https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/05/white-house-resigned-israel-onslaught-gaza/
White House frustrated by Israel’s onslaught but sees few options
U.S. calls for a bombing pause are having little effect, and the shape of the post-war Mideast is starkly uncertain
U.S. efforts to get Israel to scale back its counterattack in response to the Oct. 7 killings by Hamas that left at least 1,400 Israelis dead have failed or fallen short. The Biden administration urged Israel against a ground invasion,privately asked it to consider proportionality in its attacks, advocated a higher priority on avoiding civilian deaths, and called for a humanitarian pause — only for Israeli officials to dismiss or reject all those suggestions.
U.S. officials had hoped there could be regular bombing pauses so that humanitarian and aid workers could safely operate in Gaza, according to a U.S. official familiar with the discussions. But securing such an arrangement seemed further out of reach after Blinken’s visit.
But from the outset, White House officials have been skeptical that an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza would achieve its stated aim of eliminating Hamas and feared that it would only lead to further escalation and destabilization. Now, White House advisers say, that is exactly what is happening.
“The reason they didn’t want the ground invasion and asked all the questions is they feared this is the consequence — the situation inside Gaza would only get worse for the people there, and that would lead to escalation,” said a person familiar with the administration’s thinking, speaking on the condition of anonymity to relay private conversations. “They’re just trying different ways of, ‘How do you mitigate a set of actions that are inevitable and won’t work and will fail?' ”
Critics of the Biden administration, including many Arab and Muslim Americans, argue that the United States has enormous financial leverage over Israel and could impose far more pressure if it chose.
Washington is Israel’s largest military backer, and the White House has asked Congress for an additional $14 billion in aid for Israel in the wake of the Hamas attacks. But administration officials and advisers say the levers the United States theoretically has over Israel, such as conditioning military aid on making the military campaign more targeted, are nonstarters, partly because they would be so politically unpopular in any administration and partly because, aides say, Biden himself has a personal attachment to Israel.
Others say that Israelis are so driven by anger and grief after the killings that even the threat of an aid pullback would have little effect. And Netanyahu, an already embattled leader whose political position is imperiled further by the attacks, may feel compelled to hit back in a hard and devastating way.
“Of course the United States has leverage — we provide Israel with $4 billion a year in grant aid,” said Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who worked on Middle East issues in the Clinton administration. “But every American administration, going back to the 1970s, has been loath to use that leverage because it would be highly unpopular.”
Riedel added: “I’m sure they say all the right things — ‘You have to abide by the rules of international law’ — but in practice, there’s more and more anger across the Arab and Muslim worlds at Israel and at us. It will come at a price.”
The Biden administration now finds itself with little influence over a key ally whose military campaign could affect everything from the global economy to America’s diplomatic relationships in the region.
“
They’re watching a train wreck, and they can’t do anything about it, and the trains are speeding up,” said a person familiar with the administration’s thinking, who requested anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “The train wreck is in Gaza, but the explosion is in the region. They know that even if they were to do something, which is to condition aid to Israel, it won’t actually stop the Israelis from what they’re doing.”