By Shofi Ahmed

A recent Guardian article highlighted that US President Biden, who allocated $14 billion in military aid, helped flex Netanyahu’s muscle, resulting in a horrendous genocide in Gaza. Now expresses regret and genuine shock. The article further notes that this is not the Israel he once knew and supported for decades in Congress. Netanyahu is currently deliberately, even proudly, rejecting US calls to eschew tactics that would cause more casualties in southern Gaza.

Frankly speaking, it bags a question: what positive action, if any, can the fair, justice, and peace-loving world expect from Biden? Will this be just a political blip that will be overlooked, or will it prove to be a significant shift? It appears to be a decisive moment for Biden, a choice between defending defenceless victims or not.

Secretary of State Blinken demands that Israel cease breaking international law, a point echoed by Vice President Kamala Harris in Dubai. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned Netanyahu that he was “replacing a tactical victory with a strategic defeat” by driving Palestinians into the arms of Hamas.

Netanyahu’s current stance, marked by a deliberate and even proud rejection of US calls to avoid tactics that would lead to additional casualties in southern Gaza, raises pressing questions about the kind of positive action that the fair, justice, and peace-loving world can expect from Biden. Is this merely a political blip, just a moment of regret, or does it signal a broader and more significant shift in Biden’s approach to international relations? It seems to be a moment of profound decision-making for Biden, where the lives of defenceless victims hang in the balance.

The crucial question remains: if Biden and his administration have indeed come to realise the severity of Netanyahu’s force, recognizing its heinous nature that knows no humanity, what decisive actions will they take before it’s too late? The international community watches closely, expecting actions that align with principles of justice, humanity, and a commitment to international law.

As Biden faces this pivotal moment, the choice becomes clearer: whether to continue down a path that contradicts the values he insists he stands for or to intervene decisively to prevent further atrocities. The urgency of the situation calls for more than just rhetoric; it demands concrete actions that reflect a genuine commitment to justice and peace in the region.

The Urgency of Action

Rhetoric alone won’t suffice. Biden knows this. The urgency of the situation demands more than eloquent speeches and diplomatic niceties. Concrete actions are needed—decisive steps that reflect a genuine commitment to justice and peace.

Breaking International Law: Blinken’s demand that Israel stop breaking international law reverberates. The daily violations cannot be ignored. The world expects accountability, even from allies. Biden grapples with the delicate balance: how to hold a friend accountable without jeopardising strategic interests.

Strategic Defeat vs. Tactical Victory: Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s warning echoes in the Oval Office. Netanyahu’s tactical victories risk strategic defeat. By driving Palestinians into the arms of Hamas, Israel undermines its own long-term security. Biden weighs the consequences—the delicate dance between short-term gains and lasting stability.