Staff Reports
The Biden-Harris administration appears to be following a peculiar pattern when dealing with one of America’s most steadfast allies, Israel. Instead of support, the current administration seems to be employing a more questionable tactic: coercive diplomacy. Reports indicate that the administration is nudging Israel towards a 60-day ceasefire in Lebanon, threatening to let the United Nations Security Council impose its own ceasefire if Israel doesn’t comply. This raises eyebrows because it begs the question—why would the U.S. pressure Israel but apparently have no leverage over Hezbollah?
Amidst these tense negotiations, the Israeli government is reportedly prepared to accept a U.S.-brokered deal that sounds good in principle but offers questionable assurances for the security of its northern communities. Those communities, mind you, are why Israel is even involved in the ongoing conflict in the first place—some would say it’s a tad ironic that a country fighting for its safety is being pressured into a ceasefire that might just open the door for future aggression.
Joe Biden is pushing Benjamin Netanyahu to approve the ceasefire agreement in Lebanon in exchange for the removal of the U.S. arms embargo on Israel and a US veto in the UN Security Council resolution that will force a ceasefire anyway. pic.twitter.com/7vm3uWNxq4
— 😎🔥🚀 Noah 💖 His Friends & #AR#VR#MR#XR 👓 (@Noah_A_S) November 26, 2024
If the deal goes through, Hezbollah would supposedly pull back from the border north of the Litani River, which, according to a long-dead UN resolution, they should already have done. The Lebanese Armed Forces would get a 60-day grace period to redeploy, while Israeli forces withdraw. Sure, that sounds nifty, but the lingering question remains: how do you enforce a ceasefire with a terrorist organization that has a track record of ignoring agreements? Spoiler alert: you can’t. Many Israelis are left pondering whether the Biden administration is succeeding in what previous administrations haven’t quite managed: weakening Israel’s position at an extremely precarious time.
Further complicating the matter is the apparent cut-off of essential military support from the U.S. to Israel. Reports indicate that Israel is missing critical equipment, including bulldozers necessary for combat operations, which raises alarms about the IDF’s operational capability. This might be exactly what the administration is banking on—apply pressure in such a way that Israel feels it has no choice but to comply with a ceasefire that could lead to its own vulnerability. It’s almost as if someone in Washington is clutching their pearls while simultaneously arming those who wish to do Israel harm.
Amid these negotiations, some Israelis are contemplating the possibility of holding out until Donald Trump is back in office. However, waiting could come with a steep price tag. It’s not just about patience; it’s about the economic toll of ongoing conflict, including halted international travel and reservists being called away from their jobs. A weak ceasefire initiated by a future Trump administration might further complicate Israel’s ability to secure a firm deal, resulting in a dilemma almost as perplexing as the administration’s current approach to the ongoing conflict.
At the end of the day, accepting a 60-day ceasefire now may be the best move for Israel—at least temporarily. This pause could be a strategic opportunity to regroup, renegotiate a better deal in the near future, and prepare for a more favorable political landscape. With discussions suggesting that a hardline against Iran could be on the horizon with a budding Trump administration, there might just be a glimmer of hope. After all, the ultimate goal should be to see an end not just to hostilities in Lebanon but to the larger threat posed by Iran and its proxies. For now, one thing is abundantly clear: the stakes are high and the true friends of Israel are those who recognize that negotiations cannot come at the expense of its security.
