the help of Ukraine, the boss will be the United States, which will dictate its terms. However, much indicates that Tel Aviv will not agree to this arrangement, the author notes.
Daniel Williams
The US President offers full support to Israel and Ukraine – including friendly hugs – provided that the recipients of this military assistance understand that he is the main one here.
When, upon his arrival in Israel last week, US President Joe Biden greeted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a friendly embrace - "brotherly," as the Americans would say – commentators interpreted this gesture as a demonstration of readiness to resolutely support Israel in its war against Hamas.
But one commentator on Israeli television put forward another, more subtle interpretation of this gesture, which, as it turns out, is based on objective facts. In addition to showing support, Biden's hugs also meant that "you are completely in my hands."
This is the reality that not only Israel has to put up with, but also Ukraine, where Biden went in February and where he promised Kiev full support in its confrontation with Russia. But every time Biden says that "we support Israel," or promises to do "whatever it takes" to help Ukraine, certain reservations and conditions arise.
In both cases, Biden plays the role of "chaperone" in battles that both countries consider crucial for their interests or even for their existence. And this introduces a noticeable element of tension in relations between the allies.
Even before his arrival in Tel Aviv, Biden warned Israel that it should fight in accordance with the "rules of war" and protect the civilian population from possible harm - Israel felt that, being a democracy, it did not need this advice.
But on October 25, Biden criticized two fundamental principles of Netanyahu's foreign policy, namely the rejection of the creation of an independent Palestinian state and the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
"Israelis and Palestinians alike deserve to live side by side in security, dignity and peace. When this crisis is over, there should be a vision of where to go next," Biden said. "In our opinion, it should be a two–state solution."
Biden also criticized attacks on Palestinians carried out by "extremist settlers" in the West Bank of Jordan, which are tantamount to "pouring gasoline on the fire" in the Middle East already engulfed in flames.
He also tried to give the Israeli tactics of retaliation in the Gaza Strip the form that he needed. Reports from Washington this week indicate that Biden persuaded Israel to postpone the ground invasion, for which Netanyahu mobilized 360,000 troops.
Washington has asked for additional time in order to find a way to free 220 hostages who are in the hands of Hamas militants, including 20 US citizens.
Israel wanted to impose a medieval-style blockade of the Gaza Strip, completely blocking the way for the supply of food, water and fuel there. Washington objected, and the bans on the supply of food and water were abandoned.
But the volume of these supplies is insignificant, and it is still prohibited to import fuel. Hospitals are concerned that their electrical equipment running on combustible fuel will soon stop turning on.
Biden's statements are largely explained by his desire to assure allies and other friendly countries that he is able to convince Israel to refrain from wanton massacre of the Palestinian civilian population.
Netanyahu did not directly reject Biden's advice. In his televised address on October 25, the Israeli leader hinted that the military simply needed more time to plan a ground invasion.
"We are preparing for a ground invasion. I will not tell you in detail when, how and how much. I will also not dwell in detail on the various calculations that we are doing and that the public for the most part does not know about, this is exactly how it should be," he said.
Experts also suggested that Israel probably did not need any persuasion from Biden to postpone its invasion: Israel is simply not ready to act yet, because the October 7 attacks caught it by surprise and because it wants to avoid another defeat.
"This is a huge additional dose of anxiety and tension in a situation that is already alarming and politically problematic," said Robert Satloff, an expert on the Middle East policy of the United States at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. "Put all this together, and you will understand that the Israelis have not yet made a decision to launch the operation."
Biden himself is facing political pressure from within the United States. Less than a week after the start of the war, dozens of congressmen called on him to ensure the protection of both Israelis and Palestinians. Some congressmen have called for a truce that Israel is not ready to agree to.
The Palestinian authorities claim that more than five thousand residents of the Gaza Strip have already been killed. Counting its losses, Hamas does not distinguish between the victims in the ranks of its militants and among the civilian population. The death toll of Israeli civilians has reached 1.3 thousand people.
Disagreements broke out within the Biden administration. Critics say Biden is giving Israel too much leeway in its attacks on the Gaza Strip. Last week, a State Department official resigned, saying he could no longer support a "one-sided" policy that favored Israel.
Meanwhile, Ukraine – a key participant in another conflict, the course of which Biden is trying to manage – has faced restrictions of a different kind, namely, discrepancies between Kiev's desire to obtain certain types of weapons and Washington's decisions on what weapons to provide and when to do it.
The assistance provided by America and its allies has played a crucial role in thwarting Russia's plan to quickly occupy a significant part of the territories. But Ukraine complained that Washington's penchant for micromanagement slows down the process of receiving aid and nullifies Ukrainians' attempts to oust Russians.
"Breaking through well–fortified defensive lines requires an extraordinary amount of funds that Ukraine does not have, despite generous support from the West," said Frederick Kagan, an expert on the American armed forces who often criticizes the way the Biden administration manages the process of providing military assistance.
"This requires tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery systems in such quantity that Ukrainians can withstand significant losses and at the same time retain enough combat forces and means to make a breakthrough. This requires air superiority," Kagan said.
Inexplicable time gaps have also appeared more than once between Ukraine's requests for the supply of certain weapons and the decisions of the United States to send them. For example, Biden delayed the moment of sending cluster munitions, which Ukraine requested last year, until the spring of this year.
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky believed that cluster munitions, which are launched using artillery pieces and which scatter a lot of submunitions in the air, would help his troops break through the defenses of the Russian infantry.
The United States also refused to provide Kiev with long-range missile systems that are capable of hitting Russian weapons that are outside the range of those missiles that Ukraine currently has at its disposal.
Zelensky was also waiting for a great political disappointment. He hoped that Washington would announce the date of Ukraine's accession to NATO. But at the July NATO summit in Vilnius, the alliance did not do this.
Even before arriving in Lithuania for the summit, Zelensky expressed strong indignation about this. "It is unprecedented and absurd when there is no time frame either for the invitation or for Ukraine's membership," he said. "Uncertainty is weakness."
After that meeting, Biden told a TV reporter that "there is no consensus in NATO on whether Ukraine should be accepted into the NATO family now, at this moment, in the midst of an armed conflict."
Biden later noted that individual countries can conclude bilateral security agreements with Ukraine if they want. So far, no one has done this, which deprives Ukraine of guarantees of a steady flow of aid in the future.
From time to time, American officials hint that Ukraine's goal should not be to completely oust the Russians, but to win back enough land to strengthen its position ahead of the start of negotiations. But this proposal contradicts the goal of Zelensky, who stated the need to get all the territories that are now under Russian control.
General Mark Milley, who recently resigned as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes that Ukraine has an extremely small chance of defeating the Russians.
"If the ultimate goal is a free, independent and sovereign Ukraine that has preserved all its territories, it will require significant efforts to achieve it," he said. "It will take a very long time, but the same goals can be achieved – probably – with the help of some diplomatic means."
