The planned Israeli attack on Rafah, initially expected by early March, has yet to unfold, prompting speculation. However, this delay should not be mistaken for a change of heart by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While external pressures, especially from the U.S., may have slowed the advance, Israel’s strategy remains firm, shaped by internal political divisions and strategic maneuvering rather than humanitarian concerns.
Washington’s concerns over the escalation in Rafah are not motivated by empathy; military aid to Israel has continued unabated despite the high civilian toll. The delay is due instead to the Biden administration’s growing anxiety over the potential fallout. A full-scale assault on Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians are now confined, risks sparking regional uprisings that could destabilize neighboring countries and challenge U.S.-backed regimes across the Middle East. These concerns have led to a diplomatic deadlock, with U.S. officials pressing for restraint, while Netanyahu, facing mounting domestic pressure, hesitates to compromise.
Stalemate Amid Talks of Ceasefire
Current negotiations involve staged discussions with Hamas aimed at achieving a temporary truce. The proposed arrangement would unfold in three stages: an initial ceasefire to facilitate the release of some hostages, followed by talks on a more enduring cessation of hostilities, and eventually, lifting the blockade on Gaza to permit reconstruction efforts. Yet, Israel’s insistence on resuming its offensive as soon as hostages are freed reveals the depth of the impasse. For Netanyahu, allowing a complete withdrawal from Gaza without dismantling Hamas’s presence would equate to a strategic loss, one he can ill afford given his precarious hold on power. With approval ratings slipping and opposition within Israel calling for new elections, Netanyahu sees this war as a means to maintain his political grip. Meanwhile, Hamas remains steadfast, refusing any deal that does not ensure an Israeli retreat from Gaza.
U.S. Imperialism and Shifting Influence
The U.S. plays a critical role in this equation, as Israel depends heavily on American military support, particularly for precision-guided weapons used in Gaza. Despite Biden’s public calls to reduce civilian casualties, cutting military aid is off the table. Washington’s credibility as a steadfast ally is at stake, and any significant policy shift could further erode its influence, especially in the face of rising powers like China and a more assertive Russia. This precarious balance reflects America’s waning global dominance. In the 1950s, U.S. influence was such that a directive from Washington could compel Israel’s compliance, as seen during the Suez Crisis when Israeli forces withdrew from Sinai on American orders.
Today, Netanyahu defies Biden’s pleas, pressing forward with his Gaza strategy despite calls for restraint. Biden’s appeal for a restrained approach, symbolized by recent calls to Netanyahu and a visit from Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to Washington, underscores his limited leverage. These efforts are not driven by a shift in U.S. values but rather by fears of regional instability. Allies like Jordan and Egypt are facing internal pressures to respond more decisively to the crisis, further complicating U.S. attempts to stabilize the region without appearing to abandon Israel.
The Calculations Behind Delaying Rafah’s Attack
Netanyahu’s government, facing both international scrutiny and domestic dissent, has opted to delay the assault on Rafah, but not to abandon it. Israeli officials have stated that an invasion of Rafah remains essential, framing the delay as necessary to prepare “humanitarian enclaves” for civilians. This maneuver, intended to mitigate international backlash, provides temporary respite but does little to alter the ultimate plan.
Defense Minister Gallant has argued for exploring all options to secure hostages’ release, including negotiations and potential concessions. Meanwhile, Benny Gantz, who has emerged as a prominent figure within the National Unity cabinet, has visited Washington, effectively positioning himself as a potential successor to Netanyahu.
Gantz’s dialogue with U.S. officials, aimed at discussing the ceasefire, has reportedly strained his relationship with Netanyahu, who continues to resist any shift away from military escalation.
Domestic Pressures and Netanyahu’s Political Survival
For Netanyahu, maintaining a state of war has become essential to his political survival. Polls reveal a growing distrust among Israelis, with many supporting early elections that would likely see Netanyahu’s exit. Yet, as long as the conflict continues, he can defer these calls. This state of “managed war” allows him to cling to power, even as opposition figures within his own government, like Gallant and Gantz, begin to maneuver against him.
Netanyahu’s reliance on far-right allies further complicates his position. Cabinet members such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich view a ceasefire as a threat to their ideological goals. A prolonged ceasefire could stall their plans for Gaza, undermining Netanyahu’s coalition.
Regional Repercussions and Rising Tensions
The implications of a full-scale invasion of Rafah extend beyond Israel and Palestine. Arab nations, particularly those with close U.S. ties, are wary of the backlash that could ensue. Egypt’s Al-Sisi regime, already under domestic pressure, has warned that an influx of Palestinian refugees into Sinai could destabilize the region and strain its peace treaty with Israel. This concern has fueled Egyptian support for a ceasefire, despite a history of restricting Palestinian movement.
Hezbollah’s increased activity along Israel’s northern border is another pressing concern. Armed clashes have escalated, and some Israeli officials advocate extending the war to Lebanon. Former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman has openly called for “taking the war to the enemy’s territory,” a strategy that risks drawing the U.S. deeper into a broader conflict.
U.S. Imperialism on a Tightrope
As Biden seeks to manage this crisis ahead of the 2024 presidential election, his political calculations are evident. Public support for his handling of the conflict has waned, particularly among young voters and Muslim Americans, two key constituencies. The administration’s approach, alternating between backing Israel’s military aims and promoting humanitarian restraint, reflects a strained balancing act. Recently, the U.S. even proposed a UN resolution advocating an “immediate and durable ceasefire” linked to the release of hostages, signaling an acknowledgment of the need for a diplomatic solution.
However, Netanyahu’s recent statements indicate his intentions remain unchanged. He has emphasized Israel’s commitment to its military goals, vowing to eliminate Hamas and secure Israeli hostages. His refusal to address the Senate Democrats, coupled with a defiant statement to Senate Republicans, underscores his determination to continue the war despite international appeals for restraint.
Toward a Broader Struggle for Palestinian Rights
As Gaza faces unprecedented suffering, with starvation and displacement now routine realities, the limitations of Western diplomacy become increasingly clear. Temporary ceasefires may offer brief relief, but as long as Israel’s broader strategy remains unchecked, the risk of escalation persists. The inability of international institutions like the United Nations to enforce meaningful change underscores the profound imbalances of global power.
The plight of the Palestinians has catalyzed a worldwide movement, with calls for justice and self-determination growing louder. Revolutionary movements worldwide recognize that the struggle for Palestinian rights is part of a larger battle against imperialism and inequality. A truly transformative solution can only emerge through global solidarity and a collective commitment to dismantling oppressive systems that prioritize profit over human dignity.