How badly has US diplomacy been damaged by the war in Gaza?

In Norway, a woman's boyfriend forgets who she is, overnight.

In Detroit, a man is arrested, but he was never at the crime scene.

In Spain, disturbing pictures of young girls have appeared, and no one knows who's behind

them.

Something strange is happening, a collision between people and artificial intelligence.

Discover more in The Guardian's series, Black Box.

Listen to the whole series right now, wherever you get your podcasts.

The war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has now been going on for six months.

Since the October 7th Hamas attack against Israel that began the war, the death toll

in Gaza has soared to more than 33,000.

Hamas continues to hold some 130 Israelis and others hostage, while in Gaza, the more

recent fear has been of shortages of food and medicine, with experts warning of a man-made

famine.

Entire cities in Gaza in ruins, millions of Palestinians displaced, and the humanitarian

crisis continues to worsen, with warnings of famine and starvation from the UN.

And although criticism of Israel's conduct of the war has been growing in recent months,

last week there was a marked shift in tone from Western leaders.

After an Israeli airstrike in Gaza killed the seven aid workers for the organization

World Central Kitchen, President Biden is criticizing Israel, saying he is outraged

and heartbroken.

The most notable change has come from U.S. President Joe Biden, who went from saying

this back in October.

Israel's approach to the war a mistake.

So what has led to this faltering in U.S. support for Israel?

Will Joe Biden go where many in his party urge him to go, and stop supplying arms to

America's biggest ally in the Middle East?

And, in an election year that could see the removal of both Biden and Netanyahu, what

does the future hold for the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, and between Democrats

and the country, when this war eventually ends?

I'm Jonathan Friedland, columnist at The Guardian, and this is Politics Weekly America.

And right now, I see no way out that would, on the other side, produce the kind of stability

and security that would be peacemakers, including in the administration.

and advisor on issues in the region.

He now serves as senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing

on U.S. foreign policy.

a conflict that has deeply traumatized both Israeli and Palestinian society, who are,

I won't say they're leaderless.

They're simply led by two individuals, respectively, who are much more concerned with keeping their

seats than turning the parade of horrors we've witnessed since October, on October 7th, and

up until now, converting that to some sort of more hopeful pathway for Israelis and Palestinians.

how it's changed since October, when it was a warm embrace from Netanyahu, and then this

kind of ultimatum that he delivered to the Israeli prime minister in a phone call about

a week ago.

getting to a ceasefire.

Obviously, a big turning point was the killing of those World Central Kitchen aid workers,

but even before then, before last week, why do you think we were starting to see signs

of a gap widening between Washington and the government in Jerusalem?

and I think the World Central Kitchen tragedy, I think, has simply amplified and magnified

both the president's opposition to the way the Israelis are conducting the war and to

the man who is conducting it.

But I will make two additional points.

Number one, and I've characterized this policy over the last six months as passive aggressive.

Biden administration has been reluctant and has not decided as of yet to impose a single

cost or consequence, Jonathan, that you and I as normal humans would consider significant,

let alone severe pressure.

The administration has approached that point by adopting a position arguing that the threat

of leverage, we will judge our policy in Gaza depending on your performance.

He's put Benjamin Netanyahu on probation, but at the same time, he's given him a test

that is very easy, in my judgment, for the Israelis to pass.

It's a test linked not to the application of military strategy and the exponential rise

of Palestinian deaths.

It's a test that revolves around the issue of humanitarian assistance.

And you now have seen, over the last several days, almost 500 trucks per day get into Gaza.

The other dog that hasn't yet barked, which I think will definitely constrain the degree

to which this administration is prepared to pressure Israel, is if in fact the Iranians

make a strategic decision to respond to the killings of four or five senior IRGC, Iranian

Revolutionary Guard Corps generals.

President Biden warned that Iran is threatening to launch a significant attack after Israel

struck the Iranian consulate in Syria 10 days ago.

Mr. Biden was speaking hours after the Iranian supreme leader again said Israel would be

counter-strike by Israel on Iran proper, you could end up with the one thing the Middle

East has never experienced before, which is a genuine regional confrontation.

That's going to ease tensions between the U.S. and Israel.

with Iran, will be ironclad.

And so even as there are an attempt to escalate the rhetoric in terms of its handling of humanitarian

aid in the fight with Gaza, there is this promise for full solidarity and support.

At key moments, the administration has increased the pressure on Israel.

One was this move, which a lot of people have been saying would never happen, which is the

U.S. withholding its protective veto at the United Nations Security Council.

Instead, the U.S. allowed through, as it were, a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire

in language that certainly the administration had not been using until then.

But I want to focus on one big moment, partly because of the politics of it.

And that's not something the administration did, although it gave it its kinds of blessing.

And that was this speech by Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate.

in mind.

We should not be forced into a position of unequivocally supporting the actions of an

Israeli government that include bigots who reject the idea of a Palestinian state.

on the floor of the Senate denouncing Netanyahu and saying there should be elections in Israel.

A lot of Israelis are saying, well, when you've lost Chuck Schumer, you know, you've lost

America in effect.

Explain to listeners why that was so important and Schumer's particular link to Israel.

Jewish official in the United States, basically criticizing the prime minister.

It's the longest governing prime minister in the history of the state of Israel.

I think the Schumer speech was significant not for what it produced, but what it reflected.

It reflected the estrangement of much of the mainstream Democratic Party away from

the Netanyahu government and Israeli policies toward the war.

It also reflected the partisanship that has come to characterize what has long been a

solid and steadfast bipartisan commitment to support for Israel.

You now have a situation where the administration is navigating the fine line between a Republican

party that has emerged as the Israel can do no wrong party and a deeply divided Democratic

Party, progressives who are arguing for significant and severe imposition of costs and consequences

for Israeli actions, and more than a few mainstream Democrats.

a transfer of a new arms package to Israel and to withhold future offensive arms transfers

until a full investigation is completed.

Who for the first time are openly talking about conditioning or restricting U.S. military

assistance, but it has produced a downside and that it has opened up the opportunity

for the Republican Party, presumptive Republican nominee, to capitalize on an already manipulative

Israeli prime minister who is an Israeli Republican.

We do know that House Speaker Mike Johnson recently spoke over the phone with Israeli

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

And probably the biggest message that the House Speaker shared with him is he wanted

to show solidarity and support for Israel.

And he even spoke about plans to possibly invite the Israeli prime minister here to

D.C. on Capitol Hill to speak to a joint session of Congress to speak to both the House and Senate.

I don't think the Schumer speech moved the needle as much as maybe Chuck Schumer thought

it would. Yes, the White House pronounced the president said he thought it was a good

speech and reflects public concerns about certain aspects of Israeli policy.

It didn't move the needle much in Congress.

The reaction in Israel was actually underwhelming.

and the point you made about the Democrats.

Here are two big pro-Israel people, Biden and Schumer.

The question I was going to ask is, to what extent were they really having to operate

politically, that they were having to placate or address that view that on the left of the

party, progressive Democrats who are much, much more critical or much more distant from

Israel than either of them.

Yes, we've talked about their sort of heart and their convictions.

But is this a sign that that older generation, the Bidens and the Schumers, are having to

adapt and adjust to what is now a political, a domestic political reality inside their

own party?

I don't think there's any doubt generational changes, the diverse diversities in Congress,

the growing upset among many young Americans to question the value affinity, the shared

values between Israel and the United States, and whether or not there's a high coincidence

of common interests.

So there's no question that both Schumer and the president, the president facing an

election that could be decided by three or four states and under 100,000 votes, the so-called

uncommitted, those Democrats who basically at least have sent signals that they don't

know what they're going to do on November 5th.

They certainly won't vote for Donald Trump, but they may not vote and they may not vote

as a consequence of what they see as America's acquiescence.

a must-win state.

So it's not just Michigan.

But I come back to, again, I have still not seen this administration, even in the face

of this political pressure, and the fact that the president could lose.

He could lose to the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, which would be a terrible

outcome for this republic.

Our foreign policy.

And yet the president has still, six months in, refused to pull any of the levers that

he has had from the beginning of this conflict and pressure Israel.

Number one, to restrict condition or end military assistance to Israel.

Number two, voting for someone else's U.N.

Security Council resolution that is highly critical of Israel, something the United States

has not done since 1980 when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

And the third lever, which the president has not yet been willing to pull, which is to

abandon this notion of Israeli-Hamas negotiations and simply call, untethered from anything

else, for a comprehensive cessation of hostilities.

I mean, those are the three levers he could pull.

It's hurting him politically that he's not.

Why doesn't Biden do it?

security is so deeply imprinted on his emotional and his political DNA.

And by the way, his decades of service in the Senate has convinced him that this is

good for America.

It's good politics and it's good policy.

Does Joe Biden want to make a point in this war or does he want to make a difference?

There is no way he can change the pictures in Gaza, surging humanitarian assistance,

freeing the hostages, de-escalating the Israeli military campaign, let alone his hopes.

And they're still actively planning for an Israeli-Saudi regional deal involving the

Palestinians and support for a Palestinian state.

There is no way he can do any of this if he chooses to willfully break and renounce

this Israeli government and the Israeli public who support continued military operations

against Hamas.

He's got to have a relationship with Israel if he's going to get any progress on those

things.

But just on the other side of the dynamic, the other end of the telescope, if you like,

people are very used to hearing Israel described as being reliant, dependent on the United

States, that America is Israel's number one ally.

Why then, how can you explain how the prime minister of the country that is dependent

on the United States for its arms, as well as a whole lot of other stuff, is not complying

with these requests?

Why is Netanyahu thumbing his nose, and much worse, at a country on which he depends?

But his existential issue is about him.

The pressure on Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to call an early election

has now spread to his own cabinet, with anti-Netanyahu protesters now camping outside the

Israeli parliament.

It's about maintaining power at all costs.

That has turned a risk-averse Benjamin Netanyahu, which is the Benjamin Netanyahu of old,

the one that Biden said, you know, I love you, Bibi, but I don't agree with a damn thing

you were saying.

That's gone.

It's now the risk-ready Benjamin Netanyahu, the desperate Benjamin Netanyahu, the Benjamin

Netanyahu that is prepared to put his own political survival above the best interests

of his country.

And certainly, if he's prepared to do that, he's also prepared to risk, significantly

risk, his relationship, Israel's relationship, with the United States.

and plays well with the ultranationalist wing of his coalition and their supporters out

in the country.

Do you think he actually wants to see Joe Biden fail and even fall because of those

voters we've been talking about in Michigan and Wisconsin, young voters abandoning him?

Does Netanyahu think he will get better treatment from a returned Donald Trump?

First of all, do you think he thinks that?

And if he does, is it delusional for him to be thinking that Israel would get a better

deal from a re-elected, returned Donald Trump?

and bets when it comes to whether a Democratic president, one Joe Biden, who is now roundly

criticized personally, both Mohammed bin Salman, aka MBS, and now has shown nothing but distaste

and displeasure for Benjamin Netanyahu.

I don't know whether either of these two politicians believe they could get a better

deal.

I think they understand that they would face a president who has elevated the notion of

America first to a standard that goes beyond any of his successors and someone who is just

not interested other than driven by his own personal vanity and business interests in

what happens in Israel or Saudi Arabia.

I think had Donald Trump been president on October 7th, I don't think there would have

been a scintilla, an iota of humanitarian assistance.

There might have been concern for the six American hostages, but I doubt if Donald Trump

would give a damn about the rest.

There would be no concern about settlement activity, no concern about human rights and

MBS's repression in Saudi Arabia.

But I think in the back of both of their minds, Joe Biden, in a way, is a speed bump.

They would be better served by a laissez-faire president who could care less about international

standards and conventions when it came to human rights, much less concerned beyond his

own business purposes.

In the case of Israel, the fact that he fashions himself the most pro-Israeli president in

the history of the universe, beyond his own vanity.

relationship by the current administration.

Just tell us what you think the impact of the stance that Joe Biden has taken is.

There are some who say it's a disaster because it makes America look weak, that it issues

these demands or pleas of Israel that are then ignored.

And others, you know, Jon Stewart this week, among many, saying that it makes America look

hypocritical because it has one position on Ukraine where it denounces what Russia is

doing.

Then this, obviously a completely different situation, but somehow, you know, siding with

Israel when it is engaged in military operations in a next door territory.

Again, obviously different situations.

But that accusation that it looks weak, it looks hypocritical.

What do you think is the impact of the Joe Biden position, the Biden administration position

on the Israel-Hamas war?

But I have to say, looking back, we fought the two longest wars in American history,

defying international conventions.

We killed scores of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, innocents, not combatants, scores

of thousands, perhaps more.

And I was told we would never lead again.

In the wake of Afghanistan and the perceived betrayal of the Afghan people, I was told

we'd never lead again.

And then guess what?

Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine and the administration, it's an incomplete grade.

The semester clearly isn't over.

But I think by any standards, Joe Biden was capable of standing up and persuading key

elements of the international community to stand with him in an effort to support Ukraine.

So the question is, yes, we've taken a terrible reputational hit.

And the impact, the trauma, particularly on the Palestinian side, in the wake of our

acquiescence in Israeli actions, it will follow the United States for a long time to come.

We're still America with all of our imperfections, with all of our transgressions, with all of

our hypocrisies.

It may well be that the United States will be able, assuming it's willing, and it should

be risk ready on this, to fashion over time a better pathway for Israelis and Palestinians.

I certainly hope so, because to surrender to the forces of hopelessness and despair,

to admit that the United States simply has enabled, acquiesced in a conflict that is

going to leave both sides traumatized, simply I'm not prepared to accept.

And I understand the way people feel about the United States.

But I also know that under the right leadership, the United States can actually do things that

are quite consequential and good.

Thank you for that.

Before we let you go, we do like to ask our guest a what else question, something a little

bit different.

This week, Britain's Foreign Secretary, former Prime Minister David Cameron, made the journey

to Palm Beach, Florida, to Mar-a-Lago to meet the former and possibly future President Donald

Trump.

It was part of a strategy, an attempt to unlock USAID to Ukraine.

Donald Trump has been behind the scenes orchestrating the Republican bloc on that.

How did it go, do you think?

What juice do you think David Cameron would have had with Donald Trump?

And number two, he becomes a sort of piece on the chessboard that Donald Trump and his

minions can continue to manipulate.

You see, there are respected leaders of countries that are important to the United States that

made the pilgrimage.

I don't know why Cameron did this out of curiosity, a sort of maybe vicarious interest in seeing

what and who Donald Trump is now.

I can't imagine that David Cameron believes he's somehow hedging his bets and that should

the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party become president, that somehow Britain

is going to get some sort of special treatment because he made the pilgrimage to the not

so holy land.

I don't know the answer to that.

It puzzled me and I wondered.

I turned a question to my British friends to ask them, why did he do this?

I think there are some people at both sides of the Atlantic asking that question.

But Aaron David Miller, wise ahead of long experience on these matters.

Thanks so much for talking to me on Politics Weekly, America.

Thanks so much for having me.

The US is not the only country grappling with how to deal with the war in Gaza.

On this week's episode of Politics Weekly, UK, my colleague John Harris is joined by

the former peace negotiator Daniel Levy to discuss whether there is a pathway to end

the conflict.

John also speaks to The Guardian's Pippa Crera and Patrick Wintour about the politics

of dealing with this issue.

And as New York braces itself to host the first ever criminal trial of a former or sitting

US president, on Thursday's episode of our sister podcast, Today in Focus, my colleague

Hugo Lowell explains the stakes for Donald Trump as he appears in court over alleged

payments made to the adult film performer Stormy Daniels in the run up to the 2016 presidential

election.

Do search for both of those wherever you get your podcasts.

But for now, it's goodbye.

The producer is Daniel Stevens, the executive producer, Maz Ebtehaj.

I'm Jonathan Friedland.

Thanks, as always, for listening.

This is The Guardian.