The U.S. and Europe seem to be siding with Hamas.
Yes, you read that correctly.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free and zero-advertising for all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify.
The U.S. stands by Israel in the UN Security Council, but it is losing patience with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
According to a Reuters report yesterday, the Americans submitted a draft resolution that calls for a ceasefire, prohibits the establishment of a buffer zone, opposes a major operation in Gazan city, Rafah, because it would “harm civilians,” and emphasizes that the council should “support a temporary ceasefire in Gaza as soon as possible.”
“Under the current circumstances, a large ground operation in Rafah will end in further harm to civilians and lead to further displacement — possibly to neighboring countries,” the draft reads. According to the United States, such a move would have “severe consequences for peace and security in the region,” so it is currently prohibited to promote it.
In addition, the American proposal refers to the ban on the establishment of buffer zones, and the ban on trying to reduce the area of the Strip — temporarily or permanently.
According to Reuters, it is not yet clear when the council members will vote on the proposed resolution. The U.S. submitted it after Algeria — one of the temporary members of the council — asked the 15 members to vote today on its proposal, which would require an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.
Although the wording of the American proposal is not final, it must alarm Israel, Jews across the world, and our true friends because the document uses the term “forced displacement,” links the peace of the abductees to the peace of the civilian population in Gaza, and warns that if the war in Gaza does not stop, there is danger of a flare-up in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank) during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which starts in March.
Israeli political officials who commented on the American proposal said that it is a draft, and it is uncertain what the final version will look like. One Israeli commentator, Shimon Schiefer, pointed out that the U.S. prevents resolutions against Israel in the Security Council almost automatically, and if the American proposal is put to a vote, it will express the disgust and despair of U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration with Netanyahu.1
Several hours after the Reuters report was published, a senior official in the Biden administration said that the U.S. will not be “in a hurry” to promote a vote at the UN Security Council, but for all intents and purposes, the initial American shots were fired at Israel.
The European Union also warned Israel yesterday against launching an operation in Rafah, and the Union’s foreign ministers said that such an operation would be a disaster for the approximately 1.5 million civilians who flocked to the city in the southern Gaza Strip. It is also believed that many Palestinian terrorists have escaped to Rafah and are hiding there.
Joseph Borrell, the European Union’s foreign minister, said that 26 out of 27 of the countries agreed to the statement warning of the operation in Rafah, and calling for an “immediate humanitarian ceasefire” which would lead to a ceasefire and the release of the abductees.
Essentially, yesterday’s messages from Washington and Europe are a stark warning to Israel:
Behave as we expect, or we will end our support for the Jewish state.
The widely publicized Rafah operation that Israel has been tirelessly planning and preparing for, both to evacuate the civilians there and go after a quarter of Hamas’ battalions, would likely deal a lethal blow to the terror group and is probably Hamas’ last real opportunity to remain alive as a significant power in Gaza.
Israel has said on a plethora of occasions that it will properly evacuate the civilians in Rafah, just as it did multiple times for Gazan civilians throughout this war, and that the Israelis would work with the Egyptians on the other side of Rafah to ensure Palestinians do not flee into Egypt. Thus, the premise of harming civilians is irrelevant here, at least on the surface.
Israeli spokesman Eylon Levy had something to say about this:
“We think it’s horrific that UN agencies have tried to characterize Israel’s actions, in pursuance of its obligations under international law to protect civilians, as forced displacement.”
“Because what do these UN agencies tell Israel? You cannot attack Hamas military targets because there are civilians in the way and they might get killed. But you can’t ask civilians to get out of the way because then they’ll be displaced. The logical conclusion is that they are telling Israel not to attack Hamas at all.”2
One issue could be that, according to the UN, it is impossible to evacuate civilians from Rafah because the rest of Gaza is “littered with unexploded ordinance.” In other words, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad booby-trapped tons of roads with explosives ahead of the IDF’s advance — a strategy to pressure the West by putting Israel in impossible predicaments and weaponizing Palestinian civilians’ suffering.
Don’t get me wrong: No one wants to see Palestinian civilians be blown up by explosives that their terrorist neighbors presumably planted. But this is a war that the Palestinians started, and multiple polls from different sources have shown that the majority of Palestinians support Hamas to the same degree and in the same way the Germans supported the Nazis. When allied troops entered Germany, the townsfolk merely removed their German flags and said in unison that they are not Nazis.
Unfortunately for Israel, there is not a single Western premier who has displayed the courage to tell their constituents that the death and destruction in Gaza is predominantly the doing of Palestinian leaders, while at the same time blatantly ignoring for years that Palestinians use foreign aid in all the wrong places (you know, the worst-possible corruption, terrorism, and aggressively drumming up systemic antisemitism — Jew hate — in Palestinian society).
Instead, Western politicians and bureaucrats have turned the Israel-Hamas war into populist politics, while simultaneously accusing Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (who is very unpopular among liberals in the West), for using this war as political leverage in Israel. It is not that Netanyahu is blameless. Rather, it is that everyone — the Americans, the British, the French, the Canadians, the Spanish, and several others — is manipulating this war to gain political points, not just Netanyahu.
“I’m a liberal humanist Palestinian who wants peace. What I want to see from Western pro-Palestinian ‘allies’ is support for a two-state solution, peace negotiations, and peaceful leaders,” wrote John Aziz, who lives in the UK. “What I see instead is advocacy for deconstructing Israel and people making excuses for Hamas.”3
Indeed, the Europeans have lost control of the Arabs and Muslims in their countries, many of whom are perfectly harmless, but some of whom pose a serious national security threat. That is not Islamophobia, unless arguing against data makes you irrationally terrified by a religion which describes non-Muslims as “infidels” and carries out the majority of terrorism in many places across the world. Yet this does not stop European politicians from catering to the growing Arab and Muslim populations in their countries, to vie for their votes.
The Americans are doing the same with the Arabs and Muslims mainly in Michigan, which is home to the largest such population in the United States. Naturally, Michigan is a “battleground state” in this November’s U.S. presidential election. Joe Biden won the state by only a three-percent margin en route to overall victory in 2020, Donald Trump did the same by a different margin in 2016, and surely both of them want a repeat performance this time around.
In doing so, the Biden administration has inappropriately accused Israel of “indiscriminate bombing” throughout Gaza, of responding “over the top” to the events of October 7th, and of dehumanizing the Palestinians.
“The oft-leveled charge that ‘too many Palestinians have been killed’ implies that a smaller number would have been acceptable to the White House,” wrote Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States. “The history of our previous rounds of fighting with Hamas, each of which produced similar claims of ‘too many Palestinians killed,’ suggests that no such number exists.”4
If appeasing Arab and Muslim voters is the reason why Washington and Europe do not want a major operation in Rafah — and eventually, a resounding Israeli victory in this war — then they are effectively forcing Israel to pay for the most brutal and barbaric forms of Palestinian warfare. (In one recent story, when Israeli forces went into Nasser Hospital because it was being used as a shield for terrorists, Hamas operatives posed as medical staff.)
Meanwhile, the Israelis have consistently demonstrated some of the all-time greatest humanitarian measures in the history of modern warfare — as evidenced by an unworldly civilian-to-combatant death ratio, which is now believed to be nearly one-to-one even if we accept Hamas’ grossly overinflated numbers. (For reference, the international average is nine-to-one according to the UN.)
“Despite the unique challenges Israel faces in its war against Hamas,” wrote the internationally recognized urban warfare expert John Spencer, “it has implemented more measures to prevent civilian casualties than any other military in history.”5
Notice how the Americans highlighted the possibility for “severe consequences for peace and security in the region” as part of the UN Security Council draft they leaked to Reuters.
My intuition tells me that the Iranian proxy Hezbollah or Iran itself might have passed messages to the Americans and Europeans, warning them of a greater war between Israel and Hezbollah — and perhaps other Iranian proxies against Israel and even American and European targets in the Middle East — if Israel launches a major operation in Rafah, the likely outcome of which would be to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s peril.
My feeling is that, after Iran invested hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars in Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, the Iranians do not want to see their investments go to waste. Using the threat of a larger war against Israel and possibly American and European targets in the Middle East could very well deter the Americans and Europeans from continuing to support Israel’s response to the Hamas-led massacre in October.
This is where it gets tricky, because no one wants a greater regional war in the Middle East, yet if Hamas is not removed from governing power in Gaza, and if Israel is disallowed from constructing even a temporary much-needed buffer zone on the Gaza side of its borders with Israel, then hundreds of thousands of Israelis will not understandably feel safe living in cities and towns adjacent to the strip.
And that does not include hundreds of thousands of other Israelis who will understandably not feel safe living in northern Israel, where the much more heavily equipped Hezbollah is sitting on the other side of the Israel-Lebanon border.
The question is, should the West sacrifice Israel’s national security to prevent a regional war from breaking out? Or is it worth the prospect of a regional war so that Israel, a tremendous ally in the West’s fight against radical Islam — no less, in several other areas — can remain strong and safe.
My feeling is that the Biden administration, as opposed to the Europeans, is ultimately calling the shots here, which (if true) worries me greatly. Sure, Biden and his staff continue to remind everyone that “Israel has the right to defend itself,” while still supplying the Israelis with vital ammunition.
Yet, it seems to me that we are well beyond the “right to defend yourself” chapter of this war, and wars are not waged simply to “defend one’s self.” They are typically fought until a clear-cut victory. Otherwise, expecting Israel to “defend itself” and become heavily invested in this war, only to “pull out” halfway through because other countries are not thrilled with the unwarranted political backlash they are receiving, fundamentally endangers Israel’s security.
“Israel’s defeat would result not from an escalation of the fighting but rather, conversely, from its cessation,” wrote Michael Oren. “The 250,000 Israelis evacuated from their southern and northern homes would refuse to return. Large swaths of the country would become uninhabitable. Tourism and foreign investment would dry up. Iran, meanwhile, would conclude that it can attack Israel with impunity. Its hands tied by internationally enforced ceasefires, the Jewish state would be unable to defend itself.”6
“Triumphant, Jihadist forces would proceed to topple the Hashemite dynasty in Jordan and massacre its allied tribes,” added Oren. “Iraq would fall to a revitalized ISIS and the Gulf States to Iranian-backed militias. Islamist revolts would break out in parts of Africa and India. The streets of London, Paris, and other European capitals would become battlefields. Only the United States would remain immune, but not for long. The many radicals who protested in favor of Hamas, burnt American flags, and assaulted police, will not be satisfied by Israel’s demise. On the contrary, they will ramp up their assault on American Jews and those trying to protect them.”
This is an extreme interpretation of the future, but such could be the consequences of losing an existential war. While I have no problem with Biden doing what is best for Biden as the presidential campaign season heats up (we all would do the same if we were in his shoes), Israel must also do what is best for Israel — outrightly winning this war by eradicating Hamas as a governing apparatus in Gaza, which requires (among other steps) the Israelis to conduct a major operation in Rafah.
I would also not rule out Russia’s intervention here (either directly or through its ally Iran) regarding the potential threat of a greater regional war, although the reasons or rationale why is not as obvious to me.
Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said over the weekend that Russia invited Palestinian factions to meet in Moscow at some point in late February, the latest Russian move to increase its influence in a post-October 7th world. Moscow hosted a Hamas delegation already in October, after the massacre it led in Israel.
That meeting represented a convening of interests between Russia, Iran, and Hamas. This is concerning because Iran backs Hamas and also supplies Russia with drones for its use in the war in Ukraine. Russia has been particularly cold towards Israel following October 7th, slamming its operations in Gaza and particularly Israel’s ambassador to Russia in early February.
Reportedly, Israel has stopped warning Russian forces in Syria before it attacks in that country, which was the status quo prior to the outbreak of this Israel-Hamas war.
The new Russian invitation to Palestinian leaders comes on the heels of these worrisome trends. The Palestinian Authority has been increasingly open to Hamas, at least in some public statements, since October 7th — despite their turbulent past, which has included Hamas’ assassination attempts on Palestinian Authority operators. Hamas has also sought to increase its influence in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority governs.
In 2014, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and British and French foreign ministers all rushed to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, after Hamas kidnapped and killed three Israeli teenagers, and Israel subsequently invaded Gaza. The senior statesmen’s aim — to end civilian suffering and restore stability to the region — was commendable.
However, they would have been most helpful by staying on the sidelines. To preserve the Western values they cherish and to send an unequivocal message to terrorist organizations and their state sponsors everywhere, Israel should have been permitted to thump Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
“This is the lesson of previous rounds of fighting between the Israeli Defense Forces and terrorist strongholds. In Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza in 2008 and again in 2012, Israel responded to rocket attacks on its cities with fierce counteroffensives,” wrote Michael Oren.7
“Fighting against a deeply dug-in enemy that both blended in with the local population and used it as a shield, Israel’s best efforts to avoid civilian casualties invariably proved limited. Incensed world opinion generated immense pressure on governments to convene the UN Security Council and empower human rights organizations to censure Israel and stop the carnage. These measures succeeded where the terrorists’ rockets failed. Israel was compelled to back down.”
And the terrorists, though badly bruised, won. Admittedly, their bar for claiming victory was exceptionally low. While Israel had to achieve a clear battlefield success to win, the terrorists just had to survive. But they did more than survive. Under the protection of ceasefires and, in some cases, international peacekeepers, they profusely expanded their arsenals.
While reestablishing their rule in the streets, these terrorists also tunneled beneath them to create a vast network of bombproof bunkers and more protected means of smuggling. Such measures enabled Hamas, as well as Hezbollah, to mount devastating attacks at the time of their choosing, confident that the international community would once again prevent Israel from exacting too heavy a price.
“So the cycle continued. Allowed to fight for several weeks, at most, Israel was eventually condemned and hamstrung by ceasefires,” wrote Oren. “The terrorists, by contrast, could emerge from their hideouts and begin to replenish and enhance their stockpiles. Hezbollah and Hamas sustained losses but, rescued and immunized by international diplomacy, they remained in power and became more powerful still. Jihadist organizations no different from the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda gained regional legitimacy, while Israel lost it in the world.”
Life in Gaza is miserable now, but if Israel is permitted to prevail, circumstances can improve markedly. Instead of being funneled into Hamas’ war chest, international aid can be transferred directly to the civilian population to repair war damage and stimulate economic growth, while terror groups and their state sponsors (i.e. Iran) will be put on notice.
By enabling Israel to regain its security — even with all the suffering it entails — the U.S. and its allies will be safeguarding their own. Though treacherous, the fighting between Israel and Hamas is actually part of a far more robust struggle between the West and Islamic-inspired states and organizations hellbent on its destruction. Hence why, although this Israel-Hamas war may seem minor in the greater Middle East, it is nonetheless pivotal.
“To ensure that it concludes with a categorical Israeli win is in the world’s fundamental interest,” wrote Oren. “To guarantee peace, this war must be given a chance.”
Of course, there is a chance that the U.S. — the largest benefactor for Israel — could threaten the Jewish state with walking back its aid if the Israelis do not “behave” as Biden’s administration and the Europeans expect. This would, as a matter of fact, not be the first time that the Americans make such an ultimatum.
In 1982, a young senator named Joe Biden — that’s right, the same Biden whose America’s current president — levied this very threat at Menachem Begin, Israel’s then-prime minister, who replied:
“Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country.”
“We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.”
The time might soon come for Netanyahu to prudently remind Biden of Begin’s words.
Ynet News
Eylon Levy on Instagram
John Aziz on X
“The US Charge of ‘Indiscriminate Bombing’ is Over the Top.” Clarity With Michael Oren.
“Israel Implemented More Measures to Prevent Civilian Casualties Than Any Other Nation in History | Opinion.” Newsweek.
“What if Israel Loses the War?” Clarity With Michael Oren.
“Israel must be permitted to crush Hamas.” The Washington Post.
I've been angry but not surprised at Biden and his ridiculous admin's dance with Israel and Hamas, as well as the absolute craziness of the UN, EU, etc. Interesting how they call it forced displacement when the demands on Israel are to protect the "poor Palestinians." So when the Israel has to move them to a safe corridor, it's forced displacement. Do any of these people realize the delirium they are experiencing when making these absurd announcements. Referring to the Arab and Muslims in the UK, most may be harmless, but it only takes a small group that isn't. Multiply that by small groups in each Western country, and you could have grease fires popping up, turning into conflagrations. And if the war in Gaza does not stop, there could be a possible flare up in Jerusalem, Samaria, and Judea? Well, we all know that there's nothing like a good flare up during their "Holy Month" of Ramadan. With respect to Ramadan, this is what religious people do during their important holidays, right? The politicians know what's going on but are too cowardly to speak out truthfully. Where are the conditions for Russia or the Ukraine? Where's the outcry for all the Ukrainian civilians who have been killed? They all give warnings to Israel. How about the warnings for Hamas? Crickets as usual. Eylon Levy is a great spokesperson for Israel who speaks honestly and courageously, which is sorely lacking with too many global politicians and the various agencies. So if I'm to judge this correctly, Russians bad, Palestinians good? A bizarro world indeed, but a dangerous one for Israel. I will contain my anger and wait for the next episode in this Theatre of the Absurd. As long as Israel is in control of what they have to do, my faith remains firm. Am Yisrael Chai.
Three points:
1) Where are the resolutions for Hamas’ surrender to save the Palestinians as well as the release of all Israeli hostages?
2) Through out the years and especially during this war, Israel has gained great knowledge on how to deal with Hamas. More importantly, Israel has shared that knowledge with the world to show them what they are dealing with.
3) Israel has to continue what it is doing for Israel’s survival even though Israel’s continued world condemnation…