'Hug Bibi' strategy: Ben Rhodes shows how Democrats lost the plot on Gaza
In a recent New York Times column, one of former President Barack Obama’s closest advisers, Ben Rhodes, offered a long-overdue and merciless analysis of how badly the US Democratic Party has mismanaged the Gaza tragedy - and more broadly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the past decade.
He summarised the Biden administration’s policy after 7 October 2023 as the “hug Bibi” strategy, referencing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The assumption was that “smothering Mr. Netanyahu with unconditional support would give the U.S. leverage to influence his actions”.
Never has an assumption been more wrong.
Netanyahu, a true master in deceiving the Washington establishment, bamboozled a US administration once again. He took everything from President Joe Biden without conceding anything; the notorious US leverage was thus absent in Gaza.
During the last 15 months of the Biden presidency, Israel received billions of dollars in weapons from the US, and used them indiscriminately against Palestinian civilians. The US veto shielded Tel Aviv from UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire, and both nations attacked the International Criminal Court for pursuing charges against Netanyahu and his former defence minister.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
American double standards were systematically applied, standing in stark contrast to Washington’s position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
This policy was highly damaging for both the US Democratic administration and the party as a whole. Both were called hypocrites: on one hand, they incessantly advocated for a rules-based world order, while on the other, they stayed shamefully silent and idle as Israel openly violated it.
This choice cost the party - not only its moral standing, but also a lot of votes, especially among youths.
Dubious talking points
Even as civilian casualties in Gaza soared, the Democratic narrative stuck to the same worn-out Aipac talking points, focusing on Israel as the “only democracy in the Middle East” and on its right to self-defence - while simultaneously insisting that the Palestinian Authority (PA) must reform and become a “credible partner for peace”.
These talking points sound less and less convincing. The fact that Israel is a democracy cannot be invoked as a mitigating circumstance for its war crimes, but as an aggravating one. Real democracies should not act in such a criminal manner.
The topic under discussion is not Israel’s right to self-defence, but its disproportionate use of force, as evidenced by the overwhelming number of civilian casualties in Gaza. In addition, an occupying power - as Israel still is in Gaza, according to international law - cannot easily invoke its right to self-defence over threats originating from the same territory and people it is keeping under occupation.
As Rhodes correctly remarks: 'Sometimes, to win, you must show that there are principles for which you are prepared to lose'
For those still unaware, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 did not end its occupation, as the Israeli army continues to control the territory’s land, air and sea borders. Even along the southern border with Egypt, Cairo dares not do anything without Israel’s prior consent.
As for PA “reform”, we must clarify what this word means. To be sure, there is a need for better governance and a curb on corruption in Ramallah - but real reforms can come only when the Palestinian leadership stops collaborating with Israel and enabling its occupation of the West Bank. Only then can the PA become - for the whole Palestinian people - a credible partner for peace.
But if “reform” instead means that Palestinian authorities must become more zealous in enabling Israel’s occupation, and better at tipping off the Israeli army during its lethal security operations in the West Bank - well, that would be a non-starter.
To avoid any misunderstanding, the last thing that Netanyahu and his right-wing government desire is a reformed PA. Their refusal to release from prison the only credible leader capable of unifying Palestinians, Marwan Barghouti, is compelling evidence in this regard.
Sidelining Palestinian rights
Rhodes correctly defines such worn-out talking points as a “smoke screen - a stale formula to be used in Washington rather than a description of reality in the Middle East”.
The same talking points have been parroted over the past two years by most top European Union leaders, apparently unaware of the moral abyss into which they were plunging themselves - and the values they so proudly claim to defend - by failing to lift a finger to sanction Israel or to stop its crimes across the occupied Palestinian territories.
Rhodes brilliantly summarised the situation as follows: “Many Democrats [were put] in the awkward position of seeking support from organizations including AIPAC donors and affiliated PACs, which spent tens of millions of dollars to attack a Democratic president’s policies and consistently undermined efforts to achieve a two-state solution.”
The fact that in a 2009 speech, Netanyahu paid lip service to the potential for a Palestinian state, but by 2015 was promising no Palestinian state on his watch, seemed to elude both the US Democratic Party and the future Biden administration.
Rhodes also recalls how US Democrats were mesmerised by the 2020 Abraham Accords, and tried to enable them after the first Trump administration - when it was evident, even to the more distracted observer, that they sidelined Palestinian rights to self-determination and statehood.
Rhodes further describes an unsuccessful attempt to insert into Biden’s 2020 campaign platform a reference to the Israeli occupation, and a pledge to restrict assistance to Israel if it annexed Palestinian territories. Sadly, he notes, “Democrats were unwilling to oppose Israeli policies even if they ran directly counter to long-held Democratic Party positions”.
This situation did not change after 7 October 2023. The trauma of that day, and the ensuing events, prompted the US to once again cave to Israeli logic - after having feebly and unsuccessfully advised Netanyahu to restrain from brutal vengeance, like the US pursued after 9/11.
Democrats nurturing doubts about where Israel and the peace process were headed found themselves “trapped in a no man’s land sticking to talking points detached from the reality of the Middle East”, Rhodes notes.
Cognitive dissonance
Ultimately, the problem is not with Democratic voters, but with the party leadership, which seems to increasingly find itself in a state of cognitive dissonance. Polls show that only a third of Democrats have a favourable view of Israel, down from 73 percent in 2014, while 77 percent now believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Rhodes bravely outlines the correct approach: “The simplest thing to do would be the right thing: refuse to provide military assistance to a government that has committed war crimes; support the International Criminal Court in its work, whether it is focused on [Russian President] Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu; oppose any effort by Israel to annex the West Bank or ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip; invest in an alternative Palestinian leadership from Hamas that can ultimately govern a Palestinian state; stand up for democracy in Israel as in the United States.”
With all due respect to Obama’s former adviser, had such words been uttered by his boss, another noble figure in the Democratic Party, it would have made a big difference.
Nevertheless, some Democratic politicians are beginning to react. A resolution introduced by Representative Rashida Tlaib to recognise the Gaza genocide was co-sponsored by 21 of her colleagues, amounting to 10 percent of House Democrats.
One of them, Representative Ro Khanna, declared on X (formerly Twitter): “I agree with the UN commission’s heartbreaking finding that there is a genocide in Gaza. What matters is what we do about it - stop military sales that are being used to kill civilians and recognize a Palestinian state.”
At the same time, Aipac’s intimidating power and wrath seem to be waning - a reality that has begun to dawn among Democratic Party officials. Indeed, this once-powerful lobby is becoming an increasingly toxic brand for Democrats on Capitol Hill, some of whom are refusing its donations.
It remains to be seen whether, and how, this increased awareness among Democratic members of Congress, alongside the gap between voters and party leadership, will affect midterm elections and the 2028 presidential nomination process.
As Rhodes correctly remarks: “Sometimes, to win, you must show that there are principles for which you are prepared to lose.”
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
