Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly affirmed his opposition to the existence of “Palestinian sovereignty” on Thursday. But the United States, a major supporter of Israel in the operation against Hamas, continues to present the creation of a Palestinian state as the condition for “real security”. To what extent can the Jewish state ignore the wishes of its historic ally? Decryption.
“Know how to say no”. This mantra of personal development has just found an unusual echo: “an Israeli Prime Minister should be able to say no, even to our best friends”, declared Thursday January 18 Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing, without naming them, the United States United.
At the heart of the differences, the creation of a Palestinian state. “It will be impossible to obtain real security without this,” repeated again, Wednesday January 17, Antony Blinken, the head of American diplomacy, at the Davos Economic Forum.
Bringing back a form of “security” to the Middle East is a question of credibility for the American policeman: the war between Israel and Hamas raises fears of an ever more tangible regional conflagration.
Joe Biden still believes in the prospect and possibility of “a Palestinian state”, a White House spokesperson reported on Friday, following a thirty-minute conversation between the American president and Benjamin. Netanyahu.
But for this, Israel must have control of security over the entire territory west of the Jordan. “This is a necessary condition, which is in contradiction with the idea of (Palestinian) sovereignty,” added the Israeli Prime Minister, specifying that he had said this openly to the Americans.
“With all due respect to them (the United States), we are no longer a star on the American flag,” said ironically, two weeks earlier, the very right-wing Israeli Minister of Internal Security Itamar Ben Gvir, while recalling that “the United States is our best friend”.
A concrete friendship: according to a report from the US Congress, Israel has received 260 billion US dollars since its birth, making the Jewish state the country that has received the most greenbacks since the end of the Second World War.
How far can Israel say “no” to America, and what are the implications for the Palestinian question? Decryption with David Khalfa, co-director of the North Africa and Middle East Observatory of the Jean Jaurès Foundation.
France 24 : Are we witnessing a turning point in the Israeli-American relationship ?
David Khalfa: The Israeli-American bilateral relationship is called “special” because it is based both on shared values, but also on strategic interests. However, relations between Americans and Israelis have never been an idyll.
It is a passionate relationship between two friends and allies, but which has experienced periods of tension. These tensions are even old. We could easily go back to the presidency of Eisenhower, then Johnson, Carter, or more recently, that of Obama. Even Donald Trump, although described as “Israel’s best friend” by Netanyahu, did not hesitate, last October, to describe the Israeli Minister of Defense, Yoav Gallant, as a “moron”, or to criticize the Prime Minister Israeli in the wake of the massacres of October 7.
The Israeli-American relationship is currently going through yet another turbulence. It is not at this stage an open crisis, for a very simple reason: Joe Biden (who is Catholic, Editor’s note) defines himself as a Zionist, and his support for Israel is anchored in his personal history. and politics. His support for the Jewish state which faces a multi-front war does not come thanks to, but in spite of, Netanyahu, with whom the relationship is complicated and tumultuous.
See alsoIsraeli-Palestinian conflict: the return of the two-state solution
The creation of a Palestinian state is promoted by Washington and Riyadh, and even part of the Israeli ruling class. Can Benjamin Netanyahu stop it? ?
In the short term, yes. Benjamin Netanyahu will do absolutely everything to stay in power, and his strategy is very clearly to wage war as long as possible, because he knows he is unpopular and surrounded by business. He therefore tries to gain time, hoping to regain the favor of public opinion by donning the costume of the war leader. Netanyahu is a wise-cracking and calculating politician, but he is weakened by his reliance on his Faustian alliance with the far right, which opposes any prospect of resolving the conflict in the form of a two-state solution.
Furthermore, he is old, on borrowed time, and will sooner or later have to leave the reins of power. Beyond the reflex of national unity maintained by the war and the trauma of October 7, the Israeli population has largely withdrawn its support. Polls show his popularity plummeting, including among moderate right-wing voters.
But the political offer from the Gulf petromonarchies paving the way for the normalization of their relations with Israel through substantial progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state will survive Benjamin Netanyahu. And all the more so since the leaders at the head of the petromonarchies are young and will probably remain in charge for decades to come. Finally, it must be added that the Israeli political configuration will change profoundly after Netanyahu’s departure. The center, embodied by Benny Gantz, should take up the torch and send the right and the far right back into opposition.
What about the United States? By refusing the Democratic administration’s proposals, is Benjamin Netanyahu betting on a victory for Donald Trump in the American presidential election? ?
Absolutely, but it’s a risky bet. Because relations between Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, with an extremely unstable temperament, are now very fresh. The former American president considers that Benjamin Netanyahu betrayed him by recognizing Joe Biden’s electoral victory in November 2020.
Then, remember that the $14.5 billion in additional emergency aid promised to Israel by Joe Biden has still not been approved by the Senate, because the Republicans oppose it. And this, for purely political reasons, which have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but everything to do with the polarization of American political life.
Any Democratic proposal is a pretext for systematic obstruction by the Republicans, even if it means prioritizing their immediate political interest in the United States’ strategic alliance with Israel. Conversely, if Donald Trump comes to power, it is likely that the Democrats will adopt an identical strategy of systematic obstruction.
Could the $3.8 billion in military aid granted each year by Washington to Israel be called into question ?
Beyond the tenant of the White House, there is a pro-Israeli tradition within the Pentagon, with most American strategists believing that the alliance with Israel is primarily in America’s interest.
But if the aid as such is not called into question, the conditions for its granting risk becoming complicated, because we are witnessing a politicization of American military support for the Jewish state, even though this issue had has so far escaped a real debate in the United States.
Tendency towards isolationism on the Republican side, and progressivism on the Democratic side: in the medium term, developments in American politics will lead Israel to make more concessions, if this country intends to maintain a high degree of American diplomatic and military support.
Especially since the Israelis depend more than ever on this military aid, in particular because they have bet on high-tech while conflicts in urban areas are voracious in artillery ammunition of all kinds, including “low tech “, such as tank shells, which are not manufactured in Israel.
This gives the Americans leverage over Israel’s conduct of the war. The establishment of humanitarian corridors in Gaza, the increase in humanitarian aid provided to Gazans and the reduction of Israel’s military footprint in the Palestinian enclave were achieved under pressure from the US administration, contrary to what Benjamin Netanyahu wants his own population to believe.