US calls for UN vote on immediate ceasefire in Gaza – what this shift says about America’s relationship with Israel

The United States has significantly shifted its position on Gaza by submitting a UN security council resolution calling for an “immediate and sustained ceasefire”, tied to the release of the hostages kidnapped by Hamas.

This is the first time that the US has supported calls for an an immediate ceasefire, and indicates a further chilling of its relationship with Israel. It has previously vetoed three attempts at the UN to vote for a ceasefire.

Although US secretary of state Antony Blinken was in Israel ahead of the vote, which was vetoed by Russia, China and Algeria, the rift between the US and Israeli positions seems to be growing. Speaking during the Blinken visit, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “I hope we will do it with the support of the United States, but if we have to, we will do it alone.”

The US has upped its pressure on Israel in recent weeks, with President Joe Biden outlining plans to send aid to Gaza in his recent State of the Union annual address.

He said in the speech that Israel “had a fundamental responsibility to protect innocent victims in Gaza” and reiterated his call for six-week long ceasefire. He also announced that the US would be building a temporary pier in Gaza to receive large ships carrying food, water, medicine and temporary shelters.

The US has historically been one of Israel’s closest allies, something that has been put to the test with Israel’s conflict in Gaza. As a humanitarian crisis has unfolded, Biden, under increasing pressure from various voting blocs in the US has made important rhetorical shifts in his language about Israel and the war in Gaza.

Only 20% of US voters under 30 approve of Biden’s handling of the conflict based on polling from December. Support for Biden from Arab-Americans fell to just 17% based on polling taken at the start of the conflict, a 42% drop.

Public opinion in the US has certainly shifted on the issue. Half of Americans, according to a February Associated Press poll, think that Israel has gone too far in its handling of the conflict.

A Pew Research poll from March showed that the US is evenly split on sending military aid to Israel, with only 36% of Americans supporting this compared to 34% who oppose. Half of those polled also support providing humanitarian aid to Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

This marks a remarkable shift in US public opinion. Israel has been one of the biggest recipients of US aid, receiving about US$300 billion (£238 billion) adjusted for inflation since its independence.

The US-Israeli partnership was initially mutually beneficial. During the cold war, Israeli assistance in discovering Soviet capabilities was so helpful that a retired US Air Force intelligence chief, George Keegan, remarked that it was the equivalent of having five CIAs.

When it appeared Arab states had become closer to the Soviet Union, the US adopted a policy of ensuring that Israel had a qualitative military edge (an ability to defend itself from credible military threats). This led to decades of arms sales under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

The need to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge was even enshrined in US law in 2008. It means that the US cannot provide weapons to any other country in the Middle East that would compromise Israel’s advantage.

With US assistance, Israel emerged with one of the most sophisticated military and intelligence units in the world.

US veto power

Historically, the US has used its veto power in the United Nations to veto 45 resolutions (out of 89 total security council resolution vetoes) that were critical of Israel – more than any other security council member). Thirty-three of these vetoed resolutions concerned the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

Even under the Barack Obama administration, which notably had a fractious relationship with Netanyahu, US support remained unwavering. Though Obama prioritised visiting Cairo instead of Tel Aviv, and promised the Muslim world a “new beginning”, he oversaw Israel’s largest military package to Israel, worth US$38 billion over a decade.

But things have changed since Israel became more autocratic under Netanyahu’s leadership, most notably in the last few years. Netanyahu has been attempting personalise power into his own hands, undercutting the judiciary and filling the state with loyalists, all while fighting off corruption charges.

Hamas’s shocking and brazen attack on October 7 may have been made more possible due to lapses in Israeli intelligence.

Though the US understood that Israel would have to respond in some way after over 200 Israeli civilians were taken hostage, the humanitarian crisis and over 30,000 civilians deaths that have resulted from the military assault on Gaza have caused the Biden administration to change its tack. Most recently Biden has railed that Israel’s actions are “over the top”.

And it’s not just Biden that has found fault with Israel’s approach to Gaza. Other high level members of government have voiced their concerns. Most notably, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish member of Congress, publicly rebuked Israel’s leadership marking a significant turn in US foreign policy.

Continuing to aid Israel poses a dilemma as US foreign aid is legally contingent on the recipient state not committing gross human rights violation. The Biden administration announced in February of last year that it would not arm states that violated this principle.

But it’s unlikely that this kind of cancellation of US aid at scale will happen. This would require the US Congress and the president to agree to obstruct the sale of military aid through a joint resolution.

For now, the Biden’s administration’s UN resolution marks a remarkable shift in US policy, and demonstrates the incredible strain of the “special relationship”.

Natasha Lindstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.