Back in 2001, in a visit to the illegal West Bank settlement of Ofra, an out-of-office Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently unaware he was being recorded, boasted to his hosts that “America is a thing you can move very easily — move it in the right direction.”
At the time, Mr. Netanyahu was talking about his experience with the Clinton White House; he had undermined Washington-led peace efforts during his first stint as Israel’s prime minister. But more than 20 years later, Mr. Netanyahu’s assessment feels uncomfortably familiar.
Since the Biden administration pledged its early and unwavering support to Israel following Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks, Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly slow-walked Washington’s behind-the-scenes requests regarding the war, including that Israel use greater restraint in prosecuting its war in Gaza, avoid provoking a broader regional conflagration and work to forge a postwar path toward peace.
As a result, as the war has entered its fourth month, the Biden administration has achieved almost none of its goals regarding Israeli policies and actions. More than 23,000 Palestinians, including over 10,000 children, have been killed so far, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, and the threat of mass starvation and disease looms. Israel’s government has rejected any horizon for peace, and, after an initial pause in fighting and a hostage/prisoner exchange, such talks seem now to be at an impasse. The only “success” the United States can claim is in its steadfast support for Israel. And yet the unconditional nature of that backing stands in the way of any prospect of achieving its other policy goals and finding a path out of this horror.
It’s true that in recent days, Israel has signaled a certain shift in its war strategy, using fewer troops and focusing more on central and southern Gaza. These steps appear partly driven by the need to keep down Israeli losses in the close quarters of urban combat, to offer some relief to Israel’s suffering economy — and possibly in preparation for an escalation on Israel’s northern border. Such shifts don’t seem intended to dial back the snowballing regional tensions, nor will they prevent the increasing humanitarian suffering. President Biden has sounded increasingly exasperated by developments on all of these fronts, frustrations echoed in comments by his secretary of state, Antony Blinken, during his latest visit to the region.
Rather than slowly amplifying expressions of disquiet, Team Biden should make a course correction — starting with exercising the very real diplomatic and military leverage at its disposal to move Israel in the direction of U.S. interests, rather than vice versa.
The first and most critical shift required is for the administration to embrace the need for a full cease-fire now. That demand cannot be one of rhetoric alone. The administration should condition the transfer of further military supplies on Israel ending the war and stopping the collective punishment of the Palestinian civilian population, and should create oversight mechanisms for the use of American weaponry that is already at Israel’s disposal. Ending Israel’s Gaza operation is also the surest way to avoid a regional war and the key to concluding negotiations for the release of hostages.
Washington can also leverage the deliberations underway at the International Court of Justice, where South Africa has accused Israel of being in violation of its obligations as a signatory to the 1948 international genocide convention. Israel is demonstrably nervous about the proceedings and understands that an International Court of Justice ruling has heft; indeed, South Africa may have already done more to change the course of events than three months of American hand-wringing. The Biden administration does not need to support the South African claims, but it can and should commit to being guided by any findings of the court.
Finally, the United States should desist from making endless ritual incantations about a future two-state outcome, which are all too easily brushed off by Mr. Netanyahu. It should take at face value his government’s categorical rejection of Palestinian statehood and its written coalition guidelines that assert “the Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right to all parts of the Land of Israel.” Washington should instead challenge Israel to set out a proposal for how all those living under its control will be guaranteed equality, enfranchisement and other civil rights.
Doing so could have the added benefit of challenging Mr. Netanyahu’s position. Although he appears to have consolidated his political base for now, his governing majority would be lost with just a handful of defections. Only around 15 percent of Israelis want Mr. Netanyahu to remain in power after this war ends, according to recent polls, and street protests could reignite at any moment.
For a combination of ideological, military and personal political reasons, Mr. Netanyahu probably doesn’t want this war to end. And while his demise is not a panacea for progress — nor can it be an explicit U.S. goal — it is nevertheless a prerequisite for creating the conditions under which Palestinian rights can be advanced. The United States can and should distance itself from the Gaza debacle and the extremism of Israel’s leaders.
If Washington does not change its approach, its failures in this war will have consequences, even beyond the immediate crisis in Gaza, the hostilities involving the Houthis in Yemen and the gathering threat of a wider regional conflict.
The world, after all, is watching, and Washington should not underestimate the extent to which the extremely unpopular assault on Gaza is seen globally as not only Israel’s war, but America’s as well. The U.S. government’s transfer of arms to Israel and the political-diplomatic cover it provides, including by deploying or threatening its veto at the United Nations Security Council, makes its ownership of this war highly conspicuous — and damaging.
There are long-term security implications, too. The callous Israeli military campaign and its profound impact on civilians will almost certainly provide recruitment material for armed resistance for years to come. Arab countries will find cooperation and normalizing relations with Israel more burdensome, and Israel’s opponents are gaining greater resonance: Hamas displaying resilience, the Houthis an impressive disruptive capacity and Hezbollah disciplined restraint.
With Israel making clear in word and deed its intention to continue down this dangerous path — indifferent to U.S. needs and expectations — shouldn’t Mr. Biden be keeping a greater distance?
Daniel Levy is the president of the U.S./Middle East Project and served as an Israeli peace negotiator at the Oslo-B talks under Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Taba negotiations under Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads.