POTUS AND ISRAEL
Zarrar Khuhro
Published June 30, 2025
DAWN
CLOSE to the end of the Israel-Iran war, and right after he had Iran’s Fordow enrichment centre bombed, the US president indulged in some unusual criticism of Israel. Granted, a day or so later, he was effusive in his praise for Israel’s prime minister and renowned war criminal Benjamin ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu, but given the death grip that Israel has on US politics, the fact that any criticism was made in the open is interesting.
Now we know that many US presidents haven’t exactly gotten along with Israel’s leaders and have, in fact, taken issue with many of Israel’s actions, but this is usually done behind closed doors.
If I had a hundred dollars for every time I read a ‘leak’ or ‘insider scoop’ about how displeased, angry or even livid former president Joe Biden had been with Netanyahu during the ongoing Gaza genocide, I’d be able to retire a good chunk of Pakistan’s debt by now. Of course, US military, economic and diplomatic support for Israel reached new heights under Biden, so the private criticism, if any, really doesn’t matter.
Obama himself once pointedly avoided visiting Israel after his 2009 Cairo speech, and it is known that his own relations with Netanyahu were strained, but this had no real effect on the US-Israeli relationship.
Bill Clinton was much the same, with many insiders and journalists talking about his private frustration with Netanyahu over the so-called peace process, but the private opprobrium never translated into public action.
But the further back you go, you see that there was a time when words were matched by action, or at least by the threat of action. In this case, we can refer to when George H.W. Bush threatened to withhold loan guarantees worth $10 billion from Israel in 1992 if it persisted with building settlements in the occupied West Bank.
But it is Ronald Reagan who gets the most credit among the post-1973 presidents for slightly standing up to Israel after it bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981. He suspended the delivery of F-16 jets and voted in favour of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel. A year later, when Israel invaded Lebanon, Reagan not only demanded an immediate withdrawal but also temporarily restricted military aid and assistance.
That aid had become crucial for Israel’s very existence; the 1973 Arab-Israeli war was an inflection point in the US-Israeli relationship, with Nixon launching Operation Nickel Grass, an airlift of military supplies that perhaps exceeded the volume of the Berlin airlift itself. These supplies allowed Israel to continue waging war and marked the moment when the US fully committed itself to Israel’s protection.
Things haven’t always been smooth between Israel and the US.
Prior to this, there had been severe strains which came close to derailing, but never quite derailed, the core relationship. Such as when Kennedy took Israel to task over its nuclear programme, insisting that it allow inspections of its Dimona nuclear facility.
Whether this would have led to a serious dispute is now a purely academic question, as Kennedy was assassinated soon afterwards. Interestingly, Republican congresswoman and hardcore MAGA adherent Marjorie Taylor Greene recently alluded to that assassination in a tweet, writing: “There was once a great president that the American people loved. He opposed Israel’s nuclear programme. And then he was assassinated.”
A few years after that, during the 1967 war, the Israeli navy and air force attacked a US Navy ship, the USS Liberty, which was stationed north of Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. In an assault that lasted over an hour, 34 crew members were killed and close to 200 injured. While Israel to this day claims that this was a case of mistaken identity, the survivors of the attack insist that it was deliberate, and that the ship was clearly marked as American. Compensation was paid, and the matter effectively covered up.
But the lowest point in US-Israeli relations had already come and gone in the shape of the 1956 Suez crisis, when Israel teamed up with Britain and France to invade Egypt. The colonial-settler state had been hungry for land since its inception, and Britain and France wanted to hold on to their remaining colonial glory.
US president Eisenhower was having none of it, though, and issued marching orders to the triple invaders, forcing a withdrawal. Of course, the US was also motivated by its fear of being embroiled in a larger Cold War conflict at this stage.
At the same time, pro-Israel elements were working diligently to expand Israel’s influence in America, notably by founding AIPAC in 1954, in part to counter ‘negative reactions’ to Israel’s massacre of Palestinian villagers the same year.
Since then, AIPAC has grown into a formidable force but is increasingly not immune to criticism, and we have seen hardcore MAGAists like the aforementioned Greene and Thomas Massie publicly criticise its influence and methods.
The writer is a journalist.
X: @zarrarkhuhro
Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2025
‘Man of peace’?
PAKISTAN, TRUMP AND NOBEL PRIZE
Trump’s imperious conduct and record so far contradict his claim of being a peacemaker.
Published June 30, 2025
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.
PRESIDENT Donald Trump wants to be known and acknowledged as a ‘man of peace’. But his imperious conduct and record so far are at sharp variance with this.
True, his instincts are against war, and he vowed not to involve the US in foreign entanglements and what he called “endless stupid wars”. This is what he promised in his election campaign.
He also claimed he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. During the presidential campaign, JD Vance described Trump as the “candidate of peace”. In his victory speech, Trump declared, “I am not going to start wars. I am going to stop wars.”
But in his opening days in power, his aggressive statements sent a message that no ‘man of peace’ would be identified with. He threatened to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal, if necessary by military force, and turn Canada into the 51st state of the US by using “economic force”.
He also said the US would “take over Gaza” and relocate Palestinians outside their homeland. He unleashed a trade war by imposing sweeping tariffs against almost all countries in the world. His bullying approach and coercive methods prompted The Economist to describe him as a modern-day Don Corleone. Others likened his leadership style to mafia tactics both at home and abroad.
Despite Trump’s boastful claims of bringing a quick end to the Ukraine war, he has been unable to do that. He claims to have promoted peace in the Middle East by forging a ceasefire between Israel and Iran following their 12-day war.
But lighting a fire and then putting it out hardly makes him a peacemaker. Israel, the aggressor, would never have attacked Iran in the first place without a green light from Washington.
Trump acknowledged he had advance knowledge of Israel’s June 13 military assault. But he did nothing to stop Benjamin Netanyahu. Instead, he used nuclear talks with Iran as a smokescreen while the Israeli military was preparing to attack Iran.
Trump later described the attack as “excellent” and admitted he had coordinated closely with Netanyahu. Then, in flagrant violation of international law, he ordered US warplanes to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, declaring triumphantly this had “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites and likening it to nuclear bombs dropped by the US on Japan in World War II. Is this what ‘men of peace’ do?
Trump’s imperious conduct and record so far contradict his claim of being a peacemaker.
Persuading Israel and Iran to agree to a ceasefire, which remains fragile, hardly supports Trump’s assertion to have established peace. Yes, the fighting has stopped for now, but peace is an altogether different matter.
Peace is established when disputes or issues are resolved. A ceasefire is what it says it is — a halt in active hostilities. Ceasefires can, of course, be a pathway to peace. But there is no chance of peace between Iran and Israel, who remain implacable enemies. Meanwhile, Trump declared he would bomb Iran again if the country was still able to enrich uranium to weapons-grade.
What contradicts Trump’s ‘peacemaker’ claim in the most barefaced way is his role in and support for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Despite his earlier statements that he wanted an expeditious end to the war, his actions prove the contrary.
He has thus far shown no willingness to restrain or stop Netanyahu from raining death and destruction on Gaza. While Trump has been trumpeting his peacemaking ‘credentials’, Gaza has only seen more bloodshed, displacement, devastation, and now, starvation and famine.
Close to 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s US-backed war, the majority of them women and children. In fact, since Trump’s assumption of power, Israel has expanded its military offensive in Gaza and threatened to occupy all of the territory.
It has blocked humanitarian aid and used starvation as a weapon. Has Trump intervened to prevent any of this or, for that matter, Israel’s increasing military assaults on the occupied West Bank?
Obviously not. Instead, the US has used its veto to block resolutions in the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The most recent veto was exercised earlier this month that opposed an “immediate and permanent ceasefire”; it was the sixth US veto since the war began.
This has given Israel carte blanche to continue its killing spree and create a catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Trump administration has remained unmoved by scenes of desperate, starving Palestinians, including children, being shot in cold blood by Israeli forces as they queue up for food at controversial military-run aid distribution sites set up with US backing.
In one month alone, over 500 aid-seekers have been killed. Washington has also not denied Israeli leaders’ claims that they are implementing Trump’s plan of forcible displacement of Palestinians by pushing them out of Gaza.
Despite this grim record, Trump feels he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Although he has cited several reasons for this, his claim rests principally on brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after their four-day conflict.
For that, the government of Pakistan recommended him for the Nobel Peace Prize. This ill-conceived move, aimed at ingratiating itself with Trump, was justified by the government on the grounds that he had intervened to de-escalate “a rapidly deteriorating situation” and secure a ceasefire that averted “a broader conflict between the two nuclear states”.
It is disingenuous to argue Trump’s intervention was the decisive factor, when it was nuclear deterrence that prevented the outbreak of all-out war.
Defusing a crisis, which Washington did, is not the same thing as averting a full-blown conflict. If it took Trump to avert a “broader conflict”, that would make Pakistan’s nuclear capability irrelevant.
If that is what the government thinks, then it has no confidence in the country’s security guarantor. Moreover, a peace award should be in recognition of the establishment of peace, which happens when contentious issues are resolved between warring parties. Has that happened?
What is touted as Trump’s doctrine of ‘peace through strength’ is nothing other than the unilateral use of force and coercion in defiance of international law and global norms to impose US will. This is a recipe for chaos, not winning the peace.
Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2025
PRESIDENT Donald Trump wants to be known and acknowledged as a ‘man of peace’. But his imperious conduct and record so far are at sharp variance with this.
True, his instincts are against war, and he vowed not to involve the US in foreign entanglements and what he called “endless stupid wars”. This is what he promised in his election campaign.
He also claimed he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. During the presidential campaign, JD Vance described Trump as the “candidate of peace”. In his victory speech, Trump declared, “I am not going to start wars. I am going to stop wars.”
But in his opening days in power, his aggressive statements sent a message that no ‘man of peace’ would be identified with. He threatened to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal, if necessary by military force, and turn Canada into the 51st state of the US by using “economic force”.
He also said the US would “take over Gaza” and relocate Palestinians outside their homeland. He unleashed a trade war by imposing sweeping tariffs against almost all countries in the world. His bullying approach and coercive methods prompted The Economist to describe him as a modern-day Don Corleone. Others likened his leadership style to mafia tactics both at home and abroad.
Despite Trump’s boastful claims of bringing a quick end to the Ukraine war, he has been unable to do that. He claims to have promoted peace in the Middle East by forging a ceasefire between Israel and Iran following their 12-day war.
But lighting a fire and then putting it out hardly makes him a peacemaker. Israel, the aggressor, would never have attacked Iran in the first place without a green light from Washington.
Trump acknowledged he had advance knowledge of Israel’s June 13 military assault. But he did nothing to stop Benjamin Netanyahu. Instead, he used nuclear talks with Iran as a smokescreen while the Israeli military was preparing to attack Iran.
Trump later described the attack as “excellent” and admitted he had coordinated closely with Netanyahu. Then, in flagrant violation of international law, he ordered US warplanes to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, declaring triumphantly this had “completely obliterated” Iran’s nuclear sites and likening it to nuclear bombs dropped by the US on Japan in World War II. Is this what ‘men of peace’ do?
Trump’s imperious conduct and record so far contradict his claim of being a peacemaker.
Persuading Israel and Iran to agree to a ceasefire, which remains fragile, hardly supports Trump’s assertion to have established peace. Yes, the fighting has stopped for now, but peace is an altogether different matter.
Peace is established when disputes or issues are resolved. A ceasefire is what it says it is — a halt in active hostilities. Ceasefires can, of course, be a pathway to peace. But there is no chance of peace between Iran and Israel, who remain implacable enemies. Meanwhile, Trump declared he would bomb Iran again if the country was still able to enrich uranium to weapons-grade.
What contradicts Trump’s ‘peacemaker’ claim in the most barefaced way is his role in and support for Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. Despite his earlier statements that he wanted an expeditious end to the war, his actions prove the contrary.
He has thus far shown no willingness to restrain or stop Netanyahu from raining death and destruction on Gaza. While Trump has been trumpeting his peacemaking ‘credentials’, Gaza has only seen more bloodshed, displacement, devastation, and now, starvation and famine.
Close to 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s US-backed war, the majority of them women and children. In fact, since Trump’s assumption of power, Israel has expanded its military offensive in Gaza and threatened to occupy all of the territory.
It has blocked humanitarian aid and used starvation as a weapon. Has Trump intervened to prevent any of this or, for that matter, Israel’s increasing military assaults on the occupied West Bank?
Obviously not. Instead, the US has used its veto to block resolutions in the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The most recent veto was exercised earlier this month that opposed an “immediate and permanent ceasefire”; it was the sixth US veto since the war began.
This has given Israel carte blanche to continue its killing spree and create a catastrophic humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Trump administration has remained unmoved by scenes of desperate, starving Palestinians, including children, being shot in cold blood by Israeli forces as they queue up for food at controversial military-run aid distribution sites set up with US backing.
In one month alone, over 500 aid-seekers have been killed. Washington has also not denied Israeli leaders’ claims that they are implementing Trump’s plan of forcible displacement of Palestinians by pushing them out of Gaza.
Despite this grim record, Trump feels he should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Although he has cited several reasons for this, his claim rests principally on brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after their four-day conflict.
For that, the government of Pakistan recommended him for the Nobel Peace Prize. This ill-conceived move, aimed at ingratiating itself with Trump, was justified by the government on the grounds that he had intervened to de-escalate “a rapidly deteriorating situation” and secure a ceasefire that averted “a broader conflict between the two nuclear states”.
It is disingenuous to argue Trump’s intervention was the decisive factor, when it was nuclear deterrence that prevented the outbreak of all-out war.
Defusing a crisis, which Washington did, is not the same thing as averting a full-blown conflict. If it took Trump to avert a “broader conflict”, that would make Pakistan’s nuclear capability irrelevant.
If that is what the government thinks, then it has no confidence in the country’s security guarantor. Moreover, a peace award should be in recognition of the establishment of peace, which happens when contentious issues are resolved between warring parties. Has that happened?
What is touted as Trump’s doctrine of ‘peace through strength’ is nothing other than the unilateral use of force and coercion in defiance of international law and global norms to impose US will. This is a recipe for chaos, not winning the peace.
Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment