Biden has been harshly critical of Israel's actions, accusing its bombing campaign of the Gaza Strip of causing a marked increase in indiscriminate, especially civilians. This criticism was seen as a condemnation of Israel's long-term occupation of the Gaza Strip and violations of Palestinian rights. Biden expressed strong dissatisfaction and concern about Israel's actions.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has responded strongly, insisting that Israel will never repeat the mistakes of the past. He stressed that Israel's bombing of Gaza was aimed at eradicating Hamas and other extremist forces and maintaining Israel's security. Netanyahu also referred to the U.S. bombing campaign against Germany and Japan during World War II, saying it was aimed at rooting out Nazis and Japanese militarism, and that Israel's actions had similar legitimacy.
In the face of Biden's criticism, Israel resolutely defends its actions on the important grounds of defending ***. They believe that only by striking *** and extremist forces can they cut off attacks from the Gaza Strip and ensure the security of the Israeli coast. Netanyahu's rhetoric shows that Israel will continue to uphold the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and resolutely push back against any attack on Israel.
As global criticism of Israel's actions continues to grow, Biden has gradually adjusted his position. They believe that Israel's indiscriminate bombardment of Gaza, which has resulted in a large number of civilians**, is unacceptable. Biden**'s criticism of Israel shows that they are more concerned about people's lives and human rights, calling on Israel to act more cautiously and humanely.
Biden's shift in stance is in line with the prevailing global tendencies. A growing number of States and organizations have expressed strong concern over Israel's actions and have called on Israel to cease its indiscriminate bombing and aggression against the Palestinian people. Biden's adjustment of stance shows that they have listened to the voice of the international community and are trying to maintain regional peace and stability by exerting pressure on Israel.
At the beginning of the Kazakh-Israeli conflict, the United States was firmly on Israel's side at first. However, as the war continued and the situation developed, the differences between the United States and Israel became more and more apparent. The main points of disagreement include the attitude of the two sides towards Gaza and their positions on the settlement of the Palestinian question.
First, the United States considers Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza to be a violation of humanitarian principles and has resulted in a large number of civilians. They strongly condemned Israel's actions and urged Israel to adopt a more cautious and targeted approach to strikes. Israel, on the other hand, sees its actions as similar to the U.S. bombing of Germany and Japan during World War II, and is a legitimate operation to eradicate terrorism and defend the country.
Second, the United States advocates a two-state solution as the only way out of the Middle East problem, believing that Israel's occupation of Gaza would be a huge mistake. They proposed that Fatah, led by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, rule Gaza in order to achieve peace and stability. However, Israel is adamantly opposed to this plan, and Netanyahu has said that he will not accept terrorist groups such as Fatah or Hamas to rule the Gaza Strip. Israel sees control of Gaza as an important means of securing ***, and they do not want a repeat of the mistakes of the Oslo Accords.
The growing differences between the United States and Israel reflect their different positions and concerns on the Middle East issue. The United States emphasizes humanitarian principles and the lives and rights of the population, and calls on Israel to adopt a more cautious and avoidable approach to civilians. Israel, on the other hand, focuses on defending and fighting terrorism, emphasizing its own legitimate actions and analogies to the bombing campaigns of World War II. Such differences pose a severe test to the U.S.-Israel relationship, which may not only lead to increased tensions between the two countries, but may also affect peace and stability in the Middle East.
Israel's concerns and actions take into account the post-war situation and arrangements. They did not give a clear plan for the post-war Gaza Strip, but some clues can be seen in the statements of the Israeli leadership. Israel's attitude is that they do not necessarily have to occupy Gaza, but they must not allow Gaza to become a base of attack against Israel again.
High-level Israeli officials have said they plan to establish a buffer zone in Gaza, maintain a military presence and help create a local governing body that is not controlled by extremist forces. Such a plan is designed to prevent Gaza from falling into the hands of terrorist groups again and to provide security guarantees for Israel. They are concerned about whether handing over Gaza to Palestinian leadership institutions, such as Fatah, will be able to maintain stable control of Gaza and prevent the resurgence of extremist groups such as Hamas.
Israel's concerns and considerations stem from their deep reflection on history and reality. In retrospect, the Oslo Accords gave the Palestinian leadership control of the Gaza Strip, but internal unrest and the rise of terrorist groups eventually led to Hamas taking control of Gaza and continuing attacks on Israel. Israel does not want to repeat the mistakes of the past and hand over Gaza to Fatah or other organizations that may be difficult to control. They fear the formation of an extremist stronghold in the Gaza Strip that threatens Israel's ***
In addition, Israel sees hatred and forces against Israel within the Palestinian leadership, and they fear that if Palestine controls both Gaza and the West Bank, this could lead to a new large-scale offensive. In Israel's view, the resurgence of terrorist groups and the security of the country can be ensured only through the establishment of a local governing body that is not controlled by extremist forces, a strengthened military presence in Gaza and a strengthened border control.
As the war continues, both the United States and Israel are under increasing pressure. The United States is not only under pressure at home and abroad, but also transmits this pressure to Israel. Biden's criticism of Israel and the adjustment of his stance have increased the pressure on Israel's space and time for action.
For Israel, post-war arrangements and settlements may be even more difficult. Israel needs to prevent Gaza from becoming a base for terrorist groups again while safeguarding ***. Control of the Gaza Strip will be a key test, and how to ensure governance in the region while avoiding the rise of extremist forces such as Hamas will be a complex challenge.
Overall, the growing differences and pressures between the United States and Israel have further reduced Israel's space and time for action. Post-war arrangements and solutions will be a daunting task, and Israel will need to find ways to balance the interests of all parties while maintaining the best of the best. The outcome of the war and the post-war situation will determine the future of the Middle East, and we need to wait and see.