Fact Check: Biden had been notably better than Trump at using U.S. leverage to constrain Netanyahu.

Fact Check: "Biden had been notably better than Trump at using U.S. leverage to constrain Netanyahu."

What We Know

The claim that President Biden has been notably better than former President Trump at using U.S. leverage to constrain Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a complex assertion that requires careful examination of U.S.-Israel relations under both administrations.

Biden's Approach: The Biden administration has faced significant criticism for its handling of the Israel-Hamas conflict, particularly regarding its perceived inability to leverage U.S. aid to influence Israeli actions. Critics argue that Biden has not effectively used U.S. leverage, as evidenced by the continuation of arms sales to Israel and the vetoing of U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a cease-fire (source-1). This suggests that Biden's approach may not be as effective in constraining Netanyahu as some had hoped.
Trump's Approach: In contrast, Trump's administration was characterized by a more direct engagement with both Israel and Palestinian factions, including Hamas. Reports indicate that Trump was willing to apply pressure on Netanyahu, which some analysts believe positioned him uniquely to influence the region (source-2). However, Trump's methods were often unconventional and controversial, leading to mixed results in terms of long-term stability.
Leverage Dynamics: The effectiveness of U.S. leverage over Israel is complicated. Historically, Israel has been able to resist U.S. pressure when it feels secure enough or when it perceives that the U.S. cannot afford to cut off support (source-1). This dynamic suggests that both Biden and Trump faced limitations in their ability to influence Israeli policy, regardless of their respective approaches.

Analysis

Evaluating the claim involves analyzing the effectiveness of both administrations in leveraging U.S. influence over Israel.

Biden's Limitations: Biden's critics argue that he has not utilized the full extent of U.S. leverage, which is evident in his administration's continuation of military support to Israel despite ongoing conflicts and humanitarian crises (source-1). This has led to assertions that Biden's approach is ineffective compared to Trump's more aggressive tactics.
Trump's Pressure Tactics: Trump's willingness to engage directly with Hamas and apply pressure on Netanyahu is noted as a significant difference in approach (source-2). However, his methods have also been criticized for lacking a coherent strategy that could lead to lasting peace, as they often prioritized short-term deals over long-term solutions.
Source Reliability: The sources used in this analysis come from reputable publications such as Foreign Policy and Mother Jones, which provide in-depth analysis and commentary on U.S. foreign policy. However, it is essential to recognize that these sources may have inherent biases based on their editorial perspectives. For instance, critiques of Biden's approach may stem from a more progressive viewpoint that emphasizes humanitarian concerns, while analyses of Trump's tactics may reflect a more pragmatic or realpolitik stance.

Conclusion

The claim that Biden has been notably better than Trump at using U.S. leverage to constrain Netanyahu is Partially True. While Biden's administration has faced significant challenges in effectively leveraging U.S. influence, Trump's approach, while more direct, also had its limitations and controversies. Both presidents operated within a complex geopolitical landscape where U.S. leverage over Israel is not absolute, and the effectiveness of their strategies varied significantly based on the context and specific circumstances.

Fact Check: Biden had been notably better than Trump at using U.S. leverage to constrain Netanyahu.