Photo: YAHYA HASSOUNA/AFP/Getty Images
How is the US gradual balancing towards the Israeli-Hamas war evolving? A search for a pattern.
Phases:
- Full support for Israel with a unified voice from everywhere
In the early days of the crisis, all institutions of the United States unequivocally and synchronously supported Israel. From the President to all public institutions, the same voice and emotional tone resonated, to the extent that some diplomatic initiative tweets were deleted from the State Department’s twitter account. President Biden’s “rock-solid” support was solidified with an aircraft carrier. Almost everywhere, from the Ministry of Defense to the Department of State, the same voice was heard. This unconditional collective backing of Israel also quickly had a ripple effect in the United Kingdom and Europe.
2. Changes in nuances in statements based on full-fledged support.
While Israel’s intense bombardments, unprecedented in the history of Middle East wars, continued, Gaza had been completely abandoned, triggering global conscience. The cutting of electricity, followed by massive bombings, obliterated hundreds of lives and tens of thousands of settlements within days. The horrific attacks by the IDF, about which no one could utter a word, unexpectedly galvanized the global conscience to an unprecedented extent.
3. Biden’s balancing speech
And then came Biden’s well-balanced speech. There was no more unconditional support for Israel, at least in rhetoric, due to the global discontent that arose. Washington’s initially reactive and not smartly planned support for Israel was balanced through emphases on ‘Palestinians’, ‘Fighting Islamophobia and Anti-Semitism’, ‘Putin and Hamas’, ‘Americanness.’ Despite a relative balancing move in rhetoric, Washington did not anticipate that discontent around the globe would continue to arise.
4. Differing voices from Departments.
Considering the statements made by the Pentagon, the State Department, and the White House, hazy discourses and statements with significant differences in nuance were observed within two weeks. These did not resemble the unity seen in the very beginning. Differences of opinion have become apparent on matters such as civilians, hospitals, hostages, children, the delivery of aid, and the military route leading to the ultimate goal.
5. Disagreements on ‘How To’
Secretary Blinken’s November 8 speech was clear on red lines. He emphatically stated that there would be no forcible displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, neither now nor after the war. Furthermore, he declared a commitment to preventing the use of Gaza as a platform for terrorism, ruling out reoccupation, any attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza, and any reduction in its territory.
6. …?
Any Pattern?
From initial unity to nuanced changes, then to a balancing act and diverse voices, the US policy toward Israel is shifting towards a gradual withdrawal of support, if not turning explicitly negative.
Is it just a Rhetoric?
The question here is whether it’s just a policy of rhetoric. Is the US rhetorically balancing while continuing its hard support? Is it, let me call it, a hybrid strategy of support?
The unprecedented bombings in Middle East war history have clearly affected the American rhetoric. Moreover, a potential alignment between rhetoric and actual policy on the ground can provide clues in the coming days. With the likelihood of a prolonged, low-intensity war, MAZ Corporate Foresight emphasizes that Israel is highly likely to need increasing hard support, including financing. The more it needs hard support, the worse the rhetoric is likely to become. Stability is unlikely if Hamas achieves gradual asymmetric wins on the ground. Possible financial discussions could identify the ultimate sinner towards the end of the power game, and that would be Netanyahu. Would that be enough to play the game of scapegoating? I don’t think so.
When the warming and changing tones heard nowadays throughout European corridors, excluding Germany, are taken into consideration, it’s not a far-fetched idea to think that Washington’s gradual policy has already produced a butterfly effect in Europe. This implies that Israel, along with the political capital behind its support, will very likely bear the military, economic, and political consequences of its decisions, just as Russia has done in Ukraine.
Probably far more than its calculations.
Muhammet Ali Zurnaci, November 14, 2023, Istanbul