Biden’s next step: A blunt conversation with Netanyahu for lasting ‘peace’

First, the four-day plus two-day extension pause in fighting in Gaza is hugely important. It means that for six days, the massive bombing of the territory, the killing of babies and elders and so many more will end. It also means some Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners will be released and humanitarian aid will get into the devastated and besieged area. 

Second, six days isn’t nearly enough. Even if the extension goes further to reach a full 10 days without killing. Israel has made clear it will go back to war the moment the pause expires. There’s still an urgent, desperate need for a full cease-fire. 

Voices around the world — from the Pope to the United Nations secretary-general, heads of state, the foreign policy chief of the European Union and protesters across the globe led by Palestinians, Jews and so many others — are all demanding a long-term cease-fire.  

Here in the U.S., members of Congress, health care and human rights workers, academics, students and so many more have joined the activists’ call. As I write, elected representatives of the New York, Virginia and Oklahoma State Assemblies, as well as congressional candidates and others, are holding a five-day fast outside the White House protesting the hunger crisis in Gaza and calling for a lasting cease-fire. 

President Biden said “the chances are real” that the short-term pause could lead to a longer suspension designed to release all of the hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7, but has not supported a lasting cease-fire. In fact, when the demand for a full cease-fire comes up, the administration’s official answer is some version of “a cease-fire only benefits Hamas.” This ignores the fact that stopping the bombing would profoundly benefit the children in Gaza — who Save the Children said, before the few days of respite, were being killed at the rate of one every 10 minutes. 

Biden, publicly and apparently in private, has issued occasional polite requests for Israel to try and not kill quite so many civilians. Through their actions, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government continue to simply say “no.” 

Why does Israel, the recipient of more military aid from U.S. taxpayers since World War II than any other country, feel so secure rejecting what their long-time sponsor wants? Because so far, they have seen no evidence that Washington’s requests are any more than that. 

There are no demands, no ultimatums and zero consequences for saying no. Each polite request is prefaced with affirmations that “The United States has Israel’s back.” That Israel will never have to stand alone and Israel has the right of self-defense. Apparently with few limits on alleged violations of the laws of war, including the deaths of children. 

On this issue, at the United Nations and around the world, the United States is severely isolated. Domestically, already weak support for the Biden administration is plummeting and leading congressional Democrats are worried about repercussions in 2024. The Democratic leadership is massively out of step with their political base.  

Things could change, and the White House could decide on a new approach, one based on international law and supported by public opinion. But Biden’s polite requests certainly wouldn’t do the job. Reaching a long-term cease-fire would require clear and unequivocal action, not just polite words. 

It can certainly start with words, though.  Here’s how that conversation could start:  

Biden: Too many people are dying. You’ve got to stop the bombing. We need a cease-fire right now.  

Netanyahu:  Nope.  

Biden: Okay then. What’s left of this year’s almost $4 billion worth of weapons and cash from U.S. taxpayers that’s already in the pipeline? You can kiss that goodbye. Next, remember that additional $14 billion we’ve been trying to get congressional approval to send you?  You can forget about that stash too.

Funding isn’t Biden’s only leverage. He can reverse his position and encourage the International Criminal Court to get moving on the stalled investigation of Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Additionally, the U.S. can vote for an immediate cease-fire at the U.N. Security Council and an arms embargo to enforce it, call for the release of all remaining hostages and detainees illegally held by all sides and press for an end to the siege of Gaza so unlimited humanitarian aid can flow in.  

That’s just the start. Step two turns words into action. 

Under step two, the U.S. would immediately stop enabling, funding, arming and protecting atrocities in Israel. It would halt weapons and money shipments in their tracks. And it would begin the process of ensuring real international accountability — including its own. 

Some version of that conversation, followed by a credible beginning of those actions, would lead to a cease-fire quickly. Ending the killing is in Washington’s hands. 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has called for conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel on human rights. So far, that’s not happening. The Washington Post says the conditions are “nonstarters” partially because Biden has “a personal attachment to Israel.” 

Put Biden’s feelings aside for a minute. With so many lives at stake (remember the premature babies wrapped in tin foil for extra heat because Israel refused to allow any fuel into Gaza for over a month) no one’s emotional ties should be allowed to determine policy. Not even the president’s. 

Just look at the politics. Sixty-six percent of people in this country — and 80 percent of Democrats — want a cease-fire. Hundreds of administration workers — 1,000 at USAID alone — have signed letters protesting Washington’s support for Israel’s assault. More than 100 congressional staffers risked their jobs to stand in protest on the Capitol steps saying the same thing. This is not the automatic Israel-right-or-wrong era of the past.   

Right now, our demand is still for a full permanent cease-fire — and Washington needs to call for it. Lives are at stake. And history is watching.

Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves as the international adviser for Jewish Voice for Peace. Her books include “Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer.”