In their latest communications to the State Department, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew and U.S. Gaza humanitarian envoy David Satterfield prioritize Tel Aviv’s interests over Washington’s directives. Their recent communications to Secretary of State Antony Blinken assert that “Israel” complies with international law in its operations in Gaza. The memo is to ensure Israel continues to receive heavy weapons, including 500-pound and 1-ton bombs, to continue its genocidal operations in Gaza. This declaration, however, caters more to Tel Aviv’s interests than those of Washington, D.C., or its leader, President Joe Biden.
The memo from U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew and U.S. Gaza humanitarian envoy David Satterfield absurdly praises Israel’s handling of aid, despite clear objections from officials within the State Department and criticism from other international bodies. This endorsement conveniently followed a supposed warning from President Biden to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the threat of stopping heavy weapons delivery to Israel for its operation in Rafah. The constant supply chain of US bombs to Israel is crucial for its ongoing genocide in Gaza. This situation prompts a critical question: Who indeed commands American foreign policy?
The contradiction between President Biden’s public declarations and his representatives’ actions blatantly reveals a U.S. foreign policy that appears as an extension of Tel Aviv’s interests. While Biden has at times called for strict adherence to international norms and human rights, Lew and Satterfield’s memo paints a contrary picture, one that prioritizes Israeli ongoing genocide.
Since October 7, the world continues to witness a U.S. foreign policy, where the priorities of Israel have not just influenced but overtaken broader U.S. strategic interests. This overriding allegiance to Israel has resulted in policies that have eroded US soft power, showing the entire world that Western values such as human rights and freedom of the press are selective, allowing China to use the current crisis to attract the global south more than ever before. It repositions America not as an independent superpower but as a secondary actor whose decisions are heavily dictated by Israeli interests, regardless of the consequences. This alignment raises serious questions about the autonomy of U.S. foreign policy and its implications for international relations and America’s national interests.
Moreover, the content and timing of the Lew-Satterfield memo suggest that specific U.S. foreign policy actions are less about diplomatic balance and more about appeasing Tel Aviv. This revelation does not merely highlight a problematic stance. Still, it exposes a significant problem in U.S. governance: parts of the U.S. government do not just collaborate with Israel but appear to act under its influence. Observers and analysts must recognize these maneuvers as more than isolated incidents—they are symptoms of a foreign policy that prioritizes Tel Aviv’s interests, using American resources and influence.
