American support for Israel is not new, as it has been the largest supporter since its founding, politically, economically, and militarily.

American presidents (Republicans and Democrats) were keen to show support and sympathy for Israel, although the percentage of this support and sympathy varied from one president to another.

Historically, Republicans have been more aligned with Israel, while Democrats’ support for Israel has been softer and sometimes more influential.

President Biden is a historical believer in the idea of a two-state solution, but upon his arrival to the presidency, things were different, perhaps in terms of former President Donald Trump’s dedication to the deal of the century, the announcement on December 6, 2017, of the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and Washington’s announcement of moving its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

In addition to the presence of an extremist Israeli government headed by Netanyahu, whose relationship with Biden was bad, as a result of the judicial reforms implemented by his government, which were criticized by the Biden administration as posing a threat to democracy in Israel.

Netanyahu has not received any invitation to visit the United States since assuming the position of Prime Minister of Israel on December 29, 2022. His only meeting with President Biden was on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meetings in September 2023 in New York.

Meaning that Biden has not received Netanyahu in the White House since he assumed the presidency until today, which reflects the difference in the political orientations of both people.

Biden and Netanyahu are exceptional figures

President Biden is an exceptional figure on the American political level, as he is the youngest senator (29 years old) and the oldest president (82 years old), meaning that his experience in the field of political work exceeds half a century.

Biden believes in the importance of Israel and its right to exist, but he believes that its existence cannot cancel the existence of a Palestinian state, which Netanyahu rejects.

Despite Biden’s great political experience, his administration was weak and had little experience in Middle East affairs, as he developed a strategy for American withdrawal from the region to devote himself to containing both China and Russia.

Old age and illness made Biden lose his prestige, and made him the subject of ridicule and criticism in many of his actions, which was reflected in the prestige of the United States and the strength of its political decision.

Biden’s candidacy for a second term reflects the extent of the problem in the Democratic Party, which seemed unable to offer an alternative. This is the same problem for the Republican Party, which Trump will represent in the upcoming presidential elections.

As for Netanyahu, he has been prime minister of the occupation government since 1996-1999, and assumed the government for another period (2009-2021), then returned to head the government in 2022. Thus, he will be the longest-term prime minister in the history of Israel, as he served for more than 15 years.

Meaning that Netanyahu has become a phenomenon in Israeli political life, especially since he was able to become the sole leader of the Likud Party that controls the fate of Israel and shapes its future image, despite his history full of corruption.

Netanyahu’s political thought was enshrined in the book he wrote entitled: “A Place Under the Sun,” which established the idea of extreme realism, which is based on the fact that the future belongs to the Jewish people, who suffered scourges at the hands of the empires that succeeded them, and that this people will transform from an oppressed group into a subjugating group.

Netanyahu’s extremist ideology is one of faith, meaning that he is ready to do anything in exchange for achieving this. So he summoned his son Yair, who was living in Florida, to work in the Israeli occupation army, even though he had performed his compulsory service years before.

Biden’s dilemma

Biden’s reaction to the Al-Aqsa flood was significant and exaggerated politically, as he was the first American president to visit Israel while it was at war.

Biden’s “election” tears, his emphasis on his Zionism and his belief in the inevitability of Israel’s survival, encouraged Netanyahu to press ahead with his war on the Gaza Strip.

But the time of war lasted longer than expected, and the days began to prove the weakness of the Israeli army and its ability to accomplish its declared tasks, most notably the liberation of the hostages and the elimination of the Hamas movement.

World public opinion, the impact of the war on the attitudes of American voters, especially young people and Muslims, the expansion of the war to Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and the exposure of American forces in the region to a number of attacks. These and other reasons prompted Biden to ask Netanyahu to stop the war, or replace it with specific operations targeting Hamas leaders. And reduces civilian casualties, he claimed.

This is in addition, of course, to the economic situation in America and the world, as the volume of American aid to Ukraine over the past two years amounted to $124 billion. The public debt of the United States reached 2.3 trillion dollars, after it was only about 700 billion before the war in Ukraine. And the American inability to secure the necessary ammunition for Ukraine and Israel. Especially since the amount of ammunition consumption in Gaza exceeded expectations.

Here a big question emerged that remains a subject of disagreement among many analysts and stakeholders, which is: Does the United States really want to stop the war in Gaza? Or is the war in the region an American war carried out by Israel?

Let’s get to the most important question: Can President Biden pressure Netanyahu to force him to stop the war in Gaza? Or is everything that is said about the difference between America and Israel nothing more than a kind of role-sharing?

Agreement in strategy and difference in tactics

The position declared by Biden and his administration intersects with Netanyahu’s position in strategy (the necessity of eliminating the Hamas movement), but it differs in tactics (tools and method of implementation) in order to achieve the declared goal.

I think the dispute between Biden and Netanyahu is logical, meaning that there is a real disagreement, since Netanyahu’s policy has become detrimental to the interests of the United States of America in general, and the electoral future of President Biden in particular.

Opinion polls indicate that Biden’s popularity today is lower, and that he has lost the votes of his young American supporters, who showed strong opposition to the war in Gaza, and the American position on it.

There is almost consensus that President Biden was weak in his dealings with Netanyahu, and this weakness is due to several reasons, including:

– President Biden’s personality and health condition, and thus the management of the White House by the members of his administration closest to Israel (Secretary of State Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and John Kirby, the president’s chief national security spokesman).

– Netanyahu’s personality and political status require him to continue the war at all costs, otherwise dismissal and imprisonment are what awaits him.

President Biden was influenced by the personality of Golda Meir, the former Israeli Prime Minister.

– Biden’s unwillingness to enter into a conflict with Israel, especially since time is not on his side.

– The influence of the Israel lobby, and the role of Congress in pressuring to send more weapons to Israel, as a priority over Ukraine and Taiwan.

– This is in addition to the Republicans in Congress’ opposition to Biden’s policies and their attempt to thwart him. Noting here that criticizing Israel’s behavior does not mean at all not acknowledging the inevitability of its existence.

– The absence of any unified Arab position capable of putting pressure on the United States and making it feel threatened to its interests in the region.

– The absence of a strong active Russian and Chinese role, as the two countries have their own calculations and interests, and it is in the interest of both countries to exhaust the United States in the Middle East. Today, Russia and China need to prove their eligibility to lead the new world order.

– The absence of any European role capable of restraining Netanyahu, similar to what former French President Charles de Gaulle did after the 1967 war when he stopped selling weapons to Israel.

These and other reasons make it difficult to expect that the American president – if he wanted to – would be able to force Netanyahu to stop the war in Gaza, especially since there is no pressure on him from the Arab and Islamic countries to do so, and there is nothing threatening American interests in the region. Except what the resistance axis does.

All data indicates that Netanyahu has become a burden on the international community, and that getting rid of him serves the interest of everyone, especially Israel and the United States of America.