how the United States ended up changing its position on a ceasefire in Gaza

Change of direction. On Friday March 22, the United States submitted a draft resolution to the UN for a “immediate ceasefire” in the Gaza Strip. The text was rejected by the United Nations Security Council, but it marked a turning point for Washington since Israel launched an intensive military operation against Hamas in this small territory populated by 2 million inhabitants, after the attack terrorist of October 7. The world’s leading power, historic ally of the Jewish state, has until now systematically opposed any “immediate ceasefire” in UN resolutions.

Since the start of the conflict, the United States has opposed resolutions calling for an end to the fighting three times. Washington thus vetoed it for the last time on February 20. That day, Algeria’s draft resolution demanded “an immediate humanitarian ceasefire”. “I understand the desire to act urgently (…) but this desire cannot blind us to the reality on the ground”had justified Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the American ambassador to the UN, believing that the truce should have been conditional on the release of the Israeli hostages.

Criticized for their blind support

A month later, the United States therefore submitted its own text to the UN Security Council. The American resolution, consulted by AFP, underlines “the need for an immediate and lasting ceasefire to protect civilians on all sides, enable the delivery of essential humanitarian assistance (…) and with this in mind, unequivocally supports international diplomatic efforts to achieve to such a ceasefire in connection with the release of the hostages still held”. But it was notably rejected by Russia and China.

The Russian ambassador to the UN denounced a resolution “hypocritical” which did not directly call for silencing the guns. While the United States is criticized for its blind support for Israel, Antony Blinken, the head of American diplomacy, described this initiative as “strong signal”. “The United States wants to show that it has two priorities: improving the humanitarian situation there and freeing the hostages. It’s quite clever, because it puts pressure on all parties”observes David Rigoulet-Roze, researcher at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Iris).

“There have been elements of language that are explicitly less favorable to Israel for a while. Support remains, but it is not unconditional.”

David Rigoulet-Roze, researcher at Iris

at franceinfo

A difficult line for Washington to maintain. “The United States feels virtually trapped because it cannot not support Israel, but this support constrains it because of the intransigence of Benjamin Netanyahuexplains David Rigoulet-Roze. It is he and his government, in particular his two far-right ministers, Bezalel Smotrich, the Minister of the Economy, and Itamar Ben Gvir, the Minister of Internal Security, who are targeted.”

A change of tone for Joe Biden

In recent weeks, Joe Biden has allowed himself to openly criticize the Israeli Prime Minister, underlines CNN. In December, the outgoing American president denounced “indiscriminate bombings”. In March, the elected Democrat judged on the MSNBC channel that Benjamin Netanyahu “did more harm than good to Israel” by his conduct of the war in Gaza.

“He has the right to defend Israel, the right to continue attacking Hamas. But he must pay more attention to the innocent lives lost.”

Joe Biden, President of the United States

on MSNBC

The human toll in Gaza (more than 30,000 dead, according to the Hamas Ministry of Health) helped to change the position of the United States. Especially since the Israeli army is preparing for an offensive on the city of Rafah, where around 1.5 million Palestinians are crowded, according to the UN. A necessity pour “to overcome” militarily Hamas in Gaza, justifies Benjamin Netanyahu. A “error” and an operation “useless”replies Antony Blinken.

The risk of famine in the Gaza Strip also pushed the White House to increase pressure on Tel Aviv. In early March, US Vice President Kamala Harris urged Israel to “do more to significantly increase the flow of aid” humanitarian in Gaza. “There are no excuses”, she insisted. Antony Blinken, for his part, recalled that “100% of Gaza’s population is severely food insecure.”.

Faced with the deterioration of the situation in the Palestinian enclave, Joe Biden announced in early March the opening of a maritime corridor between Cyprus and Gaza and ordered “an emergency mission to establish a temporary port on the coast of Gaza”. According to political science professor Denis Charbit, interviewed on franceinfo, “consultation at the humanitarian level no longer exists” between the United States and Israel and Joe Biden “no longer expects cooperation from Israel”.

Opinion less favorable to the war

If the President of the United States has changed his speech, it is also to come to terms with American opinion supporting a cease-fire. According to a Pew Research Center poll, 46% of Americans aged 18 to 29 believe that Israel’s response to Hamas attacks is “unacceptable”. Eight months before a presidential election which promises to be tense in the face of Donald Trump, “Joe Biden cannot afford” to lose votes, observes David Rigoulet-Roze.

Issue : “the young Democratic base is significantly less pro-Israeli”notes the Iris researcher. The Muslim electorate, which largely supported Joe Biden in 2020, could also turn his back on him. During the Democratic primaries, some also called for a blank vote to protest against his foreign policy. In Minnesota, one of the states with the largest Muslim community in the country, nearly 20% of Democratic voters made this choice, according to public radio NPR.