By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A former senior US official revealed that the Biden administration considered publicly criticizing Prime Minister Netanyahu for hindering ceasefire and hostage release negotiations with Hamas but refrained due to concerns it would harden Hamas’s stance. The US believed Netanyahu was intransigent on multiple occasions, even adding conditions and delaying agreements. Delays occurred, such as when Netanyahu insisted on maintaining troops in the Philadelphi Corridor, adding further complications to the negotiations. The official concluded that the US prioritized a hostage deal more than Israel.
Read the original article here
Biden official: Netanyahu sabotaged deals but calling him out would have helped Hamas. This is a pretty loaded statement to unpack, but let’s give it a shot. It essentially suggests that a high-ranking official within the Biden administration believed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was actively working to undermine peace efforts, and that publicly criticizing him would have somehow benefited Hamas. That’s a delicate balance, and the implications are pretty significant.
The idea that Netanyahu was sabotaging deals is a serious accusation. Even if the Israeli negotiators themselves were reportedly frustrated with his tactics, the core issue here is whether or not the Prime Minister actually *wanted* peace. The input includes a quote from Matthew Miller, who was the spokesperson for the US Department of State, recalling Netanyahu saying, “We are going to be fighting this war for decades to come.” This, if accurate, paints a picture of a leader seemingly accepting, or even planning for, a long-term conflict rather than seeking a resolution.
If Netanyahu was indeed obstructing peace, the question then becomes why. One theory, mentioned in the input, is that Netanyahu, fearing potential criminal charges and a loss of power, preferred the status quo. This, of course, would be a cynical calculation, with the cost being the continued suffering of Israelis and Palestinians alike. The prospect of a protracted conflict, with the ongoing need for his leadership, could be seen as politically advantageous. And there is evidence that he was afraid of any conflict.
But the most interesting part of this whole situation is the idea that calling Netanyahu out would have been a win for Hamas. The logic here might be that publicly shaming Netanyahu could weaken his position, potentially leading to instability within Israel. This could have created an opportunity for Hamas to gain ground or influence. On the other hand, remaining silent might have been viewed as complicity, suggesting the US was supporting Netanyahu’s actions, even if they were detrimental to peace. This is the dilemma. There is no easy answer to the puzzle.
Of course, it’s important to remember that everyone has an agenda. The information is that Netanyahu is a warmonger, but Hamas is as well. The complexities of this situation are difficult to understand. Accusations of war crimes on both sides are a serious matter. The argument about the right of return is, of course, the point of contention.
It also touches on the fact that the relationship between the US and Israel is a complex and multifaceted one. The US has been a strong ally of Israel for decades, and this relationship is often seen as critical for stability in the region. Publicly criticizing Netanyahu would have risked damaging this alliance, potentially creating further instability. The US is, in many ways, caught between a rock and a hard place.
The other part of the equation is that there are questions about the Israeli government’s actions and their impact. Does the bombing of civilian infrastructure in response to Hamas’s actions, for instance, justify the loss of civilian lives? And what about the broader issue of a possible occupation of Gaza? These questions require a thorough examination.
Ultimately, the situation presented in the input highlights the challenges of navigating international politics, particularly when dealing with long-standing conflicts. It forces a look at the interplay between different actors and their motivations. It shows us that the pursuit of peace often involves navigating a complex web of competing interests, strategic considerations, and difficult choices. It’s about recognizing that sometimes the best path forward is not always clear, and that the right decision might not be the most popular one.