Joe Biden’s criticism of Beniamin Netanyahu, calling his handling of the invasion in Gaza a “mistake” and pushing him to agree to a “six or eight week” ceasefire, is the latest sign of growing international frustration and rejection. towards the Government of Israel.
The chilling number of civilians killed in the strip by Israeli attacks; the obstacles to the entry of aid; the insistence on invading the Rafah area, where 1.5 million Palestinians take refuge; and the attack against seven collaborators, most of them foreigners, of the NGO World Central Kitchen (WCK) are dissolving the permissiveness enjoyed by the Jewish State.
Faced with this external pressure – which still does not go beyond harsher rhetoric – Netanyahu is exercising his usual strategy: announcing measures that take time to materialize and issuing explosive statements that move the focus of attention.
Forced by the United States and Western anger after the massacre of WCK workers, the Israeli prime minister reported a week ago that he would temporarily allow the opening of the Erez border crossing and the use of the port of Ashdod to facilitate the direct entry of aid north of Gaza, where famine caused by the Israeli blockade has already killed at least 32 people, according to local health authorities.
But that decision has not yet been finalized and, according to army radio, the Ministry of Defense would choose not to open Erez for fear that extremist Jewish protesters would prevent access to aid, as has already happened at the Kerem Pass. Shalom. Instead, it would enable an alternative “less central” step to make protests more difficult. Likewise, Israel has reported an increase in the entry of trucks into the Palestinian enclave, following the call between Netanyahu and Biden. But Doctors Without Borders has denounced that “humanitarian aid is much more than counting trucks” and that the circulation of more vehicles is part of the “distractions designed to create an illusion of help.”
The Israeli premier follows a similar modus operandi regarding the next offensive in Gaza. On the one hand, he keeps his team in Cairo for ceasefire negotiations and accuses Hamas of being intransigent in its demands. On the other hand, he threatens Rafah with a hypothetical fixed date, which discourages the Islamist group and challenges its allies.
This tendency to delay is a double-edged sword, as it exposes Israel to unprecedented international isolation. Türkiye, with whom it has tense ties, decided to cut off Israeli imports until the invasion of Gaza ends. In the United States, Democratic congressmen, including Nancy Pelosi, have signed a letter calling on Biden to stop arms transfers to Israel. And France’s foreign minister hinted that there could be sanctions if the flow of aid into Gaza is not accelerated.
Even so, in his gestures and speech, Netanyahu appears more concerned about responding to internal pressure than external pressure. The ultra-nationalist and ultra-religious wing of his coalition, on which his political survival depends, demands that he carry out the raid on Rafah and not accept a pact with Hamas that does not include the release of all the hostages at the same time.
“It is difficult to get the impression that Netanyahu has made a strategic decision in favor of an agreement. It is possible that in reality the situation is the opposite: under the pretext of pressure, he is avoiding a decision that could cost him a considerable political price,” writes Amos Harel, columnist for the Hebrew daily Haaretz.
An agreement, regardless of what has to be given in exchange, is the demand of the relatives of the kidnapped, who have escalated the protests by mixing with citizens who before October 7 were asking for the resignation of the premier and who are dissatisfied with this “war.” . To everything, for now, Netanyahu turns a deaf ear.
This obstructionism is also seen in other sources of internal conflict. His government continues to fail to respond to a Supreme Court ruling and citizens’ demands to define a new plan on exemptions from military conscription for ultra-Orthodox Jews, whose parties also threaten to overthrow the Executive if they are forced to go to rows.
And his circumstantial companion in the war cabinet, Benny Gantz, has broken the tacit consensus created after October 7 by demanding that early elections be called in September, something that, according to Netanyahu, would be a favor for Hamas.
Faced with these more serious pressures, Israel, not just Netanyahu, navigates an uncertain course between an invasion with no end in sight in Gaza, the prospects of a broader conflict with Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Iran’s retaliation for its attack in Syria.
