The US is allied to Israel, not Netanyahu

Jess Frampton

A widening rift between US President Joe Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the war in Gaza and the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has now spilled into public view.

For starters, the two leaders differ on the timeline, endgame, and conduct of Israel’s military campaign.

On the timeline and endgame of the war, Israel’s war cabinet continues to assert that the Gaza ground operation could drag on not for weeks – as it had initially promised the US – but for months, or however long it takes to ensure the complete destruction of Hamas. Biden’s team is pushing for a prompt transition to a lower intensity, more targeted phase of fighting with less maximalist goals. While Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant signaled yesterday that Israel is prepared to eventually make that transition, he has given no indication of when that will happen – or to what extent Israel’s government will scale down its ambitions.

On the conduct of the war, Israeli officials had privately assured the Biden administration that they had learned from their mistakes in the first weeks of the war – especially the bombing campaign in northern Gaza – and would be more restrained and deliberate in later fighting. But that is not what the Americans have seen since then, as the Palestinian death toll in Gaza has continued to mount. It has become especially hard to argue that there’s been any shift in targeting or restraint in the aftermath of the Israel Defense Forces’ killing of three Israeli hostages flying a white flag, an episode that has shaken the Israeli public’s confidence in its military.

But the divide between Biden and Netanyahu runs deeper.

At the heart of it lies a fundamental disagreement about the role the Palestinian Authority should play in Gaza’s future security and governance and, implicitly, the viability of an eventual two-state solution (however remote). Biden wants the PA to take Hamas’ place once the war is over, while Netanyahu staunchly opposes any PA involvement (even as he refuses to say who else he would prefer to fill the void) – effectively ruling out Palestinian self-rule, let alone a Palestinian state.

Make no mistake: On this, Biden is right and Netanyahu is wrong. And Netanyahu is wrong not because he doesn’t understand the implications of what he’s proposing – the perpetual subjugation of Palestinians, Israel’s international isolation, the constant internal and external security threat not just to Israelis but to Jews worldwide – but because he does.

While there’s no doubt that Israel faces serious risks from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Tehran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, none represents an existential danger. Israel can fend them off thanks to its qualitative military edge over its regional rivals – developed with American support – as well as its nuclear deterrent and growing ties with regional partners. Indeed, for all Netanyahu’s doomsaying about existential wipeout, he has also spent the past couple of decades touting Israel as a safe bet for long-term investment. Both contentions cannot simultaneously be true, and Netanyahu knows it. He just has an overriding political and – given his corruption trials – personal interest in pretending otherwise.

American interests, however, lie in supporting Israel’s long-term security and promoting regional and global stability – not in bolstering the political or personal agenda of Israel's leader. Which means that Biden has an obligation to step up and do something no US president has ever done: leverage America’s support for Israel to put pressure on Netanyahu to change course – or, failing that, persuade Israelis to dump Netanyahu and do it themselves.

Some may say that that would be meddling in another country’s affairs, and they’d be correct. But Netanyahu himself has set the precedent for actively campaigning against an ally’s policy that he opposed. If you’ll remember, in 2015 Netanyahu traveled to Washington to publicly torpedo President Barack Obama’s signature Iran nuclear deal before a joint session of Congress. Biden was vice president back then, and he saw firsthand how Netanyahu did everything in his power to undermine the American president’s policy instead of trying to engage with him quietly and in good faith, as an ally should.

Now, Biden should repay the favor and publicly pressure Netanyahu to back down from a strategy that is sure to be counterproductive both for Israel and the United States. That means that Biden must engage far more assertively on the Israeli domestic stage. He should meet with families of hostages, give interviews to Israeli media, and address the Knesset. And he must underscore his and America’s sincere friendship with the Israeli people and nation while pointedly conveying that this sterling partnership does not extend to Netanyahu – especially not when his policies severely damage Israel’s long-term security.

At the end of the day, what the world needs right now is bold US leadership that can end the current bloodshed, bring stability to the region, and salvage any hopes for an (admittedly distant) Israeli-Palestinian peace built on mutual rights and security. That can only be done if Biden is willing to confront Netanyahu more forcefully in the weeks and months ahead. For the sake of Americans. For the sake of Palestinians. And for the sake of Israelis.

More from GZERO Media

Syrian forces head to Latakia after fighters linked to Syria's ousted leader Bashar Assad mounted a deadly attack on government forces on Thursday, March 6, 2025.

REUTERS/Mahmoud Hassano

Nearly 50 people were killed on Thursday in the deadliest clashes Syria has seen since the overthrow of Bashar Assad. Pro-Assad militants attacked security checkpoints around the western coastal town of Jableh, a stronghold of the former regime.

The Liberian-flagged tanker Ice Energy, chartered by the US government, takes Iranian oil from Iranian-flagged Lana (formerly Pegas) as part of a civil forfeiture action off the shore of Karystos, on the Island of Evia, Greece, in May 2022.
REUTERS/Costas Baltas/File Photo

The Trump administration is reportedly considering a strategy to disrupt Iran’s oil exports by stopping and inspecting Iranian oil tankers at sea. The US would use the Proliferation Security Initiative, established in 2003 to prevent the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, as a legal justification for the inspections.

Donald Trump issues a proclamation from the Oval Office
REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

US presidents don’t typically talk to organizations the US government has labeled terrorist groups, but Donald Trump is not a typical US president.

President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress at the US Capitol on March 4, 2025.

Win McNamee/Pool via REUTERS

You didn’t need to sit through all 99 minutes of Trump’s peroration to know that he gave himself an A++ on his first six weeks in office, writes GZERO Publisher Evan Solomon. But if Trump gets to grade himself, maybe it’s time for a more objective report card — one that looks at two criteria: Trump as a dealmaker and Trump as a manager.

The Energy Security Hub at the 2025 Munich Security Conference featured in-depth discussions on energy innovation, security, and market viability. Fatih Birol, IEA executive director, discussed growing global energy demand, especially the rapid rise in electricity outpacing overall growth. He noted electricity demand is projected to increase six times faster than total energy in 10 years, underscoring the need for electrification and grid expansion. As energy systems become decentralized and digitalized, the CEO of E.ON, Leonhard Birnbaum, said: “You’re either fully digitized – or you’re done.” Key takeaways: Energy security requires developing and securing electricity grids Technological openness is a unifying element for getting to net zero Bridge the “Valley of Death” to scale markets New global partnerships will help Europe stay competitive Public acceptance will strengthen democracy You can read the full Executive Summary from the BMW Foundation here.

a crowd of people outside of a white building

In a 5-4 split decision, the US Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to disburse nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds for work completed by contractors and grant recipients under the US Agency for International Development and the State Department. Does this tell us much about how the top court will handle future Trump-related cases?