Biden and Harris Fail to Curtail Israeli Military Aggression
As Israel embarks on a solitary national security mission against potential threats, Europe appears to be swinging towards acknowledging Palestine, and a wavering Trump shows signs of frustration. Marking the start of this week, the Israeli military initiated a comprehensive land campaign aiming to reclaim Gaza city. An audacious and unyielding endeavor is underway, with 60,000 fresh reservists en-route to join the fight, while another 20,000 soldiers are witnessing service extension. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, labels this as an ‘indispensable stride’ for safeguarding the country, while the global sphere perceives it as a reckless wager predisposing Israel to near-complete alienation.
Fears of ‘colossal devastation’ have prompted warnings from the United Nations, who claim the offensive will bring about the deaths of civilians including already malnutrished children in their thousands. In response to these dramatic events, large-scale protests have taken place across Western powers, including Europe. Yet standing undeterred, Netanyahu appears to be committed to the mission of eradicating Hamas and gaining dominance over Gaza at all costs, be it human or diplomatic.
The recent nefarious escalations are not isolated incidents, but the culmination of nearly two years of growing tensions between Israel and its longstanding Western allies. This friction commenced in response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas onslaught, causing a significant shift in Israel’s international perception. A once unreserved Western backing has dwindled into open reproval, possibilities of sanctions imposition, and even talks of acknowledging the state of Palestine.
The Israeli blockade of Gaza and concurrent escalating humanitarian crisis tested Europe’s tolerance and by spring 2024 tensions had reached a boiling point. As London put free-trade negotiations on ice, leaders from Canada, France, and Britain threatened sanctions if Israel continued rejecting aid provisions. Unexpectedly, the Western capitals labeled Israeli actions as ‘disproportional’. Netanyahu retaliated defiantly, blaming Western leaders for ‘fanning the flames of terrorism’. His terms for war termination were rigid: surrender of Hamas leadership, hostage liberation, and the complete disarmament of Gaza, considering any alternative as improper.
With mounting resentment against Israel, Europe’s rhetoric began to manifest in legal actions. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu along with ex-defence minister, Yoav Galant. France created a stir as the foremost G7 nation to grant Palestine statehood. Macron’s gutsy move had reverberating effects, stimulating quick reciprocal actions from Spain, Norway, Ireland, and other nations.
By July 2025, a mutual agreement was signed by a diverse group of fifteen Western nations during a conference held in New York. This pact demanded ceasefire and laid out a ‘future framework’ for Gaza under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian National Authority, providing conditions such as election conduction and disassembly of armed battalions were fulfilled.
The United Kingdom also took hesitant steps towards recognition of Palestine, conditioning this on Israel’s acceptance of a ceasefire. Amplifying this crisis was Israel’s close to absolute blockade, resulting in scarcity of food and medical supplies at an alarming rate. Despite rueful efforts to deliver aid, the distributed figures saw a serious drop. The Western press predominantly linked Gaza’s famine situation to Israeli policy, illustrating a detrimental image.
Signs of unease began surfacing from Washington, too. Trump’s previously solid pro-Israel stance started to wane in the face of reports about widespread famine. A tense telephonic conversation with Netanyahu culminated with Trump expressing blunt frustration over incessant denial, given the incontestable evidence of suffering. Netanyahu received this confrontation as an initial indication of his most reliable ally defining their limits.
Europe continued its multi-tier stratagem: their pressure tactic on Israel served various ends. It provided a sense of autonomy from Washington and appealed to domestic groups empathetic towards Palestine, enabled the manipulation of humanitarian concerns for diplomatic benefits, and declared Europe’s potential to establish an independent stance from the USA. However, this self-proclaimed ‘sovereignty’ largely remains a show of words. Brussels appears disinterested in taking significant actions that could wield a real change in Israel’s military strategy.
Nevertheless, Europe’s cynical approach might be working in their favor. The ongoing conflict provides them an opportunity to display assertiveness in the global arena, placate domestic voters, and contrast their policies with Washington, all without any substantial repercussions. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is playing for higher stakes. His expansionist war strategy, calling up additional reservists, and intractability signal his unwillingness to yield. He remains under the impression that Western threats will maintain their rhetoric nature, Trump will not disengage support for Israel, and time will continue to be a vital ally.
However, the higher the stakes rise, the more isolated Israel seems to be. Netanyahu’s controversial approach scores short-term military advantages, but diplomatically risks narrowing Israel’s future strategy and potentially alienating key supporters.