NEW YORK – After yet another Middle Eastern tour by Secretary of State Antony Blinken – during which he warned that an Israeli offensive in Rafah would be a “mistake that would further isolate you in the world” – tomorrow it will be the turn of the Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant visit Washington: his first American trip since the attack on October 7th.
He will meet his counterpart Lloyd Austin, national security advisor Sullivan and once again Blinken: to discuss further how to proceed with that war on which the two allied countries now have increasingly divergent opinions. Also because the war in Gaza is entering the American election campaign more and more heavily, weighing on Joe Biden’s approval within his party: giving rise to well-founded fears of a heavy impact on the November presidential elections.
And in fact in recent weeks we have been witnessing a real change of direction on the American side: which has its peak in the resolution presented to the United Nations last week in which the United States asked, for the first time, for an “immediate ceasefire and prolonged” if Hamas releases all the hostages. Blocked by China and Russia, the resolution will be put to the vote again today. But in the meantime the question that analysts are increasingly asking themselves is what type of pressure the White House intends to exert on Israel if it continues to ignore their requests.
Tools aimed at convincing Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to grant more humanitarian aid to the citizens of Gaza who are now exhausted, slow down the military campaign or even prevent the invasion of Rafah where over a million Palestinians are refugees.
If he were to choose to do so, Biden will not even be the first president to put pressure on Israel: remember the New York Times that from Gerald Ford to George Bush senior, in the past four administrations have already refused (or threatened to refuse) some form of aid or agreement.
The main lever in the hands of the president in office is certainly that which concerns the delivery of weapons of which the United States is the main supplier. Israel needs it badly: it is in fact running out of ammunition, despite the fact that 15 thousand bombs and 57 thousand Made in USA artillery shells have been delivered to it since October. This is exactly what Gallant would like to talk about in Austin: according to some sources, he will ask for accelerated approval of previous commissions of F-15 fighter planes and, note, a large batch of ammunition. Well, if Biden ordered a slowdown or even blocking of these deliveries, the message to Israeli leaders would be clear.
In this sense, eight Democratic senators have already signed a letter to Biden sent on March 11, where they urged him to slow down – if not slow down – deliveries by limiting themselves to supplies of defensive weapons such as interceptor missiles for the Israeli Iron Dome. A request based on the memorandum published in February by the Biden administration, where precise standards of behavior are asked of countries that receive weapons from the United States, including respect for international humanitarian law. Also invoking the violation of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, according to which the United States cannot provide weapons to those who “prohibit or limit the transportation or delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid”.
Another lever that the White House can use is to no longer offer its important diplomatic shield to the United Nations. So far, the Biden administration has in fact protected Israel from any type of condemnation or resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire. While less US support in this sense would expose Israel to more powerful and demanding formal denunciations. Since the beginning of the war, the United States has exercised its veto power three times in the UN Security Council, blocking resolutions that called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. Now that patience seems to be running out, they are the ones to table a resolution to this effect. A more than clear message.
Finally, there remains the possibility of applying sanctions, this time to Israeli officials, after they were imposed on March 14 on three settlers accused of “extremist violence”. Such measures, however, would be aimed more at curbing Israel’s actions in the West Bank – where the current government is encouraging settlement expansion at the expense of the Palestinians – than at slowing down military operations in Gaza. Certainly, at the end of February Blinken said he considered the new Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories “inconsistent with international law”.